Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 1:05 AM
381 online now:
Coyote, Dredge, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Rrhain (6 members, 375 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,774 Year: 10,380/21,208 Month: 3,467/2,674 Week: 10/873 Day: 10/76 Hour: 1/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Belief Statements - Lithodid-Man
jar
Member
Posts: 28693
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 46 of 74 (338424)
08-07-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by randman
08-07-2006 7:22 PM


Re: no evidence?
Read what I write. The Crusaders laid siege to the fortress. The fortress of Tyre was still very much there AND very much a formidable fortress in 1100AD.

That ends my responses to you in this thread.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by randman, posted 08-07-2006 7:22 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 08-07-2006 7:29 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 48 by randman, posted 08-07-2006 7:46 PM jar has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 47 of 74 (338425)
08-07-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
08-07-2006 7:25 PM


Hmmm...
You know, I think it's reasonable to ask for you to back this up. You stated:

'Cept of course, it never happened. Old Nebbi tried, tried valiantly for 13 years, but never succeeded. Neither did Alexander the Great 300 YEARS after the prophecy was supposedly carried out.

What did Alexander the Great try to do and fail to do? Maybe you just exagerrated a little, jar?

Most accounts I have read, just so you know, are that Alexander laid Tyre to waste and destroyed the Phoenician empire once and for all, pretty much just as the Bible predicted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 08-07-2006 7:25 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by MangyTiger, posted 08-07-2006 10:32 PM randman has responded
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 08-07-2006 11:21 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 74 (338429)
08-07-2006 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
08-07-2006 7:25 PM


one more time?
Jar, I will throw you a bone here in the hopes you assess the destruction Alexander the Great caused and offer some evidence for your position that he failed in his endeavor.

Now, this bone is sort of tricky. Clearly, I think the prophecy was fulfilled. Tyre was conquered, but it took Alexander the Great and not just Nebi to cause the full, massive destruction, scraping down the rock in places, etc,....

However, sometimes I wonder if prophecy isn't always as precise, even though the word of God, as we make it. Agabus was a prophet, for example, in Acts, and he prophesied that Paul faced trouble and would be bound if he went to Jerusalem, and he was, and Agabus's prophecy was very much true in that regard, but at the same time, there were some details that are slightly off. For example, Agabus says:

11And when he had come unto us, he took Paul's girdle and bound his own hands and feet, and said, "Thus saith the Holy Ghost, `So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'"

But in reality, the Jews at Jerusalem would have killed Paul had the Gentiles, the Romans, not saved them.

Was Agabus a false prophet?

No. He sensed in his spirit that the Jews would attack Paul; he would be bound and delivered to the Gentiles, and so prophesied out of that impartation from the Spirit of God, but since it still had to come out through him, the interpretation of the prophetic impartation technically got a couple of facts backwards, but still was true to the original prophecy.

Now, it may be that Nebi did not complete the destruction of Tyre and the Phoenecian empire, but he did launch such an attack, and the prophet saw or sensed that. He spoke pointedly about waves of attacks (technically perhaps contradicting himself, but just stating the prophetic impression as truthfully as he knew it), and sure enough, Alexander really came along and completed the prophecy.

One of the biggest problems with Bible naysayers is the lack of knowledge of the spiritual processes involved, and so find often a "contradiction" where none in reality exists because prophecies, even from God, can have an imprecision within them being based on the prophet's subjective prophetic experience. Nevertheless, they do also contain a remarkable precision that is harmonious with the heart and intent of the prophecy.

God says Tyre (the Phoenecian city) would be totally destroyed and never return, and that is fulfilled. It is your interpretation that He meant that no city could ever occupy the same spot, and it may be that the prophecy could even suggest that in tone since the prophet doesn't always understand the full meaning of the prophecy, but clearly the details did happen as the prophecy described. Tyre was laid waste.

Personally, if I was skeptic, I would just say, well so what, you can prophesy any city will eventually be laid waste and conquered and eventually come true, but then again, the purpose of the prophecy is not to convince the skeptic.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 08-07-2006 7:25 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by nator, posted 08-08-2006 9:01 AM randman has responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 49 of 74 (338452)
08-07-2006 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
08-07-2006 7:29 PM


Re: Hmmm...
Well in Message 22 Faith seems to find this source convincing. It says (and Faith herself quotes this):

From Arrian's descriptions it is very clear that Alexander did not level the island fortress, in fact, he had Tyre rebuilt. Tyre remained an important trading and manufacturing center that was fought over by Alexander's immediate successors, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.25

25 Patricia Bikai, Heritage of Tyre, p. 61.

This is a compelling reason to think Alexander didn't destroy the city.

Alexander laid siege to Tyre in 332 B.C.

There was another siege of Tyre - lasting over a year - starting in 314 B.C. during the Third Diadoch War.

If you want to believe that a city was leveled to the bed rock and was rebuilt within 18 years to the point where it could withstand a year long siege that's up to you. Personally I think it's an asinine idea.


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 08-07-2006 7:29 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 08-08-2006 12:26 PM MangyTiger has responded
 Message 57 by jar, posted 08-08-2006 12:43 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Quetzal, posted 08-08-2006 2:00 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 50 of 74 (338454)
08-07-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
08-07-2006 7:29 PM


Re: Hmmm...
Not entirely accurate. According to the Greek historian Flavius Arranius, Alexander DID capture the city in 332 BC. However, he didn't "lay waste" to it. One of his naval siege engines managed to knock a part of the southern wall down. After a few futile storming attempts, Alexander supposedly lead a storming party that was able to follow the wall around to the palace. In any event, he didn't destroy the city (made sacrifice at the temple of Heracles, held a few games, then went off to fight Darius). The moll he constructed caused the part between the mainland and the island to eventually silt up (which is why it appears like a penninsula today). The mainland portion of the city when Alexander arrived wasn't much - a fishing and land-trading area. The rocks he used to build the moll (actually two of them), had to be hauled in from quite a distance up and down the coast - even using every stick from the mainland town wouldn't have sufficed. It was simply too small.

In addition, Tyre was NOT a Phoenecian city at the time of Alexander, it was a Persian city. It certainly started out Phoenecian (around 2500 BC). In fact, there was never any such thing as a "Phoenecian Empire" - they were a rather loose collection of citystates. Tyre itself was captured around 1800 BC by the Egyptians, regained independence briefly around 538 BC, then fell under the Persians. The last use of the term "Phoenecian" for any of the area died out under the Romans - the old kingdoms being incorporated into the Roman province of Syria. The last of the great Phoencian cities - Carthage - also was finally destroyed by the Romans.

I'm not sure how this effects your prophecy thingy. However, the archeological record is pretty clear about the history part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 08-07-2006 7:29 PM randman has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 51 of 74 (338481)
08-08-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
08-05-2006 8:24 PM


Re: No doubt the Tyre prophecy was fulfilled
quote:
If he lied to that extent he'd be a delusional deranged demented disorganized psychotic beyond functioning in this world at all.

Nonsense.

People lie like that all the time, and they remain perfectly functional in the world.

They are just liars.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 08-05-2006 8:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 52 of 74 (338482)
08-08-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
08-07-2006 7:46 PM


Re: one more time?
quote:
Jar, I will throw you a bone here in the hopes you assess the destruction Alexander the Great caused and offer some evidence for your position that he failed in his endeavor.
Now, this bone is sort of tricky. Clearly, I think the prophecy was fulfilled. Tyre was conquered, but it took Alexander the Great and not just Nebi to cause the full, massive destruction, scraping down the rock in places, etc,....

But I thought that Alexander the great was a conqueror, not a destroyer.

I thought his entire goal was to create an empire, not simply lay waste to other cities and nations.

What would be the point of completely destroying valuable military property, as the fortress city of Tyre was, if he was empire-building? It makes much more sense to subdue the populace but keep as much of the fortress intact as possible so he could then use it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 08-07-2006 7:46 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 08-08-2006 9:56 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 54 by jar, posted 08-08-2006 11:29 AM nator has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 53 of 74 (338484)
08-08-2006 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by nator
08-08-2006 9:01 AM


Re: one more time?
It makes a lot of sense if you want to protect your rearguard, and you also are ticked off they they held you up for 6 months and publicly ridiculed you, killing your soldiers they captured publicly from their walls. That's one reason for such a large slaughter when Tyre fell.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nator, posted 08-08-2006 9:01 AM nator has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28693
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 54 of 74 (338492)
08-08-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by nator
08-08-2006 9:01 AM


Re: one more time?
What would be the point of completely destroying valuable military property, as the fortress city of Tyre was, if he was empire-building? It makes much more sense to subdue the populace but keep as much of the fortress intact as possible so he could then use it.

Alexander was not stupid. He knew that his real threat remained to the north, Darius and the Persian Army and fleet. If Alexander was to succeed he needed a secure supply line behind him. One of the best and most defendable ports happened to be...?

You guessed it, Tyre.

