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 
“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”
My case is that tyre is rebuilt, which has been verified. The mainland portion has buildings on it, with planted fields which are being used by the people of tyre, as well as an vacant rectangular field that contains a few ruins.
the island portion of tyre contains a working sea port, buildings and houses and business.
There is a new section to tyre, the causeway. Alexander built this causeway to reach the significant part of tyre, the island, and sens ethat time has brown in usable areas due to silt. The city of tyre no w expands beyond its old boarders and has grown to also now be on part of that causeway.
The city of tyre is alive an well, despite ezekiel’s claims.
I hope that clarifies.
LikeLike
I got you
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 because it has some buildings and field with plants? Okay I get you know. Want to rebuild a city? just plant some fields 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
“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 because it has some buildings and field with plants? Okay I get you know. Want to rebuild a city? just plant some fields 🙂 :)”
that’s obviously not the case, as it is obvious that this is not what I said, but now you’ve said it anyway.
we good now?
LikeLike
“that’s obviously not the case, as it is obvious that this is not what I said,”
Thats exactly what you said in regard to the mainland city of tyre that was scraped into the sea as per the fulfilled prophecy in the bible – a few buildings and planted fields. You can play coy all you want.
LikeLike
and yeah I am fine with that. Can you let it go now?
LikeLike
yep. I think we all said all there is to say on it. we disagree on the facts in general as they relate to tyre. although we both agree there are buildings and planted fields along with that empty rectangular field on the old mainland.
thanks for the chat.
LikeLike
Thank you Nate for the responses. I appreciate your sincerity. But I do have to point out that I still don’t know what you thoughts are on those other couple of questions I had asked. It’s what supports my view that all of Tyre, mainland & island, didn’t have to be permanently destroyed for the prophecy to be fulfilled. Here they are again..
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?
Your analogy of Birmingham & Hoover I don’t feel is a fair representation of Tyre Island and Tyre mainland. First, if Hoover was wiped out would it significantly hinder the banking and steel industries? When the mainland was attacked and wiped out by Neb. did it hurt the island? For starters.. I would imagine that anything that comes onto the island mostly goes via the mainland. God was punishing Tyre.. ALL of it.. and I can’t imagine the island not being majorly affected by what happened to the mainland.
And you say that Christians have to “rely” on Alexander’s attack to make the prophecy work.. what about the amazing prediction that it would all be tossed into the sea? I still don’t have a comment acknowledging this highly improbable prediction. That it happened just as described would argue that THAT IS what Ezekiel was referring to when he said it would never be rebuilt and covered with water. It seems pretty obvious that he was talking about the mainland.. since that is what was tossed into the sea. This is a fundamental NUMBERS issue.. the odds of it happening..everything being tossed into the sea, legitimizes the prophecy, if you disagree.. please name just ONE other event in history where a city was tossed into the sea.. by trying to claim that Ezekiel didn’t get that part right, yet did get everything else correct is like swimming up stream.. the tide is against you.. it’s seems pretty obvious that Ezekiel was referring to mainland Tyre as what would never be rebuilt, tossed into the sea, covered with water. It’s not fair to not acknowledge these truths. That the prophecy overcomes tremendous odds and since it does, that supplies the context of the def. of “Tyre” in the part about never being rebuilt.
Also, in 1000 ad.. the portion underwater was known as “ancient Tyre”.. the other was known as “new Tyre”.. they can’t be the same.. because the old was clearly lost forever.
LikeLike
And I also appreciate you sharing your personal story. The reason I was sent to this blog by someone I was debating w/ on Twitter (we were debating the same prophecy there)..is largely b/c she said you were once a Christian, as if that would give significant weight to your, now, non Christian beliefs. I have to say it doesn’t. I suspect it only makes fellow atheists feel good about their choice to reject God. It’s always sad when ppl decide not to follow God anymore. I would just ask, that although you had decided that the Bible wasn’t inherent.. did that make you become an atheist? Where you just rejected a Creator all together b/c you didn’t perceive the Bible as perfect as man had told you it was? Not all Christians take 6 day creation literally as the Bible seems to imply it happened, but that didn’t stop them from believing that we are created beings and that the God of the Bible is our Creator.
I am just learning about this prophecy in detail.. and it is most definitely not a “problem” to me.. it’s yet more amazing verification of the truth of the Bible. Again, with prophecy, it’s all about the odds/ numbers.. ask any math whiz if you don’t see it .. they’ll tell you the great odds AGAINST the kind of prediction Ezekiel made.
I acknowledge though that I sometimes do run across “problems”.. like when I read about Jephthah’s story.. that wasn’t the God I knew.. and when I did further research and gained a bigger picture.. it was clear that he didn’t sacrifice his daughter.. but anyone who doesn’t make this effort, believes an untruth.. that he did the most horrendous thing and that God sanctioned it…something only pagans practiced and what God strictly forbid.
btw.. here’s “me”.. I used to blog on WordPress a lot.. but I haven’t been on that site for a long time.. it got to be too much over there, being the only conservative (and Christian, even though a couple of the liberals claimed to be Christians.. I tried and tired to explain how impossible that is… liberal & Christian are polar opposites..
http://tothewire.wordpress.com/a-troubling-new-social-ill-reverse-ignorance/
LikeLike
Mike, thanks for sharing your experience too.. I know exactly what you mean.. you have to do your own research.. there is so much misinformation being spread by atheists. Some don’t realize they are spreading lies.. they’re just the “worker ants” so to speak.. the higher ups know exactly what they’re doing. They are true enemies of God.
I don’t fault ppl for questioning or becoming disillusioned.. but I do fault those who are dishonest…they put their pride and ego above everything else.. being right and in control is more important than everything else.. even human lives.. re: our present administration.
I’ve been blogging for quite a while now.. I got my start on WordPress actually.. on another blog. (see link above).. I honestly feel like I know liberals/ atheists better than they know themselves. Every time I see an atheist/or liberal claim to desire truth, I get my hopes up.. but I always get let down eventually. 😦
LikeLike
Hi Kathy,
I’ll try to be as brief as possible.
I’m not moved too much by that point. As I said earlier, I think the focus of this prophecy is the main section of Tyre, which is centered on the island. Verses 4 and 13 are the places where Ezekiel talks about Tyre being scraped clean — that it would be a “bare rock.” In both instances, this is listed at the end of the other things, after the towers and walls being torn down, after the people are killed, after the city is looted. It’s also known that the island of Tyre is essentially the top of an underwater mountain — it’s a big rock, in other words. So when these passages talk about it being a bare rock after it’s scraped clean, I also think that’s likely referring to the island portion. I think it’s an interesting coincidence that Alexander literally did take debris from the mainland and use it to build a causeway, but considering the other areas where I think the prophecy fails, I don’t see this as an actual prophecy fulfillment. I hope that helps explain my position a little more clearly.
I think if that were true, then the prophecy would specify it. Just as Ezekiel changes pronouns, I think he would go from referring to Tyre in general to specific areas of Tyre. To me, this prophecy clearly states that Tyre would be utterly destroyed, and I have trouble seeing how that could apply to anything other than the entire city. Again, this may just be something we view differently.
I don’t believe history bears out this assumption. Tyre was wealthy due to trade, and I’ve never seen anyone question that the source of that trade was the sea. Tyre’s harbors were on the island. In fact, we know from history that every time Tyre was attacked, it was able to withstand for such long periods because its ships could bring supplies from many different areas. While I’m sure the mainland was useful to them, they had many other sources from which to gain their supplies anytime the mainland was in enemy hands.
Just because one author referred to it that way does not mean it was commonly known as such. The other ancient sources continue to refer to the city simply as Tyre. Were portions of the original island underwater? Yes, but other portions were not. Coastlines change. The city continued under the same identity, and it continued to be a major trade hub.
