Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dongiovanni1976x · 03-21-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

Thanks for the translation, dongiovanni1976x, though it seems this is a good excuse for me to get a Translation of Life of Alexander, as I think I need more context, to understand what's going on here.

Josephus is very unclear here, he could be using Dios in it's generic head god sense, or he could mean that in current Roman Tyre, this area is a Temple to Jupiter, or possibly that this is a Temple to Baal. Melqart is the head god of Tyre but the Greeks considered him equal to Hercules. Josephus description of the Temple of Jupiter matches Herodutus's description of Tyres Temple to Hercules. The Temple to Melqart/Hercules was on the island, as Xenephon tells us. Also if you know why Alexander decided to besiege Tyre, you'll know that it was because he wanted to sacrifice at this Temple(considered the oldest to Hercules), but the Tyrians decided after first agreeing, to say no when he actually got to the city. This is one of the reason that Alexander decided to do the whole land bridge siege, even though he already had the mainland, he needed to get the Island to get the Temple, as he was a bit neurotically obsessed with Hercules, and had limited amount of time because he wanted to conquer the whole known world, so couldn't wait for the traditional thirst method to work.

4.2.18 does not have Palaetyrus

"Ducibus deinde negotium datur, ut suos quisque castiget, satisque omnibus stimulatis opus orsus est. Magna vis saxorum ad manum erat Tyro vetere praebente: materies ex Libano monte ratibus et turribus faciendis
advehebatur."

While vetere does mean old, if Palaetyrus is the name for the mainland city, why would he call the mainland, just Tyre, and not use the supposedly well know name Palaetyrus, he had earlier used. I would really like to see other translations, does vetere need to be applied to Tyre? or could it be used for one of the other nouns in the sentence?

You are right that 4.2.18 does not have Palaetyrus but vetere is the adjective of Tyro and thus is "Old Tyre". Plus palae or paleo in Greek means: original, ancient, or primitive. Thus Palaetyrus or Old Tyre seem to be referring to the mainland as opposed to the "rock" /Island fortress of Tyre. This of course only seems to muddy the more ancient sources demonstrating that Old Tyre was called Ushu. I suppose that Curtius simply was using the conventional wisdom of his day since the mainland portion was referred to as "more ancient" than the island. Your thoughts?

yummyfur · 03-21-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

"The legates responded that there was a temple of Hercules outside the city sitting in the area which they called Palaetyros*: there the king would be able to offer due sacrifice to the god."

*Professor Heckel (U. of Calgary Canada) states that this is Old Tyre, on the mainland. Even though Josephus tells us (Against Apion 1:113) that it was Hiram who joined the temple on an adjacent island to the main rocky fortress. However this was the temple of Jupiter so Dr. Heckel's interpretation of Curtius still holds water. I also found another mention by Curtius of "Old Tyre": "Large quantities of rock were available, furnished by old Tyre, while timber to construct rafts and siege towers was hauled from Mt Libanus" 4.2.18

Thanks for the translation, dongiovanni1976x, though it seems this is a good excuse for me to get a Translation of Life of Alexander, as I think I need more context, to understand what's going on here.

Josephus is very unclear here, he could be using Dios in it's generic head god sense, or he could mean that in current Roman Tyre, this area is a Temple to Jupiter, or possibly that this is a Temple to Baal. Melqart is the head god of Tyre but the Greeks considered him equal to Hercules. Josephus description of the Temple of Jupiter matches Herodutus's description of Tyres Temple to Hercules. The Temple to Melqart/Hercules was on the island, as Xenephon tells us. Also if you know why Alexander decided to besiege Tyre, you'll know that it was because he wanted to sacrifice at this Temple(considered the oldest to Hercules), but the Tyrians decided after first agreeing, to say no when he actually got to the city(I have a theory as to why). This is one of the reason that Alexander decided to do the whole land bridge siege, even though he already had the mainland, he needed to get the Island to get the Temple, as he was a bit neurotically obsessed with Hercules, and had limited amount of time because he wanted to conquer the whole known world, so couldn't wait for the traditional thirst method to work.

4.2.18 does not have Palaetyrus

"Ducibus deinde negotium datur, ut suos quisque castiget, satisque omnibus stimulatis opus orsus est. Magna vis saxorum ad manum erat Tyro vetere praebente: materies ex Libano monte ratibus et turribus faciendis
advehebatur."

While vetere does mean old, if Palaetyrus is the name for the mainland city, why would he call the mainland, just Tyre, and not use the supposedly well know name Palaetyrus, he had earlier used. I would really like to see other tranlations.

dongiovanni1976x · 03-21-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

Josephus is very unclear here, he could be using Dios in it's generic head god sense, or he could mean that in current Roman Tyre, this area is a Temple to Jupiter, or possibly that this is a Temple to Baal. Melqart is the head god of Tyre but the Greeks considered him equal to Hercules. Josephus description of the Temple of Jupiter matches Herodutus's description of Tyres Temple to Hercules. The Temple to Melqart/Hercules was on the island, as Xenephon tells us. Also if you know why Alexander decided to besiege Tyre, you'll know that it was because he wanted to sacrifice at this Temple(considered the oldest to Hercules), but the Tyrians decided after first agreeing, to say no when he actually got to the city(I have a theory as to why). This is one of the reason that Alexander decided to do the whole land bridge siege, even though he already had the mainland, he needed to get the Island to get the Temple, as he was a bit neurotically obsessed with Hercules, and had limited amount of time because he wanted to conquer the whole known world, so couldn't wait for the traditional thirst method to work.

Good point. I never thought about that.

Farrell Till · 03-21-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Which ancient historians wrote about Alexander's conquest of the island settlement of Tyre?

Richbee:
Johnny, go do your own homework for a change!

Well, Richbee is back with more evasions. I know that members of the forum will have no difficulty seeing that he is not answering anything, but to emphasize his failures, I intend to post reminders of what he has refused to answer. He claims, for example, that modern Tyre [Sur] is not Tyre because it is not the same city as the one that was destroyed. His argument has been that once a city is destroyed, it is permanently destroyed, because the same city cannot be built again, but he has failed to address my rebuttal of this.

Quote:

Richbee:
nor was any city rebuilt in the same place. What some might call "Tyre" today is not in any any [sic] shape or form to be compared with the great city of the Old Testament.

Till:
This is a ridiculous quibble. According to Richbee's logic, San Francisco doesn't exist. It was destroyed by an earthquake on April 18, 1906, and what is there now is "not in any shape or form" the San Francisco that was there when the earthquake struck. Richbee would also have to say that New Orleans has been destroyed forever, because anything that might be rebuilt there will not "in any shape or form" be what was there before the hurricane destroyed the city. I marvel at how the intellectual integrity of diehard biblical inerrantists apparently experience no embarrassment when they resort to such quibbles as this one.

The Bible itself speaks of the rebuilding of cities.

Joshua 6:26 Joshua then pronounced this oath, saying, "Cursed before Yahweh be anyone who tries to build this city--this Jericho! At the cost of his firstborn he shall lay its foundation, and at the cost of his youngest he shall set up its gates!"

Till:
It's too bad that Richbee wasn't on the scene back then. He could have told Joshua that there was nothing to worry about, because Jericho had been destroyed, so whatever might be built on that site again would not be Jericho.

1 Kings 16:34 In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho; he laid its foundation at the cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by Joshua son of Nun.

Till:
If Richbee had written this text, he could have informed his readers that Hiel didn't really "build Jericho," because what he built on the site was not "in any shape or form" what had been there when Joshua's forces destroyed it.

The Babylonians destroyed the city of Jerusalem in 597 BC, but the Bible makes several references to the rebuilding of this city.

Jeremiah 30:18 "Thus says Yahweh, 'Behold I will bring back the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwelling places. The city shall be built upon its own mound, and the palace shall remain according to its own plan.'"

Jeremiah 31:38 The days are surely coming, says Yahweh, when the city shall be rebuilt for Yahweh from the tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate.

Till:
Poor Jeremiah, he may have been inspired of God, but he seemed not to know that once the Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem, it was impossible ever to rebuild it, because whatever would be put on the site of the old Jerusalem would not be "in any shape or form" the city that Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed.

Other biblical writers seemed to be just as ignorant as Jeremiah.

Malachi 1:4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," Yahweh of hosts says: They may build, but I will tear down, until they are called the wicked country, the people with whom Yahweh is angry forever.

Amos 9:11 On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old.... 14 I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.

Till:
What's that? They would "rebuilt the ruined cities"? It seems that biblical writers just didn't know that once a city had been ruined or destroyed it could never be rebuilt, because what was constructed on the old sites would "in no shape or form" be what was there before.

I could quote other examples, but I have already shown that Richbee's rebuilding quibble is completely without merit.

When is Richbee going to reply to this?

When are pigs going to fly?

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com

Farrell Till · 03-21-2006, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Mooney
By the way, whatever happened to Richbee? I haven't seen him for a few days.

Richbee:
Boo!

I was rest sic my foot. (Kickin' arse hurts my foot sometimes!)

Since when does flagrant evasion of opponents' rebuttal arguments constitute "ass kicking"? When, for example, is Richbee going to reply to the rebuttals that I am reposting below?

Quote:

Ezekiel 26:3 Therefore, thus says Yahweh God: See, I am against you, O Tyre! I will hurl many nations against you, as the sea hurls its waves. 4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down its towers. I will scrape its soil from it and make it a bare rock. 5 It shall become, in the midst of the sea, a place for spreading nets. I have spoken, says Yahweh God. It shall become plunder for the nations, 6 and its daughter-towns in the country shall be killed by the sword. Then they shall know that I am Yahweh.

Till:
The "daughter-towns" in verse 6 referred to the villages belonging to Tyre on the coastal area of the mainland, but the prophecy was obviously directed against the island stronghold. In verse 4, Yahweh said <snicker, snicker> that he would "destroy the walls of Tyre," but one would hardly think that an entire "kingdom," like Egypt or Syria or Babylonia, would have had walls around it. Towns and cities had walls, but entire kingdoms didn't. Furthermore, I know of no passage in the Bible that referred to Tyre as a kingdom, but the very prophecy that Richbee naively believes was fulfilled very clearly referred to Tyre as a "city."

Ezekiel 26:10 His [Nebuchadnezzar's] horses shall be so many that their dust shall cover you. At the noise of cavalry, wheels, and chariots your very walls shall shake, when he enters your gates like those entering a breached city.

I have had enough experience with diehard inerrantists to know that Richbee will likely quibble that the phrase in bold-print emphasis was just a simile, but there are other passages in this same prophecy that called Tyre a "city."

Ezekiel 26:17 And they shall raise a lamentation over you, and say to you: How you have vanished from the seas, O city renowned, once mighty on the sea, you and your inhabitants, who imposed your terror on all the mainland!

Till:
This verse very clearly shows that Ezekiel's prophecy was directed at the "renowned city" and not to some kingdom. The references to this renowned city's "vanish[ing] from the seas" and its once having been "mighty on the sea" are also clear evidence that Ezekiel was prophesying against the island stronghold and not some broader "kingdom" that existed on the mainland.

In this prophecy, there are also other references to the "city" called Tyre that Yahweh was going to destroy.

Ezekiel 26:19 For thus says Yahweh God: When I make you a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you, 20 then I will thrust you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of long ago, and I will make you live in the world below, among primeval ruins, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you will not be inhabited or have a place in the land of the living.

Till:
Here again Yahweh was saying <snicker, snicker> that he was going to destroy a city, and the references to bringing "the deep" over Tyre and covering it "great waters" is additional proof that this prophecy was directed against the city of Tyre, which was an island stronghold that would be destroyed and "brought to silence in the midst of the sea" (Ezek 27:32).

Here are some other passages that refer to Tyre as a city.

Joshua 19:29 (T)hen the boundary turns to Ramah, reaching to the fortified city of Tyre; then the boundary turns to Hosah, and it ends at the sea....

Isaiah 23:5 When the report comes to Egypt, they will be in anguish over the report about Tyre. 6 Cross over to Tarshish-- wail, O inhabitants of the coast! 7 Is this your exultant city whose origin is from days of old, whose feet carried her to settle far away? 8 Who has planned this against Tyre, the bestower of crowns, whose merchants were princes, whose traders were the honored of the earth?

Notice that verse 6 referred to "inhabitants of the coast" who would "cross over to Tarshish," an idealistic place used in the Bible in reference to Tyre's commercial dealings. Later in this same prophecy against Tyre by Isaiah, Tyre was again referred to as a city.

Isaiah 23:16 Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered.

Till:
Richbee tried to prove his unsupported claim that Tyre was a kingdom larger than just a city by saying that it had a king, but doesn't he know that there are many references in the Bible to city-states that had kings? A little reading in the book of Joshua might profit him. Here, for example, is a list of city-state kings who were defeated by Joshua. I will emphasize in bold-print just a few of the city-states of these kings, which Richbee will surely recognize were towns and cities.

Joshua 12:7 The following are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir (and Joshua gave their land to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their allotments, 8 in the hill country, in the lowland, in the Arabah, in the slopes, in the wilderness, and in the Negeb, the land of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites): 9 the king of Jericho one the king of Ai, which is next to Bethel one 10 the king of Jerusalem one the king of Hebron one 11 the king of Jarmuth one the king of Lachish one 12 the king of Eglon one the king of Gezer one 13 the king of Debir one the king of Geder one 14 the king of Hormah one the king of Arad one 15 the king of Libnah one the king of Adullam one 16 the king of Makkedah one the king of Bethel one 17 the king of Tappuah one the king of Hepher one 18 the king of Aphek one the king of Lasharon one 19 the king of Madon one the king of Hazor one 20 the king of Shimron-meron one the king of Achshaph one 21 the king of Taanach one the king of Megiddo one 22 the king of Kedesh one the king of Jokneam in Carmel one 23 the king of Dor in Naphath-dor one the king of Goiim in Galilee, one 24 the king of Tirzah one thirty-one kings in all.

Till:
Notice that in some case, like Goiim in Galilee and Jokneam in Carmel, the regions in which these cities were located were identified, but they were all cities in Canaan at the time of Joshua's invasion, and as Richbee can clearly see, all of these cities had kings. Thus, the fact that Tyre had a king, as it certainly did, is no evidence at all that Ezekiel's prophecy was directed against a region in which a "kingdom" existed instead of against a city on an island in the midst of the sea.

Richbee:
In any case Johnny, you and Farrell Till are refuted. (again and again, on any forum, any time and place!)

Till:
I have just shown that the major premise on which Richbee based his claim is completely without merit. When I enter a debate like this, I do so with a determination to answer every point and quibble of my opponent, so I am by no means finished with Richbee's defense of Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. Later, I will be posting point-by-point replies to the rest of his claims, but this initial post should be sufficient to take some of the wind out of his sails.

I have been replying in detail, point by point, to Richbee's posts, but he has been completely evading mine and those of others. When is Richebee going to reply to the rebuttals quoted above?

When are pigs going to fly?

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com

Farrell Till · 03-21-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till
While searching for information about Ushu's fall to Nebuchadnezzar during his siege,

Richbee:
I notice you keep using this Assyrian word for the mainland city called Tyre in the Bible?

Does this help your case?

It helps readers to distinguish between Tyre and the mainland area that inerrantists like you try to make the same as Tyre. This name was in use at the time of your alleged fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, so what's the problem with using this name?

Quote:

Richbee:
Please note that when I used the Arab word, Sour or Sur - what some call Tyre, really can't be compared in any sense to the Biblical Tyre. Size, location, international trade, glory, wealth, people, King, Kingdom.

Well, here is my posted reply to this, which Richbee has yet to reply to.

Quote:

Richbee:
The Kingdom of Tyre was once the commercial center of the ancient world, a market place of nations, and a city renown for its beauty and elegance. This city was described as a very wealthy and luxurious place where commerce revolved and business flourished.

Till:
And this has what to do with the prophecy against Tyre? If the prophecy was that the city would be destroyed and never be rebuilt, it doesn't matter whether it was a commercial city renowned for its beauty and elegance or that it was a "very wealthy and luxurious place." Anyway, I think that Richbee miscued in what he cut and pasted above from whatever his source was, because it said that Tyre was a city.

Richbee:
In the book of Isaiah (23:8), its merchants are called princes, and its traders are designated as "the honorable of the earth." It is apparent that these individuals held tremendous status and power, and that their city was one of the most illustrious and prestigious in the known world.

Till:
And what does this have to do with whether the prophecy was that a city known as Tyre would be completely destroyed and never be rebuilt? If that was the essence of the prophecy, then it doesn't matter how "illustrious and prestigious" it may have been. Readers should also notice again that Richbee lost sight of his opening premise, i. e., Tyre was a kingdom and not a city, because the source that he was cutting and pasting from said that Tyre was one of the most illustrious and prestigious [cities] in the known world."

And I also replied to it in another post, which Richbee has also ignored.

Quote:

Richbee:
as the modern Tyre is not a "thriving city",

Till:
Well, actually, Tyre [Sur] is a thriving city. It is the fourth largest city in Lebanon, and one of its main port cities. Anyway, whether modern Tyre or any of its predecessor cities has ever been a thriving city or not is irrelevant to the issue being debated, because the prophecy was not that Tyre would never again become a thriving city but that it would be destroyed and never rebuilt. In particular, the verse under consideration said that it would become a "bare rock." You say that modern Tyre is not located where ancient Tyre was situated, so would you tell us exactly where ancient Tyre was located and give us evidence that this area is now a "bare rock"?

In other words, the prophecy was that the city would be permanently destroyed and not that the former "glory" or "grandeur" of Tyre would not be regained. Why doesn't Richbee address this?

Quote:

Richbee:
As one example, the Biblical Tyre had a large port facing South - called the Egyptian port, because it faced south toward Egypt. It was destroyed at some point.

And how does this prove that the city of Tyre was destroyed and never again rebuilt? Where does the prophecy say that the port of Tyre that faced the south would be "destroyed at some point"? Richbee has a hard time recognizing what is relevant to his prophecy-fulfillment claim, doesn't he?

Quote:

Richbee:
Today, Tyre (I posted links to the pictures) has a tiny little harbor for fishing boats!

But the prophecy was that Tyre would be totally and permanently destroyed, and we have demonstrated that this didn't happened. If Richbee wants to talk about pictures, why doesn't he address the pictorial evidence posted here that shows that a city now sits on the location of ancient Tyre?

Quote:

Richbee:
Hahahahahaha!

I wonder if he is rolling on the floor.

Quote:

Richbee:[/b]
I will always remember the glory of Farrell Till's Tyre – the QUEEN OF THE SEAS!

The relevance of this? As I showed in the post requoted above, the prophecy was that the city of Tyre and not its "glory" would be permanently destroyed.

If Richbee continues to evade these rebuttal points, we will assume that he cannot answer them.

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com

Julian · 03-21-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

Since when does flagrant evasion of opponents' rebuttal arguments constitute "ass kicking"? When, for example, is Richbee going to reply to the rebuttals that I am reposting below?

I don't think that is why his foot hurts. My theory is that it is from repeatedly putting it in his mouth.

Thanks again for some good posts.

Julian

dongiovanni1976x · 03-21-2006, 11:05 AM

Does anyone have any evidence suggesting that Tyre was trading between the 70 years after Nebuchadnezzar's unsuccessful 13 year siege?
I am sure Tyre was given that the siege was unsuccesful but I need more than just my opinion to support my argument.
Thank you.

dongiovanni1976x · 03-21-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I don't think that is why his foot hurts. My theory is that it is from repeatedly putting it in his mouth.

Thanks again for some good posts.

Julian

Sorry I had to laugh...that was funny

Farrell Till · 03-21-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till
How many times must we tell Richbee that the prophecy was not that Tyre would lose its supremacy forever but that the city itself would be permanently destroyed and never built again?

Richbee:
I disagree! (again)

As I have repeatedly said before, Richbee does not rebut an argument by just saying that he disagrees with it. The fact that he says nothing in reply to my rebuttal above but, "I disagree," is clear evidence that he has no satisfactory evidence to prove that Tyre was permanently destroyed.

Quote:

Richbee:
I posted Ezekiel 28, with details of the prophecy against the King, and the commerce of Tyre - specified as regional in scope. (Cedar as an example)

Yes, he did, and as I will soon show below, I replied to it in a post that Richbee has yet to reply to.

Quote:

Richbee:
It should also be noted, that this is a Spiritual prophecy as well.

The way that this is worded indicates that Richbee thinks that the prophecy was also literal, i. e., would be literally fulfilled. We have shown clear evidence that the prophecy was not literally fulfilled.

Quote:

[Richbee:[/b]

Ezekiel 28 (New International Version)

A Prophecy Against the King of Tyre

1 The word of the LORD came to me:
2 "Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre,
'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

<snippity, snip, snip, snip>

I snipped the rest of this passage, because I have already replied to it. Here is what I said in my earlier reply, which Richbee has not yet replied to.

Quote:

Richbee:
Tyre was more than a city in the Old Testament times, it was a Kingdom with a King.

Till:
Tyre was certainly more than a city in Old Testament times. The Bible recognizes this in the very failed prophecy that Richbee is trying to defend.

Ezekiel 26:3 Therefore, thus says Yahweh God: See, I am against you, O Tyre! I will hurl many nations against you, as the sea hurls its waves. 4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down its towers. I will scrape its soil from it and make it a bare rock. 5 It shall become, in the midst of the sea, a place for spreading nets. I have spoken, says Yahweh God. It shall become plunder for the nations, 6 and its daughter-towns in the country shall be killed by the sword. Then they shall know that I am Yahweh.

Till:
The "daughter-towns" in verse 6 referred to the villages belonging to Tyre on the coastal area of the mainland, but the prophecy was obviously directed against the island stronghold. In verse 4, Yahweh said <snicker, snicker> that he would "destroy the walls of Tyre," but one would hardly think that an entire "kingdom," like Egypt or Syria or Babylonia, would have had walls around it. Towns and cities had walls, but entire kingdoms didn't. Furthermore, I know of no passage in the Bible that referred to Tyre as a kingdom, but the very prophecy that Richbee naively believes was fulfilled very clearly referred to Tyre as a "city."

Ezekiel 26:10 His [Nebuchadnezzar's] horses shall be so many that their dust shall cover you. At the noise of cavalry, wheels, and chariots your very walls shall shake, when he enters your gates like those entering a breached city.

Till:
I have had enough experience with diehard inerrantists to know that Richbee will likely quibble that the phrase in bold-print emphasis was just a simile, but there are other passages in this same prophecy that called Tyre a "city."

Ezekiel 26:17 And they shall raise a lamentation over you, and say to you: How you have vanished from the seas, O city renowned, once mighty on the sea, you and your inhabitants, who imposed your terror on all the mainland!

Till:
This verse very clearly shows that Ezekiel's prophecy was directed at the "renowned city" and not to some kingdom. The references to this renowned city's "vanish[ing] from the seas" and its once having been "mighty on the sea" are also clear evidence that Ezekiel was prophesying against the island stronghold and not some broader "kingdom" that existed on the mainland.

In this prophecy, there are also other references to the "city" called Tyre that Yahweh was going to destroy.

Ezekiel 26:19 For thus says Yahweh God: When I make you a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you, 20 then I will thrust you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of long ago, and I will make you live in the world below, among primeval ruins, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you will not be inhabited or have a place in the land of the living.

Till:
Here again Yahweh was saying <snicker, snicker> that he was going to destroy a city, and the references to bringing "the deep" over Tyre and covering it "great waters" is additional proof that this prophecy was directed against the city of Tyre, which was an island stronghold that would be destroyed and "brought to silence in the midst of the sea" (Ezek 27:32).

Here are some other passages that refer to Tyre as a city.

Joshua 19:29 (T)hen the boundary turns to Ramah, reaching to the fortified city of Tyre; then the boundary turns to Hosah, and it ends at the sea....

Isaiah 23:5 When the report comes to Egypt, they will be in anguish over the report about Tyre. 6 Cross over to Tarshish-- wail, O inhabitants of the coast! 7 Is this your exultant city whose origin is from days of old, whose feet carried her to settle far away? 8 Who has planned this against Tyre, the bestower of crowns, whose merchants were princes, whose traders were the honored of the earth?

Till:
Notice that verse 6 referred to "inhabitants of the coast" who would "cross over to Tarshish," an idealistic place used in the Bible in reference to Tyre's commercial dealings. Later in this same prophecy against Tyre by Isaiah, Tyre was again referred to as a city.

Isaiah 23:16 Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered.

Till
Richbee tried to prove his unsupported claim that Tyre was a kingdom larger than just a city by saying that it had a king, but doesn't he know that there are many references in the Bible to city-states that had kings? A little reading in the book of Joshua might profit him. Here, for example, is a list of city-state kings who were defeated by Joshua. I will emphasize in bold-print just a few of the city-states of these kings, which Richbee will surely recognize were towns and cities.

Joshua 12:7 The following are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir (and Joshua gave their land to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their allotments, 8 in the hill country, in the lowland, in the Arabah, in the slopes, in the wilderness, and in the Negeb, the land of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites): 9 the king of Jericho one the king of Ai, which is next to Bethel one 10 the king of Jerusalem one the king of Hebron one 11 the king of Jarmuth one the king of Lachish one 12 the king of Eglon one the king of Gezer one 13 the king of Debir one the king of Geder one 14 the king of Hormah one the king of Arad one 15 the king of Libnah one the king of Adullam one 16 the king of Makkedah one the king of Bethel one 17 the king of Tappuah one the king of Hepher one 18 the king of Aphek one the king of Lasharon one 19 the king of Madon one the king of Hazor one 20 the king of Shimron-meron one the king of Achshaph one 21 the king of Taanach one the king of Megiddo one 22 the king of Kedesh one the king of Jokneam in Carmel one 23 the king of Dor in Naphath-dor one the king of Goiim in Galilee, one 24 the king of Tirzah one thirty-one kings in all.

Till:
Notice that in some case, like Goiim in Galilee and Jokneam in Carmel, the regions in which these cities were located were identified, but they were all cities in Canaan at the time of Joshua's invasion, and as Richbee can clearly see, all of these cities had kings. Thus, the fact that Tyre had a king, as it certainly did, is no evidence at all that Ezekiel's prophecy was directed against a region in which a "kingdom" existed instead of against a city on an island in the midst of the sea.

Richbee:
In any case Johnny, you and Farrell Till are refuted. (again and again, on any forum, any time and place!)

Till:
I have just shown that the major premise on which Richbee based his claim is completely without merit. When I enter a debate like this, I do so with a determination to answer every point and quibble of my opponent, so I am by no means finished with Richbee's defense of Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. Later, I will be posting point-by-point replies to the rest of his claims, but this initial post should be sufficient to take some of the wind out of his sails.

The fact that Tyre had a king does not mean that it was a "kingdom" any more than the kings of city-states in the quotation above would mean that those cities were expansive kingdoms. The fact that Richbee won't reply to this rebuttal argument is a clear indication that he has no satisfactory reply.

Quote:

Till:
Although if Tyre had been permanently destroyed itself, it would have certainly lost its "glory" and commercial greatness, the prophecy was not that its glory would be lost but that the city itself would be destroyed and never rebuilt. That failed to happen.

Richbee:
We will have to disagree - again and again.

I will say again and again and again that disagreeing with a premise does not constitute proof that the premise is erroneous.

Quote:

Richbee:
I don't know why skeptics luv Tyre so much?

Well, as someone else said in another post, it is an easy prophecy failure to prove. However, Bible believers must love Tyre too, because they have wasted gallons and gallons of ink trying to prove that this is an example of amazing prophecy fulfillment. Richbee apparently accepted this claim but has since found out that there is a big difference in believing a claim and in proving that it is true.

Quote:

Richbee:

Ezekiel 28:19

Oh what a HORRIBLE END!

I can certainly understand why Richbee didn't quote Ezekiel 28:19.

Quote:

All who know you [Tyre] among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever.

Tyre now stands as the fourth largest city in Lebanon and is one of its main seaports. That was surely a dreadful end that it came to, wasn't it?

Quote:

I posted the pictures of the Tyre you luv so much! Like a sewer for poor fishermen!

The fact that a city exists on this site is clear evidence that the prophecy failed.

Quote:

Richbee:
But of course, Tyre is no more! And, neither are the Tyrians!

This has been shown to be untrue by several pictures of the site that have been posted here. Anyway, I have asked Richbee to tell us exactly where the site of ancient Tyre is with respect to the modern city of Tyre [Sur].

Quote:

With respect to ancient Tyre, where is modern Tyre or Sur now located?

Please find us a map that you can link to that would show us that modern Tyre is not located on the same site as Ancient Tyre. If you don't answer this question, we will assume that you can't.

Why won't Richbee settle this matter by posting this information with the evidence to prove that modern Tyre [Sur] is not located on the original site of Tyre? We have posted here evidence that archaeological excavation of ancient Trye has been hampered because of the modern city that sits over it. How could this be if the modern city is not sitting on the same location as ancient Tyre did?

Watch Richbee ignore these rebuttals again.

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2006, 11:05 AM	#138
dongiovanni1976x Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: St Louis, MO Posts: 686	Does anyone have any evidence suggesting that Tyre was trading between the 70 years after Nebuchadnezzar's unsuccessful 13 year siege? I am sure Tyre was given that the siege was unsuccesful but I need more than just my opinion to support my argument. Thank you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.