The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Roy]

Well, address specifics. What in what Lee argued about the island in the prophecy that is not true? Quote that part of the prophecy Lee used regarding that island.

What is not true in the explanation that I cited?

"Ezekiel 26 prophesied: Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the mainland city"

Ezekiel 26 does not specifically refer to the mainland city of Tyre. If anything it hints, by talking about a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, at the island city.

[Roy]

Actually she also says "until recently, the ruins of Tyre above water were few".

Are you implying that the ruins underwater were after the 18th century? So they could be quarried?

No, I'm demonstrating that you are quote-mining. Omitting relevant context that contradicts and refutes your claimed meaning. Lying by omission.

Jidejian tells us she is talking about Phoenician ruins - but you ignore that, and suggest she might be talking instead about Roman ruins.

When you can only maintain your argument by lying about your sources, no further comment is necessary.

[Roy]

So if we take 37818's map of the old city walls, and overlay it on the satellite image from Google, using the included present coastline as a guide, we get this:

tyre_outline.jpg

It doesn't show a substantial part of Tyre being now underwater. It shows that the area of the former city is still above water, and that much of that area is now modern buildings. It suggests that any underwater ruins are either remains of ancient buildings that fell or were cast into the sea, or are the remains of the old harbourworks, and their underwater location is irrelevant to whether the city has been rebuilt because they are not where the city was.

[shunyadragon]

Actually she also says "until recently, the ruins of Tyre above water were few".


Are you implying that the ruins underwater were after the 18th century? So they could be quarried?

Blessings,
Lee

The areas underwater have never been more than the lowland Isle of Hercules and the edge of the Isle of Tyre. The main Island city and Temple location has never been underwater.

[lee_merrill]

No, I'm demonstrating that you are quote-mining. Omitting relevant context that contradicts and refutes your claimed meaning. Lying by omission.

You didn't answer my question. Speaking of omission...

Jidejian tells us she is talking about Phoenician ruins - but you ignore that, and suggest she might be talking instead about Roman ruins.

"From the 18th century onwards" would probably mean Roman or Byzantine ruins by that time, though.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The areas underwater have never been more than the lowland Isle of Hercules and the edge of the Isle of Tyre. The main Island city and Temple location has never been underwater.

Substantial ruins are underwater, though, and the northern area shown here must have also sunk.

Blessings,
Lee

[37818]

"Ezekiel 26 prophesied: Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the mainland city"

Ezekiel 26 does not specifically refer to the mainland city of Tyre. If anything it hints, by talking about a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, at the island city.

At the time Ezekiel wrote that prophecy Tyre was that "mainland" city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy#Ezekiel

[37818]

So if we take 37818's map of the old city walls, and overlay it on the satellite image from Google, using the included present coastline as a guide, we get this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26373[/ATTACH]

It doesn't show a substantial part of Tyre being now underwater. It shows that the area of the former city is still above water, and that much of that area is now modern buildings. It suggests that any underwater ruins are either remains of ancient buildings that fell or were cast into the sea, or are the remains of the old harbourworks, and their underwater location is irrelevant to whether the city has been rebuilt because they are not where the city was.

Ok, you have proven the drawn outline is not accurate.

rr1006c.jpg
1934 photo.

[Roy]

Emphasis added:

Are you implying that the ruins underwater were after the 18th century? So they could be quarried?

No, I'm demonstrating that you are quote-mining. Omitting relevant context that contradicts and refutes your claimed meaning. Lying by omission.

You didn't answer my question. Speaking of omission...

I did answer your question. The answer was "No".

"From the 18th century onwards" would probably mean Roman or Byzantine ruins by that time, though.

The author specifically refers to "the ancient metropolis of Phoenicia". You know this. Your suggestion that she meant Roman ruins is a blatant lie.

Also, there's the obvious implication that there wouldn't be any Roman or Byzantine ruins on the island unless the city had been at least partly rebuilt - which you claim it wasn't.

[Roy]

At the time Ezekiel wrote that prophecy Tyre was that "mainland" city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy#Ezekiel

Your source says otherwise.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy#Ezekiel

Tyre was an island fortress-city the island city itself intact.

© Copyright Original Source

Did you read it?

[Roy]

Ok, you have proven the drawn outline is not accurate.

...or, which is much more likely, Lee and you are wrong.

1934 photo.

That looks very similar to both the current satellite views and the coastal outline on your city wall map. What's your point?

[Roy]

The author specifically refers to "the ancient metropolis of Phoenicia".

...assuming that Lee is quoting the author correctly, which is at this point unwarranted.

[37818]

Your source says otherwise.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy#Ezekiel

Tyre was an island fortress-city the island city itself intact.

© Copyright Original Source

Did you read it?

The video which explains the prophecy as to how it is understood to be fully fulfilled mentions both locations.

news-graphics-2007-_635562a.jpg
Two locations where tyre has not been rebuilt as such. On the west the southern sea side place and the east mid location where the old coast had ended. You can see the areas as darker patchs.

[Roy]

The video which explains the prophecy as to how it is understood to be fully fulfilled mentions both locations.

If Tyre comprised a mainland city and an island city, why did you write "At the time Ezekiel wrote that prophecy Tyre was that "mainland" city"?

Why are you contradicting your chosen source that says the mainland section was not a city, but a collection of villages?

You can't even get your argument straight.

Two locations where tyre has not been rebuilt as such. On the west the southern sea side place and the east mid location where the old coast had ended. You can see the areas as darker patchs.

Ok, so the modern city and the original city do not completely overlap. So what? That doesn't mean Tyre hasn't been rebuilt.

Unless you want to make the absurd claim that Tyre hasn't been rebuilt because modern Tyre is not identical to the original city.

[lee_merrill]

Emphasis added:I did answer your question. The answer was "No".

So how is it that there are ruins underwater if the quarrying carried off all the Phoenician stones?

The author specifically refers to "the ancient metropolis of Phoenicia". You know this. Your suggestion that she meant Roman ruins is a blatant lie.

By the 18th century the upper layers would surely be Roman and Byzantium. The best claim for your view is that the Phoenician ruins are under the city, which I wonder how they know this if they are still buried.

Also, there's the obvious implication that there wouldn't be any Roman or Byzantine ruins on the island unless the city had been at least partly rebuilt - which you claim it wasn't.

I claim the ancient city of Tyre is substantially underwater, so this ancient city has not been rebuilt.

Blessings,
Lee