From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tyre still exists today (was: I'm God.)
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:51:00 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Richard again tries to create excuses for Mr Kennedy's dishonesty.  As people
are now aware, Mr Kennedy's book contends that the city of Tyre was, as
apparently prophesied by Ezekiel, completely destroyed, and never rebuilt; the
city would ever remain a barren rock:

> It was to be destroyed, made like a rock, have 
> its building stones thrown into the sea, and be built no 
> more. ...
> Today the old Tyre is like a rock and a place to spread 
> fishing nets to dry.

Richard comes up with the inadequate excuse that perhaps the city wasn't
rebuilt by any of the original inhabitants, and thus it isn't really isn't
the original Tyre.  This defense is ineffective for two reasons:

	1. Neither Richard or Mr Kennedy have proved that all the original
	   inhabitants were all either killed or enslaved, and therefore
	   could not be involved in rebuilding the city.  Such claims,
	   made without accompanying evidence, is worthless.  Not to mention
	   that I find the undocumented claim that no Tyrians fled the city 
	   before or during the war and then returned afterwards, to be a bit 
	   incredible (By the way Mr Kennedy's has already shown that his 
	   word is worthless and deceitful and therefore is not, of itself, 
	   evidence of anything).

	2. Much more importantly, Mr Kennedy did not say merely state that 
	   the city not be rebuilt; he claimed that it has remained barren 
	   like a rock, and is only a place to spread fishing nets.

As there IS NOW a city which is actually built ON THE RUINS of the Phonician
Tyre (alternately called both Tyre or Sur), we can see that Mr Kennedy's claim
of barren rock was baseless garbage; His claims are trivially shown false, and 
were therefore only of use in convincing the credulous, the truly ignorant, 
and the willfully self-deluded. 

Now Richard also asks why "my" historians are superior to his (eg: Kennedy):

> 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?

Because references like the Encyclopedia Britannica base their reputation on
backing up all their assertions with scholarship.  For instance, I can quote
you their bibliography for Nebuchadrezzar (ie: Nebuchadnezzar
II):

    'There is no standard biography.  Most of Nebuchadrezzar's building 
     inscriptions, containing some historical material, are edited in Stephen
     Langdon, "Die Neubabylonishen Konigsinschriften", pp 70-209 (1912). 
     Relevant chronicles are edited in D.J. Wiseman, "Chronicles of Chaldaean 
     Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum" (1956).  The principle
     classic references to Nebuchadrezzar are contained in I.P. Cory, 
     "Ancient Fragments", 2nd ed. (1832).'

Now you may not like all their references, but they do tell you exactly where
they get their information, so you can research further and accept it or
reject it for yourself.  Further they also update their articles every few
years.  Their articles on any subject are written by recognized authorities,
who are invited by EB to present a summary article.  For instance, presently a
very noted Art Historian from the University of Washington, Jerome Silbergeld,
who specializes in the art and history of Ancient China, has been invited to
update the history section for China.  Neither is this article merely printed
as is, but is reviewed and adjudicated by other authorities to make sure that
the claims made are based on the references listed and that those references
are quality references (as close to original references as possible). 
Further, if their facts are found to be in error, EB will correct the error. 
It also helps that every time I have used the EB as a springboard for
research, I have never found them to be in error, though sometimes they were
not as complete as I would have liked.  On the other hand, "Historians", such
as Kennedy (and I use the term "historian very loosely in his case), write
whatever they wish, need present no references or evidence, and are subject to
no review process.  They also obviously omit blatant facts which disagree with
their proclaimed thesis, and thus lie to their public.  That is why the
historians I cite are more "correct" (ie: legitimate and trustworthy) than
self-proclaimed historians like Kennedy. 

On the other hand this is to be expected.  The EB is used in academic circles
which demand trustworthy evidence and references, and it will lose its
reputation if it starts presenting falsehood; its agenda is to present the
facts, present a springboard for further research, and let the researcher make
the conclusions from those fact.  Kennedy, on the other hand, is writing with
a specific indoctrinational agenda in mind, and is writing for people who are
desperately looking for some kind of concrete claims to which they can anchor
their faith; such people aren't going to see any need for further research on
Mr Kennedy's claims, as they want those claims to be true (eg: you yourself
Richard never bothered to actually check or investigate Kennedy's claims, and
just swallowed them at face value). 

Also Richard, as to your specific defense trying to show that Ezekiel's
prophesy came true, is even more silly.  You claim that the "They" mentioned
in the prophesy is not the cavalry of of Nebuchadrezzar mentioned in the last
sentence, but instead, is the army of Alexander:

   Ezek 26:9   He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your
      walls and demolish your towers with his weapons.
   Ezek 26:10   His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust.
      Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and
      chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have
      been broken through.
   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.
   Ezek 26:12   They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they
		^^^^
      will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your
      stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

This is a blatant and contrived twisting of scripture, to get the conclusion
you wish to get.  Alexander is never discussed, nor is the "they" given any
context separate from Nebuchadrezzar.  Thus there is no good contextual
reasons to believe that the "they" used here is Alexander rather
Nebuchadrezzar's cavalry.  To say that the "they" in the prophesy could not
possibly mean Nebuchadrezzar because Nebuchadrezzar failed to conquer Tyre, is
Circular Reasoning (ie: assuming your conclusion).  Another example of faulty
reasoning is where you assume that there was about 40,000 people in Tyre when
Alexander conquered it:

> It had approximately 40,000 inhabitants at its demise at the hands of 
> Alexander the Great - 10,000 were killed and 30,000 were sold as slaves.

I find agreement with the assertion that about 10,000 were killed and about
30,000 were sold as slaves, but you are assuming that there were only ~40,000
people because you want to assert that the city population was completely
wiped out, and thus no remnant population was left after Alexander's conquest
to rebuild Tyre; that is faulty reasoning.  All that the ~10,000 deaths +
~30,000 slaves tells us, is that there were AT LEAST ~40,000 people, not that
were ONLY ~40,000 people. 

Further you have not presented any trustworthy reference to show that that
Nebuchadrezzar even conquered Tyre, while I have seen statements from the EB
that Nebuchadrezzar did not conquer Tyre, and if Nebuchadrezzar did not do so,
then this would renders the prophesy false. 

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. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

		Men willingly believe what they wish.
				Julius Caesar
				De Bello Gallico

    Clergymen who publish pious frauds in the interest of the Church are 
    the orthodox liars of God.
				Samuel Taylor Coleridge

    PS.  Another of Mr Kennedy's lies is that "the evidence for Christ's 
    existence of Christ existence are more than for any other event in 
    ancient history."  This is another incredible lie which puts Mr Kennedy 
    beneath contempt.  

    P.P.S.  I will be home the next few days to do renovations, and will 
    probably not bother to log in for the next several days.  So Richard, if 
    you reply, and you wish me to see you reply, then it would be best to send 
    me a copy.  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc