From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tyre still exists today (was: I'm God.)
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:02:24 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tyre still exists today (was: I'm God.)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology
Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct16.184026.12599@brtph560.bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|In <71478@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
||> In <13768@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
|
||> |Now it not longer surprises me that Mr Kennedy would use such patently
||> |fallacious reasoning, as I see him to be a theological leech upon the
||> |Christian religion, making his living by peddling his books and ministry, 
||> |and
||> |giving people lies on which to build their faith.  It does though 
||> |disappoint
||> |me Richard, that you would continue try to pass such ridiculous arguments 
||> |on
||> |to us who are not so credulous.  In fact your whole line of argument at
||> |present, reflects an inability to present good arguments or references.  
||> |Your
||> |credibility to me will fast go to zip, if you keep up these wild and
||> |fallacious claims, and especially if you keep using Mr Kennedy as a 
||> |credible
||> |authority.  It seems to me that you base your belief more on a willingness 
||> |to
||> |accept the word of self proclaimed "historians" who say what you want to 
||> |hear,
||> |rather than accepting the word of actual historians who publish trustworthy
||> |scholarship and arguments. 
||> 
||> Oh.  It seems you willing want to believe Bible couldn't be correct in
||> this case and so you willing believe the historians over the Bible.
|
|Forgive me for jumping in here - but Richard wasn't this whole Tyre business 
|brought
|by you (from Kennedy's book) as an EXAMPLE of history CONFIRMING the BIBLE! 

Yep.

|(If not, I apologize & will butt out). Seems to me that the fact that you are
|now
|accusing Dave of "choosing the historians OVER the Bible" is an admission that

No.  I should have said, he willing believes the historians that disagree
with the Bible, but not the ones that agree with it.  He is looking for
the Bible to be false, for whatever his reason.

|history does not confirm the Bible in this instance. I mean, how can he choose

Some say yes and some say no.  I cited Dr. Kennedy's book.  I haven't
seen him disproven, but for the sake of the argument, the prophecy if 
you remember the scriptures, said that many nations would attack Tyre.
The question again keys upon whether Tyre has been rebuilt or not, for
we all agree that Ezekiel's prophecy holds true up to that point.

|the historians view over the Bible's unless they are different, and how does 
|history
|confirm the biblical account if it's different? 

Some agree and some appear not to agree.  The majority of the 
prophecy is not questioned.

|                                                Face it, Dave's cleaned your
|clock in this argument, it's over, you just (unknowingly) admitted defeat. 

Clock cleaning comes a little later - God will take care of it.  I 
seek to know Him.  I hold His word is true and it will not return
void.  The prophecy is that Tyre was to be destroyed and not rebuilt.
I think God will give us both the answer in due time.  What do you think?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |