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 
“Kathy, I don’t think we should question a persons integrity”
Unfortunately the lack of consistency meter just broke with that assertion. Frankly I see this as just a way to avoid having to face the music when in fact the facts line up to indict of what Christians are accused of here. Nate writes articles questioning the integrity of Christianity, past christians and present ones all the time when he accuses them of fudging, making things up or twisting and there is almost never not a number of you making those accusations either direct or by implication in comments.
Only time theres an objection is when the skeptic or atheist is called into question which is just pure hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Mike, I’ve been noticing significant variations in translations and it’s been on some key words sometimes… in all my debating, I think this is the first time I’ve actually debated on prophecy fulfillment.. I’m finding it not that easy to debate. But overall, it’s undisputed that MOST of the prophecy has been fulfilled.. so those few things that are in contention should get the benefit of the doubt.. but you know that won’t happen with atheists when it comes to God. Getting most of the prophecy right (as they believe) isn’t a coincidence or luck.. it’s inspiration. Denying this strongly indicates a lack of objectivity.
Yes, if the Hebrew word is field and not mainland then that would explain it.. it argues that there is a city and the outskirts (fields).. and they are included in the destruction.
Interestingly.. although many translations on the Bible Hub site have the word mainland… many also have the word “field” instead.. including the King James Bible.. which ALSO had the translation of 26:4 concerning the “bare rock”.. stating it would be “LIKE” the top of a rock.. so, the argument that “bare rock” had to indicate the island since it is rock is yet another invalid argument.
It seems that the NEWER translations have the incorrect translations.. which isn’t surprising at all.. good old liberal revisionism at work. And they don’t trust us Christians… wow..
LikeLike
Nate writes articles questioning the integrity of Christianity, past christians and present ones all the time when he accuses them of fudging, making things up or twisting and there is almost never not a number of you making those accusations either direct or by implication in comments. — Mike
And you’re not?
LikeLike
“Mike, I’ve been noticing significant variations in translations and it’s been on some key words sometimes… in all my debating, I think this is the first time I’ve actually debated on prophecy fulfillment.. I’m finding it not that easy to debate”
I have a bit. Its very powerful to people who don’t have an agenda or a bias but of course thats not atheists. As you have pointed out most unbiased people would concede that it sure is odd that Tyre was indeed scraped, that today it not only is in ruins but cannot be rebuilt because the UN protects it as a word heritage site, and that ruins are under water.
What makes this a prophecy that atheists like to twist is the opportunity for them that arises out of there essentially being two places that are named Tyre. if Jerusalem was located in two places then they would try to switch back and forth on that as well
Whats really funny if you think about it though is that the atheist argument is essentially – yes the prophecy came to pass but it was off by a few hundred yards,
“Yes, if the Hebrew word is field ”
It is. As you can even see when Jews translated the OT into Greek thousands of years ago and we translate their greek to English they used the greek word for fields.
“http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Jezekiel/index.htm
26:6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain with the sword, and they shall know that I am the Lord.
As you can see the dictionary meaning of it is “fields” – Saday in Hebrew
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=7704
It occurs over 300 times and almost everywhere else it is translated as field or land
“It seems that the NEWER translations have the incorrect translations.. which isn’t surprising at all.. good old liberal revisionism at work. And they don’t trust us Christian”
That could be part of it but its also that some translators take a more interpretive approach. they try to explain rather than just translate. AN extreme version of this you might know is the “Good News Translation”. Awful translation because instead of translating word for word the translation itself tries to tell you what it means instead of just what h text really says
In this case some translators and commentators get a little cute about knowing the geography of the land and try to explain more than translate and get it wrong. Either way looking at one translation against others and claiming that makes for a failed prophecy isn’t sound reasoning
LikeLike
Mike, thank you for the info and links.. I don’t feel quite as lost now.. except for this part.. “4 And they shall cast down the walls of Sor, and shall cast down thy towers: and I will scrape her dust from off her, and make her a bare rock. ” My understanding is that the island is rock.. do you know if the mainland is also rock?
LikeLike
William.. I apologize, I missed some of your comments/ questions from earlier..
You: what i’d like to know is:
1) is it really your position that the Ezekiel wasnt talking about a complete and a permanent destruction?
2) Do you really think that when ezekiel was saying so much about punishing their king, that he really didnt mean that he’d punish the king beyond taking the suburbs of the mainland?
3) is it your understanding that ezekiel was speaking only about the building materials of mainland tyre?
1) Ezekiel was clearly talking about serious destruction to Tyre.. and serious destruction DID happen to Tyre, mainland and island. What is being claimed by deniers of the proph. is that Ezekiel said ALL of Tyre would never be rebuilt.. you claim “complete” destruction was predicted but there isn’t anything in the prophecy to support that claim except the word “Tyre”.. which isn’t enough to make that claim especially since there were essentially 2 Tyres.
2) I don’t believe the mainland was only suburbs.. I believe it was a city possibly larger than the island city. And again, even though the island wasn’t taken, their lives were miserable for those 13 years.. I don’t see how life could have gone on as usually.. an island relies on outside sources and they must have relied on the mainland for much of their trading needs. So, the king suffered.. from loss of half his kingdom and also his freedom to some extent for those 13 years and loved ones on the mainland? It’s just not reasonable to think he didn’t suffer.
3) The city was not the land.. if you read all 3 chapters of the prophecy, that is what makes up the city.. and all those things were affected.. all of it came true. And also, there is nothing in the prophecy that states that it would all happen on a certain day or all at once.. it just doesn’t specify.. so maybe it does mean all of Tyre.. and it just hasn’t happened yet.. that is a possibility. But since the mainland city was scraped and was witnessed to be under water, there is no argument to be made that THAT Tyre, ancient/ old Tyre will never be rebuilt.
It’s a fulfilled prophecy.. it just isn’t meeting the requirements that naysayers have put on it in order to be fulfilled. But, that’s not how prophecies work.. we have to go by the prophecy itself, and not take away anything or add anything.. AND go by the most literal translation too.
LikeLike
@Kathy.
“What is being claimed by deniers of the proph. is that Ezekiel said ALL of Tyre would never be rebuilt.. you claim “complete” destruction was predicted but there isn’t anything in the prophecy to support that claim except the word “Tyre”.. which isn’t enough to make that claim especially since there were essentially 2 Tyres.”
“Most of New York City is on three islands near the Atlantic Ocean, although one part is on the mainland of North America” (wiki)
Are there 4 New York Cities ? Or 1 ? If ALL NYC was destroyed wouldn’t this mean ALL 4 parts ?
LikeLike
Hi again Kathy 🙂
” My understanding is that the island is rock.. do you know if the mainland is also rock?”
As you can see below much of the coast was/is rocky so the claim that the name rock must refer only to the island is beyond weak.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tyre/@33.267227,35.191504,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s4176427!2e1!3e10!4m2!3m1!1s0x151e7d902f915d95:0xcf0e3fc6fb997408
Finally the proof positive Nate is off is here
Ezekiel 26:12 (KJV)
12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.
See how “midst of the water” in verse 12 matches and explains verse 5’s “midst of the sea”?
Midst of the water parallels with verse 5 and there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that verse 12 is talking about scraping the city construction timber and stones into the water and putting it into the “midst of the sea”/”Midst of the water” (same thing) and is NOT referring to the position of the Island at all. Its point blank referring to building material being thrown/scraped into the water – no doubt whatsoever
The very passage specifically verse 12 indicating that its the scraping that puts the city construction material in the midst of the waters/sea THOROUGHLY debunks Nate’s claims and closes the case on the claim it refers to the position of the island being referred to
LikeLike
Of course it would, Ken, but you can’t rationalise with theists. They cherry pick their answers to shore up their insecurities regarding their ‘faith’.
If they were able to rationalise or even simply apply common sense they would not be theists.
LikeLike
@Ark
I think you meant “you can’t ‘reason’ with theists”—they seem quite adept adept of rationalizing. In fact, if rationalizing ever became an Olympic sport, they’d be gold medalists. 🙂
LikeLike
“@Kathy.
I challenge you to give specifics to your claims.. and address my actual points.</blockquote?
The 'Virgin Birth is the perfect example of a non prophecy, unashamedly ripped off from the Old Testament by the writer of Matthew.
Good enough for you?"
What claims do you want specifics to?
What does </blockquote mean?
What did Matthew "rip off" from the OT"?
How is the Virgin Birth a perfect example of a non prophecy?
Is what good enough?
Basically I don't understand any of your comment.
LikeLike
@Ark &
@kcchief1
Yes, when it is stated that “ALL” of NY is destroyed, it WOULD mean all four parts.
There is no “cherrypicking” by me.. no where in the prophecy does it say “ALL” of Tyre.
THAT’S my point.
LikeLike
Hi Mike.. thanks again.. the mainland certainly looks rocky to me. I’m wondering what they are referencing that supports the claim that the mainland was just “suburbs” and not a city possibly larger than the island. I live in FL and I know of no island around here that is larger than it’s neighboring mainland city. It is appearing more and more obvious that the mainland was the main/ larger part of Tyre.. and so it was what the bulk of the prophecy was about. It seems that they managed to twist/ tweak the facts to fit their narrative instead of applying honest objectivity.. whether intentionally or subconsciously. This is why I believe that it is key to refer back to the actual words of the prophecy without adding or subtracting anything. And when we do that… prophecy fulfilled! hallelujah! God is GREAT! 🙂
LikeLike
@Ark..
“If they were able to rationalise or even simply apply common sense they would not be theists.”
Please give your “better” rationale or “common sense”… I’ll wait..
LikeLike
@Kathy.
I have already offered the perfect example a failed, fraudulent prophecy; that of the Virgin Birth. It was plagiarized by the writer of Mathew to fit an agenda and did not even apply to the character Jesus of Nazareth.
The common sense answer is straightforward and you have yet to respond.
LikeLike
I haven’t read all the comments yet — been away from it for a couple of days. But there are a couple of points I want to go ahead and address before I get too distracted.
We’ve had some discussion about 26:5 as to whether “midst” is talking about the building materials that Alexander threw into the sea, or if it’s talking about Tyre itself, which would indicate the island. Let’s look at verses 4 and 5 together:
Here are 3 different versions of the passage. In verse 5, the ESV and NIV use the pronoun “she” — “she will be a place in the midst of the sea for spreading nets.” What does “she” refer to? Looking at verse 4, it’s clear that “she” refers to Tyre. The subject does not change. The subject of verse 5 does not suddenly switch to the debris and claim that all of it will be where nets are spread. Instead, Tyre itself — the same place that will become a “bare rock,” according to verse 4, is where these nets will be spread. If that referred to the mainland, “midst of the sea” or “out in the sea” would make no sense.
The KJV is worded strangely here in that the pronoun shifts from feminine (she) to neutral (it). I was curious about this, so I consulted an interlinear Bible, which breaks down the text along the lines of its original language, and it turns out that the issue here is with the translation, not the source. For some reason, the translators switched to “it,” but the Hebrew words still carry the feminine connotation:
Click to access eze26.pdf
Grammatically, this indicates that the prophecy was focusing on the island.
LikeLike
The other thing I wanted to mention was the question about whether 26:6 is referring to the “mainland” or “fields”.
First of all, the KJV has some actual problems within it. When it differs from most modern translations, it’s not because liberal bias has slipped in and perverted the Bible. It’s that the source manuscripts used for the KJV were not as old or as good as the ones we have available today. You can read more about that here, if you’re interested:
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
Mike has argued that “mainland” is used in the passage because translators are inserting their own understanding of the geography of Tyre and not just letting the text speak for itself. I’m sure the geography of Tyre does have a lot to do with it, especially when taken in conjunction with my last comment, which shows that the text is primarily focusing upon the island. But Mike’s comment could lead someone to think that the Hebrew word here shouldn’t be translated as mainland and can only mean field, but that’s not the case. The word is translated several different ways, depending on its context.
This article from Strong’s goes into a lot of detail concerning the word:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7704.htm
LikeLike
Kathy, you said this:
Forgive me if this has been addressed, but history is quite clear that the island of Tyre was vastly larger and more important than the mainland settlements. And yes, Tyre did rely on some things it could only get from the mainland, but those things could have come from any mainland. Tyre was very close with other ports — a number of them, including Carthage, had actually been settled by Tyre. Tyre was able to get whatever it needed from these other ports.
You also said this:
The reason this prophecy is not fulfilled has nothing to do with “naysayers,” but with the statements within the prophecy itself: that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt. This is a much simpler issue than you’re making it…
LikeLike
Mike, maybe you weren’t aware of this, but the image you linked to was taken from the southern tip of the island. If you notice, it’s standing in for a “Google Street View” of the island’s coast, so I’m afraid it doesn’t help your case at all.
Plus, no one said that the mainland didn’t have rocks. But if it served as a source of agriculture for the city, it’s doubtful that it was predominantly rocky. But even if it were, it does not show that Ezekiel wasn’t talking about the island. At most, both locations were rocky, which tells us nothing.
Kathy, when you talk about living in Florida and say that you know of no local islands whose mainland cities are smaller, there’s a key difference you need to keep in mind: Florida is not under constant threat of land-based attacks.
And Ryan, this answers your question from earlier too. The reason that Nebuchadnezzar’s attack (as well as attacks from many nations) was not a difficult thing to predict is that different factions were constantly coming into power back then. Palestine has had a very tumultuous history and has passed back and forth between world and regional powers throughout all its history. It’s similar to predicting that rain would fall.
LikeLike
“the mainland certainly looks rocky to me. I’m wondering what they are referencing that supports the claim that the mainland was just “suburbs” and not a city possibly larger than the island.” – kathy
the mainland also looks like it has planted fields on it and building today – unlike what ezekiel said it would look like.
“I live in FL and I know of no island around here that is larger than it’s neighboring mainland city.” – kathy
is Dauphin island, alabama smaller than dauphin mainland?
is key west island smaller than key west mainland?
Are the islands you’re referring to really considered the same city as it’s neighbor’s on the mainland?
I mean, this is an interesting point, but we’re not discussing Florida.
what sources do you have that says Tyre’s mainland was the bigger city? the bible even makes the island out to be the most fortified.
and then there’s ezekiel, him saying one thing would happen, but then it didnt.
LikeLike
Ezekiel 26:12 (KJV)
“12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.” – mike’s quote
were there walls and towers on the mainland? can you site a source? the islands stronghold wasn’t cast into the sea, but regardless, the city was rebuilt and stands today.
LikeLike
“@Kathy.
I have already offered the perfect example a failed, fraudulent prophecy; that of the Virgin Birth. It was plagiarized by the writer of Mathew to fit an agenda and did not even apply to the character Jesus of Nazareth.
The common sense answer is straightforward and you have yet to respond.”
It seems you’re trying to claim that a previous story of a virgin birth (outside the Bible).. is “proof” that Matthew made up Jesus’ birth of a virgin?
Sorry, that’s not proof of plagiarism, it’s proof of similarity.
I don’t deny that it is a compelling point to a certain extent.. but it’s all the OTHER circumstances/ events/ facts of the Bible & Jesus’ life & resurrection that cause me to believe in it’s truth. Just because there were similar stories in human history that doesn’t mean it could never happen in reality. That’s not some kind of scientific “law”.
you said: “If they were able to rationalise or even simply apply common sense they would not be theists.”
Me: “Please give your “better” rationale or “common sense”… I’ll wait..”
Still waiting..
LikeLike
Hi Nate.. you said:
“Forgive me if this has been addressed, but history is quite clear that the island of Tyre was vastly larger and more important than the mainland settlements. And yes, Tyre did rely on some things it could only get from the mainland, but those things could have come from any mainland. Tyre was very close with other ports — a number of them, including Carthage, had actually been settled by Tyre. Tyre was able to get whatever it needed from these other ports.”
I haven’t come across this history yet.. can you give references?
And yes, I acknowledge that they had other resources/ ways to function on the island.. but I don’t see a valid argument that their lives weren’t miserable for those 13 years. As a comparison.. just realize how miserable MANY lives are today because of this horrible economy.. if your home town is under siege.. I imagine the economy alone would be significantly affected.
“The reason this prophecy is not fulfilled has nothing to do with “naysayers,” but with the statements within the prophecy itself: that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt. This is a much simpler issue than you’re making it…”
Tyre was scraped and dumped into the sea.. I don’t know how that gets rebuilt.
It wasn’t Sidon or Jerusalem or any other city that was scraped.. it was Tyre.
LikeLike
Lol….this is as good an example of rationalizing among Christians as you will find.
Really, Kathy, do you realise how silly you sound trying to wriggle your way around this?
Similarity, plagiarizing. Who really cares? It was ripped off and you know it.
Even the church denies its veracity these days.
And if we can recognise one fallacious piece of doctrine then it is no big deal to find almost innumerable others.
I realise this is very difficult for you to accept, let alone process. But one day you will likely be forced to face this reality. It is not a question of running away from the truth any more but rather how you will deal with it when t catches up with you?
LikeLike