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 
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
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??.”
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.
LikeLike
“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)
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
*spelling correction.. “basis”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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……..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
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…
LikeLike
” 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
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike