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.
501 thoughts on “Prophecy Part 6: Tyre”
by your logic, all of antiquity was destroyed and never rebuilt. Greece, egypt, israel, etc, etc, etc. Nothing is existing. is this what you’re saying?
and I think your idea of “proof” isnt quite accurate.
I babble to myself all the time – usually i’m forced to when i want an intelligent conversation. And mike, are you trying to be juvenile like me, or are you trying to be like jesus?
all the best.
and you’re saying that the only way the prophecy would have been false, is if the people of tyre rebuilt the exact same structures with only the original (now torn down) materials? this is silly. just so silly it’s laughable… does that mean you’re angry?
if that’s what youre suggesting, then again, there is almost no city from antiquity that exists today.
Thanks for taking the time to leave such a detailed comment and for linking to sources.
As I understand it, this is the current state of things: modern Tyre is a decent sized city. Ruins from earlier periods are visible on parts of the peninsula. It’s now a peninsula due to the build up of sit over the centuries. Some of ancient Tyre is now submerged under the Mediterranean — some of it is under modern Tyre.
What really makes that unique as compared to other ancient cities?
I know you’ve suggested that “rebuild” is used in a particular way in this passage, but I don’t really see it that way. Nehemiah was focused on rebuilding the wall in Jerusalem, so it makes sense that he would have a particular context in mind when talking about rebuilding Jerusalem. But in Ezekiel, a different context is specified when he says that Tyre would be “no more forever” and that even when people searched for it they wouldn’t find it. Those two specific details have not come to pass.
I’m writing this from my phone, so I apologize if there are typos. The truth in this matter is very important to me, so again, thank you for taking the time to reach out to me about it.
thanks for the civil reply. appreciated
“Ruins from earlier periods are visible on parts of the peninsula. It’s now a peninsula due to the build up of sit over the centuries. Some of ancient Tyre is now submerged under the Mediterranean”
Pretty much – with the original island portion over half in ruins given the underwater portion and really only a few blocks occupied where the Northern harbor was located
“What really makes that unique as compared to other ancient cities?”
Over half the original city in ruins, being partially submerged and United nations protections as heritage site insuring it will most likely not be rebuilt is fairly unique. However there is nothing in the prophecy that dictates it be unique to the state of ancient cities in modern times so I don’t see the uniqueness as really an issue.
“I know you’ve suggested that “rebuild” is used in a particular way in this passage, but I don’t really see it that way. Nehemiah was focused on rebuilding the wall in Jerusalem, so it makes sense that he would have a particular context in mind when talking about rebuilding Jerusalem”
Well a couple things. First I didn’t just suggest it. I referred to the source material of the bible in Nehemiah. There we have the actual usage of the word within a pretty similar context. As I said we could go back and forth on how we see it but it isn’t really relevant. What’s relevant is how the word is used in the Bible as a means of determining how we can fairly deal with the text. Secondly as I stated the word rebuild is fist mentioned in Nehemiah 2:5 and it is as follows
“Nehemiah 2:5 (KJV)
5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it.
the “build it” has no reference to the walls in particular. In fact the relating of the problem to the king is simply
“Nehemiah 2:3 (KJV)
3 And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
so the king knows that it lieth waste in Nehemiah’s eyes – the gates are additional information.
SO we could assume at that point that Nehemiah has only the Walls in focus but its an assumption not borne out directly from the text. In the text build stand on its own in reference to the city
“But in Ezekiel, a different context is specified when he says that Tyre would be “no more forever” and that even when people searched for it they wouldn’t find it. Those two specific details have not come to pass.”
Actually that comes after verse 19 where the waters of the deep are brought upon tyre and so far it is in fact accurate as my link indicates – the ruins are buried under water and deposited over on the floor bed with sediment. There has been no finding of the city scraped or submerged in the sea. IF your argument is that no one should know even the relative area – the place was to be a place identified by the spreading of nets. Additionally I don’t know that I could make a dogmatic statement anyway about what “sought after” means. No one who knew the destruction of Tyre would be looking and those who did not know Tyre had been destroyed would be looking for a city not ruins and hence would not find it. We sometimes think in a very modern mass media way as if everyone would know it had been destroyed but its an almost certainty that people came months or years later looking for tyre the city and did not find a city at all not knowing of its demise. Prophecy fulfilled ruins known or not.
Anyway returning to the issue of build – let me frame it another way using even your sense of the use of the word. Let us say that the prophecy was opposite than it is and instead it had been prophecied that Tyre on the island would be built and flourish. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that quite a few skeptics would have a problem with rebuild applying when most of it is under water or in ruins (and yes I am sure some believers would argue that the existing city would qualify)?
My point being there is a real issue there regarding what the word means and thats why the source usage in the Bible must to be taken into consideration. Nehemiah refers to an inhabited area with homes and house etc as lain waste and requiring to be built. at least for him built required a bit more restoration that most of it lying waste
So at the end of the day I don’t think you have proven your case. Ancient Tyre. is no more and still mostly in ruins and underwater. The city that exists is centered on the isthmus and neither the mainland area or the island area will be rebuilt. If the prophecy was of New York state I don’t think you could make the case that New Jersey sprawling a mile or two into New York meant the state of New York had been rebuilt. Certainly not If most of it still lie in ruins or under water.
“So at the end of the day I don’t think you have proven your case. Ancient Tyre. is no more and still mostly in ruins and underwater.” – Mike
you used “mostly” instead of “completely.” how did the prophecy read again? Did it read, “the city would mostly not be found and mostly not rebuilt?
And I think you’re confusing this for a philosophical argument, when it’s all fact based. Jesus referred to tyre as being present and existent in his day, within the gospels. Tyre is still there today. While some of tyre is submerged and in ruin, other parts of it, including a working harbor, are still there, still being used and still being occupied.
Perhaps ezekiel meant something other than what he said, maybe he was using flowery language – or maybe he was just wrong.
this is an argument based in observable facts. I dont really understand why it’s even an argument. I’m not sure why you’re trying to debate it. say what you like all you want, but it doesnt change the biblical text and it doesnt make tyre disappear.
William like I said I don’t debate with kids. So don’t expect me to respond to your posts as if I do after this post. If you want to claim that having half a house and stopping is a rebuilt house then thats fine.
” I don’t really understand’
No you don’t understand the point and that s why I don’t debate with kids.
…yet here you are.
Houses and cities are not the same, but even so – let’s say my neighbor’s house burned down, and the insurance only covered a small portion of the total damage. They wanted to stay on that land, for whatever sentimental reasons, and took what little money they had to REBUILD, even if it were a smaller house. would you say that they did not in fact rebuild, because they didnt rebuild with the exact original materials, in the exact footprint of the original home, with the exact same floor plan and lay out?
i’d hope not, because that would make you stupid.
Now let’s say that they rebuild bigger, but only used the southern half of the original foundation, but extended the house, making it bigger, even taking up the neighboring lot. would that not count as rebuilding either?
I may need you to clarify your terms, as I am just not as educated as you are, and I only use terms in the common usages.
and you shouldn’t discriminate against age. Imagine what the gospels would be like without the story of jesus debating and learning in the temple at 12 years old – I am older than that. suffer ye the little children, mike.
Or are you not a christian, but just a secular reader a defender of the bible?
“No you don’t understand the point and that s why I don’t debate with kids.”
if someone spoke to me like that I think it would actually distract me from considering the points you were putting forward.
If you are making valid points they should be able to stand on their own,
why label someone you have never even met as “a kid”.
That’s pretty patronising, do you think referring to people in this way encourages them to consider what you are saying?
Thanks Ryan, but i was fairly patronizing as well. Tit for tat, rendering evil for evil. We called each other juvenile, and so i said I was a juvenile, and then asked what his excuse was. that’s why he called me kid, i literally asked for it. But even jesus said we should come as children,so that must make me righteous some how.
so he’s no more in the wrong than i, it just gets frustrating when people automatically assume if you find a fault within the bible, it is because you “hate” it or are trying to justify sinful living, etc.
and with this issue, it is not a debate of good or bad, or some ethical or philosophical merits, but it is purely an issue that exists within facts. Ezekiel said something would happen a certain way to literal place by literal people – did it?
mike and others may interpret the passages differently than I have, which is fine i guess (even though it takes redefining terms or making assumptions about what was really meant) but any honest person, while they still may disagree with me, would have to at least see where this is problematic for people like me – who once were staunch believers, who left the faith after seeing too many of these type issues, who still live very moral lives.
if they act as if i am insane for taking it at face value, then they are not honest or reasonable, and I see no point in trying to reason with such for very long – although i’m always willing to give it that ole college try.
Still typing on my phone, so apologies in advance.
I’m not an expert on ancient Hebrew, but I trust the translators when they decide to use words like “build” and “rebuild.” We all know what those words mean. In Nehemiah’s case, even though people were still living in Jerusalem, and even though some buildings were still standing, it’s obvious that Jerusalem was in a much worse state than it used to be. So using “rebuild” in that context makes sense. Even if it did mean something different than what we normally assume from that word, that would only apply to the content that N uses — we can’t take one author’s use and say it stands in for how another author uses it.
Secondly, Zeke says Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt. That’s a straight forward statement. When Nebchadnezzar attacked Tyre, he never made it past the gates. The people of Tyre were not killed, nor was the king of Tyre. Alexander sacked it about 250 years later, but immediately worked on rebuilding it. Within a few years, it was a major trade hub once again. It remained a regional power for over 1500 years after that. He Tyre changed over that period? Of course. So has every other city, region, and geographic feature on this planet. Tyre has kept the same identity through all of that time, just like Jerusalem has.
That history does not match Ezekiel’s prediction. Even the early church father Jerome was troubled by Tyre’s existence in his own day, almost 2000 years ago.
If God had foreseen this future for Tyre, why not have Ezekiel’s prophecy more accurately describe it? And if it had, I don’t think skeptics would point to the ruins and say that the prophecy had failed — I think they would just say it’s a very easy prophecy to give since it matches the fate of most cities.
And that’s why I brought up the issue of uniqueness. What good is a prophecy if it doesn’t foretell something unusual? That’s why no one makes a big deal over March Madness predictions that come true — they’re not unlikely events to begin with. On the other hand, Zeke’s prophecy is unique — he says that Tyre would not only be destroyed, but that it would never be rebuilt. That’s not the typical life cycle of a city. Cities of that time were taken over by different armies and empires from time to time, but they didn’t lose their identities. Ezekiel prophesied something very different for Tyre. It just didn’t happen.
Are you familiar with some of the other problems in the Bible, by the way? It helped me except these things as legitimate problems once I
…it helped me accept these things as legitimate problems once I saw how many there were in the Bible.
“why label someone you have never even met as “a kid”.
Ummm..because he told me he was one. You might try reading the thread Ryan. I never called him a kid until he told me he was one. i am not here for banter. or barking. The internet has far too many places for it already. I think anyone reading Thomas’s posts and then Nate’s will see the clear distinction and difference in tone between our conversation and the one with thomas.
Its neither discriminatory nor condescending. it’s just a fact. You can’t expect to have a certain level of conversation with every age group.
“i am not here for banter” ummm… dont be so self righteous, pal. reread your posts and you’ll find plenty of vitriol there too.
I think William was trying to be funny, but it got lost in translation. He’s around my age, I believe. I think he took Mike’s initial comment about atheists as an attack, so misunderstanding piled upon misunderstanding until we got here. I vote we wipe the slate clean on their conversation. Sometimes sarcasm is hard to recognize in a comment thread 🙂
“I’m not an expert on ancient Hebrew, but I trust the translators when they decide to use words like “build” and “rebuild.” We all know what those words mean”
Yes we do and built does not mean half or less than half built. it means built. You’re pretending this is some esoteric understanding of the word and it isn’t
“Even if it did mean something different than what we normally assume from that word, that would only apply to the content that N uses — we can’t take one author’s use and say it stands in for how another author uses it.”
Again we normally assume that when something is built it is built not half built. Secondly sorry but that’s not a rational response. I understand you are not versed in Hebrew or ancient languages but in scholarly assessment of language you cannot write off contemporary usage as you just attempted to. Nehemiah is not some other culture, in another book or a millennia removed from Ezekiel. There is nothing extraordinary about his usage and there is absolutely no expert that would agree with your assessment that other contemporary writers have no bearing on word or phrase usage in an ancient text. that’s just not how things are done in language studies. To be perfectly honest and straightforward its more a dodge than actually dealing with the reality of now Nehemiah PROVES the word was used.
“Secondly, Zeke says Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt. That’s a straight forward statement. When Nebchadnezzar attacked Tyre, he never made it past the gates. ”
Then you have not done your homework because there are multiple historians that indicate that he in fact did on the mainland. .I would assume you are a denialist of Mainland Tyre but its not a tenable position.
” It remained a regional power for over 1500 years after that. ”
Surely you must know that poses no problem for those who do not ignore “nations like the waves of the sea” in the text.. If you want an intelligent debate you can’t ignore that and the pronoun change in the text . They are real issiues
“That history does not match Ezekiel’s prediction.”
It does and rather well once one does not ignore the usage of the word “built” in contemporary language and culture. I see where you have been trained by Till who as a person with no training demands his interpretation and translation of waves of the sea and the pronoun change be the only reading o f the text but that’s just as much twisting as you accuse believers of. You can’t shoe horn your own interpretation in order to invalidate the prophecy . That also is not how things work.
“Even the early church father Jerome was troubled by Tyre’s existence in his own day, almost 2000 years ago”
Well of course…that’s no point whatsoever. He didn’t have what transpired after to look at and I hardly think he would feel the same way now with a significant amount of the ruins under water as Ezekiel predicted or ruins that will never be rebuilt protected by the UN. I can entirely understand why you wish to sidestep what Nehemiah brings to the table in regard to the use of the word build. It completely devastates your and till’s argument. If you allowed it you would be faced with a pretty incredible fulfilled prophecy. Problem is whether you allow it or not thst IS how language in ancient texts is interpreted – by immediate context AND by contemporary usage.
I should have read the whole thread 🙂
apologies. If your not here for “general banter” fair enough.
Although expressing your points doesn’t include a licence to be disrespectful.
You can’t just call something a fact and then it magically doesn’t become condescending. If you meant it as a swipe at someone, then that’s what it was. That’s the impression I got.
Condescending is patronising or expressing superiority disrespectfully.
Then again, perhaps I I misunderstood the intention behind your words,
if so then that’s my mistake. If you didn’t mean it to be patronizing then fair enough.
But hey! I can’t talk 🙂 I’ve been patronising before, and I could also be wrong 🙂
One more question, who the Heck is Thomas?
I’ll let you and Nate continue your discussion, All the best
“If God had foreseen this future for Tyre, why not have Ezekiel’s prophecy more accurately describe it?”
But it does. From the “nations like waves” to the changing of pronouns, to the being enveloped in the sea. its filled with accurate detail and specificity. Can an ancient text in a different language, in a different culture, several thousands of years ago satisfy every human sitting in 2014 several thousand miles away in the western world who doesn’t speak the language or understand the culture be satisfied that it could not be clearer ? No. such a thing is not possible with ancient texts.
“And if it had, I don’t think skeptics would point to the ruins and say that the prophecy had failed — I think they would just say it’s a very easy prophecy to give since it matches the fate of most cities.”
Ha….I’ve debated these and even simpler issues for far too long to accept that claim. Its veiled pretense that both theist AND atheist do not have their own agendas. Anyway its not a point of fact so it s not substantive to get into
“And that’s why I brought up the issue of uniqueness. What good is a prophecy if it doesn’t foretell something unusual? ”
and that’s why I tell you make no good point. Two reasons –
The first is rather obvious you are looking at ancient cities after the fact and stating well whats not unique as if at the time of the prophecy anyone knew what would transpire with those cities you are now looking at
Second, uniqueness has not a thing to do with whether something comes to pass. So what if you even think its unremarkable that there are ruins that will never be rebuilt and a city is under water as predicted. How does that make a point against the prediction not coming to pass. its irrelevant to that issue.
Again as I look over your last post you really haven’t done anything but side step the contemporary usage of the word I presented. I get that it really does put a serious issue in your assertions but claiming that contemporary usage of another writer in the same culture, near the same time is of no importance just does not fly as a serious answer with any kind of scholastic approach to an ancient text – versed in Hebrew or not.
“Are you familiar with some of the other problems in the Bible, by the way?”
I am pretty versed in alleged Bible difficulties and have been for decades. I was surprised to see you mention Till on your site. I’ve dismantled his claims on multiple occasions.
“Can an ancient text in a different language, in a different culture, several thousands of years ago satisfy every human sitting in 2014 several thousand miles away in the western world who doesn’t speak the language or understand the culture be satisfied that it could not be clearer ? No. such a thing is not possible with ancient texts.”
the bible says that with god, all things are possible. most christians, including the kind I used to be, believed that the bible was written for all people for all time, which is one reason this particular prophecy, and the others like it, mean so much.
did some of the prophecy come true? sure, all the vague parts that could be associated with any place at that time. But that parts, like nate has pointed out several times now, that make this stand apart from the things that happen all the time, did not transpire.
am I still to assume that you define rebuilt as using the exact same materials, in the exact same footprint with the exact same layout? can you give an example of a city or house that was rebuilt? It help us in understanding your usage of the term?
when ezekiel said it will never be rebuilt,and never be found again, what exactly did he mean? because it was rebuilt, whether you understand the term or not (jesus even talked about the place) and we have found the ruins and know where the parts that were sub-merged and were not rebuilt are.
so please, as detailed as you can, please explain how these parts of the prophecy ring true.
and mike, before you gloat too much about dismantling anyone’s claims, you should know that many would think your claims have been dismantled here. It may be better to re-dismantle Till and allow us to decide how well of a job you’ve done. you can congratulate yourself later.
Could you explain in what way Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem and how it differs from what Ezekiel was talking about? Also when do you believe Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled?
Thomas they tell me you are grown so I can give you a few rounds (I am not at all convinced though so you if you continue to show signs then my rule will apply). Lets see if you have any good points
“the bible says that with god, all things are possible. most christians, including the kind I used to be, believed that the bible was written for all people for all time, ”
and? that means that every phrase must be easily understood without applying yourself to the language culture and language? That’s nonsense. Laziness is a sin so theres no reason for God to make room for it . He also gave you a brain and has given other passages to compare (precisely as I did) so sorry you DO need to address it if you wish to maintain a logical discourse.
” But that parts, like nate has pointed out several times now, that make this stand apart from the things that happen all the time, did not transpire.”
Almost all did and the facts are clear. Ancient Tyre is in ruins, will not be rebuilt being protected by UN, has had significant portions either scraped into the sea or reclaimed by rising seal levels. A city built next to it centered mainly on land that never existed at the time of the prophecy is no serious objection. You can beg that all the fulfillments is just the norm for cities but it doesn’t fly the logic test. Your entire argument against the prophecy comes down to the word “built” and the context of the Bible in Nehemiah answers how the word was used…alas in a way you don’t like.
You can’t deal with it so you side step it – but your sidestep does not make the issue go away. Sorry.
“am I still to assume that you define rebuilt as using the exact same materials,”
See why I think you may still well be a child? Where did I ever say a thing about exact same material. You created that out of the strawman machine you have running in your back yard
” can you give an example of a city or house that was rebuilt?
Whats so hard? Sure…. pick a city or town that was not over half in ruins or underwater? Anyone you pick 😉 Seems like you have to do all kinds of gymnastics in order to purposefully miss the point.
“when ezekiel said it will never be rebuilt and never be found again what exactly did he mean?”
Well since you can’t read very well he meant pretty much what Nehemiah meant. the city would be in mostly in ruins. Do you need a google link to pictures of the ruins? or for me to copy and paste the links again? As for found – found has nothing to do with ruins. It has to do with never again being found as a city. Thats obvious when you apply yourselves to an understanding of the time. these were not modern time where we bother with archaeology. People did not go looking for destroyed cities they went out looking for existing cities. People went to Tyre looking for a city and never found it. again Sorry. see what understanding the times and culture can bring you? 🙂 Shucks no need to have given up your faith (unless you wanted to to begin with)
“whether you understand the term or not (jesus even talked about the place”
whether you like it or not more nations like the waves of the sea as the Bible stated were still yet to come. guess what? they came and now you are looking at ruins that will never be rebuilt under protection from UN.
Funny thing is even when you try and fudge a non fulfilled prophecy it still gets key provisions fulfilled. Must be funny to God as well eh 😉 . But yeah every city gets protection as a world heritage city right? right? and gets ruins submerged In the sea right?
” It may be better to re-dismantle Till and allow us to decide how well of a job you’ve done. you can congratulate yourself later.”
🙂 🙂 Ah the favorite tactic of regulars at a sceptics blog /site. “We, rather than the facts will decide whether you have made a good point”. tsk tsk….. Nope sorry.. try that tactic on someone else. You neither give directions as to what I can congratulate myself on nor get me to grant you status as the ole arbitors of whether my point stand. Bring the facts. The facts decide – your vote means little except to you.
P.S. If you are sensing a tone to my post to you I am just trying to speak your language. 😉
Mike and William, let’s please get back to civil discourse. When talking about issues like this honest people can come down on different sides of the issues — there’s no reason we can’t be kind to one another.
Tyre has always sat in the same place and has always maintained the same identity. Yes, there was also a mainland portion of Tyre that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed, but he never reached Tyre proper, which was an island. Tyre is now a peninsula and covers both areas.
I feel that we’re straining things a bit in wrangling over what “rebuild” means. It reminds me of Bill Clinton’s equivocation over the word “is”. So Mike, if you could try once more to explain how Nehemiah’s use of it should make us think of Ezekiel’s prophecy, I would appreciate it.
sure. I really dont know what else to say anyways. Ezekiel says something very specific. It didnt happen the specific way he said it would – unless, and only unless you say “rebuild” means only using the exact same materials, exact same footprint and exact same layout (which is an absurd position to take, because nothing would be ever be rebuilt); and if you claim that by saying “never found again,” Ezekiel really meant “we’d know exactly where it is, and was, and so forth.”
I’m not being condescending here, I really think it’s that simple. it;s not an earth shattering point, it’s basic and simple.
that’s all there is to this. The number of debates you’ve participated in means nothing. the number of points you’ve scored on those debates and the number of “atta boys” you’ve received from people who already agreed with you prior to the bate mean noting either, i’m afraid.
and it’s not your tone that bothers me, it’s more your unwillingness to even concede, “yeah, i see what you guys are saying, but try looking at it like this.” because, again, our position on this topic, while it may be incorrect, still makes perfect sense. failure to acknowledge that doesnt make me doubt my own position, it makes me doubt you even more.
I’ll just bow out of this one. There really is nothing else to this.