Relating argument to Tyre - David Lim
This is absolutely not so, and you only show your ignorance in saying that "new Tyre" was built after the siege of Nebuchadnezzar.
The Island stronghold of Tyre existed for a thousand years before Nebuchadnezzar's siege, and there are indications that it probably existed even long before that.
The 14th century BC Amarna letters refer to it,
so your apparent belief that Nebuchadnezzar captured mainland Tyre after which the inhabitants went to the island and built Tyre is contrary to what records antedating Nebuchadnezzar by centuries clearly indicate.
Why don't you put aside your Josh McDowellian apologetic works and try to read something a bit more scholarly about Tyre?
Ancient records of Greeks and Assyrians referred to the mainland settlement as Ussu, but the city on the island stronghold was Tyre. It wasn't built after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Ussu. It existed long before that time.
Indication not shown. Lacking time and space for such a major elucidation/evidence/turning point?
Even if there was an Island stronghold of Tyre, the main city could still have existed on the mainland. There could also be stronghold on the mainland to protect its precious cash goods - Lebanon Cedar.
Where is the location for Cedar industry on the island? Where were the storage houses/yards? Where are the Cedar walls of the city? Where are the ancient/historical Cedar houses/buildings? How come the modern city (said to be a continuation) look so stony? How come the mainland joining to the island look so dusty? Where were the foundation and buildings of the satellite towns? Where are Ussu?
The content of this Amarna letters is not shown to strengthen argrment.
Records so clearly indicating ... that the contender did not state them for consideration.
A dishonest trick of argument is not remotely suspected.How scholarly is scholarly?
If claims without support is a bit more scholarly; what is even more scholarly, and most scholarly?
Interesting to see that no other advocate for island Tyre came up with these document for support to date(Aug 99). Should their scholarship be questioned, and regarded as less scholarly?
Sadly these ancient documents are not posted for our consideration.
Where are these mainland settlement indicated on any photo supplied by atheists, Skeptics and contenders?
How come these settlement must be regarded as mainland Tyre?
It is like somebody claiming to have located Toronto/the city of London, but can not tell where Greater Toronto/Greater London is. Could somebody tell where the airport of Hong Kong is and at the same time not able to tell where Hong Kong is? So where is mainland Tyre and its satellite towns?
The prophesy of Ezekiel does mention the daughters of Tyre on the fields. This is usually referred to as the mainland satellite settlement near Tyre.
Was the prosperous ancient/modern city existing without satellite towns? The historical document, the bible tells us there were.
The wording from the advocate does not affirm that these ancient Greek and Assyrian document referred the island as the only location of Tyre. Why not, if it is blatantly clear?
Interesting that these documents existed in Greek, when the Greeks were not well known at the time of Nebuchadnezzar. And Syrian, Arabic documents were not mentioned, when Tyre has always been in Syria. Where were the Syrians? Sidonians?
For an aerial photo of island Tyre, on the site of an errantist, please visit http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/tyre.jpg
The photo show a large empty land/soil on the mainland next to modern island Tyre, hinting that Tyre started on the empty ground, and growing onto the mainland. However the location of mainland Tyre and its satellite towns is not indicated. Are they known at all? Any satellite photo? Any digging team?
For those with a interest in the "daughter villages" I suggest you see
http://www.geocities.com/bdtayl/elbass.JPG
Here we have the town of El Bass, located where one might expect to find a mainland settlement associated with Tyre. As one can see from the first map (Tyre1.jpg), the mainland area to the south of Tyre consists of sand dunes which can hardly be considered a "bare rock" to spread fishing nets.
D. Lim:
The fact that challengers to the Tyre prophesy make up their firm stance long before they have evidence to substantiate their belief, conjecture and claim, suggest to me that they are not interested in the truth. They are rather interested in shooting down the bible(the Word of God) and its prophesy.
In order for the daughters of Tyre to be plural, it needs to be a cluster of separate settlement, such as towns or villages.
And in order to have mainland Tyre located so far inland that Neb's army missed out Island Tyre in the first place and missed the event of the mainland citizens stealing their way to the Island stronghold. The daughters of Tyre would need to be much further inland than mainland Tyre as to be separate settlement.
El Bass is a single settlement/town situated next to the shore. Just one town! Very near the ancient island. Would any man miss seeing the island from this town? Would any man miss seeing other towns from El Bass? Where are the daughters of Tyre?
El Bass is not shown to be near other towns or villages. Excavation and artifacts do not show El Bass to be a continuation of an ancient town.
