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 I dont even understand how you mean to compare destruction and building. If someone said that they’d destroy a city for ever, but temporarily detroyed a neighborhood, i’d say the guy was wrong. but you would say that the city was destroyed? ”
Nope I would look at a city that now is not going to be rebuilt ever because its protected by the UN as a world heritage site and say that its not going to be rebuilt after several nations came up like waves of the sea against it.
The end.
LikeLike
Kathy, I’m not trying to leave any of your questions unanswered — I apologize if it appeared that way. I also am only interested in finding the truth in these matters.
First, my “logic-based” reasons. And I don’t use “logic-based” to imply that your reasons aren’t based in logic; I just had trouble thinking of another way to phrase this.
I live in the Birmingham, Alabama area, which is comprised of a number of different communities, or smaller towns. Birmingham is known for several things, but two of them are the steel and banking industries. Let’s say someone issued a prophecy about Birmingham being destroyed and reduced to rubble, and they referenced its notoriety in banking and steel production. And then Hoover, one of its suburbs, was utterly decimated by something. Many people consider Hoover to be part of Birmingham. Maybe some of them would feel that the prophecy had been fulfilled. I would not, however, because Hoover is only a part of Birmingham. And Hoover doesn’t actually have anything to do with the steel production and has very little to do with the banking. On the other hand, if Birmingham itself was destroyed by some event, even if the suburbs weren’t affected to heavily, then I wouldn’t have an argument with the prophecy.
That’s how I see the Tyre thing. History tells us that the island portion of Tyre was already the city center in Ezekiel’s time. It’s where the king lived, and it was the hub of Tyre’s trade network, which accounted for its great wealth. That’s why I have a hard time viewing destruction of the outskirts as being fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy. And I think many Christians have problems with that too — otherwise, why would they need to rely so much on Alexander’s later attack on the island?
For my context-based reasons, I’d refer you to this earlier comment that I made:
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/prophecy-part-6-tyre/#comment-10488
I truly see it as indicating the island portion… well, that’s not entirely true. I think Tyre was thought of as encompassing both the island and the mainland, but I believe these passages put a lot of focus on Tyre’s sea trade, which ties it to the island.
We don’t have to agree here — I’m not sure we’ll be able to. I’m just trying to answer your question as accurately as I can. I hope that helps.
LikeLike
Kathy,
As a side note, I’d like to mention something else. I don’t know anything about you, since you’re new here, so if my following comment doesn’t apply, please forgive me. I just wanted to say that I was a Christian for a long time, and I believed in biblical inerrancy. It was actually a study on the Book of Daniel that made me begin to question that stance. When I first started finding problems, I didn’t immediately accept them as such — it wasn’t until a number of them began to pile up that I began to think about the possibility that the Bible wasn’t what I’d always thought it was.
I bring that up to say this: if you come from a similar background and this issue with Tyre is the first real thing you’ve run across, I would suggest looking into some of the other issues within the Bible. For me, it was the cumulative case that helped me finally accept that the Bible truly had some problems. Not everyone comes to that conclusion, of course, but that’s how it was for me.
Again, I apologize if this comment came off as presumptuous — I just wanted to offer it as a consideration. I have respect for all truth-seekers, whether they agree with me or not, and I’m happy to consider you part of that camp.
LikeLike
” And I think many Christians have problems with that too — otherwise, why would they need to rely so much on Alexander’s later attack on the island?”
Because Christians believe the passage is saying that many nations will come up against the city tyre just like it says. Theres no reason to misrepresent what Christians believe and is in the text as if theres some admission on their part that boosts your point.
this has been covered multiple times in this thread. its not credible any longer that you do not know how those Christians view that.
LikeLike
Kathy I would suggest (although I don’t think you are in that boat) that if this is your first run in with skeptics trying to allege a unfulfilled prophecy you
listen to the claim
read the rebuttals to the claim
the read the rebuttals to the rebuttals
then read the rebuttals to the rebuttals
Only then do you get down to the truth. Before all of that the claims are usually half baked Some people never get that far. they buy into one side or the other and go maybe another level but not the whole way. One thing you probably know about Internet claims they can seem strong until you do your own research and find out hings are not as claimed.
I am the opposite of Nate. many years ago I was put off by a claim a skeptic made. He represented something in history that was actually right that Babylon was not been destroyed the way that was claimed in the Bible. However though it was right it was not completely right and he had left off a key part. As it turns out the skeptic left off that the same people attacked babylon TWICE. the second time was exactly the way the Bible claimed.
I nearly missed it except that if I was going to walk away from my faith it was going to take every stone being turned first. So happy I did because it made me go back and read and see words I had missed before that made me realize something else was going on that I did not realize before and then digging deeper I found the same historian reciting the second conquest of Babylon i a complete fulfillment of what the Bible stated
In my experience you research long enough the Bible comes out on top every time.
LikeLike
“Nope I would look at a city that now is not going to be rebuilt ever because its protected by the UN as a world heritage site and say that its not going to be rebuilt after several nations came up like waves of the sea against it.
The end.”
you’re referring to that rectangular field that makes up a portion of the old mainland. you’re the only person i know who maintains that rectangular field was the entire city limits of ancient tyre. You’re right though, that field is uninhabited – it just wasnt the end of tyre as ezekiel prophesied nor did it represent all of ancient tyre either – which is why Neb was said to have failed in sacking tyre – because they all fled to the island fortress (tyre’s stronghold).
why are we even arguing?
and are you saying tyre is “half built” or it doesnt count as being a built city because it contains ruins? so egypt isnt a built city? atlanta isn’t a built city? new york isn’t a built city? rome isn’t a built city? jerusalem isnt a built city?
each of those places, as well as countless others, are inhabited, although some building lie in ruin, with others having been rebuilt throughout time…
I mean, i just dont get your argument. I feel like I’m not understanding what youre trying to say, because you keep making this point and i keep telling you it doesnt make sense for obvious reasons.
I’m sorry, I just really don’t get what youre trying to say.
LikeLike
“I nearly missed it except that if I was going to walk away from my faith it was going to take every stone being turned first. So happy I did because it made me go back and read and see words I had missed before that made me realize something else was going on that I did not realize before and then digging deeper I found the same historian reciting the second conquest of Babylon i a complete fulfillment of what the Bible stated”
the medes conquered babylon like the bible (jeremiah) said? when did this happen?
LikeLike
“and are you saying tyre is “half built” or it doesnt count as being a built city because it contains ruins? so egypt isnt a built city? atlanta isn’t a built city? new york isn’t a built city? rome isn’t a built city? jerusalem isnt a built city?”
sigh….. rehash and rehash.Same old rebuffed claims. this has been covered so often I can’t even take you honestly trying to act like you are asking it for the first time. A similarity has been claimed before and when asked for any evidence in the area of a rebuilt city half in ruins you have come up with Nada, Zip NYET! 🙂
Go ahead since you are bringing it up AGAIN. show me Jerusalem half in ruins. Show me even a quarter of new york city in ruins (do tell!! real estate is so expensive there because there is so little unbuilt land) Atlanta with significant ruins? Who are you trying to fool? Kathy?
SO for like the tenth time over the time we have been discussing this with you (which just makes your memory atrocious or your honesty suspect) My claim is there is no other city anywhere in the area or for that matter anyplace I can think of where half the city is in ruins above or under water.
Its all fluff and puff. No? then give me a google link of Jerusalem or NYC even a third in ruins
LikeLike
“the medes conquered babylon like the bible said? when did this happen?”
When the babylons still living in the city rebelled against the Persians. They tore down the walls and crucified a bunch of them. Very violent destruction just like the Bible claims it would be. also in keeping with what god said – that he would do unto them as had been done to Jerusalem. the first taking of Jerusalem was not violent. when they rebelled against babylon rule the second attack was,
Same thing with babylon
LikeLike
“sigh….. rehash and rehash.Same old rebuffed claims. this has been covered so often I can’t even take you honestly trying to act like you are asking it for the first time. A similarity has been claimed before and when asked for any evidence in the area of a rebuilt city half in ruins you have come up with Nada, Zip NYET! 🙂
Go ahead since you are bringing it up AGAIN. show me Jerusalem half in ruins. Show me even a quarter of new york city in ruins (do tell!! real estate is so expensive there because there is so little unbuilt land) Atlanta with significant ruins? Who are you trying to fool? Kathy?”
what are you talking about? I keep looking at tyre. much more than half it’s land mass is built up and occupied , even though ezekiel said it would be uninhabited (desolate) forever.
LikeLike
“When the babylons still living in the city rebelled against the Persians. They tore down the walls and crucified a bunch of them. Very violent destruction just like the Bible claims it would be. also in keeping with what god said – that he would do unto them as had been done to Jerusalem. the first taking of Jerusalem was not violent. when they rebelled against babylon rule the second attack was,”
oh, so the medes didnt destroy babylon like jeremiah predicted?
LikeLike
“what are you talking about? I keep looking at tyre. much more than half it’s land mass is built up and occupied ”
Sigh even more rehash as if this has not been covered before
A great deal of the original island is under water, along with a substantial part of the island being in ruins above water. Combine the two and half/near half or over half of the island is in ruins
The isthmus areas is NOT original tyre since it was created by alexander and the subsequently built up over the centuries by natural silting etc.
mean while theres still the mainland looking at you and no answers to Kathy’s questions.
I still await a picture of jersualem or NYC even a third in ruins
LikeLike
“A great deal of the original island is under water, along with a substantial part of the island being in ruins above water. Combine the two and half/near half or over half of the island is in ruins
The isthmus areas is NOT original tyre since it was created by alexander and the subsequently built up over the centuries by natural silting etc.”
yeah, some of the island is now underwater, but not all. There;s a significant portion above water that is alove, built and vibrant, complete with original north port – which is in use.
The causeway, while not an original part, is a current part of tyre, adding a lot of occupied space and now connects the old island with the old mainland.
The mainland is also occupied, except for that rectangular field you keep pointing out.
Some while tyre has changed as all cities do, it hasnt been permanently destroyed. while it’s coastlines have changed, like all coastal cities do, it’s still there. still alive and still working.
If ezekiel had said that “some of tyre will one day be underwater and even though tyre will be rebuilt, it wont be exactly the same as it is today” then I’d agree he got it right – of course, that’s a safe prophecy to make.
“Sigh even more rehash as if this has not been covered before”
I know what you mean. the fact that you’re questioning this makes me wonder why you wont let it go.
LikeLike
“oh, so the medes didnt destroy babylon like jeremiah predicted?’
The Medes and the Persians were a combined Kingdom from a biblical perspective . I really don’t care what you want to go off on claiming otherwise. Thats not disputable from a biblical perspective.
I still await a picture of jersualem or NYC even a third in ruins
LikeLike
“I know what you mean. the fact that you’re questioning this makes me wonder why you wont let it go.”
I have no question why you won let it go. Because as an unfulfilled prophecy Nate’s post is getting the stuffing beat out of it with My and Kathy’s points.
LikeLike
I don’t understand the point of half the city – what does the percentage of land matter. Each city has portions destroyed, and some are truly completely destroyed. Here is a picture of ancient Troy:
There is no longer a city in that area named Troy – no government no citizens, no trade. That is what “a city destroyed never to be rebuilt” is.
I’m with William. I’m not understanding the contention here and it’s why Nan gave up on the conversation long ago. There is a city government in the same location as ancient Tyre, people live there, people work there, people travel there and stay for business, there are local regional governing bodies for parts of Tyre, there are restaurants, etc. etc.. It is a city as any other city and it is in the same exact location as it always was.
