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 
Nate, you asked: “Kathy, if someone claimed that they were going to destroy the Statue of Liberty, what would you think? Would you assume they were talking about the one in NYC?
Yes.
“Yet, there’s a small replica in Birmingham, AL. If that’s the one they were talking about, are you the one at fault for not knowing it? ”
It would depend on the actual prophecy and what it said.
I believe that anyone who dismisses this prophecy as unfulfilled is at fault.. and that is because of those parts that there is no disagreement about.. which is the majority of it.. that HAS been fulfilled BEYOND the odds. If this weren’t the case, I’d have to agree with your point. But it IS the case.. I still have no real acknowledgment of the fact that the majority has been fulfilled in spite of the improbable odds. It continues to be ignored/ dismissed.
What your example overlooks is that you are implying that a prophecy about the statue in AL CAN’T be made.. that it HAS to be about the one in NYC.. again, this is God’s prerogative. It’s up to us to keep an open mind and refer to His actual words… NOT make our own assumptions and decide the prophecy hasn’t been fulfilled based on that.
LikeLike
Nate, I’ve got to take a break.. I’ll address the rest later.. I’m enjoying this very much.. I appreciate your sincerity. The challenge to BOTH of us/ all of us is to keep reminding ourselves to keep an open mind and not let bias in..
LikeLike
Kathy — do you truly believe that the god who created the universe (seriously consider what that entails) — see this page (click left of screen to enlarge) — actually set up “a system where all the world will be judged by whether or not they believe the claim that he is the only true God, and Jesus is his Son”? Especially when you consider that the “world” you reference is such a tiny, tiny, TINY piece of the cosmos. Can such an entity truly be interested in whether or not the beings that inhabit this “world” love “him” or not?
Sometimes I think believers need to put things into focus.
LikeLike
“”“5 She shall be in the midst of the sea ..”
The def. of “midst” can mean in the middle OR among.. ”
Kathy that has been pointed out to Nate before but remember this is prophecy its not about what the city was – but rather what it was to become. scraping the city into the sea put it into the midst of the sea to become a place to spread nets. It does NOT say Tyre was in the midst of the sea before. That has already been debunked and so has Nate’s claim for borders in the sea because all coastland cities had borders in the sea without being an island.
LikeLike
” That is what Ezekiel was talking about. If it’s not, then he was a very poor communicator, which also causes problems for the notion of divine inspiration.”
Communicated to me fine. No unbiased person reading the text would miss that all the weapons and vehicles Neb brought against Tyre were one you would bring to take a mainland area and not an island. Curiously missing is the mention or any ships or sails and instead are ALL and based weapons of war which pretty much destroys your begging the passage must be taken the way you WANT to take it.
This is always your fall back position Nate whenever you points are shown up. Bilions of people have thought the Bible communicated quite fine . it has inspired people the world over affecting the course of history and whether you like it or not brought moral structure to civilizations with laws that have enhanced hundreds of cultures but if you and yours find fault with it – its not you that are the problem its that if something doesn’t make sense to you then God could do better
It just assumes that God has some responsibility to meet your lack of study based skepticism.
I’d still like a proof of your claim of knowing how the King of Tyre died from contemporary literature to see how ell it stands up. None of you proofs so far have held up under the light of scrutiny so it would be good to see.
LikeLike
Let’s go step by step:
This happened. But of course, it’s not a very noteworthy prediction. As Ron said, the probability of this happening is 1 — it’s virtually guaranteed.
Tyre’s walls will be broken down as well as her towers, and everything will be scraped clean till it’s a bare rock. But verses 5 and 6 show that this is talking about the island. You can try to play with the meaning of “midst,” but we already know that Tyre sat on an island at this time and was heavily fortified. Its suburbs sat on the mainland. If Ezekiel had really only been talking about the mainland, he would not have said “in the midst of the sea” — that statement would have been too misleading. Furthermore, he wouldn’t have needed to specify “daughters on the mainland” in verse 6. I think it’s pretty obvious what’s being talked about here, and it did not happen.
