From: max@cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Tyre
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:36:41 GMT

[This is one of these delightfully triple-indented postings.  I try to
avoid them, but in this case, I think it's worth pursuing the discussion.
The original posting is rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu.  Annotations in
brackets are mine, except the last one --clh]

>Examples: The cities of Tyre and Sidon, two great cities on 
>the Mediterranean Sea.  Exekiel prophesied that Tyre would 
>be destroyed and never be rebuilt nor inhabited.  Sidon was 
>to be brought down, but continue to be inhabited.

>Tyre on the other hand was at its height at the time of the 
>prophecy.  It was to be destroyed, made like a rock, have 
>its building stones thrown into the sea, and be built no 
>more.
 
Even the New Testament mentions Tyre.  Is the N.T. right or wrong?
 
First you say:
>  Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon fought against the city for 
>thirteen years and took it.
 
Then you say [rpitts in later posting]
>The prophecy did not say Nebuchadnezzar would take the city, but that
>he would go against it.  They (the nations) would take the plunder.
 
Which is it?
 
>  Many former inhabitants fled 
>for an island and made a new city of Tyre.
 
Well, you have quoted me the bible sentences that show that Tyre
was already on an island, with minor settlements on the mainland:
 
>   Ezek 26:5   Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for
>      I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for
>      the nations,
>   Ezek 26:6   and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the
>      sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD.
 
Here, Ezekial indicates ALL of tyre will fall to *HIM* - the pronoun
you attribute to Nebuchadnezzar.
 
 ...
>   Ezek 26:11   The hoofs of *his* horses will trample *all* your streets;
>      he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will
>      fall to the ground.
 
 What does the phrase "ALL your streets" means?
 
[max in previous posting]

>... D. Kennedy is the guy that denied ever having believed
>in the Paluxy man-tracks (that supposedly coexist with dinosaur
>tracks) until confronted with video tape. He is no more honest
>here; this claim was trashed when it was quoted from McDowell.

[to which rpitts objected]

>I think this argument tactic is called an ad homien(?) - against the
>man and not the point presented.  What do you think?
 
It's called "Ad hominem."
 
I think not. If a witness lies in court about a fact not directly
related to the charges, that still has implications about the quality of
his testimony, and you can bet the opposing council will call him on it.
If I said "D. Kennedy bites the heads off chickens, so you shouldn't believe
him" THAT would be ad-hominem. His taste or lack of same for live cuisine has
no bearing on the quality of his testimony.
 
Not so here. In this case, D. Kennedy has demonstrated his
willingness to lie to advance his viewpoint, and his testimony should be
viewed in that light.
 
>I think Dr. Kennedy says he or one of his friends has stood at the site
>of the old Tyre and has seen the bald ground and I think, even 
>seen the fisherman drying their nets there.
 
For reasons already cited, I do not trust the personal testimony
of D. James Kennedy. I have already mentioned his mendacity in the
Paluxy affair, and I have tapes of his creationism rhetoric chock
full of standard creationist distortions of scientific remarks.
[supplied on request].
 
Regards,
 	Max G. Webb