LikeLike
“The Medes and the Persians were a combined Kingdom from a biblical perspective . I really don’t care what you want to go off on claiming otherwise. Thats not disputable from a biblical perspective.”
nor is it diputable that jeremiah didnt say “medes and persians,” but only “the medes,” just like it isnt disputable that the persians took babylon sometime after conquering the median nation.
“I still await a picture of jersualem or NYC even a third in ruins”
cool. i hope you find one if that’s what you want. have you found a picture of tyre in half or a 3rd ruins?
fractions aside, tyre exists – contrary to what ezekiel prophesied.
LikeLike
“Because as an unfulfilled prophecy Nate’s post is getting the stuffing beat out of it with My and Kathy’s points.”
thanks, without you pointing that out, i wouldnt have noticed. How again is that happening… since you’re saying tyre isn’t there today… when in fact it is?
LikeLike
And look, we dont have to keep arguiing this. I mean, i can literally keep this up forever since ezekiel said tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt, never found like a desolate city – yet tyre is there today – alive and well; both the island and the mainland withe even new section in between.
Can we agree to disagree now? we obviously see this differently.
LikeLike
“I’m with William. ”
yawn who cares – no point you raised has not been brought up before and answered. When are you not with your atheist comrade? At the end of the day mainland tyre is marked as ruins on Google maps for a reason and theres nothing either of you can do about it but beg and handwave that fact away. Its not going to be rebuilt either because its protected by the UN from being interfered with
So scraped into the sea, YES
many nations came up against tyre – YES
and never to be rebuilt – YES
Game, Set , Match. So simple. So elementary. So obvious
the end – totally fulfilled prophecy. Whirl it around some more. Won’t change the facts
LikeLike
“yawn who cares – no point you raised has not been brought up before and answered. When are you not with your atheist comrade? At the end of the day mainland tyre is marked as ruins on Google maps for a reason and theres nothing either of you can do about it but beg and handwave that fact away. Its not going to be rebuilt either because its protected by the UN from being interfered with
So scraped into the sea, YES
many nations came up against tyre – YES
and never to be rebuilt – YES
Game, Set , Match. So simple. So elementary. So obvious
the end – totally fulfilled prophecy. Whirl it around some more. Won’t change the facts”
so your whole case is that ancient tyre was only existing within the boarders of that rectangular field which is now preserved by the UN? Okay, I think I get you clearly now.
So, now can we agree to disagree?
LikeLike
“cool. i hope you find one if that’s what you want. have you found a picture of tyre in half or a 3rd ruins? ‘
SO um wait you lied about knowing those cities were the same? No pictures bro? LOl Just fudging it?
I already found a picture of Island tyre a third or more in ruins – Its on google maps…LOL… try fooling people that don’t know the isthmus wasn’t part of island Tyre. Skeptics try that fudge all the time. It aint to going to work with me…and apparently with Kathy either. sorry
LikeLike
“SO um wait you lied about knowing those cities were the same? No pictures bro? LOl Just fudging it?
I already found a picture of Island tyre a third or more in ruins – Its on google maps…LOL… try fooling people that don’t know the isthmus wasn’t part of island Tyre. Skeptics try that fudge all the time. It aint to going to work with me…and apparently with Kathy either. sorry”
I dont know to reply, or even if this requires a reply, because it makes no sense. There’s nothing rational or factual in the above statement. I’m sorry, but either you’ve seriously misread what someone has said, or you’re just way out there – beyond me at least. is there a point that you would like to have addressed?
LikeLike
“so your whole case is that ancient tyre was only existing within the boarders of that rectangular field which is now preserved by the UN? Okay, I think I get you clearly now.”
SO your whole case is that the area where the mainland city used to be is now despite the ruins that can never be rebuilt a rebuilt tyre on the mainland? Okay I get you know
Yeah we disagree.
LikeLike
Mike, everything you are bringing up is rehash of all your old arguments as well, so I don’t the see the point in jumping down peoples throats about saying things that have been said before.
LikeLike