Prophecy Part 6: Tyre

This is the sixth part in a series of blog posts I’ve been doing about prophecies in the Bible (part 1 is here). The one I’d like to talk about today was one of the first ones that really hit me like a hammer when I first started examining the Bible’s claims critically. In my opinion, it’s extremely strong evidence that the Bible was not really inspired by God.

Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre is very interesting to look at. In fact, it’s one that is often used as evidence by both sides of the inerrancy debate. Ezekiel 26-28 details a prophecy against the island city of Tyre. It was a great trade center and features fairly prominently throughout the Bible.

Once Judah was led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Ezekiel prophesied destruction for Tyre, since they were glad at the destruction that had been wrought on Jerusalem. And the benefit of this prophecy is that it is very specific. Chapter 26 says that many nations would come against Tyre, and in verse 4, Ezekiel says that their walls and towers would be torn down, and it would be made a bare rock.

Then, in verses 7-14, Ezekiel is even more specific by saying that Nebuchadnezzar would come against the city. He will kill Tyre’s “daughters on the mainland” (vs 8 ) and direct a siege wall against them to destroy their walls. He would enter the city with his army and kill, plunder, and cast the debris into the sea. They would be a bare rock and never be rebuilt.

In fact, Nebuchadnezzar did bring his army against Tyre. And he did destroy the mainland suburbs of Tyre, just as was predicted in verse 8. He also besieged the city, as was predicted. But the similarities end there. He besieged Tyre for 13 years without success. Tyre finally signed a treaty with Nebuchadnezzar, but their city remained unharmed. Ezekiel even admits as much in 29:17-18 when he says that Nebuchadnezzar got nothing in his efforts against Tyre.

About 250 years later, Tyre did finally fall to Alexander the Great. And many Christians view this as the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy. But then why didn’t Ezekiel prophesy that Alexander would do it? God could have easily revealed that to him. Also, verses 7-14 show no apparent break in speaking about Nebuchadnezzar’s attack. Where is the indication that the actual destruction wouldn’t come for another 250 years?

And furthermore, Tyre was rebuilt shortly after Alexander defeated it. It was still a prominent trade center during the times of Jesus and Paul. In fact, Tyre is the 4th largest city in Lebanon today. That is a problem since Ezekiel says it would be utterly destroyed (26:14) to the point that no one would be able to find it again (26:21), and it would be “no more forever” (27:36).

Prophesying that Tyre would be gone forever is an immensely bold claim, and it’s also extremely important. It is one of the few biblical prophecies that we would actually be able to verify today, if it were true. So how do people answer it?

Taking the prophecy at face value isn’t going to work. That’s a shame, because if Tyre was still a “bare rock” as Ezekiel says, then it would be great proof of prophecy fulfillment. So instead, we have to think of other ways to explain it. One is to say that Ezekiel was only talking about the mainland portion of Tyre. This one is used quite often – some apologists even claim that Tyre was only on the mainland at this time and moved out to the island once Nebuchadnezzar besieged them. But this seems unlikely because Ezekiel often refers to Tyre as being “in the midst of the sea,” or “on the sea,” or “borders are in the heart of the seas,” etc (26:5, 17, 18; 27:4, 25, 26, 32; 28:2, 8). In fact, chapter 27 compares Tyre to a ship that will sink because of the destruction that God is bringing upon it. So trying to say this is the mainland is somewhat ridiculous. It also goes against the historical and archaeological evidence [src].

Sometimes, people try to explain the prophecy by noting that the city that exists today in that spot is actually called Sur. Therefore, it’s not the same city, and Ezekiel was right. However, “Sur” is the way Tyre is spelled in Arabic, and in Hebrew it’s “Tzur.” In fact, the Old Testament essentially spells it as “Tzur” – just check an interlinear Bible for the Hebrew translation of this passage. So the city still has the same name that it had back then.

Another explanation is that this is a prophecy against the people of the city, so when it says Tyre would never be rebuilt it’s just saying that it will never be those same people. But when you really start to think about it, this is also silly. Ezekiel himself says that Nebuchadnezzar was unable to take the city (Ezek 29:18-20), so God would give him Egypt instead (this is also something that doesn’t appear to have happened, by the way). But anyway, Nebuchadnezzar was unable to take Tyre. So those inhabitants were not defeated, and we have to wait for Alexander the Great to take the city. But this happened two or three hundred years later. So how could Ezekiel have been talking about the people of the city in his prophecy? All those people were dead and gone by the time the city fell to Alexander. Besides that, why bother even making the prophecy that the city would never be rebuilt if you’re only talking about the inhabitants? Who would possibly think those people would re-inhabit a city once they were dead?

Instead, about the only possibility we’re left with is that Ezekiel was merely being figurative. He didn’t really mean that the city would never be rebuilt. He simply meant that they would be punished in some way (this is where Alexander the Great fits in) and never come back to their former glory. I guess we can see why Ezekiel didn’t phrase it this way because it does seem to lose some of its grandeur. Of course, even then it’s hard to put your finger on exactly when this was fulfilled, because Tyre still enjoyed some prominence for a long time after Alexander took it.

But the benefit of saying that the prophecy is just figurative is that you can’t disprove it. Ezekiel could have said almost anything and it wouldn’t matter – whatever reality actually occurred would be the prophecy fulfillment. Everything is vague and non-specific so that we have no problem reading the fulfillment into whatever happens. It’s much like the fortune from a fortune cookie. They give a vague pronouncement that’s supposed to happen over an unspecified time so that if you really try, you can find the fulfillment to your fortune. The problem with this view is that there was no point in Ezekiel’s prophecy at all. The specific things he mentioned don’t really happen in the way he described. And even though he seems emphatic in at least 3 different places that Tyre would never be rebuilt, people just say that he didn’t mean that. What else could he have said if his true intention was that the city would never be rebuilt in any fashion at all? People who use this excuse in order to maintain the inerrancy of the Bible aren’t viewing this prophecy as any kind of proof (which is at least part of the reason it would have been given). Instead, they’ve made up their mind that it must be true, regardless of the facts. So there was really no point in even recording it.

This is one of the most blatant and obvious examples of a failed prophecy in the Bible. It is clear and specific, yet it did not come to pass. The conclusion is obvious: at the very least, Ezekiel was not a true prophet. At most, the entire Bible is uninspired. If you’re a firm Bible-believer (as I was), are you honest and brave enough to accept it for what it is? I hope you’ll think about it.

We’ll continue our study of Bible prophecies in the next post.

Advertisements

498 thoughts on “Prophecy Part 6: Tyre”

  1. Hi Hayden, thanks for the comment. You may be right; however, Deuteronomy 18:22 says that anyone who gives a false prophecy is not a true prophet.

    Like

  2. Hey Nate, great article…except that now I don’t think there’s any point in me writing something about this. I was kind of really wanting to, but why bother when I can just link here? lol…

    I like the fact you bring up Deut. 18:22–I used that in a blog I co-Admin’d with a couple friends as part of disproving our old religion and the “spiritual authority” of its founder.

    Yeah, when the “Proof of the Bible” is fulfilled prophecy, and then you clearly see failed prophecies…you either have to accept the evidence, deploy a SWAT team of apologetics, or simply ignore it and hope it goes away. As you said, this Tyre business really hit me hard.

    My old religion also taught British Israelism (the US and UK and several Western European nations are ACTUALLY the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel and so Bible Prophecy concerning Israel applies to us!). Seeing that THAT was a load of rubbish was the last straw. It is important b/c if BI isn’t true, then all those prophecies in the OT about Israel that appear to have failed or been left unfulfilled really were (failed or unfulfilled).

    Like

  3. Thanks for the really kind comment!

    I agree that issues like this one seem very cut and dry to me. If God were real, I don’t see why he wouldn’t actually have a real relationship with us in the way it’s described with many of the people in the Bible. Then we would all know that he’s there, and we’d know what he wants. Anyone who didn’t serve him would be making a clear choice. Whereas in our current system, many people would be lost out of sheer ignorance. Seems like injustice to me.

    But even if the God of the Bible was real and chose to communicate to us through the Bible, which is what I used to believe, then at the very least, those who study it to the lengths that you and I have should come away completely convinced that it’s true. We should not be able to study so deeply that we lose our faith. That just shouldn’t happen if what we’re studying is “THE TRUTH.”

    That’s where I really don’t get the Christians who have studied to the point of realizing the evidence for their beliefs is sketchy at best, but then keep believing anyway.

    Thanks again for the comment!

    Like

  4. Thanks Blake. Looks like an interesting site. I obviously haven’t had time to dig into it fully yet, but I do disagree with this statement from their site:

    v13-14, 19-21 says Tyre will be permanently annihilated (via the above terrors).1 This is relevant because, far from benefiting from Jerusalem’s fall (as she boasted; see v2) this majestic Tyrian empire would instead have its characteristic progress viciously halted. In 332 b.c., at the hands of Alexander, we see (a) her empire was erased, (b) her structures left in waste, and (c) her peoples were replaced.

    This statement makes it seem as though Tyre was never a significant power ever again, but that’s simply not true. For at least 1500 years after Alexander’s siege, Tyre remained a vitally important city in that region. Even the Wikipedia article is a decent place to start for that information — in other words, it’s very accessible.

    Also, the site you referenced lands in favor of the prophecy by simply comparing how many things Ezekiel got right to how many he got wrong and going with whichever grouping is higher. In this case, since they show 6 things he got right and 3 that he got wrong, they call it a win. But is that really the best way to examine prophecy?

    One of the details they say Ezekiel got right is that Tyre’s wealth would be plundered by its enemies. But if Tyre was going to be defeated, isn’t it a given that it would be looted? The site also gives credit to the claim that people would spread nets on its remains. So as long as they can find people (in a coastal city) spreading fishing nets, they’re good.

    The thing I do appreciate about the site is that they do actually list some reasons for doubting the prophecy. Got to admire that kind of honesty, even if their overall evaluation system is a little off.

    Thanks again for the link! I didn’t know it was out there.

    Like

  5. Yes, but I don’t find that argument persuasive. Repopulation was a very common practice back then –Babylon did the same thing to Jerusalem. Would anyone say that Jerusalem ceased to exist? And to link the city with its population doesn’t make sense anyway, since centuries passed between Ezekiel’s pronouncement and Alexander’s sacking of Tyre. None of the people Ezekiel were railing against were around then anyway — maybe we could say Tyre had ceased to exist long before Alexander ever showed up?

    I think an objective study of this issue creates a real problem for the Bible. The only way one can attempt to say Ezekiel’s prophecy was true is to twist the meaning of the passage. Instead of Tyre being utterly destroyed and never rebuilt, Tyre, like most ancient cities, went through periods of peace and unrest. Eventually, Alexander defeated it and displaced much of the population. But within a few years, it had already risen to high level of prominence again. Instead of never being rebuilt, it’s never been deserted.

    Ezekiel’s prophecy was simply not true.

    Like

  6. “I think an objective study of this issue creates a real problem for the Bible. The only way one can attempt to say Ezekiel’s prophecy was true is to twist the meaning of the passage.”

    Actually this happens to be the crux of the matter. Like most atheists you have failed to address the language itself in its historical and linguistic context. Its pretty clear with the technique you employ in this article – This City Doesn’t Exist « Finding Truth.

    Basically find a picture of buildings in Tyre and pretend that the prophecy states ” there shall be no buildings (or as a verb no building)” . The strange thing is I could do the same with images of the ruins of Tyre both on Mainland and on the island portion. There are extensive ruins on both that without a shadow of a doubt have NOT been rebuilt and further more will NOT BE rebuilt because they are under UN world heritage site protection AND because as the prophecy eludes to a good deal of the ruins are under water. Funny thing with sites such as yours, as you did, they almost always show pictures of everything but the ruins to seemingly stack the deck. You have several in that article and yet not one of the ruins. Why does it matter? Simple. What escapes most atheists is doing a study to see what “rebuild” means in the Bible. Thats the proper scholarly way to address the issue regarding any piece of literature or ancient text. This does not employ any twisting whatsoever and in fact may even show that you have done the twisting. We do this by looking at the definition of Rebuild/Build and AND how it is used elsewhere. When we do this two interesting and critical question arises.

    Can a city that lay half in ruins (more than half since ruins lay under water)be said to be built ?
    and Can A city that has been half rebuilt be said to not be built?

    That could be argued by you and me but the proper way to did it would be to consult the book itself (Bible) and when we do your argument takes QUITE a hit. What we would need is a similar context of a destroyed city and as it turns out we have one – Jerusalem. In fact we have an entire book of the bible thats context is rebuilding a city – the book of Nehemiah. It uses this word often and in a way that betrays your understanding of it.

    It does so first in Nehemiah 2:5 where specific requests is Made by Nehemiah to go and build Jerusalem. Nehemiah has got a report that the city is in ruins and wishes to go and build it. to cut things short however when we read about the Jerusalem that needs to be built it already is occupied and has homes and buildings. It has nobles and rulers and is without a doubt occupied. Turns out as work begins in Chapter three the rebuilding takes place in proximity to homes and buildings that already exist of the repairers. Nehemiah has not come to “build” houses but gates and walls. in other words to build a complete city not a settlement – take the settlement that exists out of a ruin state.

    Given that we have rulers and priests and an entire infrastructure of government its safe to say we are not talking a few houses but a population of thousands living in homes right there in Jerusalem and yet Nehemiah comes because in the use of the people of that day the city is not built because it is too much in ruins. This is devastating to your idea that a city can lay half in ruins and still be considered built. This extensively detailed situation and use of the word build along with other biblical passage means no one of that time would consider a city with extensive ruins to be considered built. You have built a home when it is finished not when its half done. You have built/rebuilt a city when it is not over half still in ruins.

    The prophecy therefore stands and stands tall when a proper scholastic approach to determining the word and word usage is applied. Its an incredible prophecy since Christians did not force the UN to mak sure it will never be rebuilt and deeper research even shows fulfillment often not talked about that the sea would cover tyre. Today we know extensive ruins of Tyre are under water

    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Culture/Art/1999/Mar-22/99428-tyre-yet-to-yield-all-its-treasures.ashx#axzz30RcBbMHy

    http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060102/full/news060102-11.html
    ” And Tyre, which was once an island, has been joined up to the mainland by silting, while much of the old land has sunk beneath the waves. “

    Like

  7. Mike, let’s be honest, it’s you whose twisting things. You’re forced to say that “the passage doesn’t really mean what it says, you have to look at it like this… turn it like that… etc, etc.”

    There’s not just A building in modern day tyre, but a whole city. Ironically, alexander’s causeway added a lot of land that wasnt there before, so it actually grew. there’s still an active port. sure, there’s ruins, but if that’s what you’re going by, then all of antiquity was destroyed and never rebuilt – I guess god missed the rest of ’em.

    But wow, what a miracle, a city that is there really isnt! that is a miracle. you’ve explained it and therefore the bible must be perfect and delivered by god. praise jehovah.

    Jeremiah also prophesied that the Medes would destroy babylon, but they didnt. and the persians, who actually took babylon, didnt destroy it either, but took it whole without any resistance. so there’s another one that i am sure you would simply dismiss with, “when reading the text, it’s important to do so properly, that is, by assuming it is completely true despite the evidence, contrary to reality.

    The bible sure is a twisted mess of crap for something so perfect. You sure have low standards for your god.

    Like

  8. “Mike, let’s be honest, it’s you whose twisting things. You’re forced to say that “the passage doesn’t really mean what it says, you have to look at it like this… turn it like that… etc, etc.” ”

    I did none of that so you start out with abject dishonesty. I took the word and showed in the very book you hate what it means within that context without any twisting whatsoever. That seems to angers you no end but the facts are what they are so I guess youwill just have to be angry with the facts

    “There’s not just A building in modern day tyre, but a whole city. ”

    there were multiple buildings in Jerusalem – it still needed to be built. Most of Modern tyre does not rest on ancient Tyre as you practically admit here

    “Alexander’s causeway added a lot of land that wasnt there before, so it actually grew. ”

    Precisely all of that causeway is not land ancient Tyre occupied as such it is irrelevant to the prophecy

    ” sure, there’s ruins, but if that’s what you’re going by, then all of antiquity was destroyed and never rebuilt”

    rebuilt cities do not have half the area of the old city still in ruins. Sorry (well not really). In addition to land above water on the Island there are significant ruins underneath which means over half the old city of tyre (not including mainland ruins). You are attempting to create a strawman that any ruins at all is what I referred to and its not only false – its obviously false

    “But wow, what a miracle, a city that is there really isnt! that is a miracle. you’ve explained it and therefore the bible must be perfect and delivered by god. praise jehovah. ”

    Your emotionalism betrays your lack of objectivity

    “Jeremiah also prophesied that the Medes would destroy babylon, but they didnt. and the persians, who actually took babylon, didnt destroy it either, but took it whole without any resistance. so there’s another one that i am sure you would simply dismiss with, ”

    Thats actually easier to brush aside because your facts are off. the Persians did destroy Bablylon and tore down its walls and crucified its occupants. You have not done your history lessons very well. they attacked Babylon TWICE.

    I am not new to these debates and I know how greatly it angers you that I can answer your claims effectively and with nothing but the facts of the text but they are what they are and you can complain about looking at word usage within a document but that is how scholarly work be done a so yes

    Praise Jehovah they show you wrong.

    Like

  9. “The bible sure is a twisted mess of crap for something so perfect. You sure have low standards for your god.”

    Easy on the foaming at the mouth and spittle there sparky. Or at least get a kerchief. Like I said I have debated with atheists before. Those theatrics only tend to make me chuckle. Calm thyself and rip my points to shreds with facts. Engage in a substantive dialogue and I am game. Rhetoric is a man poor in logic’s game

    Like

  10. I’m not angry and I dont hate the book. It just doesn’t say what you want it to; no reason for me to get angry over that. I can read very well, so when i read the text from any translation, it’s still incorrect, regardless of what you say.

    I dont care how many debates you’ve been in or not. If you need scholars to form an opinion, perhaps different scholars should have penned and translated the bible for the rest of us. I’m not even sure where a debate is warranted. the bible says “x” and “y” turned out to happen instead – pretty straight forward.

    LOL – you admit that jeremiah was wrong in that the medes, in fact, did not destroy babylon.

    Like

  11. Ah well, there you go. i’m a poor man. i read things as they are written and try to let the writer speak for him/herself. I suggest giving that a shot, but you may not be as poor as i.

    and my friends call me sparkles, not sparky. you’re welcome to address me as william. name calling is a little juvenile, dont you think? and we’re not intimate enough for pet names just yet – plus, I’m not into dudes.

    Like

  12. “Precisely all of that causeway is not land ancient Tyre occupied as such it is irrelevant to the prophecy”

    still part of the city, which was rebuilt (contrary to prophecy), which adjoins the ancient mainland to the ancient island – making it bigger.

    If ezekiel had prophesied that the city would fail to be destroyed by babylon, but then successfully destroyed by greece, only to be rebuilt even bigger – then we’d be on the same page.

    does your scholarly translation state it in such a way?

    Like

  13. “I’m not angry and I don’t hate the book”

    That cat is out the bag. your emotions already betrayed you and the LOLs etc are continuing the trend

    ” I can read very well, so when i read the text from any translation, it’s still incorrect, regardless of what you say.”

    Like I stated rhetoric makes no point. I have shown from the very text how the word was used. You need to dispute that with facts not assertions. That’s how grown up intelligent dialogue is done

    “LOL – you admit that jeremiah was wrong in that the medes, in fact, did not destroy babylon.”

    You are fantasizing. All throughout the Bible the medes and Persians are combined as an alliance. Word usage will kill you again because that is apparent and multiple passages confirm it. Yes atheist like to distinguish the two and make them two different kingdoms one after each other but the Bible is very Medopersian oriented. Its a point you will not win unless you still think rhetoric is going to count for anything.

    “and my friends call me sparkles, not sparky. you’re welcome to address me as william. name calling is a little juvenile, dont you think?”

    I have no problem calling you William but we were well into the juvenile when you presumed to tell me what my standards were for my God was Lay of the juvenile behavior and I will have no reason to call you sparky which is hardly a name call anyway.

    “plus, I’m not into dudes.”

    and you actually think you are not being juvenile? I think we might as well pass communicating if its going to be at this level.

    Like

  14. AHAHA, “my emotions betrayed me.” Thanks, Darth. haha. laughter is often a sign of great anger. I’m learning a lot.

    and yes, all throughout the bible, the medes and persians appear to be linked, but maybe someone should have told the medes and the persians – and I’m the one who doesnt know history? besides, jeremiah says “medes” not “medes and persians.” perhaps you’re not aware of what i am referencing?

    and mike, I am a juvenile, so i have an excuse.

    Like

  15. “still part of the city, which was rebuilt (contrary to prophecy), which adjoins the ancient mainland to the ancient island – making it bigger.”

    Nope when the prophecy was made that area was out at sea. claiming that a city being built on the sea at a later day is a rebuilding of the one on land is poor logic. the only area on that actual ancient land is toward the northern harbor. It stretches for a couple blocks. the rest is in ruins protected from being rebuilt by the UN and under water as the links I provided show proof of as the Bible also alluded would happen. Its amazing that even in examples of so called fake prophecies so much ends up being fulfilled unable to be rebuilt because of Independent UN protection.

    Consistent with the use of the term in the Bible itself with no twisting whatsoever the ancient city of Tyre does not qualify as to being rebuilt. If that were so Nehemiah would not have gone to rebuild Jerusalem because it had many houses and even an armoury built already. A bunch of buildings while the rest of the ancient city remains in ruins will not cut it and the text and the usage of the term in the document in questions itself proves it.

    Like

  16. “and mike, I am a juvenile, so i have an excuse.”

    Ah thanks. As I expected. I have a strict policy about not debating juveniles so alas you will have to babble on to yourself

    Like

  17. by your logic, all of antiquity was destroyed and never rebuilt. Greece, egypt, israel, etc, etc, etc. Nothing is existing. is this what you’re saying?

    and I think your idea of “proof” isnt quite accurate.

    I babble to myself all the time – usually i’m forced to when i want an intelligent conversation. And mike, are you trying to be juvenile like me, or are you trying to be like jesus?

    all the best.

    Like

  18. and you’re saying that the only way the prophecy would have been false, is if the people of tyre rebuilt the exact same structures with only the original (now torn down) materials? this is silly. just so silly it’s laughable… does that mean you’re angry?

    if that’s what youre suggesting, then again, there is almost no city from antiquity that exists today.

    Like

  19. Hi Mike,

    Thanks for taking the time to leave such a detailed comment and for linking to sources.

    As I understand it, this is the current state of things: modern Tyre is a decent sized city. Ruins from earlier periods are visible on parts of the peninsula. It’s now a peninsula due to the build up of sit over the centuries. Some of ancient Tyre is now submerged under the Mediterranean — some of it is under modern Tyre.

    What really makes that unique as compared to other ancient cities?

    I know you’ve suggested that “rebuild” is used in a particular way in this passage, but I don’t really see it that way. Nehemiah was focused on rebuilding the wall in Jerusalem, so it makes sense that he would have a particular context in mind when talking about rebuilding Jerusalem. But in Ezekiel, a different context is specified when he says that Tyre would be “no more forever” and that even when people searched for it they wouldn’t find it. Those two specific details have not come to pass.

    I’m writing this from my phone, so I apologize if there are typos. The truth in this matter is very important to me, so again, thank you for taking the time to reach out to me about it.

    Like

  20. HI Nate,

    thanks for the civil reply. appreciated

    “Ruins from earlier periods are visible on parts of the peninsula. It’s now a peninsula due to the build up of sit over the centuries. Some of ancient Tyre is now submerged under the Mediterranean”

    Pretty much – with the original island portion over half in ruins given the underwater portion and really only a few blocks occupied where the Northern harbor was located

    “What really makes that unique as compared to other ancient cities?”

    Over half the original city in ruins, being partially submerged and United nations protections as heritage site insuring it will most likely not be rebuilt is fairly unique. However there is nothing in the prophecy that dictates it be unique to the state of ancient cities in modern times so I don’t see the uniqueness as really an issue.

    “I know you’ve suggested that “rebuild” is used in a particular way in this passage, but I don’t really see it that way. Nehemiah was focused on rebuilding the wall in Jerusalem, so it makes sense that he would have a particular context in mind when talking about rebuilding Jerusalem”

    Well a couple things. First I didn’t just suggest it. I referred to the source material of the bible in Nehemiah. There we have the actual usage of the word within a pretty similar context. As I said we could go back and forth on how we see it but it isn’t really relevant. What’s relevant is how the word is used in the Bible as a means of determining how we can fairly deal with the text. Secondly as I stated the word rebuild is fist mentioned in Nehemiah 2:5 and it is as follows

    “Nehemiah 2:5 (KJV)
    5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it.

    the “build it” has no reference to the walls in particular. In fact the relating of the problem to the king is simply

    “Nehemiah 2:3 (KJV)
    3 And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?

    so the king knows that it lieth waste in Nehemiah’s eyes – the gates are additional information.

    SO we could assume at that point that Nehemiah has only the Walls in focus but its an assumption not borne out directly from the text. In the text build stand on its own in reference to the city

    “But in Ezekiel, a different context is specified when he says that Tyre would be “no more forever” and that even when people searched for it they wouldn’t find it. Those two specific details have not come to pass.”

    Actually that comes after verse 19 where the waters of the deep are brought upon tyre and so far it is in fact accurate as my link indicates – the ruins are buried under water and deposited over on the floor bed with sediment. There has been no finding of the city scraped or submerged in the sea. IF your argument is that no one should know even the relative area – the place was to be a place identified by the spreading of nets. Additionally I don’t know that I could make a dogmatic statement anyway about what “sought after” means. No one who knew the destruction of Tyre would be looking and those who did not know Tyre had been destroyed would be looking for a city not ruins and hence would not find it. We sometimes think in a very modern mass media way as if everyone would know it had been destroyed but its an almost certainty that people came months or years later looking for tyre the city and did not find a city at all not knowing of its demise. Prophecy fulfilled ruins known or not.

    Anyway returning to the issue of build – let me frame it another way using even your sense of the use of the word. Let us say that the prophecy was opposite than it is and instead it had been prophecied that Tyre on the island would be built and flourish. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that quite a few skeptics would have a problem with rebuild applying when most of it is under water or in ruins (and yes I am sure some believers would argue that the existing city would qualify)?

    My point being there is a real issue there regarding what the word means and thats why the source usage in the Bible must to be taken into consideration. Nehemiah refers to an inhabited area with homes and house etc as lain waste and requiring to be built. at least for him built required a bit more restoration that most of it lying waste

    So at the end of the day I don’t think you have proven your case. Ancient Tyre. is no more and still mostly in ruins and underwater. The city that exists is centered on the isthmus and neither the mainland area or the island area will be rebuilt. If the prophecy was of New York state I don’t think you could make the case that New Jersey sprawling a mile or two into New York meant the state of New York had been rebuilt. Certainly not If most of it still lie in ruins or under water.

    Like

  21. “So at the end of the day I don’t think you have proven your case. Ancient Tyre. is no more and still mostly in ruins and underwater.” – Mike

    you used “mostly” instead of “completely.” how did the prophecy read again? Did it read, “the city would mostly not be found and mostly not rebuilt?

    And I think you’re confusing this for a philosophical argument, when it’s all fact based. Jesus referred to tyre as being present and existent in his day, within the gospels. Tyre is still there today. While some of tyre is submerged and in ruin, other parts of it, including a working harbor, are still there, still being used and still being occupied.

    Perhaps ezekiel meant something other than what he said, maybe he was using flowery language – or maybe he was just wrong.

    this is an argument based in observable facts. I dont really understand why it’s even an argument. I’m not sure why you’re trying to debate it. say what you like all you want, but it doesnt change the biblical text and it doesnt make tyre disappear.

    Like

  22. William like I said I don’t debate with kids. So don’t expect me to respond to your posts as if I do after this post. If you want to claim that having half a house and stopping is a rebuilt house then thats fine.

    ” I don’t really understand’

    No you don’t understand the point and that s why I don’t debate with kids.

    Like

  23. …yet here you are.

    Houses and cities are not the same, but even so – let’s say my neighbor’s house burned down, and the insurance only covered a small portion of the total damage. They wanted to stay on that land, for whatever sentimental reasons, and took what little money they had to REBUILD, even if it were a smaller house. would you say that they did not in fact rebuild, because they didnt rebuild with the exact original materials, in the exact footprint of the original home, with the exact same floor plan and lay out?

    i’d hope not, because that would make you stupid.

    Now let’s say that they rebuild bigger, but only used the southern half of the original foundation, but extended the house, making it bigger, even taking up the neighboring lot. would that not count as rebuilding either?

    I may need you to clarify your terms, as I am just not as educated as you are, and I only use terms in the common usages.

    Like

  24. and you shouldn’t discriminate against age. Imagine what the gospels would be like without the story of jesus debating and learning in the temple at 12 years old – I am older than that. suffer ye the little children, mike.

    Or are you not a christian, but just a secular reader a defender of the bible?

    Like

  25. “No you don’t understand the point and that s why I don’t debate with kids.”

    Hi Mike,

    if someone spoke to me like that I think it would actually distract me from considering the points you were putting forward.

    If you are making valid points they should be able to stand on their own,

    why label someone you have never even met as “a kid”.

    That’s pretty patronising, do you think referring to people in this way encourages them to consider what you are saying?

    Like

  26. Thanks Ryan, but i was fairly patronizing as well. Tit for tat, rendering evil for evil. We called each other juvenile, and so i said I was a juvenile, and then asked what his excuse was. that’s why he called me kid, i literally asked for it. But even jesus said we should come as children,so that must make me righteous some how.

    so he’s no more in the wrong than i, it just gets frustrating when people automatically assume if you find a fault within the bible, it is because you “hate” it or are trying to justify sinful living, etc.

    and with this issue, it is not a debate of good or bad, or some ethical or philosophical merits, but it is purely an issue that exists within facts. Ezekiel said something would happen a certain way to literal place by literal people – did it?

    mike and others may interpret the passages differently than I have, which is fine i guess (even though it takes redefining terms or making assumptions about what was really meant) but any honest person, while they still may disagree with me, would have to at least see where this is problematic for people like me – who once were staunch believers, who left the faith after seeing too many of these type issues, who still live very moral lives.

    if they act as if i am insane for taking it at face value, then they are not honest or reasonable, and I see no point in trying to reason with such for very long – although i’m always willing to give it that ole college try.

    Like

  27. Hi Mike,

    Still typing on my phone, so apologies in advance.

    I’m not an expert on ancient Hebrew, but I trust the translators when they decide to use words like “build” and “rebuild.” We all know what those words mean. In Nehemiah’s case, even though people were still living in Jerusalem, and even though some buildings were still standing, it’s obvious that Jerusalem was in a much worse state than it used to be. So using “rebuild” in that context makes sense. Even if it did mean something different than what we normally assume from that word, that would only apply to the content that N uses — we can’t take one author’s use and say it stands in for how another author uses it.

    Secondly, Zeke says Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt. That’s a straight forward statement. When Nebchadnezzar attacked Tyre, he never made it past the gates. The people of Tyre were not killed, nor was the king of Tyre. Alexander sacked it about 250 years later, but immediately worked on rebuilding it. Within a few years, it was a major trade hub once again. It remained a regional power for over 1500 years after that. He Tyre changed over that period? Of course. So has every other city, region, and geographic feature on this planet. Tyre has kept the same identity through all of that time, just like Jerusalem has.

    That history does not match Ezekiel’s prediction. Even the early church father Jerome was troubled by Tyre’s existence in his own day, almost 2000 years ago.

    If God had foreseen this future for Tyre, why not have Ezekiel’s prophecy more accurately describe it? And if it had, I don’t think skeptics would point to the ruins and say that the prophecy had failed — I think they would just say it’s a very easy prophecy to give since it matches the fate of most cities.

    And that’s why I brought up the issue of uniqueness. What good is a prophecy if it doesn’t foretell something unusual? That’s why no one makes a big deal over March Madness predictions that come true — they’re not unlikely events to begin with. On the other hand, Zeke’s prophecy is unique — he says that Tyre would not only be destroyed, but that it would never be rebuilt. That’s not the typical life cycle of a city. Cities of that time were taken over by different armies and empires from time to time, but they didn’t lose their identities. Ezekiel prophesied something very different for Tyre. It just didn’t happen.

    Are you familiar with some of the other problems in the Bible, by the way? It helped me except these things as legitimate problems once I

    Like

  28. …it helped me accept these things as legitimate problems once I saw how many there were in the Bible.

    Thanks again

    Like

  29. “why label someone you have never even met as “a kid”.

    Ummm..because he told me he was one. You might try reading the thread Ryan. I never called him a kid until he told me he was one. i am not here for banter. or barking. The internet has far too many places for it already. I think anyone reading Thomas’s posts and then Nate’s will see the clear distinction and difference in tone between our conversation and the one with thomas.

    Its neither discriminatory nor condescending. it’s just a fact. You can’t expect to have a certain level of conversation with every age group.

    Like

  30. “i am not here for banter” ummm… dont be so self righteous, pal. reread your posts and you’ll find plenty of vitriol there too.

    Like

  31. I think William was trying to be funny, but it got lost in translation. He’s around my age, I believe. I think he took Mike’s initial comment about atheists as an attack, so misunderstanding piled upon misunderstanding until we got here. I vote we wipe the slate clean on their conversation. Sometimes sarcasm is hard to recognize in a comment thread 🙂

    Like

  32. “I’m not an expert on ancient Hebrew, but I trust the translators when they decide to use words like “build” and “rebuild.” We all know what those words mean”

    Yes we do and built does not mean half or less than half built. it means built. You’re pretending this is some esoteric understanding of the word and it isn’t

    “Even if it did mean something different than what we normally assume from that word, that would only apply to the content that N uses — we can’t take one author’s use and say it stands in for how another author uses it.”

    Again we normally assume that when something is built it is built not half built. Secondly sorry but that’s not a rational response. I understand you are not versed in Hebrew or ancient languages but in scholarly assessment of language you cannot write off contemporary usage as you just attempted to. Nehemiah is not some other culture, in another book or a millennia removed from Ezekiel. There is nothing extraordinary about his usage and there is absolutely no expert that would agree with your assessment that other contemporary writers have no bearing on word or phrase usage in an ancient text. that’s just not how things are done in language studies. To be perfectly honest and straightforward its more a dodge than actually dealing with the reality of now Nehemiah PROVES the word was used.

    “Secondly, Zeke says Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt. That’s a straight forward statement. When Nebchadnezzar attacked Tyre, he never made it past the gates. ”

    Then you have not done your homework because there are multiple historians that indicate that he in fact did on the mainland. .I would assume you are a denialist of Mainland Tyre but its not a tenable position.

    ” It remained a regional power for over 1500 years after that. ”

    Surely you must know that poses no problem for those who do not ignore “nations like the waves of the sea” in the text.. If you want an intelligent debate you can’t ignore that and the pronoun change in the text . They are real issiues

    “That history does not match Ezekiel’s prediction.”

    It does and rather well once one does not ignore the usage of the word “built” in contemporary language and culture. I see where you have been trained by Till who as a person with no training demands his interpretation and translation of waves of the sea and the pronoun change be the only reading o f the text but that’s just as much twisting as you accuse believers of. You can’t shoe horn your own interpretation in order to invalidate the prophecy . That also is not how things work.

    “Even the early church father Jerome was troubled by Tyre’s existence in his own day, almost 2000 years ago”

    Well of course…that’s no point whatsoever. He didn’t have what transpired after to look at and I hardly think he would feel the same way now with a significant amount of the ruins under water as Ezekiel predicted or ruins that will never be rebuilt protected by the UN. I can entirely understand why you wish to sidestep what Nehemiah brings to the table in regard to the use of the word build. It completely devastates your and till’s argument. If you allowed it you would be faced with a pretty incredible fulfilled prophecy. Problem is whether you allow it or not thst IS how language in ancient texts is interpreted – by immediate context AND by contemporary usage.

    Like

  33. Mike,

    I should have read the whole thread 🙂

    apologies. If your not here for “general banter” fair enough.

    Although expressing your points doesn’t include a licence to be disrespectful.

    You can’t just call something a fact and then it magically doesn’t become condescending. If you meant it as a swipe at someone, then that’s what it was. That’s the impression I got.

    Condescending is patronising or expressing superiority disrespectfully.

    Then again, perhaps I I misunderstood the intention behind your words,

    if so then that’s my mistake. If you didn’t mean it to be patronizing then fair enough.

    But hey! I can’t talk 🙂 I’ve been patronising before, and I could also be wrong 🙂

    Like

  34. “If God had foreseen this future for Tyre, why not have Ezekiel’s prophecy more accurately describe it?”

    But it does. From the “nations like waves” to the changing of pronouns, to the being enveloped in the sea. its filled with accurate detail and specificity. Can an ancient text in a different language, in a different culture, several thousands of years ago satisfy every human sitting in 2014 several thousand miles away in the western world who doesn’t speak the language or understand the culture be satisfied that it could not be clearer ? No. such a thing is not possible with ancient texts.

    “And if it had, I don’t think skeptics would point to the ruins and say that the prophecy had failed — I think they would just say it’s a very easy prophecy to give since it matches the fate of most cities.”

    Ha….I’ve debated these and even simpler issues for far too long to accept that claim. Its veiled pretense that both theist AND atheist do not have their own agendas. Anyway its not a point of fact so it s not substantive to get into

    “And that’s why I brought up the issue of uniqueness. What good is a prophecy if it doesn’t foretell something unusual? ”

    and that’s why I tell you make no good point. Two reasons –

    The first is rather obvious you are looking at ancient cities after the fact and stating well whats not unique as if at the time of the prophecy anyone knew what would transpire with those cities you are now looking at

    Second, uniqueness has not a thing to do with whether something comes to pass. So what if you even think its unremarkable that there are ruins that will never be rebuilt and a city is under water as predicted. How does that make a point against the prediction not coming to pass. its irrelevant to that issue.

    Again as I look over your last post you really haven’t done anything but side step the contemporary usage of the word I presented. I get that it really does put a serious issue in your assertions but claiming that contemporary usage of another writer in the same culture, near the same time is of no importance just does not fly as a serious answer with any kind of scholastic approach to an ancient text – versed in Hebrew or not.

    “Are you familiar with some of the other problems in the Bible, by the way?”

    I am pretty versed in alleged Bible difficulties and have been for decades. I was surprised to see you mention Till on your site. I’ve dismantled his claims on multiple occasions.

    Like

  35. “Can an ancient text in a different language, in a different culture, several thousands of years ago satisfy every human sitting in 2014 several thousand miles away in the western world who doesn’t speak the language or understand the culture be satisfied that it could not be clearer ? No. such a thing is not possible with ancient texts.”

    the bible says that with god, all things are possible. most christians, including the kind I used to be, believed that the bible was written for all people for all time, which is one reason this particular prophecy, and the others like it, mean so much.

    did some of the prophecy come true? sure, all the vague parts that could be associated with any place at that time. But that parts, like nate has pointed out several times now, that make this stand apart from the things that happen all the time, did not transpire.

    am I still to assume that you define rebuilt as using the exact same materials, in the exact same footprint with the exact same layout? can you give an example of a city or house that was rebuilt? It help us in understanding your usage of the term?

    when ezekiel said it will never be rebuilt,and never be found again, what exactly did he mean? because it was rebuilt, whether you understand the term or not (jesus even talked about the place) and we have found the ruins and know where the parts that were sub-merged and were not rebuilt are.

    so please, as detailed as you can, please explain how these parts of the prophecy ring true.

    and mike, before you gloat too much about dismantling anyone’s claims, you should know that many would think your claims have been dismantled here. It may be better to re-dismantle Till and allow us to decide how well of a job you’ve done. you can congratulate yourself later.

    Like

  36. Hi Mike,

    Could you explain in what way Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem and how it differs from what Ezekiel was talking about? Also when do you believe Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled?

    Thanks

    Like

  37. Thomas they tell me you are grown so I can give you a few rounds (I am not at all convinced though so you if you continue to show signs then my rule will apply). Lets see if you have any good points

    “the bible says that with god, all things are possible. most christians, including the kind I used to be, believed that the bible was written for all people for all time, ”

    and? that means that every phrase must be easily understood without applying yourself to the language culture and language? That’s nonsense. Laziness is a sin so theres no reason for God to make room for it . He also gave you a brain and has given other passages to compare (precisely as I did) so sorry you DO need to address it if you wish to maintain a logical discourse.

    ” But that parts, like nate has pointed out several times now, that make this stand apart from the things that happen all the time, did not transpire.”

    Almost all did and the facts are clear. Ancient Tyre is in ruins, will not be rebuilt being protected by UN, has had significant portions either scraped into the sea or reclaimed by rising seal levels. A city built next to it centered mainly on land that never existed at the time of the prophecy is no serious objection. You can beg that all the fulfillments is just the norm for cities but it doesn’t fly the logic test. Your entire argument against the prophecy comes down to the word “built” and the context of the Bible in Nehemiah answers how the word was used…alas in a way you don’t like.

    You can’t deal with it so you side step it – but your sidestep does not make the issue go away. Sorry.

    “am I still to assume that you define rebuilt as using the exact same materials,”

    See why I think you may still well be a child? Where did I ever say a thing about exact same material. You created that out of the strawman machine you have running in your back yard

    ” can you give an example of a city or house that was rebuilt?

    Whats so hard? Sure…. pick a city or town that was not over half in ruins or underwater? Anyone you pick 😉 Seems like you have to do all kinds of gymnastics in order to purposefully miss the point.

    “when ezekiel said it will never be rebuilt and never be found again what exactly did he mean?”

    Well since you can’t read very well he meant pretty much what Nehemiah meant. the city would be in mostly in ruins. Do you need a google link to pictures of the ruins? or for me to copy and paste the links again? As for found – found has nothing to do with ruins. It has to do with never again being found as a city. Thats obvious when you apply yourselves to an understanding of the time. these were not modern time where we bother with archaeology. People did not go looking for destroyed cities they went out looking for existing cities. People went to Tyre looking for a city and never found it. again Sorry. see what understanding the times and culture can bring you? 🙂 Shucks no need to have given up your faith (unless you wanted to to begin with)

    “whether you understand the term or not (jesus even talked about the place”

    whether you like it or not more nations like the waves of the sea as the Bible stated were still yet to come. guess what? they came and now you are looking at ruins that will never be rebuilt under protection from UN.

    Funny thing is even when you try and fudge a non fulfilled prophecy it still gets key provisions fulfilled. Must be funny to God as well eh 😉 . But yeah every city gets protection as a world heritage city right? right? and gets ruins submerged In the sea right?

    ” It may be better to re-dismantle Till and allow us to decide how well of a job you’ve done. you can congratulate yourself later.”

    🙂 🙂 Ah the favorite tactic of regulars at a sceptics blog /site. “We, rather than the facts will decide whether you have made a good point”. tsk tsk….. Nope sorry.. try that tactic on someone else. You neither give directions as to what I can congratulate myself on nor get me to grant you status as the ole arbitors of whether my point stand. Bring the facts. The facts decide – your vote means little except to you.

    P.S. If you are sensing a tone to my post to you I am just trying to speak your language. 😉

    Like

  38. Mike and William, let’s please get back to civil discourse. When talking about issues like this honest people can come down on different sides of the issues — there’s no reason we can’t be kind to one another.

    Thanks

    Like

  39. Tyre has always sat in the same place and has always maintained the same identity. Yes, there was also a mainland portion of Tyre that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed, but he never reached Tyre proper, which was an island. Tyre is now a peninsula and covers both areas.

    I feel that we’re straining things a bit in wrangling over what “rebuild” means. It reminds me of Bill Clinton’s equivocation over the word “is”. So Mike, if you could try once more to explain how Nehemiah’s use of it should make us think of Ezekiel’s prophecy, I would appreciate it.

    Like

  40. sure. I really dont know what else to say anyways. Ezekiel says something very specific. It didnt happen the specific way he said it would – unless, and only unless you say “rebuild” means only using the exact same materials, exact same footprint and exact same layout (which is an absurd position to take, because nothing would be ever be rebuilt); and if you claim that by saying “never found again,” Ezekiel really meant “we’d know exactly where it is, and was, and so forth.”

    I’m not being condescending here, I really think it’s that simple. it;s not an earth shattering point, it’s basic and simple.

    that’s all there is to this. The number of debates you’ve participated in means nothing. the number of points you’ve scored on those debates and the number of “atta boys” you’ve received from people who already agreed with you prior to the bate mean noting either, i’m afraid.

    and it’s not your tone that bothers me, it’s more your unwillingness to even concede, “yeah, i see what you guys are saying, but try looking at it like this.” because, again, our position on this topic, while it may be incorrect, still makes perfect sense. failure to acknowledge that doesnt make me doubt my own position, it makes me doubt you even more.

    I’ll just bow out of this one. There really is nothing else to this.

    Like

  41. “I feel that we’re straining things a bit in wrangling over what “rebuild” means. It reminds me of Bill Clinton’s equivocation over the word “is”.

    Nate if your response to studying contemporary contextual usage of a word and phrase in ancient literature (in the SAME BOOK no less) is to compare it to Clinton trying to avoid impeachment then the name of your blog is a euphemism and sorry but you are clueless as to how ancient literature is studied within contemporary usage. its a terrible ignorant position and insulting me by comparing me to Clinton is no better than William’s nonsense. You are really not really interested in a serious discussion and finding truth but simply bolstering your own point of view without regard to the facts. Its just not a serious approach to ancient literature. you can kid yourself all you want. Applied to any other document trying to claim that contemporary usage is of no importance or just “equivocation” in studying a document would have you laughed out of the room by any expert on the subject.

    Look I get it. The church has not been very good in answering such charges as your own and yes Till got to fool you that his was the last word. You OBVIOUSLY were not aware that evidence from the Bible itself could answer your claims about rebuilding and are doing nothing but DESPERATELY begging that contemporary textual usage does not matter. It clearly caught you off guard but such is life. What more I have been able to read a number of your other posts and they suffer from the same lack of thoroughness but you are probably now at the point where like this issue showed you are not up to reassessing. So good luck with that but perhaps in a moment in your life it might dawn on you that you have not heard the best arguments against your position and certainty of it is a misplaced illusion.

    “Tyre has always sat in the same place ”

    Yes of course Nate the isthmus where the city is mostly centered that was created by Alexander was always there. Sigh….So factual.

    Hey I thought sensed a different tone but its pretty much the standard for sceptics site. Lots of heat not much substance

    I agree with William on one thing . There isn’t really much to this. If I stuck around your blog showing other deep weaknesses in your thinking it would only result in more Clinton insults and agenda based anger.

    Like

  42. “unless, and only unless you say “rebuild” means only using the exact same materials, exact same footprint and exact same layout”

    See typical atheist dishonesty . You’ve been corrected as to me claiming the “exact same materials ” but just repeating the same obvious lie once again. It pretty obvious I upset you by putting a fact that challenges your treasured false prophecy. After all if tyre were to slip away from you as an unfulfilled prophecy the whole stack of cards would come tumbling down

    Like

  43. “”Yes, there was also a mainland portion of Tyre that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed, but he never reached Tyre proper”

    Nate sorry I missed this before. As I suspect you know there is considerable difference of opinion as to what Mainland tyre was called and how it was seen. “Tyre proper” is not a solid point. Everything at the beginning of chapter 26 is consistent with a destruction of the mainland area. It creates no problem for the prophecy except for those that try to insist “many nations” like waves is restricted to Neb. Its amazing with your charge of twisting that the only way the passage stands as an unfulfilled prophecy is if you insist on ignoring contemporary contextual usage of words and twisting many nation like waves to be just Neb’s army.

    Such is the mindset of the biased

    Like

  44. I’m sorry if you feel frustrated by the discussion, but I at least am genuinely unclear about the distinction you’re making over “rebuilt.” In what way did Nehemiah rebuild Jerusalem that did NOT happen to Tyre? I think an answer to that would help me better understand your point.

    Like

  45. “I’m sorry if you feel frustrated by the discussion”

    Sorry Nate that won’t work as a spin. My frustration is not with discussion but ignorance and not really frustration with ignorance but the Clinton insult you tried to hurl. Poor form and right after your pretense at civility of different viewpoints.

    “but I at least am genuinely unclear about the distinction you’re making over “rebuilt.””

    to be honest I don’t know how you could be given I have stated it several times but if you want to go again then I can. Nehemiah went to rebuild the city while it was in waste according to his own words. Its pretty clear from that context that a city needs rebuilding while it is in a waste state even though people lived there and there were homes and I think an armory.

    “In what way did Nehemiah rebuild Jerusalem that did NOT happen to Tyre?”

    I don’t recall stating he accomplished the task. From a linguistic point of view the concern is with the context where the language is used. In Nehemiah’s case its used in the context of an occupied city yet still in waste.

    As I have said before this is no mystery or odd usage

    A half built car is still not built because it requires more building
    A less than half built house cannot be said to be rebuilt
    No city is built because it has some building a while most of it lays in ruin or underwater

    It has nothing to do with Williams lie that I claim it has to be the same materials or shape or exact footprint. What it does have to do with is at least have the original area at least over half way built. Until then you cannot say the CITY has been rebuilt.

    That’s an even modern understanding of how the word is used. Try telling your friends you built a house and then carry them to the constructions site of a less than half finished house. they’ll tell you you are building it but its not built yet.

    Its pretty simple and straightforward. If anyone is twisting it to mean one thing that would be your side not mine and Nehemiah’s context proves it.

    Like

  46. Thanks.

    Would you also say that Jerusalem was never rebuilt? Also, it seems to me that the house analogy is not a perfect one. You’re right that it’s obvious when a house is unfinished — is it as obvious when we’re talking about a city? Where does the “over half” requirement come from?

    As to the Clinton remark, that wasn’t meant as an insult, and I apologize if it came across that way. I think most of the Christians who comment here would tell you that I don’t tend to deal in insults.

    Like

  47. I’m certainly not a scholar, nor do I study OT bible history, but here is a question that comes to my mind in this discussion:

    Ezekiel writes that Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never again be rebuilt. Right? He further says a lamentation will arise that says Type has “vanished.” It will never be found again.

    Taking this at face value, it means there will never be a city known as Tyre. Period.

    Yet we know there is a place called Tyre in existence because it’s shown on geographical maps. Plus, people have visited there.

    Maybe I’m missing the whole point but this is how I see it.

    Like

  48. “Would you also say that Jerusalem was never rebuilt?”

    No I wouldn’t

    ” Also, it seems to me that the house analogy is not a perfect one. You’re right that it’s obvious when a house is unfinished — is it as obvious when we’re talking about a city? ”

    More so when over half the city is in ruins. I’ve seen people live in unfinished homes. I see no issue with the analogy.

    “Where does the “over half” requirement come from?”

    Not a requirement but 51% is the point at which it would be more in ruins than built so its a logical minimum

    “As to the Clinton remark, that wasn’t meant as an insult”

    Really can’t take it anyway else Nate and can’t see a possible motive that was respectful. That’s a pretty notorious political example of a guy trying to lie his way out of a situation and using word games to get there without being impeached. I don’t think you can dress that up into anything else.

    Like

  49. “Taking this at face value, it means there will never be a city known as Tyre. Period. ”

    Nan that’s a pretty good example of why when people say something is obvious or “face value” it means nothing except thats what they want it to be if they don’t back it up with any real data. That’s not even close to being face value unless you are redefining the meaning of the phrase.

    There is not even a suggestion that the name would disappear or never be used of any other city. Sorry but its a ridiculous notion much less to think it deserves a “period ” at the end. Every single prophecy regarding Tyre is regarding a particular city not any city that could be known by that name at any future date

    Thats like saying if the Bible says New Jerusalem will be unique this link disproves it

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/New+Jerusalem,+PA+19522/@40.4481492,-75.7471373,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c5d4ee4102b575:0xe146a184d4919675

    Like

  50. Mike,

    Are you saying the present city of Tyre is in an entirely different location than the one referenced in the prophecy? That is not a rhetorical question – I am still trying to fully understand your view.

    Like

  51. Sorry, but I think you’re streching the point when you say that a future city by the same name of Tyre doesn’t count. Especially when it’s in the same (or nearly same) location.

    Like

  52. “Sorry, but I think you’re stretching the point when you say that a future city by the same name of Tyre doesn’t count. ”

    Nan by all means show me where in the Bible where there is a prophecy the name would never be used for another city. Its you that are stretching trying desperately to make the prophecy says something it never says . the prophecy is about the city that existed Period – and yes i can back it up because that IS what the passage states not anything about a name never being used.

    Its kind of funny. One minute one of you is arguing that the actual word used in a similar context in the Bible does not count and now another is inventing prophecies that are not even in there

    Like

  53. Hey Howie (love the name. always have )

    I am saying the northern harbor area is the only occupied portion of the city Ezekiel refers to and that besides that the vast majority of the city lays in ruins or underwater and as such cannot qualify as being rebuilt

    In other words exactly what the data and any close up of Sour shows. The center of Sour lays on the isthmus (and the north of it) that did not exist and could not be an area that Ezekiels prophecy refers to there being a city.

    Pretty simple and straightforward

    Like

  54. Mike, at what point was the prophecy fulfilled? I assume you know that throughout Tyre’s long history, most of the city did occupy even the spots where ruins are now…

    Like

  55. If God, through Ezekiel, said the city would never be found again, and yet there is a city by that name in the very same general location, how can you in good conscious, continue to cling to your assertion that the prophecy was fulfilled?

    You don’t need to answer that. It’s obvious that any further discussion on this is futile.

    Like

  56. “Mike, at what point was the prophecy fulfilled? I assume you know that throughout Tyre’s long history, most of the city did occupy even the spots where ruins are now”

    Its last destruction that leads it to now never being rebuilt

    Like

  57. That would have been long after the time of Christ. Why do you suppose God was so angry with them during Ezekiel’s time, centuries before any of them were born?

    Like

  58. This is a general comment and not really directed at Mike. It’s mostly for anyone who has stuck with us so far.

    This prophecy is taken from Ezekiel 26, and I really encourage everyone to go read it — it’s only 21 verses. The prophecy makes a series of very specific pronouncements. First, verse 2 says that God is angry with Tyre because it hoped to gain from Jerusalem’s recent destruction. So would it make sense for God to punish later generations? Just something to consider.

    Verse 3 says that many nations would be brought against Tyre. Verse 4 says they would break down her walls and towers and turn her into a bear rock (Tyre’s name means “rock”).

    Verse 6 says Tyre’s “daughters on the mainland” will be killed , which references the mainland suburbs of Tyre and shows that the main city was on the island.

    Verse 7 says that Nebuchadnezzar will bring this destruction. According to history (and Ezekiel 29), Neb did destroy the mainland sections, but was not able to take the island, even though verses 9-11 say he would. Simply didn’t happen.

    Verse 12 changes from the pronoun “he” (Neb) to the pronoun “they.” Maybe this refers to the “many nations” mentioned earlier, or maybe it refers to Neb’s army. No one knows. The actual island did not fall until Alexander the Great took it, around 250 years later. But he quickly rebuilt it, and it remained a vitally important regional power for many, many more centuries.

    When Alexander took it, he built a causeway to the island in order to reach the walls. Over the years, sediment buildup turned the island into an isthmus, so some of the geographical features have changed over time.

    Contrast this history withEzekiel’s prophecy in chapter 26 where it says people will lament over the loss of Tyre. And verses 14 and 19-21 say that it will never be rebuilt or inhabited. Tyre’s history just doesn’t match up. At least it doesn’t to me, but people should definitely look into it for themselves and see what they think.

    Like

  59. “If God, through Ezekiel, said the city would never be found again, and yet there is a city by that name in the very same general location, how can you in good conscious, continue to cling to your assertion that the prophecy was fulfilled? ”

    Well

    A) Have we finally come off the preposterous notion that merely a name affixed to any city anywhere in the middle east would negate the prophecy. Probably not right? That’s why the discussion has no point to it. that was totally ridiculous there being no such claim in the prophecy

    B) I’ve already answered this before. Verse 21 is within the context of the land being covered by the deep (sea) in verse 19. that has not been “found” under the sea (theres actually been relatively little archaeology done. You are familiar with the term “quote mining” right. it applies to the Bible. You cannot just swoop into a verse take an expression and run with it without looking at the context.

    Like

  60. “That would have been long after the time of Christ. Why do you suppose God was so angry with them during Ezekiel’s time, centuries before any of them were born?”

    And exactly who said he was? The tyrians were gone long before that. However if you chose to live in place where God has said he has “cursed” it does not require anger for you to see destruction. Edom has a similar history. Lands and cities were object lessons for future generations it does not need mean anger. Are you about to slide off into an Immoral God argument? Those are usually quite weak and I have no problem addressing them but its tangential

    At any rate Nate this isn’t a game of 50 questions where you bounce from one thing to the next. Will you now address the contextual contemporary usage of the word rebuild in Nehemiah? Claiming that it has no bearing what a contemporary document within the same Bible and situation states was not a serious nor logically defensible claim

    Like

  61. ” First, verse 2 says that God is angry with Tyre because it hoped to gain from Jerusalem’s recent destruction. So would it make sense for God to punish later generations? Just something to consider.”

    this has been answered above in my last post

    “Verse 3 says that many nations would be brought against Tyre. Verse 4 says they would break down her walls and towers and turn her into a bear rock (Tyre’s name means “rock”).”

    yes but like the waves of the sea one nation after another its very poetic and very specific – not one attack lead by one nation but many.

    “Verse 6 says Tyre’s “daughters on the mainland” will be killed , which references the mainland suburbs of Tyre and shows that the main city was on the island.”

    Utterly False. like Till you cling to this for dear life like its the only possible translation but its not tenable. The idea of cities being slain by the sword is nonsensical. People are slain by the sword and its utterly at odds with the usage of the term in the Bible which to every verse I have found never is used that way.. As you should know most translations historically have translated this your daughters in the field but of course sceptics in the model of Till will have none of a perfectly legit and more consistent use of the term because daughters in the field works only for the mainland tyre and that spoils their unfulfilled prophecy.

    “Verse 7 says that Nebuchadnezzar will bring this destruction. According to history (and Ezekiel 29), Neb did destroy the mainland sections, but was not able to take the island, even though verses 9-11 say he would.”

    Again false – 9-11 says he would take the mainland city and he did. the language of war makes this clear as he describes a conventional land siege complete with multiple war engines and as previously indicated by the fact that “daughters in the field” is far more logical and consistent with being slain by the sword

    “Verse 12 changes from the pronoun “he” (Neb) to the pronoun “they.” Maybe this refers to the “many nations” mentioned earlier, or maybe it refers to Neb’s army. No one knows.

    but yet just coincidentally not only does Alexander come along and do everything in verse 12 but the water level rises and buries more of tyre and again just coincidentally more nations come against it as the “they” in addition to alexander and today most of it will never see being built because the UN has designated it as a world heritage site

    Like I have said before its just so remarkable how these unfulfilled prophecies end up…. well… being fulfilled

    Like

  62. Oh, is that what you’ve been waiting for? I disagree with your assertion that Nehemiah informs the meaning of Ezekiel’s prophecy — here’s why:

    Each passage gives its own context. Nehemiah states that Jerusalem needed to be rebuilt, particularly the walls. This doesn’t mean that every building had been knocked to the ground, but it had suffered substantial destruction at the hands of Babylon.

    With Tyre, it never reached a point where all buildings were torn down or all inhabitants slaughtered either, though Ezekiel said they would. Tyre was sacked a few times in its long history — Alexander’s being the most notable — but it was always rebuilt and always kept the same identity. However, the context of the prophecy says that it would cease to exist. In other words, it would be destroyed, and it would never be rebuilt. It would simply cease to be. That’s a very different context than what Nehemiah was talking about with Jerusalem. It would be illogical to borrow Nehemiah’s context when Ezekiel provides his own.

    Some of Tyre’s ruins are now under water. Some of them are under modern Tyre. And some of them are visible on parts of the island. None of that changes the fact that Tyre has continued to exist since long before Ezekiel was ever born. Just like every ancient city, its features, geography, and borders have changed. But it is still the same city, and it still sits in the same place.

    I’m sorry we couldn’t find a way to see eye to eye on this issue, but I think we’ve both probably said about all we can on it. If you’d like to add anything, feel free. I don’t anticipate having much more to say.

    Like

  63. Mike,

    Here’s a picture showing the original city wall as well as blue dashed lines showing the present coastline:

    From this picture the submerged portion under water is the island of hercules which was not within the tyre city walls.

    Here’s a picture showing urban areas of tyre which shows the northern harbor is inhabited:

    Satelite pictures show the same. Now these are just pictures, but the following document has some very useful information about the population of historic Tyre:
    http://www.charbelnahas.org/textes/Amenagement_et_urbanisme/Cultural_Heritage_Report/F-Tyre_107-140.pdf

    It’s a long document, but here is a key quote:

    “the historic city, which forms only 6.7% of the total area of Sour, with residential areas amounting to 13% of the total inhabited zones in the city, is home to close to 17.3% of the total population of Sour. Population densities are the highest in the city at 500 persons/hectare.”

    Page 123 shows population of the different regions of Tyre.

    So not only are the historic parts of Tyre inhabited, it is thriving and is the most densely populated region of the entire city of Tyre.

    Now not only do we find that the historic part of the city is still inhabited, the population of the city has expanded even further out along the isthmus to the east making this city the 4th most populated city in all of Lebanon and it houses one of the nation’s major ports.

    I would have a hard time trying to convince someone that this data matches up with the parts in Ezekiel describing how it will not be inhabited, made desolate, will be no more, and will never be found again.

    Like

  64. Actually, I haven’t heard the “fields” thing before — I’ll check that out. I do know that the ESV translates it as “mainland,” which I find significant. Also, as I understand it , the name “Tyre” seems to refer to the rocky island it sits on, which wouldn’t make much sense if it started on the mainland. Also, its ports were on the island, which is another reason to think that the city proper Sat there. Finally, several places in ch 26-28 talk about it being in the heart of the sea and compare it to a boat that would sink. Those descriptions don’t make sense to a mainland city.

    Like

  65. “Oh, is that what you’ve been waiting for? I disagree with your assertion that informs the meaning of Ezekiel’s prophecy — here’s why:”

    I’ve actually heard that before what I was waiting for was a logically defensible position that takes into consideration how word usage is determined in ancient texts not one that basks in denial. How in the world you think dictionaries of ancient languages are determined I have no idea but its not anything to do with reality

    “Each passage gives its own context. Nehemiah states that Jerusalem needed to be rebuilt, particularly the walls.”

    Nehemiah 2:5 where the term is referenced says nothing about walls. You’ve tried this before. You can try again but its still not there. the request and the permission is to build the city. Would walls be a necessary first step yes but the word build is used in that passage with out reference to walls. In addition although each passage has its context its just a FACT that contemporary usage is how word usage is determined. I get now that you mean to maintain the ridiculous and unscholarly assertion that that Is not so but well its..it not informed.

    ” but it was always rebuilt and always kept the same identity. However, the context of the prophecy says that it would cease to exist. In other words, it would be destroyed, and it would never be rebuilt. It would simply cease to be. That’s a very different context than what Nehemiah was talking about with Jerusalem ”

    I’m sorry but that’s nonsensical and near total gibberish as to an answer regarding the word build. You are essentially saying the word build is determined contextually by whether a city is built or not. We are talking about the meaning of the word “build” Nate. Something you admit to in an unfinished house but beg exclusion when applied to a city. Before Nehemiah arrives in jerusalem is it built or not built? Obviously not built. When Tyre is in ruins after being destroyed is it built or not built? its real easy to see…if you want to

    “It would be illogical to borrow Nehemiah’s context when Ezekiel provides his own.”

    It would be totally illogical to ignore that both Jersualem and Tyre are destroyed cities to whom the word build applies and then ignore how a contemporary used it while begging that more than half in ruins is rebuilt for a city but not a house.

    “None of that changes the fact that Tyre has continued to exist since ongoing before Ezekiel was ever born. Just like every ancient city, its features, geography, and borders have changed. But it is still the same city, and it still sits in the same place. ”

    If only the identity was not made for ancient city and modern city to this day by both historian and anyone that does archaeology. Nothing changes the fact that we don’t have mere changes in geography or features at Tyre or borders as you allege but over half the previous site in ruins. That is NOT like every ancient city. You can beg for that but it is not factual. For example its It is not so for jerusalem

    I agree though there is not much more to say. You think you have proven your point by sidestepping but I know that you have not

    Like

  66. “http://www.emersonkent.com/images/map_tyre.gif

    From this picture the submerged portion under water is the island of hercules which was not within the tyre city walls.”

    Only thing is its not a picture. Its a map and a recently made one from the look of it. We do not have very good maps from that time. Please see my links I put up early in is discussions. I do not rely on maps but data about undergound ruins. Theres quite a bit that has not been uncovered/found

    “Here’s a picture showing urban areas of tyre which shows the northern harbor is inhabited:'”

    We all know that. better pictures on google maps btw. I get the impression from the rest of your post that you are not reading my points. You are merely assuming to be telling me what I supposedly do not know. I have already stated MULTIPLE times that the north harbor is occupied. however thats about it for the ancient city of tyre. Most of the city lies on the isthmus Don’t know how this will load for you but nicer picture 🙂

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tyre/@33.2704922,35.1975884,1197m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x151e7d902f915d95:0xcf0e3fc6fb997408

    the largest swatch is nestled in right between the two areas of ruins and on the ithmus

    “I would have a hard time trying to convince someone that this data matches up with the parts in Ezekiel ‘

    that’s esentialy the same ting Nate tried in his post I would have a hard time convincing people that this is now a rebuilt city if they took this into consideration

    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&hs=Il9&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=sb&biw=1298&bih=586&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ancient+tyre+ruins&oq=ancient+tyre+ruins&gs_l=img.3…541965.545492.0.545771.18.14.0.4.4.0.173.1008.12j2.14.0….0…1c.1.42.img..4.14.855.iyb5Hj2wonI

    So it really comes down to what you are saying rebuilt is – significant percentage of waste and ruin which Nehemiah in an almost identical situation is claimed to need building or a few blocks over on the north harbor as a rebuilt city

    Like

  67. “Actually, I haven’t heard the “fields” thing before — I’ll check that out. I do know that the ESV translates it as “mainland,” which I find significant.”

    KJV, Young’s, Darby, ASV, ERV and many many more. I am surprised given KJV in that list

    “Also, as I understand it , the name “Tyre” seems to refer to the rocky island it sits on, which wouldn’t make much sense if it started on the mainland. Also, its ports were on the island, which is another reason to think that the city proper Sat there.”

    You don’t seem to understand the argument. Its not one or the other its both with Neb dealing with the mainland. BTW this is a fairly good article on it

    http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/Ezekiel-261-14-A-Proof-Text-For-Inerrancy-or-Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx

    ” Finally, several places in ch 26-28 talk about it being in the heart of the sea and compare it to a boat that would sink. Those descriptions don’t make sense to a mainland city.”

    In my and many others estimation the comparison to a ship has less to do with its reputation for sail and trade than its position. 27 has that imagery on the move into deep waters

    The island only argument never made much sense to me. its impractical on many levels and these no doubt that tyre had a fortified city on the mainland earlier in the Bible. Mainland borders are marked out against it

    Like

  68. Ok. We’ve all made our points. Any future readers will have plenty of information to look into.

    Mike, the last thing I’ll say is that you have a tendency to get personal with your comments, which can be pretty off-putting. William came at you hard right out the gate, so I’m not talking about you interaction with him. But once that was past, you kept telling us what our motivations were for every comment we made. You made assumptions about our level of knowledge on these things and the methods that we use in research. When you thought I had insulted you, you vehemently condemned me for it, and when I apologized and said it was not my intent, you didn’t accept the apology. WWJD?

    We’re done discussing here, so I only bring this up as something for you to consider when you take part in future internet discussions.

    All the best,

    Nate

    Like

  69. “When you thought I had insulted you, you vehemently condemned me for it, and when I apologized and said it was not my intent, you didn’t accept the apology. WWJD?”

    Nate I don’t know what kind of Christian you were when you allegedly were one but there is no obligation to accept a non-apology apology in Christianity. You never apologized for taking a low swipe. instead you essentially claimed it was not one but provided no rational reason why comparing me to Clinton intellectually dishonestly trying to bend the truth and escape impeachment wasn’t anything else but insulting to my point of view. Christians rejoice in truth.

    Your blog your rules but having a blog does not mean you get to hold anyone to a higher standard than you yourself hold even if you no longer subscribe to WWJD

    All the best to you too

    Like

  70. “What an angry “Christian.”

    Wrong again. I make very pointed comments to be sure but you reading a high level of emotion is incorrect….again 🙂

    Like

  71. Mike – likely true that you are not angry as well as the fact that you are likely trying to be as honest with yourself as you know how. You would prefer not to give that same perspective toward atheists. They make pointed comments and you claim they are angry or dishonest. They disagree with you that God exists and since that looks incredibly obvious to you there must be something wrong with them. The bible supports this view so your approach is not surprising.

    Like

  72. ” They make pointed comments and you claim they are angry or dishonest.”

    Nope. I make comments about dishonesty when there is in fact dishonesty.

    “They disagree with you that God exists and since that looks incredibly obvious to you there must be something wrong with them.’

    I have yet to see a skeptics blog or any of its regular participants that were not wholly dedicated to the proposition that theists are ignorant and their ignorance is why they maintain their theism. this blog and its participants are no exception so the charge is blatantly hypocritical unless you are claiming being ignorant is not something wrong with them. Even if you are its not rationally defensible.

    At any rate I will excuse myself from you all debating about me. I am not sure Nate had in mind for this now to become a discourse on the evils of Mike (although he did get the ball rolling by taking me to tasks for not accepting his non-apology which had and has no recognition of any wrong done).

    I’ll add in closing this out that one good benefit of this discussion is that I started doing reading from a source that so far is making a very compelling argument that mainland tyre is the focus of the Prophecy. I am not entirely convinced so far but I admit I missed that Ezekiel 27 states right up front that its a poetic song and he pretty much wipes out the objections of in the midst of the sea and other objections I had in that chapter. So some learning has taken place and I appreciate that’s a product of this discussion even though it was incidental to it.

    Enjoy your weekend

    Like

  73. mike’s poor, but not uncommon christian example aside, this issue is too easy. And let’s say i am wrong in how I understand it – there would have been ways that either ezekiel could have written it, or for the events to have unfolded that would have made any contention on this prophecy null.

    Yes, by saying that “build” CANNOT mean building new structures to replace old ones that were in similar, although not exact locations and configurations, even if they’re still on the same real estate, used for the same purposes as they had been before; mike can try to make this out to be all in his favor.

    of course, in doing so, he doesn’t make me doubt my view, it just makes me more skeptical of him.

    everyone here was using “rebuild” properly except for mike. did he ever give an example of what city or house had ever actually been “rebuilt” under his definition? I’m still not really sure what he was getting at, except to deny the real problems at all costs. ”but off he goes, bragging of yet another “victory” on behalf of the lord. Kudos, mike – if there’s a hell, we’ll all see you there.

    I suspected he was this way from his first comment. doesnt make it right, but that’s why i acted the way i did. I’ll apologize seven times seven if it’s needed.

    Like

  74. and mike, just because I think you’re ignorant doesn’t mean that I think real disciples are.

    Like

  75. “of course, in doing so, he doesn’t make me doubt my view, it just makes me more skeptical of him.”

    Who cares? I mean really. Why do atheists think the world of theists revolve around the minority position? Because we sometimes talk to you and humor your importance. We are just being friendly 🙂

    “everyone here was using “rebuild” properly except for mike. ”

    Mike was the ONLY one willing to deal with contemporary usage in the very same book called the Bible. go figure.However as it turns out the source i was reading makes just as a compelling case that Tyre on the mainland was the focus of the prophecy. Actually confirms it by multiple Bible passages that do not distinguish between coastal and small cay (not really big enough to be called an Island). It also answer Nate’s claims quite well regarding chapter 27 which is a song and says so upfront with several assorted metaphors of a ship at sea (that moves). I had not fully taken into account several verses which shows that the Bible identifies tyre as on the coast land. Theres no Uzzu. Its all just Tyre in perfect keeping with even modern ordinary usage of identifying places close together related as one. We do it with just about every city and its suburbs although quite often the suburbs fall outside the city limits.

    From as early as Joshua to as Late as the Gospels The Bible identifies Tyre as on the coast. Rather conclusively too I might add

    So there is not one way of proving your unfulfilled prophecy is false but two. More the merrier I say . Further since the passage explicitly says that which is scraped is that which is not rebuilt it crushes your objections because the only thing you can beg is that it was just a remarkable “coincidence” that Alexander scraped it and that it now sits unrebuilt and even marked out by Google as the ruins of Tyre – which will never be rebuilt thanks not to Christians but the good old UN.

    Unfulfilled prophecy? Say goodnight Gracie. (not a name call an old TV saying)

    “if there’s a hell, we’ll all see you there.”

    there ya go…Same nastiness I saw from your first response but um not a Christian and WWJD doesn’t apply to you so what does it matter right? Free to be as nasty as can be. still not angry though right?

    “I suspected he was this way from his first comment”

    another prophecy fulfilled!!………. only this time an example of self fulfilling one.Take a bow

    “and mike, just because I think you’re ignorant doesn’t mean that I think real disciples are.”

    and trust me I don’t think all atheists are as quite as ignorant either

    Like

  76. why was tyre important? the ports. which were where? the island. what’s in the midst of the sea, like in ezekiel’s prophecy? an island or coastal town? why, and island.

    what are you talking about?

    But nevertheless, both the island and the mainland parts if the city have been rebuilt, and now adjoin, and both ancient tyre and modern tyre can also be easily found.

    how again, was the prophecy fulfilled?

    and if you’re just going to revert back to your ridiculous argument of “well, ‘rebuild’ doesnt really mean something that’s been ‘rebuilt,’ you see… (paraphrased)” then at least begin with a thorough definition of “rebuilt” as you mean it, as well as provide a good example of a city or a house that was rebuilt using your definition, please.

    Otherwise, you’re not making much sense. call me names, or whatever, just please do the above as requested, if you’re really interested in spreading the good news.

    and I’ve been no more nasty that you, sir. I can at least admit my faults. But you are welcome to go on making excuses as to why you’re a pathetic and hypocritical follower of the man jesus – I wont throw any stones – I’ll just say that excusing it away because someone else did it, may not satisfy the lord.

    Like

  77. This is the UNESCO entry for Tyre:
    http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/299/

    From as early as Joshua to as Late as the Gospels The Bible identifies Tyre as on the coast. Rather conclusively too I might add

    You’ll have to provide scripture for this claim. I just did a search of the word “Tyre” in the entire Bible, and I see no description anywhere that gives the impression it was not on an island. As I stated earlier, I know there were mainland suburbs, but from what I’ve been able to read, the island portion of Tyre was the most heavily fortified in Ezekiel’s time. And that makes sense too — it explains why Nebuchadnezzar would have had such a hard time getting past its walls.

    Also, I’m not aware of any accounts that say Alexander “scraped” the site clean.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC)

    Instead, once he took the city, it again became a vital trade center. As with any ancient city, as buildings wore down, they were replaced with others. Many of the ruins that are visible are actually from the Roman Empire. There was no single event or attack that reduced Tyre to nothing. Its importance began to decline after the Crusades, but that was gradual. (all of this information is easily found, and the UNESCO link mentions it as well)

    Like

  78. “But nevertheless, both the island and the mainland parts if the city have been rebuilt, ”

    You are dreaming if you think you have a credible argument there. You might have been able to fool yourself and others that the Island has been rebuilt due to less than half of it actually being rebuilt but take a look at the map and you will see you utterly will fail to make an argument that the mainland area is rebuilt

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tyre/@33.272157,35.203278,2860m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x151e7d902f915d95:0xcf0e3fc6fb997408

    That big area marked “ruins of tyre” might get in your way

    ” I wont throw any stones – I’ll just say that excusing it away because someone else did it, may not satisfy the lord.”

    Please you will get no where with that taunt which you and Nate have tried on multiple occasions. The fact that you excuse yourself from a higher moral authority is no point in your favor because I do not. Like most you confuse direct talk with rudeness. If you call someone ignorant they are completely within their right as a Christian to point out your own ignorance. In fact I would say they are obligated to point out the absurdity of the arrogance. It is instructive to the sinning party

    Again Christians rejoice in truth and politeness should not subvert it. Jesus often was not gentle when truth needed to be told.

    Like

  79. “You’ll have to provide scripture for this claim. I just did a search of the word “Tyre” in the entire Bible, and I see no description anywhere that gives the impression it was not on an island”

    I am sorry nate but I am sensing a pattern. First you had no idea that daughters in the field was a common translation and now you look in the Bible and don’t see what is CLEARLY There. You list this as one of the key points you presented to family members for your doubts and reason for abandoning the faith – how in the world if you were a real Christian could you not in 2010 with the internet at your fingertips not know about daughters in thefield which several sites cover and is the reading in the most popular translation of The Bible???? Its like you jsut swallowed whatever was told to you by till without any exertion of allegiance to Christ to go and do full research. But sure find verses that show Tyre was on the mainland- here they are so EXTREMELY easy to find

    Joshua 19:29 (KJV)
    29 And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib:”

    Tyre is on the coastland This is actuall marking out inheritance borders Nate. Following the coast line.

    Joel 3:4 (KJV)
    4 Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head;

    Here tyre is included among the coastland

    Matthew 15:21 (KJV)
    21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

    Here the NT directly states the coast of Tyre

    Mark 7:24 (KJV)
    24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.

    Here the travel is to a place that borders both Sidon and Tyre (physically impossible for the Island)

    Now all of that does not mean there is a denial of an island area but that just as we do today we do not make such fine distinctions and we have maps and signs as we go into municipalities. even without these verses that prove the point beyond any rational objection it would be dubious at best that tyre on an islet would be any distinguishing point to the land are they needed water and agriculture from and which in both your and my position they owned and controlled

    “Also, I’m not aware of any accounts that say Alexander “scraped” the site clean.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC)

    Really nate? Not aware of any accounts? Wikipedia? DId you do any research?

    NO Christian sources

    http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/107/

    “After occupying old Tyre, he began to construct a causeway (or mole) across the channel toward the walls of Tyre, using rocks, timbers, and rubble taken from the buildings of the old city”

    http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswarsto1000/p/Wars-Of-Alexander-The-Great-Siege-Of-Tyre.htm

    “Using this information, Alexander ordered the construction of a mole (causeway) that would stretch across the water to Tyre. Tearing down the remains of the old mainland city of Tyre, Alexander’s men began building a mole that was approximately 200 ft. wide”

    But you cite wikipedia so lets use it too, Straight to the reference link number 5 of that article

    http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070514/full/news070514-2.html

    “In a determined attack, Alexander’s engineers used timber and ruins from the old centre of Tyre on the coast to build a 1-kilometre-long ‘mole’, or causeway, to the island.

    Now i dunno but that was all easy to find information and if your point is that wasn’t scraping that would be pretty weak

    ” Many of the ruins that are visible are actually from the Roman Empire. ”

    Many nations to come up against Tyre has no problem with this. You should know that as well if you have done any reading on this.

    I’m sorry Nate but when you give me links where the references prove my point rather than contradict it – it wold seem you have done no real research of your own.

    Like

  80. “You are dreaming if you think you have a credible argument there. You might have been able to fool yourself and others that the Island has been rebuilt due to less than half of it actually being rebuilt but take a look at the map and you will see you utterly will fail to make an argument that the mainland area is rebuilt”

    you may call me a dreamer, but i’m not the only one. This is all i was looking for. who cares how much of it was rebuilt – ezekiel said it would never be rebuilt and never found. a fraction of/half of (by your won words) was rebuilt – and it’s found.

    i’m still not sure where the hangup is.

    “Who cares? I mean really.”

    and this is part of the problem, i think. You’re not concerned with the people you talk to, you’re main goal is scoring points in a debate. That’s okay, I dont care at all about points, so you can have ’em. And there’s nothing to debate anyhow, as you agree it was at least half rebuilt, which is still more than ezekiel said would happen.

    I suggest reading proverbs. it’s a good book to follow.

    Like

  81. still no concrete definition of rebuilt – still no examples – just more, “nuh-uhs.”

    which of your points has been proven?

    Like

  82. Now all of that does not mean there is a denial of an island area but that just as we do today we do not make such fine distinctions and we have maps and signs as we go into municipalities. even without these verses that prove the point beyond any rational objection it would be dubious at best that tyre on an islet would be any distinguishing point to the land are they needed water and agriculture from and which in both your and my position they owned and controlled

    Yes, exactly. My point is that it’s irrational to make such a distinction between the portion of Tyre that was on the island and the portion of Tyre that was on the mainland. I frequently tell people that I live in Birmingham, Alabama, but in fact, I live in a suburb about 20 miles south of Birmingham. This is the issue I see with your argument — you’re trying to say that Ezekiel’s prophecy came true by isolating it to just one area of Tyre, and I don’t think that’s the most reasonable way to approach it.

    Are you part of the KJV-only crowd? I’m not asking that sarcastically or anything, I’m just curious. Most scholars don’t believe it’s the most accurate version of the Bible, and I didn’t bother checking its references to Tyre. For example, Joshua 19:29, which you quoted above, reads this way in the NKJV:

    And the border turned to Ramah and to the fortified city of Tyre; then the border turned to Hosah, and ended at the sea by the region of Achzib.

    The ESV says it this way:

    Then the boundary turns to Ramah, reaching to the fortified city of Tyre. Then the boundary turns to Hosah, and it ends at the sea; Mahalab,[a] Achzib,

    I don’t see any passages that give an actual description of Tyre — I just see passages that speak generally about coastal cities. While Tyre’s harbors were unquestionably on an island, I’m not surprised that some passages group them in with other cities along the coast. The point of those passages was obviously not to describe exactly how each city was laid out.

    Like

  83. Mike and William,

    A lot of your disagreement has been over whether Tyre can really be said to have been “rebuilt” if half of the original city is still in ruins. A couple of points/questions:

    Mike, when you talk about Tyre, which portion do you have in mind? In some comments, you’ve seemed to argue that it was the mainland portion that Ezekiel prophesied about, but in other comments, you refer to the ruins that are visible on the island. Which of those is your focus?

    By the way, that’s also the question I would ask when you talk about Alexander “scraping” Tyre clean. I know that he dismantled much of the mainland settlement to build his causeway, but I thought you were referring to the island when you talked about it being “scraped” clean. What are your thoughts on that?

    Finally, let’s not forget that in addition to Tyre never being rebuilt, Ezekiel also said it would be uninhabited (26:19). Mike, in what way to you feel that has come to pass?

    Like

  84. “Yes, exactly. My point is that it’s irrational to make such a distinction between the portion of Tyre that was on the island and the portion of Tyre that was on the mainland. I frequently tell people that I live in Birmingham, Alabama, but in fact, I live in a suburb about 20 miles south of Birmingham. This is the issue I see with your argument ”

    You just made my point for me. It works either way and you want it to work one way. Perfectly acceptable to refer to the suburbs as Birmingham, Alabama and it would be perfectly acceptable for a prophecy to be made about it as Birmingham , Alabama. Further more in this case whatever was on the island couldn’t even survive without the mainland for agricultural and water reasons. Not forever – where the mainland could do quit fine with out anything native to the Island. You are asking that distinction be made where there was none. Those biblical passages PROVE that the settlement on the mainland was in fact identified as TYRE. They nail that point. There is no other name in the BIble. No Uzzu. Jews identified the city on the mainland as Tyre.

    “Are you part of the KJV-only crowd? I’m not asking that sarcastically or anything, I’m just curious. Most scholars don’t believe it’s the most accurate version of the Bible, ”

    I studied biblical languages. this has nothing to do with KJV. You are clutching at straws. there are MULTIPLE versions that translate it that way and the original Hebrew says just that. Both are allowable but only one fits the context of slain by the sword. I could find nowhere else in the bible where cities or buildings are “slain by the sword”. the overwhelming usage is people being slain by the sword but ahem if that is admitted then theres no way the Island had daughters in the field.

    “The ESV says it this way:

    Then the boundary turns to Ramah, reaching to the fortified city of Tyre. Then the boundary turns to Hosah, and it ends at the sea; Mahalab,[a] Achzib,”

    Either is acceptable and none prove your point but prove mine. This was a legal spelling out of boundaries of inheritance, the line drawn turns to the fortress. theres no mention of the line going out past water. By the way i did cite more than one passage so how you think you can overcome the obvious implication of all the verses you did not address by addressing one I have no idea.

    Lets face it Nate. You are going to have to do a whole lot of twisting to override the preponderance of the Biblical evidence that the mainland was identified as Tyre even if not exclusively.

    “I don’t see any passages that give an actual description of Tyre”

    Total non issue. the issue was location not description. No you just see passages that say where it was and that is shared borders with Sidon. How are you planning to make the island share borders with Sidon Nate?

    I think we both know you are stuck on this. Since you don’t even have a less than half built mainland city of Tyre but ruins and empty land your unfulfilled prophecy claim is falling into he deep just like Tyre was scraped into it.

    I earned something a long time ago when I was nearly at the position you were in a few years ago. You never know the truth until

    You hear the rebuttal
    and then the rebuttal to the rebuttal
    and then the answer to that rebuttal
    and then the rebuttal to that answer

    before you really ever get down to “finding truth”.

    Like

  85. I have nothing else to add. I’ve said from the beginning that Tyre encompassed both the island and the mainland, and I don’t see where that somehow means Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled. We simply see things differently, and that’s fine. There’s plenty of information here to help others research this on their own.

    Take care

    Like

  86. “you may call me a dreamer, but i’m not the only one. This is all i was looking for. who cares how much of it was rebuilt – ezekiel said it would never be rebuilt and never found. a fraction of/half of (by your won words) was rebuilt – and it’s found. ”

    You make no new points and your old ones have been destroyed even if you won’t admit it. By that failed logic Jerusalem was rebuilt because a fraction of it (houses and armoury) were built. So Nehemiah would not have gone to build it. Of course then we would have to go back to the utterly foolish proposition that contemporary usage of a word within the same book doesn’t matter. I suggest you enter real estate. You can half build house and then say they are built in no time.

    You can quote mine the Bible all day but the Found passage comes in context to bein covered over by the deep. When you excavate the ruins under the sea (where all of ancient tyre was scraped as well). Call me . We will have lunch.

    “and this is part of the problem, i think”

    You can think whatever you wish but claiming I have to care about what the one poster that has been abrasive from the gitgo thinks about me…is well….just what you think.

    Like

  87. all of ancient tyre is not in the sea, and you know that. I keep bringing up old points because they’re still valid and you’re too caught up in yourself to see that you end up contradicting yourself.

    You still havent provided your definition of rebuilt. you say tyre wasnt rebuilt, then you say half rebuilt, then you mention something about a half rebuilt house…

    In this case, the house wasnt half rebuilt. it was totally rebuilt, but in a different configuration. the size may have changed as well; bigger in some parts and small in others, but for your house analogy to be accurate, you’re probably wanting to say, “the house was rebuilt smaller than before” not “half built.”

    and speaking of definitions, how do you define “destroyed?” I’m not sure it means what you think it means.

    Like

  88. “You can think whatever you wish but claiming I have to care about what the one poster that has been abrasive from the gitgo thinks about me…is well….just what you think.”

    that’s how I felt after reading your initial, abrasive post.

    I guess I’ll just stop for good here. If you end up being correct about everything, you can give me the ole, “I told ya so” while we’re both burning in hell. Until then…

    Like

  89. “Finally, let’s not forget that in addition to Tyre never being rebuilt, Ezekiel also said it would be uninhabited (26:19).”

    Sorry Ezekiel does NOT say it will forever be uninhabited. Frankly 19 doesn’t even say it will be uninhabited. Not even your favored ESV says that

    it says its desolation wil be LIKE the uninhabited cities

    “I have nothing else to add. I’ve said from the beginning that Tyre encompassed both the island and the mainland, and I don’t see where that somehow means Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled.”

    Nope you wouldn’t because if you looked at mainland Tyre you would have a prophecy that has it destroyed scraped had many nations come against it and totally fulfilled now never to be rebuilt protected by the UN.

    That Bible I tell you. So powerful even when its unfulfilled it STILL manages to come to pass for a city on the mainland Identified as Tyre in other parts of the book. 🙂 What are the odds? Anyway Best wishes to you nate.

    From what you revealed over the last two days of how much you didn’t study the issue and had never heard of (even though its been online for years at various sites)its pretty obvious you were not serious about your Christianity. I was in a simlar issue years ago when I was told that Babylon was never violently destroyed by some follower of Till . I could have gone your route but it meant too much for me to leave it half baked so I dug in learned everything I could and was so glad I did because I realized through a source left out by the TIll follower that it in fact had been.

    You have a really deep commitment to Christ you don’t half bake it and not even study the issue to know the very basic stuff. Maybe one day you will go by what I said before and follow the objections to the objections to the objections but its crystal clear now you haven’t and didn’t and thats why you are not finding the truth but are oh so sure you have

    Like

  90. KJV: “19 For thus saith the Lord God; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;”

    desolate means uninhabited.

    again, what are you talking about?

    Like

  91. “all of ancient tyre is not in the sea, and you know that.’

    All of Neb’s mainland Tyre scraped clean into the ocean by good old Alexander years and years later. wonderful coincidence eh?

    the beautiful thing about its that skeptics are already so invested in Ezekiel 26 being a false prophecy written before the events they can’t logically claim the Alexander scenario was written after the fact.

    SO it all becomes an argument not of whether the prophecy about scraping was fulfilled because the event DID happen but just by how much yards the prophecy was allegedly off. Like I said those Bible prophecies – even when they are unfulfilled they end up coming to pass…well from your point of view…. nearby ::)

    Like

  92. “desolate means uninhabited. ”

    No it doesn’t. go learn some Hebrew…Or will you now be telling me that doesn’t matter either along with contemporary usage? this is getting too silly. Enjoy your day. I have some work to finish up

    Like

  93. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I’m crying, but seriously, the, the city of tyre is still there…

    Like

  94. I looked up the definition of “desolate,” which is the word that the the KJV used – since I read english and not hebrew.

    how should the passage have been transliterated?

    Like

  95. you know, maybe that’s the issue right there. We’ve all been trusting those who translated the bible and should learned ancient hebrew and greek ourselves.

    Like

  96. So I just did something I’ve never done before: Mike has been blacklisted as a commenter.

    I hate to do it, and maybe I’ll even revoke it at some point. But I’ve finally lost my patience with the way he interacts on here. I’m not talking about his interaction with William — William came at him hard, so I view that as fair (though I’m not crazy about those kinds of comments)

    What I finally got tired of was his insistence on telling me how honest I am, what kind of Christian I was, how diligently I researched these issues, etc. Mike doesn’t know me. I’ve tried to treat him fairly on this blog, even though we don’t agree. I’ve allowed him to post whatever lines of evidence he feels he has for his position. In the course of that, I have not questioned his character, his level of education, or his sincerity. He can’t seem to show the same courtesy, and I tire of his brand of adolescent arrogance.

    If anyone feels I’m handling this unfairly, please let me know.

    William, I’d ask that you don’t comment on Mike any further. And in the future, please give people the benefit of the doubt when they first start commenting here. I don’t know if Mike meant his first statement about atheists to be insulting or not, but I prefer to withhold judgment until they make it very clear (as he has done).

    Thanks

    Like

  97. you’re totally well within reason to cut him off, but another option would be let him back on and just have the last word.

    no one else with any sense should respond the last time… but that would only be in order to prevent things like, “they kicked me off because they were hard hearted and couldnt bear the truth.”

    Like

  98. So after sleeping on it and talking to a couple of friends about it, I think I was being a bit too rash to cut Mike off. So Mike, you’re no longer blacklisted — feel free to comment. Sorry for shutting off the valve on you.

    I have some questions for you, because I don’t think you’ve really made your case yet. In fact, when I was trying to explain your position to a friend of mine, I quickly realized that I didn’t actually understand your exact argument. So let’s start with a basic one: was Ezekiel’s prophecy talking about the island of Tyre, the mainland portion, or both?

    Like

  99. i think the real problem here is the prophesy. It really should have said, “that one day Original Tyre will be destroyed and no more and will never be found, because a new city with the same exact name will be built on top of it, and the rest will be underwater….. but could be found if someone just simply dug it up.”

    that would have solved the whole problem.

    Like

  100. Yeah, I agree.

    Personally, I think Ezekiel was talking about both the island and the mainland. Chapter 26 specifies that Nebuchadnezzar will come against the city and kill Tyre’s “daughters on the mainland.” Whether that is a poetic way of talking about Tyre’s suburb on the mainland or whether he literally meant some of Tyre’s female residents is immaterial, because specifying “mainland” shows that other parts of the prophecy must have focused on areas of Tyre that were not on the mainland.

    Mike mentioned earlier that this passage can be translated “daughters in the field,” suggesting that it might literally be talking about women in the fields around the city, and not suburbs on a mainland. So far, I haven’t found any commentaries that make that case. BibleHub.com has an article about it here:
    http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/26-6.htm

    It lists several commentaries’ opinions on this passage, and they all talk about this prediction having to do with the suburbs, or small villages of Tyre that existed on the mainland. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible says it this way:

    And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword,…. That is, the inhabitants of the cities, towns, and villages, on the shore near it, and which were subject to it; as such cities are frequently in Scripture called the daughters of the place to which they belong: or their daughters literally…

    To help illustrate that point, BibleHub also offered a couple of other passages:

    Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom.
    – Ezek 16:46

    However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, – Ezek 16:53

    And we know from history that Nebuchadnezzar made good on that prediction — he destroyed the mainland portion of Tyre, but was not able to breach the walls surrounding the island portion.

    Mike, would you agree with what I just laid out about the relationship between the island and mainland portions of Tyre?

    Like

  101. Nate,

    I am pressed for time at the moment so i won’t be answer everything in this post

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/ezekiel/26.htm

    covers the alternatives somewhat. I am not a fan of commentaries much less online ones. I take them only for data they give me. Besides that they are pretty much like anyone else giving their opinion. If you have Strong’s in some form you will see theres nothing special about he word field to demand mainland in the hebrew. its used for field (open field) all the time.

    In this case its pretty obvious that its not the text dictating the meaning to commentaries but the known geography. I have seen nothing where that would have been interpreted that way anywhere else but the knowledge of the Isle affects commentators. Also I have yet to see any commentary even explain how “slain by the sword” is applied to a city when its always applied to human beings elsewhere.

    “Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom.”

    classic bad example from commentaries. Not your fault but the entire chapter is a proverb and pretty clearly too.

    Ezekiel 16:3-4 (Darby)
    3 and say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah unto Jerusalem: Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of the Canaanite: thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite.
    4 And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water for cleansing; thou wast not rubbed with salt at all, nor swaddled at all.

    Shucks vs 44 says it super clear

    Ezekiel 16:44 (Darby)
    44 Behold, every one that useth proverbs shall speak in a proverb against thee, saying, As the mother, [so is] her daughter!

    Theres not a hint in Ezekiel 26 of it being a proverb and even without that the difficulty resides in “slain by the sword”

    “Whether that is a poetic way of talking about Tyre’s suburb on the mainland ”

    I’ve seen some commentaries say its symbolic which I know would not fly if I was using it to defend a passage that literally said something else

    Like

  102. “i think the real problem here is the prophesy. It really should have said, “that one day Original Tyre will be destroyed and no more and will never be found, because a new city with the same exact name will be built on top of it, and the rest will be underwater….. but could be found if someone just simply dug it up.”

    that would have solved the whole problem.”

    For you perhaps but not to all the people living at the time that would have wondered what in the world is “Original Tyre”. Anyway this goes back to the “If it didn’t say it this way then it can’t be what is meant” argument which I see a lot of on this blog but it just doesn’t work as a logical construct.

    Plus theres nothing in the prophecy about loss of names so its not clearer or succinct. Its just redundant. As it is besides the exact name claim it pretty much says what you just said

    Ezekiel 26:19-20 (Darby)
    19 For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I bring up the deep upon thee, and the great waters cover thee:
    20 then will I bring thee down, with them that go down to the pit, to the people of old time, and will cause thee to dwell in the lower parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I will set glory in the land of the living.

    Put you under water- check
    Bury you so no one can build on you/inhabit you- check
    can’t be found because you are descended into the depth – check

    Like

  103. Ah, good point about Ezekiel 16 being used as more of a proverb. I can see how that might not be the best example. I did run across some others, though, just as a point of interest:

    Isaiah 23:1 talks about Tyre, and verse 12 refers to the city this way:

    And he said:
    “You will no more exult,
    O oppressed virgin daughter of Sidon;
    arise, cross over to Cyprus,
    even there you will have no rest.”

    Isaiah 10:32 refers to Jerusalem in a similar manner:

    This very day he will halt at Nob;
    he will shake his fist
    at the mount of the daughter of Zion,
    the hill of Jerusalem.

    Nahum 3 refers to Nineveh as a woman, which seems similar to me.

    In Psalm 48:11, some versions say “daughters of Judah” and some say “cities of Judah.”

    To me, this is something that can go either way. Maybe it literally means female inhabitants of Tyre, but I tend to think villages or suburbs makes more sense. Even though it says Nebuchadnezzar will kill them with the sword, I don’t see a problem with that — it would obviously be talking about inhabitants if villages/suburbs is the correct understanding. Regardless, I don’t think either interpretation really changes anything.

    As to “mainland” vs “field,” I don’t think that makes a big difference either. The Hebrew word there can be defined either way, from what I’ve read. If “field” is the correct understanding, that still says nothing about Tyre’s actual location. Ezekiel still could have understood it as being the island. Considering that Tyre’s major claim to fame was always its notoriety as a trade hub, and that its harbors were on the island, it seems very likely that the center of Tyre was already the island portion. After all, even 300 or 400 years before Ezekiel, Tyre was already well known for trade. Combine that with Ezekiel’s (possible) reference to Tyre’s villages on the mainland and his reference to Tyre’s borders being in the heart of the sea (ch 27), and I think it seems extremely likely that Tyre itself was on the island.

    You’ve already mentioned that chapter 27 uses a lot of imagery in its depiction of Tyre as a ship on the seas, but I don’t see that as a reason to think Ezekiel did not view Tyre as an island city. I think it actually makes the opposite case.

    That’s how I see it, but if you think Ezekiel was only talking about the mainland, I’m willing to entertain that argument for the sake of discussion. Just let me know what you think: was he talking about the island, the mainland, or both?

    Thanks

    Like

  104. “Ah, good point about Ezekiel 16 being used as more of a proverb. I can see how that might not be the best example. I did run across some others, though, just as a point of interest”

    the problem with every one of those instances is that they ALWAYS are paired with the name of the city never alone. The second problem is that none of them is paired with the fairly straightforward “slain by the sword”. Thats always associated with real people being killed. What makes this even more likely the translations is the expression “then they shall know I am the lord” – that can only have people in mind

    “To me, this is something that can go either way. Maybe it literally means female inhabitants of Tyre, but I tend to think villages or suburbs makes more sense. Even though it says Nebuchadnezzar will kill them with the sword, I don’t see a problem with that — it would obviously be talking about inhabitants if villages/suburbs is the correct understanding. Regardless, I don’t think either interpretation really changes anything.”

    OF course it would. If its daughters in the field then its talking about actual people or groups of people in open fields and the whole idea of it referring to mainland tyre is not in play. The problem that you don;t see with it is because you have denied usage in other texts matters when studying ancient texts. the fact that “slay with the the sword” is never used like that anywhere else is most definitely an issue when deciding between the two

    “As to “mainland” vs “field,” I don’t think that makes a big difference either. The Hebrew word there can be defined either way, from what I’ve read.”

    Then where is it defined that way? Go ahead and do a search for the term mainland and see what you get on Bible hub. This word is translated mainland ONCE and its in Ezekiel 26. its translated that way not because the word means that but because of the translators knowledge of the geography. In every hebrew dictionary i have looked at mainland is not there as a meaning. Theres hundreds of instances of this word being used in the OT and its overwhelming us is field with a secondary meaning of land – never mainland.

    ” If “field” is the correct understanding, that still says nothing about Tyre’s actual location. Ezekiel still could have understood it as being the island. Considering that Tyre’s major claim to fame was always its notoriety as a trade hub, and that its harbors were on the island, it seems very likely that the center of Tyre was already the island portion.”

    IF field is correct then you lose one of your key reasons you stated it had to be the island in focus since mainland proved it. Its really not even debatable that it can and was translated that way. Right in your Biblehub link you skipped over all the translations that translate it as field and even the greek translation Septuagint translates to field. From everything I can see “mainland” is contrived from looking at a map not the text. Could Ezek still think it was an island? sure but here’s the problem – We can’t ask Ezek what he understood. All we have are the words. So if they can go either way (and only if we use all the expressions never used anywhere else like that ) you can’t build an unfulfilled prophecy on one you prefer over the other especially when the other one ends up with a looooooong odds of a city being swept into the sea fulfilled.

    How do you even deal with that Nate? because your whole premise is that Ezek is writing before the events and Alexander sweeps old tyre hundreds of years later – just incredible coincidence?

    In regard to where trade took place is immaterial. I’ve provided a link before that cites historical references of the both locations being known as Tyre like a twin city. I have shown Bible verses with Tyre identified as sharing physical borders with SIdon – totally impossible for the Island. Tyre on the mainland is without a doubt in the Bible identified with the mainland even if also identified with the Island.

    ” After all, even 300 or 400 years before Ezekiel, Tyre was already well known for trade. Combine that with Ezekiel’s (possible) reference to Tyre’s villages on the mainland and his reference to Tyre’s borders being in the heart of the sea (ch 27), and I think it seems extremely likely that Tyre itself was on the island.”

    all coastand cities have borders in the heart of the sea. the only difference with an Island is that it has ALL borders in the sea.

    “You’ve already mentioned that chapter 27 uses a lot of imagery in its depiction of Tyre as a ship on the seas, but I don’t see that as a reason to think Ezekiel did not view Tyre as an island city. I think it actually makes the opposite case.”

    27 being a poem does not mean nothing can be taken from it but what it does do clearly is show that many of the references to “in the sea” are indicative of that poetic vision of Tyre being a ship at move in the sea. As such they are not proof texts as to location. Tyre is at move in the sea which a non poetic island cannot be

    Ezekiel 27:26 (KJV)
    26 Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters: the east wind hath broken thee in the midst of the seas.

    As matter of fact in that verse “midst of the sea” has a completely different meaning than people assume the term has to mean. It means fallen/sinking into the sea and interestingly it means that also in chapter 26

    ” Just let me know what you think: was he talking about the island, the mainland, or both?”

    Both. Twin city. You could reference them interchangeably. My bet would be from Israel’s perspective People would have more interaction with the mainland. The Island’s port meant nothing to trade with a neighbor on land.

    Like

  105. Hi, Mike. we got off on the wrong foot. I’ll do better.

    I was hoping for a bit more clarification. If the prophecy referred to both the island and the mainland, why did ezekiel’s prophecy only Partially come true tor parts of Tyre?

    * the city would be scraped clean – only happened to mainland when Alexander used the rubble to build his causeway.

    * The city would sink – only a part of the island is now beneath the sea

    and of course, the “never be rebuilt” – I guess the parts under water werent rebuilt, but much of tyre was, in fact, rebuilt. I’m still unclear on how you’re suggesting “rebuilt” is to be used.

    And the “desolation” part – it is inhabited. True, I’m still going off of the english, which scholars translated from the hebrew. If “desolate” and “uninhabited” arent the best translations, what are?

    My point is, ezekiel’s prophecy, when read, makes it sound like a complete and permanent annihilation. I think that’s how it reads now, and I imagine if the ancient people would have had a hard time understanding “original city,” that they’d also have a hard time understanding that ezekiel wasnt talking about complete and permanent destruction. Yet, we know that the prophecy wasnt completely fulfilled according to a literal reading of what ezekiel declared.

    thoughts?

    Like

  106. Real quick – have to get to some work early today. continuing on on last nights post. I think the most compelling verse for Tyre the Island being the real focus of Ezekiel 26 is verse 5. In fact a lot of commentaries instantly think its Iron clad and I can’t wrong anyone for thinking so too. I did as well.

    “Ezekiel 26:4-5 (Darby)
    4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers. And I will scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock.
    5 She shall be [a place] for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken [it], saith the Lord Jehovah; and she shall become a spoil for the nations. ”

    (See I am using Darby – not a KJV only guy 🙂 ). “Place” is in brackets because there is no such word in the original. It is supplied by English translations (italics in KJV)

    This passage can definitely be seen as saying “I will scrape Tyre the city and Tyre the city will be nothing but a rock and the spreading of the nets will take place on the rock that is above seal level in the “midst the sea” because that is how Tyre will be as the end state of this prophecy”. The proximity of the statement “bare as a rock” and the spreading of nets would read in a way that implies the nets are spread on the rock though it does not say so directly.

    this would be pretty hard to dispute as once again it seems to fit into what we know of the geography. Theres only one problem

    That understanding is contradictory to the prophecy itself. That understanding leaves Tyre the city above the sea level but this verse says that CAN’T be the case

    Ezekiel 26:19-20 (Darby)
    19 For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I bring up THE DEEP UPON THEE , and the GREAT WATERS COVER THEE:
    20 then will I bring thee down, with them that go down to the pit, to the people of old time, and will cause thee to dwell in the lower parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I will set glory in the land of the living.”

    Not only does God say he will sink. take i to the pit, cover it with abundant waters, put it into the lower parts of the earth it but the reason why it must happen is indicated as well – so it will not be inhabited and as you guys like to point out often so it will not be found in verse 21. . Since it is to achieve a real result it cannot even be considered symbolic

    We have nothing in the text that tells us how Tyre will be covered in water except 26:12 – the scraping of Verse 5 explained as being laid into “the midst of the waters”

    The -parallel to scrape in verse 5 is

    Ezekiel 26:12 (Darby)
    12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy wares; and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses; and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the MIDST OF THE WATERS.”

    Here the midst of the waters answers the midst of the sea. it indicates that the expression as far as the text is concerned is NOT the geography of Tyre the island but the actual throwing of the city into the sea itself. In other words – really in the midst of the sea.

    The whole point Nate is that the judgement of Tyre is to bring it into the ocean deep. tyre’s great pride was its seamanship and ships. its power in the sea was exactly that – as masters of the sea with sea trading and seamanship.

    SO what Ezek, prophet or no prophet, writes is that Tyre is to be sunk in the sea

    I can’t see a way around this. Perhaps you can come up with one and I am not being snotty when I say this. I only recently saw this and realized the implications. I saw verse 5 just as you did but 19-20 seems unambiguous -The fate of Tyre is NOT to be above sea level but to be covered in the sea . This matches the end game of chapter 27 which states that the end of Tyre the great shipping enterprise is to be thrown into it

    Ezekiel 27:26-27 (Darby)
    26 Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters; the east wind hath broken thee in the heart of the seas.
    27 Thy substance, and thy markets, thy merchandise, thy mariners, and thy pilots, they that repair thy leaks, and they that barter with thee, and all thy men of war that are in thee, along with all thine assemblage which is in the midst of thee,SHALL FALL INTO THE HEART of the seas in the day of thy fall.”

    Taking this understanding back to verse 5 this is what it would mean

    “I will scrape you tyre into the midst of the water. I will lay all your dust, house, walls ,timber and stone into the water and you shall be for the spreading of nets there in the midst of the sea.”

    Thing is that happened. fishermen have used the stones and rocks thrown into the sea to spread nets on. Tyre did become a place to spread nets in the midst of the sea because Tyre was thrown into the ocean by Akexander when he built the causeway

    Again I and a lot of people have read the geography into the text rather than let the text speak for itself. However unless you can find some way to explain How the prophecy about being completely buried in the seas and covered by water allows Tyre to not be under water and above sea level it has to be the interpretation. A rock above sea level is neither in the deep nor covered over by abundant waters.

    Incidentally this also would make clear that a far as the text is concerned the city is the buildings scraped into the sea and not the land that is left. She tyre is in and under the ocean not on land. She will never be rebuilt because under water she cannot be found. She cannot inhabited and she cannot be rebuilt.

    Got to run. Have a good day.

    Like

  107. “Hi, Mike. we got off on the wrong foot. I’ll do better. ”

    We both will. I think that now we are concentrating on what the text say rather than CLinton or me talking about atheists in general ( i still don’t understand why saying most – not all – atheists do something which they do is so insultive but I’ll let it go) it pretty productive

    Ahh….. but I still did wish to clarify something that I think Nate took real offense to and that is questioning his former Christianity. Its not personal and you will find that issue with any Bible believer that knows his Bible. its not consistent scripturally to think that someone truly saved left the faith. it s a doctrinal belief made pretty firm by 1 john.

    1 John 2:19 (Darby)
    19 They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have surely remained with us, but that they might be made manifest that none are of us.

    So when People doubt the true nature of salvation of someone who says otherwise its because they believe the bible.

    Anyway I DO NOT want to get into all that again but I did not want to let stand that it was just some baseless accusation or have Nate thinking it was a personal shot

    William you can tell me otherwise but I think my last post above answers almost all your questions in regard to what I mean. I probably will not have anytime to answer anymore until late tonight or tomorrow. Have a good day

    Like

  108. Thanks for the response. I agree, I believe your previous post answered most, if not all of my questions. Once I have time, i will review them further and get back.

    thank you.

    Like

  109. Hi Mike,

    Thanks for all the clarification.

    Your points about “daughters on the mainland” are interesting and worth consideration. But since you and I both agree that Ezekiel probably meant both the island and mainland portions, I don’t see any need to debate that further.

    Since we agree that Tyre encompassed both locations, I have a hard time seeing how you believe the prophecy has been fulfilled. Yes, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland portion of Tyre, and Alexander later threw that debris (and possibly debris from any rebuilt mainland portions that he might have destroyed) into the sea to create his causeway to the island. I don’t see a problem with Ezekiel’s prophecy up to that point.

    Where I think his prophecy fails is that Alexander did not level the island portion of Tyre and did not throw all of its remains into the sea. And from that point, Tyre did not remain destroyed and uninhabited — it was immediately repopulated and rebuilt. Its identity remained the same. Did its exact footprint change over time? Sure, but that’s true of every city. And many of its changes have been the result of natural forces (sediment buildup, changing sea levels, etc), not from attacks, as Ezekiel prophesied.

    It’s true that fishermen spread nets there, but in what coastal city do fishermen not spread nets? I think the crux of that statement is that Ezekiel thought the site of Tyre would only be used for that and not a place to live, work, and conduct trade.

    Even if we did try to restrict Ezekiel’s prophecy to just the mainland portion, that area has been rebuilt as well. I just have a difficult time seeing how all parts of Ezekiel’s prophecy could be said to have come true. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood your argument.

    Thanks

    Like

  110. Mike,

    I am very happy to see the discussion be more productive and less about rhetoric and character judgments. If I may, I’d like to take a hopefully brief moment to respond to your side note here.

    You said:

    i still don’t understand why saying most – not all – atheists do something which they do is so insultive

    With the word “most” it isn’t as insulting to me. Your previous language sounded like “all”, but I misunderstood.

    You said:

    but I still did wish to clarify something that I think Nate took real offense to and that is questioning his former Christianity. Its not personal and you will find that issue with any Bible believer that knows his Bible.

    To believe that doctrinally is fine, but you were going further and reading Nate’s comments as confirmation of your belief – and you were harping on them quite a bit to dig into Nate’s character and sincerity.

    I am not Nate so I can only speak for myself. I am perfectly fine with someone believing that I was never a Christian. I actually don’t see any reason to be so stubborn about claiming that I know for sure I was a TRUE Christian – I don’t believe anymore that there even is such a thing, so in that regard whatever you believe doesn’t really matter. But back in the day I certainly very much thought I was an evangelical Christian – and if you question that statement, then it would bother me because it is an honest claim. But the fact is, what if my understanding of Christianity had some important missing factor that would have been the deciding factor of making me a TRUE Christian (if there is such a thing)? I’d never know because I took advice from many on what those factors needed to be and was very sure those factors were there. I converted when I was 19 from Judaism and my first year as a Christian I was very sure that Jesus had died for my sins, that the bible was inerrant, that I had confessed and repented of my sins, that my sins had been washed away, and that I was following Jesus. Intellectually I believed that the doctrines of evangelical Christianity were true and in “my heart” I had committed to following along with whatever I thought the beliefs required of me. While I thought my father would disown me I informed my parents of my new beliefs and when my parents said they thought it was a phase in my life I assured them that it was definitely not a phase in my life. I was very excited in that first year and prayed, read the bible, attended several campus meetings, and tried to spread the word as much as I could. But after that first year doubts began to grow until after 5 years they were so overwhelming I realized the doubts weighed more than the belief and it wasn’t honest to claim I was a Christian anymore.

    But again, while all of the above is the honest truth, it is also true that there could have been something missing that I’m not aware of that made it that I was actually not a Christian, so I’m fine with that. It may also be as some of my friends say that I am actually still a Christian right now even though I really do not think that the beliefs are true. Who knows, maybe it doesn’t matter what we actually truly think we believe. Perhaps there is some kind of subconscious thing that is actually opposite of what we honestly and sincerely believe (or at least what we think we believe). All that is fine. But then this calls into question everyone’s salvation. While you may be extremely sure of your belief right now, you don’t know what tomorrow may bring. With this kind of methodology there is no way I can see how anyone can know that they are truly saved. Again, I don’t believe there is such a thing.

    So you can believe that we were never really Christians – I don’t see a problem with that. But as you are doing very well in your more recent comments, there is no need to try and piece together actions or items within our statements which you think confirm that belief and harp on those. Whatever it may be, your doctrinal belief could stand no matter whether we are sincere or not.

    Like

  111. I’ve reread the text and made a spreadsheet of the events, in sequence, with verses cited.

    I think I understand mike’s interpretation, and I think there is some merit to it. Several of the verses referring to Nebuchadnezzar’s part specifically mention the mainland of tyre. However, some of my original questions remain:

    1. When is the prophecy only talking about the mainland? Only when it specifically says so, or are their other instances?

    2. The prophecy never seems to speak specifically and only regarding the island, excluding the mainland (unless I missed it), so why isn’t the mainland under water? And if the mainland is only referring the structures that were cats into the sea, why wasn’t the island’s?

    3. Verses 13 through 21 specifically seem to be saying that the tyre will be erased. It’s destruction will be so profound that it will practically vanish – but this has not happened. If god didn’t mean that it would be totally annihilated, how would Ezekiel have conveyed the idea of total and permanent destruction differently, more precisely or more clearly?

    Sequence of Events:

    description
    event verse
    1 26:3 bring many nations against tyre
    2 26:4 the many nations shall destroy the walls and pull down the towers
    3 26:4 scrape away rubble and make bare rock
    4 26:5 out of the sea, tyre will be a place to spread fishing nets
    5 26:5 she we become plunder for the nations
    6 26:6 her (settlements/daughters) on the (mainland/fields) will be ravaged by the sword
    7 26:7 Nebuchadnezzar will come against tyre
    8 26:8 Neb will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword
    9 26:8 Neb will set up siege works against tyre and build a ramp up to tyre’s walls and raise shield against tyre
    10 26:9 Neb will direct the blows of the battering rams against tyre’s walls and demolish the towers
    11 26:10 Neb’s horses will be so many that they will cover tyre with dust and the walls will tremble at their noise
    12 26:10 Neb’s men will enter the gates once broken through
    13 26:11 the hooves of Neb’s horses will trample all their streets
    14 26:11 Neb will kill tyre’s people and strong pillars will fall
    15 26:12 “They” (Neb’s men or the many nations) will plunder tyre’s wealth
    16 26:12 “they” (Neb’s men or the many nations) will break down the walls and demolish the houses, and throw stones, timber and rubble into the sea
    17 26:13 God will put and to tyre’s songs and tyre’s music will be heard no more
    18 26:14 God will make Tyre a bare rock, and it will become a place to spread nets
    19 26:14 you will never be rebuilt
    20 26:19 God will make tyre a desolate city, like uninhabited cities
    21 26:19 god will bring the ocean’s depths over tyre, and it’s vast waters over tyre
    22 26:20 god will place tyre in a pit, and tyre will not return
    23 26:21 god will bring them a horrible end and tyre will be no more.
    24 26:21 Tyre will be sought, but never will be found

    Like

  112. Nate you not only misunderstood you just flat out ignored just about everything in my last post. the fact that Tyre can refer to either the island or the mainland does not mean we agree that the prophecy deals equally to both. When I said “You could reference them interchangeably.” before I meant the word not the prophecy and I should have been clearer on that. my apologies. what it does mean is that what is done to one can be properly be said was done to Tyre NOT has to be done to both. If someone said I am going to write on the walls of Tyre and does so on the mainland thats would be a fulfillment of the intent. it does NOT require he has to go write on the wall at sea as well.

    “Even if we did try to restrict Ezekiel’s prophecy to just the mainland portion, that area has been rebuilt as well. I just have a difficult time seeing how all parts of Ezekiel’s prophecy”

    Read my last paragraph and tell me where the city that Ezekiel reference was supposed to be and tell me how it was rebuilt under water. You are again totally ignoring the context of where God said he put the city and no you can’t even show the mainland is now built. Please look at Google maps and trace where the coast must have been as opposed to mainland tyre.

    “I just have a difficult time seeing how all parts of Ezekiel’s prophecy could be said to have come true.’

    I know you have diificulties but your difficulty has nothing to do with the text or with the data in it which specifically states that the city that will not be rebuilt is under water precisely fulfilled by their being ruins underwater. All of A city known as tyre was moved right into the sea and thats what all of 26 tells us and specifically 19-20

    meanwhile in this alleged unfulfilled prophecy you STILL have not addressed the long odds that A city was scraped into the sea in precisely the way Ezek said – an area also historically known as Tyre. just coincidence? Ezek just happened to hit upon what happened with the mainland hundreds of years later? he should have gone to vegas I say 🙂 Or are you going to claim that too is not unique?

    By the way I did a Google search of cities in the area that you claimed as ancient cities were all the same making Tyre not unique and NONE of them I saw were anywhere even a quarter in ruins. NADA. Took a quick break but have to get back. Please address the text and points I made. You are using a lot of “I think”, I have a difficulty”,” I don’t see” “Ezekiel thought”

    None of those are statements of fact or anything in the text amd doesn’t provide anything by way of data to move on with.

    Like

  113. If we were talking about an individual, and there was a prophecy that said His head shall be burned and he will be destroyed, so that nothing is remaining and so that he cannot even be identified as a man anymore.

    And the man’s head was burned (score for the prophecy) and he lost a leg… and that was all. was the prophecy completely fulfilled?

    I think that’s how were’re seeing this. Ezekiel made out like tyre (not just part of it) was going to be annihilated – yet is wasnt. It made it sound like tyre (not only part of it), would never be rebuilt – yet is was.

    I’m not sure if this helps clarify or not?

    Like

  114. And mike, on the ancient cities in ruins thing, are you saying that in your search all of the ancient structures still exist and are being used? I may be missing your point, although not intentionally.

    Like

  115. Nate,

    Yes, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland portion of Tyre, and Alexander later threw that debris (and possibly debris from any rebuilt mainland portions that he might have destroyed) into the sea to create his causeway to the island. I don’t see a problem with Ezekiel’s prophecy up to that point.

    I think it’s fair to disagree with even this statement. Nebuchadnezzar was clearly mentioned in this passage so anything that his armies achieved is fair to use as fulfillment. It seems like speculation to try and fit it to later events. We can try and read Alexander into the passage but I would have a hard time trying to sell this reading to someone else without feeling like I was stretching things to try and save the passage from failure. Nebuchadnezzar’s name is there and no others are mentioned. Why read other names in when they were not listed?

    And this isn’t just 10 or 15 years later. Alexander’s siege was 241 years later. Everyone who Ezekiel was speaking to was surely dead and even several generations would have died seeing Ezekiel’s prophecy as unfulfilled. Ezekiel seems to even concede this in 29:18 and then he only mentions giving Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar and in chapter 29 doesn’t mention that later on his chapter 26 prophecy would be fulfilled by someone else.

    Like

  116. “To believe that doctrinally is fine, but you were going further and reading Nate’s comments as confirmation of your belief – and you were harping on them quite a bit to dig into Nate’s character and sincerity.”

    Nate to be honest you are just attempting to do nothing but move the conversation away from the present discussion. Yes I find some of the things Nate said to be consistent with 1 john and I said so and related how I had handled a similar situation . If you are asking me to not see the bible as true and take your word over it then thats a dead end. You can’t ask a believer to abandon “let God be true and every man a liar”. Again Past and present Christians should be able to understand that. I do see ample reasons in Nate’s situation to confirm I john. Sorry Its just the truth. I would have read every word in the original, every translation and been fully versed on the issues before denouncing my faith. Nate admits openly he didn’t know some basic things. I don’t accept his charge that that was me making claims based on not knowing him. I made those claims based on what he himself admitted to.

    Not to incite anything which to be honest seems all your post was trying to do but If I have to accept that your word of being sincere real Christians overriding what 1 john says. I chose based on the evidence I see in this thread – 1 john.

    IF anyone feels thats outrageous and wants to “blacklist” me again thats fine. I three quarter expect and expected it anyway. However anyone who was a Christian even nominally would understand that that position is not personal but also related to doctrine which I will not obligate myself to abandon because I am posting on a skeptic’s bog.

    “So you can believe that we were never really Christians – I don’t see a problem with that.”

    Yes of course thats why you wrote a long post just about not having a problem with it.

    Like

  117. I agree with what William just said.

    You are using a lot of “I think”, I have a difficulty”,” I don’t see” “Ezekiel thought”

    None of those are statements of fact or anything in the text amd doesn’t provide anything by way of data to move on with.

    This is simply a manner of speaking. I use “I think,” “seems to me,” and other phrases like that to acknowledge that I could be wrong. I still reference specific verses, quote from other sources, etc, so there are plenty of data points there for us to discuss. But I won’t claim something’s a fact just to give it more force — I may believe something is a fact, or that I have a correct understanding of something, but I know from experience that I could be wrong about my beliefs.

    Yes, I agree that when Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be cast into the sea, that was at least partially fulfilled by Alexander. I don’t know if it was done in the exact way Ezekiel imagined — but if that’s where the prophecy ended, I would find no fault with it. Whether it took divine insight to make that prediction, or whether it was just a lucky guess is a different conversation.

    However, I’ve always viewed divine inspiration as infallible. So no matter how many points Ezekiel gets right, if he misses any major points, then I can’t say he was truly divinely inspired. If you don’t agree with the infallibility of scripture, then we won’t find anything to agree about in this prophecy — we’re just looking at it in different ways. For now, I’ll assume you agree that God’s word would be perfect, so just correct me if that’s an inaccurate assumption.

    what it does mean is that what is done to one can be properly be said was done to Tyre NOT has to be done to both.

    If Ezekiel prophesies that Tyre would be utterly (completely) destroyed, how can a partial destruction qualify as a fulfillment?

    Read my last paragraph and tell me where the city that Ezekiel reference was supposed to be and tell me how it was rebuilt under water. You are again totally ignoring the context of where God said he put the city and no you can’t even show the mainland is now built. Please look at Google maps and trace where the coast must have been as opposed to mainland tyre.

    Who said it had to be rebuilt underwater? Looking at Google Maps, it’s obvious that the city encompasses the island, the causeway, and the mainland. Remember, the causeway was founded on debris from the old city, so in a way, I guess modern Tyre does sit on the underwater remains of the ancient mainland portion.

    Like

  118. “1. When is the prophecy only talking about the mainland? Only when it specifically says so, or are their other instances?”

    All of it was. You are free to show me any other passages that I have not dealt with that show the Island was the focus. Insisting on mainland will not work, in the midst of the sea in V5 properly refers to being thrown in the sea. All I see you really have left is 27 but thats a poem about a ship as tyre so of course it references in the sea.

    Further 19-20 nails that the city was moved into the sea so it would not be inhabited – thats EXACTLY what the pasage says so clearly if it is to be rebuilt where it was removed to then to the sea and with goggles you must go. Ot mocking just trying to be funny (and lol probably failing)

    Plus as I said – I don’t know how you would convince anyone that the mainland area was rebuilt while looking at a map. You are free to go and look

    Like

  119. Howie, it doesnt specifically say that Neb’s army would scrape it clean. I do agree, that when reading it, it sure seems that way. and granted, now that i read it all well after the facts have transpired, once it gets to the “scraping” and the “casting into the sea” it says that god will do it, or that “they” will do it.

    When reading the passages, and again well after the fact, it’s still hard to tell whether ezekiel intended for “they” to refer to the many nations or to neb’s men who entered the city through the broken gates.

    Even so, there are other areas that still appear to be problematic. and i’m not saying it’s an outright score for the bible, as there is still some ambiguity surrounding ezekiel’s intentions regrading who was supposed to throw the stuff into the water, I’m just saying that I can see where a beliver would see it as a score, and I can leave it there.

    again, I still think there are a couple of other areas that are not resolved.

    1..it says the mainland would be scraped and thrown in the sea, but it says tyre would be under the sea. some or part? the text reads”tyre.” why isnt the whole thing underwater with only rocky parts to dry nest on? again, even if this is only talking about the rubble of the destroyed structures, then why wasnt the island’s building tossed in, and why is it that the parts of the island underwater even mentioned if it’s only referring to mainland building rubble?

    and the others I mentioned earlier but am too tired to retype now…

    Like

  120. Hi Howie,

    I agree with you; however, early in chapter 26, Ezekiel does mention “many nations” attacking Tyre like “waves on the sea.” Some think that “many nations” refers to the diverse makeup of Nebuchadnezzar’s force, but others maintain that it includes attacks from folks like Alexander. I can see it either way, but I’m willing to concede that it could include Alexander’s attack. I find it suspect that Alexander wasn’t specifically named, since other parts of the OT claim that people like Josiah and Cyrus were named long before they were even born. But since there are other, larger issues with this prophecy (in my opinion), I don’t push too much on the Alexander thing.

    Again, that’s just me, and I see why some people have a larger problem with it than I do.

    Like

  121. to be honest you are just attempting to do nothing but move the conversation away from the present discussion.

    This is plainly and utterly false – there is absolutely no doubt in my mind. You made statements I felt needed response to and I made no attempt to try and sabotage the much better discussion you guys are currently having regarding the passage. You want an angry atheist and you’ve got one – not because I’m angry at a god. I am angry that you insist over and over again on making statements like these about integrity that are just totally off from what is true.

    This seems to be your main problem Mike. Just like somehow you thought a while back that when I said “picture” I was trying to mislead people into thinking that “picture” meant a picture taken by a camera. Mike, please google “define picture”. Are you jumping right away to integrity statements because you automatically have a preconceived notion of the sincerity of those who disagree with you? Is it impossible that someone can disagree with Mike Anthony and be sincere at the same time?

    I am ready to drop this right now – I DID NOT intend it to move the conversation away from Tyre. Are you willing to drop it?

    By the way, even with these behaviors of yours I see no reason to blacklist you. But I won’t keep silent either.

    Like

  122. Btw, as far as other cities are concerned, places like Rome, Jerusalem, and London all have some old buildings, some visible ruins, and many more modern buildings that have been built upon what came before. Unless someone wants to argue that Rome, Jerusalem, and London have ceased to exist because they have layers and layers of “new construction,” then I see no reason to say that Tyre has ceased to exist.

    Like

  123. yeah, mike, i get that there’s a huge field on the mainland, but I see building as well, but i guess we may have to agree to disagree.

    and I guess now, if i understand right, we no longer think the prophecy referred to both parts, but to only the mainland now that you think the prophecy was only talking about the building materials being thrown into the sea?

    and if all of the prophecy is only talking about the mainland, then why did it specifically say that the mainland would encounter certain things, and then tyre would encounter others?

    again, to me it looks likes saying your knee was scraped, and you were destroyed, but in reality, your knee was scraped and you were punched in the stomach.

    and I guess buried building blocks couldnt be re-inhabited, but that sounds like a very safe and flat prophecy. besides, tyre has now built on top of all of that rubble, so i think a case for being re-inhabited is still pretty good.

    the source of tyre’s wealth and status was the island… I dont know, mike. It sounds like a Nostradamus prediction; vague here and there, is it the whole city or part, “never being rebuilt” only refers to the original building material as the city was rebuilt…

    what else am i missing?

    Like

  124. Nate and William,

    I think if one wanted to they could save the passage using this technique. The question remains how reasonable it is of course. I think it is fair to have an opinion either way and I respect either one, but given my points above I lean one way.

    If next year or in 20 years a nation came and fulfilled everything in this passage are you guys good then? We may be able to end the discussion right now then based on that. I don’t think you can say the prophecy is a failure if 241 years later it’s partially fulfilled. Why couldn’t 2500 years later it be fulfilled fully? I have no problem if this is your assessment but you should think about it. It may be this passage really is not as big a problem for you as you think. (can’t believe I am helping Mike out 😉 – I got over my anger quickly, I’m funny that way).

    Like

  125. Howie, good point, and I absolutely agree. Just like nate, I was merely saying it’s close enough for a believer and there are other issues to discuss that arent so ready tossed aside.

    But I agree. Often we’re told that parts of the bible, we’re having a hard time making sense of, god was writing in a way so that the people of the time would understand; and then parts that the people of long ago wouldnt have understood, go was writing a book for all time and all people. convenient way of doing things, or inconvenient – depending on your viewpoint.

    Like

  126. Mike,

    Yes of course thats why you wrote a long post just about not having a problem with it.

    Sorry to make you think I’m trying to derail again, but just realized that you missed my point entirely probably because I wrote too much – you and all other Christians have absolutely no way of knowing whether you are saved or not given what you are trying to state.

    Ok, I fully read your comment now so I’m done with this – please please move on to Tyre – I helped you out on that if you didn’t notice.

    Like

  127. “Yes, I agree that when Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be cast into the sea, that was at least partially fulfilled by Alexander. I don’t know if it was done in the exact way Ezekiel imagined — but if that’s where the prophecy ended, I would find no fault with it. ”

    Good nate then show me where it goes on beyond the city being covered by the Sea. IF you can’t then by your own admission you can find no fault with it and your unfulfilled prophecy claim fails utterly

    “But I won’t claim something’s a fact just to give it more force’

    You missed my point entirely. I was not asking you say anything was a fact. I was asking you to deal with the post I made and the points I made not side step them as you did. When you reference for example what Ezekiel could have thought or did think- I mean seriously what in the world can be done with that? It has no point. we can’t deal with what he thought or considered outside of the text.

    “If Ezekiel prophesies that Tyre would be utterly (completely) destroyed, how can a partial destruction qualify as a fulfillment?”

    simple because it wasn’t partial. If Tyre being referred to is mainland Then its total in STUNNING fashion with all of it swpet into the sea by Alexander. Sorry no problem with infallibility there. Really you are just trying to claim that tyre is not interchangeable and EZEK 26 must refer to the island. Only none of your proof texts have held up as such.

    The mainland is the after all the portion that would benefit most from Jerusalem’s fall and allow itto take more of the land

    “Who said it had to be rebuilt underwater?”

    Ezek does. please go back and read. Like I said you are not addressing the passage of 19-20. the she is the city and the city is in the water and it gets there by being scraped there. its all right there in the text.

    “Looking at Google Maps, it’s obvious that the city encompasses the island, the causeway, and the mainland. ”

    Mainland? Where? The ruins of Tyre is what shows on Google maps and it cannot be rebuilt. it could not be more obvious. The city limits ends just about where the mainland would have been. No way you can make that one fly

    If you are trying to say mainland tyre was rebuilt because theres an isthmus and Island (less than half way built) thats of no force at all. Building next to the old city does not mean building the old city. That point is not even worthy of being debated much.

    Like

  128. “This seems to be your main problem Mike.”

    Here we go again but nah not trying to resurrect charges and claims. sheesh blacklist me who cares? I’ll still say it – thats soo dishonest

    Like

  129. ” Unless someone wants to argue that Rome, Jerusalem, and London have ceased to exist because they have layers and layers of “new construction,” then I see no reason to say that Tyre has ceased to exist.”

    Sorry Nate as a strawman thats not even a good one. When you show me Jerusalem half in ruins or under water I will agree its not rebuilt consistent with good old Nehemiah’s usage. until then claiming the state of Tyre even on the isles is normal for ancient cities is an utter failure in addressing the fact of contemporary usage.

    Like

  130. mike, ezekiel said the mainland would be scraped and tossed, and then it said tyre would be destroyed, covered by the sea, never rebuilt, never found, etc. the island was a huge part of tyre and arguably the more significant member. why say “tyre,” which represents the whole, when you only meant one part.

    earlier you kept saying we couldnt say tyre was rebuilt, when only half of it was (which still confuses me because it never claimed “will never be rebuilt as it was”). well then why are you trying to say that total destruction is fitting to a partial destruction?

    and i’d like to point out, that until very recently you viewed the prophecy as we did, that is referring to it’s geography, not exclusively it’s building materials. Under that way of thinking, the prophecy is an undeniable failure. I still think it fails, but wanted to point out your change in view during this discussion, so acting as if we’re simple minded or purposely trying to “not see” the prophecy as it is is disingenuous.

    Like

  131. Mike,

    Here we go again but nah not trying to resurrect charges and claims. sheesh blacklist me who cares? I’ll still say it – thats soo dishonest

    😀

    Like

  132. “Sorry Nate as a strawman thats not even a good one. When you show me Jerusalem half in ruins or under water I will agree its not rebuilt consistent with good old Nehemiah’s usage. until then claiming the state of Tyre even on the isles is normal for ancient cities is an utter failure in addressing the fact of contemporary usage.”

    mike, i’m confused. I think I really do need a good definition on how you mean “build” and “rebuild.”

    there’s ruins on tyre and new structures on tyre. thee other cities mentions mentioned have ruins and new structures. where’s the strawman?

    Like

  133. “yeah, mike, i get that there’s a huge field on the mainland, but I see building as well, but i guess we may have to agree to disagree.”

    🙂 You know what given how you have been pretty fair so far today I am going to go out on a limb and say – i don’t think we do disagree. I think deep down you know and will probably admit soon that that area is NOT a rebuilt city. it just might take you a little time to get around to it.

    “and I guess now, if i understand right, we no longer think the prophecy referred to both parts, but to only the mainland now that you think the prophecy was only talking about the building materials being thrown into the sea?”

    as I said before I have given you two answers. I still don’t think on the island you have a good point either. There is no ancient city in the entire area I have seen despite Nate’s claims that meets being half in ruins or under sea. It fails the usage of the word built in those days and even today

    “and if all of the prophecy is only talking about the mainland, then why did it specifically say that the mainland would encounter certain things, and then tyre would encounter others?”

    It doesn’t. We’ve covered this. There is no “mainland” in the entire Hebrew text . the word everywhere else in the Bible is interpreted field and the septaugint which is the greek version states field as well.

    “and I guess buried building blocks couldnt be re-inhabited, but that sounds like a very safe and flat prophecy.”

    You shall be scraped into the sea? safe prophecy?:) GO ahead how me where else that happened.

    “besides, tyre has now built on top of all of that rubble, so i think a case for being re-inhabited is still pretty good.”

    Nope. As the ithmus indicates by its rapid widening and as I have provided links to the locals admitting – the ruins disappearing into sediment build up – If anyone is living down there they have a really big air tank and some shovels. Its down there in…nah let me let Ezek say it

    “down to the pit, to the people of old time…..cause thee to dwell in the lower parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I will set glory in the land of the living. (which is above ground)

    Its a remarkable Prophecy so remarkable that even when sceptic bloggers try to claim its unfulfilled the text still comes back and bites their claim in the rear. 🙂

    Destroyed? check
    scraped into the sea unlike just about any other city? check
    City moved into the pit ? Check
    uninhabited down in the lower parts of the earth? check

    Bonus? area above the sea level unrebuilt on the mainland and protected by the uN from ever being built?

    Shucks its freaking awesome . 🙂

    :)…sorry guys your unfulfiled prophecy is quite the bust once you look at all the text and do proper research beyond the english version you choose.

    Like

  134. “and i’d like to point out, that until very recently you viewed the prophecy as we did ”

    I still do WIlliam. I stated before I see two ways of seeing this prophecy and either one does not meet the unfulfilled status no matter what you claim. I specifically said to you in one of our heated exchanges that two answers are better than one

    “I still think it fails, but wanted to point out your change in view during this discussion”

    Again the second view does not change my view on ruins not being built. Its still a fact no matter how it is denied that Nehemiah in the very same Bible reveals Build does not mean still lie in waste. The mere presence of buildings does not change that tyre as a city is not rebuilt. You can look at half the area on the Old island in ruins and you can see he mainland in no shape way or view as a rebuilt city. That said yes. I do see the mainland focus as a lot stronger than I did before and I still have not heard how you can overcome that the prophecied end of tyre is to be placed in the water in the midst of the sea. its what the passage says – not merely be surrounded by it.

    “so acting as if we’re simple minded or purposely trying to “not see” the prophecy as it is is disingenuous.”

    Thats funny I don’t recall saying that to you. Do I think Nate is dancing. yes I do but I have not thought you were. I just finished complimenting you on being fair in fact. However regardless of any previous views if one finds new evidence, gets new data and still will not address it then at some point it does become “not wanting to see”. I am not saying anyone is there yet but Nate IS leaning there.

    Like

  135. “there’s ruins on tyre and new structures on tyre. thee other cities mentions mentioned have ruins and new structures. where’s the strawman?”

    WOW! I mean how many times do I have to say it? I’ve said it like twenty times in this thread. NO ONE..NEVER EVER has stated that other cities do not have some ruins. Thats EXACTLY why its PURE straw to raise that as an objection to my point. What i have said over and over again is that no city in the region has over half its prior location underwater or in ruins. Sidon up the road does not ave it, Lowly Nazereth to the south doesn’t. Haifa? no. Damascus? No

    The claim that Tyre is just like any of these ancient cities is just nonsense.

    Like

  136. Havent been able to read everything yet, but regarding your first comment about there not being a rebuilt city – I’d have to take another look back at all teh maps (past a present) before i concede that the mainland portion was not rebuilt.

    However, i still think tyre included island and mainland, so for now at least, i’ll say I still think it’s very safe to say tyre is still there, rebuilt and repopulated.

    Like

  137. why are we saying that there must be an ancient city present for the meaning “rebuilt” to hold true? all that would do that is for there to be an existing city, which there is.

    Like

  138. I will concede this point, I do not think anyone is living is buried, torn down building materials. I think we can agree there.

    Like

  139. “It doesn’t. We’ve covered this. There is no “mainland” in the entire Hebrew text . the word everywhere else in the Bible is interpreted field and the septaugint which is the greek version states field as well.”

    okay, so field. same question then, just insert “field.”

    Like

  140. okay, so ezekiel was saying that the fields of tyre would be scraped clean, with it’s building, etc thrown into the sea. and that tyre (although he still means “actual building material which only applied to the fields of tyre”) will never be rebuilt nor reinhabitted?

    and when ezekiel said that tyre would be covered water, he meant “actual building material that was built in tyre’s field?”

    am I understanding now?

    Like

  141. “The mere presence of buildings does not change that tyre as a city is not rebuilt.”

    I guess, but I think that the cluster, teh grouping, the usage and the naming do indicate that tyre was rebuilt.

    I think if we asked a resident of the present city, whether they lived in a city or not, that they would answer that they did in fact live in a city. sure, there opinion would be proof, but a grouping of occupied buildings, under a single name, typically means it;s a city. it built by someone. and since, like many other anient cites, it was sacked, it looks like it was rebuilt.

    “I just finished complimenting you on being fair in fact.” thanks for the compliment.

    I wouldnt say that nate is dancing any more than you are, i think maybe we’re all still not understanding each other’s terms perfectly. there have been something that I dont think you answered of his, so this seems to be more of coming at it from different angles and applying different meanings to words.

    Like

  142. “What i have said over and over again is that no city in the region has over half its prior location underwater or in ruins.”

    that’s all very well, but it doesn’t negate the similarities either. you’re saying that tyre cant be said to have been rebuilt, yet there are visible ruins and actively used structures – regardless of size or quantity. It is possible to rebuild smaller or bigger than before and that happens all the time.

    so if new building dont count as being rebuilt, or haven been rebuilt on top of old building materials doesnt count, then what’s the definition of “rebuilt” and which city meets that definition? The presence of water around or in or whatever to city has nothing to do with how rebuilt it is – it’s the structures that determines that.

    so i’m not so sure it’s us who’s missed the point, but perhaps I’m mistaken.

    Like

  143. “I think if one wanted to they could save the passage using this technique. The question remains how reasonable it is of course”

    Nate I tell you what? Open Ezekiel 26 and read 19 and 20 and tell me then that the text does not put the city into the sea moving it into the depth. Theres a technique in there alright

    its called prophecy.

    If anyone “saved it’ it was Ezekiel and umm God.

    Anyway good thing I run my own business or I would get fired. Later……well unless I am “blacklisted again” lol

    Like

  144. you know, I was rereading back through the passages and something occurred to me. If the “they” in verse 12 means that ezekiel was through speaking about Neb, there’s nothing in the context to necessitate that they are still speaking about the “fields/mainland” exclsuivlely anymore.

    a simple reading of the entire text, mike, seems to always indicate ezekiel meant that tyre, and not just a portion of it, was going to be destroyed completely and perminnatly. so far, you havent solidified your case that ezekiel really meant anything other than all of tyre.

    and even if the actual brinks and pieces of lumber werent going to lived in again, the city certainly was and is – which is what ezekiel was talking about.

    true, the building materials were thrown in the sea, but it doesnt even make sense to say that no one would live in broken bricks any more, Ezekiel was obviously talking the city as being uninhabited and never rebuilt.

    he was just wrong.

    after reading this passage several times today, I’m going back to wondering why we’re even having a discussion. Ezekiel says X and Y happened.

    and if the ancient peoples understood these terms differently than I am applying them, please present your sources and evidence of such.

    Like

  145. William,

    he was just wrong.

    Again William, I don’t think given what you have said previously you can still say he was wrong. You said you’d be fine accepting the prophecy as fulfilled if 241 years later Alexander totally destroyed the city and fulfilled everything to the letter. Given that methodology you cannot say he was wrong. You can only say that it looks like it is not fulfilled yet, but you can’t say he was wrong.

    At some point you’d obviously run into a statistical issue which questions whether it’s miraculous or not, but you still can’t say he was wrong if you allow taking the passage out of it’s context in the first place regarding Alexander.

    Like

  146. touche, howie. I agree with you now and on your earlier point to the same affect – I was merely… oh well, i think you’re right and I think ezekiel was wrong.

    I was entertaining mike’s points in order to see if i missed anything in my consideration, yet even so, i still see several gaps in logic.

    I think it is safe to assume you and I are really on the same page here,as I think is often the case.

    maybe you and I are even the same person, but with different experiences. doesnt make sense, i know, but i thought i’d type it regardless.

    Like

  147. “true, the building materials were thrown in the sea, but it doesnt even make sense to say that no one would live in broken bricks any more, Ezekiel was obviously talking the city as being uninhabited and never rebuilt.”

    Lol…….. the passage flat out says that it will be underwater so that it will not be uninhabited but it makes no sense to you??….too funny…. Its just so obvious you can’t handle what that passage says because it puts a serious dent in your unfulfilled prophecy.

    and then before that you have the nerve to ask

    “are going off of how it reads or how it should read in order to workout?’

    when its you trying desperately to twist out of what the passage says.

    Like

  148. “it” being tyre.

    mike, no one disagrees with you that buried building materials will be uninhabited. Ezekiel says tyre will be uninhabited.

    as simple reading of text gives the impression ezekiel, claiming to speak for god, said that tyre would be completely and permanently destroyed. yes, he specifically spoke for a moment about the fields or what scholars have translated to the mainland, but then he speaks in general about the city tyre.

    I think it’s twisting the passage to try and insist that ezekile was only talking about the actual building material that rested in the field of tyre.

    Like

  149. Sorry if this is tedious, but I’m going straight back to the source. I’m using the ESV, so if anyone has a problem with that, feel free to say so.

    In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, ‘Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken; it has swung open to me. I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste,’ 3 therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.

    So God is judging Tyre because of its attitude toward Jerusalem. These were current events to Ezekiel, so it would make sense that if God is upset with the residents of Tyre during Ezekiel’s time, then those are the people he’s going to wreak havoc upon.

    4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers, and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock. 5 She shall be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets, for I have spoken, declares the Lord God. And she shall become plunder for the nations, 6 and her daughters on the mainland shall be killed by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

    So “they” — the “many nations” will break down Tyre’s walls and towers and make her a bare rock. Tyre will be plundered, and its dependent villages will be destroyed.

    7 “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the Lord; I have spoken, declares the Lord God.

    Now Ezekiel gets more specific and says that Nebuchadnezzar will bring his army against Tyre and destroy the dependent villages, set up a siege wall, use a battering ram, and break down Tyre’s towers. His horses, wagons, etc will enter the city and trample the streets. The pillars will be broken down and the people will be killed.

    In verse 12, he switches pronoun use from “he” to “they.” There’s never any clarification given to whom “they” is, which is very poor grammar. The closest antecedent would be Nebuchadnezzar’s army, who have supposedly already broken down the towers and entered the city. Maybe someone could argue that the change in pronouns means Ezekiel’s talking about someone other than Nebuchadnezzar entirely, but that’s simply speculation. The strongest case, grammatically, is that he’s still talking about Nebuchadnezzar’s army. That case is strengthened by the fact that the next things to happen are all things that would naturally follow an army breaching the gates to the city: they would plunder the city, tear down all the walls and buildings, and throw everything into the sea. The music of Tyre would be heard no more — it would simply be a bare rock. It would never be rebuilt, and the most activity that would be seen on it would be fishermen spreading nets.

    15 “Thus says the Lord God to Tyre: Will not the coastlands shake at the sound of your fall, when the wounded groan, when slaughter is made in your midst? 16 Then all the princes of the sea will step down from their thrones and remove their robes and strip off their embroidered garments. They will clothe themselves with trembling; they will sit on the ground and tremble every moment and be appalled at you. 17 And they will raise a lamentation over you and say to you,

    “‘How you have perished,
    you who were inhabited from the seas,
    O city renowned,
    who was mighty on the sea;
    she and her inhabitants imposed their terror
    on all her inhabitants!
    18 Now the coastlands tremble
    on the day of your fall,
    and the coastlands that are on the sea
    are dismayed at your passing.’

    All of Tyre’s neighbors will be struck by the devastation that would befall Tyre.

    19 “For thus says the Lord God: When I make you a city laid waste, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you, 20 then I will make you go down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you to dwell in the world below, among ruins from of old, with those who go down to the pit, so that you will not be inhabited; but I will set beauty in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more. Though you be sought for, you will never be found again, declares the Lord God.”

    How literally do we take this section? If the city is literally going to be underwater, then why would Ezekiel need to say that it would never be inhabited or rebuilt? Those statements are entirely unnecessary if we’re to understand that the city of Tyre can never be considered independently of the inhabitants of Ezekiel’t time or of the actual buildings and materials that formed the city back then. But that’s a really bizarre way of thinking about a city. We think of no other cities in that way.

    And if one is going to maintain that when Ezekiel talked about Tyre he only meant the mainland, then why point to Alexander’s attack at all? No one disputes that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland section of Tyre.

    Also, as we’ve mentioned before, Ezekiel himself says that Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts failed (29:18):

    Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre. Every head was made bald, and every shoulder was rubbed bare, yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against her.

    And it also goes against earlier Bible passages that talk about the wealth of Tyre, which we all know was due to its status as a trading center. No one disputes that the harbors were on the island; therefore, the other vital parts of the city would have been on the island as well. How else could they have easily transported the goods from the ships, when the major harbors were on the island?

    Mike, I give you credit for your tenacity. But the fact that you have to go to great lengths to make Ezekiel’s prophecy match only the mainland is good evidence that there’s a problem with the prophecy.

    Simply put, Ezekiel said Tyre would be completely destroyed and never rebuilt, but that just did not happen.

    Like

  150. Btw, if there are any bystanders who are simply watching this exchange, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. It doesn’t appear that Mike, Howie, William, or I are going to change our positions — we simply view this in completely different ways. But if there’s anyone out there whose mind wasn’t made up at the outset, has this discussion helped at all, or are we just wasting time?

    Like

  151. Oh, and there’s one more point I forgot to make concerning verses 19-21. If we’re going to take it completely literally, then not only must Tyre be underwater, it must be among ruins and dead people from all over the world:

    20 then I will make you go down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you to dwell in the world below, among ruins from of old, with those who go down to the pit,

    Like

  152. I find it odd that so much time is spent on this one bible prophecy. Even if there was a consensus agreement to be made on this one little bible difficulty that favored the christian apologist. There are still countless other discrepant bible prophecies, lgoical contradictions, immoral acts by God, and well over 1000 documented bible contradictions in the bible.

    To be fair and honest, solving one little bible contradiction in prohecy does not turn the tide.

    Like

  153. “So God is judging Tyre because of its attitude toward Jerusalem. These were current events to Ezekiel, so it would make sense that if God is upset with the residents of Tyre during Ezekiel’s time, then those are the people he’s going to wreak havoc upon.”

    And Neb did so I fail to see the point, Further the issue that Tyre was to be addressed for was looking to be enriched by Jerusalem’s fall something much more related to the mainland than the island since Tyre on the mainland held land lock with Israel

    “In verse 12, he switches pronoun use from “he” to “they.” There’s never any clarification given to whom “they” is, which is very poor grammar.

    The they is the many nation mentioned before. there is no grammar problem and seriously – you know Hebrew to know what is bad grammar in Hebrew?

    “The strongest case, grammatically, is that he’s still talking about Nebuchadnezzar’s army.”

    nope that argument falls flat on its face – Neb is referred to as he. the specifics start out in verse 7 with the Hebrew FOR indicating the beginning of how this would all happen. its all singular and you are tying to ignore that in defiance of grammar not in support of it. Neb and his army are referred to operating under what HE would do. The they is to the nations. The shift in pronoun is undeniable and obvious considering the he that proceeded it. Its just miraculous though that when it does switch pronouns the fulfilment begins to be made by other leaders. 😉 Old Ezek just happened to make the change in pronouns just when he started talking about what later Alexander would do. What are the odds eh?

    “it would simply be a bare rock. It would never be rebuilt, and the most activity that …. would be seen on it would be fishermen spreading nets.”

    As verse 19-20 PROVES and you are now ignoring again the city is to be put under water. I’ve asked how you reconcile that but you have not answered (probably because it can’t be denied what is stated there). it also doesn’t say a thing about activity. Thats just made up.

    “How literally do we take this section? If the city is literally going to be underwater, then why would Ezekiel need to say that it would never be inhabited or rebuilt? ”

    19-20 show that you have that entirely backward so much so the question doesn’t even make sense once you read it .the passage straightforward says that it will be covered with water SO THAT it will not be inhabited. How you get redundancy out of that i have no idea.

    “And if one is going to maintain that when Ezekiel talked about Tyre he only meant the mainland, then why point to Alexander’s attack at all? ”

    Umm he scrapes the ruins into the SEA fulfilling the prophecy???

    “Also, as we’ve mentioned before, Ezekiel himself says that Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts failed (29:18):”

    Nate go ahead and show me the word fail. this is probably one of the most nonsense claims of the whole argument made by sketpics. It states no such thing – it states that

    “yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against her.”

    All that says is he did not get wages out of Tyre for whatever reason (wealth escaped to boats, the isle or whatever.) not that he achieved nothing there. As a matter of fact if a job was not accomplished there there would be no reason for wages. the passage actually says he did do a service and not only a service but a GREAT service which makes absolutely no sense if he accomplished nothing. This is one ofthe classic begs of the Till contingency that is a complete non-sequitor and goes splat on closer examination

    “Mike, I give you credit for your tenacity. But the fact that you have to go to great lengths to make Ezekiel’s prophecy match only the mainland is good evidence that there’s a problem with the prophecy.”

    Well…..I guess if by lengths you mean actually looking at the passage , what it says , the hebrew (in a hebrew document no less what a thought? 🙂 ), allowing the passage to say what it does say in 19-20 instead of attempting to ahem…. ignore it), actually applying some scholarship to reading a text within its contemporary usage as ALL experts claim must be done rather than begging on bended knee that it does not matter then of course you feel that way. I would expect you would. I’ve told you before you conveniently exerted little effort in dealing with the text most likely from years ago or you would have known about such things as “Daughters in the fields” (just the most widely read translation in all world) rather than hearing it the first time here.

    I’ve set out to do what I aimed to do and that was to show that only by ignoring the various meanings of Hebrew, begging that one translation is right to shoe horn an interpretation and generally ignoring parts of the text can anyone claim that Ezekiel 26 is an unfulfilled prophecy.

    I’ve done that better than I even thought I would. Seeing you retreat/hand wave around from today’s points on verses 19-20 sealed that realization. Thanks for the opportunity

    Like

  154. “The they is the many nation mentioned before. there is no grammar problem and seriously – you know Hebrew to know what is bad grammar in Hebrew?”

    do you? what are your credentials?

    and again, we’re all reading from the english, which was transliterated bu scholars. so looking at the grammar makes perfect sense. If the scholars who translated the bible were wrong, what is a more accurate translation?

    Like

  155. “Oh, and there’s one more point I forgot to make concerning verses 19-21. If we’re going to take it completely literally, then not only must Tyre be underwater, it must be among ruins and dead people from all over the world:”

    A true sign you are getting desperate with 19-20 and its obvious implications that destroy your position. For goodness sake man. Apply a little study – the word your treasured translation is claiming is world is eres which means land. It can be a land of a nation around a city – just land. I’m sorry but its baffling that a former alleged Christian would give up his a faith without even looking at the original language the Bible was written in or even another translation. Did you do nothing but read Till?

    Like

  156. “All that says is he did not get wages out of Tyre for whatever reason (wealth escaped to boats, the isle or whatever.) not that he achieved nothing there.”

    the passage says that tyre would be looted. neb didnt do that – but to be fair, alexander could have – although Howie makes a great point, that is the passage was written to people who would have thought it was coming soon, not hundreds of years later.

    again, mike, everyone agrees that rubble was tossed into the sea. everyone agrees that no one will inhabit or dwell in rubble whether above or below the sea.

    What we’re saying, is that when reading ezekiel, it is saying that the city, that is tyre, will not be lived in again – not the old materials – that really is just silly.

    When chicago was burned down, did it have to be rebuilt with the burned up timbers in order to be considered rebuilt? I’m really not getting your definition.

    seriously, can you just supply a definition for how you’re understanding “rebuild” and then supply a few actual examples to support it?

    Like

  157. “do you? what are your credentials?

    Seminary training.

    “and again, we’re all reading from the english,

    Sorry but you’ve mentioned this a couple times Theres just no excuse for such a lazy approach. There are free bible program s online that you can download and look up Hebrew and greek words. Claiming that you can study and understand fully Shakespeare in spanish without consulting the english it was written in is just utterly ridiculous.

    I don’t have to know you or Nate – arguing the things you argue without even consulting other versions much less the original languages of the bible shows no effort consistent with having cared enough about your Christianity. Ban me from the blog for telling the truth on that. I am not being mean and I am not angry just telling it like it is. Theres more oomph and commitment to Christianity needed to name it. Even if you ended up abandoning the faith You should know these things inside and out not be begging out of knowing the things you should know if you had studied this issue or claiming well I will stick to englsih no matter what the hebrew says. Crazy stuff

    Like

  158. ” There are still countless other discrepant bible prophecies, lgoical contradictions, immoral acts by God, and well over 1000 documented bible contradictions in the bible”

    been there seen that and they are weaker than the bible prophecy by far. I eat those alleged contradictions for breakfast. they are either so inconsequential to be anything meaningful or more usually the same kind of ignoring context and language as seen in this thread.

    Like

  159. ” I’m sorry but its baffling that a former alleged Christian would give up his a faith without even looking at the original language the Bible was written in or even another translation.”

    cant speak for nate, but i consult an interlinear bible from time to time, but even when doing that i rely on the translated definitions provided by the scholars who translated the text.

    which translation would you suggest we go from and how educated are you in ancient hebrew?

    Like

  160. “they are either so inconsequential to be anything meaningful”

    you dont mean to suggest there are even little errors and/or contradictions in the bible do you?

    Like

  161. “claiming well I will stick to englsih no matter what the hebrew says”

    not what I said. I read and understand english,. and again, when i use an interlinear bible, showing the original text, I am still going off of the scholar’s translations because I dont read nor do I speak ancient hebrew.

    Maybe if i werent so lazy i would have learned the ancient tongue and script, i’ll try to do better. How long did it take you to learn the language? did you learn it in seminary?

    Like

  162. William, you said:

    touche, howie. I agree with you now and on your earlier point to the same affect – I was merely… oh well, i think you’re right and I think ezekiel was wrong.

    William – just wanted to make sure you know I wasn’t trying to be nit-picky or just win some point (I think you probably know that by now with me). I just want to try and make sure we’re all being careful with the interpretation to make sure we’re getting as close to possible to the original intentions. You probably also know that I believe that doing that is not as easy as any of us make it out to be (including what I make it out to be 😉 )

    Like

  163. “I don’t have to know you or Nate – arguing the things you argue without even consulting other versions much less the original languages of the bible shows no effort consistent with having cared enough about your Christianity.”

    and this isnt accurate, and I’d dare say not even honest, it’s certainly poorly formulated. we both consult different versions – nate has referenced several here, in this discussion. I can only assure you that we have consulted interlinear bibles before at many different times for many different occasions.

    but your basely accusations do little for our discussion aside from distracting from the topic at hand.

    perhaps I am just not as educated as you are, that very well could be, so then please post your definition of “rebuild” as well what a more accurate translation of the ancient hebrew should have been.

    as I’ve said before, perhaps it’s merely that we are just misunderstanding one another’s terms.

    Like

  164. “the passage says that tyre would be looted. neb didnt do that – but to be fair, alexander could have – although Howie makes a great point, that is the passage was written to people who would have thought it was coming soon, not hundreds of years later.”

    more desperation…the prophecy was fulfilled but not in the time frame expected although no such time table was ever presented in the prophecy as alleged. Thats your story and you are sticking to it?

    “What we’re saying, is that when reading ezekiel, it is saying that the city, that is tyre, will not be lived in again – not the old materials – that really is just silly.”

    and more desperation. What does 19-20 identify the city as William. Why not answer this time. besides you don;t even have the mainland to help you. You know even if you hold to the city not being what the city was made out of The mainland was not rebuilt. I could have swore i just saw you admit that.

    Your only real hope is to try again with claiming the island is the focus of the prophecy or you might have to concede that if its the mainland its ALL been fulfilled. The fulfilled non fulfilled prophecy

    SO where is the verse that shows the island was the focus? Where? Nate has tried “mainland” but its not the regular meaning of the word. Cpter 27n but is almost all poetry envisioning the city as a ship. Nate has tried “borders in the heart of the sea” but all coastlands have borders in the heart of the sea. Meanwhile I have PROVEN that tyre is referred to in the Bible as having borders with Sidon and the ISLAND cannot have borders with SIDON.

    SO what DO you have?

    You have a tyre identified as sharing borders with Sidon and you have everything fulfilled in regard to that Tyre identified in the Bible. Doesn’t deny theres a Tyre on the Island also but reference does not have to be made to both. Simple

    What you have is an utter failure in proving an unfulfilled prophecy

    Like

  165. howie, you’re good. over the course of my time with this blog, I have come have tremendous respect for you; they way you think and write as well as how you deal with people.

    Like

  166. “post your definition of “rebuild” as well what a more accurate translation of the ancient hebrew should have been.”

    Good night no. I am not answering that question again. GO back and read. I’ve answered it like ten times and no you cannot logically accuse me of dishonesty. Nate claimed to have never heard of “daughters in the field” even though its right there in the most popular version of the Bible and you have claimed the English is sufficient because you speak it. Those are not my claims I made up about you . Those are things that you have said and none of those admissions are consistent with doing any real study of Ezekiel 26. they just are not.

    Like

  167. “not what I said. I read and understand english,. and again, when i use an interlinear bible, showing the original text,”

    and what interlinear told you desolate meant uninhabited as you claimed.That must be the world’s worse interlinear. but no i am not claiming anyone has to learn hebrew. Like I said download a free bible software with strong’s. That takes you 90% of the way and then not you but Nate can stop with the claim that usage of a word in another passage in the bible has no bearing on the meaning of a word rebuild elsewhere in the Bible. Its just a totally silly claim when studying languages and word meanings and yes it does tend to indicate theres a bias not an honest search for the truth. doesn’t prove it but its an indicator.

    Like

  168. you’ve confused me every time. You seem to jump around and avoid ever being very specific. i havent seen a clean on concise definition from you. once i think i understand what you;re saying, you’ll say something to the contrary.

    right now, from what you’ve said, it seems like you’re saying that “rebuilt” would only include using the original building materials, and constructing them in the original layout and footprint.

    but that’s a little different from the real definition and usage, but again, I dont speak or read ancient hebrew. when I look up the hebrew word, the scholars have a transliterated it into “rebuild.” so i am asking for clarification from a you, a self proclaimed hebrew scholar, what is the definition for that word, as was originally intended.

    if i missed your actual definition, help me out by cutting and pasting…

    but i’ll be honest, i have serious doubts regarding your hebrew scholarship – I imagine you’re like me, and only read interlinear bibles, relying on english translations.

    do you have any other education besides seminary? was it accredited?

    Like

  169. mike, what does desolate mean? I just looked it up again in case I was mistaken, and I see it actually does mean uninhabited.

    Like

  170. Nate,

    Your long comment at 1:55pm is pretty much how I see it. I have a hard time trying to lift the passage out of it’s context and time-frame given what you say and given some of the points I made before.

    For what it’s worth, some scholars do agree with keeping it in the context and time-frame, but I don’t think any conservative scholars agree with that. And some obviously suggest that only conservative scholars are the ones who want to honestly find out what is the truth about reality and everyone else just wants to prove what they would prefer to be true. I don’t hold to that, but I know some do. It’s clear everyone has biases.

    Another interesting point is that there seems to be some discrepancy among manuscripts regarding that pronoun switch. Septuagint doesn’t seem to have the switch, but either way I don’t see the problem. The “they” fits perfectly well with the armies and it keeps those verses in the context of the people he was talking to and about. Again several scholars seem to agree with this so I don’t see why this is a dishonest approach.

    You can even find some Christians online conceding to the failure of this prophecy. e.g. here. I’m not saying that their interpretation is correct because they are Christian, but it’s false to claim that atheists who think this interpretation makes more sense only do so because they do not want to believe in God.

    Like

  171. howie, you’re good. over the course of my time with this blog, I have come have tremendous respect for you; they way you think and write as well as how you deal with people.

    William, this is a very kind thing of you to say and you didn’t have to say it. Thank you. Way more often than not, you and Nate and I see things from very close to the same perspective. To be honest I don’t think I deal with some people all that well. I am a bit too sensitive to people who play mind games and I haven’t figured out a good way to get over that in order to have a productive conversation with them. You’ve probably noticed I’m conversing with only you and Nate right now.

    Like

  172. ” The “they” fits perfectly well with the armies and it keeps those verses in the context of the people he was talking to and about. Again several scholars seem to agree with this so I don’t see why this is a dishonest approach.”

    Howie its not my blog so i cant keep you from twisting. I never said anything about pronoun switch and being dishonest. Citing variants in the the septaugint does not prove the case either because then you have to determine which was the original and you can’t prove a non fulfillment. What is remarkable is that right where that change occurs is right where ALexander take up and we have that in some of our oldest manuscripts.

    What is dishonest is not looking at 19-21 and only picking out “not found when i suits out of context and running as nate does from the implications of the rest and how it changes the end result of the entire prophecy with tyre the city CLEARLY being under water in the prophecy.

    Like

  173. “right now, from what you’ve said, it seems like you’re saying that “rebuilt” would only include using the original building materials, and constructing them in the original layout and footprint. ”

    This will be my last post on the subject because its obvious you guys can’t deal with what I have put before you. William You’ ve tried this lie before and I have corrected it and said I said nothing abut building materials and now you are back again with the exact same lie. Even with the ruins in the sea you can get your goggles and use any building material you like …lol

    Here last time – rebuild is exactly as nehemiah used it

    Nehemiah 2:3-5 (KJV)
    3 And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
    4 Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven.
    5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it.

    Here Neh states his city needs to be built because it lays waste even though there were buildings built in Jerusalem and people lived there

    A house is built when it is ready to be lived in. A city is definitely not built when over half of the original city lies in waste. twist it, lie about it, whatever, knock yourself out. When you are all done the mainland will still be there unrebuilt by any standards and protected by the UN from even being rebuilt.

    So either get the scuba gear on or go look for building permits on the mainland. times a wasting.

    Theres a fulfilled prophecy you can actually try to go an unfulfill because Nate’s argument had the air let out of it by just reading the passage and looking at the original langauge. So book the ticket to Lebanon and go help him out by giving him more to work with. Thats you best shot because that Google map shot of the main land with it being in ruins – knocks your point out cold.

    Bye.

    Like

  174. Mike,

    Howie its not my blog so i cant keep you from twisting. I never said anything about pronoun switch and being dishonest.

    Ok, that wasn’t my point, but that’s no problem, I think we’ve all missed each other’s points on this post. You wouldn’t have agreed with my point anyway which was why I didn’t really think it was worth floating in your direction.

    For all my whining I’m glad at least that I was able to read about somebody else’s point of view here. I always like reading different perspectives. Thanks for that.

    Like

  175. “Btw, if there are any bystanders who are simply watching this exchange, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.”

    And around and around it goes … and where it stops, nobody knows. 🙂

    One thing does seem pretty obvious throughout this entire discussion, an agreement will never be reached between the main players.

    I love reading the comments on Nate’s blog, but on this particular topic, its beginning to get awfully boring. (Sorry.)

    Like

  176. Not trying to stir anything back up, since it looks like things are winding down, but I’ve been unable to comment for a few hours and wanted to answer a few remaining things.

    First of all, my deconversion from Christianity was based on many things, not one prophecy. I did research this rather thoroughly before coming to a conclusion on it, and I believe my initial post shows that. Mike can criticize my approach all he likes, but the simple fact is this: everyone who commented on this thread obviously knows far more about this issue than the typical Christian. I spent a lot of time on it and looked at various translations. If I had seen the “field” thing before, I didn’t find it very significant and didn’t remember it when Mike mentioned it. It’s a fact that I don’t know Hebrew. However, it’s also a fact that Bible translators do know it, and they have reasons for translating words they way they do. Does God require us all to be scholars in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek just to decipher his word?

    When it comes to this particular prophecy, Mike is forced to make it fit only the mainland portion of Tyre. That’s not something that can be proven from the context, however. In fact, far earlier portions of the New Testament reference the power and wealth of Tyre, which was gotten through its trade. No one denies that Tyre’s only harbors were on the island portion of the city, so to claim that Tyre wasn’t located on the island at this time is a huge stretch.

    I think that Ezekiel’s prophecy applied to both the mainland and island portions of Tyre. Much fuss has been made over the Hebrew word that is translated “fields” in some versions and “mainland” in others. The word commonly means “field” or “land.” So when Ezekiel says something about Tyre’s “daughters on/in the field/land” it’s easy to see why many translators take the “land” or “mainland” view. Whether they’re right or not is somewhat irrelevant, as even “field” doesn’t mean Ezekiel couldn’t have also been talking about the island portion of Tyre. For Mike’s argument to work, he would have to show that Tyre was definitely not on the island at that time, and there’s no way to show that.

    Consider this: if God really inspired Ezekiel, and the prophecy was only supposed to refer to the mainland, why wasn’t the prophecy more specific on that point? God would know what lay in store for Tyre’s future — he would know that the heart of Tyre would be centered on the island for most of its history; he would know that Tyre would continue to be rebuilt and would continue its identity as a trade hub for centuries after Nebuchadnezzar and centuries after Alexander; he would know comparing Tyre to a ship in chapter 27 and saying its borders were in the heart of the sea would further support the notion that Ezekiel is talking about the island. So why use any of that language, if Mike is correct in suggesting the prophecy only talked about the mainland?

    Even if the prophecy was about the mainland, it’s still populated today as well:
    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tyre/@33.2696204,35.2075573,1790m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x151e7d902f915d95:0xcf0e3fc6fb997408

    Mike’s big claim is that Tyre can’t be rebuilt because it was cast into the sea. How do you throw a city into the sea? At most, you can tear down its buildings and throw their materials into the sea. But is that the city itself? When New Orleans was devastated from Katrina, or Rome burned, or Atlanta burned, or Chicago burned, did those cities cease to exist? Or were they rebuilt? And did rebuilding them mean that we had to reuse burned or water-logged materials?

    To suggest that this is what Ezekiel intended either makes Ezekiel or his audience buffoons. Why would you need to specify that a city wouldn’t be rebuilt with materials that had been torn down? When has anything ever been rebuilt that way?

    So, Mike says that “rebuild” isn’t used the way we normally think of it, because Nehemiah used “rebuild” when talking about Jerusalem, even though it still had some buildings and people living there. But how is that different from Tyre? The Chicago fire did not level 100% of Chicago, but we still talk about it being “rebuilt.” The same happened with Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar only destroyed the mainland portion. And even though Ezekiel prophesied that he’d make off with lots of loot, Ezekiel says in chapter 29 that he actually didn’t. The island portion of the city was untouched. When Alexander took the island portion about 250 years later, he didn’t level the entire city. It was repopulated and the damage was repaired, leading to another long period of prosperity. Even if restricting “rebuilt” to how it was used in Nehemiah still causes this prophecy to fail.

    I appreciate Mike’s ability to play word games and act as though the rest of us are crazy, but his approach is nothing but an effort to muddy the waters and claim victory. I know he won’t agree with that assessment (obviously), and he’ll actually accuse me of the same thing. But at the end of the day, it’s as simple as this:

    Ezekiel said that Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. That has simply not happened. Instead of fighting so hard against that fact, why not accept it and start considering what that might mean for the big picture?

    Mike, thanks for the discussion. Sorry this comment was so long, but I was trying to catch up on all I missed. We’re not going to agree. I’m sure you’ll have a response to some of what I’ve said here, so I might have short replies to any points you bring up. But I intend for this to be my last major point on this issue, so I’ll try to avoid being so wordy in the future.

    Thanks

    Like

  177. I’m impressed how respectful this exchange was for the most part, given how things started,

    I think this willingness to have a more quality dialogue is noteworthy 🙂

    I think that if something is found to be factual and true, then it should be acknowledged,

    despite how that fact was presented or who it was presented by.

    Not everything valuable and important to us can be proven or measured.

    What’s important is to then assess what can be measured, what is factual, to the best of our ability. Like the dynamics of family relationships for example.

    The facts we do have are not dependent on our preferences, We have different perspectives, but they should be aligned to the facts we have, not to select certain facts to fit our perspectives 🙂

    But we are human after all, this is no easy task to strive for 🙂

    Like

  178. “Like the dynamics of family relationships for example.”

    was meant to be an example of – “Not everything valuable and important to us can be proven or measured”

    I inserted it into the wrong sentence 🙂

    Like

  179. mike, I guess I totally missed that you were defining “rebuilt” to be used in the way you said Nehemiah did. I wasnt lying, and I dont think you are now, although I think you’re twisting and stretching.

    Nehemiah wanted to rebuild the temple and walls, primarily. And while there were buildings in jerusalem, it was the temple, to the jew, that gave it (the city of david) significance. To the non-jews who occupied Jerusalem prior to Nehemiah’s arrival, and during, Jerusalem was still a city.

    I actually cant really believe you’re using nehemiah’s situation to define all of your terms when we’re talking about something in Ezekiel.

    I cant tell if you’re so boisterous and insistent on calling people “liars”, etc in order to make it look like your position is better than it is, like some sort of theological puffer fish; or if you’re really convinced that the back and forths, and strict definitions based on a singular usages in specific, but differnt contexts, is totally sensible.

    I guess I’m at a loss. I havent been using “rebuild” incorrectly. nehemiah was referring to the people and a city of the jews, when talking about jersusalem which at that time was without the temple and without jews. You dont know the definition of desolate, wont offer what you think it means, and insist that the rubble underwater isnt inhabited, and then say that you’re not referring to the rubble.

    I’m trying to keep up. I’m an educated man, but I am just not following you. If you can look at a present day map of tyre, and know the city’s history, and can say that ezekiel’s prophecy of complete and permanent destruction was fulfilled, then there is nothing I can say to you. you just cant reason with unreasonable people – or at least, i cannot.

    you cant even say, “well, i see what you mean, but…” I’m not the liar here, mike.

    Like

  180. If the bible is considered inerent and there is so much argy-bargy about semantics and twisting words over the Tyre prophecy, then move to the Virgin Birth prophecy, a more blatant piece double-dealing spurious nonsense you are unlikely to find. And if one prophecy is shown to be fraudulent rubbish then there is no reason to suspect the rest aren’t either.
    Period.

    Like

  181. “then move to the Virgin Birth prophecy, a more blatant piece double-dealing spurious nonsense you are unlikely to find.”

    that would be something new and less boring than Nate’s fabricating and lying about me and my position in his last post (and yeah Nate if you want a list of where you lied about my position I’d be glad to furnish it and I’ll leave out where you finally came clean and went back to your Clinton like accusation I was supposedly to accept your apology for – incidentally proving a HIGH degree of hypocrisy).

    just one question for the new subject though. IF you and your blog crew claim looking at context, hebrew meaning of words and word usage is “word games” (what a load of garbage) and anything requiring study according to nate means its uninspired because its not easy for the lazy then whats to stop you from saying the same in another thread.

    Hint even if we never get to that debate – why was the kid specifically asked to come along in the Virgin birth passage? the whole thing starts to unravel there but ooooh it might take some study so Mike will be playing “word games” (again what a load of garbage -looking at the verses, and the words and their usage is word games – biased to the core and finding truth my eye lol 🙂 )

    Like

  182. LOL….I see now where William thinks Nehemiah is the only one hat uses “build” that way. Read em and weep. I said I was done on this subject but nate’s and William’ fabrications test the resolve. 🙂

    2 Chronicles 8:1-2 (Darby)
    1 And it came to pass at the end of twenty years, when Solomon had built the house of Jehovah and his own house,
    2 that the cities which Huram had given to Solomon, Solomon built them and caused the children of Israel to dwell there.

    twenty years?? but but but according to Nate and william a thing being built does not have to be even close to being finished before it can be said to be built??

    Nehemiah 7:1 (KJV)
    1 Now it came to pass, when the wall was built, and I had set up the doors, and the porters and the singers and the Levites were appointed,

    What do you mean Nehemiah? the walls were only built after the doors has been put in place and it was ready but but but we all know when something is even less than half built its ctually built. 😉

    Jeremiah 31:4 (KJV)
    4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.Build thee and I will be rebuilt??

    What?? that almost sounds like theres a point at which something is being built but not yet built until it reaches a certain point but but but William and Nate say thats not so Bible.

    Haggai 1:2 (KJV)
    2 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the LORD’S house should be built.
    Haggai 1:4 (KJV)
    4 Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?

    But something being in waste and so not rebuilt is what Nehemiah said and William and Nate say thats just the context of Nehemiah – get with the program Haggai. Get with the program.

    You guys are soo funny. The lengths you will go simply to avoid what every scholar knows you have to do when reading an ancient text – read contemporary usage – just to fuel your own bias and atheist agenda you call twisting and word games. Obvious and pathetic ploy.

    Like

  183. “, why not accept it and start considering what that might mean for the big picture?”

    thats just the thing nate. You failed to make your proof verses work and you KNOW IT. No one needs to accept your conclusion just because you were lazy and sloppy and didn’t do your homework. Begging does not substitute for proving your point. The facts of the text prove your failure. thats why you have been reduced to “i think Ezek could” and “Ezek thought”. All because your alleged powerful proof has crumbled for the rot (water reference -couldn’t resist) it always was

    No?

    Well then may I ask – Do you have any proof that the Tyre referenced by Ezek was definitely not the mainland city? Because from what I see everything you have depended on for that to stick has gone down in flames

    1)”mainland” is not the normal meaning of field
    2) “place” does not exist in v5
    3) ezekiel 19-21 makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the end of tyre is to be under water not a rock above sea level
    4) borders in the midst of the sea applies to any coastal area
    5) chapter 27 is a metaphor of a ship out at sea
    6) daughters slain by the sword are people not a walled city like old Tyre
    7) port trade has nothing NADA to do with why Tyre was attacked but land trade was which relates to mainland tyre
    8) The Bible itself refers to Tyre as on the mainland ( I haven’t missed you squirming away from answering how tyre the isle can border Sidon).

    what have you got left besides begging and pleading? Nothing which is why you hand wave now that all my posts are nothing but attempts to muddy the water,

    All your proofs are at best dubious.You have no way of proving the mainland was not the focus. If you do then present it but no you don’t. Your research was shoddy not only on this but just about everything I have read from you. Why don’t you give up and accept the wider implications. You exposed and are exposing your family to distress for no really good reason

    “Ezekiel said that Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. That has simply not happened”

    Really nate. I’ll just skip all the bare faced lying and dancing you just did about me and my position and just ask the question

    how do you propose that with no city on the mainland area where tyre was, the entire city scraped into the midst of the sea and even the mainland being protected from being rebuilt as a city you are going to make that lie float? By ignoringd many nations coming up one after the other like the waves of the sea? Or with pretending as follows –

    “Even if the prophecy was about the mainland, it’s still populated today as well:
    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tyre/@33.2696204,35.2075573,1790m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x151e7d902f915d95:0xcf0e3fc6fb997408

    When even William has had to admit theres no city on the mainland (I guess he will have to recant now). What? are you hoping that people will not realize the land they see with houses is on the isthmus?and they’ll miss that big area on the mainland marked ruins of tyre? Talk about twisting. You are getting truly desperate

    Like

  184. “When it comes to this particular prophecy, Mike is forced to make it fit only the mainland portion of Tyre. That’s not something that can be proven from the context, however”

    Poor Nate. Flailing ever since being shown vs 19-21. No actually the only way to get you argument to stick is to insist on “mainland” when it translated that nowhere else , ignore that in the midst of the seas later refers to being thrown into it and have a fortified city slain by the
    sword in contradiction to how the expression is used. In other words You nate are forced to take words in ways they are never used anywhere else, ignore the context and deny word usage in contemporary documents. I have proven this very easily and all just to make your unfulfilled prophecy narrative stick. but I mean all that twisting is just fine for you though right? now that you feel you don’t have to answer to WWJD.

    ” No one denies that Tyre’s only harbors were on the island portion of the city, so to claim that Tyre wasn’t located on the island at this time is a huge stretch.”

    A) You are now resorting to lying about my position. theres been more than enough posts and data from me for anyone to know that no one is denying there was a tyre on the Island.

    B) claiming that where the harbors is is the only place that could be referred to is a huuuuuge stretch and obvious twisting. Where did you dredge that up from?
    C)you showed you haven’t read any of the links where references are given that identify BOTH as tyre.

    In addition you have just completely skipped the whole reason that Tyre was to be attacked – for rejoicing in Jerusalem’s destruction because it would bring LAND TRADE – not sea port trade Nate. That land trade included agriculture that would be grown and reared on the mainland and so the people most likely to be rejoicing at Jeruslem’s misfortune would be on the mainland unless you think they lived on the island and not on their land (shipped the cows and goats each night by ferry?). Context Nate …context. read not pontificate

    “For Mike’s argument to work, he would have to show that Tyre was definitely not on the island at that time, and there’s no way to show that.”

    Desperate nonsense and a pretty intellectual dishonest ploy (and you dare to accuse me of word games). “Mike’s argument” need only show that there was a tyre on mainland and the focus of the prophecy could be there. You are confused Nate. Mike is not the one claiming this passage proves beyond all doubt errancy and non fulfillment. Mike only has to show that ezek could have been referring to the mainland and so may not be a non fulfillment and your claims go poof. You’ve got the burden of proof all wrong.Your begging and TWISTING hard but it doesn’t work

    “”Mike’s big claim is that Tyre can’t be rebuilt because it was cast into the sea. How do you throw a city into the sea? At most, you can tear down its buildings and throw their materials into the sea. But is that the city itself? ”

    Mike’s big claim or Ezekiel’s?? whose he talking to Nate?? Can you even read past your bias?

    Ezekiel 26:19-20 (KJV)
    19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;

    and how does the rest of the passage before says that happens? Simple

    “thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.”

    theres nothing else in the entire passage that explains how tyre gets covered by water but being thrown there and its sure as day referring to the city. Your points are always so lightweight and you are now reduced to arguing with the text itself.

    But let me guess thats mike playing word games by forcing you to look at the text just so ahem he can muddy the waters. of course. what else can you say?

    I could blow all your other points and lies out of the water including the Mike says we should take build differently repeat lie – when you already admitted to the meaning rebuilt I use when it comes to a house but fudged on applying it to a city. Are you now saying a house with half finished ruins is rebuilt? Such silliness.

    Heres whats really got you stuck. every proof text that 26 has to be directed at Tyre-the-port rather than mainland has been blown up AND YOU KNOW IT. Thats why you made up this
    false burden of proof and other fabrications. Then of course you use the poor logic you use everywhere – If its not clear to me and mine or if it requires some research and is not as simpleas a grilled cheese that means its not inspired,

    Its more or less one of your fall back fallacious arguments. if I have to really study a text then it proves God didn’t write it. i’ve read you – you use this horribly weak line of reasoning in everything. Its nonsense (and thats putting it lightly).

    God says nations would come up like waves crystal clear one after each other but ummm I don’t get it or have another explanations so umm God should have made it clearer that he actually meant separate nations coming up one after the other.

    God says daughter in the field would be slain with the sword which is never used any other way then shucks God should have made it clearer because some people ignore that.

    God knew I would deny him so he should have made it harder for me to do it. One excuse after the other for either not studying, not reading more sources or even being mental lazy. Its an all purpose nonsense get out of jail free card piece of reasoning for anything more complex than rock,paper,scissors. Its never nate and company not applying themselves but some excuse against the text

    ” he would know that the heart of Tyre would be centered on the island for most of its history”

    NO he would know that for most of Tyre’s history people in israel where Ezek lived identified tyre as the mainland tyre

    and on and on that tired post goes with even more lying

    “And did rebuilding them mean that we had to reuse burned or water-logged materials?To suggest that this is what Ezekiel intended either makes Ezekiel or his audience buffoons. ”

    NO it makes you a fabricator of my position and a liar because I never said nor implied anything even close to saying water logged material had to be used to rebuild. I have told you repeatedly EXACTLY as the text does (and you hate that it does0 its underwater so that it cannt be rebuilt or inhabited.

    Lie some more nate. 19-20 has you on the run. It could not be any clearer the text states Tyre is to be in the midst of the sea under water. Quick come up with some other way to say covered by abundant waters is not plain enough and it should have been said some other way – thats always the fall back position as I stated for you

    Like

  185. Ah, classic Mike, folks! 😀 Don’t worry — he’ll be here all week.

    1)”mainland” is not the normal meaning of field

    But “mainland” and “land” are pretty much synonymous. As you already said, that Hebrew word means “land” or “field”

    2) “place” does not exist in v5

    I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    3) ezekiel 19-21 makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the end of tyre is to be under water not a rock above sea level

    Then does Ezekiel contradict himself when he says “and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock” (v 4)?

    4) borders in the midst of the sea applies to any coastal area

    But is a better fit for an island. Where were Tyre’s harbors? Oh, the island? Hmm…

    5) chapter 27 is a metaphor of a ship out at sea

    A metaphor that works much better for an island.

    6) daughters slain by the sword are people not a walled city like old Tyre

    Yes — the people that live in the suburbs.

    7) port trade has nothing NADA to do with why Tyre was attacked but land trade was which relates to mainland tyre

    That’s ridiculous and unfounded. Ezekiel said that Tyre believed it would profit from Jerusalem’s fall. Tyre is a singular entity — the mainland, the island — it was all “Tyre.” It had one king…

    8) The Bible itself refers to Tyre as on the mainland ( I haven’t missed you squirming away from answering how tyre the isle can border Sidon).

    If you want to hold to Tyre and Sidon literally sharing borders, you have a bigger issue than whether Tyre was on the island or not.

    Look Mike, the burden of proof is on you for maintaining that Tyre was only on the mainland. Nothing in the Bible gives us that impression, and we know from history, archaeology, common sense, and Ezekiel’s imagery that there’s no reason for thinking that Tyre was not already on the island at this time.

    The evidence is simply not on your side, but kudos for cutting loose with so much rhetoric.

    ** photo credit: BibleAtlas.com

    Like

  186. Mike,

    I don’t mind reading your diatribe today because it has actually become a bit humorous now that the pattern is obvious.

    Someone said something to William on this post a few days ago. It went like this:

    “Rhetoric is a man poor in logic’s game.”

    Let me help you out: “@Howie: is that all you have to say? That’s what I thought. Speechless. You atheists have no leg to stand on and you know it, that’s why you remain silent after you have obviously been shown to be liars.”

    Like

  187. Mike said:

    You are now resorting to lying about my position. theres been more than enough posts and data from me for anyone to know that no one is denying there was a tyre on the Island.

    Then this settles it, Mike. I’m not sure how you can act so angry at my thinking you were only referring to the mainland. I mean, you’ve gone to great lengths to say that Ezekiel was only talking about the mainland:

    he would know that for most of Tyre’s history people in israel where Ezek lived identified tyre as the mainland tyre

    You’re horribly inconsistent. First of all, you can’t show that people in Ezekiel’s time would have thought that, nor have you explained how Tyre became so wealthy and important if it wasn’t using the island harbors.

    Secondly, if you concede that Tyre did encompass both the island and mainland, then the prophecy is obviously a failure. Tyre was not utterly destroyed, it was rebuilt, and it has remained inhabited.

    You’ve succeeded in making a simple issue extremely complicated. Congratulations.

    Like

  188. Although this is a scriptural battle that will NEVER be won, I have to insert a comment related to Mike’s assertion:

    3) ezekiel 19-21 makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the end of tyre is to be under water not a rock above sea level

    If this is true, then why did Ezekiel write the following in 26:14?

    I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets.

    How does anyone spread nets underwater?

    It’s seems to me that our friend Ezekiel wasn’t as “CRYSTAL CLEAR” as some would claim.

    Like

  189. “Then does Ezekiel contradict himself when he says “and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock” (v 4)?”

    Nope. do try to apply your self, Its scraped like a rock and the rest of the passage tell us where – into the sea. you merely assume that the scrape is the end result when the passage tells you exactly the end result. lOl I think by this time you know you have failed

    “But “mainland” and “land” are pretty much synonymous.’

    No they are not and we both know you are back pedalling. Mainland as you indicated before you knew it was mostly translated as field was a key argument for why the island had to be in view because mainland express a difference to Isle.

    “But is a better fit for an island. Where were Tyre’s harbors? Oh, the island? Hmm…”

    LOl so you think borders in the heart of the sea means Port. 🙂 if not mentioning where the ports makes no point . You are funny though Nate. I give you that

    “A metaphor that works much better for an island.”

    Yes because islands are rowed and move into deep waters where they sink 🙂

    “That’s ridiculous and unfounded. Ezekiel said that Tyre believed it would profit from Jerusalem’s fall. Tyre is a singular entity — the mainland, the island — it was all “Tyre.”

    Ah so striking at the mainland would be striking trye eh? Progress in thinking at last. So if Ezek says tyre and hits the manland its completely accurate to say its a blow against all of tyre. Don’t be back pedalling now nate. Thanks you jsut made my point

    that being the case where would the trade that would normally have walked or rode to Jeruslaem go – you know it – the mainland where there were the only agriculture was

    “If you want to hold to Tyre and Sidon literally sharing borders, you have a bigger issue that whether Tyre was on the island or not.”

    daydreaming. You see any border on your picture in the water? or did you just think posting a picture that doesn’t prove your point would substitute for a point

    “Look Mike, the burden of proof is on you for maintaining that Tyre was only on the mainland. ”

    That lie has been shot down. you can spin it out a million times more to save face. I need do no such thing. You just made my point for me . I only have to show an attack on the mainland could legitimately can be considered a strike at tyre as one entity. You were so busy trying to twist our of one implication you ended up spinning right around to mine . end game

    Since you have admitted they are one and the same and have none of your proof passages left standing then its YOU that would have to show that the prophecy has not come to pass even though EVERYTHING has come to pass for the tyre on the mainland that youjsut admitted was one entity.

    Can you prove tht the manland was not the focus as a strike against tyre? No so your unfulfilled prophecy just went bust by your very own final admission (took you long enough)

    Kudos for making a key point of mine

    Like

  190. “will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets.

    How does anyone spread nets underwater?”

    A) they spread nets in the sea Nan. Its called fishing
    B) fishermen at tyre have been know to spread nets over ruins in the sea

    Prophecy fulfilled either way

    Like

  191. “Ah so striking at the mainland would be striking trye eh? Progress in thinking at last.”

    what you keep ignoring and trying to dance around, or perhaps honestly missing, is that ezekiel’s prophecy wasnt just for the field’s/mainland/land (a portion of), but for ALL of tyre. did some of the things that Ezekiel said would happen to tyre, happen to parts of tyre? some, yes. But not to the whole, and some parts werent fulfilled at all.

    and your latest response to nan appears to be a contradiction to what you’ve said before as well as just blatant rubbish.

    and where exactly did you learn ancient hebrew?

    Like

  192. yeah, mike, let’s move over to the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah. I believe nate has an older article already covering it. game?

    Like

  193. “Then this settles it, Mike. I’m not sure how you can act so angry at my thinking you were only referring to the mainland. I mean, you’ve gone to great lengths to say that Ezekiel was only talking about the mainland:”

    Stop dodging nate. you did not say prophecy relates to only the mainland you said

    “” No one denies that Tyre’s only harbors were on the island portion of the city, so to claim that Tyre wasn’t located on the island at this time is a huge stretch.”

    I never claimed there was no tyre located on the island – too different things and waaaay too dishonest given I have NEVER said there was no tyre on the Island – only that there was the mainland too”

    You have settled only that you can do a mean misrepresentation of my view

    “You’re horribly inconsistent. First of all, you can’t show that people in Ezekiel’s time would have thought that, nor have you explained how Tyre became so wealthy and important if it wasn’t using the island harbors.”

    where is the inconsistence? thats just rhetoric. I can show that. I cited passage all over the Bible that tyre was reffered to as the mainland city 9and for the umpteenth time not necessarily exclusive) beside you just admitted they were one entity destroying forever that anyone in Israel would make any distinction in speech with the two and therefore would call the mainland tyre. Second I said absolutely NADA about them not using Island ports.Thats your beg – oh wherever the ports are is where the prophecy must take place.

    Further tyre was known in Israel for its wood and produce they didn’t need ships there they walked and rode.

    “Secondly, if you concede that Tyre did encompass both the island and mainland, then the prophecy is obviously a failure. Tyre was not utterly destroyed, it was rebuilt, and it has remained inhabited.”

    total silly nonsense.I conceded that they were one entity and so an attack on one would be an attack on Tyre. You are now desperately begging that though they are one entity in order to be attacked they would have to be attacked at both sites. Do you understand what the phrase “one entity ‘ even means? and don’t try to change words to fudge my position I said nothing about encompass. By that twisted rational you could look at tyre the island and if it was sraped you would say not not fulfilled because it didn’t happen twice once on the mainland and once on the isles. sheesh talk about twisting. they are either one entity or not. If so an attack on any location is properly an attack on Tyre.

    Like

  194. “and your latest response to nan appears to be a contradiction to what you’ve said before as well as just blatant rubbish.

    See there Howie…thats rhetoric. No answer with any fact just babbling and barfing. Keep watching william and you will get the hang of how to identify it better in the future

    Like

  195. “yeah, mike, let’s move over to the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah. I believe nate has an older article already covering it. game?”

    rules of engagement first. If its going to be the nonsense – if you look at the hebrew, word usage ,verses and context then its word games nonsense that Nate loves then theres no point.

    Still you can give me a link. I am always good for a good chuckle.

    Like

  196. “See there Howie…thats rhetoric. No answer with any fact just babbling and barfing. Keep watching william and you will get the hang of how to identify it better in the future”

    see mike, this illustrates one of your many problems.

    first, howie didnt say that, i did. the name is attached to each comment, so your attention to detail is very suspect since you’ve done this a number of times.

    secondly, you’re a pot calling the kettle black with this, smart guy. In fact, you dont have to leave the quoted remarks in the post to see it.

    why do you feel it necessary to be such a jerk? seriously? because someone disagrees with you, doesnt mean they’re lying – that’s a huge leap. It’s rude and inaccurate. of all people in this exchange, you should be the one trying to set the example of how one should conduct themselves.

    Just because someone misunderstood you doesnt mean they’re twisting your words, it could mean that you’re just not clearly stating your case. from all the questions to you asking for clarification, i’m thinking it’s the latter.

    I’m still confused about your position. your details seem fuzzy and then we’re leaping around from mainland to island, then back to mainland only, etc, etc.

    was all of tyre supposed to be destroyed or only part of it?

    was all of tyre to be permanently destroyed or only part?

    was all of tyre to be underwater or only part of it?

    was all of tyre to never be rebuilt or only part of it?

    Was all of tyre never to be “find-able” or only part?

    was all of tyre to be desolate, or only part?

    * parts of the island are still above water, still inhabited, and still has an active port.
    * all of the mainland is above water (the ancient structures may be underwater), part has structures on it and it is still included as part of tyre.
    * the causeway, built with mainland’s structure materials, is now part of tyre, with buildings, and currently populated.

    If ezekiel’s prophecy only meant that the above would happen, which he didnt, then it was a lackluster and safe prophecy. wow (sarcasm). when reading the text, as a mere human, ezekiel is giving the impression that tyre will be utterly, completely, and permanently destroyed. It’s still there, above water and very populated.

    again, i’m going off of the english translations for the most part. you are once again encouraged to offer what you think the correct transliteration should have been and why.

    man, I’m going over to the virgin birth. I’ll wait for the rest of there…

    Like

  197. “first, howie didnt say that, i did. the name is attached to each comment, so your attention to detail is very suspect since you’ve done this a number of times.”

    even your off points have no substance, I referred to Howie because of something earlier that your post illustrates in regard to rhetoric.

    “why do you feel it necessary to be such a jerk? seriously? because someone disagrees with you, doesnt mean they’re lying – that’s a huge leap”

    i call you a liar when you lie. its not a huge leap. Look at what you did with “same materials” claiming I said any such thing. I corrected you like five times and you responded to those post but still came back with the EXACT claim as my position over and over. That just strains credibility .NOw you barf that something i said is nonsense and contradictory and can’t even muster any proof.

    Its not honest discourse and I am sorry it seems to me you just keep asking the same questions over and over as a device. plus the last person that claimed they had apologized and I should accept there non apology apology lasted only a few days before proving they meant exactly what they said which they claimed they didn’t

    So you guys don’t get any brownie points to be lecturing on that subject

    “man, I’m going over to the virgin birth. I’ll wait for the rest of there…”

    you guys have fun..with no agreement on terms of debate I am not interest in wasting anymore time with the empty claims you will whine about when that falls apart on you too.

    Like

  198. ah, yes, i see the irony. well, my foot fits in my mouth… and my attention to detail is suspect at times too.

    mike, you’re still a jerk though. and if you could specifically answer the questions as they’re given, that would be helpful.

    all apologies.

    Like

  199. mike, you’re funny. I wasnt asking for any apology – but i forgive you all the same.

    I could be that i was mistaken, but i wasnt lying. I ask the same questions because your answers still leave the prophecy unfulfilled. the only thing that’s empty here is ezekiel’s “prophecy.”

    I honestly thought you meant “same materials” because you kept saying tyre couldnt be rebuilt because the building materials were still underwater and then kept asking, “how can something that’s underwater and buried be inhabited again?”

    so are you lying or mistaken? I was just confused and arent much better now. i still dont know exactly how ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled.

    in case you’re tired of sidestepping:

    was all of tyre supposed to be destroyed or only part of it?

    was all of tyre to be permanently destroyed or only part?

    was all of tyre to be underwater or only part of it?

    was all of tyre to never be rebuilt or only part of it?

    Was all of tyre never to be “find-able” or only part?

    was all of tyre to be desolate, or only part?

    * parts of the island are still above water, still inhabited, and still has an active port.
    * all of the mainland is above water (the ancient structures may be underwater), part has structures on it and it is still included as part of tyre.
    * the causeway, built with mainland’s structure materials, is now part of tyre, with buildings, and currently populated.

    If ezekiel’s prophecy only meant that the above would happen, which he didnt, then it was a lackluster and safe prophecy. wow (sarcasm). when reading the text, as a mere human, ezekiel is giving the impression that tyre will be utterly, completely, and permanently destroyed. It’s still there, above water and very populated.

    again, i’m going off of the english translations for the most part. you are once again encouraged to offer what you think the correct transliteration should have been and why.

    Like

  200. “mike, you’re still a jerk though.”

    LOL….I love the pure unabashed hypocrisy of you guys. You even show yourself to be what you accuse others of and its all good like you are excused from having morality. Good because it so easy since you lay it out there for the world to see.

    Have a great week!

    Like

  201. “Its not honest discourse”

    yeah, i know, and i think we’re all sort of tired of it. Maybe if you stop doing that, things will go a little more smoothly, even if we end up not agreeing.

    why not test the waters of the virgin birth? I know I’ve looked up the hebrew as best as I could on that subject. you? why am i asking, sure you have.

    let’s go. we’ve worn this one out, time for another…

    Like

  202. “I love the pure unabashed hypocrisy of you guys. You even show yourself to be what you accuse others of”

    you’re a pot calling the kettle black again and again. I’d be tempted to laugh if it werent so sad that you didnt see it.

    I mean, i dont think I’m excused from morality, do you think you are? it looks like you’re saying, “it’ s okay for me to do it since you did it.” The fools-golden rule. sure, i can dig it, but then i dont pretend to abide by a religion that frowns upon it, while being so self-righteous at the same time.

    take care my friend, you’ll be missed. I was really curious to see what you’d do with isaiah.

    Like

  203. still not wanting answer direct questions that would clarify your position, i see.

    here they are again in case you missed them twice:

    was all of tyre supposed to be destroyed or only part of it?

    was all of tyre to be permanently destroyed or only part?

    was all of tyre to be underwater or only part of it?

    was all of tyre to never be rebuilt or only part of it?

    Was all of tyre never to be “find-able” or only part?

    was all of tyre to be desolate, or only part?

    * parts of the island are still above water, still inhabited, and still has an active port.
    * all of the mainland is above water (the ancient structures may be underwater), part has structures on it and it is still included as part of tyre.
    * the causeway, built with mainland’s structure materials, is now part of tyre, with buildings, and currently populated.

    If ezekiel’s prophecy only meant that the above would happen, which he didnt, then it was a lackluster and safe prophecy. wow (sarcasm). when reading the text, as a mere human, ezekiel is giving the impression that tyre will be utterly, completely, and permanently destroyed. It’s still there, above water and very populated.

    again, i’m going off of the english translations for the most part. you are once again encouraged to offer what you think the correct transliteration should have been and why.

    Like

  204. “NOw you barf that something i said is nonsense and contradictory and can’t even muster any proof.”

    come on, you’ve been chastising everyone for being lazy, it’s embarrassing now that you want something handed to you. go back and read through the post like a good hard working guy. set the example.

    Like

  205. I realized upon reflection today that there is one thing that probably you and Nate don’t understand that leads to some confusion in your minds so I figured I’d drop in since its the only thing thats left for you to duck and run from and really the only honest misunderstanding you could have left. I like to be thorough so I’ll clear it up just in case

    IF you don’t do much reading following archaeology then you probably would not realize that almost all other cities besides Mainland Tyre have ruins and the ones subsequently rebuilt are built on those ruins in part. Seldom if ever would any ancient civilzation dig up even the foundations of a house much less a city so theres always something left to be found or built on, When a city “rebuilt” its always on that infrastructure. In all those situations as in 19-20 the city IS the foundations and whats on it or built back on it.

    Mainland Tyre IS unique in that unlike all of these cities the entire city including foundations were scraped into the sea. This is what makes this prophecy so remarkable when you get to verse 19 and 20. Tyre is prophecied to have everything that would be still there from a city removed. The walls,buildings.but uniquely the foundations down to the dirt underneath it. ALl gone – city completely removed so it could not be built again on its foundations and rebuilt like any city that is rebuilt is. The entire city down to the ruins are gone

    and it happened to mainland Tyre as prophesied! 🙂 What happened NOWHERE ELSE but as you ponder verse 19-20 its so clear and powerful. What god is saying is that you will be no more – So completely obliterated as a city, scraped unlike any other so that the entire city is moved and placed into the sea so much that no one could ever find it to build upon ruins like any other city in the ancient world. great stuff!!

    So now you know it has nothing to do with rebuilding with the same materials or any of the garbage you were saying even before we talked just about mainland tyre. Its saying in fact he opposite that there is nothing left to build and the city with foundation to build on is gone!

    The beautiful thing about all this is that skeptics and atheists like yourselves are stuck. rather than it being a normal prediction this unique prophecy is fulfilled complerly hundreds of years after you admit it was written . the uniqueness is obvious if you even followed the archaeology of ruined cities. Never found indeed – whether to be found to rebuild in the original foundations of found to visit – unless you go dig in the sea floor.

    Of course it doesn’t hurt even though the city can’t be rebuilt at the bottom of the sea it hasn;t even been built on the mainland.That just bonus so Christians can laugh at nate looking on google maps and saying a city is on the mainland.

    Like

  206. “was all of tyre supposed to be destroyed or only part of it?

    was all of tyre to be permanently destroyed or only part?

    was all of tyre to be underwater or only part of it?

    was all of tyre to never be rebuilt or only part of it?

    Was all of tyre never to be “find-able” or only part?

    was all of tyre to be desolate, or only part?”

    LOL….sometimes you just have to give sceptics enough room to talk themselves into a box and then they do.

    Notice the desperation? Now begging for the word ALL to be in the prophecy. Nope we have one city in the prophecy there is no all. Since even Nate now admits they are one entity an attack on the one city is an attack on Tyre.The city of Tyre as represented by the mainland is scraped into the sea fulfilling everything (of course bonuses are allowed 🙂 )

    the end.

    Begging now that its “all” is so desperate as if the passages says two cities instead of one has to be scraped and two buried. Its is just nowhere in the prophecy. Sorry

    Like

  207. ” go back and read through the post ”

    as the scriptures might say

    “and this he said because he had not aught to accuse him with so he lied before the congregation for the third time”

    Hey! I found The Virgin Birth post. Nate trying to Teach Hebrew is just too much to pass up. Please terms of the debate. That prophecy will take no time to explain since the pretty much standard thing is overlooked that exonerates Matthew.

    Like

  208. Mike,

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen you question that the island was part of the city of Tyre, and I haven’t seen anywhere else where that is questioned so please correct me if I am wrong.

    If there are 2 cities then Ushu is the other one and that is the mainland and then you have problems.

    So you have 2 options:

    1) Tyre is both island and mainland, all one city.
    or
    2) There are 2 cities as you say and Tyre is the island and Ushu is the mainland.

    I’m not sure which of the 2 would be the most acceptable among scholars, but what you are suggesting doesn’t sound right to me.

    Like

  209. “If there are 2 cities then Ushu is the other one and that is the mainland and then you have problems.

    I have no problems Howie and your 2 options claim is utterly false. Multiple sources that relate the story of alexander building the causeway indicate it as Old tyre. It was known as Tyre. If you even read the thread you will see I am not the only one agreeing to that. There are links I have provided as well if you read them. If you think ancient cities were automatically all known by the same name you are sadly mistaken.

    Please go do some research. Its been a long thread and making claims of what you don’t think sounds right just makes it more tedious

    Like

  210. Thanks Mike. Do you realize you’ve only had one comment to me on this entire thread that was anywhere near kind? Do you do this on purpose to distract us and purposely frustrate us so we’ll give up? Or is this just your personality and you really don’t recognize your behaviors? I’ve made an attempt to participate but like I told William unfortunately I have never figured out how to have productive conversations with people who play the kind of mind games that you do. You are so abrasive and what is worse is that I think you actually don’t realize that you are.

    Like

  211. Oh please Howie. Please stop the childishness trying to pick a fight. You made a point that I had a problem. Back it up with facts of give the personal stuff a break. its quite obvious you have an issue with the facts i present and besides which you are blatanyly lying. My first post to you was that I liked your name. do you realize you have never given me a compliment anywhere?

    Like

  212. Mike I am not trying to pick a fight with you I am really trying to suggest we not fight. But you seem to be wanting to do that.

    Like

  213. And reread my sentence which said you have a problem. I think you are taking it out of context. Can you please try and read it again and give some attempt at a friendly conversation?

    Like

  214. LOL………out of a conversation about two cities you stop to make a totally personal attack and its ME thats wanting to fight? I got to ask and its not a putdown because I don’t know but how old are you Howie?

    Like

  215. I’m sorry this is just way too bizarre. I just can’t understand this whole “blatantly lying” thing. Mike I’m sorry but this just seems a bit too over the top for me and I don’t think it’s me being overly sensitive.

    Like

  216. “I’m sorry this is just way too bizarre. I just can’t understand this whole “blatantly lying” thing.”

    I can break it down for you really easy Howie. you claimed I had never made a kind comment to you before. I mentioned that I had complimented you on your name from my first post to you – FaCT. SO it was a false accusation. thats what they call lying Howie. You WERE lying. does that help? because you thinking you are not starting a fight by your post above is the only thing that is bizarre and I have to ask again – how old are you?

    Like

  217. Anyway time to put this thread behind me in the rear view mirror. I see nothing of substance being offered so I am totally done

    Virgin Birth might be interesting (and quick) to dispense with but I dunno. My one hesitation is all the whining and desperation will set in when that blows up even worse but this one is done for me . you can all read yourselves. I won’t be. Start a Mike is ______ thread going 🙂

    Like

  218. Hi 🙂

    How can you do that unless there is a translation that all people agree on as a point of reference as a shared definition?

    Once that can be settled on, everyone is starting on the same page so to speak,

    If the goal posts keep being moved so to speak and changing definitions then there is no standard to assess the evidence against, and communication breaks down.

    There needs to be a standard set definition, otherwise something cannot be considered on the same page between two people.

    To substantiate a fact you need a working definition that can be shared to built an assessment on. So the scriptural Interpretation and archaeology can be considered.

    Its like me saying I think this banana is over ripe, but until we have a shared definition and standard of what we are talking about when we say overripe (brown, wilted, shrivelled ect.) where can we go?

    We can’t substantiate such a claim unless there’s an agreed definition of what unripe is.

    Once we have a shared definition we can assess that, inspect it based on the evidence available to us.

    We may have not wanted for the banana to be overripe, but based on our standard we can assess the the assertion and reach a more complete understanding of the current reality.

    If this definition is not agreed upon then peoples assertions can’t be explored or assessed.

    Faith is different. A faith cannot be measured, because faith is an expectation or hope of things yet to happen, future things unseen.

    past Prophecies on the other hand (providing people can settle on an agreed account of that prophecy) can be measured and found to be currently fulfilled or not.

    I suggest the KJV as a standard 🙂 It would also meet the standards of the KJV only inerrant folk

    Surely there is an agreed definition?

    If life was like this, people would be running through red lights and causing crashes, and then claim, well under your definition what do you mean by red? Because to me that is a dark orange.

    So taken as a whole, rather than selectively, what do the facts point to? Under a set definition?

    Hope everyone is doing well 🙂

    Like

  219. Hi Ryan,

    I think you’re right that much of the problem here comes from some core disagreements about what Ezekiel meant by “Tyre.”

    Mike believes that the text is only talking about the mainland portion of Tyre — sometimes called “Ushu,” “Paleotyre,” or “Old Tyre.” The rest of us think the prophecy relates to all of Tyre, including the island. [As a side note, Mike, if people in Ezekiel’s time would have referred to “old Tyre” as “Tyre,” what did they call the actual island city of Tyre?]

    I don’t see us resolving that difference. That’s okay — my intent was never really to convince Mike anyway, but just to provide food for thought for any who might read our exchange.

    Like

  220. IF you don’t do much reading following archaeology then you probably would not realize that almost all other cities besides Mainland Tyre have ruins and the ones subsequently rebuilt are built on those ruins in part. Seldom if ever would any ancient civilzation dig up even the foundations of a house much less a city so theres always something left to be found or built on, When a city “rebuilt” its always on that infrastructure. In all those situations as in 19-20 the city IS the foundations and whats on it or built back on it.

    Mainland Tyre IS unique in that unlike all of these cities the entire city including foundations were scraped into the sea. This is what makes this prophecy so remarkable when you get to verse 19 and 20. Tyre is prophecied to have everything that would be still there from a city removed. The walls,buildings.but uniquely the foundations down to the dirt underneath it. ALl gone – city completely removed so it could not be built again on its foundations and rebuilt like any city that is rebuilt is. The entire city down to the ruins are gone

    and it happened to mainland Tyre as prophesied! 🙂 What happened NOWHERE ELSE but as you ponder verse 19-20 its so clear and powerful. What god is saying is that you will be no more – So completely obliterated as a city, scraped unlike any other so that the entire city is moved and placed into the sea so much that no one could ever find it to build upon ruins like any other city in the ancient world. great stuff!!

    So now you know it has nothing to do with rebuilding with the same materials or any of the garbage you were saying even before we talked just about mainland tyre. Its saying in fact he opposite that there is nothing left to build and the city with foundation to build on is gone!

    Hi Mike,

    Thanks for explaining your position on this more fully. I think there are a couple of problems in your reasoning with this, though.

    1) There’s no requirement for a city to always build upon earlier layers of that city in order to maintain its identity. That often happens, because there’s usually not a reason to strip everything away, or they may not even be aware that the earlier layers are there. But when they are aware of an existing structure, they’ll certainly remove all of it to build a new structure in its place, if necessary. When that happens, we don’t say that that portion of the city is no longer part of the city. So the problem with your position on this is that even though you’re saying the actual materials used in that first layer don’t have to be reused, they’re still somehow inextricably bound to the identity of that city.

    Let’s use an illustration to help clarify what I’m talking about. Take any church in your town. Is the identity of the church linked with the building, or with the people? While we sometimes refer to the buildings as the church, most people know that the actual church is made up of the congregants. So if they were to tear down their building and construct a new one, no one would question them if they continued using the same name. Even if they left their current building for a new one in a different location, that church would still keep its identity.

    Interestingly enough, even though the identity is bound to the people, it’s not really bound to individuals. In 100 years, all of the current members will likely be dead, but that church will still remain, identity intact.

    A city is very similar. Its identity does not rely on the physical structures — while the Eiffel Tower is an emblem of Paris, Paris would not lose its identity if the Eiffel Tower were removed. In the same way, if Tyre’s buildings were torn down and tossed in the sea, the city could still be rebuilt and maintain its identity. That’s not a novel way to look at things — it’s how all people intuitively understand the definition of a city.

    2) You say that every single piece of debris was cast into the sea and the site was effectively “scraped” off the land. But how do you know that happened? When Alexander used the debris to build his causeway, his intent was not to punish that ancient site by removing every scrap of it — his intent was to build something of use to him. I highly doubt that every single shard of material wound up in the sea.

    3) The mainland still has visible ruins. If these ruins are from Alexander’s time, then he did not cast it all into the sea as you claimed, which means Ezekiel’s claim that it would be scraped bare did not happen. If the ruins are from a later time, then obviously, Ezekiel’s claim that it would never be rebuilt did not happen either.

    4) The mainland has buildings that are in use today and are part of the city of Tyre. So once again, even if Ezekiel only meant the mainland (which I don’t believe is the case) it’s been rebuilt so many times that it’s still in use even today. As you’ve said, anyone can see that by looking it up on Google Maps.

    Like

  221. “Notice the desperation? Now begging for the word ALL to be in the prophecy. Nope we have one city in the prophecy there is no all. Since even Nate now admits they are one entity an attack on the one city is an attack on Tyre.The city of Tyre as represented by the mainland is scraped into the sea fulfilling everything (of course bonuses are allowed 🙂 )”

    thanks for finally addressing my questions. I posed them only to get a better understanding of what it was that you’re trying to say. I agree, the term “all” is not in the passage, but the name “tyre” is. The city had at least two basic parts, the island and the mainland.

    And yes, if one part was attacked, then you could say Tyre was attacked. However, that’s not what we have here. Ezekiel says tyre will be destroyed, will be underwater and will never be rebuilt, forever to be uninhabited, etc, etc, essentially utterly destroyed.

    I said “all” in my question, because I understood you to mean that… I guess thinking about it now, i’m not sure what you mean. I say all, to include everything Tyre was.

    Regardless, I see you answering my questions as, “no, ezekiel didnt make a prediction for all of tyre, but just for a portion of tyre. I disagree, but I think I’m closer to seeing what it is you’re trying to say.

    virgin birth, then?

    Like

  222. Hint even if we never get to that debate – why was the kid specifically asked to come along in the Virgin birth passage? the whole thing starts to unravel there but ooooh it might take some study so Mike will be playing “word games” (again what a load of garbage -looking at the verses, and the words and their usage is word games – biased to the core and finding truth my eye lol 🙂 )

    Anyone up to trawling the internet or scouring the library for a HEBREW scholar that will agree wotht the Christian interpretation of Isiah?
    Mike Anthony is a troll, Period. Even if he is really the former bass player for Van Halen.

    Like

  223. Mike,

    if you take a stroll around this blog, I think you will find that Nate is one of the most respectful and generous bloggers I have come across. I can personally vouch on this.

    His conduct as a person on this blog is a testimony to this.

    Mike, you can be offended, that is your right. I think there may have been some misunderstandings in this exchange,

    Here is an opportunity for all to make a fresh start, as many here have suggested. Former exchanges are in the past.

    we all need Grace 🙂 not to sound too cheesy :p but it’s true.

    Like

  224. I’m typing this up on a phone, so apologies if the grammar is a bit out of wak 🙂

    Like

  225. I’d noticed that he’d posted on the subject, but I haven’t had time to dig through them yet. I’ll try to do that soon, and I’ll let you know when I do.

    Thanks!

    Like

  226. Hi, I was directed here by an atheist who also claims this prophecy has not been fulfilled. I’ve read many if not most of the comments between Mike & Nate.. here’s what I think is being overlooked and would settle the question.. while many of the details of the prophecy have been fulfilled.. the one in dispute is the rebuilding of Tyre. In order to determine that, we first have to establish what the definition of “Tyre” is.. and that can only be found in Ezekiel’s prophecy (his is the only meaning applicable to the question). All 3 chapters Ez 26-28 are mostly descriptions of Tyre, always prefaced with “you” or “your”… so that would be the logical def. And all the descriptions of Tyre talk about a great/ impressive/ highly productive city.. so the question is, did this great city ever come back? Is Tyre that city today? No. So, prophecy fulfilled.

    What is being conveniently ignored by naysayers are the improbable accuracies of Ezekiel’s prophecy, the very thing that determines the power of a fulfilled prophecy.. Tyre being underwater, covered by the sea, being scraped and becoming a bare rock, how often did THAT happen??..but this happened with Alexander..and it doesn’t say anywhere that it would remain a bare rock.. but the FACT that a leading extremely prosperous city became that way, for however long, fulfills an improbable prophecy.

    Bottom line… nothing in the prophecy can be proven to have not happened. It’s a matter of applying the correct context.

    Like

  227. “1) There’s no requirement for a city to always build upon earlier layers of that city in order to maintain its identity.”

    Sorry Nate…Fact no ancient city dug up its foundations in order to rebuild. You really are in no position to state that.

    ” But when they are aware of an existing structure, they’ll certainly remove all of it to build a new structure in its place, if necessary.”

    Nope. The sheer work of digging out foundations makes it totally impractical for any but modern cities woth modern technology.

    “hey’re still somehow inextricably bound to the identity of that city.”

    You are just begging bread. You have no such ancient examples

    ” Take any church in your town. Is the identity of the church linked with the building, or with the people?”

    Nate thats a ridiculous analogy. A church is the people meeting in a building. IF that worked as an analogy then no city would be destroyed unless everyone in it was killed since the identity was wth the people. That is NOT how people identifiied cities nate. Every description of cities in the Bible and in secular sources refers to physical structures – Walls, buildings etc. Thats a rather desperate attempt to fudge around the issue and its a joke that you think using that creates a problem for me or the Bible.

    “A city is very similar. Its identity does not rely on the physical structures — while the Eiffel Tower is an emblem of Paris,”

    Another ridiculous attempt to sidestep. the eiffel tower is one structure of the city not the entire city

    “it’s how all people intuitively understand the definition of a city.”

    Nope both of your analogies are contrived and off point to get you where you want to go. Just fudging. There is no question about it. The passage states point blank that she (the city) will be scraped and be covered over by the sea. None of you attempts at false analogies works. its what the text says. YOU cannot scrape an identity into the sea so obvious and clearly it is referring to the physical buildings as the city

    “You say that every single piece of debris was cast into the sea and the site was effectively “scraped” off the land. But how do you know that happened?”

    Ooops you forgot didn’t you? this is your unfulfilled prophecy so the question is how do you know that didn’t happen? Besides which are you not getting a bit desperate? now every scrap has to be gone. Alexander scraped it clean. The end.

    “The mainland still has visible ruins. If these ruins are from Alexander’s time, then he did not cast it all into the sea as you claimed, which means Ezekiel’s claim that it would be scraped bare did not happen. If the ruins are from a later time, then obviously, Ezekiel’s claim that it would never be rebuilt did not happen either.”

    Nate we have been over this over and over. More than one nations came up against Tyre as the waves of the sea after that then it was no longer rebuilt and is now under UN protection to never be rebuilt.

    “The mainland has buildings that are in use today and are part of the city of Tyre.”

    If only a few buildings made for a rebuilt city.

    ” So once again, even if Ezekiel only meant the mainland (which I don’t believe is the case) it’s been rebuilt so many times that it’s still in use even today. As you’ve said, anyone can see that by looking it up on Google Maps.”

    So once again anyone can look at Google ma[s and see the area on the mainland clearly marked as the ruins of Tyre. Are you still hoping that they will not realize that the ithmus was not there before Alexander?

    Lets face it Nate. This unfulfilled prophecy of your is a total bust. The mainland was scraped, buried into the sea and is in ruins never to be rebuilt now under UN protection. Y0u needed to prove that the way you see it is the only way it could be seen from the text and you came up empty. Several parts of the text disagree with you.

    Your failed prophecy argument failed.

    Like

  228. “What is being conveniently ignored by naysayers are the improbable accuracies of Ezekiel’s prophecy, the very thing that determines the power of a fulfilled prophecy.. Tyre being underwater, covered by the sea, being scraped and becoming a bare rock, how often did THAT happen??..but this happened with Alexander..and it doesn’t say anywhere that it would remain a bare rock.. but the FACT that a leading extremely prosperous city became that way, for however long, fulfills an improbable prophecy. ”

    Great point Kathy. All that and its statistical probability is purposefully glossed over under the gambit that if we can maintained that one part is wrong by forcing our exclusive meaning of the text (which does not even match contemporary usage in the same Bible) on the passage we can handwave everything else away despite its enormous improbability of being predicted.

    Like

  229. did this great city ever come back?

    Thanks for the comment Kathy. You may want to research this question, though. Tyre remained an incredibly prosperous and important city for many centuries following Alexander’s attack.

    As to the other points (including Mike’s), I’m working on another post about this subject, and I’ll link to it here when it’s finished.

    Thanks

    Like

  230. Thanks Mike.. I agree. ..that there is no acknowledgement of the amazing accuracies seems to show a lack of objectivity it seems.

    Nate, thanks for the response.. yes, I should have done the research but it seems that those 3 chapters make it clear though that it’s that specific Tyre.. with all it’s pride & arrogance as described (can land or buildings exhibit those things?) that is the target.. and when you combine that with the historical documentation of “Old Tyre” actually meeting the criteria of being flattened, dumped into the sea, and covered with water.. how can anyone claim the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled.. the portion under water, “Old Tyre”, will NEVER be rebuilt or inhabited. Of all of those 3 chapters of prophecies..as it is worded, what can actually be proven to have not come true? None of it.. it all happened.. against amazing odds.

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

    Like

  231. Kathy,

    I hope you dont mind too much me jumping in here before nate has, but while it’s true that Alexander used much (most and maybe all) of the debris from mainland tyre to build his causeway to the island tyre, dumping it into the sea (although much of it had to be above the water surface in order for it to be cross-able), the island portion of tyre wasnt scrapped, scraped or dumped in the same way.

    And while some of the island tyre is now underwater, much of it is not with at least one significant port still being used. and the causeway, built upon the debris of the mainland is now built upon and being dwelt on, expanding the land area of tyre.

    While we we can see on modern day maps that some portions of tyre dont have buildings on them (like any other city in the world), significant portions do have occupied and used structures on them today.

    So when Ezekiel said that tyre would be utterly destroyed, submerged in water, never rebuilt, never found and would be forever desolate, and yet we find tyre in working order today, with building, occupants, working sea ports – I just have a hard time honestly saying ezekiel was right.

    To me, and I could just be wrong or maybe I’m expecting too much from a book that was supposedly written by god, but to me it just seems like one is forced to say that Ezekiel didnt mean it the way he wrote it in order for this prophecy to hold true.

    When I read his prophecy, I see ezekiel saying that tyre (the whole city) would be destroyed forever, never being rebuilt and sinking below the sea – that just didnt come true.

    Tyre was attacked and rebuilt several times as was the case with most ancient cities. Tyre was rebuilt and is inhabited. I am really and honestly just not sure how anyone can claim otherwise. But they do, so maybe we just see it differently.

    Like

  232. “Fact no ancient city dug up its foundations in order to rebuild. You really are in no position to state that.”

    Mike, you just made that up. Foundations aren’t always the same. Foundations fail. Sometimes foundations are removed and sometimes they remain. That’s a fact of modern construction and was always a fact of construction.

    But either way, tyre exists today and is occupied, despite the doomsday prophecies of Ezekiel. And while the mainland portion was leveled, the island was not – with its northern port still in use.

    Like

  233. “What is being conveniently ignored by naysayers are the improbable accuracies of Ezekiel’s prophecy, the very thing that determines the power of a fulfilled prophecy.. Tyre being underwater, covered by the sea, being scraped and becoming a bare rock, how often did THAT happen??.”

    it didnt happen.

    tyre isnt a bare rock, although it has some bare rocks. Tyre isnt underwater, although some small portions are now underwater. Not all of tyre was scraped.

    If you’re saying that ezekiel was spot on, because even though he seemed to be talking about tyre in total, he’s still correct because since we see the outcome, we know that he really meant on some of that would happen, it’s still difficult to call this a great prophecy.

    Lots of places have bare rocks. Lots of places now have ancient coastlines underwater and lots of places had been sacked, and destroyed.

    Maybe it’s not the naysayers who are ignoring the facts.

    Like

  234. “Mike, you just made that up. Foundations aren’t always the same. Foundations fail. Sometimes foundations are removed and sometimes they remain. ”

    William this has been a long thread and I am not really that interested in your nonsense and garbage all over again. When ancient civilizations rebuilt cities they did not cart away all the building materials and then go look for more just for fun. They reused what was there. if you are so uneducated to claim otherwise then have at it . YOU can evenclaim they used bulldozers to dig them up with that level on ignorance.

    I’ve already proven from the Bible that the mainland city was referred to as tyre not Uzzu. There is no city there on the mainland. Google has a nice little title – tyre ruins. Bury your head in the sand some more

    the end.

    You and nate failed now go handwave some more. This thread is old and tyred (no spelling error..lol)

    Like

  235. “William this has been a long thread and I am not really that interested in your nonsense and garbage all over again. When ancient civilizations rebuilt cities they did not cart away all the building materials and then go look for more just for fun. They reused what was there. if you are so uneducated to claim otherwise then have at it .”

    I’m afraid i’m not the one who’s uneducated here. You act as if the only way a foundation can be disturbed is if ezekiel predicted it would happen and if alexander the great made it happen. – and neither are true,

    Earthquakes, sieges, etc all could and often did undermine foundations. True, if any part of structure was salvageable, then they would have salvaged it, but when those parts weren’t salvageable, what then? why they removed them and rebuilt them.

    what you’re claiming is ridiculous and is simply made up. a fraudulent assertion you made on the fly because you thought it validated your argument. it’s silly and incorrect. But regardless, the city of tyre stands today, occupied and vibrant. Ezekiel failed on many levels and any attempt to show otherwise will also fail, because the city was rebuilt, the city is working and alive, with working ports – a far cry from never rebuilt and buried in the sea, a desolate.

    “I’ve already proven from the Bible that the mainland city was referred to as tyre not Uzzu. There is no city there on the mainland. Google has a nice little title – tyre ruins. Bury your head in the sand some more”

    I dont think you’ve proven anything, but even if you did prove that the mainland would be scraped in the sea, you havent proven that the entire prophecy was merely for the mainland portion.

    And while the building materials of the mainland were cast into the sea, the mainland sits above water, is not a place they dry their nets. the island is above water and alive. I’m just not seeing what your point is or how that changes that tyre wasnt destroyed forever, that it was rebuilt and remains inhabited.

    I’m afraid that saying “the end” with a wave of your hand doesnt change those facts and doesnt rewrite ezekiel’s prophecy. it’s really that simple.

    Like

  236. Hi William, .. I’m going to try this approach.. here is a portion of the prophecy..

    26:4 … I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.

    There is undisputed historical documentation that this LITERALLY happened. What are the odds of predicting this? especially of such a prosperous city?? That would be like predicting that it would happen to NYC today..

    26:3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves.

    “Regarding the prediction that “many nations” would come against Tyre, the historical records surrounding the illustrious city report such turmoil and war that Ezekiel’s prophecy looks like a mild understatement of the facts.” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

    26:19 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you,

    “ In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.

    From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst…. There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city…. In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).”

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

    So, HOW can you argue these things didn’t happen? They happened just as described by Ezekiel as I’ve just shown. It’s not Christians who are ignoring facts.. the facts speak for themselves.

    Anything you try to argue in regards to these 3 fulfillments will be on the bases of you ADDING your own context. And that’s not how it works.

    Like

  237. Hi kathy, thanks for taking the time to reply.

    I can see what you mean, maybe in regard to the mainland being scraped.

    But you’re read the entire prophecy as I have, many times. Tyre never remained desolate and was rebuilt quickly each time – which is counter to ezekiel’s prophecy that it will never be rebuilt. I just looked at google earth again, and there it sits.

    Now mike likes to point out that the mainland remains empty – yet this is untrue, save for a rectangular patch, which is surrounded by building and planted fields.

    The island was never scraped bare. And even if the prophecy was only referring to the mainland, then where on the mainland do they spread their nets?

    I’m sorry, but ezekeil, in his own context, was talking about the entire and permanent destruction of tyre – which didnt happen.

    maybe he meant to say that parts of it would not be rebuilt, and parts wouldnt not be inhabited, but he didnt. the only thing that you can say was piecemeal we perhaps the reference to scraping mainland – but that’s it.

    I think if we look at the entire prophecy and all the facts, then I just dint see how it passes.

    Like

  238. “Earthquakes, sieges, etc all could and often did undermine foundations. True, if any part of structure was salvageable, then they would have salvaged it, but when those parts weren’t salvageable, what then? why they removed them and rebuilt them”

    Absolutely ridiculous nonsense. You are now begging desperately for earth quakes to save you in a prophecy that has to do with enemy attacks. too pathetic. Go ahead and show me a anywhere in the area at that time period where the conquerors of a city took it and then went around the city digging the foundations out of the ground. too silly

    I just stopped reading your drivel at that point because the desperation on your part is apparent.

    Yes Willam earthquakes just spit up all of a cities’ foundations out of the ground when they happen and sieges (which only tore down walls) root up foundations. or umm the conquerors after tearing down an entry wall go digging everything out of the ground. Whatever.

    Sighing or ROFLing. I am not sure which one is more appropriate. Hmmm I’ve decided

    ROFL……..

    Like

  239. MIke,

    Why would a foundation have to be lifted out of the ground in order to rendered useless? there are plenty of other ways, and it’s jsut not absurd to say so.

    Earthquakes do damage foundations as can falling walls from siege. i doubt that your seminary education covered the specifics of construction, whether modern or ancient. I’m, fairly surprised that you’re having such a hard time with this and cannot tell if you’re messing around or being serious.

    There are earthquakes in that area. When heavy building fall, it can harm the foundation. And really, if the foundation isnt installed properly, it will fail. it’s not uncommon today and wanst back then. This is a point that isnt worth you arguing.

    besides, it’s moot anyways because ezekiel was wrong. Tyre exists today, having been rebuilt an all.

    Like

  240. “Yes Willam earthquakes just spit up all of a cities’ foundations out of the ground when they happen and sieges (which only tore down walls) root up foundations. or umm the conquerors after tearing down an entry wall go digging everything out of the ground. Whatever.”

    I just reread this and think maybe you misunderstood me. I wasnt saying that an earthquake removed tyre’s foundations and cast them into the sea. we all agree that alexander did that (although I havent read any sources that specifically state he threw all the mainalnd’s foundations into the sea – I imagine he stopped when his causeway was built).

    I was replying to you point that in order for a building or a city to be rebuilt, that there foundation at least had to still be present. I was refuting that, as it happens all the time – and not all foundations are even concrete or stone.

    hope that clears things up

    Like

  241. “So, HOW can you argue these things didn’t happen?”

    Because this is it Kathy. This is their best shot at showing an unfulfilled prophecy (they do even worse on other such claims). Its simple really. Because Tyre could could be said to be on the mainland or on the Isle they HAVE to focus on just the one they want to and ignore the other. Essentially its Yes against amazing odds

    the city was scraped down to the dirt unlike any other city in the area
    The city was covered over in water
    the city can no long be rebuilt (because its under UN protection)

    but we say it happened a few hundred yards to the east even though the Bible says Tyre shared borders with Sidon and that could ONLY be the mainland so there we have an unfulfilled prophecy.

    Meanwhile, you have seen, that they concede that if a house is half built it cannot be said to be built again but beg for no logical reason that the same principle does not apply to a city. They ignore Nehemiah’s usage that a city is not said to rebuilt while it is mostly ruins even if having some houses (begging that its common for any city to be half ruins or under water but presenting no such example).

    They’ll will continue to look right at the ruins of Tyre on Google map and claim the passage is unfulfilled because its what they want – as you pointed out – nothing to do with being objective.

    Like

  242. Mike, since youre talking to kathy, I wont interfere much, but did want to comment on this:

    “Because this is it Kathy. This is their best shot at showing an unfulfilled prophecy (they do even worse on other such claims). Its simple really. Because Tyre could could be said to be on the mainland or on the Isle they HAVE to focus on just the one they want to and ignore the other. Essentially its Yes against amazing odds”

    And mainly this:

    “Because Tyre could could be said to be on the mainland or on the Isle they HAVE to focus on just the one they want to and ignore the other.”

    it’s not us who’s picking parts, we maintain that ezekiel was speaking about tyre – all of tyre. I think you’re the one who keeps saying it’s fulfilled because some building blocks were thrown into the water from part of tyre, and because a rectangular field on mainland tyre is empty…

    so if it wasnt clear before, let me clarify now and again that completely agree that ezekiel was casting sentence upon all of tyre – completely and permanently.

    Like

  243. “Meanwhile, you have seen, that they concede that if a house is half built it cannot be said to be built again but beg for no logical reason that the same principle does not apply to a city.” – mike

    who has conceded this? only you that i recall, and it’s incorrect… I’m not sure what you’re takling about. I guess we can agree that the half houses arent being lived in, but the whole houses in tyre are…

    I guess I’m confused. I cant seem to pin down what your position is…

    mine is simple:

    Ezekiel predicted the permanent and complete destruction of tyre. Yet it wasnt complete and certainly wasnt permanent.

    Like

  244. I haven’t read all of your comment or the other replies, I’ve gotten this far and I’m going to respond right away to it.. you said:

    “But you’re read the entire prophecy as I have, many times. Tyre never remained desolate and was rebuilt quickly each time – which is counter to ezekiel’s prophecy that it will never be rebuilt. I just looked at google earth again, and there it sits.”

    What is “Tyre” ?? Nowhere in the Ezekiel’s prophecy does it give specific measurements or state “all” of Tyre.. or “both island & mainland”. It doesn’t specify. You are doing just as I “predicted”.. you are ADDING your OWN context here.

    Like

  245. Kathy, Tyre was Tyre. Why would Ezekiel need to give specifics about which portions he was talking about? The fact that he didn’t leaves one to conclude that he was talking about all of Tyre, which is exactly what William and I have been saying.

    I’ve read the explanations that apologists use — I even referred to some of them in my original post. But if you’ll consult some other sources, I think you’ll see that the history and archaeology of the area just doesn’t support the claims of sites like ApologeticsPress.

    Like

  246. kathy, i’m sorry, but i’m not adding any context. When we talk about the USA, we talk about all 50 states, but when we specify the continental US we understand that excludes the other two states.

    same with tyre, when ezekiel doesnt specify, that means tyre; which is what? the island and the mainland.

    I think a good example of adding in a particular context is to say that this part of the prophecy only applied to this one small part of the city, while this other part, only applied to this other small part of the island.

    this is simple really. The more I read ezekiel’s prophecy and the more I look at tyre, i realize it was rebuilt and it exists today – despite predictions to the contrary. if you really want to say that it isnt, that’s okay I guess, it’s just not accurate.

    Like

  247. Nate, I’m sure there are better examples but.. if someone says, I’m going to NY.. does that mean ALL of NY? Most of the time, it means NYC.. (and not ALL of NYC either).

    You are arguing for a specific context that there is NO supportive evidence for INSIDE the prophecy. You are adding in your OWN context. The question is how Tyre was viewed at THAT time. Nearly 3 entire chapters talk about “Tyre”.. is there ANYTHING in those descriptions that does not pertain to “Old Tyre”.. the mainland? Or is only referring to the island? There isn’t anything in all 3 chapters that can be used to argue my point. I’m referring TO the actual prophecy.. you are referring to your interpretation of the prophecy.

    You said: ” Why would Ezekiel need to give specifics about which portions he was talking about? The fact that he didn’t leaves one to conclude that he was talking about all of Tyre,”

    I believe it leads one to conclude this if they don’t want the prophecy to be fulfilled. It can just as easily NOT mean all of Tyre. Again, the BULK of the prophecy’s fulfillment is undisputed.. and again, against the odds..

    There was no set requirements or guidelines to follow when issuing a prophecy. We get what Ezekiel (God) gives us. He doesn’t have to give specifics.. He can be as vague as He wants. I personally see this as a way “out” for those who DON’T want to believe.. God is giving atheists what they want. The fact that the amazement of fulfillment of what you don’t dispute is being ignored is just further proof of a lack of objectivity.

    Bottom line, stating “Tyre”.. does NOT have to mean ALL of Tyre as YOU define it. The 3 chapters explain the context.

    Like

  248. Kathy,

    Thanks for the reply. Yes, if you say you’re going to NY, then you could be going to any part of it. It does not necessitate that you visit every square inch. However, Ezekiel’s prophecy is different in that he said Tyre would be destroyed. If someone claimed that NY had been destroyed, but all that happened was a building burned down, would their description be accurate? Destruction, by definition, is encompassing. It deals with the entirety of a thing, not part of it. In crime dramas, when someone “destroys the evidence” they completely get rid of it. Leaving some of it intact contradicts the term “destroy.”

    Like

  249. “I was replying to you point that in order for a building or a city to be rebuilt, that there foundation at least had to still be present. I was refuting that, as it happens all the time – and not all foundations are even concrete or stone.”

    In order to refute something Wiliam you have to present something that refutes it. The facts are that no conqueror went around digging foundations out of the ground. Thats just vast silliness so yes every time you rebuilt a city after a war in the ancient days after it being destroyed you built it with wha t was there and then added to it.

    Like

  250. Btw, the 3 chapters do define the context, I agree. Many times they talk about the opulence of Tyre, which refers to its trade… which relied on the island.

    There was no set requirements or guidelines to follow when issuing a prophecy. We get what Ezekiel (God) gives us. He doesn’t have to give specifics.. He can be as vague as He wants. I personally see this as a way “out” for those who DON’T want to believe.. God is giving atheists what they want. The fact that the amazement of fulfillment of what you don’t dispute is being ignored is just further proof of a lack of objectivity.

    The fact that you feel this way indicates that you also see how Tyre’s history doesn’t seem to fit with Ezekiel’s prediction…

    Like

  251. ” It deals with the entirety of a thing, not part of it. In crime dramas, when someone “destroys the evidence” they completely get rid of it. Leaving some of it intact contradicts the term “destroy”

    Nonsense Nate. Desperate special pleading. IF NYC was destroyed today and you said no it wasn’t because there are three blocks in Brooklyn that survived you would be laughed out of the room. TV analogies now? really????

    and no even then thats not what it means. it means the evidence identifying the person was corrupted to the point where it cannot be used

    Like

  252. “Kathy, Tyre was Tyre. Why would Ezekiel need to give specifics about which portions he was talking about? The fact that he didn’t leaves one to conclude that he was talking about all of Tyre, which is exactly what William and I have been saying. ”

    Tyre in the Bible was whatever the Bible says it was because the Bible is the source text you are looking at.. Its nonsense to do as you do and ignore the textual use in the Bible when referring to the bible. You have been shown in this very thread multiple passages that refer to Tyre being on the mainland even sharing borders with Sidon which an Island cannot do. Furthermore even historical references rebut your all has to be seen as one argument There are multiple academic and historical references to old Tyre and Paeleotyre which DO make the distinction.

    Like

  253. Mike, you’ve completely mis-stated my point. If all that was left of Tyre after Nebuchadnezzar attacked, or even Alexander, was a few houses, etc, then sure, I could see viewing Ezekiel’s prophecy as fulfilled. But that’s not what happened. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland portion, leaving the main part of Tyre (the island) completely unscathed. Alexander destroyed both — BUT he did not level the island portion of Tyre, and it was immediately rebuilt into a thriving, important city. Those are simply the historical facts. If you can somehow view that as equaling “utterly destroyed” and “never rebuilt” then good for you, but I sincerely doubt that any objective person will agree with you.

    Like

  254. Mike, your “borders with Sidon” point is just silly. Sidon was miles away — it was not next door. The island portion of Tyre could have been described as bordering Sidon just as easily as the mainland portion could have. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their sincerity, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult to do that with your constant obfuscation of the source text as well as the comments from people like me and William.

    Like

  255. Nate, you said:

    “The fact that you feel this way indicates that you also see how Tyre’s history doesn’t seem to fit with Ezekiel’s prediction…”

    I see your argument.. but I don’t agree with it. I acknowledge the vagueness considering there were 2 “Tyres” at the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy.

    As an example of “vagueness” or a seeming lack of clarity in the Bible, look at Judges 11, the story of Jephthah. A simple reading leads you to believe that he sacrificed his daughter to God because he made a vow. But IF you take into account the entire context, it’s clear he did not sacrifice his daughter.. she was dedicated to God, always to remain a virgin.

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1273

    If you look at what has been fulfilled in the prophecy, that SHOULD help in deciding the actual context meant for “Tyre”..IF you take into account the amazing odds AGAINST what WAS fulfilled.. that it meant the portion of Tyre that DID end up under water.. which wasn’t just one building.. re:

    ” Tyre is a beautiful city…. In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).”

    You are trying to claim “ancient Tyre” is NOT “Tyre” as stated in the prophecy. If it’s not Tyre.. what is it? And what in the 3 chapters identifies Tyre as YOU define it?

    I’m just trying to make the point that there is no supportive evidence to support your claim that it had to be ALL of Tyre, mainland and island.
    If there is, what is it.. specifically? Please give your best evidence for why we MUST identify “Tyre” as ALL? I don’t know of any.

    Like

  256. And the unique structure of the prophecy where it changes between “he” and “they”/ Neb. & many nations.. can also argue for the changing of Tyre.. if some descriptions do allude to the island, that doesn’t mean that it is set in stone that the destruction had to apply to all.. just as the whole prophecy isn’t restricted to Neb’s attack. Surely the island suffered when the mainland was destroyed. That’s what the whole prophecy is about.. punishment on Tyre.

    Like

  257. “Mike, you’ve completely mis-stated my point. If all that was left of Tyre after Nebuchadnezzar attacked, or even Alexander, was a few houses, etc, then sure, I could see viewing Ezekiel’s prophecy as fulfilled.”

    Nate you are boring me. We both know you would do no such thing. In probably one of the best examples I have seen in recent times of VAST self deception you argue here

    https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/never-going-back/

    that you are open minded but just would never admit to being wrong about what you have learned. You do a mean double speak and tap dancing and the sheep do make you think it works but it is what it is – an admission of being close minded while proclaiming to be open. its all a charade. the two don’t fit.

    Whatever the evidence you will maintain the same

    You’ve brought up the rebuilt issue before several times and you know the answer I’ve given several times. The never rebuilt is future after more than one nation is involved. As it stands today Tyre will never be rebuilt. As it turns out due to UN protection not the ruins on the island and not the ruins on the mainland. The end.

    Like

  258. “Mike, your “borders with Sidon” point is just silly. Sidon was miles away — it was not next door. The island of portion of Tyre could have been described as bordering Sidon just as easily as the mainland portion could have.”

    Actuallly Nate we both know its you getting desperately silly here. The environments around a city are often considered as part of city. the borders would be considered an area shared by those two cities areas intersecting. this is just s

    there is no way an Island can be said to have borders with a city area on land. Thats just VAST nonsense and I suspect you know it.

    [quote] I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their sincerity, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult to do that with your constant obfuscation of the source text as well as the comments from people like me and William. [/quote]

    Which is just flimsy code for You are showing my posts to be weak and not what I claim So I am going to ban you. You did once already nate. Think I don’t know you will again?

    Like

  259. Which is just flimsy code for You are showing my posts to be weak and not what I claim So I am going to ban you. You did once already nate. Think I don’t know you will again?

    What is this a “triple dog dare” like the elementary school days? Seriously Mike do you turn to taunting because you need it to strengthen your case?

    Like

  260. “Btw, the 3 chapters do define the context, I agree. Many times they talk about the opulence of Tyre, which refers to its trade… which relied on the island.”

    Nate like Kathy has said you are just trying to read your own context in wherever you can. Tyre had ports yes but its trade most definitely did not rely on the island and even the three chapters you give don’t support your fudge. one of the number one things mentioned is its woods and ship making derived from the woods grown on the mainland. it also indicates trade with land locked cities such as Damascus and Jersualem. the idea that all trade took place over on the island and they carried all their land ware over to the island to trade is just nonsense. All foods,water and farmland the Island lived off would be on the mainland.

    Furthermore the passage makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that Tyre was judged because it was rejoicing in the trade form Jerusalem (land trade) being turned to it. Al of that trade would have been coming on land.

    Like

  261. “What is this a “triple dog dare” like the elementary school days? Seriously Mike do you turn to taunting because you need it to strengthen your case?”

    Do you ever have a good point? My case needs no strengthening. Nae and your points are weak in just about every post. I just have no time to break down each one

    Like

  262. Hi Mike,

    I do try as best as I can, and I learn more and more every day. I realize that isn’t good enough for you. Whether it’s my IQ or just my education I’m very aware of the fact that you are much better than me. I’m just not quite sure why you want to keep reminding me of that.

    I think there may be something deeper going on here. It’s not just the dishonest immoral atheists that you are going up against it’s Christian scholars as well. Here’s just one example (and there are others you can find in commentaries):

    http://www.cresourcei.org/ezekieltyre.html

    Here’s a summary quote from the Christian scholar on that webpage:

    to attempt to relate this prophecy to events 250 years later simply to vindicate a certain view of prophecy is not valid, and borders on not dealing with the biblical text honestly.

    That last word is not one I would use against others, but Bratcher seems fine using it. That’s just a bit of a summary. If people are interested they can read the whole article of course. My point is just that many of the things that William and Nate have been saying here are also said by some Christian scholars – it’s not just some atheist conspiracy with the express purpose of denying the existence of spiritual beings.

    Like

  263. Per the border between Tyre and Sidon:

    Mike, would you say that Mississippi shares a border with Louisiana? Their “border” (if we can call it that) is marked by the Mississippi River. Since that’s water, I don’t suppose it would be correct to call it a border, right?

    Like

  264. “I think there may be something deeper going on here. It’s not just the dishonest immoral atheists that you are going up against it’s Christian scholars as well.”

    Oh please you find some liberal “christian” who doesn’t even believe in inerrancy and he presents nothing new but his opinion is some point?

    there are ton loads of Biblical scholars that YOU are going up against that do not maintain the passage is a false prophecy. Please try something else.

    Like

  265. I’ve found a site that goes into considerable detail about Tyre’s history, and it provides links to (and excerpts from) the historical documents that provide this information. The opening paragraphs state the following:

    Tyre was one of the most important cities in the ancient Near East. Built on an island in the eastern Mediterranean, it controled two natural harbors. It was sufficiently close to the shore to be supplied from its hinterland, but sufficiently far enough from the mainland to be nearly impossible to capture.

    It was larger than the area that is now occupied by the Old City; parts have been swallowed by the sea. The ancient city also controled a fertile coastal strip, some two kilometers wide, with several minor towns, sanctuaries, and farms. On the shores were the villages of shell collectors, in the east was an occupied hill named Al Ma’shook, and near Al-Rashidiyeh in the south was a very old town, which is probably identical to the Ušu mentioned in Assyrian texts, and the Palaityros, “Old Tyre”, of our Greek sources. This was, according to Arrian, the site of a very ancient sanctuary of Heracles (the Greek name of Melqart; Anabasis, 2.16), and archaeologists have found several Bronze Age tombs over here.

    http://www.livius.org/tt-tz/tyre/tyre_history.html

    Tyre became famous because of its trade. That’s no secret.

    At the beginning of the Iron Age, Tyre replaced Sidon as the most important city in the region. There is no doubt about that. It is also certain that the new leading city played a very important role in the Phoenician colonization movement. Tyre is mentioned as founder of Citium on the copper island Cyprus, of Carthage, Utica, and Lixus, and of Gades in Andalusia. The Roman author Pliny the Elder mentions Tyre as mother town of Lepcis Magna, but this is probably a mistake (Natural History, 5.76).

    … Perhaps, the colonization movement was stimulated by external pressure. From the northeast, Tyre and the other Phoenician cities were threatened by the Assyrians. In order to buy them off, Tyre needed to obtain precious articles from the west. Of course, its prosperity made the city attractive to attack, but the island could not be captured. This created a situation in which Tyre flourished, expanded its influence to the western colonies, but was often watched its possessions on the land being looted and pillaged. An Assyrian king would boast that he had defeated Tyre, and after some time, more peaceful conditions arose, allowing Assyro-Tyrian trade to flourish. So, in both war and peace, Assyria benefitted from Tyre’s trade network.

    Long before Ezekiel’s time, the core of Tyre was the island. It was practically unassailable. Kathy mentioned in an earlier comment that we have this problem of “two Tyres,” but that’s not really the impression I get. Sometimes there are two cities with the same name, like Athens, Greece and Athens, Georgia. But the situation with Tyre is like a city with its suburbs. I won’t argue that the mainland portion should be ignored, but to make the counter claim — that Ezekiel wasn’t really talking about the island portion — really stretches credibility. Why would he care? Tyre’s wealth was tied up in the island portion. Yes, the mainland provided the island with some important things, but those could be obtained from other places via their trade network — they didn’t have to come from the mainland suburbs, as Alexander’s prolonged siege demonstrates.

    Furthermore, if you want context from Ezekiel that he was also focused on the island, it’s not hard to find:

    Ezek 26:5 — She shall be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets
    Ezek 27:4 — Your borders are in the heart of the seas;

    Chapter 27 compares Tyre to a ship at sea, which certainly sounds more like the island portion than the mainland. And a number of passages refer to its trade, which concerns the island (26:16-18; 27:2-3; 27:5-9; 27:12-25; 27:33; etc.). In addition to all that, chapter 28 is a prophecy against the king of Tyre, and there was no king on the mainland. He reigned from the island portion.

    Like

  266. Kathy said:

    And the unique structure of the prophecy where it changes between “he” and “they”/ Neb. & many nations..

    You’re right that it changes in verse 12. However, it’s hard to say if “they” refers to other nations, or to Nebuchadnezzar’s army. You may be right in the way you understand it, but there’s not really a way to tell from the context. Here’s the passage:

    7 “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the Lord; I have spoken, declares the Lord God.

    Just wanted to mention that…

    Like

  267. “Mike, would you say that Mississippi shares a border with Louisiana? Their “border” (if we can call it that) is marked by the Mississippi River. Since that’s water, I don’t suppose it would be correct to call it a border, right?”

    I’d say they share a river not the sea. SO you would say it would be correct to say the Bahamas share borders with the US Nate? I mean they share the same sea right? Cuba and south America? same sea? and New Zealand with Australia same borders too? Shucks Islands share borders with all other coastlands in the world I guess. Same seas

    sounding a little desperate to me Nate.

    Like

  268. I’d like to make one additional point about Tyre being scraped clean. While Alexander did do that to the mainland portion, it’s not exactly the way that Ezekiel prophesied it. This is not a major point to me, and it’s not one I would press. But since it’s been mentioned a couple of times that this was an astounding example of prophecy fulfillment, I just wanted to say this:

    Alexander took the ruins from the mainland and used them to build his causeway to the island. Once he took the island, he destroyed it, but did not level everything and throw it into the ocean. Instead, he rebuilt it. That’s the way things worked out — here’s Ezekiel’s prophecy:

    4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers, and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock. 5 She shall be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets, for I have spoken, declares the Lord God. And she shall become plunder for the nations, 6 and her daughters on the mainland shall be killed by the sword.

    To me, it seems that the “scraping” is in reference to the island portion, since verse 5 says “midst of the sea” and verse 6 refers to the “daughters on the mainland” separately. Also, this “scraping” seems to be done purely out of judgment; whereas Alexander did it for a very particular purpose. Had Ezekiel given some indication that the mainland’s ruins would be used to get to the island, even if he had said it figuratively, then the case that this is a genuine prophecy would be far stronger. But that’s not what he said. I can understand why some Christians at least view Alexander’s creation of the causeway as a prophecy fulfillment; I just wanted to point out that even that case isn’t as strong as is sometimes implied.

    Like

  269. Mike,I realize that every opposing view sounds desperate to you, so no worries. Thanks for continually pointing it out though.

    The island of Tyre sat about half a mile off shore, while the Mississippi River is about a mile wide in places.

    Like

  270. “Furthermore, if you want context from Ezekiel that he was also focused on the island, it’s not hard to find:

    Ezek 26:5 — She shall be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets
    Ezek 27:4 — Your borders are in the heart of the seas;”

    Nate you are just rehashing the same stuff you did before that have been answered before. Even in your own reference you just referred to two different areas as tyre Old tyre or as the romans called it Paleotyre and island Tyre. .Its distinguished from each other in several sources

    Your verses above as proof have been debunked before

    26:5 can easily refer to being thrown into the midst of the waters by being scraped there

    Its a prophecy after all and if were already in that state it wouldn’t be one

    27:4 is the same for any coastal city who has borders in the sea. All coastal cities have borders in the sea.

    Like

  271. “The island of Tyre sat about half a mile off shore, while the Mississippi River is about a mile wide in places.”

    Nate go consult a map.

    Tyre the Island is not across from SIdon like two states right across from each other over a river. Sidon is several mile up the coastland Thats why I say rightfuly you are just plain desperate

    Like

  272. Here nate. Have fun with this one too

    2 Samuel 24:5-7 (KJV)
    5 And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer:
    6 Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtimhodshi; and they came to Danjaan, and about to Zidon,
    7 And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beersheba.

    So how do these travellers just come up on a stronghold of Tyre as they move down the coast? Swim

    Like

  273. So how do these travellers just come up on a stronghold of Tyre as they move down the coast? Swim

    Correct me if I’m wrong, Mike (shoddy research and all), but unless the stronghold was invisible, I suppose they’d be able to see it sitting off the coast.

    Tyre the Island is not across from SIdon like two states right across from each other over a river. Sidon is several mile up the coastland Thats why I say rightfuly you are just plain desperate

    Yes, indeed. I didn’t say Tyre was half a mile from Sidon, but half a mile from the coast (you know, mainland Tyre). Sidon, in fact, was about 25 miles north of Tyre, which is why your hangup on this “border” thing is so ridiculous. If you’re maintaining that the Bible says Tyre literally shared a border with Sidon, then we might as well chalk this up to another Bible inaccuracy. But if that’s not what you mean, then you have no point.

    Like

  274. “Correct me if I’m wrong, Mike (shoddy research and all), but unless the stronghold was invisible, I suppose they’d be able to see it sitting off the coast.”

    ROFL…:) Nate. Now whose trying to fudge the text? Where does it say they saw the city sitting a half mile of the coast? it says they came upon the stronghold as they travelled on foot. You’ve just proven you will try to float any garbage to stop your unfulfilled prophecy nonsense from taking on SERIOUS water. You accuse believers of twisting texts and whenever you encounter texts, language definitions or geography in the text that blows up your assertions you do the meanest chubby checker of anyone.

    “Yes, indeed. I didn’t say Tyre was half a mile from Sidon, but half a mile from the coast (you know, mainland Tyre). ”

    I didn’t say you did. You entirely missed the point. The US states you mentioned have borders of rivers because they are right across from each other. comparing that with an island 25 mile south of another city is just drivelling nonsense born out of desperation

    “which is why your hangup on this “border” thing is so ridiculous.”

    Your rhetoric works only on your readers who want to believe every word you write. I can see right through them, you and your desperate silliness. Its as clear a day you have no way of handing the fact that the Bible says that Sidon borders with Tyre. It destroys your assertion that tyre is the Island in the bible Any fool knows that areas around a city are identified with the city So saying the borders of Tyre and Sidon creates absolutely no error or discrepancy provided their lands around those cities share a border (which they do on land if the city is on land). The only thing utterly ridiculous, intellectually dishonest and desperate is claiming an Island shares a border with a city 25 miles north of where the island is

    Silly sily silly begging because if you don’t your failed prophecy nonsense is dead

    But it already is anyway and it doesn’t need your admission.

    Like

  275. Nate, you said: ” You’re right that it changes in verse 12. However, it’s hard to say if “they” refers to other nations, or to Nebuchadnezzar’s army. You may be right in the way you understand it, but there’s not really a way to tell from the context.”

    Note verse 12..
    “12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. ”

    *Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters.*

    We know that this happened with Alexander.. NOT Neb. Strong support that “they” refers to future attackers… and strong support for the validity of the prophecy.. since again how many times has a city been cast into the sea, how many times has there been a need to build a “causeway”? And.. how many cities were there for Ezekiel to prophecy about that this could happen to.. what are the odds of predicting this of ANY city, much less a city like Tyre in it’s “heyday”??

    I realize that it might seem “backwards”.. to use the result to determine the meaning of the prediction.. but if the majority of the improbable occurrences did happen (there is no disagreement) it IS reasonable to use that to some extent to help determine the context.

    So, since most of the prophecy is not disputed and far beyond the odds of predictability, it makes sense to use that to help determine the context of the parts that are in dispute. It would be unfair to not give it some consideration / value.

    Again, I ask, what is the very best argument that we MUST accept “Tyre” as meaning ALL of Tyre? There is nothing in those 3 chapters that makes this clear. Especially when you consider the style of the prophecy where the specific players /places are being interchanged.

    Like

  276. And just a quick comment about context.. in MY comment.. when I said: “Again, I ask, what is the very best argument that we MUST accept “Tyre” as meaning ALL of Tyre? ” .. there is a context to this that I just assumed would be understand but after reading it I feel the need to clarify.. I agree that the overall prophecy is directed at ALL of Tyre.. but the passages that talk about Tyre never being reguilt or inhabited again, the question stands.. how do you know that THIS part is referring to ALL of Tyre?? Especially since the style of the prophecy arguably interchanges participants.. why not places/ portions of Tyre?? “Old Tyre”.. is what applies to the never to rebuilt portion of the prophecy.. when you apply the overall context. Prophecy fulfilled! No overwhelming evidence to overturn this declaration.

    Like

  277. Nate, you said: ” Also, this “scraping” seems to be done purely out of judgment; whereas Alexander did it for a very particular purpose.”

    I don’t understand this point because it makes no difference why Alexander did it as far as prophecy goes…. it’s just matters that it was predicted to happen and it did.. against overwhelming odds. And it was most certainly a punishment/ judgment for Tyre.. it sure wasn’t a blessing. That Alexander wanted a causeway for a purpose other than judgment isn’t proof that God wasn’t controlling the events.

    “Had Ezekiel given some indication that the mainland’s ruins would be used to get to the island, even if he had said it figuratively, then the case that this is a genuine prophecy would be far stronger. But that’s not what he said. ”

    Even though Ezekiel didn’t provide all the information you thought he should have to constitute a “valid” prophecy.. although I’m not sure who would have the authority to decide what that is.. what he DID prophecy is AGAINST THE ODDS. In my view, a prophecy is predicting something that is not probable based on the odds/ numbers involved. I don’t understand these additional requirements called for in order for the prophecy to be “legitimate”. The insurmountable odds make it legitimate.

    Like

  278. “how do you know that THIS part is referring to ALL of Tyre?? Especially since the style of the prophecy arguably interchanges participants.. why not places/ portions of Tyre?? “Old Tyre”.. is what applies to the never to rebuilt portion of the prophecy.. when you apply the overall context. Prophecy fulfilled! No overwhelming evidence to overturn this declaration.”

    kathy, it’s because it says “tyre.” Not old tyre or mainland tyre, just tyre. if the prophecy referred to a single part in another place, it’s only because it specifically identified it as such.

    If someone said that they were going to completely destroy a building what would you expect? That they completely destroy a part of that building? doubtful. we’d all understand that that to mean the entire building would be completely destroyed.

    I think the context is clear, what muddies these waters is that it wasn’t fulfilled that way, so someone who believes the bible without question, they have to find ways to make it workout, so ezekiele must have meant only part… I just dont buy this line.

    I really feel like it couldnt be clearer, but somehow we still disagree. I dont know what else to say… all the best to you, kathy.

    Like

  279. “If someone said that they were going to completely destroy a building what would you expect? That they completely destroy a part of that building? doubtful.”

    Right, exactly!.. so ask yourself.. WHERE in the prophecy does it say “all” or “complete” destruction of Tyre?? It’s not Christians who are trying to “work it out”.. it’s atheists who are trying to debunk it despite the series of fulfillments within the prophecy, all against the odds. This is completely ignored.

    Like

  280. And also William, you’re ignoring my point about the structure / style of the prophecy.. the attacker(s) change from “he” to “they” without notice.. so the same can be for any other aspect of the prophecy, like the mainland or island or all.. the mainland was “Tyre”, this is clear in the prophecy.. it can ALSO be the Island.. and it can also be both. That there is NO clear indication of which of these (or all) was never to be rebuilt.. it can be either OR all.

    Like

  281. “And also William, you’re ignoring my point about the structure / style of the prophecy.. ”

    no ma’am, I didnt ignore it, it’s just moot. I never spoke about why Neb didnt do it and Alex did. You’re extending the “waves” to imply a change in “mainland” to “island” but the “waves” portion never mentions that. The prophecy is to tyre – so okay, Neb attacks the mainland – alex attacked the island… I’m not arguing against this.

    however, tyre wasn’t utterly or permanently destroyed and it was rebuilt – is there today.

    Like

  282. “Right, exactly!.. so ask yourself.. WHERE in the prophecy does it say “all” or “complete” destruction of Tyre?? It’s not Christians who are trying to “work it out”.. it’s atheists who are trying to debunk it despite the series of fulfillments within the prophecy, all against the odds. This is completely ignored.”

    when ezekiel says tyre will be found no more, dropped into the sea, and never rebuilt…. that says it. If part of tyre was rebuilt, then it’s been rebuilt. I really dont know where to begin with this, since it’s so straight forward…

    maybe i’m not understanding your point?

    Like

  283. “no ma’am, I didnt ignore it, it’s just moot. I never spoke about why Neb didnt do it and Alex did. ”

    That you never mentioned it doesn’t in any way make my point “moot”. I’m claiming style/ structure of the prophecy. If a part of the prophecy has a unique style of interchanging the participants of the attacks, then OTHER parts of the prophecy can also do so.. it can be addressing ALL of Tyre at one point but then shift and only speak of mainland or island. Again, the mainland was “Tyre”.. that’s what it was called according to THE prophecy! So, when it says that Tyre will never be rebuilt.. it CAN be referring to the mainland. I’ve asked Nate several times now.. and I’ll ask you.. what is your BEST evidence/ argument that “Tyre” MUST mean ALL of Tyre, mainland and island?? There is no definitive evidence to support this claim. All arguments favor the claim that it didn’t mean all of Tyre.. several arguments that I’ve presented. The ONLY argument you all have for it meaning “all” of Tyre is that it says “Tyre”.. that’s a fail..

    Like

  284. Well Nate did say in response to a Bible passages that indicates that a bunch of travellers came upon Tyre on the mainland that they could see it out on the island half a mile off shore.

    theres always that.

    Like

  285. “when ezekiel says tyre will be found no more, dropped into the sea, and never rebuilt…. that says it. If part of tyre was rebuilt, then it’s been rebuilt.”

    So, if they put a 2 story building at ground zero, that would mean that WTC was “rebuilt”?

    2nd, is there a significant part of Tyre under water, never to be rebuilt? Yes, there is. re:

    ““Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.

    From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst…. There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city…. In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).”

    So, about a thousand years ago, there was an “ancient Tyre”.. underwater.. never to be rebuilt.

    I fail to see how anyone can argue that Ezekiel’s prophecy has not been fulfilled. The odds of predicting these things EVEN if they don’t meet your added “objective” requirements is way beyond reasonable odds.

    Like

  286. “So, if they put a 2 story building at ground zero, that would mean that WTC was “rebuilt”?”

    interesting question. How many tall towers were in tyre? Tyre has a port, many buildings and homes. it has both of these on what was the mainland, what was island and what was the causeway even. This city still goes by tyre.

    so how many stories was the WTC? 2 stories? maybe not, but let’s say is 2 dozen and they called it the WTC and used it for that purpose? would you say that the WTC wasnt rebuilt?

    “2nd, is there a significant part of Tyre under water, never to be rebuilt? Yes, there is. re:”

    so the best you can say is that some of the island is now underwater – not that tyre itself is. When katrina flooded NO, did you tell everyone the USA flooded?

    Like

  287. “So, about a thousand years ago, there was an “ancient Tyre”.. underwater.. never to be rebuilt.”

    Kathy, you must know this is a stretch. parts of the island are now underwater – yes, but still there are occupied parts of the island above water – not to mention the mainland and now the causeway – the causeway made tyre bigger and made it easier to travel between tyre’s two parts.

    If the events on tyre were meant to make it worse, that may have failed as well.

    Like

  288. “That you never mentioned it doesn’t in any way make my point “moot”. ”

    but that’s not all that made it moot. The prophecy doesnt hang on that point nor do i disagree with the events that transpired. I’m not sure what you want from me here. I’m not arguing with you on this point.

    Like

  289. “Well Nate did say in response to a Bible passages that indicates that a bunch of travellers came upon Tyre on the mainland that they could see it out on the island half a mile off shore.

    theres always that.”

    not sure what youre getting at. can you clarify this point?

    Like

  290. “Kathy, you must know this is a stretch. parts of the island are now underwater – yes, but still there are occupied parts of the island above water –”

    So, I’ll ask yet again.. what is your evidence that “never to be rebuilt” was about ALL of Tyre??

    Like

  291. Look guys, we’re just not going to agree here. The basic facts are these:

    Ezekiel made a prophecy about Tyre. Tyre was later attacked by Nebuchadnezzar, and the mainland portions were destroyed — the island was untouched. About 250 years later, Alexander the Great attacked Tyre, and using the remains of the mainland portion, he built a causeway that allowed him to sack the island. Tyre was rebuilt after that and was restored to prominence and had a long and illustrious history.

    Those of us who view this as a failure think the prophecy applied to all of Tyre — that it would be destroyed and never rebuilt. We’ve already given our reasons for thinking this, both logic-based and context-based.

    Those who think the prophecy was fulfilled think that only parts of the prophecy applied to parts of Tyre.

    We simply don’t agree. Instead of taking up all our time with reiterating how much we don’t agree, why don’t we just leave it at this? Have I missed anything substantial that should be mentioned?

    Like

  292. “but that’s not all that made it moot. The prophecy doesnt hang on that point nor do i disagree with the events that transpired. I’m not sure what you want from me here. I’m not arguing with you on this point.”

    The point I’m trying to make now is NOT about multiple attackers, I never claimed you disagreed w/ that.. I’m glad you recognize that “he” & “they” are different participants.

    My point is about the STYLE/ structure of the prophecy. It argues that “Tyre” could mean all of Tyre, OR it could mean just the mainland or just the island. Since, the mainland WAS scraped into the sea, and logic dictates would never be rebuilt, it’s extremely reasonable to assume that THAT is what the prophecy was referring to.. the actual part of Tyre that actually met the description of an IMPROBABLE prophecy and was scraped into the sea.

    Like

  293. Kathy, I’ll agree with nate’s last post, because i guess you and I just dont- and that’s okay

    Like

  294. Nate, yes.. what is your best argument that “Tyre” means ALL of Tyre where it states that it would never be rebuilt?

    What do you think about my point that “he” and “they” aren’t the same person/ ppl because it states: * Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters.* Which clearly describes Alexander’s attack..

    What do you think about my argument concerning the style of the prophecy? If the attackers are interchangeable, why not parts of Tyre vs all of Tyre?

    Like

  295. “So, if they put a 2 story building at ground zero, that would mean that WTC was “rebuilt”?”

    🙂 Yep you got it. In fact they could start to rebuild it stop have everything in ruins and if they build a two story building in the parking lot they’d say the whole thing was rebuilt too. As you can see “completely” is only argued for the destruction and switched when it comes to rebuilding. Tthe all of it beg just vanishes for that.

    “”So, I’ll ask yet again.. what is your evidence that “never to be rebuilt” was about ALL of Tyre??”

    they don’t have any Kathy its all about fudging and then when they can’t answer or realize their “well you could see Tyre out at sea from the mainland so there” answers sound silly then its shut up we don’t agree move on.

    but not before trying to add that its all “logic- based and context-based” as the last word?

    Like

  296. However I do agree with nate on one thing – its pointless. its not like any point is being addressed on their side anyway and when they go to “I feel” regardless “i think” its not going to change either.

    Like

  297. ““So, if they put a 2 story building at ground zero, that would mean that WTC was “rebuilt”?”
    🙂 Yep you got it. In fact they could start to rebuild it stop have everything in ruins and if they build a two story building in the parking lot they’d say the whole thing was rebuilt too. As you can see “completely” is only argued for the destruction and switched when it comes to rebuilding. Tthe all of it beg just vanishes for that.” – mike

    if you’re claiming a two story bldg in the parking lot is the similar to modern day tyre, there really is nothing more for us to discuss here. we’re just on two different fields.

    and I dont even understand how you mean to compare destruction and building. If someone said that they’d destroy a city for ever, but temporarily detroyed a neighborhood, i’d say the guy was wrong. but you would say that the city was destroyed?

    If someone said that they were going to rebuild their house after fire, but instead of a 3000SF house with 5 bedrooms, they built a 4000SF house with 4 bedrooms, or even if it was a 2500SF house with 3 bedrooms, i would say they still rebuilt. Would you disagree because it’s not exactly identical to the old?

    I agree to disagree. I just dont even understand the problem, really – and that may be my fault.

    all the best.

    Like

  298. “agreeing to disagree and move on” when there are direct questions/ points still unanswered is profoundly wrong if the motive truly is to “find the truth”.

    I TRULY want the truth… “wherever that leads”.. and I’ve been lead over and over to the truth that God is real. Fulfilled prophecies are just ONE of the ways He proves Himself to those who are truly objective.

    This prophecy is AMAZINGLY accurate even if a FEW points are in dispute.. the bulk is a series of undisputed FULFILLED prophecies.. and yet it’s all dismissed. This proves a lack of objectivity.

    Like

  299. “If someone said that they were going to rebuild their house after fire, but instead of a 3000SF house with 5 bedrooms, they built a 4000SF house with 4 bedrooms, or even if it was a 2500SF house with 3 bedrooms, i would say they still rebuilt.”

    You could say anything you want but if anyone drove by and saw half the house still in ruins they would say that house is not built yet. Thats for the the island tyre. They’d ask you what you were smoking looking at mainland tyre.

    Like

  300. “Tyre was rebuilt after that and was restored to prominence and had a long and illustrious history.”

    NOT “ancient Tyre”.. it was never rebuilt and will never be rebuilt.

    What is your best argument that THIS Tyre was not meant in the prophecy and instead “all” of Tyre??

    Like

  301. “and I dont even understand how you mean to compare destruction and building. If someone said that they’d destroy a city for ever, but temporarily detroyed a neighborhood, i’d say the guy was wrong. but you would say that the city was destroyed? ”

    Nope I would look at a city that now is not going to be rebuilt ever because its protected by the UN as a world heritage site and say that its not going to be rebuilt after several nations came up like waves of the sea against it.

    The end.

    Like

  302. Kathy, I’m not trying to leave any of your questions unanswered — I apologize if it appeared that way. I also am only interested in finding the truth in these matters.

    What is your best argument that THIS Tyre was not meant in the prophecy and instead “all” of Tyre??

    First, my “logic-based” reasons. And I don’t use “logic-based” to imply that your reasons aren’t based in logic; I just had trouble thinking of another way to phrase this.

    I live in the Birmingham, Alabama area, which is comprised of a number of different communities, or smaller towns. Birmingham is known for several things, but two of them are the steel and banking industries. Let’s say someone issued a prophecy about Birmingham being destroyed and reduced to rubble, and they referenced its notoriety in banking and steel production. And then Hoover, one of its suburbs, was utterly decimated by something. Many people consider Hoover to be part of Birmingham. Maybe some of them would feel that the prophecy had been fulfilled. I would not, however, because Hoover is only a part of Birmingham. And Hoover doesn’t actually have anything to do with the steel production and has very little to do with the banking. On the other hand, if Birmingham itself was destroyed by some event, even if the suburbs weren’t affected to heavily, then I wouldn’t have an argument with the prophecy.

    That’s how I see the Tyre thing. History tells us that the island portion of Tyre was already the city center in Ezekiel’s time. It’s where the king lived, and it was the hub of Tyre’s trade network, which accounted for its great wealth. That’s why I have a hard time viewing destruction of the outskirts as being fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy. And I think many Christians have problems with that too — otherwise, why would they need to rely so much on Alexander’s later attack on the island?

    For my context-based reasons, I’d refer you to this earlier comment that I made:
    https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/prophecy-part-6-tyre/#comment-10488

    I truly see it as indicating the island portion… well, that’s not entirely true. I think Tyre was thought of as encompassing both the island and the mainland, but I believe these passages put a lot of focus on Tyre’s sea trade, which ties it to the island.

    We don’t have to agree here — I’m not sure we’ll be able to. I’m just trying to answer your question as accurately as I can. I hope that helps.

    Like

  303. Kathy,

    As a side note, I’d like to mention something else. I don’t know anything about you, since you’re new here, so if my following comment doesn’t apply, please forgive me. I just wanted to say that I was a Christian for a long time, and I believed in biblical inerrancy. It was actually a study on the Book of Daniel that made me begin to question that stance. When I first started finding problems, I didn’t immediately accept them as such — it wasn’t until a number of them began to pile up that I began to think about the possibility that the Bible wasn’t what I’d always thought it was.

    I bring that up to say this: if you come from a similar background and this issue with Tyre is the first real thing you’ve run across, I would suggest looking into some of the other issues within the Bible. For me, it was the cumulative case that helped me finally accept that the Bible truly had some problems. Not everyone comes to that conclusion, of course, but that’s how it was for me.

    Again, I apologize if this comment came off as presumptuous — I just wanted to offer it as a consideration. I have respect for all truth-seekers, whether they agree with me or not, and I’m happy to consider you part of that camp.

    Like

  304. ” And I think many Christians have problems with that too — otherwise, why would they need to rely so much on Alexander’s later attack on the island?”

    Because Christians believe the passage is saying that many nations will come up against the city tyre just like it says. Theres no reason to misrepresent what Christians believe and is in the text as if theres some admission on their part that boosts your point.

    this has been covered multiple times in this thread. its not credible any longer that you do not know how those Christians view that.

    Like

  305. Kathy I would suggest (although I don’t think you are in that boat) that if this is your first run in with skeptics trying to allege a unfulfilled prophecy you

    listen to the claim
    read the rebuttals to the claim
    the read the rebuttals to the rebuttals
    then read the rebuttals to the rebuttals

    Only then do you get down to the truth. Before all of that the claims are usually half baked Some people never get that far. they buy into one side or the other and go maybe another level but not the whole way. One thing you probably know about Internet claims they can seem strong until you do your own research and find out hings are not as claimed.

    I am the opposite of Nate. many years ago I was put off by a claim a skeptic made. He represented something in history that was actually right that Babylon was not been destroyed the way that was claimed in the Bible. However though it was right it was not completely right and he had left off a key part. As it turns out the skeptic left off that the same people attacked babylon TWICE. the second time was exactly the way the Bible claimed.

    I nearly missed it except that if I was going to walk away from my faith it was going to take every stone being turned first. So happy I did because it made me go back and read and see words I had missed before that made me realize something else was going on that I did not realize before and then digging deeper I found the same historian reciting the second conquest of Babylon i a complete fulfillment of what the Bible stated

    In my experience you research long enough the Bible comes out on top every time.

    Like

  306. “Nope I would look at a city that now is not going to be rebuilt ever because its protected by the UN as a world heritage site and say that its not going to be rebuilt after several nations came up like waves of the sea against it.

    The end.”

    you’re referring to that rectangular field that makes up a portion of the old mainland. you’re the only person i know who maintains that rectangular field was the entire city limits of ancient tyre. You’re right though, that field is uninhabited – it just wasnt the end of tyre as ezekiel prophesied nor did it represent all of ancient tyre either – which is why Neb was said to have failed in sacking tyre – because they all fled to the island fortress (tyre’s stronghold).

    why are we even arguing?

    and are you saying tyre is “half built” or it doesnt count as being a built city because it contains ruins? so egypt isnt a built city? atlanta isn’t a built city? new york isn’t a built city? rome isn’t a built city? jerusalem isnt a built city?

    each of those places, as well as countless others, are inhabited, although some building lie in ruin, with others having been rebuilt throughout time…

    I mean, i just dont get your argument. I feel like I’m not understanding what youre trying to say, because you keep making this point and i keep telling you it doesnt make sense for obvious reasons.

    I’m sorry, I just really don’t get what youre trying to say.

    Like

  307. “I nearly missed it except that if I was going to walk away from my faith it was going to take every stone being turned first. So happy I did because it made me go back and read and see words I had missed before that made me realize something else was going on that I did not realize before and then digging deeper I found the same historian reciting the second conquest of Babylon i a complete fulfillment of what the Bible stated”

    the medes conquered babylon like the bible (jeremiah) said? when did this happen?

    Like

  308. “and are you saying tyre is “half built” or it doesnt count as being a built city because it contains ruins? so egypt isnt a built city? atlanta isn’t a built city? new york isn’t a built city? rome isn’t a built city? jerusalem isnt a built city?”

    sigh….. rehash and rehash.Same old rebuffed claims. this has been covered so often I can’t even take you honestly trying to act like you are asking it for the first time. A similarity has been claimed before and when asked for any evidence in the area of a rebuilt city half in ruins you have come up with Nada, Zip NYET! 🙂

    Go ahead since you are bringing it up AGAIN. show me Jerusalem half in ruins. Show me even a quarter of new york city in ruins (do tell!! real estate is so expensive there because there is so little unbuilt land) Atlanta with significant ruins? Who are you trying to fool? Kathy?

    SO for like the tenth time over the time we have been discussing this with you (which just makes your memory atrocious or your honesty suspect) My claim is there is no other city anywhere in the area or for that matter anyplace I can think of where half the city is in ruins above or under water.

    Its all fluff and puff. No? then give me a google link of Jerusalem or NYC even a third in ruins

    Like

  309. “the medes conquered babylon like the bible said? when did this happen?”

    When the babylons still living in the city rebelled against the Persians. They tore down the walls and crucified a bunch of them. Very violent destruction just like the Bible claims it would be. also in keeping with what god said – that he would do unto them as had been done to Jerusalem. the first taking of Jerusalem was not violent. when they rebelled against babylon rule the second attack was,

    Same thing with babylon

    Like

  310. “sigh….. rehash and rehash.Same old rebuffed claims. this has been covered so often I can’t even take you honestly trying to act like you are asking it for the first time. A similarity has been claimed before and when asked for any evidence in the area of a rebuilt city half in ruins you have come up with Nada, Zip NYET! 🙂

    Go ahead since you are bringing it up AGAIN. show me Jerusalem half in ruins. Show me even a quarter of new york city in ruins (do tell!! real estate is so expensive there because there is so little unbuilt land) Atlanta with significant ruins? Who are you trying to fool? Kathy?”

    what are you talking about? I keep looking at tyre. much more than half it’s land mass is built up and occupied , even though ezekiel said it would be uninhabited (desolate) forever.

    Like

  311. “When the babylons still living in the city rebelled against the Persians. They tore down the walls and crucified a bunch of them. Very violent destruction just like the Bible claims it would be. also in keeping with what god said – that he would do unto them as had been done to Jerusalem. the first taking of Jerusalem was not violent. when they rebelled against babylon rule the second attack was,”

    oh, so the medes didnt destroy babylon like jeremiah predicted?

    Like

  312. “what are you talking about? I keep looking at tyre. much more than half it’s land mass is built up and occupied ”

    Sigh even more rehash as if this has not been covered before

    A great deal of the original island is under water, along with a substantial part of the island being in ruins above water. Combine the two and half/near half or over half of the island is in ruins

    The isthmus areas is NOT original tyre since it was created by alexander and the subsequently built up over the centuries by natural silting etc.

    mean while theres still the mainland looking at you and no answers to Kathy’s questions.

    I still await a picture of jersualem or NYC even a third in ruins

    Like

  313. “A great deal of the original island is under water, along with a substantial part of the island being in ruins above water. Combine the two and half/near half or over half of the island is in ruins

    The isthmus areas is NOT original tyre since it was created by alexander and the subsequently built up over the centuries by natural silting etc.”

    yeah, some of the island is now underwater, but not all. There;s a significant portion above water that is alove, built and vibrant, complete with original north port – which is in use.

    The causeway, while not an original part, is a current part of tyre, adding a lot of occupied space and now connects the old island with the old mainland.

    The mainland is also occupied, except for that rectangular field you keep pointing out.

    Some while tyre has changed as all cities do, it hasnt been permanently destroyed. while it’s coastlines have changed, like all coastal cities do, it’s still there. still alive and still working.

    If ezekiel had said that “some of tyre will one day be underwater and even though tyre will be rebuilt, it wont be exactly the same as it is today” then I’d agree he got it right – of course, that’s a safe prophecy to make.

    “Sigh even more rehash as if this has not been covered before”

    I know what you mean. the fact that you’re questioning this makes me wonder why you wont let it go.

    Like

  314. “oh, so the medes didnt destroy babylon like jeremiah predicted?’

    The Medes and the Persians were a combined Kingdom from a biblical perspective . I really don’t care what you want to go off on claiming otherwise. Thats not disputable from a biblical perspective.

    I still await a picture of jersualem or NYC even a third in ruins

    Like

  315. “I know what you mean. the fact that you’re questioning this makes me wonder why you wont let it go.”

    I have no question why you won let it go. Because as an unfulfilled prophecy Nate’s post is getting the stuffing beat out of it with My and Kathy’s points.

    Like

  316. I don’t understand the point of half the city – what does the percentage of land matter. Each city has portions destroyed, and some are truly completely destroyed. Here is a picture of ancient Troy:

    There is no longer a city in that area named Troy – no government no citizens, no trade. That is what “a city destroyed never to be rebuilt” is.

    I’m with William. I’m not understanding the contention here and it’s why Nan gave up on the conversation long ago. There is a city government in the same location as ancient Tyre, people live there, people work there, people travel there and stay for business, there are local regional governing bodies for parts of Tyre, there are restaurants, etc. etc.. It is a city as any other city and it is in the same exact location as it always was.

    Like

  317. “The Medes and the Persians were a combined Kingdom from a biblical perspective . I really don’t care what you want to go off on claiming otherwise. Thats not disputable from a biblical perspective.”

    nor is it diputable that jeremiah didnt say “medes and persians,” but only “the medes,” just like it isnt disputable that the persians took babylon sometime after conquering the median nation.

    “I still await a picture of jersualem or NYC even a third in ruins”

    cool. i hope you find one if that’s what you want. have you found a picture of tyre in half or a 3rd ruins?

    fractions aside, tyre exists – contrary to what ezekiel prophesied.

    Like

  318. “Because as an unfulfilled prophecy Nate’s post is getting the stuffing beat out of it with My and Kathy’s points.”

    thanks, without you pointing that out, i wouldnt have noticed. How again is that happening… since you’re saying tyre isn’t there today… when in fact it is?

    Like

  319. And look, we dont have to keep arguiing this. I mean, i can literally keep this up forever since ezekiel said tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt, never found like a desolate city – yet tyre is there today – alive and well; both the island and the mainland withe even new section in between.

    Can we agree to disagree now? we obviously see this differently.

    Like

  320. “I’m with William. ”

    yawn who cares – no point you raised has not been brought up before and answered. When are you not with your atheist comrade? At the end of the day mainland tyre is marked as ruins on Google maps for a reason and theres nothing either of you can do about it but beg and handwave that fact away. Its not going to be rebuilt either because its protected by the UN from being interfered with

    So scraped into the sea, YES
    many nations came up against tyre – YES
    and never to be rebuilt – YES

    Game, Set , Match. So simple. So elementary. So obvious

    the end – totally fulfilled prophecy. Whirl it around some more. Won’t change the facts

    Like

  321. “yawn who cares – no point you raised has not been brought up before and answered. When are you not with your atheist comrade? At the end of the day mainland tyre is marked as ruins on Google maps for a reason and theres nothing either of you can do about it but beg and handwave that fact away. Its not going to be rebuilt either because its protected by the UN from being interfered with

    So scraped into the sea, YES
    many nations came up against tyre – YES
    and never to be rebuilt – YES

    Game, Set , Match. So simple. So elementary. So obvious

    the end – totally fulfilled prophecy. Whirl it around some more. Won’t change the facts”

    so your whole case is that ancient tyre was only existing within the boarders of that rectangular field which is now preserved by the UN? Okay, I think I get you clearly now.

    So, now can we agree to disagree?

    Like

  322. “cool. i hope you find one if that’s what you want. have you found a picture of tyre in half or a 3rd ruins? ‘

    SO um wait you lied about knowing those cities were the same? No pictures bro? LOl Just fudging it?

    I already found a picture of Island tyre a third or more in ruins – Its on google maps…LOL… try fooling people that don’t know the isthmus wasn’t part of island Tyre. Skeptics try that fudge all the time. It aint to going to work with me…and apparently with Kathy either. sorry

    Like

  323. “SO um wait you lied about knowing those cities were the same? No pictures bro? LOl Just fudging it?

    I already found a picture of Island tyre a third or more in ruins – Its on google maps…LOL… try fooling people that don’t know the isthmus wasn’t part of island Tyre. Skeptics try that fudge all the time. It aint to going to work with me…and apparently with Kathy either. sorry”

    I dont know to reply, or even if this requires a reply, because it makes no sense. There’s nothing rational or factual in the above statement. I’m sorry, but either you’ve seriously misread what someone has said, or you’re just way out there – beyond me at least. is there a point that you would like to have addressed?

    Like

  324. “so your whole case is that ancient tyre was only existing within the boarders of that rectangular field which is now preserved by the UN? Okay, I think I get you clearly now.”

    SO your whole case is that the area where the mainland city used to be is now despite the ruins that can never be rebuilt a rebuilt tyre on the mainland? Okay I get you know

    Yeah we disagree.

    Like

  325. Mike, everything you are bringing up is rehash of all your old arguments as well, so I don’t the see the point in jumping down peoples throats about saying things that have been said before.

    Like

  326. “SO your whole case is that the area where the mainland city used to be is now despite the ruins that can never be rebuilt a rebuilt tyre on the mainland? Okay I get you know”

    My case is that tyre is rebuilt, which has been verified. The mainland portion has buildings on it, with planted fields which are being used by the people of tyre, as well as an vacant rectangular field that contains a few ruins.

    the island portion of tyre contains a working sea port, buildings and houses and business.

    There is a new section to tyre, the causeway. Alexander built this causeway to reach the significant part of tyre, the island, and sens ethat time has brown in usable areas due to silt. The city of tyre no w expands beyond its old boarders and has grown to also now be on part of that causeway.

    The city of tyre is alive an well, despite ezekiel’s claims.

    I hope that clarifies.

    Like

  327. I got you

    SO your whole case is that the area where the mainland city used to be is now despite the ruins that can never be rebuilt a rebuilt tyre on the mainland because it has some buildings and field with plants? Okay I get you know. Want to rebuild a city? just plant some fields 🙂 🙂

    Like

  328. “SO your whole case is that the area where the mainland city used to be is now despite the ruins that can never be rebuilt a rebuilt tyre on the mainland because it has some buildings and field with plants? Okay I get you know. Want to rebuild a city? just plant some fields 🙂 :)”

    that’s obviously not the case, as it is obvious that this is not what I said, but now you’ve said it anyway.

    we good now?

    Like

  329. “that’s obviously not the case, as it is obvious that this is not what I said,”

    Thats exactly what you said in regard to the mainland city of tyre that was scraped into the sea as per the fulfilled prophecy in the bible – a few buildings and planted fields. You can play coy all you want.

    Like

  330. yep. I think we all said all there is to say on it. we disagree on the facts in general as they relate to tyre. although we both agree there are buildings and planted fields along with that empty rectangular field on the old mainland.

    thanks for the chat.

    Like

  331. Thank you Nate for the responses. I appreciate your sincerity. But I do have to point out that I still don’t know what you thoughts are on those other couple of questions I had asked. It’s what supports my view that all of Tyre, mainland & island, didn’t have to be permanently destroyed for the prophecy to be fulfilled. Here they are again..

    What do you think about my point that “he” and “they” aren’t the same person/ ppl because it states: * Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters.* Which clearly describes Alexander’s attack..

    What do you think about my argument concerning the style of the prophecy? If the attackers are interchangeable, why not parts of Tyre vs all of Tyre?

    Your analogy of Birmingham & Hoover I don’t feel is a fair representation of Tyre Island and Tyre mainland. First, if Hoover was wiped out would it significantly hinder the banking and steel industries? When the mainland was attacked and wiped out by Neb. did it hurt the island? For starters.. I would imagine that anything that comes onto the island mostly goes via the mainland. God was punishing Tyre.. ALL of it.. and I can’t imagine the island not being majorly affected by what happened to the mainland.

    And you say that Christians have to “rely” on Alexander’s attack to make the prophecy work.. what about the amazing prediction that it would all be tossed into the sea? I still don’t have a comment acknowledging this highly improbable prediction. That it happened just as described would argue that THAT IS what Ezekiel was referring to when he said it would never be rebuilt and covered with water. It seems pretty obvious that he was talking about the mainland.. since that is what was tossed into the sea. This is a fundamental NUMBERS issue.. the odds of it happening..everything being tossed into the sea, legitimizes the prophecy, if you disagree.. please name just ONE other event in history where a city was tossed into the sea.. by trying to claim that Ezekiel didn’t get that part right, yet did get everything else correct is like swimming up stream.. the tide is against you.. it’s seems pretty obvious that Ezekiel was referring to mainland Tyre as what would never be rebuilt, tossed into the sea, covered with water. It’s not fair to not acknowledge these truths. That the prophecy overcomes tremendous odds and since it does, that supplies the context of the def. of “Tyre” in the part about never being rebuilt.

    Also, in 1000 ad.. the portion underwater was known as “ancient Tyre”.. the other was known as “new Tyre”.. they can’t be the same.. because the old was clearly lost forever.

    Like

  332. And I also appreciate you sharing your personal story. The reason I was sent to this blog by someone I was debating w/ on Twitter (we were debating the same prophecy there)..is largely b/c she said you were once a Christian, as if that would give significant weight to your, now, non Christian beliefs. I have to say it doesn’t. I suspect it only makes fellow atheists feel good about their choice to reject God. It’s always sad when ppl decide not to follow God anymore. I would just ask, that although you had decided that the Bible wasn’t inherent.. did that make you become an atheist? Where you just rejected a Creator all together b/c you didn’t perceive the Bible as perfect as man had told you it was? Not all Christians take 6 day creation literally as the Bible seems to imply it happened, but that didn’t stop them from believing that we are created beings and that the God of the Bible is our Creator.

    I am just learning about this prophecy in detail.. and it is most definitely not a “problem” to me.. it’s yet more amazing verification of the truth of the Bible. Again, with prophecy, it’s all about the odds/ numbers.. ask any math whiz if you don’t see it .. they’ll tell you the great odds AGAINST the kind of prediction Ezekiel made.

    I acknowledge though that I sometimes do run across “problems”.. like when I read about Jephthah’s story.. that wasn’t the God I knew.. and when I did further research and gained a bigger picture.. it was clear that he didn’t sacrifice his daughter.. but anyone who doesn’t make this effort, believes an untruth.. that he did the most horrendous thing and that God sanctioned it…something only pagans practiced and what God strictly forbid.

    btw.. here’s “me”.. I used to blog on WordPress a lot.. but I haven’t been on that site for a long time.. it got to be too much over there, being the only conservative (and Christian, even though a couple of the liberals claimed to be Christians.. I tried and tired to explain how impossible that is… liberal & Christian are polar opposites..

    http://tothewire.wordpress.com/a-troubling-new-social-ill-reverse-ignorance/

    Like

  333. Mike, thanks for sharing your experience too.. I know exactly what you mean.. you have to do your own research.. there is so much misinformation being spread by atheists. Some don’t realize they are spreading lies.. they’re just the “worker ants” so to speak.. the higher ups know exactly what they’re doing. They are true enemies of God.

    I don’t fault ppl for questioning or becoming disillusioned.. but I do fault those who are dishonest…they put their pride and ego above everything else.. being right and in control is more important than everything else.. even human lives.. re: our present administration.

    I’ve been blogging for quite a while now.. I got my start on WordPress actually.. on another blog. (see link above).. I honestly feel like I know liberals/ atheists better than they know themselves. Every time I see an atheist/or liberal claim to desire truth, I get my hopes up.. but I always get let down eventually. 😦

    Like

  334. Hi Kathy,

    I’ll try to be as brief as possible.

    What do you think about my point that “he” and “they” aren’t the same person/ ppl because it states: * Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters.* Which clearly describes Alexander’s attack..

    I’m not moved too much by that point. As I said earlier, I think the focus of this prophecy is the main section of Tyre, which is centered on the island. Verses 4 and 13 are the places where Ezekiel talks about Tyre being scraped clean — that it would be a “bare rock.” In both instances, this is listed at the end of the other things, after the towers and walls being torn down, after the people are killed, after the city is looted. It’s also known that the island of Tyre is essentially the top of an underwater mountain — it’s a big rock, in other words. So when these passages talk about it being a bare rock after it’s scraped clean, I also think that’s likely referring to the island portion. I think it’s an interesting coincidence that Alexander literally did take debris from the mainland and use it to build a causeway, but considering the other areas where I think the prophecy fails, I don’t see this as an actual prophecy fulfillment. I hope that helps explain my position a little more clearly.

    What do you think about my argument concerning the style of the prophecy? If the attackers are interchangeable, why not parts of Tyre vs all of Tyre?

    I think if that were true, then the prophecy would specify it. Just as Ezekiel changes pronouns, I think he would go from referring to Tyre in general to specific areas of Tyre. To me, this prophecy clearly states that Tyre would be utterly destroyed, and I have trouble seeing how that could apply to anything other than the entire city. Again, this may just be something we view differently.

    When the mainland was attacked and wiped out by Neb. did it hurt the island? For starters.. I would imagine that anything that comes onto the island mostly goes via the mainland.

    I don’t believe history bears out this assumption. Tyre was wealthy due to trade, and I’ve never seen anyone question that the source of that trade was the sea. Tyre’s harbors were on the island. In fact, we know from history that every time Tyre was attacked, it was able to withstand for such long periods because its ships could bring supplies from many different areas. While I’m sure the mainland was useful to them, they had many other sources from which to gain their supplies anytime the mainland was in enemy hands.

    Also, in 1000 ad.. the portion underwater was known as “ancient Tyre”.. the other was known as “new Tyre”.. they can’t be the same.. because the old was clearly lost forever.

    Just because one author referred to it that way does not mean it was commonly known as such. The other ancient sources continue to refer to the city simply as Tyre. Were portions of the original island underwater? Yes, but other portions were not. Coastlines change. The city continued under the same identity, and it continued to be a major trade hub.

    I suspect it only makes fellow atheists feel good about their choice to reject God. It’s always sad when ppl decide not to follow God anymore. I would just ask, that although you had decided that the Bible wasn’t inherent.. did that make you become an atheist? Where you just rejected a Creator all together b/c you didn’t perceive the Bible as perfect as man had told you it was?

    This may seem nitpicky, but I wouldn’t describe it as choosing to reject God. It was more of a conclusion. When children grow up, it’s not that they choose to stop believing in Santa Claus, it’s just that enough evidence builds up that they’re no longer able to maintain that belief. That’s how it was for me, and pretty much every other atheist I’ve heard talk about this. And I don’t use the Santa analogy to be flippant — I don’t mean anything derogatory about it — it’s just the best example I can think of.

    When I initially stopped believing in inerrancy, my belief in the Christian god slipped away very quickly. I understand that many Christians are able to maintain belief without inerrancy, but I just wasn’t able to. It would take us too far afield for me to get into that in more detail right here. But that didn’t immediately lead me to atheism. I first spent a short period as a deist.

    I’m afraid we also disagree on the claim that liberals and Christians are polar opposites.

    Every time I see an atheist/or liberal claim to desire truth, I get my hopes up.. but I always get let down eventually.

    I’m sorry you feel that way.

    Thanks for the questions. As I said, I don’t expect that we’ll agree on most of these points, but I hope it at least provides a little more insight into how I see things.

    All the best,

    Nate

    Like

  335. “I don’t believe history bears out this assumption. Tyre was wealthy due to trade, and I’ve never seen anyone question that the source of that trade was the sea. ”

    Point of order Nate. You actually have because I have answered this before and so doe s the text. Tyre was world known for its special woods and ship building (one of the first things mentioned in Ezek) both of which were derived from the mainland where trees grow. History and common sense bears out the question quite easily. Various food and water supplies would have to be from the mainland. In fact the island could not survive without relying on the mainland it was too small with no resources and all of the cities needs could not be met by import especially since there was no refrigeration.

    Like

  336. “Point of order Nate. You actually have because I have answered this before and so doe s the text. Tyre was world known for its special woods and ship building (one of the first things mentioned in Ezek) both of which were derived from the mainland where trees grow. History and common sense bears out the question quite easily. Various food and water supplies would have to be from the mainland. In fact the island could not survive without relying on the mainland it was too small with no resources and all of the cities needs could not be met by import especially since there was no refrigeration.”

    yet tyre’s stronghold was the island. Tyre’s ships were docked at the island – one of those ancient ports is still in use today.

    I have no doubt that attacking the mainland affected the island, but that’s not the same as paralyzing the island. Tyre was also world renowned for its sea snail that produced its purple dye – they didnt get the snails on the mainland.

    Alexander occupied tyre’s mainland for 7 years without sacking tyre, until the 8th year when he built his causeway. So tyre somehow existed without the mainland…

    But even so, ezekiel clearly says that tyre will be found no more, that it will never be rebuilt, etc, etc. Yet tyre is there today. tyre was not conquered by Neb, and was rebuilt right after Alex took it. Tyre was always prominent in that region.

    further, the scraping into the sea, in the bible context, isnt limited to the mainland. verse 6 mentions the mainland or the feilds (after saying tyre would be scraped bare), and just says that the settlements there will be ravaged by the sword – which implies what history bears out, that the main part of tyre was the island. the mainland contained settlements of tyre.

    Like many city states of that time, tyre had a fortified city (theirs was on the island) which the people who lived outside those gates (in settlements) could flee to in the event of raid. The island was the fortified city.

    and I have been ignoring this, because ultimately it doesnt matter, but what sources do you provdie that shows alexander removed all of the mainland debris to make his causeway – to include every foundation?

    sure he used a lot of it, but i imagine he stopped piling it on when his causeway was done. Alexander didnt care about throwing every scrap into the sea, he only cared about getting to tyre’s island to punish them and their king for not letting him use the alter of their temple, which was also on the island of tyre.

    I havent been able to find a source saying that every scrap, and every foundation was removed and cast into the sea. but again, the main part of tyre, that is the island wasnt scraped bare, but even so, can you provide a source?

    Like

  337. Mike, how could Tyre have survived such prolonged sieges if it couldn’t get its resources from other ports? And yes, I agree that timber was important to them and must have come from the mainland — the “cedars of Lebanon” spoken of in the Bible. But that doesn’t mean that the core of Tyre was not located on the island. And while that timber was no doubt important to them, it’s something they could have lived without during a long siege. While the Bible does talk about the timber, it’s also quite clear that Tyre’s wealth came from trade. History tells us of many coastal cities that were established by Tyre, including Carthage. They didn’t get there by land. Chapters 26-28 of Ezekiel stress Tyre’s wealth and its close relationship to sea trade.

    If you want to argue that Tyre’s seat of power and center of wealth in Ezekiel’s time was on the mainland, not the island, you’re going to have to provide some historical sources to back that up.

    Like

  338. At the heart of this debate is the prophecy and what it actually says.. NOT what we “think” it “should” say.. not what Ezekiel “would” say if “that were true”.. these arguments are based on subjective opinions. When you do that, you are straying AWAY from the actual prophecy. I noticed in your article that you use this argument of what Ezekiel “should” have said “if it were true”…

    “About 250 years later, Tyre did finally fall to Alexander the Great. And many Christians view this as the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy. But then why didn’t Ezekiel prophesy that Alexander would do it? God could have easily revealed that to him. Also, verses 7-14 show no apparent break in speaking about Nebuchadnezzar’s attack. Where is the indication that the actual destruction wouldn’t come for another 250 years?”

    This is a claim or indication that a prophecy “should” be a certain way.. in construction etc. Where are these “rules” written?? And who gets to decide these “rules”? Since these are prophecies of God’s word.. it is God who decides HOW He will word the prophecy, how He will construct it, whether he will give “indications” or not… WHAT He will reveal and what He chooses NOT to reveal. Is this not a reasonable point?? This is along the same lines as God revealing Himself. Many atheists argue if God were real He could easily give us empirical evidence of His existence. Again, this is a claim that they are the deciders of how God “should” reveal Himself.. and this is God’s choice.. not theirs. The reasons God chooses not to give us empirical evidence makes complete sense to me. He wants us to seek Him.. not be forced to worship Him out of fear due to “empirical” evidence of His existence.

    Here’s the real crux of this whole prophecy thing.. that you AGAIN just conveniently pushed aside without acknowledging..

    If the long list of things that DID happen in line with Ezekiel’s prophecy, didn’t happen, then I would have to agree with many of your arguments.. because the prophecy has no “power” behind it. But that is NOT the case.. you call the scraping of the city a “coincidence”.. are you kidding?? If you are going to make this kind of claim, you could do so for ANY prophecy.. “it’s all just a coincidence”. You fail to grasp what a prophecy actually is, which is again, predicting something that is IMPROBABLE due to the ODDS/ numbers. The “power” has been shown/ proven.. but not only do you fail to acknowledge this, you won’t use it in any way to help decide the context of those parts in question.. those FEW parts out of the MANY that WERE fulfilled within the overall prophecy. This demonstrates bias.

    Again, I can see your arguments.. IF there wasn’t fulfillment of MOST ( your assessment.. mine is ALL).. of the prophecy. With differing views/beliefs, anything can be argued.. it’s which side has the most compelling arguments and evidence.. and fulfillment of MOST (you believe) of the prophecy is the most compelling evidence. Any objective person would agree with this.. MOST is MORE compelling than less. This is what I meant by swimming up stream..

    cont..

    Like

  339. “If the long list of things that DID happen in line with Ezekiel’s prophecy, didn’t happen, then I would have to agree with many of your arguments.. because the prophecy has no “power” behind it. But that is NOT the case.. you call the scraping of the city a “coincidence”.. are you kidding?? If you are going to make this kind of claim, you could do so for ANY prophecy.. “it’s all just a coincidence”. You fail to grasp what a prophecy actually is, which is again, predicting something that is IMPROBABLE due to the ODDS/ numbers. The “power” has been shown/ proven.. but not only do you fail to acknowledge this, you won’t use it in any way to help decide the context of those parts in question.. those FEW parts out of the MANY that WERE fulfilled within the overall prophecy. This demonstrates bias.”

    kathy, i’m not sure what parts did happen. I just reread the prophecy.

    Was tyre scraped bare? It looks like the mainland portion was, but not the city hub – the island. Ezekiel said tyre will be scraped clean. he didnt differentiate between the island and the mainland until verse 6 – after the scraping parts – and even then it was only to say that the mainland settlements will be ravaged by the sword.

    It does looks like the mainland was ravaged by the sword. While this might be significant, it could also be that it’s not, since it was in a time when nations were routinely invading other places. It’s a safe prediction to make. it’s like me saying there will be war in Iraq or the Sudan.

    that’s about it.

    we can go over all the places it fails, again, if you like. But let me ask, are prophecies from god based on a passing grade scale? what percentage of the prophesied events have to come true and what percentage is allowed to be untrue or unfulfilled?

    when i was a christian, i believed a prophecy of god would be 100% correct, 100% of the time. I just dont find that here.

    I think nate did a pretty good job laying out his perspective in the original article. Can you show the prophecy in the way ezekiel presented it, and show were each prophesied event was fulfilled?

    and allow to comment on this :”This demonstrates bias.” maybe, but from my point pf view you’re not without it either. let’s not follow mike’s lead. let’s instead try and treat others as we’d like to be treated. I’d rather not be called biased or dishonest, and I’ll try to refrain from labeling you as such. I think this is fair and reasonable.

    Now I am willing to see you lay the text out, in it’s context, while you demonstrate how you think it’s fulfilled as given, as long as you’re willing to present it.

    Like

  340. The one point in your response that I felt held a lot of merit was the island being a rock.. I admit that is compelling.. but.. here is a link that gives a description of the city AND the meaning of the word “Tyre”.. (rock). The definition is clear that BOTH main land and island were TYRE. I was looking for information that the mainland was also on rock.. I would think so, since the mainland was the original Tyre according to the link.. the island LATER became “more populated and prosperous.”

    http://www.ancient.eu.com/Tyre/

    cont..

    Like

  341. kathy, I agree, Tyre was both island and mainland.

    In alexander’s time at least, their temple and king lived in the island fortress. And in both cases of Neb and Alex, when the mainland was occupied them both, they were still said to have not been able to enter tyre – until Alex’s 8th year when he built his causeway.

    Like

  342. Kathy, thanks for your reply. I don’t feel I have much more to offer other than what I’ve already said. For me, it comes down to this: Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt, but that didn’t happen. If you try to limit the prophecy to certain parts of the city, or if you try to limit “never be rebuilt” to something more mundane like “never retain its former glory” then sure, such a prophecy is hard to argue against. That’s just not what I see Ezekiel saying.

    The only other thing I’ll add is to your point about letting God define what a prophecy is, letting God say things how he wants to say them, etc. The very thing at question is whether or not God really said any of this. I don’t believe he did. In other words, I’m not questioning God with any of this; I’m questioning people like Ezekiel who claimed to speak for God. Just as if I questioned the Qur’an, I would be questioning its author(s) and not God himself.

    Like

  343. I don’t know where to start.. I acknowledge that you don’t want to debate this anymore and I don’t blame you. I’ve given you many valid points right down to the meaning of “Tyre”.. which means “rock” which debunks your claim that it had to mean the island was never to be rebuilt b/c it is a rock. Well, the mainland is apparently rock also. And instead of addressing this valid point, you stated that you felt that you had nothing more to add. This is not a search for truth.. and this is what I see over and over with atheists/ liberals. When you read this passage..

    “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.”

    ..how do you justify your claim that this cannot mean the mainland? What in this passage makes it clear that it has to be ALL of Tyre? Nothing.. ultimately the only argument you offer is that you don’t “feel” like only the mainland was meant. You fail to defend your “feeling” successfully against my points.

    God wanted to punish Tyre.. and instead of acknowledging that even though the island wasn’t “taken” by Neb., they most def. were punished.. you argue that they were “able” to function.. any person with true objectivity would acknowledge that their lives were utterly miserable for those 13 years. I imagine the trading became almost nil..

    “For me, it comes down to this: Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt, but that didn’t happen.”

    Again, the word “utterly” is used.. no where is this in the ACTUAL prophecy! I repeat.. at the HEART of the debate is the actual prophecy.. what IT says.. not what you “feel” it says or what you think God “should” or “would” have said it.

    You say that you weren’t talking about God’s wording but that you felt it was Ezekiel who was choosing the words of the “false” prophecy.. but if that is true, then you wouldn’t make the “should” & “would” have said claims. You most def. ARE making a determination of how God would “properly” word / construct a prophecy.

    “”For me, it comes down to this: Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt, but that didn’t happen.”

    Here is what Ezekiel actually says..

    “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.”

    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. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 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.

    Did walls of Tyre get destroyed and towers pulled down? YES.

    Was Tyre’s rubble scraped away? YES. It happened on the mainland. You CANNOT say this didn’t happen of Tyre.. the ORIGINAL “OLD” “Ancient” City.. that no doubt had signs posted that in approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela read as a tourist at the time.. and published a diary of his travels.

    Was Tyre’s wealth plundered? YES. Was it’s merchandise looted? YES. Were walls broken down and houses demolished and stones, timber and rubble thrown into the sea?? YES!

    Did Tyre become a bare rock? YES, you cannot say it didn’t.. Tyre / mainland became a bare rock. Fishing nets WERE SPREAD there. And Tyre mainland was NEVER rebuilt.

    You don’t get to ADD to these words, your own meaning and then declare the prophecy unfulfilled. It doesn’t work that way. The answer to ALL these questions is YES.

    The ONLY way you could disprove this fulfilled prophecy it to prove that the mainland was NOT Tyre. And since the historical records clearly indicate that it was, again the “old” “ancient” aka ORIGINAL Tyre, and that the prophecy itself designates the mainland as clearly part of Tyre …. it’s just not going to happen. What happened to the ORIGINAL Tyre fulfilled those few parts of the prophecy in question.

    And I’ll point out yet again that you dismissed the actual heart of a fulfilled prophecy.. the HIGH improbability of Ezekiel getting any of it correct.

    Yes, I know, I’ll say it before you do.. you have nothing more to add.. and that disappoints me, yet again. Atheists and liberals.. I know you all better than you know yourselves. You allow your pride and ego to blind you.. interestingly, the Bible warns about this snare over and over.

    Like

  344. Hi William.. you said:

    “Was tyre scraped bare? It looks like the mainland portion was, but not the city hub – the island. Ezekiel said tyre will be scraped clean. he didnt differentiate between the island and the mainland until verse 6 ”

    As far as the actual prophecy goes, it doesn’t matter that the “hub” wasn’t scraped.. the FACT is that Tyre was scraped.. and it was the “original ancient” Tyre. That the island LATER became the “hub” doesn’t mean old Tyre wasn’t Tyre anymore. That it didn’t get scraped and stay uninhabited has no bearing on the actual wording of the prophecy. Everything that God said in Ezekiel’s prophecy came true! If you disagree, post those EXACT WORDS and prove that it didn’t happen to Tyre.

    It’s interpretation and context that are affecting our different opinions.. but I also believe it’s a strong bias/ desire for atheists to disprove the prophecy.. even though most of it has been fulfilled and that gets ignored. Fulfilled prophecy, predicting the UNPREDICTABLE is almost like a miracle.. yet it just gets ignored by atheists.. this again, in my opinion proves a clear bias/ lack of objectivity.

    Like

  345. Hi Kathy,

    Thanks for your response, and I’m sorry if some of this is rather frustrating. Toward the end of your first comment you said this:

    Atheists and liberals.. I know you all better than you know yourselves. You allow your pride and ego to blind you..

    I’d ask that we try to refrain from these kinds of character judgments. I trust that you’re primary interest is in learning the truth, even though I think this prophecy is just as obviously false as you think it’s true. Nevertheless, I do believe that you’re being sincere, and I hope that you can give me the benefit of the doubt in that regard as well.

    I’ve given you many valid points right down to the meaning of “Tyre”.. which means “rock” which debunks your claim that it had to mean the island was never to be rebuilt b/c it is a rock. Well, the mainland is apparently rock also.

    Could you provide your evidence for this, please? Even if the name of the town could refer to either source, this does not by default mean that Ezekiel was talking about the mainland. We’re essentially just back where we started.

    ..how do you justify your claim that this cannot mean the mainland? What in this passage makes it clear that it has to be ALL of Tyre? Nothing.. ultimately the only argument you offer is that you don’t “feel” like only the mainland was meant. You fail to defend your “feeling” successfully against my points.

    No, that’s not at all what I’ve been saying. Several times now I’ve referred to all the passages, as well as the historical reasons, that make me think this prophecy was talking about all of Tyre, especially the island portion since it was far more important than the mainland. Now you may feel that those passages don’t mean what I think they do… but I’m not sure what else we can say about that. To me, it seems fairly obvious.

    God wanted to punish Tyre.. and instead of acknowledging that even though the island wasn’t “taken” by Neb., they most def. were punished.. you argue that they were “able” to function.. any person with true objectivity would acknowledge that their lives were utterly miserable for those 13 years. I imagine the trading became almost nil..

    I haven’t read anything to suggest that they were miserable for those 13 years. Most sources I’ve seen suggest that they were able to get along fairly well — in fact, that was their MO until Alexander. It was a strategy that seemed to work very well. Even Ezekiel 29 seems to allude to this. And why would their trade have dropped to almost nothing? Their harbors were on the island — Nebuchadnezzar couldn’t block them. That means the entire Mediterranean was open to them for trade. I’m not suggesting that they were unfazed by Nebuchadnezzar’s attack, but he simply couldn’t capture Tyre. It was too well defended.

    This leads me to your point about the walls and towers. I don’t know if the mainland portion was fortified or not — either way, it certainly wasn’t as fortified as the island portion. So no, I don’t believe that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the walls and pulled down its towers. I believe that part of the prophecy was definitely pointing to the island.

    As you went through Ezekiel’s prophecy point by point, I noticed that you left out part of this:

    13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 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.

    Tyre’s songs did not stop. Tyre was rebuilt — it’s still there today. These are important aspects of the prophecy, and it’s hard to see how they could be claimed as fulfilled.

    You don’t get to ADD to these words, your own meaning and then declare the prophecy unfulfilled. It doesn’t work that way. The answer to ALL these questions is YES.

    You say this, but you added the word “mainland” where Ezekiel did not. It’s also important to notice that the mainland section of Tyre was often called “Ushu,” while the island was called “Tyre.” This is another indication that the mainland really wasn’t the main focus of the prophecy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon#History
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushu
    http://www.ancient.eu.com/Tyre/
    http://religion.answers.com/christianity/tyre-a-biblical-city

    Now for a couple of questions:
    If mainland Tyre was really the only focus of Ezekiel’s prophecy, why do you suppose he spent so much time railing against the king of Tyre, when the king of Tyre lived on the island?

    Since by Ezekiel’s time, Tyre’s wealth and importance was centered on the island, why do you suppose Ezekiel would have bothered prophesying against the mainland?

    Finally, if God had really wanted all of Tyre to be destroyed and never rebuilt, could he have made sure that would happen? And if that’s what he wanted, what else should Ezekiel’s prophecy have said to get that point across?

    Like

  346. “You say this, but you added the word “mainland” where Ezekiel did not. It’s also important to notice that the mainland section of Tyre was often called “Ushu,” while the island was called “Tyre.” This is another indication that the mainland really wasn’t the main focus of the prophecy.”

    Thats utterly false. She added nothing. You have been presented with several passages that indicate that the mainland was referred to as Tyre and there are numerous historians that refer to Tyre as old tyre on the mainland which has also been pointed out to you.

    There is not a single drop of evidence anywhere that the Bible ever identifies mainland tyre as uzzu. It is immaterial what it is called by other nations or referred to now. Nations refer to cities by various names.

    “Finally, if God had really wanted all of Tyre to be destroyed and never rebuilt, could he have made sure that would happen? ”

    He did. Its sitting right there on the mainland Under UN protection that it will not be rebuilt.

    Like

  347. “If mainland Tyre was really the only focus of Ezekiel’s prophecy, why do you suppose he spent so much time railing against the king of Tyre, when the king of Tyre lived on the island?”

    because where a king live is immaterial to where he rules over. He could live 50 miles inland away form mainland tyre and still be addressed as the ruler responsible over tyre.

    “Since by Ezekiel’s time, Tyre’s wealth and importance was centered on the island, why do you suppose Ezekiel would have bothered prophesying against the mainland?”

    because as has been pointed out before the whole reason for the attack was because of tyre rejoicing that she would get land trade from Jerusalem

    Ezekiel 26:2 (Darby)
    2 Son of man, because Tyre hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken, the gate of the peoples! she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished [now] she is laid waste;

    That land trade would go to mainland Tyre so the people the most likely to be happy about that would be there.

    Like

  348. “As far as the actual prophecy goes, it doesn’t matter that the “hub” wasn’t scraped.. the FACT is that Tyre was scraped..”

    kathy, this is stretching it. You could say that PART of tyre was scraped, and that Part of tyre was not scraped. What did ezekiel say?

    but this really isnt the biggest issue. If all of tyre had been scraped, that would be remarkable. But leaving the scraping aside, the partial scraping aside, ezekiel said tyre would never be rebuilt.

    okay, mike points to a rectangular field in tyre that is empty, and that’s cool and all, but that rectangular field is far from tyre’s complete original boundaries.

    you know what? I’ll just stop. Nate and I and others have spent far too much time stating and restating the obvious. Tyre exists today – despite what Ezekiel said.

    but if you’d like to believe it’s remarkably fulfilled, go ahead. I just cant reason with unreasonable people.

    I’d suggest reading the prophecy. Ezekiel says it would be destroyed (not partly destroyed), scraped bare (not partly bare) and never rebuilt – yet it has been rebuilt. he said it would be uninhabited, yet it is inhabited.

    if mike wants to quibble and make ridiculous claims about definitions of “build” and “destroy” then he can have it. It’s fun and all, and at times just fascinating that someone can produce so much gas and appear to really think that it’s fooling others. astonishing, really. Kudos to mike for his creativity. I’m just at a loss, Kathy. I really am.

    You can say I’m the one being dishonest all you like, but that doesnt make it true and doesnt make you the honest one. I’m reading ezekiel for what he said, that’s all. If we have to twist what he said to make it come out right, then why stop at tyre?

    i mean, maybe ezekiel was using tyre figuratively and was really talking about Manhattan – maybe the true spiritual fulfillment is yet to come… You can say that’s I;m wrong, but that’s only because you’re too arrogant to look at the passage through spiritual eyes… we can make anything up, so let’s just look at what he said vs what actually transpired – it’s a fail – even if you want to mainatain that scraping the mainalnd – which wasnt and isnt scraped into a bare rock where they spread their nets, you still have a failing grade because nothing else passed. Are we reading the same book? it’s like arguing over the color of the sky, it’s that simple. And I’m the one being dishonest and blind? do you really think your insults are convincing? this is ludicrous.

    mike, you’re an entertaining cartoon character; like a peter griffin or homer simpson. I would address the facts and points with you, you know I would and have tried, but you’d just dodge them and talk about how under-educated in ancient greek I am, and how you’ve proven jesus just because “cause + effect = miracle.” You’re too much, sir. I’ll eagerly await your book – or cable tv standup special – which ever you get to first.

    again, we just see this entirely differently. all the best.

    William

    Like

  349. Hi Nate.. I apologize for my less than civil tone.. I do get frustrated sometimes when I feel ppl aren’t being honest or objective but I understand that sometimes I might be too quick in making these judgments. This is a tough issue to debate because of the seeming ambiguity of prophecy in general.. which some would think is because the prophets are false.. but I believe is because that’s the way God wants it to be.

    I’ll address all your points but I did want to address this one right now.. you said:

    “If mainland Tyre was really the only focus of Ezekiel’s prophecy, why do you suppose he spent so much time railing against the king of Tyre, when the king of Tyre lived on the island?”

    I never claimed that the mainland was the only focus of the prophecy. I think it’s more than clear that all of Tyre was being judged/ punished. I have to disagree that the island didn’t suffer that much during those 13 years. You make an assumption that Alexander didn’t send men/ ships to any other parts of the island. If an island is under siege, it makes no sense to only attack from one side. I just can’t imagine their lives weren’t significantly affected. It’s not reasonable to believe that the mainland wasn’t a significant part of the functionality/ trading of the island. I would sincerely ask you to reconsider this point…or if you have any links that suggest otherwise, I’ll read them.

    So, yes, I believe all of Tyre was under punishment. I just don’t see any valid evidence that forces the meaning that ALL of the mini prophecies/ punishments were in reference to ALL of Tyre. Bottom line.. ALL of Tyre was punished. And ALL of the mini prophecies came true. And Old / ancient Tyre was never rebuilt. In the after life, if we get a chance to ask God.. I’m sure He’ll say.. “did I say ALL of Tyre would never be rebuilt?”

    Like

  350. A real prophecy would be unambiguous— i.e, provide precise dates, times, places and events that could not be influenced by man.

    Examples:

    A magnitude 9.0 (Mw) undersea earthquake off the coast of Japan will occur at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC) on Friday 11 March 2011, with the epicentre approximately 70 kilometres (43 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku and the hypocenter at an underwater depth of approximately 30 km (19 mi).

    An asteroid will enter Earth’s atmosphere over Russia on 15 February 2013 at about 09:20 YEKT (03:20 UTC), with a speed of 19.16 +/- 0.15 km/s (60,000 – 69,000 km/h or 40,000 – 42,900 mph) and explod in an air burst over Chelyabinsk Oblast, at a height of around 29.7 km (18.4 miles, 97,400 feet). The explosion will generate a bright flash, producing a hot cloud of dust and gas that penetrates to 26.2 km, and many surviving small fragmentary meteorites, as well as a powerful shock wave equivalent to approximately 500 kilotons of TNT (about 1.8 PJ)

    The biblical prophecies are so vague and open to interpretation they’re useless.

    Like

  351. There is not a single drop of evidence anywhere that the Bible ever identifies mainland tyre as uzzu. It is immaterial what it is called by other nations or referred to now. Nations refer to cities by various names.

    Well, it doesn’t appear that the Bible ever refers to Ushu at all, and I don’t see why it would need to. It wasn’t nearly as significant as the island city of Tyre.

    because where a king live is immaterial to where he rules over. He could live 50 miles inland away form mainland tyre and still be addressed as the ruler responsible over tyre.

    So do you think destroying the suburbs of a kingdom is fitting as a fulfillment of the following prophecy from Ezekiel 28?

    6 therefore thus says the Lord God:
    Because you make your heart
    like the heart of a god,
    7 therefore, behold, I will bring foreigners upon you,
    the most ruthless of the nations;
    and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom
    and defile your splendor.
    8 They shall thrust you down into the pit,
    and you shall die the death of the slain
    in the heart of the seas.
    9 Will you still say, ‘I am a god,’
    in the presence of those who kill you,
    though you are but a man, and no god,
    in the hands of those who slay you?
    10 You shall die the death of the uncircumcised
    by the hand of foreigners;
    for I have spoken, declares the Lord God.”

    Mike said:

    because as has been pointed out before the whole reason for the attack was because of tyre rejoicing that she would get land trade from Jerusalem

    Did the mainland suburbs not share the wealth with their seat of government? I’d be shocked if that were the case. Tyre was centered on the island. That’s where its government was headquartered — any wealth that came through trade, whether land or sea, found its way to the heart of the city. Every city operates that way.

    I have a feeling that if the island of Tyre had been obliterated by either Nebuchadnezzar or Alexander, and it was still a bare rock (or even just ruins) today, you would find no reason in the text to make you insist that the mainland was the real focus of the prophecy.

    Like

  352. Thanks for the kind reply, Kathy.

    In the after life, if we get a chance to ask God.. I’m sure He’ll say.. “did I say ALL of Tyre would never be rebuilt?”

    I understand why you see it this way. You have many reasons for believing in the Christian God — this is actually how I used to view the different gospel accounts of the resurrection. In fact, I was teaching a high-school-age class on the subject once, and I told them that I didn’t know exactly how or in what order all the events of the resurrection worked out, but they obviously did somehow, since the Bible is inspired. That made sense to me. So I think I understand why you feel the way you do about this. We’re just coming from two completely different directions, because I no longer believe in a god. So yes, when I see some of the issues in these prophecies, I don’t view it as God working mysteriously, but as evidence that the writers weren’t really inspired.

    But I don’t want to get too far off subject — just wanted to say that I see where you’re coming from.

    I have to disagree that the island didn’t suffer that much during those 13 years. You make an assumption that Alexander didn’t send men/ ships to any other parts of the island. If an island is under siege, it makes no sense to only attack from one side. I just can’t imagine their lives weren’t significantly affected. It’s not reasonable to believe that the mainland wasn’t a significant part of the functionality/ trading of the island. I would sincerely ask you to reconsider this point…or if you have any links that suggest otherwise, I’ll read them.

    If you’d like to read more about Alexander’s siege, there’s a good article here: