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 
“Oh, is that what you’ve been waiting for? I disagree with your assertion that informs the meaning of Ezekiel’s prophecy — here’s why:”
I’ve actually heard that before what I was waiting for was a logically defensible position that takes into consideration how word usage is determined in ancient texts not one that basks in denial. How in the world you think dictionaries of ancient languages are determined I have no idea but its not anything to do with reality
“Each passage gives its own context. Nehemiah states that Jerusalem needed to be rebuilt, particularly the walls.”
Nehemiah 2:5 where the term is referenced says nothing about walls. You’ve tried this before. You can try again but its still not there. the request and the permission is to build the city. Would walls be a necessary first step yes but the word build is used in that passage with out reference to walls. In addition although each passage has its context its just a FACT that contemporary usage is how word usage is determined. I get now that you mean to maintain the ridiculous and unscholarly assertion that that Is not so but well its..it not informed.
” but it was always rebuilt and always kept the same identity. However, the context of the prophecy says that it would cease to exist. In other words, it would be destroyed, and it would never be rebuilt. It would simply cease to be. That’s a very different context than what Nehemiah was talking about with Jerusalem ”
I’m sorry but that’s nonsensical and near total gibberish as to an answer regarding the word build. You are essentially saying the word build is determined contextually by whether a city is built or not. We are talking about the meaning of the word “build” Nate. Something you admit to in an unfinished house but beg exclusion when applied to a city. Before Nehemiah arrives in jerusalem is it built or not built? Obviously not built. When Tyre is in ruins after being destroyed is it built or not built? its real easy to see…if you want to
“It would be illogical to borrow Nehemiah’s context when Ezekiel provides his own.”
It would be totally illogical to ignore that both Jersualem and Tyre are destroyed cities to whom the word build applies and then ignore how a contemporary used it while begging that more than half in ruins is rebuilt for a city but not a house.
“None of that changes the fact that Tyre has continued to exist since ongoing before Ezekiel was ever born. Just like every ancient city, its features, geography, and borders have changed. But it is still the same city, and it still sits in the same place. ”
If only the identity was not made for ancient city and modern city to this day by both historian and anyone that does archaeology. Nothing changes the fact that we don’t have mere changes in geography or features at Tyre or borders as you allege but over half the previous site in ruins. That is NOT like every ancient city. You can beg for that but it is not factual. For example its It is not so for jerusalem
I agree though there is not much more to say. You think you have proven your point by sidestepping but I know that you have not
LikeLike
“http://www.emersonkent.com/images/map_tyre.gif
From this picture the submerged portion under water is the island of hercules which was not within the tyre city walls.”
Only thing is its not a picture. Its a map and a recently made one from the look of it. We do not have very good maps from that time. Please see my links I put up early in is discussions. I do not rely on maps but data about undergound ruins. Theres quite a bit that has not been uncovered/found
“Here’s a picture showing urban areas of tyre which shows the northern harbor is inhabited:'”
We all know that. better pictures on google maps btw. I get the impression from the rest of your post that you are not reading my points. You are merely assuming to be telling me what I supposedly do not know. I have already stated MULTIPLE times that the north harbor is occupied. however thats about it for the ancient city of tyre. Most of the city lies on the isthmus Don’t know how this will load for you but nicer picture 🙂
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tyre/@33.2704922,35.1975884,1197m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x151e7d902f915d95:0xcf0e3fc6fb997408
the largest swatch is nestled in right between the two areas of ruins and on the ithmus
“I would have a hard time trying to convince someone that this data matches up with the parts in Ezekiel ‘
that’s esentialy the same ting Nate tried in his post I would have a hard time convincing people that this is now a rebuilt city if they took this into consideration
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&hs=Il9&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=sb&biw=1298&bih=586&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ancient+tyre+ruins&oq=ancient+tyre+ruins&gs_l=img.3…541965.545492.0.545771.18.14.0.4.4.0.173.1008.12j2.14.0….0…1c.1.42.img..4.14.855.iyb5Hj2wonI
So it really comes down to what you are saying rebuilt is – significant percentage of waste and ruin which Nehemiah in an almost identical situation is claimed to need building or a few blocks over on the north harbor as a rebuilt city
LikeLike
“Actually, I haven’t heard the “fields” thing before — I’ll check that out. I do know that the ESV translates it as “mainland,” which I find significant.”
KJV, Young’s, Darby, ASV, ERV and many many more. I am surprised given KJV in that list
“Also, as I understand it , the name “Tyre” seems to refer to the rocky island it sits on, which wouldn’t make much sense if it started on the mainland. Also, its ports were on the island, which is another reason to think that the city proper Sat there.”
You don’t seem to understand the argument. Its not one or the other its both with Neb dealing with the mainland. BTW this is a fairly good article on it
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/Ezekiel-261-14-A-Proof-Text-For-Inerrancy-or-Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx
” Finally, several places in ch 26-28 talk about it being in the heart of the sea and compare it to a boat that would sink. Those descriptions don’t make sense to a mainland city.”
In my and many others estimation the comparison to a ship has less to do with its reputation for sail and trade than its position. 27 has that imagery on the move into deep waters
The island only argument never made much sense to me. its impractical on many levels and these no doubt that tyre had a fortified city on the mainland earlier in the Bible. Mainland borders are marked out against it
LikeLike
Ok. We’ve all made our points. Any future readers will have plenty of information to look into.
Mike, the last thing I’ll say is that you have a tendency to get personal with your comments, which can be pretty off-putting. William came at you hard right out the gate, so I’m not talking about you interaction with him. But once that was past, you kept telling us what our motivations were for every comment we made. You made assumptions about our level of knowledge on these things and the methods that we use in research. When you thought I had insulted you, you vehemently condemned me for it, and when I apologized and said it was not my intent, you didn’t accept the apology. WWJD?
We’re done discussing here, so I only bring this up as something for you to consider when you take part in future internet discussions.
All the best,
Nate
LikeLike
“When you thought I had insulted you, you vehemently condemned me for it, and when I apologized and said it was not my intent, you didn’t accept the apology. WWJD?”
Nate I don’t know what kind of Christian you were when you allegedly were one but there is no obligation to accept a non-apology apology in Christianity. You never apologized for taking a low swipe. instead you essentially claimed it was not one but provided no rational reason why comparing me to Clinton intellectually dishonestly trying to bend the truth and escape impeachment wasn’t anything else but insulting to my point of view. Christians rejoice in truth.
Your blog your rules but having a blog does not mean you get to hold anyone to a higher standard than you yourself hold even if you no longer subscribe to WWJD
All the best to you too
LikeLike
What an angry “Christian.”
LikeLike
“What an angry “Christian.”
Wrong again. I make very pointed comments to be sure but you reading a high level of emotion is incorrect….again 🙂
LikeLike
Mike – likely true that you are not angry as well as the fact that you are likely trying to be as honest with yourself as you know how. You would prefer not to give that same perspective toward atheists. They make pointed comments and you claim they are angry or dishonest. They disagree with you that God exists and since that looks incredibly obvious to you there must be something wrong with them. The bible supports this view so your approach is not surprising.
LikeLike
” They make pointed comments and you claim they are angry or dishonest.”
Nope. I make comments about dishonesty when there is in fact dishonesty.
“They disagree with you that God exists and since that looks incredibly obvious to you there must be something wrong with them.’
I have yet to see a skeptics blog or any of its regular participants that were not wholly dedicated to the proposition that theists are ignorant and their ignorance is why they maintain their theism. this blog and its participants are no exception so the charge is blatantly hypocritical unless you are claiming being ignorant is not something wrong with them. Even if you are its not rationally defensible.
At any rate I will excuse myself from you all debating about me. I am not sure Nate had in mind for this now to become a discourse on the evils of Mike (although he did get the ball rolling by taking me to tasks for not accepting his non-apology which had and has no recognition of any wrong done).
I’ll add in closing this out that one good benefit of this discussion is that I started doing reading from a source that so far is making a very compelling argument that mainland tyre is the focus of the Prophecy. I am not entirely convinced so far but I admit I missed that Ezekiel 27 states right up front that its a poetic song and he pretty much wipes out the objections of in the midst of the sea and other objections I had in that chapter. So some learning has taken place and I appreciate that’s a product of this discussion even though it was incidental to it.
Enjoy your weekend
LikeLike
Mike – you don’t seem ignorant or evil either. Later.
LikeLike
mike’s poor, but not uncommon christian example aside, this issue is too easy. And let’s say i am wrong in how I understand it – there would have been ways that either ezekiel could have written it, or for the events to have unfolded that would have made any contention on this prophecy null.
Yes, by saying that “build” CANNOT mean building new structures to replace old ones that were in similar, although not exact locations and configurations, even if they’re still on the same real estate, used for the same purposes as they had been before; mike can try to make this out to be all in his favor.
of course, in doing so, he doesn’t make me doubt my view, it just makes me more skeptical of him.
everyone here was using “rebuild” properly except for mike. did he ever give an example of what city or house had ever actually been “rebuilt” under his definition? I’m still not really sure what he was getting at, except to deny the real problems at all costs. ”but off he goes, bragging of yet another “victory” on behalf of the lord. Kudos, mike – if there’s a hell, we’ll all see you there.
I suspected he was this way from his first comment. doesnt make it right, but that’s why i acted the way i did. I’ll apologize seven times seven if it’s needed.
LikeLike
and mike, just because I think you’re ignorant doesn’t mean that I think real disciples are.
LikeLike
“of course, in doing so, he doesn’t make me doubt my view, it just makes me more skeptical of him.”
Who cares? I mean really. Why do atheists think the world of theists revolve around the minority position? Because we sometimes talk to you and humor your importance. We are just being friendly 🙂
“everyone here was using “rebuild” properly except for mike. ”
Mike was the ONLY one willing to deal with contemporary usage in the very same book called the Bible. go figure.However as it turns out the source i was reading makes just as a compelling case that Tyre on the mainland was the focus of the prophecy. Actually confirms it by multiple Bible passages that do not distinguish between coastal and small cay (not really big enough to be called an Island). It also answer Nate’s claims quite well regarding chapter 27 which is a song and says so upfront with several assorted metaphors of a ship at sea (that moves). I had not fully taken into account several verses which shows that the Bible identifies tyre as on the coast land. Theres no Uzzu. Its all just Tyre in perfect keeping with even modern ordinary usage of identifying places close together related as one. We do it with just about every city and its suburbs although quite often the suburbs fall outside the city limits.
From as early as Joshua to as Late as the Gospels The Bible identifies Tyre as on the coast. Rather conclusively too I might add
So there is not one way of proving your unfulfilled prophecy is false but two. More the merrier I say . Further since the passage explicitly says that which is scraped is that which is not rebuilt it crushes your objections because the only thing you can beg is that it was just a remarkable “coincidence” that Alexander scraped it and that it now sits unrebuilt and even marked out by Google as the ruins of Tyre – which will never be rebuilt thanks not to Christians but the good old UN.
Unfulfilled prophecy? Say goodnight Gracie. (not a name call an old TV saying)
“if there’s a hell, we’ll all see you there.”
there ya go…Same nastiness I saw from your first response but um not a Christian and WWJD doesn’t apply to you so what does it matter right? Free to be as nasty as can be. still not angry though right?
“I suspected he was this way from his first comment”
another prophecy fulfilled!!………. only this time an example of self fulfilling one.Take a bow
“and mike, just because I think you’re ignorant doesn’t mean that I think real disciples are.”
and trust me I don’t think all atheists are as quite as ignorant either
LikeLike
why was tyre important? the ports. which were where? the island. what’s in the midst of the sea, like in ezekiel’s prophecy? an island or coastal town? why, and island.
what are you talking about?
But nevertheless, both the island and the mainland parts if the city have been rebuilt, and now adjoin, and both ancient tyre and modern tyre can also be easily found.
how again, was the prophecy fulfilled?
and if you’re just going to revert back to your ridiculous argument of “well, ‘rebuild’ doesnt really mean something that’s been ‘rebuilt,’ you see… (paraphrased)” then at least begin with a thorough definition of “rebuilt” as you mean it, as well as provide a good example of a city or a house that was rebuilt using your definition, please.
Otherwise, you’re not making much sense. call me names, or whatever, just please do the above as requested, if you’re really interested in spreading the good news.
and I’ve been no more nasty that you, sir. I can at least admit my faults. But you are welcome to go on making excuses as to why you’re a pathetic and hypocritical follower of the man jesus – I wont throw any stones – I’ll just say that excusing it away because someone else did it, may not satisfy the lord.
LikeLike
This is the UNESCO entry for Tyre:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/299/
You’ll have to provide scripture for this claim. I just did a search of the word “Tyre” in the entire Bible, and I see no description anywhere that gives the impression it was not on an island. As I stated earlier, I know there were mainland suburbs, but from what I’ve been able to read, the island portion of Tyre was the most heavily fortified in Ezekiel’s time. And that makes sense too — it explains why Nebuchadnezzar would have had such a hard time getting past its walls.
Also, I’m not aware of any accounts that say Alexander “scraped” the site clean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC)
Instead, once he took the city, it again became a vital trade center. As with any ancient city, as buildings wore down, they were replaced with others. Many of the ruins that are visible are actually from the Roman Empire. There was no single event or attack that reduced Tyre to nothing. Its importance began to decline after the Crusades, but that was gradual. (all of this information is easily found, and the UNESCO link mentions it as well)
LikeLike
“But nevertheless, both the island and the mainland parts if the city have been rebuilt, ”
You are dreaming if you think you have a credible argument there. You might have been able to fool yourself and others that the Island has been rebuilt due to less than half of it actually being rebuilt but take a look at the map and you will see you utterly will fail to make an argument that the mainland area is rebuilt
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tyre/@33.272157,35.203278,2860m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x151e7d902f915d95:0xcf0e3fc6fb997408
That big area marked “ruins of tyre” might get in your way
” I wont throw any stones – I’ll just say that excusing it away because someone else did it, may not satisfy the lord.”
Please you will get no where with that taunt which you and Nate have tried on multiple occasions. The fact that you excuse yourself from a higher moral authority is no point in your favor because I do not. Like most you confuse direct talk with rudeness. If you call someone ignorant they are completely within their right as a Christian to point out your own ignorance. In fact I would say they are obligated to point out the absurdity of the arrogance. It is instructive to the sinning party
Again Christians rejoice in truth and politeness should not subvert it. Jesus often was not gentle when truth needed to be told.
LikeLike
“You’ll have to provide scripture for this claim. I just did a search of the word “Tyre” in the entire Bible, and I see no description anywhere that gives the impression it was not on an island”
I am sorry nate but I am sensing a pattern. First you had no idea that daughters in the field was a common translation and now you look in the Bible and don’t see what is CLEARLY There. You list this as one of the key points you presented to family members for your doubts and reason for abandoning the faith – how in the world if you were a real Christian could you not in 2010 with the internet at your fingertips not know about daughters in thefield which several sites cover and is the reading in the most popular translation of The Bible???? Its like you jsut swallowed whatever was told to you by till without any exertion of allegiance to Christ to go and do full research. But sure find verses that show Tyre was on the mainland- here they are so EXTREMELY easy to find
Joshua 19:29 (KJV)
29 And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib:”
Tyre is on the coastland This is actuall marking out inheritance borders Nate. Following the coast line.
Joel 3:4 (KJV)
4 Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head;
Here tyre is included among the coastland
Matthew 15:21 (KJV)
21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
Here the NT directly states the coast of Tyre
Mark 7:24 (KJV)
24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
Here the travel is to a place that borders both Sidon and Tyre (physically impossible for the Island)
Now all of that does not mean there is a denial of an island area but that just as we do today we do not make such fine distinctions and we have maps and signs as we go into municipalities. even without these verses that prove the point beyond any rational objection it would be dubious at best that tyre on an islet would be any distinguishing point to the land are they needed water and agriculture from and which in both your and my position they owned and controlled
“Also, I’m not aware of any accounts that say Alexander “scraped” the site clean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC)”
Really nate? Not aware of any accounts? Wikipedia? DId you do any research?
NO Christian sources
http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/107/
“After occupying old Tyre, he began to construct a causeway (or mole) across the channel toward the walls of Tyre, using rocks, timbers, and rubble taken from the buildings of the old city”
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswarsto1000/p/Wars-Of-Alexander-The-Great-Siege-Of-Tyre.htm
“Using this information, Alexander ordered the construction of a mole (causeway) that would stretch across the water to Tyre. Tearing down the remains of the old mainland city of Tyre, Alexander’s men began building a mole that was approximately 200 ft. wide”
But you cite wikipedia so lets use it too, Straight to the reference link number 5 of that article
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070514/full/news070514-2.html
“In a determined attack, Alexander’s engineers used timber and ruins from the old centre of Tyre on the coast to build a 1-kilometre-long ‘mole’, or causeway, to the island.
Now i dunno but that was all easy to find information and if your point is that wasn’t scraping that would be pretty weak
” Many of the ruins that are visible are actually from the Roman Empire. ”
Many nations to come up against Tyre has no problem with this. You should know that as well if you have done any reading on this.
I’m sorry Nate but when you give me links where the references prove my point rather than contradict it – it wold seem you have done no real research of your own.
LikeLike
“You are dreaming if you think you have a credible argument there. You might have been able to fool yourself and others that the Island has been rebuilt due to less than half of it actually being rebuilt but take a look at the map and you will see you utterly will fail to make an argument that the mainland area is rebuilt”
you may call me a dreamer, but i’m not the only one. This is all i was looking for. who cares how much of it was rebuilt – ezekiel said it would never be rebuilt and never found. a fraction of/half of (by your won words) was rebuilt – and it’s found.
i’m still not sure where the hangup is.
“Who cares? I mean really.”
and this is part of the problem, i think. You’re not concerned with the people you talk to, you’re main goal is scoring points in a debate. That’s okay, I dont care at all about points, so you can have ’em. And there’s nothing to debate anyhow, as you agree it was at least half rebuilt, which is still more than ezekiel said would happen.
I suggest reading proverbs. it’s a good book to follow.
LikeLike
still no concrete definition of rebuilt – still no examples – just more, “nuh-uhs.”
which of your points has been proven?
LikeLike
Yes, exactly. My point is that it’s irrational to make such a distinction between the portion of Tyre that was on the island and the portion of Tyre that was on the mainland. I frequently tell people that I live in Birmingham, Alabama, but in fact, I live in a suburb about 20 miles south of Birmingham. This is the issue I see with your argument — you’re trying to say that Ezekiel’s prophecy came true by isolating it to just one area of Tyre, and I don’t think that’s the most reasonable way to approach it.
Are you part of the KJV-only crowd? I’m not asking that sarcastically or anything, I’m just curious. Most scholars don’t believe it’s the most accurate version of the Bible, and I didn’t bother checking its references to Tyre. For example, Joshua 19:29, which you quoted above, reads this way in the NKJV:
The ESV says it this way:
I don’t see any passages that give an actual description of Tyre — I just see passages that speak generally about coastal cities. While Tyre’s harbors were unquestionably on an island, I’m not surprised that some passages group them in with other cities along the coast. The point of those passages was obviously not to describe exactly how each city was laid out.
LikeLike
Mike and William,
A lot of your disagreement has been over whether Tyre can really be said to have been “rebuilt” if half of the original city is still in ruins. A couple of points/questions:
Mike, when you talk about Tyre, which portion do you have in mind? In some comments, you’ve seemed to argue that it was the mainland portion that Ezekiel prophesied about, but in other comments, you refer to the ruins that are visible on the island. Which of those is your focus?
By the way, that’s also the question I would ask when you talk about Alexander “scraping” Tyre clean. I know that he dismantled much of the mainland settlement to build his causeway, but I thought you were referring to the island when you talked about it being “scraped” clean. What are your thoughts on that?
Finally, let’s not forget that in addition to Tyre never being rebuilt, Ezekiel also said it would be uninhabited (26:19). Mike, in what way to you feel that has come to pass?
LikeLike
“Yes, exactly. My point is that it’s irrational to make such a distinction between the portion of Tyre that was on the island and the portion of Tyre that was on the mainland. I frequently tell people that I live in Birmingham, Alabama, but in fact, I live in a suburb about 20 miles south of Birmingham. This is the issue I see with your argument ”
You just made my point for me. It works either way and you want it to work one way. Perfectly acceptable to refer to the suburbs as Birmingham, Alabama and it would be perfectly acceptable for a prophecy to be made about it as Birmingham , Alabama. Further more in this case whatever was on the island couldn’t even survive without the mainland for agricultural and water reasons. Not forever – where the mainland could do quit fine with out anything native to the Island. You are asking that distinction be made where there was none. Those biblical passages PROVE that the settlement on the mainland was in fact identified as TYRE. They nail that point. There is no other name in the BIble. No Uzzu. Jews identified the city on the mainland as Tyre.
“Are you part of the KJV-only crowd? I’m not asking that sarcastically or anything, I’m just curious. Most scholars don’t believe it’s the most accurate version of the Bible, ”
I studied biblical languages. this has nothing to do with KJV. You are clutching at straws. there are MULTIPLE versions that translate it that way and the original Hebrew says just that. Both are allowable but only one fits the context of slain by the sword. I could find nowhere else in the bible where cities or buildings are “slain by the sword”. the overwhelming usage is people being slain by the sword but ahem if that is admitted then theres no way the Island had daughters in the field.
“The ESV says it this way:
Then the boundary turns to Ramah, reaching to the fortified city of Tyre. Then the boundary turns to Hosah, and it ends at the sea; Mahalab,[a] Achzib,”
Either is acceptable and none prove your point but prove mine. This was a legal spelling out of boundaries of inheritance, the line drawn turns to the fortress. theres no mention of the line going out past water. By the way i did cite more than one passage so how you think you can overcome the obvious implication of all the verses you did not address by addressing one I have no idea.
Lets face it Nate. You are going to have to do a whole lot of twisting to override the preponderance of the Biblical evidence that the mainland was identified as Tyre even if not exclusively.
“I don’t see any passages that give an actual description of Tyre”
Total non issue. the issue was location not description. No you just see passages that say where it was and that is shared borders with Sidon. How are you planning to make the island share borders with Sidon Nate?
I think we both know you are stuck on this. Since you don’t even have a less than half built mainland city of Tyre but ruins and empty land your unfulfilled prophecy claim is falling into he deep just like Tyre was scraped into it.
I earned something a long time ago when I was nearly at the position you were in a few years ago. You never know the truth until
You hear the rebuttal
and then the rebuttal to the rebuttal
and then the answer to that rebuttal
and then the rebuttal to that answer
before you really ever get down to “finding truth”.
LikeLike
I have nothing else to add. I’ve said from the beginning that Tyre encompassed both the island and the mainland, and I don’t see where that somehow means Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled. We simply see things differently, and that’s fine. There’s plenty of information here to help others research this on their own.
Take care
LikeLike
“you may call me a dreamer, but i’m not the only one. This is all i was looking for. who cares how much of it was rebuilt – ezekiel said it would never be rebuilt and never found. a fraction of/half of (by your won words) was rebuilt – and it’s found. ”
You make no new points and your old ones have been destroyed even if you won’t admit it. By that failed logic Jerusalem was rebuilt because a fraction of it (houses and armoury) were built. So Nehemiah would not have gone to build it. Of course then we would have to go back to the utterly foolish proposition that contemporary usage of a word within the same book doesn’t matter. I suggest you enter real estate. You can half build house and then say they are built in no time.
You can quote mine the Bible all day but the Found passage comes in context to bein covered over by the deep. When you excavate the ruins under the sea (where all of ancient tyre was scraped as well). Call me . We will have lunch.
“and this is part of the problem, i think”
You can think whatever you wish but claiming I have to care about what the one poster that has been abrasive from the gitgo thinks about me…is well….just what you think.
LikeLike
all of ancient tyre is not in the sea, and you know that. I keep bringing up old points because they’re still valid and you’re too caught up in yourself to see that you end up contradicting yourself.
You still havent provided your definition of rebuilt. you say tyre wasnt rebuilt, then you say half rebuilt, then you mention something about a half rebuilt house…
In this case, the house wasnt half rebuilt. it was totally rebuilt, but in a different configuration. the size may have changed as well; bigger in some parts and small in others, but for your house analogy to be accurate, you’re probably wanting to say, “the house was rebuilt smaller than before” not “half built.”
and speaking of definitions, how do you define “destroyed?” I’m not sure it means what you think it means.
LikeLike