Sheshonq

The fundies also ignore two other obvious sources of naval power.

1. Since the vassal states were required to provide military contingents to Babylon (as part of their tribute payments), it wouldn't have been strictly necessary for Babylon to have a navy - Babylon could have demanded naval units as part of the tribute payment ("outsourcing their naval needs");

2. Several competitors and enemies of Tyre existed at the time, and would have been more than glad to contribute naval forces - not only to see Tyre lose its trading routes and financial power, but also to curry favor with Babylon.

But that, of course, is more advanced analysis that you're not going to find with any of our current crop of bible literalists.

That's one of the most bizarre parts of the fundie position. If the siege of Tyre was 13 years long, what precisely do the fundies think that Nebuchadnezzar did for all those long years? The suburbs on the mainland were hardly in a position to stand up to the Babylonian army that had rolled over so many other cities. The mainland probably fell in less than a year. What did the Babylonian army do for the remaining 11 or 12 years?

The NYT crosswords? :rolling:

arnoldo

Did Alexander the Great have a Navy? If not how did he destroy Tyre?

makerowner

I don't have access to the full article, but this is what the summary says: "Tyre successfully resisted a 6th-century-BC siege of 13 years by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II, [...]". Could you post the full article here, or at least the relevant paragraph?

Sheshonq

So has London. And Stockholm. That doesn't mean that either city is known primarily for fishing.

You miss the point deliberately - again.

arnoldo

So you are more of authority on ancient history than the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

makerowner

He built a causeway. 10 seconds.

makerowner

Where did Encyclopedia Britannica say that Nebuchadrezzar besieged the mainland for 13 years?

Sheshonq

arnoldo is now so desperate that he's fast-clipping and pasting text without even checking to see what it says.

Oh, wait - he's *always* done that. Never mind. :rolling:

Hint: I've been telling you for days that the siege ended in a draw. Now you have Britannica telling you the same thing. So far that's one point for my argument, and zero points for yours.

Darklighter

Excellent point. Let's extend that line of reasoning by asking: How is God going to destroy an "island" at some point in the future when it's not an "island" anymore?

THAT would've been a helluva prediction! Ezekiels prophecy should have read like this:

I will bring up Nebby against you, he will choke you and harass you for many years. Your settlemnts on the mainland will be destroyed by him. Your economy will be crippled, yet you will survive his attack and recover for a time. However, I will bring up another king originating in the west, a young one, who will cause you to no longer be an island. He will cause the shore to reach out to you and join you to the land. Such joining will be the tool of your destruction. And he will ravage you more so than Nebby. Yet, you will recover from his attack as well, but not long afterwards and you will no longer enjoy the prominance of being a crown jewl of the sea. And you will never again be an island, so sayeth the LORD.

Too bad it says NONE OF THAT. That would've been amazing!:Cheeky:

Sheshonq

Britannica doesn't say that there was a 13 year siege of the mainland. Unlike you, I actually have Britannica Online.