Reasoning with Lawyerkill on Tyre - David Lim
Part 1
This reply to Lawyerkill was rejected by the moderator (Adnan Khan) at Alternative Errancy List, 26 Jan 99.
DLIM:
Thanks for showing evidence you see as evidence.>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
>
>Gee DLim This wasn't addressed to you, it was addressed to Gabiboy, but I did mention your name, and what you wrote is foolish. >
>
>
>>"One of them is Fabio, Head of the Department of Physics in Johanesberg
(mind my spelling), South africa. At theoretical levels, things are far
from certainty. They are in many ways personal faith."
>>
>>Read what he wrote, of course there is uncertainly in a theory, that's why
it's called a theory, Geee.
>>
>
DLim:
Doesn't seem so this way.
Nevermind. You like to debate with fools?
I don't.I will go back to silence after this post.
>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
>
>DLim, again, just because science has theories does not mean all of science is not factual, math is a science, you depute 1 +1=2? And Dlim, again please read a book before you keep making a fool of yourself you write "and his theory remains a theory." Many of Einstein's theories have been proven to be facts and are accepted as facts now, i.e. light is bent by gravity.Geee
>
DLim:
Math is not science, to my understanding.
1+1 topics have disputes.People come to believe in inerrancy of the bible via mathematical principles. People believed in God and inerrancy via science, if math is science.
The preaching and acceptance of the 4 scriptural principles (main themes of the gospel), systematic theology depends on logic which is math.They (christians) experienced God, and come to believed that God is good and does not make mistakes. And they come across the word of God, that even Jesus, their ring-leader, their Master, acknowledged as absolute authority without question. So, by the deduction that inerrancy of scriptures+known things=everything. Everything-known things=inerrancy of scriptures (no matter how unreasonable/unlikely it might appear at times).
Many has nothing to do with "the whole".
Proving something is not proving science as a whole.
Which errantist claim that every single word in the bible is erroneous?Having some facts is not having The Fact.
>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
>
>What does this have to do with your misinformation about Tyre? Many people are given Honorary Doctorate for universality, and know nothing about what they are given a doctorate in.
>
>
DLim:
The receivers need not know, but would hardly escape the knowledge. But the givers ought to know the reason.
And when you have to apply for the honour/licence/degree personally, it raises doubt that you or the organisation that grant these things do not know what is going on.The receivers of doctorate degrees have to be very dull, to have missed the reason, as the letter came, telling them why such honour was prepared for them, and they are generally asked to give speech even facing the press after receiving the honour.
I had received such letters. How do you come to understand that some know nothing?
"For universality" is already a reason, the recepients are told of.
>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
> I notice you have not listed any articles on Tyre with your name on them that were published in respected Archaeological Journals. Your web site on Tyre shows you lack an education in the field.
>
>
DLim:
OK.
You want to argue at the same level of such uneducated guy? Or show people you excelled that?
DLim did not set out to win the whole Archaeological world; but you have to if you want to have an chance to win DLim. This is his requirement. Otherwise DLim would not even bother what you express for winning any debate.
This uneducated guy even spoke in the Royal Archaeological Institute (on other Archaeological topic) Puzzle me how he (was in their midst) did that.
DLim:
Thanks for your effort on Tyre. My reply would show you that I do consider your evidence. I will get back to silence after that. Feel free to continue supplying your view. I am learning from you as well. And I pray you will come to Christ someday.Are these all the points you believe Mr Till had missed? Seems a lot.
>>From Dlim web site:
>Verse 3 says that many nations will be brought by the Lord against Tyre like the waves of the sea. The sea does cast up waves each time it comes in, and sends in waves at different time. This verse also signifies that the city of Tyre will pass in and out of history in the passage of time. This is not contradictory to Prophesy in Isaiah 23.
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
>
>Dlim, ever been to the sea, the waves come one right after another, within minutes, not hundred of years, it's very common to talk of waves of troops attaching, meaning one battle, one army.
>
DLim:
Right.
Notice that the passage did not draw on your very common expression.
writers are not bound by one single picture of expression.
Expression are ever increasing. Dictionaries are being written decade after decade.
No evidence or reason to support a static view.Read the related verse and you will find that nations would not relate to one single army.
>Isaiah 23 says that the chaldeans would make Tyre a ruin, no one else, and please explain when Is 23:17-18 happen. If Ezek was talking about anyone other then Neb's that would make Jeremiah Chapters 25, and 27 a lie
>
DLim:
Sorry, Tyre isn't so important that I would spend all/much energy into finding out all there is.Cities are often rebuild one on top of another, carrying the same name of the locality, eg: Jericho.
So a city of the same name can be destroyed again and again.
Cities of the same name can be built at the proximity. eg: different Jericho.Tyre has been named as a region for centuries. Jesus was recorded to be in Tyre (the region) in the gospel. You think the Jews did not remember the Tyre prophesy when they name the place again after it was supposed to be destroyed for good? There was no dispute on the authority/inerrancy of the Jewish bible.
No conclusive evidence to prove these prophesies a lie. Certainly not beyond reasonable doubt.
Furhter more, you have not presented your evidence here.
>
>Dlim Web site
>
>Debris of mainland Tyre were scraped into the sea by Nebuchanezzar and Alexander the Great to build a causeway in linking the island to the mainland. >
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES
>Sorry bud, the city was the island, and was not scraped into the sea.
>
>There is ZERO evidence that Nebuchanezzar built a causeway, not even the bible cliams that.
>
DLim:
And DLim did not state that Neb did the work for Alexander the Great.There is no evidence that Neb. didn't, and Alexander did everything.
DLim believes he stated the hint (normally taken as Archaeological evidence) for mainland Tyre. eg: Seiged with chariots, and no mentioning of sailing equipment. No amphibian equipment was mentioned or found.
Mound is made of earth, used on land for siege on land. The navy did not use earth mound.
No ship, no embankment, no dike, no causeway, no mentioning bridges, but horses and chariots for seiging an off-sea island? What sense is that? Any mentioning of canon and sling shot?
What evidence of bridging the island and mainland by Neb?
How can a small island survived years of siege? Another Masada? How could people fish for food if the island was surrounded by navy? Feeding the city with some fishing lines?
>We get all our information about Alexander and type form three source, Arrian, Diodorus and Curtius and there is no disagreement about the island being the city, and that the walls were on the island, and most of the walls were still there after Alexander.
>
DLim:
No mentioning by Lawyerkill's research that the walls were all there and all there was before Alexander, and especially at the time of Neb.No evidence that Tyre has only been an island from the very beginning.
The bible does not record that walls of Tyre will be found standing in the mainland. It talks of desolation beyond leaving walls on the rock.And the rock does not only relate to islands. Eg: Gibalta is a rock and a peninsula. The Lion rock is a mountain in mainland Hong Kong. And Hong Kong is not an island, contrary to common belief. Hong Kong island is only part of the historical Hong Kong. Petra (a large stone in Greek) is still a cut out stone in the desert of Jordan. No sea and no island. Petra is not above ground level.
>
>The translators of Arrian by Selincourt and Hamilton(he wrote a few books >about Alexander).
>
>"The town was an island, and surrounded by strong and lofty walls" Page 132
>
DLim:
Neb was facing a city, not a town. A walled city.This evidence of yours show that there was "The Town" not "The only City" on the island. No city?
>on page 142 it talks about Azemilcus going to the "mother city" to pay honor to Heracles according to ancient customs. The temple was on the island.
>
>The temple was on the island and after the victory over Tyre, Alexander offered sacrifice in the temple (page 143), so the temple was still standing on the island after the war.
>DLim:
Your record does not span back to the time before Neb.
My articles do not contradict with the view that settlement existed on the island at the time of Neb.The term mother city is normally used when there are cities (more than one).
Otherwise, where are the daughters?>Also see Diodorus Historical Library 17:40:4,
>
>DLIM WEB SITE
>Today we speak of excavation of Tyre rather than touring the ruined city of Tyre. This signifies the complete disappearance of the ancient walled city at ground level.
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES
>
>That is total bull. That's why Lebanon says you still can see parts of the wall on the island, and the UN has an Archaeological site on the island, gee if it was scraped into the sea by Alexander the Great why are they still finding things from Nebuchanezzar time there?
>
DLim:
So, Alexander built an embankment from the debri of mainland Tyre, overcome the island, and (the bible recorded that) he pull down the remaining city walls (from a village) to build the embankment to link the island to the mainland, of which he ought to have built before getting into the city.That is certainly not my view.
The bible never say that the island (also called Tyre - the rock) was completely flattened by Alexander.
There is the invention that the island was and is the only thing there in the region of Tyre. Is island Tyre the only thing,settlement there today? If not, why must it be so in the past?
It is alright to have archaeological work on the island. The bible prophesy is proved when no one found anything else where interesting enough to be designated an archaeological site. Jackals alone, certainly would not start up an archaeological dig.
Lawyerkill would not more weight for his argument if walls as early as the time of King David is found on the island by any Archaeologist.
The city of Tyre existed at that time according to older bible record. Where is such evidence in the wall on the island mentioned?Please send me a tourist brochure for visiting mainland Tyre (eg: where the daughters of Tyre were). You have stated the mother city (I did not see any lofty wall there), but where are the rest?
Where is it mentioned that Alexander had to flatten Tyre so that not one stone is found on another?
>Dlim Web site:
>The term - walls - indicates that there could be a number of walled cities.
>There is no record telling us Tyre had inner city walls other than its outer protective city wall.
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES.
>
>So that means that if I said I painted the outside walls of my house, I'm saying that I painted a lot of houses, get real. Dlim there is no record telling us that the mainland had walls, only the island. And yourself admit that no evidence of walls were found on the main land, but we have evidence of the island city walls.
>
DLim:
My point, that you failed to see. No evidence of walls on the mainland.These daughters Neb was supposed to have slew all came from the island to be killed, so that there was no settlement and no wall.
And when Tyre became famous for Cedar trade, no settlement was required on the mainland for logging, storage, processing and protection of the goods.
Very far-fetched idea. Now, where were these "wall-less" settlement?You do not show evidence of walls on the mainland by showing island city walls. Island is called island. People have not come to think of the island as nothing but the mainland. Errantists have not come to conclusion that the island is mainland Tyre, have they?
As an Architect, I would understand that there is the external wall of one house. It is misleading to call such external wall of one house - walls. If you use the term walls, I must ask where they are. I will get the impression that they exist independently, or you have different parts of your house, such as one house, garden wall, shed, garage.. and so on.
I will not be under the impression that you live in a tower or castle with only one wall.
Where does each wall begin and end, if you have walls?
Settlement have walls. No wall means no settlement for a city.
Neb killing only women from the island in the fields? Where were the men?
Where were the defences and warnings?Look at some internal bible evidence:
Eze 27v11 walls, towers -signifies many buildings.
Eze 40v5 a wall all around the outside of the temple.
One wall (not walls) for the outside of a large building.
Eze 41v9 outer wall of the side chambers.
-unifying representation.
Eze 42v20 on the wall of the santuary.
-not differentiated as walls.Eze 26v12 33v30 -walls related to houses.
Ezra ..give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem.
-Unity of representation.
Isa5v5 -hedge and wall are unifying terms.
Rev21v18 -its wall was- -one city wall for one city.
2Chron 3v7 a house can have many walls.
It can have walls of inner chambers.Now if walls are down, houses are down.
>DLim WEB SITE:
>Building and settlement in the locality is not the same as building and settlement in the walled city.
>
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES
>So because New York City no longer has horses and not the same buildings, it no longer New York City, and after bridges were put up did New York City stop being New York City?
>
DLim:
I do feel that the lines were taken out of context.Here is the walled city; and here we see it has never has any wall. Does this sound familiar?
When a town has a cathedral, it ceased to be a town, and becomes a city. So the change of buildings can change the name and designation of the place.
A walled city, such as the walled city of Kowloon ceased to be such when its walls were taken down. Today the site of this walled city exist. The place/city itself, gone.There was Manhatten that was a peninsula. There is Manhatten with some bridges, and still a peninsula. When will it become an island?
Here was and is Brooklyn, Here is a bridge that links Brooklyn with Manhatten. When is Brooklyn called Manhatten?
Manhatten is part of New York City. But somebody want New York City to be Manhatten, and the only thing that represent Manhatten.>Dlim Web Site:
>His rams against their walls - signifies a number of walled settlement (cities) in the field. This is not a picture of war at sea against a walled city.
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES
>
>Stop being foolish, my house has walls that doesn't mean it's many houses. The only evidence we have is that the Island City of Tyre was walled. The sea didn't have walls the island did.
>
DLim:
Please note internal bible evidence stated above. One city one wall.Neb. was not found to have boats. It was not known that people in the past generally know swimming. From narrative such as the epistle of Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea, Archaeologist may deduce that ancient mainland warriors were not readily swimmers.
Then Neb's army attacked one wall of the island city; the wall that faced the shore. And somehow this wall must be called walls. (Does not make sense in Architecture). The island is so small as hardly having sections of city wall known as walls.
Now perhaps when visitors come to Lawyerkill they ring the bells of his doors. And they enter through the maindoors and Lawyerkill closed the doors behind them. Very busy.
No record of ancient sea battle against an island with chariots at sea battering the walls of the island.
Rams are for landbattles. No artifact or record of rams used at sea.
No reason for using rams to take a walled island city.The bible narratives are also Archaeological evidence. Archaeological relics are also available. Casting away evidence of ancient records we are left with a blind eye.
You have to question every single piece of sign/evidence available if you are to question the bible. Something you have not done, or have been fair.
So far you have not proved the inerrancy of any extra-biblical evidence you used.You have not convinced me how by evidence and intellectual interpretation you acertained that the stones on the island were dated back to Neb.
You appear to put your trust and bet in somebody who are human (therefore could make mistakes, and relying on others)still under development.I have a bible to rely on that beings more than men intervened human history, and testified its reliability. Yet I am looking at your evidence for comparison. So far, I have not dismissed any of your stated evidence (from many you know little of, and trusted a lot) as no evidence.
(As an Architect and Archaeologist of diversed fields, I can authoritatively speak more of some stone than many of your Archaeologists who are not trained Architect, and showed little to no consideration to ancient document, such as the bible. I await for you to present us some stone, town planning and Architecture for consideration. And all of you failed the integrity test before you even began.)
>DLim Web site:
>Nebuchadnezzar II besieged Tyre for 13 years ( 587 - 574 BC ) - but no contemporary record of this remains.
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
>The island was under siege not the mainland. Encyclopedia Britannica(vol 10, 1978. page 223) and Encyclopedia Americana(vol 27, 1984 page 331). Refute them.
>
DLim:
Such Enclyclopedia contain poor scholarship.2 pages of superficial/condensed scholarship representing indepth studies and all there is for your argument? The essaies of Mr Till on the topic would be longer than that.
Just like to say DLim is better in research. On the web, you can also find some enclyclopedia being refuted. Such title does not inspire awe in me (perhaps in you).
>Fine you disagree with every scholar in the world with that statement, and your contemporary evidence that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre, and how about some contemporary evidence of jesus.
>
>And by the way even Ezekiel admits that Nebuchadnezzar didn't takeTyre, GEEEDLim:
I am authoritative in many discipline. I am a leader in the fields, not just a follower.You should have no argument against me on the topic, if all you have is following the logic and work of Mr Till. Did he, being authoritative miss anything, that you being a follower should present? If you can be authoritative, why not me?
I was inviting you to state your evidence of what Mr Till has missed on the topic of Tyre; not just throw up everything you have.
> >29:18
>Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled:
yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
>
DLim:
This is such a simple point as have been answered by Walid and Katz at the time they debated Mr Till.
None of them (Walid and Katz) find me contradictory.
There was the mainland to bring down by Neb. But he did not prevail over the island. So Tyre on the mainland was destroyed, and at the same time a settlement known as Tyre survived. This picture is found in scholarship/writing preceeding D.Lim.>Dlim web site;
>It is improbable that any ancient king and army would attempt to breach an island walled city with horses, chariots and cavalry. They would require ships and navy instead.
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
>
>Wait a minute later in your site you write:
>
>"It is ridiculous to suggest that ships were not in existence at that time."
>
>So you agree that Ezekiel could have believe that there could have been ship to transport the army?
>
DLim:
The Architecture of warships is that they could hardly carry a few chariots with horses to breach a walled island.
There is no record or reason for any ancient navy to breach any walled city with horses, chariots, rams and walls.
Who built these ships and where did Neb. obtain them? Where were they mentioned?
and do you have the relic? You would have done better offering evidence to these question in the first place.On the contrary, horses and chariots were mentioned. No sea battle was mentioned.
Battle/killing on the fields was mentioned. No transportation of battle ships was mentioned. No record of Neb using any navy, is there?Alexander was known to have ships and conducted sea battle. And he was known to have built an embankment, rather than attacking the walls with his navy. You think he did not think of sending ships if he could and saw that as viable? He could have reached Tyre by sea. Why bother sending footsoldiers? When he stormed the entrance, shall we say he stormed the entrances and broke down the walls?
>
>DLim Web site:
>This is not a picture of attacking an island walled city across the sea.
>
>No it's a claimed picture of an attach on the island city
>
>DLIM web site
>The army was attacking with horses and chariots - not a sea battle with ships.
>
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES
>
>You said it ridiculous to suggest that ships were not in existence.
>
DLim:
So, Neb. suddenly raised a fleet, had a navy (that is not historically recorded) killed the daughters of Tyre on the mainland with a navy, and fought/laboured against a little island for years with his chariots on ships without gaining Tyre? Right? He also had rams and walls that worked well at sea, right? His invention escaped history and excavation, right?
Ships were in existence at the time, so Neb. must have used them, even that the bible missed mentioning the use of ships by Neb. and we found no record of such sea battle from wall painting and writings, Right?Neb. so secretly raised a fleet that it is not found in history and excavation?
The babylonians never used navy before and after?
>DLIM WEB SITE
>The description - your walls - indicates that the seige was against a multitude of walled settlement; not just one walled island city.
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITE
>
>It says your walls, not your settlements, my house has 4 outside walls, that >doesn't mean lots of houses
>
>
DLim:
It means either you do not know building language, or that you have a strange house.How many outside does your house have?
One outside? And the wall facing the outside is actually 4 outside walls? How many wall are there?
Where does each begin and end? What signify their entirety?
The directional description, such as the South facing wall/facade, the East facing wall/facade is not to be mixed up with separate walls. And the bible does not describe facades.
Walls are designated when they are clearly defined by different material or designed pattern. Ancient city walls such as that of Jerusalem were not clearly defined to be termed walls.
Bible reference called them wall (see reference above).How many walls has a round house?
>DLIM WEB SITE
>Nebuchadnezzar was aiming to take the mainland Tyre.
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
>
>Thats not what Ezekiel says, is it? And you talked to Nebuchadnezzar and he told you this?
>
>
DLim:
Horses for courses.Just common sense from a trained mind in Archaeology and Architecture and 3D Art.
Pardon me for not stating al l my attributes.>DLIM WEB SITE:
>It is a custom of land battle to make siege walls and cast up a mound to breach the city wall of the enemies. Siege walls are not for attacking an island walled city.
>
>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
>
>That is Bull, Siege walls are used against walls, it doesn't matter wher e t hey are, and the fact is that only the island city had walls.
>DLim:
Perhaps Alexander was so foolish as not trying to breach the wall without the embankment, that required an embankment the run siege walls on. I would join his club.
Perhaps Alexander could not win a debate against Lawyerkill.When was the floating siege wall invented? Who first recorded to have used that?
The Fact! How I missed that.
How does any sceptic present their belief as the fact?
Who succeed in showing the fact, the law of relativity and all the laws, with no uncertainty known as theories, and then present us the fact that there is no God? Any Big Bang Law? You have been presenting some facts. Why so mean to us, not presenting THE FACT from every outset and offset?Sceptics live by theories and beliefs (also known as faith), and dislike the Christian faith.
I met Christ/God and He forgives my sins. That is fact (The Fact - big stuff!). Something I cannot adequately show sceptics. And you have the means to show your facts (the fact)? There would have been no debate. Only presentation of fact.
You would have been a fact presenter, rather than a debater.
No law suit or court case, as all are known.And you want a debate.
Are facts that can not to demonstrated not really facts?Then, you failed to show your facts.
First, present us with a certified video tape of the historical fact of Tyre; go through time to film it. Sir, do you have the means for this fact, even this fact alone?
. . . to be continued at part 2 (Tyre2a.html)
A Failed Prophesy on Tyre? ||
Why 4 Gospels? ||
Hebrew Matthew and document Q || Census in Luke Ch 2 ( Anachronism? ) ||
Similarity warrants Recognition and Unity? || Freewill and pre-destination ||
Dynamic Equivalence and Propitiation ||Photography || Photo Gallery || Portrait Gallery || Architecture ||
Design Consultancy || Preacher || Herbalist || Cool Sites ||