Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say... though.... has ANYONE noticed that there's been absolutely none of these so-called accurate prophesies since the advent of recordable documentation? You all fight about some event that has very ambiguous, and probably erroneous, documentation, way back in 6 BC or whatever.
I'd still like to see something, anything, happen any time since, oh let's say.... 1850. You know, when they had a good still camera, some good newspaper reporters, or, since about 1955, a good old Honeywell or Sony TV camera.
A couple of time- and date-stamped previously predicted events that actually come true. Too much to ask?
I could also suggest that it not necessarily be a prophecy of doom and gloom. What, God or Jesus are incapable of predicting and generating the exact arrival of some nice ripe fruit to the starving mothers and innocent children of Darfur? Or the deliverance of a modern city in the direct path of a vicious hurricane, suddenly averted at he last minute, and the direction of the hurricane reversed? And thus millions of lives saved by a loving God?
He does love us all, right?
Well, since the bible and it's illiterate authors had no real knowledge of how things worked, or of the possibilities in the real future, they didn't make any such accurate predictions. Of course.
They all rant about pestilence, Godly retribution, the second coming (but only if you believe...) etc. More good old reliable fear-mongering. And, coincidentally and conveniently, absent any absolute times or dates. Just the very essence of vaguarity and deceit.
Anyone else here see a disturbing trend?
rifleman, I'm surprised at you. Suggesting no prophecies since 6 B.C. Do you just ignore all that I have stated, all the time? And then pretend such information never existed. One of the last major Biblical prophecies that was fulfilled, occured in the year 1948. And that is when Israel became a nation. The very next Biblical prophecy that occured, was in the year 1967. And that was when the Jewish people retook Jerusalem. And both of those prophecies occured in the order the Bible said they would.
Clearly, the Bible tells us such events will occur in the Last Days. And the Bible also tells us, that in this time, entire cities will be destroyed in one hours time. And nations will have the ability to raise up an army of 200 million men. And the land of Israel will be reoccupied. Because the Jewish people will be returning to their ancient land, and they will even retake the city of Jerusalem. And their appearance at this time, will anger many nations. In the 1600s and 1800s, Christians wrote books about how Christ would only return, after the Jewish people first returned to the land of Israel, and Jerusalem.
So you see rifleman, the writers of the Bible did have knowledge of the future. And that is because the true author of the Bible. Is the God you do not believe in.
Last edited by Campbell34; 12-28-2009 at 10:31 AM..
So I've been wondering, do we have any early accounts from the Jews themselves, living during the times of the Greeks (Seleucids/Ptolemies) telling us how accurate Daniel's [alleged] predictions were? The same with the [alleged] prophecies of Jesus. Do we have records of early Christians pointing to Mark 13 or Matthew 24 as positive proof that Jesus was right on point about the Temple's destruction? I ask because it seems like lots of history had to first run under the bridge before such claims were made.
I would think that there would be loads of written material from Jewish writers from the time of the Greeks and Gentile Christians within, say, 200 years after the time of Jesus gushing about how such predictions came true.
So I've been wondering, do we have any early accounts from the Jews themselves, living during the times of the Greeks (Seleucids/Ptolemies) telling us how accurate Daniel's [alleged] predictions were? The same with the [alleged] prophecies of Jesus. Do we have records of early Christians pointing to Mark 13 or Matthew 24 as positive proof that Jesus was right on point about the Temple's destruction? I ask because it seems like lots of history had to first run under the bridge before such claims were made.
I would think that there would be loads of written material from Jewish writers from the time of the Greeks and Gentile Christians within, say, 200 years after the time of Jesus gushing about how such predictions came true.
The Jewish leaders did not care if the predictions of Jesus were true or false. And that is why the God of the Old Testament had nothing good to say about His choosen people. And in fact, the God of the Old Testament stated, that because of Jewish disobedience. He gave them all into the hands of their enemies, and scattered them to the ends of the earth.
OK, I will concede that you do make a valid point here regarding a siege. But history tells us that the mainland area of Tyre was nothing more than a line of residential suburbs. Do you really believe that a massive army (that had already caused massive destruction in it's campaign in the area) under the command of a leader such as Nebuchadnezzar, would really take 13 years to demolish and rout a handful of houses or that, in 13 years, Nebbby could not have secured the area to prevent escape? No Sir! What took 13 years was the siege of the island fortress. Nebby couldn't crack it and came to a negotiated settlement by which the inhabitants of Tyre swore alliegence to Babylon. They are the facts of recorded history fella....and they 'aint gonna go away.
"The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur... The character of the city has changed, however. In ancient times it was situated on an island, but from the time of Alexander the Great... the city has been linked to the mainland by a dyke...Tyre originally consisted of two distinct urban centers, Tyre itself, which was on an island just off shore, and an associated settlement on the adjacent mainland. Alexander the Great connected the island to the mainland coast by constructing a causeway during his siege of the city.
In ancient times, the island city of Tyre was heavily fortified (with defensive walls 150 feet high, and the mainland settlement, originally called Ushu (later, Palaetyrus, by the Greeks) was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city." Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rafius, why do you keep suggesting that the main land Tyer was just a few houses? Or just a line of residential suburbs? Even your own Wikipedia will tell you it was a (ROCKY FORTRESS).
Wikipedia
"Tyer consisted of two distinct parts, (A ROCKY FORTRESS ON THE SHORE) called "Old Tyer", and the city, built on a small, rocky island about half-a-mile distant from the shore."
Fortress-a fortified place STRONGHOLD a large and permanent fortification sometimes including a town. That's according to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
Any number of encyclopedia's will tell you, that ancient Tyre's mainland was a (FORTRESS,) and not just a line of residential suburbs with a few houses.
Incorrect, Tyre was and is still an island city. It really doesn't matter though because Tyre was never destroyed...Prophesy fail.....Watch the video and learn a bit of history. I don't know what Wiki you used, because the words you quoted are not there....Lying for Jesus again?... but Wikipedia says this about ancient Tyre....
Quote:
In ancient times, the island city of Tyre was heavily fortified (with defensive walls 150 feet high, and the mainland settlement, originally called Ushu (later, Palaetyrus, by the Greeks) was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city.
Rafius, why do you keep suggesting that the main land Tyer was just a few houses? Or just a line of residential suburbs? Even your own Wikipedia will tell you it was a (ROCKY FORTRESS).
What Wikipedia says is this:
"In ancient times, the island city of Tyre was heavily fortified (with defensive walls 150 feet high, and the mainland settlement, originally called Ushu (later, Palaetyrus, by the Greeks) was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city." Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Wikipedia
"Tyer consisted of two distinct parts, (A ROCKY FORTRESS ON THE SHORE) called "Old Tyer", and the city, built on a small, rocky island about half-a-mile distant from the shore."
Well Campbell, I have read and re-read the Wikipedia article on Tyre and I can't find your quotation anywhere in it. In fact, when I put your quoted passage.... "Tyer consisted of two distinct parts, (A ROCKY FORTRESS ON THE SHORE) called "Old Tyer", and the city, built on a small, rocky island about half-a-mile distant from the shore"....., I got - "did not match any documents." Do you have a link for your quote please?
Quote:
Any number of encyclopedia's will tell you, that ancient Tyre's mainland was a (FORTRESS,) and not just a line of residential suburbs with a few houses.
So why don't you believe encyclopaedias when they tell you that:
"It was built on an island just off the mainland, but the accumulation of sand around a mole built by Alexander the Great to facilitate his siege of the city (333-332 BC) has formed a causeway more than .5 mi (.8 km) wide."....and:
"The city was sacked by Alexander the Great but recovered quickly"
....and:
"The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town. "
As I said to Finn. Any further discussion regarding the location of Tyre will be pointless. We are both going around in circles presenting evidence that we have already posted earlier. My position remains that:
1. The city of Tyre was on the island with a small residential area and facilities to supply the island city with supplies.
2. Neither Nebby, Alexander....or anyone else for that matter, destroyed it to the extent that it would never be found again as predicted and.....
3. The claim that it would never be re-built is false because it WAS rebuilt and the remains of Tyre lie beneath the present city , as stated in the Encyclopaedia Britannica below.
Perhaps we should now move away from discussing it's location and perhaps discuss the fact that, far from being destroyed to the extent that it would never be found again...it stands today where it has always stood.
Incorrect, Tyre was and is still an island city. It really doesn't matter though because Tyre was never destroyed...Prophesy fail.....Watch the video and learn a bit of history. I don't know what Wiki you used, but Wikipedia says this about ancient Tyre....
The orginal site of Tyre is now underwater. There is a town near by, however the orginal site remains submerged. The orginal Tyre, was called "Old Tyer," and in the past, it was located on the mainland. Most of the new buildings you see today, are built on a road that was constructed by Alexander the Great's men. And that road is not on the location of "Old Tyer". Much of that road was built from the destroyed buildings from "Old Tyer", and the remains of those buildings, had to be transported to that spot.
The orginal site of Tyre is now underwater. There is a town near by, however the orginal site remains submerged. The orginal Tyre, was called "Old Tyer," and in the past, it was located on the mainland. Most of the new buildings you see today, are built on a road that was constructed by Alexander the Great's men. And that road is not on the location of "Old Tyer". Much of that road was built from the destroyed buildings from "Old Tyer", and the remains of those buildings, had to be transported to that spot.
Link please....I take absolutely nothing you say at face value. The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur....Failed prophesy
Watch the full set of videos Campbell....They clearly show that Tyre was a fortified island city. Thank you Sanspeur.
I know Tyre was a fortitied island city. Yet I also know Tyre was a fortified city on the main land as well. Why do you keep ignoring that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