Nebuchadnezzar did come against Tyre. He did fulfill Ezekiel’s prophecy in verse 8, concerning the mainland. But he did not tear down Tyre’s towers, nor did his men breach the gates. Tyre’s streets were not trampled, its people were not killed, and its pillars did not fall to the ground.
I suppose Ezekiel gets marks for prophesying that Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre and destroy its mainland, but that wasn’t a very astounding prediction, considering his track record. And the rest of what Ezekiel prophesied didn’t happen.
The pronoun shifts here. Maybe it refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s army (which is the way I lean) or maybe it refers to the “other nations” mentioned earlier. For the sake of argument, I’ll concede that it could be the latter. Verse 12 happened, if you focus on the mainland portion. So I’ll give you that one too. Verse 13 did not happen, nor did verse 14, especially the “never be rebuilt” part.
Kathy, as you’ve said, it’s hard to argue that the phrase about merchandise and pleasant houses could have applied to the mainland. It must have been talking about the island. Well, the subject of these statements does not change — if Ezekiel was talking about the island in those places, he was talking about it in verses 13 and 14 too. And we know those parts of the prophecy did not come true.
We could go through other parts of these 3 chapters too, but is there really any need? They pretty much repeat what’s already been said. So let’s revisit the quote that I posted at the beginning of this comment, where you said:
After looking at these details, what really has been fulfilled? Nebuchadnezzar did attack it and destroy the suburbs. That did happen. But it was already a very likely event. The only part of this that’s somewhat impressive is the statement in verse 12 that “your stones and timber and soil they will cast in the midst of the waters.” I’m not sure that it happened quite the way Ezekiel was talking about, but let’s leave that aside and just give him credit for it. That’s the only part of this that matches up pretty well. So does that mean he was really inspired?
I just don’t see it. And it’s not because I’m being difficult or biased — it’s simply that all these other details utterly failed. Tyre’s walls and towers were not torn down. It was not leveled and scraped bare. Its songs were not silenced. Its trade did not cease. And it was rebuilt. With all of these fails, there’s just no way that God was really inspiring Ezekiel.
Feel free to respond, though I’m not really sure what there’s left to say.
Thanks
LikeLike
Hi Nan.. I do realize what that the universe is beyond comprehension.. it can’t end, yet no end is also illogical. Our existence is illogical either way, God or no God.
Here’s the point.. while it might seem “crazy” to believe that a single Being created everything, what is the alternative?? It’s even MORE irrational.. you/ atheists will no doubt disagree with that, that’s fine, this is one of my favorite issues to debate..
Believe it or not, but it’s not believers who aren’t looking at the big picture (in “focus”).. it’s non believers who think that all of existence is a freak accident. This is MUCH less likely when all is considered.
LikeLike
Nate,
You wrote
“Nebuchadnezzar did attack it and destroy the suburbs. That did happen. But it was already a very likely event.”
How is Nebuchadnezzar attacking and destroying the suburbs a likely event?
LikeLike
And furthermore how is prophesying that Nebuchadnezzar would be the attacker a likely event?
Was it that obvious tyre would probably be attacked by Nebuchadnezzar rather than any other foreign ruler?
LikeLike
Nate, Thanks for your overview btw 🙂 you unpacking it helped me understand your view
LikeLike
I’m glad the thread is currently more focused on the topic 🙂 rather than assertions of people’s integrity…
LikeLike
Nate, you said:
“People who aren’t seeking, don’t bother with this kind of research — it’s as simple as that. Besides that, I have old archives on here of posts I did while a firm believer. Again — people who aren’t seeking don’t bother with this much study.”
I’m sorry but I can’t agree.. my experience in debating with atheists/ liberals is that most are just looking to validate what they want to believe. And yes, you could say the same about believers. It’s about being objective, whichever side we are on. I rarely see objectivity with atheists/ liberals. (And I know that not all atheists are liberals and visa versa but that’s been my experience also.. that the overwhelming majority of atheists are liberals and visa versa.)
Also, as I stated earlier, people who used to be believers and now are not, has no merit with me.. it doesn’t in any way prove objectivity.
“If he doesn’t condone human sacrifice, why would we condone hiding information from people that would save them?”
What information has God hidden?? We have the Bible, and we have Jesus’ instructions for us to evangelize, spread the GOOD NEWS… God has gone and goes to great lengths to reveal to us His gift of salvation.. even asking those who obey and love Him the most to sacrifice their own lives. They will be rewarded beyond our imagination.. but this is the price that is paid so we CAN know and believe.. yet even that isn’t enough for many. And it’s at that point.. when God has sacrificed Himself and those who love Him that He has had enough. The blame at that point is all on those who reject Him.
LikeLike
Kathy, I don’t think we should question a persons integrity. That was what I was trying to say above. To say that non believers are not being genuine is offensive, considering you really don’t know what another person has or has not studied.
While it may be true that we all are selective and have preference to certain leanings that support our positions, I believe this is something we all share.
Not just non-believers, or just believers…Well I do have this bias as well anyway. We all have bias. And we have to be aware of it, so we can seek what is true.
Whatever the outcome. I’m a Christian, but I’m still human, and still carry bias.
LikeLike
You said:
“Besides, I don’t think you’re correct about the Jephthah story anyway. I know a number of people like to think it only meant that she remained a virgin forever, but that’s not what the passage says (Judges 11):
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whatever[a] comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer it[b] up for a burnt offering.”
… Then he sent her away for two months, and she departed, she and her companions, and wept for her virginity on the mountains. 39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.”
First, you left off the end of that verse where it states that she was a virgin.
“39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.”
I suspected you wouldn’t agree. I believed as you did when I first read it. But again, that doesn’t line up with God as described in the rest of the Bible.
Here is an explanation that I believe explains that he didn’t sacrifice his daughter.. you have to look at the whole picture.. first impressions are often wrong.. that’s the whole reason I pointed out this story. First impressions of Ezekiel’s prophecy does lead a person to believe that all of it is about all of Tyre.. but as I’ve shown several times, that is not the case when you look closer.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1081-what-about-jephthahs-vow
LikeLike
And Kathy,
At this point, I just don’t find the arguments I’ve read convincing enough to give up my faith.
I know everyone is different, but that’s me, and to try to be something I’m not would be insincere.
So I still have faith, but I don’t think that makes non-believers necessarily insincere.
Does that make sense?
LikeLike
I guess what I’m saying is that I can’t pretend not to believe, just as non believers can’t pretend to believe. Not without cognitive dissonance anyway.
LikeLike
Me: “I don’t know of any evidence that God isn’t the God of the Bible.. the Bible is full of evidence.. all we need.”
You: I’m afraid this just isn’t true, Kathy. Take me up on my offer — let me walk you through some of the other problems so you can stop wasting your time and your life on a false god. It’s a difficult journey, but well worth it in the long run. And I don’t mean any of this condescendingly — I’m sincerely offering as someone who’s walked that same road.
Yes, of course I will take you up on your offer.. please give me your best evidence that shows the Bible is false… I’ll gladly listen and address your points.
LikeLike
You: “Let’s go step by step:
therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.
This happened. But of course, it’s not a very noteworthy prediction. As Ron said, the probability of this happening is 1 — it’s virtually guaranteed.”
I agreed with Ron.. to some extent.. here is a paragraph from an apologetics site about that..
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790
“Regarding the prediction that “many nations” would come against Tyre, the historical records surrounding the illustrious city report such turmoil and war that Ezekiel’s prophecy looks like a mild understatement of the facts. After Nebuchadnezzar’s attack of the city “a period of great depression” plagued the city which was assimilated into the Persian Empire around 538 B.C. (Fleming, p. 47). In 392 B.C., “Tyre was involved in the war which arose between the Persians and Evagorus of Cyprus” in which the king of Egypt “took Tyre by assault” (p. 52). Sixty years later, in 332, Alexander the Great besieged Tyre and crushed it (see below for further elaboration). Soon after this defeat, Ptolemy of Egypt conquered and subjugated Tyre until about 315 B.C. when Atigonus of Syria besieged Tyre for 15 months and captured it (Fleming, p. 65). In fact, Tyre was contested by so many foreign forces that Fleming wrote: “It seemed ever the fate of the Phoenician cities to be between an upper and a nether millstone” (p. 66). Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Armenia, and Persia are but a sampling of the “many nations” that had a part in the ultimate destruction of Tyre. Thus, Ezekiel’s prophecy about “many nations” remains as a historical reality that cannot be successfully gainsaid.”
That the attacks were predicted to come in waves.. “many nations”… is what was improbable.
I had read this article before but after reading it again today, I found some answers (according to this writer’s research/ opinion) to some of my points.. not exactly in my favor.. re: bare rock/ Tyre’s founding.. according to this writer, the island came first.. BUT, later in the article, I learn that some passages do NOT say “bare rock” but ” make her *LIKE* the top of a rock.” King James Bible.
Also, I learned that the “daughters” killed by the sword weren’t actually women but villages.
“You can try to play with the meaning of “midst,” but we already know that Tyre sat on an island at this time and was heavily fortified. Its suburbs sat on the mainland. If Ezekiel had really only been talking about the mainland, he would not have said “in the midst of the sea”
I think here, you might be misunderstanding the passage.. “the midst of the sea” doesn’t refer to the location of the island but WHERE the debris ends up that is scraped. And again, that can mean “among”, not in the middle.. which even if it were the island, that still wouldn’t put the debris in the middle of the sea.
From the article.. ” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.”
“Tyre’s walls will be broken down as well as her towers, and everything will be scraped clean till it’s a bare rock. But verses 5 and 6 show that this is talking about the island. ”
vs 5 & 6:
5 She shall be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets, for I have spoken, declares the Lord God. And she shall become plunder for the nations, 6 and her daughters on the mainland shall be killed by the sword.
verse 5 doesn’t indicate the island if “midst” is in reference to the debris ending up in the water..
verse 6 MIGHT mean that along with the city on the mainland, the neighboring villages ALSO were taken? I’m still not sure what was on the mainland.. I believe walls and towers were on the mainland… as described under the portion of the prophecy of Neb’s attack, which we know was not on the island… do you know the answer to this? Do you have any sources that answer this? This is critical to the argument, for me anyway..
“Nebuchadnezzar did come against Tyre. He did fulfill Ezekiel’s prophecy in verse 8, concerning the mainland. But he did not tear down Tyre’s towers, nor did his men breach the gates. Tyre’s streets were not trampled, its people were not killed, and its pillars did not fall to the ground.”
What is your evidence that Neb didn’t do these things on the mainland? Did the mainland not have streets? or people? or gates? or towers?
cont..
LikeLike
I have some questions regarding this. I know I’ve come in late to the party here, and I see this discussion is well under way but here are my questions:
If the prophecy about Tyre, whether the actual physical destruction took place on the mainland or the island, was about total devastation, why did that not happen?
For instance, the lament in Ezekiel 27 verses 33-36 say:
When your merchandise went out on the seas,
you satisfied many nations;
with your great wealth and your wares
you enriched the kings of the earth.
34 Now you are shattered by the sea
in the depths of the waters;
your wares and all your company
have gone down with you.
35 All who live in the coastlands
are appalled at you;
their kings shudder with horror
and their faces are distorted with fear.
36 The merchants among the nations scoff at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.’”
It seems that this prophecy and lament are prophesying total destruction both physically and economically. So that even if the destruction part didn’t happen on the island Tyre wouldn’t be able to carry on commerce.
Did this happen? It seems to me that if they were still able to carry on with their trade this part of the prophecy fails.
LikeLike
“verse 6 MIGHT mean that along with the city on the mainland, the neighboring villages ALSO were taken? ”
That’s exactly what it means Kathy because there is NOWHERE in all of the bible that states that a city or town is slain by the sword. Slain by the sword ALWAYS refers to people being killed. A sword may come upon a village or city – a sword never slays a city.
From the midst of the sea claim that has been debunked a number of times to begging that the meaning of the text must be mainland villages Nate isn’t doing anything but rehashing debunked claims and hoping you will buy them especially since he has FINALLY admitted that his purpose and goal is to proselytize you to atheism not to simply give his own reasons why he is one as he always claims is all he is doing.
Tyre, due to there being a mainland and island area is his best shot at begging you into an unfulfilled prophecy and he will beg to the cows come home that anyway he will twist the passage is the only way.
Look at scraped bare like a rock and in the midst of the water claims – the passage later couldn’t be clearer as to what it means
Ezekiel 26:19 (Darby)
19 For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I bring up the deep upon thee, and the great waters cover thee:
Most skeptics and atheist BEG against the text that the end state of Tyre is to be a bare as a rock Island above sea level when the passage itself says the end state of Tyre the city is to be COVERED by waters (indicating clearly it s the city that was scraped into the sea was what was meant)
LikeLike
cont..
You: “The pronoun shifts here. Maybe it refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s army (which is the way I lean) or maybe it refers to the “other nations” mentioned earlier. For the sake of argument, I’ll concede that it could be the latter. Verse 12 happened, if you focus on the mainland portion. So I’ll give you that one too. Verse 13 did not happen, nor did verse 14, especially the “never be rebuilt” part.
Nate, the music stopped for the portion of Tyre that is now under water.. and the portion under water will never be rebuilt. You cannot deny this. And this area was known as “Tyre”. No where in the prophecy overall or in or around 13 & 14 does it state that it applied to ALL of Tyre. Again, there are portions of the prophecy where you AGREE that those specific events pertained to ONLY the island.. the looting of merchandise for example.. so WHY couldn’t that be the case for “never to be rebuilt”?? Why can’t THAT part only pertain to the ACTUAL portion of Tyre that.. surprise.. just as the prophecy describes.. is under water where ppl spread their fishing nets??
Again, I think this shows that the problem is with naysayers injecting YOUR interpretation into the prophecy.
“.. as you’ve said, it’s hard to argue that the phrase about merchandise and pleasant houses could have applied to the mainland. It must have been talking about the island. Well, the subject of these statements does not change — if Ezekiel was talking about the island in those places, he was talking about it in verses 13 and 14 too. And we know those parts of the prophecy did not come true.”
Here, you say: “Well, the subject of these statements does not change —..”
You conceded that “he” and “they” are about different ppl.. (you “gave” me that one.. no take backs! 🙂 ..
Yet, now you are claiming that the subject doesn’t (can’t) change in these verses.. this is inconsistent with your arguments… and it’s inconsistent with the style of the prophecy. When you listen to song lyrics.. (the older songs from the 70s etc… not today’s which are terrible).. they are all over the place.. it’s an art.. and the Bible contains a lot of artistic writing.. all of our artistic talent ultimately comes from Him. And He clearly appreciates and loves these things as much as we do.
You try to claim that nothing really amazing came to be.. except vs 12.. which I’m glad you acknowledged but I still wonder if you realize the great odds of getting that correct without being inspired.. you just can’t call those kinds of odds a lucky guess.. especially when again, MOST of the prophecy is agreed to have come true. If Ezekiel predicted 1 or 2 things along with the one you acknowledge is impressive, then you might have an argument.. might.. but there are 3 chapters of details.. and ALL of them came true.. except the one where you inject your requirements for fulfillment even though the actual passages don’t provide anything that supports your claim definitively. Your claim is subjective. My claim is based on the actual words.. a portion of Tyre is under water.. never to be rebuilt. When Ezekiel says “you will”.. it CAN mean ALL or it CAN mean a portion. You haven’t proven that it MUST mean ALL. There is nothing in the prophecy that supports a “MUST” assertion… only a “possibly” assertion.
Take 9/11.. ppl said that NYC was attacked.. did that mean ALL of NYC was attacked? No.. we know it meant a PORTION of NYC was attacked.. this is the very same thing.
LikeLike
Hi Portal001, I agree with you.. we all have bias.. and I need to remember that. And I can’t expect someone to change their beliefs because I think I’ve given valid arguments.
I do realize that. Where I struggle is when I present valid points that they can’t argue back.. and instead of acknowledging that, they just ignore it and continue on , unmoved in their beliefs. But I agree that I should try to be less accusatory.. 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Ruth, you said: “It seems that this prophecy and lament are prophesying total destruction both physically and economically. So that even if the destruction part didn’t happen on the island Tyre wouldn’t be able to carry on commerce.
Did this happen? It seems to me that if they were still able to carry on with their trade this part of the prophecy fails.”
The key word is “seems”.. it “seems” like the prophecy is predicting “total” destruction.. but does it actually say this?? That’s the question.
Total destruction did happen to ALL of Tyre.. the question is if the “never to be rebuilt” part applies to all of Tyre.. my argument is that no, it doesn’t mean all of Tyre.. if we don’t apply “all” to the meaning, then .. the entire prophecy has been fulfilled.. all 3 chapters of mini predictions.
Arguing that one point that it has to be all seems like an excuse to me when everything else came to be.
LikeLike
Hi Mike.. I agree.. the “midst of the sea” argument fails.. my understanding is that Nate is saying that “midst of the sea” is proof that the prophecy is talking about the island.. because it’s “in the sea”.. but I don’t think that’s what it means.. I believe “midst of the sea” is referring to the rubble that will be in the midst of the sea.
On the other point.. I believe Nate was arguing that verses 5 & 6 set up the context of vs 4. That it’s specifying a change because it stated “mainland”.. therefore vs 4 must have been talking about the island.. that the towers etc came down on the Island which we know did NOT happen.. Neb didn’t breach the island.
4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers, and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock. 5 She shall be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets, for I have spoken, declares the Lord God. And she shall become plunder for the nations, 6 and her daughters on the mainland shall be killed by the sword.
I think it’s a valid argument.. BUT I posited that maybe that wasn’t a “change” in vs 6 but a detailed description of the villages.. that were ASIDE from the city on the mainland.
Ezekiel could have said in vs 6.. “and her daughters shall be killed by the sword”.. but it wouldn’t be as clear.. daughters literally? or.. daughters on the island (I don’t know if there were any villages on the island though).. but I believe, if there was a city AND neighboring villages, that would explain the mainland specification without forcing a “change” from island to mainland.
I’m still hoping to learn if there were all of those things described.. walls, gates, towers etc.. on the mainland.. that would help clear it all up I think.
And I like your “bare rock” point.. I hadn’t thought of it that way.. I agree.. it means that the mainland became bare and THEN was covered with water.
LikeLike
“On the other point.. I believe Nate was arguing that verses 5 & 6 set up the context of vs 4. That it’s specifying a change because it stated “mainland”..
That’s the problem Kathy. there is no Hebrew word there stating mainland. What happened is that some translators attempted to take their knowledge of the geography and insert it into the the text while others rightfully just translated the word as it normally would render . the word there simple is translated most times as “fields” so its simply your daughters in the field will be killed by the sword Nate know s this I have pointed out the other translation but he insists on using only one translation so that his case will stick
“I think it’s a valid argument.. ”
But its not. Look at the weapons Neb brings to take Tyre
Ezekiel 26:8-10 (Darby)
8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field, and he shall make forts against thee, and cast up a mound against thee, and lift up the target against thee;
9 and he shall set his engines of attack against thy walls, and with his spikes he shall break down thy towers.
10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee; thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter through thy gates, as a city is entered into, wherein is made a breach.
EVERY SINGLE THING IN THOSE PASSAGES indicates a taking of the mainland.
All the weapons and all the strategies are land based. Nate and skeptics act like Neb’s army just waited for an Island city with ships to get supplies to just run out of food and give up. then they claim Ezek admits he goofs instead of just changing the prophecy when he says
“Ezekiel 29:18 (Darby)
18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to do hard service against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he from Tyre no wages, nor his army, for the service that he had served against it. ”
But why would the siege be hard service? and why would the shoulders peel if all the army did was wait around on the beach after taking some unwalled settlements? Nope Nate fails. Too many passages in the Bible indicate the mainland had a walled city.
His failed prophecy argument is in itself a failure because he cannot prove the points he assumes.
LikeLike