From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tyre still exists today (was: I'm God.)
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:13:32 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Mr Pitts attempts to dismiss my questioning of his "historical" proof for the
Bible with the straw man and ad hominem argument that I am just trying to
"destroy" the Bible and Christianity:

>| It is most interesting to watch Mr Pitts ignore the parts of the argument he
>| finds disturbing.  His hero Mr Kennedy claims that Tyre is bare like a rock 
>| as the Bible prophesied, and when I show that this claim is not true, Mr 
>| Pitts ignores the subjects entirely and states:
> 
> It is most interesting to watch you spend so much time attacking the Bible
> and those who support it.  Are you saying the Bible and Christianity are
> something you need to destory?  Do you think they are true and so to 
> avoid the truths therein you continue to try and disprove them?

Mr Pitts I am not trying to "destroy" the "Bible and Christianity"; I am
trying to refute the lies which some so-called Christians use to try to seduce
people into their ministry.  Further, the ministry of itself does not offend
me, but the lies do.  Now you specifically imply that anyone who finds fault
with any assertions made in the Bible, is also actively trying to destroy the
Bible.  That is obviously not true, as even Christians point out errors in the
Bible.  For example, are Darren Provine and Michael Siemon, who are fellow
Christians, trying to destroy the "Bible and Christianity" when they've
pointed out the archeological evidence against the Canaanite war and the war
of Jericho? The answer is no, even Christians can doubt that all the Bible was
divinely dictated by god, without denying the existence of your god.  You seem
to have this rigid mindset that everything in the Bible must be true for your
religion to be valid, and anyone who disagrees is driven by a hate for your
god.  Bluntly Mr Pitts I am not so silly as to claim that just because the
Bible is not accurate on all its claims, that it thereby could not be inspired
by a god, or that this fact thereby proves that the Christian is god
nonexistent.  Thus your characterization of me is a straw man.  I do not hate
Christianity; I am just highly insulted by those of any religious or political
ilk, who proselytize with lies.  By the way, I didn't proclaim that Mr Kennedy
is a liar and therefore everything he says is lies; I showed evidence that Mr
Kennedy blatantly lied and is therefore a liar.  I then concluded that since
we know that Mr Kennedy produces such lies, that his word is worthless as
actual evidence on the subject (I repeat, I did not say that because he is a
liar, anything he says is a lie). 

As to infallible evidence:

>| Mr Pitts, are you claiming that Mr Kennedy did not claim that Tyre is now
>| barren as a rock? I still have your quotes.  My case against Kennedy is that
>| he lied in claiming the prophesy about Tyre remaining forever barren as a
>| rock, is in force at present; his claim is a lie.  By the way Mr Pitts, it is
> 
> Where is your infallible evidence?

I`m not sure what infallible evidence is, but will maps and photographs do?
You are so lucky my inter-library loans arrived today; usually it takes weeks. 
Now I also want to point out that there are some errors you have been
presenting Mr Pitts, and these need to be corrected.  You presented Mr Kennedy
claims that Tyre was originally a mainland city. 

> Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon fought against the city for 
> thirteen years and took it.  Many former inhabitants fled 
> for an island and made a new city of Tyre.  

That is incorrect.  We have manuscripts from over 100 years before
Nebuchadrezzar that show that it was always an island city.  At times it was
sufficiently prosperous to have suburbs on the mainland, and these suburbs
were even sufficiently large at times to even have a wall, but Tyre, and all
its real glory has always been on the island.  When Nebuchadrezzar "trashed
Tyre" he had actually only trashed some of the suburbs on the mainland.  After
13 years of siege, the war was dragging on, and the Tyrians gave
Nebuchadrezzar some hostages, allowed him to choose the next king (from the
Tyrian royal line), and Nebuchadrezzar called it a win and left.  But he and
his cavalry never actually set foot in Tyre, or crushed it underfoot.  So it
doesn't even sound as if Nebuchadrezzar even really fulfilled Ezek 26:7-11,
except for the part about "ravaging the settlements on the mainland."
Something else significant is the size of the island of Tyre; it isn't that
big, and from records and archeological evidence we can see that the city took
up the entire island.  There was no place to grow crops, or raise food.  Thus
the city, especially when packed with 40,000+ people, would need to constantly
be resuplied by sea during any seige.  This would mean Mr Pitts, that if
Alexander's building of his causeway took any time at all (and its a big, deep
causeway), that there would have been ships going in an out of the port of
Tyre, bringing in supplies, and thereby providing available space to take out
anyone who wished to leave (I mean it wasn't a secret or anything that
Alexander was building a causeway).  Now you will find an excellent map of
Tyre in the book: "The Phonicians" by Harden.  This map shows the causeway of
Alexander, the southern Harbor, the archeological excavation of 1947, and the
ancient city area.  You will also an aerial photograph of present Tyre,
showing it to take up from 2/3 to 3/4 of the entire island space, and most
definitely located on the site of the ancient city area.  You will also find a
photograph in Aug 74, National Geographic, showing the present archeological
digs in old harbor area of Tyre, with the present City of Tyre in the
background.  Or if you prefer, you can find another aerial photo of the island
of Tyre in the book "The Biblical Lands" by P.R.  Moorly.  By the way, another
book I used for this research was "The world of the Phoenicians" by Sabatino
Moscati.  I can also point out the map produced by the National Geographic
Society: "Special maps of the World: Holy Land" produced in December 1989, and
distributed with the National Geographic Magazine.  This map explicitly points
out the present city of Tyre/Sur, and states that this is the same city which
Alexander conquered in 322 BCE by building a causeway.  The map also
explicitly point out that this present city of Tyre/Sur is the same City as
was was rebuilt and inhabited right up till present.  And so I repeat my
accusation that Mr Kennedy lied to us about Tyre.  By the way Mr Pitts, is
P.R.  Moorly also anti-Christian for publishing a book on the Biblical lands
which, shows a photo of Tyre rebuilt? How about the National Geographic?

Now Mr Pitts, since you trust Mr Kennedy's claim that old Tyre is now "made
like a rock, and built no more", and you also insist your Mr Kennedy (or a
friend of his) has actually seen old Tyre, it would be appropriate for you to
show evidence as to the location "old Tyre," as you deny it is under the
present Tyre.  If you claim that it isn`t where the archeologists say it is,
then where is it? After all it would be rather hypocritical for you to keep
demanding evidence from me for my claims, if you refuse to do any research
yourself. 

By the way, I also find one of your latest claims very interesting.  You say
that Mr Kennedy never claimed to be a historian:

> You assume too much, for that is your goal - to discredit anyone who
> supports the Bible.  He did not claim to be a historian, as far as I
> know.

But Mr Pitts, Mr Kennedy is the only "researcher" you've named which
insists that Tyre was never rebuilt, and you've been repeating the claim:

> Researchers have said that
> the current city of Tyre is not in the same place as the old mainland
> Tyre.  Why are the historians you cite more correct than these?

Now you admit that Mr Kennedy is no historian, and thus you admit your
"researcher" was not an actual or valid historian.  Now you ask why the claims
of your "researcher" who does not claim to be a historian are less valid than,
than sincere historians who specialize in the period and has actually studied
the evidence? If you think about it you will see that you have answered your
own question. 

You also state of Tyre:

> I agree that the passage does not say Alexander, but there is two third
> parties identified (Nebuchadrezzar and the many nations.)  Neb was said
> in the following chapters to have not taken the city, but there is a
> distinction in the passage in Ezek 26 between HE and THEY.

The Bible is known for repetition of and reiteration of thought (or perhaps
you have missed the discussion t.r.m of repetitious form used in the Bible
which is called Chiasmus (sp)).  First in Ezek 26:1-6 it describes "many
nations" destroying Tyre and pulling down its towers.  Then in Ezek 26:7-11 it
gets more explicit and describes Nebuchadrezzar, as the "king of king" who
will do it, and describes his cavalry as destroying Tyre and tearing down its
towers.  There is nothing there that implies that the "many nations" refer to
any armies other than Nebuchadrezzar's, especially as it is phrased in a
parallel form to 26:1-6.  Further, you then insist that it is obvious that the
"they" in Ezek 26:12 does follow the context of Ezek 26:7-11, and must mean
someone else other than Nebuchadrezzar's cavalry.  Of course the only real
reason to insist this, is that Nebuchadrezzar failed to conquer Tyre, and that
is circular reasoning. 

As to the refugee issue:

>| As to your rather impotent argument that I must prove that there were
>| refugees from the Tyrian wars: 
> 
> I asked you to give your evidence to the contrary, if you had any.
> I had none to support your view.

Richard, let me try again.  I am not claiming that there were definitely
refugees from Tyre, at the time of Alexander, I am claiming that that refugees
are pretty much a ubiquitous result of war, and thus to claim as you have
done, that history proves that Tyre was not rebuilt by any Tyrians, is not
supportable as you do not have any evidence that there were no refugees.  I am
quite willing to leave the subject undecided, in that there is no actual
recorded evidence kept on the subject.  You though claim that history supports
you, and the subject is proved.  Therefore it is your responsibility to prove
your claims.  Since You have demanded documentation from me, it would be
hypocritical to not also expect it from yourself.  Thus I would say that you
should either prove there were no refugees, or quit claiming that history
supports you. 

By the way, what makes your demands of me especially ironic, is that while you
argue that there were no refugees left to rebuild Tyre, you clearly accede to
the possibility that there were other absent Tyrians who could thereby return
after the war and rebuild: 

>> It was wealthy, and traded heavily.  Much like Britain was during
>> the last century.  Obviously some of the inhabitants were not present during 
>> the attack.
> 
> I'm not sure this is evidence that people escaped, but that people were
> not there.  In a sense they escaped, but they were probably not part of
> the seige anyway.

In doing so, you have undermined your own argument that there were no Tyrians
left to rebuild Tyre, and thus the present Tyre could not be considered in any
way to be the "old Tyre." (Of course this argument while fun, is quite moot,
as Mr Kennedy did not merely say that the city was not rebuilt by Tyran; he
said that it had never been rebuilt at all, and is presently only a place to
spread fishing nets, which is definitely false). 

