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.
Finding Truth 
Which 2 cities are you talking about Mike?
LikeLike
” 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.
LikeLike
“Which 2 cities are you talking about Mike?”
mainland and Island
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
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 🙂
LikeLike
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 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I’m typing this up on a phone, so apologies if the grammar is a bit out of wak 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Nate,
Just wondering if you have come across what Thomistic bent has written up on Ezekiel and the Prophesies regarding Tyre?
He was quite thorough, this is part one of three:
http://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/did-ezekiel-prophesy-correctly-about-tyre-part-1/
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike