From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tyre still exists today (was: I'm God.)
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:09:50 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <13707@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
|I find Richard Pitts rationale and defense of Mr Kennedy's abuse of
|historical fact to be very contrived and in no way compelling.  Richard
|suggests that the new Tyre (now Sur) was not built by the original inhabitants
|and therefore is not really Tyre.

Oh.  Do you suggest otherwise?  The old Tyre which had the mainland
and the island was attacked and forced onto the island by Nebuchadnezzar.
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.
These two events fulfill the part of Ezekiel's prophesy that the
nations would attack and dump Tyre into the ocean and that Nebuchadnezzar
would attack the main land.  That's still a pretty good prophecy, huh?
The question has to do with the rebuilding and not the rest that 
was fulfilled per the passage and history.  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?

Let's look at the scripture and notice the use of the pronouns
'he' for Nebuchadnezzar and 'they' for the nations (Alexander).

   Ezek 26:1   In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word
      of the LORD came to me:
   Ezek 26:2   "Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, 'Aha! The gate
      to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that
      she lies in ruins I will prosper,'
   Ezek 26:3   therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against
      you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea
      casting up its waves.
   Ezek 26:4   They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I
      will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.
   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.
   Ezek 26:7   "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am
      going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of
      kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.
   Ezek 26:8   He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword;
      he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls
      and raise his shields against you.
   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.
   Ezek 26:13   I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your
      harps will be heard no more.
   Ezek 26:14   I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to
      spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken,
      declares the Sovereign LORD.

|> Let me suggest the following.  Suppose I had a house and so was attacked.
|> I and my whole family fled down the road and over the hill and across the
|> river and built a new house.  My old house is left.  Someone comes in
|> later and clears this house down to the ground.  Even if someone else
|> later came and built on my old lot, it can be safely said that the house of 
|> Pitts was not rebuilt.  

Could you explain why this is not correct rather than stating that is is
contrived and the such?

|He then defends Mr Kennedy's claims because there are indeed areas of old
|Tyre where fishermen dry their nets:
|
|> If some history presents one approach and other presents another, whose
|> is really to say that Dr. Kennedy is wrong.  Is the other one infallible.  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.
| 
|Richard, it is not surprising that there are areas of Tyre on which they
|spread fishing nets; its on the coast and is a fishing town.  The fishermen
|who live there are going to spread their nets to dry somewhere close to where
|they live.  Thus if Mr Kennedy uses this as proof that Tyre exists no more, he
|is either uselessly ignorant, or worthlessly deceitful. 

Why?  If the city is not built on the same spot - it is safe to say that 
it was not rebuilt.  Would the building of another building down the
road from one destroyed by a tornado be safely said to be a different
building and so the original was not rebuilt?

|As to your house analogy, it is not applicable to Mr Kennedy's claims. Don't
|you remember how he stated it:
|
|> 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. ...
|> 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.  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.  Two hundred and 
|> fifty years later the city walls still stood, but Alexander 
|> the Great came and took the old buildings and dumped them 
|> into the sea to build a bridge to the new Tyre, in order to 
|> take it.  He did - the old city was stripped.  Today the old 
|>						 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> Tyre is like a rock and a place to spread fishing nets to 
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> dry.
|> ^^^^
|
|But today Tyre is not "like a rock;" it has been rebuilt.  According to
|Encyclopedia Britannica, most of the remains of the Phonician period lie
|beneath the present town of Sur.  In other words Richard, Mr Kennedy lied. 
|Further that was not his only mistake.  Kennedy claimed:

I will have to check this out.  The encyclopedia at the library
did not cover this. 

|> 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 too is wrong.  EB states:
|
|	For much of the 8th and 7th centuries the city was subject to 
|	Assyria, and in 585-573 it successfully withstood a prolonged 
|	siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzer II. 

Nebuchanezzar routed the people on the mainland - I may not have 
read and stated this correctly.  The Bible passage gives rise to Neb.
to have attacked the mainland, but he did not get the plunder it was
the 'they' (the nations, Alexander) which got the plunder as per the
prophesy.

|So Mr Kennedy can not even be trusted to get historical facts correct.
|
|By the way Richard, the Island Tyre and the mainland Tyre are now connected
|and have been since Alexander built a causeway out to the island to conquer
|it; the Island is now technically an peninsula.  The modern city of Sur,
|which can in no way to be considered a barren rock, includes both old parts
|of Tyre.

Again, my encyclopedia didn't cover this.  Other information I have
says that only recently did the 'causeway' begin to show, I think.

|As to Mr Kennedy, I find it disgusting when an evangelist who claims to
|represent a god of truth, falsely presents himself as a historical authority
|and then presents lies to gain followers for that god.  I find it repulsive
|when I see some charlatan and fraud ostensibly lying for a "God of Truth." 
|If there is really a Jesus who is "The God of Truth", and a Devil who is 
|"The Father of all lies", then it becomes obvious who Mr Kennedy serves with
|his disinformation.

Do you really find it repulsive?  I think this is still open for debate.
 
|				Dave Butler
|
|    He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed
|    by loving his own sect of the Church better than Christianity, and end by
|    loving himself better than all.
|				Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Assumption that the truth is different from Christianity leads to 
the above, else you can't make this statement.  However, the concern is
of merit.
 
Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.secular-humanism