El Bass is not shown to be on top of the acknowledged daughter of Tyre, or mainland Tyre.
Challengers have missed out this town until recently; but they have taken their position for decades.
Sand came from rock. Somehow challengers have the notion that no sand must be found on or with rock.
We are not shown that fishing nets are spread out somewhere else. From older witness even the causeway had nets spread on it. Who would need to spread nets on the ground all the time in order to convince challengers/unbelievers that such places are used that way? And where are the fishermen? Where is the industry that signifies Tyre?
Strangely, Mr Till did not simultaneously come up with archaeological evidence, literal analysis of ancient manuscripts and faximile that El Bass is indeed the daughters of Tyre, or perhaps mainland Tyre as he claimed that it was documented. Strangely no Lebanon authority is quoted as telling the story that El Bass is the continuation of historical mainland Tyre or the daughters of Tyre. The first word, (most familiar to them) that come out of their pen/mouth speaks of something else.
Would somebody care to lend the sceptics a pen to write on their maps the proper names/terms they would like those places to be called?
On the map, a cemetery is seen just outside (close to the ancient shore) the city boundary of Tyre that has currently expanded onto the mainland.
Exhibits including stele and urns from this cemetery are well documented.
From the discovery of the cemetery ruins of Carthage 1955-1959, it is seen that Phoenicians located their cemeteries far away from their populated city. Phoenicians did not build cemetries near cities.
No Phoenician cemetery is found on the island Tyre, demonstrating that cemeteries could be found in a city.
No inscription (eg: on stele) is found stating that the cemetery is that of Tyre.
The discovery and excavation of this cemetery near the island hints that ancient Tyre was built far from the shore.
TILL (04:22 AM 8/25/01 -0500)
You're reading into your sources what isn't there. It's ridiculous to think that Nebuchadnezzar lay siege to the mainland villages for 13 years. These were taken with no difficulty, but it was the island stronghold that withheld the 13-year siege. The mainland part wasn't called Tyre. Its name was Ushu (Harpers Bible Dictionary, 1985, p. 1101), and it had traditionally been easy pickings for invading armies.D.Lim: The Bible does not tell us that 13 years were spent just for laying siege to the mainland villages. Scriptures do not tell us that there are only mainland villages on the mainland. This remains an unsupported imagination of the opposition, failing to find anything more substantial than villages on the mainland.
These skeptics seem to have the notion that they are right in their understanding when they cannot find evidence to prove that they are right.
Why believe in a Bible Dictionary and not believing in the Bible?
How come a Bible Dictionary has more authority than the Bible?Not long ago, El Bass was used to represent mainland Tyre. Who has the right to change names from time to time?
Isn't it very irrational for King Neb. to use no navy for an island stronghold, but sent out a large land army for a place that had traditionally been easy pickings for invading armies? Shouldn't any rational mind find this arrangement skeptical?
"The mainland city had a distinct name, which appears as Ushu in Akkadian texts and Uzu in Egyptian texts. Capture of the mainland city permitted conquerors to claim the capture of Tyre; the island city resisted sieges by Shalmaneser V, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Ashur-bani-pal, and Nebuchadnezzar, and was FIRST taken by Alexander" (McKinney's Dictionary of the Bible, 1977, pp. 9040905).
D.Lim: So, this easy picking is the mainland city rather than the village of El Bass. But, how come the mainland villages mentioned previously suddenly turn out to be the mainland city?
Mr Till being an English teacher, and a seasoned skeptic, should he not recognise the difference between city and villages?
Would the capturing of villages permit conquerors to claim the capture of Tyre(since the villages have turned out to equate city)?
If permission is granted, then argument is over. King Neb. did indeed conquered Tyre. And so did other 4 conquerors. And so, the Bible is right telling us that King Neb. conquered Tyre. And the skeptics are wrong believing that King Neb. did not, and the Bible record wrong.
And why do they not pack up?
Now we jumped to another Dictionary of the Bible. And why do we not believe in the Bible instead?
Is it not strange that King Neb. did not turn from the lessons of the previous 4 seiges of the island?
It was the island stronghold that Nebuchadnezzar spent 13 years trying to take. To claim that Nebuchadnezzar struggled for 13 years to try to take this mainland area that had always been an easy conquest for invading armies is a desperation attempt to salvage a prophecy that obviously failed. If Ezekiel's prophecy was that the mainland city would be destroyed, then why didn't he direct his prophecy against Ushu instead of Tyre? In directing it against Tyre, he was predicting that it would be the island stronghold that would be destroyed.