The folk that want to believe the prophecy came true willingly ignore all of the logic or evidence and also joyfully interpret the story to try to make it work yet still it don't fly.

If you read Tyre story in the Bible it's pretty clear that all this is to happen in Nebbis time. Well it didn't happen.

Then they grab the "waves" lifeboat and say Alexander did it. But when it is shown that the Fortress is still there 18 years later and still there when the Crusaders have to lay seige to it over 700 years later, we see phrases like "... scraping down the rock in places,..." when that just ain't the way it happened or they jump on the "Phoenician" train even though Tyre of Alexander was a Persian colony and not the Phoenican City-State anyway.

If folk wish to believe such a fairy tale, that is fine. What they need to understand though is that when the average person looks at the prophecy and then at the history of Tyre and the current physical city of Tyre, they will realize that the person who is trying to sell the prophecy fantasy is just flat wrong. If the the person continues then to insist that it is true, the listener has to question just how many other such false tales have been taught?

It is stuff like this, trying to sell myth and story as reality, that drives so many folk away from a belief in GOD. That is the only real problem. Christians need to understand that when they try to pitch something like Tyre or the Flood or the Exodus or the Conquest of Canaan or Young Earth to someone who is actually willing to look at the evidence, the result will be just another ex-Christian.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nator, posted 08-08-2006 9:01 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 08-08-2006 12:24 PM jar has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 55 of 74 (338511)
08-08-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
08-08-2006 11:29 AM


Re: one more time?
I'd appreciate it if you aren't going to back up your conclusions on the thread, that you wouldn't start making new ones, jar.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 08-08-2006 11:29 AM jar has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 74 (338512)
08-08-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by MangyTiger
08-07-2006 10:32 PM


Re: Hmmm...
Mangy, did Alexander remove the former rulers and most of the former occupants or not?

Same with Nebi, it seems. Apparently, according to some here (conflicting accounts and since some like jar won't back up his account, who knows?), Nebi or someone made Tyre a Persian colony.

Making a kingdom a colony certainly suffices to destroying the former kingdom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by MangyTiger, posted 08-07-2006 10:32 PM MangyTiger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 08-08-2006 2:28 PM randman has responded
 Message 64 by MangyTiger, posted 08-08-2006 10:13 PM randman has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28693
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 57 of 74 (338515)
08-08-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by MangyTiger
08-07-2006 10:32 PM


Re: Hmmm...
One of the interesting things about the history of Alexander and Tyre is found in Flavius account. Most of the magistrates of the city took refuge in Heracles Temple. Alexander spared them and left them to continue the administration of the city.

There was never really any Kingdom of Tyre, it was just one of the City-States of the time. At various times it was Assyrian, Egyptian, Macedonian, Persian, Independant and today part of Lebanon. But the people are still the same, the site is still the same, it has been continuously occupied and is still there today.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by MangyTiger, posted 08-07-2006 10:32 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 58 of 74 (338540)
08-08-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by MangyTiger
08-07-2006 10:32 PM


Re: Hmmm...
Hi Mangy,

As jar pointed out, Arranius' history indicates that Alexander spared most of the city's rulers (magistrates) when they took refuge in the temple Alexander wanted to worship in (which was the proximate cause of the siege in the first place). He did supposedly take 30,000 Tyrenian soldiers and sold them into slavery, as well as killing some 8,000 more during the siege and assault itself. As with any of the ancient historians, we should probably take those numbers with a largish grain of salt. However, he left the normal inhabitants of the city pretty much alone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by MangyTiger, posted 08-07-2006 10:32 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12925
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 59 of 74 (338551)
08-08-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
08-08-2006 12:26 PM


Re: Hmmm...
randman writes:

Making a kingdom a colony certainly suffices to destroying the former kingdom.

Quite the contrary.

Destroying the kingship of a city-state only means a change in administration - it doesn't mean destruction of the city-state.

One of the main reasons for making colonies is to obtain their resources. Destroying the infrastructure, population, etc. would make the colony less valuable.

Another reason for making colonies is for their strategic position. It has already been pointed out that destroying the fortifications of Tyre would have lessened its strategic value.

Destruction of the city would have been counter-productive.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 08-08-2006 12:26 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 08-08-2006 2:35 PM ringo has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 60 of 74 (338554)
08-08-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
08-08-2006 2:28 PM


Re: Hmmm...
That depends on how you define a kingdom. It it was a kingdom and now is not, then the kingdom itself is destroyed regardless of whether the area was rendered permanently inhabitable or whatever.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 08-08-2006 2:28 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ringo, posted 08-08-2006 2:41 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017