This may seem nitpicky, but I wouldn’t describe it as choosing to reject God. It was more of a conclusion. When children grow up, it’s not that they choose to stop believing in Santa Claus, it’s just that enough evidence builds up that they’re no longer able to maintain that belief. That’s how it was for me, and pretty much every other atheist I’ve heard talk about this. And I don’t use the Santa analogy to be flippant — I don’t mean anything derogatory about it — it’s just the best example I can think of.
When I initially stopped believing in inerrancy, my belief in the Christian god slipped away very quickly. I understand that many Christians are able to maintain belief without inerrancy, but I just wasn’t able to. It would take us too far afield for me to get into that in more detail right here. But that didn’t immediately lead me to atheism. I first spent a short period as a deist.
I’m afraid we also disagree on the claim that liberals and Christians are polar opposites.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
Thanks for the questions. As I said, I don’t expect that we’ll agree on most of these points, but I hope it at least provides a little more insight into how I see things.
All the best,
Nate
LikeLike
“I don’t believe history bears out this assumption. Tyre was wealthy due to trade, and I’ve never seen anyone question that the source of that trade was the sea. ”
Point of order Nate. You actually have because I have answered this before and so doe s the text. Tyre was world known for its special woods and ship building (one of the first things mentioned in Ezek) both of which were derived from the mainland where trees grow. History and common sense bears out the question quite easily. Various food and water supplies would have to be from the mainland. In fact the island could not survive without relying on the mainland it was too small with no resources and all of the cities needs could not be met by import especially since there was no refrigeration.
LikeLike
“Point of order Nate. You actually have because I have answered this before and so doe s the text. Tyre was world known for its special woods and ship building (one of the first things mentioned in Ezek) both of which were derived from the mainland where trees grow. History and common sense bears out the question quite easily. Various food and water supplies would have to be from the mainland. In fact the island could not survive without relying on the mainland it was too small with no resources and all of the cities needs could not be met by import especially since there was no refrigeration.”
yet tyre’s stronghold was the island. Tyre’s ships were docked at the island – one of those ancient ports is still in use today.
I have no doubt that attacking the mainland affected the island, but that’s not the same as paralyzing the island. Tyre was also world renowned for its sea snail that produced its purple dye – they didnt get the snails on the mainland.
Alexander occupied tyre’s mainland for 7 years without sacking tyre, until the 8th year when he built his causeway. So tyre somehow existed without the mainland…
But even so, ezekiel clearly says that tyre will be found no more, that it will never be rebuilt, etc, etc. Yet tyre is there today. tyre was not conquered by Neb, and was rebuilt right after Alex took it. Tyre was always prominent in that region.
further, the scraping into the sea, in the bible context, isnt limited to the mainland. verse 6 mentions the mainland or the feilds (after saying tyre would be scraped bare), and just says that the settlements there will be ravaged by the sword – which implies what history bears out, that the main part of tyre was the island. the mainland contained settlements of tyre.
Like many city states of that time, tyre had a fortified city (theirs was on the island) which the people who lived outside those gates (in settlements) could flee to in the event of raid. The island was the fortified city.
and I have been ignoring this, because ultimately it doesnt matter, but what sources do you provdie that shows alexander removed all of the mainland debris to make his causeway – to include every foundation?
sure he used a lot of it, but i imagine he stopped piling it on when his causeway was done. Alexander didnt care about throwing every scrap into the sea, he only cared about getting to tyre’s island to punish them and their king for not letting him use the alter of their temple, which was also on the island of tyre.
I havent been able to find a source saying that every scrap, and every foundation was removed and cast into the sea. but again, the main part of tyre, that is the island wasnt scraped bare, but even so, can you provide a source?
LikeLike
Mike, how could Tyre have survived such prolonged sieges if it couldn’t get its resources from other ports? And yes, I agree that timber was important to them and must have come from the mainland — the “cedars of Lebanon” spoken of in the Bible. But that doesn’t mean that the core of Tyre was not located on the island. And while that timber was no doubt important to them, it’s something they could have lived without during a long siege. While the Bible does talk about the timber, it’s also quite clear that Tyre’s wealth came from trade. History tells us of many coastal cities that were established by Tyre, including Carthage. They didn’t get there by land. Chapters 26-28 of Ezekiel stress Tyre’s wealth and its close relationship to sea trade.
If you want to argue that Tyre’s seat of power and center of wealth in Ezekiel’s time was on the mainland, not the island, you’re going to have to provide some historical sources to back that up.
LikeLike
At the heart of this debate is the prophecy and what it actually says.. NOT what we “think” it “should” say.. not what Ezekiel “would” say if “that were true”.. these arguments are based on subjective opinions. When you do that, you are straying AWAY from the actual prophecy. I noticed in your article that you use this argument of what Ezekiel “should” have said “if it were true”…
“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?”
This is a claim or indication that a prophecy “should” be a certain way.. in construction etc. Where are these “rules” written?? And who gets to decide these “rules”? Since these are prophecies of God’s word.. it is God who decides HOW He will word the prophecy, how He will construct it, whether he will give “indications” or not… WHAT He will reveal and what He chooses NOT to reveal. Is this not a reasonable point?? This is along the same lines as God revealing Himself. Many atheists argue if God were real He could easily give us empirical evidence of His existence. Again, this is a claim that they are the deciders of how God “should” reveal Himself.. and this is God’s choice.. not theirs. The reasons God chooses not to give us empirical evidence makes complete sense to me. He wants us to seek Him.. not be forced to worship Him out of fear due to “empirical” evidence of His existence.
Here’s the real crux of this whole prophecy thing.. that you AGAIN just conveniently pushed aside without acknowledging..
If the long list of things that DID happen in line with Ezekiel’s prophecy, didn’t happen, then I would have to agree with many of your arguments.. because the prophecy has no “power” behind it. But that is NOT the case.. you call the scraping of the city a “coincidence”.. are you kidding?? If you are going to make this kind of claim, you could do so for ANY prophecy.. “it’s all just a coincidence”. You fail to grasp what a prophecy actually is, which is again, predicting something that is IMPROBABLE due to the ODDS/ numbers. The “power” has been shown/ proven.. but not only do you fail to acknowledge this, you won’t use it in any way to help decide the context of those parts in question.. those FEW parts out of the MANY that WERE fulfilled within the overall prophecy. This demonstrates bias.
Again, I can see your arguments.. IF there wasn’t fulfillment of MOST ( your assessment.. mine is ALL).. of the prophecy. With differing views/beliefs, anything can be argued.. it’s which side has the most compelling arguments and evidence.. and fulfillment of MOST (you believe) of the prophecy is the most compelling evidence. Any objective person would agree with this.. MOST is MORE compelling than less. This is what I meant by swimming up stream..
cont..
LikeLike
“If the long list of things that DID happen in line with Ezekiel’s prophecy, didn’t happen, then I would have to agree with many of your arguments.. because the prophecy has no “power” behind it. But that is NOT the case.. you call the scraping of the city a “coincidence”.. are you kidding?? If you are going to make this kind of claim, you could do so for ANY prophecy.. “it’s all just a coincidence”. You fail to grasp what a prophecy actually is, which is again, predicting something that is IMPROBABLE due to the ODDS/ numbers. The “power” has been shown/ proven.. but not only do you fail to acknowledge this, you won’t use it in any way to help decide the context of those parts in question.. those FEW parts out of the MANY that WERE fulfilled within the overall prophecy. This demonstrates bias.”
kathy, i’m not sure what parts did happen. I just reread the prophecy.
Was tyre scraped bare? It looks like the mainland portion was, but not the city hub – the island. Ezekiel said tyre will be scraped clean. he didnt differentiate between the island and the mainland until verse 6 – after the scraping parts – and even then it was only to say that the mainland settlements will be ravaged by the sword.
It does looks like the mainland was ravaged by the sword. While this might be significant, it could also be that it’s not, since it was in a time when nations were routinely invading other places. It’s a safe prediction to make. it’s like me saying there will be war in Iraq or the Sudan.
that’s about it.
we can go over all the places it fails, again, if you like. But let me ask, are prophecies from god based on a passing grade scale? what percentage of the prophesied events have to come true and what percentage is allowed to be untrue or unfulfilled?
when i was a christian, i believed a prophecy of god would be 100% correct, 100% of the time. I just dont find that here.
I think nate did a pretty good job laying out his perspective in the original article. Can you show the prophecy in the way ezekiel presented it, and show were each prophesied event was fulfilled?
and allow to comment on this :”This demonstrates bias.” maybe, but from my point pf view you’re not without it either. let’s not follow mike’s lead. let’s instead try and treat others as we’d like to be treated. I’d rather not be called biased or dishonest, and I’ll try to refrain from labeling you as such. I think this is fair and reasonable.
Now I am willing to see you lay the text out, in it’s context, while you demonstrate how you think it’s fulfilled as given, as long as you’re willing to present it.
LikeLike
The one point in your response that I felt held a lot of merit was the island being a rock.. I admit that is compelling.. but.. here is a link that gives a description of the city AND the meaning of the word “Tyre”.. (rock). The definition is clear that BOTH main land and island were TYRE. I was looking for information that the mainland was also on rock.. I would think so, since the mainland was the original Tyre according to the link.. the island LATER became “more populated and prosperous.”
http://www.ancient.eu.com/Tyre/
cont..
LikeLike
kathy, I agree, Tyre was both island and mainland.
In alexander’s time at least, their temple and king lived in the island fortress. And in both cases of Neb and Alex, when the mainland was occupied them both, they were still said to have not been able to enter tyre – until Alex’s 8th year when he built his causeway.
LikeLike
Kathy, thanks for your reply. I don’t feel I have much more to offer other than what I’ve already said. For me, it comes down to this: Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt, but that didn’t happen. If you try to limit the prophecy to certain parts of the city, or if you try to limit “never be rebuilt” to something more mundane like “never retain its former glory” then sure, such a prophecy is hard to argue against. That’s just not what I see Ezekiel saying.
The only other thing I’ll add is to your point about letting God define what a prophecy is, letting God say things how he wants to say them, etc. The very thing at question is whether or not God really said any of this. I don’t believe he did. In other words, I’m not questioning God with any of this; I’m questioning people like Ezekiel who claimed to speak for God. Just as if I questioned the Qur’an, I would be questioning its author(s) and not God himself.
LikeLike
I don’t know where to start.. I acknowledge that you don’t want to debate this anymore and I don’t blame you. I’ve given you many valid points right down to the meaning of “Tyre”.. which means “rock” which debunks your claim that it had to mean the island was never to be rebuilt b/c it is a rock. Well, the mainland is apparently rock also. And instead of addressing this valid point, you stated that you felt that you had nothing more to add. This is not a search for truth.. and this is what I see over and over with atheists/ liberals. When you read this passage..
“4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.”
..how do you justify your claim that this cannot mean the mainland? What in this passage makes it clear that it has to be ALL of Tyre? Nothing.. ultimately the only argument you offer is that you don’t “feel” like only the mainland was meant. You fail to defend your “feeling” successfully against my points.
God wanted to punish Tyre.. and instead of acknowledging that even though the island wasn’t “taken” by Neb., they most def. were punished.. you argue that they were “able” to function.. any person with true objectivity would acknowledge that their lives were utterly miserable for those 13 years. I imagine the trading became almost nil..
“For me, it comes down to this: Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt, but that didn’t happen.”
Again, the word “utterly” is used.. no where is this in the ACTUAL prophecy! I repeat.. at the HEART of the debate is the actual prophecy.. what IT says.. not what you “feel” it says or what you think God “should” or “would” have said it.
You say that you weren’t talking about God’s wording but that you felt it was Ezekiel who was choosing the words of the “false” prophecy.. but if that is true, then you wouldn’t make the “should” & “would” have said claims. You most def. ARE making a determination of how God would “properly” word / construct a prophecy.
“”For me, it comes down to this: Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt, but that didn’t happen.”
Here is what Ezekiel actually says..
“4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.”
12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.
Did walls of Tyre get destroyed and towers pulled down? YES.
Was Tyre’s rubble scraped away? YES. It happened on the mainland. You CANNOT say this didn’t happen of Tyre.. the ORIGINAL “OLD” “Ancient” City.. that no doubt had signs posted that in approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela read as a tourist at the time.. and published a diary of his travels.
Was Tyre’s wealth plundered? YES. Was it’s merchandise looted? YES. Were walls broken down and houses demolished and stones, timber and rubble thrown into the sea?? YES!
Did Tyre become a bare rock? YES, you cannot say it didn’t.. Tyre / mainland became a bare rock. Fishing nets WERE SPREAD there. And Tyre mainland was NEVER rebuilt.
You don’t get to ADD to these words, your own meaning and then declare the prophecy unfulfilled. It doesn’t work that way. The answer to ALL these questions is YES.
The ONLY way you could disprove this fulfilled prophecy it to prove that the mainland was NOT Tyre. And since the historical records clearly indicate that it was, again the “old” “ancient” aka ORIGINAL Tyre, and that the prophecy itself designates the mainland as clearly part of Tyre …. it’s just not going to happen. What happened to the ORIGINAL Tyre fulfilled those few parts of the prophecy in question.
And I’ll point out yet again that you dismissed the actual heart of a fulfilled prophecy.. the HIGH improbability of Ezekiel getting any of it correct.
Yes, I know, I’ll say it before you do.. you have nothing more to add.. and that disappoints me, yet again. Atheists and liberals.. I know you all better than you know yourselves. You allow your pride and ego to blind you.. interestingly, the Bible warns about this snare over and over.
LikeLike
Hi William.. you said:
“Was tyre scraped bare? It looks like the mainland portion was, but not the city hub – the island. Ezekiel said tyre will be scraped clean. he didnt differentiate between the island and the mainland until verse 6 ”
As far as the actual prophecy goes, it doesn’t matter that the “hub” wasn’t scraped.. the FACT is that Tyre was scraped.. and it was the “original ancient” Tyre. That the island LATER became the “hub” doesn’t mean old Tyre wasn’t Tyre anymore. That it didn’t get scraped and stay uninhabited has no bearing on the actual wording of the prophecy. Everything that God said in Ezekiel’s prophecy came true! If you disagree, post those EXACT WORDS and prove that it didn’t happen to Tyre.
It’s interpretation and context that are affecting our different opinions.. but I also believe it’s a strong bias/ desire for atheists to disprove the prophecy.. even though most of it has been fulfilled and that gets ignored. Fulfilled prophecy, predicting the UNPREDICTABLE is almost like a miracle.. yet it just gets ignored by atheists.. this again, in my opinion proves a clear bias/ lack of objectivity.
LikeLike
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for your response, and I’m sorry if some of this is rather frustrating. Toward the end of your first comment you said this:
I’d ask that we try to refrain from these kinds of character judgments. I trust that you’re primary interest is in learning the truth, even though I think this prophecy is just as obviously false as you think it’s true. Nevertheless, I do believe that you’re being sincere, and I hope that you can give me the benefit of the doubt in that regard as well.
Could you provide your evidence for this, please? Even if the name of the town could refer to either source, this does not by default mean that Ezekiel was talking about the mainland. We’re essentially just back where we started.
No, that’s not at all what I’ve been saying. Several times now I’ve referred to all the passages, as well as the historical reasons, that make me think this prophecy was talking about all of Tyre, especially the island portion since it was far more important than the mainland. Now you may feel that those passages don’t mean what I think they do… but I’m not sure what else we can say about that. To me, it seems fairly obvious.
I haven’t read anything to suggest that they were miserable for those 13 years. Most sources I’ve seen suggest that they were able to get along fairly well — in fact, that was their MO until Alexander. It was a strategy that seemed to work very well. Even Ezekiel 29 seems to allude to this. And why would their trade have dropped to almost nothing? Their harbors were on the island — Nebuchadnezzar couldn’t block them. That means the entire Mediterranean was open to them for trade. I’m not suggesting that they were unfazed by Nebuchadnezzar’s attack, but he simply couldn’t capture Tyre. It was too well defended.
This leads me to your point about the walls and towers. I don’t know if the mainland portion was fortified or not — either way, it certainly wasn’t as fortified as the island portion. So no, I don’t believe that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the walls and pulled down its towers. I believe that part of the prophecy was definitely pointing to the island.
As you went through Ezekiel’s prophecy point by point, I noticed that you left out part of this:
Tyre’s songs did not stop. Tyre was rebuilt — it’s still there today. These are important aspects of the prophecy, and it’s hard to see how they could be claimed as fulfilled.
You say this, but you added the word “mainland” where Ezekiel did not. It’s also important to notice that the mainland section of Tyre was often called “Ushu,” while the island was called “Tyre.” This is another indication that the mainland really wasn’t the main focus of the prophecy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushu
http://www.ancient.eu.com/Tyre/
http://religion.answers.com/christianity/tyre-a-biblical-city
Now for a couple of questions:
If mainland Tyre was really the only focus of Ezekiel’s prophecy, why do you suppose he spent so much time railing against the king of Tyre, when the king of Tyre lived on the island?
Since by Ezekiel’s time, Tyre’s wealth and importance was centered on the island, why do you suppose Ezekiel would have bothered prophesying against the mainland?
Finally, if God had really wanted all of Tyre to be destroyed and never rebuilt, could he have made sure that would happen? And if that’s what he wanted, what else should Ezekiel’s prophecy have said to get that point across?
LikeLike
“You say this, but you added the word “mainland” where Ezekiel did not. It’s also important to notice that the mainland section of Tyre was often called “Ushu,” while the island was called “Tyre.” This is another indication that the mainland really wasn’t the main focus of the prophecy.”
Thats utterly false. She added nothing. You have been presented with several passages that indicate that the mainland was referred to as Tyre and there are numerous historians that refer to Tyre as old tyre on the mainland which has also been pointed out to you.
There is not a single drop of evidence anywhere that the Bible ever identifies mainland tyre as uzzu. It is immaterial what it is called by other nations or referred to now. Nations refer to cities by various names.
“Finally, if God had really wanted all of Tyre to be destroyed and never rebuilt, could he have made sure that would happen? ”
He did. Its sitting right there on the mainland Under UN protection that it will not be rebuilt.
LikeLike
“If mainland Tyre was really the only focus of Ezekiel’s prophecy, why do you suppose he spent so much time railing against the king of Tyre, when the king of Tyre lived on the island?”
because where a king live is immaterial to where he rules over. He could live 50 miles inland away form mainland tyre and still be addressed as the ruler responsible over tyre.
“Since by Ezekiel’s time, Tyre’s wealth and importance was centered on the island, why do you suppose Ezekiel would have bothered prophesying against the mainland?”
because as has been pointed out before the whole reason for the attack was because of tyre rejoicing that she would get land trade from Jerusalem
Ezekiel 26:2 (Darby)
2 Son of man, because Tyre hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken, the gate of the peoples! she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished [now] she is laid waste;
That land trade would go to mainland Tyre so the people the most likely to be happy about that would be there.
LikeLike
“As far as the actual prophecy goes, it doesn’t matter that the “hub” wasn’t scraped.. the FACT is that Tyre was scraped..”
kathy, this is stretching it. You could say that PART of tyre was scraped, and that Part of tyre was not scraped. What did ezekiel say?
but this really isnt the biggest issue. If all of tyre had been scraped, that would be remarkable. But leaving the scraping aside, the partial scraping aside, ezekiel said tyre would never be rebuilt.
okay, mike points to a rectangular field in tyre that is empty, and that’s cool and all, but that rectangular field is far from tyre’s complete original boundaries.
you know what? I’ll just stop. Nate and I and others have spent far too much time stating and restating the obvious. Tyre exists today – despite what Ezekiel said.
but if you’d like to believe it’s remarkably fulfilled, go ahead. I just cant reason with unreasonable people.
I’d suggest reading the prophecy. Ezekiel says it would be destroyed (not partly destroyed), scraped bare (not partly bare) and never rebuilt – yet it has been rebuilt. he said it would be uninhabited, yet it is inhabited.
if mike wants to quibble and make ridiculous claims about definitions of “build” and “destroy” then he can have it. It’s fun and all, and at times just fascinating that someone can produce so much gas and appear to really think that it’s fooling others. astonishing, really. Kudos to mike for his creativity. I’m just at a loss, Kathy. I really am.
You can say I’m the one being dishonest all you like, but that doesnt make it true and doesnt make you the honest one. I’m reading ezekiel for what he said, that’s all. If we have to twist what he said to make it come out right, then why stop at tyre?
i mean, maybe ezekiel was using tyre figuratively and was really talking about Manhattan – maybe the true spiritual fulfillment is yet to come… You can say that’s I;m wrong, but that’s only because you’re too arrogant to look at the passage through spiritual eyes… we can make anything up, so let’s just look at what he said vs what actually transpired – it’s a fail – even if you want to mainatain that scraping the mainalnd – which wasnt and isnt scraped into a bare rock where they spread their nets, you still have a failing grade because nothing else passed. Are we reading the same book? it’s like arguing over the color of the sky, it’s that simple. And I’m the one being dishonest and blind? do you really think your insults are convincing? this is ludicrous.
mike, you’re an entertaining cartoon character; like a peter griffin or homer simpson. I would address the facts and points with you, you know I would and have tried, but you’d just dodge them and talk about how under-educated in ancient greek I am, and how you’ve proven jesus just because “cause + effect = miracle.” You’re too much, sir. I’ll eagerly await your book – or cable tv standup special – which ever you get to first.
again, we just see this entirely differently. all the best.
William
LikeLike
Hi Nate.. I apologize for my less than civil tone.. I do get frustrated sometimes when I feel ppl aren’t being honest or objective but I understand that sometimes I might be too quick in making these judgments. This is a tough issue to debate because of the seeming ambiguity of prophecy in general.. which some would think is because the prophets are false.. but I believe is because that’s the way God wants it to be.
I’ll address all your points but I did want to address this one right now.. you said:
“If mainland Tyre was really the only focus of Ezekiel’s prophecy, why do you suppose he spent so much time railing against the king of Tyre, when the king of Tyre lived on the island?”
I never claimed that the mainland was the only focus of the prophecy. I think it’s more than clear that all of Tyre was being judged/ punished. I have to disagree that the island didn’t suffer that much during those 13 years. You make an assumption that Alexander didn’t send men/ ships to any other parts of the island. If an island is under siege, it makes no sense to only attack from one side. I just can’t imagine their lives weren’t significantly affected. It’s not reasonable to believe that the mainland wasn’t a significant part of the functionality/ trading of the island. I would sincerely ask you to reconsider this point…or if you have any links that suggest otherwise, I’ll read them.
So, yes, I believe all of Tyre was under punishment. I just don’t see any valid evidence that forces the meaning that ALL of the mini prophecies/ punishments were in reference to ALL of Tyre. Bottom line.. ALL of Tyre was punished. And ALL of the mini prophecies came true. And Old / ancient Tyre was never rebuilt. In the after life, if we get a chance to ask God.. I’m sure He’ll say.. “did I say ALL of Tyre would never be rebuilt?”
LikeLike