D.Lim: No statistics is supplied by non-believers from other 4 conquests, at least, to show that the mainland Tyre was always taken without time.
Is it not skeptical that all 5 conquerors did not bring a navy to take the island, yet brought substantial army for a mainland city, or some villages?
Why some names instead of Tyre, when the opposition has previously tell us that the conquering of the villages permits any conqueror to claim victory over Tyre?
Skeptics are inventing a target here in directing propeshy against Tyre as predicting that it would be the island stronghold that would be destroyed.
Scriptures does not have this in any plain word or sentence. This does not require even common sense.
Common sense should tell this to anyone who doesn't have a prophecy fulfillment axe to grind. The idea of the prophecy was that the splendor of Tyre was going to be brought to an end, but what would be so remarkable about a prophecy that simply said that Ushu (the mainland city), which had been overrun many times already would be destroyed again? If destroying Ushu was all that Ezekiel had meant, then anyone of the time period who was familiar with the history of Ushu would have been totally unimpressed. "Ushu will be destroyed again?" one would say. "Well, big deal, Ezekiel. I could make a prophecy like that."
D.Lim: Being spectacular or remarkable is not a requirement of any Bible prophecy. The purpose of prophecy is not to impress people. They relate to the decree of the Almighty God.
Prophecy speaks of fall away; and we have people turning away from the faith. We have backsliding Christians. We have fallen angels. Any spectacular feeling everytime there is a fall away? Was Mr Till a remarkable surprise when he turned away from scriptures? Was it for I. Jones?
Prophecy speaks of increase of earthquakes; and we have increase of earthquakes from time to time.
Prophecy speaks of anti-Christs and false teachers; and we have such from time to time. Remarkable?
And Mr Till simply cannot speak as God. He cannot show himself as God first, and he cannot give all answers before the debate sections.
One characteristic of Divine prophecy is to tell the end from the beginning.
Should we let Mr Till prophesy to us when Tyre will be conquered next?
Better still, show us he knew of the location of mainland Tyre and mentioned that 3 years ago. How come this argument of Till comes so late? I did not see any map from him.If you will bother to read Ezekiel's tirade again Tyre, you will see him proclaiming that the princes of that region would be astonished at what had happened to Tyre (26:16). They would take up a lamentation and say...
D.Lim: If skeptics would demonstrate to us that the princes would not be astonished, and would not lament, at the fall of Tyre under other 4 conquerors.
>Ezekiel 26:17 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! >18 Now the coastlands tremble on the day of your fall; the coastlands by >the sea are dismayed at your passing.
Do you really believe that Ezekiel was predicting this reaction to the destruction of a city that had been overrun numerous times? That would be a ridiculous interpretation. This was to be the reaction when Tyre ITSELF (the island stronghold), which had withstood all attempts to take it, would be destroyed, but the prophecy wasn't fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar took Ushu and then directed a 13-year siege against the island stronghold. The siege was an annoyance, but Tyre was able to withstand it because of its access to the sea. Finally, to rid itself of the inconvenience, Tyre made a treaty with Nebuchadnezzar that gave him control over Ushu and provided for tribute from Tyre proper.
D.Lim: A little island yet surrounded by seas? Amongst the seas?
We will have an earthquake resulting from the sinking of the island, if we do not take the language as poetic. It is apparent that no island sank in the past as a result of siege.
It is ridiculous to believe an interpretation of a single remarkable fall of a city(that the Bible does not claim to be depicting anyway) without any statistics, no map, no comparison.
Ushu is not even mentioned in the Bible. The daughters on the fields are not named as Ushu or El Bass in the Bible.
We started with the mainland already overtaken, and we end with an argument for the conqueror to keep what he had already conquered? Your opposition giving you control over what you have taken and are controlling?
Is this called laboring without wages?If you think that Ezekiel's prophecy was directed only against Ushu, then present your arguments for that position, Wozny. Don't expect us to accept your unsupported assertions.
D.Lim: Read the Bible passages! The evidence is there as indicated.
Should Bible Christians accept any imagination, invention, strawman and mis-direction of non-believers?
Should Christians be expected to accept unsupported assertions, non-existent statistics and evidence, and even to admit defeat and Bible errancy?Is this what skepticism is about? Is this speaking of the honesty, openness, learning of skeptics?
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 || Cool Sites ||