Now I wish to address a truly specious comment of yours:

>| conquest of Gaul, or the Britains? Are you so incredibly ignorant that you
>| will demand evidence for these events of history? If so, I can easily point
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I guess so.  Since you deny the written history of Jesus and need to
> 	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> interpret physcial evidence - you might want to think about your ability
> to interpret.			

This is quite dishonest Mr Pitts.  Your article claimed that there is more
evidence for "Christ" than for any other event in ancient history.  Now
though, when you are confronted with events with much more evidence, both
written and physical, you reply with the straw man and red herring argument,
which impute the way I interpret the evidence available.  This is a very
dishonest, red herring argument; keep to the subject.  The question is whether
the author quoted in your article lied, when he stated:

    "The evidences of Christ existence are more than for any other event in 
     ancient history." 

The question is WHETHER THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE, the question is not about how
I personally interpret the evidence that does exist.

As to your accusation of "False Dichotomy" you say:

> You offer two chioces, and seem to claim infallibility for yourself.
> Is there not a third choice of you being wrong - or are you above that.

Please reread my statement Mr Pitts, and pay attention this time. I said:

>> Thus Mr Pitts, it would seem, from the facts at present, that you have 
>>							         ^^^^^^^^
>> at least 2 choices in respect to Mr Kennedy.  The two choices I see are:...
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 				 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I specifically stated that the choices I presented were NOT all inclusive. 
And the two choices I did see were based on the fact that the trustworthy
references I've read, all show Mr Kennedy to be a liar (and still do).  I do
not claim omnipotence on the matter, although I do claim clear thought based
on the facts I've seen. 

And as to your last two accusations:

> Glad you enjoy attacking people - maybe you could direct more of your 
> energy toward the issues and away from the people.
> 
> Again, your vigor to denounce the Biblical record seems to say a lot
> about you concern about its validity.

I do not specifically enjoy attacking people, though I do take some
satisfaction from correcting deceitful claims.  As to your statement about
what my denouncing such deceit proves about me, that in itself is both a
dishonest straw man and a personal attack, which means that you are engaging
in the specific sins of which you accuse me, i.e., "attacking people." This 
would make you a hypocrite.


				Later,

				Dave Butler


    How is it that you can condemn the mote in thy brothers eye, and 
    yet ignore the log in your own.
				Mathew 7:4 
				Paraphrased from memory

    PS I promised Mr Pitts some references for Mt Vesuvius erupted and
    burying Pompeii, destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem, the 
    Pharaohs ruling Egypt and building huge monuments and burial tombs for
    themselves, and the Roman conquest of Gaul and the Britains, in the
    event he was so silly as to claim that they weren't as well or better 
    evidenced than "Christ." Well he was silly enough, so here are some
    quality references which list evidence on the subject:

    References for Vesuvius and Pompeii are found in:

	"The History of Art" by JW Janson
	"Larousse's Encyclopedia of Ancient Art"
	"Eros through antiquity" Antonio Mulas
	"Gardner's Art through the Ages" De Le Croix Tansey
	"Civilization Past and Present Book 1" Walbrank-Taylor-Bailkey

	I would also point out the actual ruins of Pompeii as evidence.

    Destruction of the second Temple: 
	"Civilization Past and Present Book 1" Walbrank-Taylor-Bailkey
	"Works of Josephus"	Claudius Josephus

	I would also point out the ruins or the second Temple (eg: the
	wailing wall).

    Pharaohs ruling Egypt and etc:
	"The Tomb of Tutankhamen" by Howard Carter
	"The Egyptian Kingdoms" by A Rosalie David
	"Tutankhamen: his Tomb and Treasures" Exhibit catalogue of the 
		Tutankhamen exhibit.
	"The History of Art" by JW Janson
	"Larousse's Encyclopedia of Ancient Art"
	"Gardner's Art through the Ages" De Le Croix Tansey
	
	I would also point out the physical evidence of the pyramids, 
	the sphynx, the huge statues along the Nile enumerated in the 
	books above, the necropolis and all its writings and tombs 
	at Thebes, and all the detailed records contained therein.

    The Roman conquest of Britain:
	"Civilization Past and Present Book 1" Walbrank-Taylor-Bailkey

	I would also point out the physical evidence of Hadrian's wall and 
	all the other archeological evidence found there (eg: Roman coins and 
	roads).
 
    The Roman conquest of Britain:
	
	"The Battle For Gaul" a modern translation by Anne and Peter Wiseman. 
	"The Gaulic Wars" by Julius Caesar

	I would also point out the physical evidence of the battlements of 
	Alesia which are only described by Julius Caesar in his	"The Gaulic
	Wars." This battlement was not discovered or excavated until almost 
	1900 years later.  I would also point out the other archeological 
	evidence of Romans in Gaul at that time (roads coins etc).

    By the way Mr Pitts, most of the above books have been considered standard 
    reference texts by many major universities, and have detailed
    bibliographies, and thus it would be rather silly of you to merely 
    dismiss them. So now the question exists as to whether you still insist 
    that there is "more evidences" for "Christ" than any other event in 
    ancient history?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc