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 
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Also, it relied on the island but not before it relied on the mainland.. right? It had to go via the mainland.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
“this is just s” By the way is just a typo not the beginning for cursing llke your beloved Arch comrades
LikeLike
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?
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.”
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.
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
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:
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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 became famous because of its trade. That’s no secret.
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.
LikeLike
Kathy 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. Here’s the passage:
Just wanted to mention that…
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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:
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike