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 
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
“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..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
“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??
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
Kathy, I’ll agree with nate’s last post, because i guess you and I just dont- and that’s okay
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
““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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
“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??
LikeLike