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 
“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.”
that’s how I felt after reading your initial, abrasive post.
I guess I’ll just stop for good here. If you end up being correct about everything, you can give me the ole, “I told ya so” while we’re both burning in hell. Until then…
LikeLike
“Finally, let’s not forget that in addition to Tyre never being rebuilt, Ezekiel also said it would be uninhabited (26:19).”
Sorry Ezekiel does NOT say it will forever be uninhabited. Frankly 19 doesn’t even say it will be uninhabited. Not even your favored ESV says that
it says its desolation wil be LIKE the uninhabited cities
“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.”
Nope you wouldn’t because if you looked at mainland Tyre you would have a prophecy that has it destroyed scraped had many nations come against it and totally fulfilled now never to be rebuilt protected by the UN.
That Bible I tell you. So powerful even when its unfulfilled it STILL manages to come to pass for a city on the mainland Identified as Tyre in other parts of the book. 🙂 What are the odds? Anyway Best wishes to you nate.
From what you revealed over the last two days of how much you didn’t study the issue and had never heard of (even though its been online for years at various sites)its pretty obvious you were not serious about your Christianity. I was in a simlar issue years ago when I was told that Babylon was never violently destroyed by some follower of Till . I could have gone your route but it meant too much for me to leave it half baked so I dug in learned everything I could and was so glad I did because I realized through a source left out by the TIll follower that it in fact had been.
You have a really deep commitment to Christ you don’t half bake it and not even study the issue to know the very basic stuff. Maybe one day you will go by what I said before and follow the objections to the objections to the objections but its crystal clear now you haven’t and didn’t and thats why you are not finding the truth but are oh so sure you have
LikeLike
KJV: “19 For thus saith the Lord God; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;”
desolate means uninhabited.
again, what are you talking about?
LikeLike
“all of ancient tyre is not in the sea, and you know that.’
All of Neb’s mainland Tyre scraped clean into the ocean by good old Alexander years and years later. wonderful coincidence eh?
the beautiful thing about its that skeptics are already so invested in Ezekiel 26 being a false prophecy written before the events they can’t logically claim the Alexander scenario was written after the fact.
SO it all becomes an argument not of whether the prophecy about scraping was fulfilled because the event DID happen but just by how much yards the prophecy was allegedly off. Like I said those Bible prophecies – even when they are unfulfilled they end up coming to pass…well from your point of view…. nearby ::)
LikeLike
“desolate means uninhabited. ”
No it doesn’t. go learn some Hebrew…Or will you now be telling me that doesn’t matter either along with contemporary usage? this is getting too silly. Enjoy your day. I have some work to finish up
LikeLike
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I’m crying, but seriously, the, the city of tyre is still there…
LikeLike
I looked up the definition of “desolate,” which is the word that the the KJV used – since I read english and not hebrew.
how should the passage have been transliterated?
LikeLike
you know, maybe that’s the issue right there. We’ve all been trusting those who translated the bible and should learned ancient hebrew and greek ourselves.
LikeLike
So I just did something I’ve never done before: Mike has been blacklisted as a commenter.
I hate to do it, and maybe I’ll even revoke it at some point. But I’ve finally lost my patience with the way he interacts on here. I’m not talking about his interaction with William — William came at him hard, so I view that as fair (though I’m not crazy about those kinds of comments)
What I finally got tired of was his insistence on telling me how honest I am, what kind of Christian I was, how diligently I researched these issues, etc. Mike doesn’t know me. I’ve tried to treat him fairly on this blog, even though we don’t agree. I’ve allowed him to post whatever lines of evidence he feels he has for his position. In the course of that, I have not questioned his character, his level of education, or his sincerity. He can’t seem to show the same courtesy, and I tire of his brand of adolescent arrogance.
If anyone feels I’m handling this unfairly, please let me know.
William, I’d ask that you don’t comment on Mike any further. And in the future, please give people the benefit of the doubt when they first start commenting here. I don’t know if Mike meant his first statement about atheists to be insulting or not, but I prefer to withhold judgment until they make it very clear (as he has done).
Thanks
LikeLike
yeah, sorry nate. I’ll not do it again.
LikeLike
you’re totally well within reason to cut him off, but another option would be let him back on and just have the last word.
no one else with any sense should respond the last time… but that would only be in order to prevent things like, “they kicked me off because they were hard hearted and couldnt bear the truth.”
LikeLike
So after sleeping on it and talking to a couple of friends about it, I think I was being a bit too rash to cut Mike off. So Mike, you’re no longer blacklisted — feel free to comment. Sorry for shutting off the valve on you.
I have some questions for you, because I don’t think you’ve really made your case yet. In fact, when I was trying to explain your position to a friend of mine, I quickly realized that I didn’t actually understand your exact argument. So let’s start with a basic one: was Ezekiel’s prophecy talking about the island of Tyre, the mainland portion, or both?
LikeLike
i think the real problem here is the prophesy. It really should have said, “that one day Original Tyre will be destroyed and no more and will never be found, because a new city with the same exact name will be built on top of it, and the rest will be underwater….. but could be found if someone just simply dug it up.”
that would have solved the whole problem.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree.
Personally, I think Ezekiel was talking about both the island and the mainland. Chapter 26 specifies that Nebuchadnezzar will come against the city and kill Tyre’s “daughters on the mainland.” Whether that is a poetic way of talking about Tyre’s suburb on the mainland or whether he literally meant some of Tyre’s female residents is immaterial, because specifying “mainland” shows that other parts of the prophecy must have focused on areas of Tyre that were not on the mainland.
Mike mentioned earlier that this passage can be translated “daughters in the field,” suggesting that it might literally be talking about women in the fields around the city, and not suburbs on a mainland. So far, I haven’t found any commentaries that make that case. BibleHub.com has an article about it here:
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/26-6.htm
It lists several commentaries’ opinions on this passage, and they all talk about this prediction having to do with the suburbs, or small villages of Tyre that existed on the mainland. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible says it this way:
To help illustrate that point, BibleHub also offered a couple of other passages:
And we know from history that Nebuchadnezzar made good on that prediction — he destroyed the mainland portion of Tyre, but was not able to breach the walls surrounding the island portion.
Mike, would you agree with what I just laid out about the relationship between the island and mainland portions of Tyre?
LikeLike
Nate,
I am pressed for time at the moment so i won’t be answer everything in this post
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/ezekiel/26.htm
covers the alternatives somewhat. I am not a fan of commentaries much less online ones. I take them only for data they give me. Besides that they are pretty much like anyone else giving their opinion. If you have Strong’s in some form you will see theres nothing special about he word field to demand mainland in the hebrew. its used for field (open field) all the time.
In this case its pretty obvious that its not the text dictating the meaning to commentaries but the known geography. I have seen nothing where that would have been interpreted that way anywhere else but the knowledge of the Isle affects commentators. Also I have yet to see any commentary even explain how “slain by the sword” is applied to a city when its always applied to human beings elsewhere.
“Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom.”
classic bad example from commentaries. Not your fault but the entire chapter is a proverb and pretty clearly too.
Ezekiel 16:3-4 (Darby)
3 and say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah unto Jerusalem: Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of the Canaanite: thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite.
4 And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water for cleansing; thou wast not rubbed with salt at all, nor swaddled at all.
Shucks vs 44 says it super clear
Ezekiel 16:44 (Darby)
44 Behold, every one that useth proverbs shall speak in a proverb against thee, saying, As the mother, [so is] her daughter!
Theres not a hint in Ezekiel 26 of it being a proverb and even without that the difficulty resides in “slain by the sword”
“Whether that is a poetic way of talking about Tyre’s suburb on the mainland ”
I’ve seen some commentaries say its symbolic which I know would not fly if I was using it to defend a passage that literally said something else
LikeLike
“i think the real problem here is the prophesy. It really should have said, “that one day Original Tyre will be destroyed and no more and will never be found, because a new city with the same exact name will be built on top of it, and the rest will be underwater….. but could be found if someone just simply dug it up.”
that would have solved the whole problem.”
For you perhaps but not to all the people living at the time that would have wondered what in the world is “Original Tyre”. Anyway this goes back to the “If it didn’t say it this way then it can’t be what is meant” argument which I see a lot of on this blog but it just doesn’t work as a logical construct.
Plus theres nothing in the prophecy about loss of names so its not clearer or succinct. Its just redundant. As it is besides the exact name claim it pretty much says what you just said
Ezekiel 26:19-20 (Darby)
19 For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I bring up the deep upon thee, and the great waters cover thee:
20 then will I bring thee down, with them that go down to the pit, to the people of old time, and will cause thee to dwell in the lower parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I will set glory in the land of the living.
Put you under water- check
Bury you so no one can build on you/inhabit you- check
can’t be found because you are descended into the depth – check
LikeLike
Ah, good point about Ezekiel 16 being used as more of a proverb. I can see how that might not be the best example. I did run across some others, though, just as a point of interest:
Isaiah 23:1 talks about Tyre, and verse 12 refers to the city this way:
Isaiah 10:32 refers to Jerusalem in a similar manner:
Nahum 3 refers to Nineveh as a woman, which seems similar to me.
In Psalm 48:11, some versions say “daughters of Judah” and some say “cities of Judah.”
To me, this is something that can go either way. Maybe it literally means female inhabitants of Tyre, but I tend to think villages or suburbs makes more sense. Even though it says Nebuchadnezzar will kill them with the sword, I don’t see a problem with that — it would obviously be talking about inhabitants if villages/suburbs is the correct understanding. Regardless, I don’t think either interpretation really changes anything.
As to “mainland” vs “field,” I don’t think that makes a big difference either. The Hebrew word there can be defined either way, from what I’ve read. If “field” is the correct understanding, that still says nothing about Tyre’s actual location. Ezekiel still could have understood it as being the island. Considering that Tyre’s major claim to fame was always its notoriety as a trade hub, and that its harbors were on the island, it seems very likely that the center of Tyre was already the island portion. After all, even 300 or 400 years before Ezekiel, Tyre was already well known for trade. Combine that with Ezekiel’s (possible) reference to Tyre’s villages on the mainland and his reference to Tyre’s borders being in the heart of the sea (ch 27), and I think it seems extremely likely that Tyre itself was on the island.
You’ve already mentioned that chapter 27 uses a lot of imagery in its depiction of Tyre as a ship on the seas, but I don’t see that as a reason to think Ezekiel did not view Tyre as an island city. I think it actually makes the opposite case.
That’s how I see it, but if you think Ezekiel was only talking about the mainland, I’m willing to entertain that argument for the sake of discussion. Just let me know what you think: was he talking about the island, the mainland, or both?
Thanks
LikeLike
“Ah, good point about Ezekiel 16 being used as more of a proverb. I can see how that might not be the best example. I did run across some others, though, just as a point of interest”
the problem with every one of those instances is that they ALWAYS are paired with the name of the city never alone. The second problem is that none of them is paired with the fairly straightforward “slain by the sword”. Thats always associated with real people being killed. What makes this even more likely the translations is the expression “then they shall know I am the lord” – that can only have people in mind
“To me, this is something that can go either way. Maybe it literally means female inhabitants of Tyre, but I tend to think villages or suburbs makes more sense. Even though it says Nebuchadnezzar will kill them with the sword, I don’t see a problem with that — it would obviously be talking about inhabitants if villages/suburbs is the correct understanding. Regardless, I don’t think either interpretation really changes anything.”
OF course it would. If its daughters in the field then its talking about actual people or groups of people in open fields and the whole idea of it referring to mainland tyre is not in play. The problem that you don;t see with it is because you have denied usage in other texts matters when studying ancient texts. the fact that “slay with the the sword” is never used like that anywhere else is most definitely an issue when deciding between the two
“As to “mainland” vs “field,” I don’t think that makes a big difference either. The Hebrew word there can be defined either way, from what I’ve read.”
Then where is it defined that way? Go ahead and do a search for the term mainland and see what you get on Bible hub. This word is translated mainland ONCE and its in Ezekiel 26. its translated that way not because the word means that but because of the translators knowledge of the geography. In every hebrew dictionary i have looked at mainland is not there as a meaning. Theres hundreds of instances of this word being used in the OT and its overwhelming us is field with a secondary meaning of land – never mainland.
” If “field” is the correct understanding, that still says nothing about Tyre’s actual location. Ezekiel still could have understood it as being the island. Considering that Tyre’s major claim to fame was always its notoriety as a trade hub, and that its harbors were on the island, it seems very likely that the center of Tyre was already the island portion.”
IF field is correct then you lose one of your key reasons you stated it had to be the island in focus since mainland proved it. Its really not even debatable that it can and was translated that way. Right in your Biblehub link you skipped over all the translations that translate it as field and even the greek translation Septuagint translates to field. From everything I can see “mainland” is contrived from looking at a map not the text. Could Ezek still think it was an island? sure but here’s the problem – We can’t ask Ezek what he understood. All we have are the words. So if they can go either way (and only if we use all the expressions never used anywhere else like that ) you can’t build an unfulfilled prophecy on one you prefer over the other especially when the other one ends up with a looooooong odds of a city being swept into the sea fulfilled.
How do you even deal with that Nate? because your whole premise is that Ezek is writing before the events and Alexander sweeps old tyre hundreds of years later – just incredible coincidence?
In regard to where trade took place is immaterial. I’ve provided a link before that cites historical references of the both locations being known as Tyre like a twin city. I have shown Bible verses with Tyre identified as sharing physical borders with SIdon – totally impossible for the Island. Tyre on the mainland is without a doubt in the Bible identified with the mainland even if also identified with the Island.
” After all, even 300 or 400 years before Ezekiel, Tyre was already well known for trade. Combine that with Ezekiel’s (possible) reference to Tyre’s villages on the mainland and his reference to Tyre’s borders being in the heart of the sea (ch 27), and I think it seems extremely likely that Tyre itself was on the island.”
all coastand cities have borders in the heart of the sea. the only difference with an Island is that it has ALL borders in the sea.
“You’ve already mentioned that chapter 27 uses a lot of imagery in its depiction of Tyre as a ship on the seas, but I don’t see that as a reason to think Ezekiel did not view Tyre as an island city. I think it actually makes the opposite case.”
27 being a poem does not mean nothing can be taken from it but what it does do clearly is show that many of the references to “in the sea” are indicative of that poetic vision of Tyre being a ship at move in the sea. As such they are not proof texts as to location. Tyre is at move in the sea which a non poetic island cannot be
Ezekiel 27:26 (KJV)
26 Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters: the east wind hath broken thee in the midst of the seas.
As matter of fact in that verse “midst of the sea” has a completely different meaning than people assume the term has to mean. It means fallen/sinking into the sea and interestingly it means that also in chapter 26
” Just let me know what you think: was he talking about the island, the mainland, or both?”
Both. Twin city. You could reference them interchangeably. My bet would be from Israel’s perspective People would have more interaction with the mainland. The Island’s port meant nothing to trade with a neighbor on land.
LikeLike
Hi, Mike. we got off on the wrong foot. I’ll do better.
I was hoping for a bit more clarification. If the prophecy referred to both the island and the mainland, why did ezekiel’s prophecy only Partially come true tor parts of Tyre?
* the city would be scraped clean – only happened to mainland when Alexander used the rubble to build his causeway.
* The city would sink – only a part of the island is now beneath the sea
and of course, the “never be rebuilt” – I guess the parts under water werent rebuilt, but much of tyre was, in fact, rebuilt. I’m still unclear on how you’re suggesting “rebuilt” is to be used.
And the “desolation” part – it is inhabited. True, I’m still going off of the english, which scholars translated from the hebrew. If “desolate” and “uninhabited” arent the best translations, what are?
My point is, ezekiel’s prophecy, when read, makes it sound like a complete and permanent annihilation. I think that’s how it reads now, and I imagine if the ancient people would have had a hard time understanding “original city,” that they’d also have a hard time understanding that ezekiel wasnt talking about complete and permanent destruction. Yet, we know that the prophecy wasnt completely fulfilled according to a literal reading of what ezekiel declared.
thoughts?
LikeLike
Real quick – have to get to some work early today. continuing on on last nights post. I think the most compelling verse for Tyre the Island being the real focus of Ezekiel 26 is verse 5. In fact a lot of commentaries instantly think its Iron clad and I can’t wrong anyone for thinking so too. I did as well.
“Ezekiel 26:4-5 (Darby)
4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers. And I will scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock.
5 She shall be [a place] for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken [it], saith the Lord Jehovah; and she shall become a spoil for the nations. ”
(See I am using Darby – not a KJV only guy 🙂 ). “Place” is in brackets because there is no such word in the original. It is supplied by English translations (italics in KJV)
This passage can definitely be seen as saying “I will scrape Tyre the city and Tyre the city will be nothing but a rock and the spreading of the nets will take place on the rock that is above seal level in the “midst the sea” because that is how Tyre will be as the end state of this prophecy”. The proximity of the statement “bare as a rock” and the spreading of nets would read in a way that implies the nets are spread on the rock though it does not say so directly.
this would be pretty hard to dispute as once again it seems to fit into what we know of the geography. Theres only one problem
That understanding is contradictory to the prophecy itself. That understanding leaves Tyre the city above the sea level but this verse says that CAN’T be the case
Ezekiel 26:19-20 (Darby)
19 For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I bring up THE DEEP UPON THEE , and the GREAT WATERS COVER THEE:
20 then will I bring thee down, with them that go down to the pit, to the people of old time, and will cause thee to dwell in the lower parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I will set glory in the land of the living.”
Not only does God say he will sink. take i to the pit, cover it with abundant waters, put it into the lower parts of the earth it but the reason why it must happen is indicated as well – so it will not be inhabited and as you guys like to point out often so it will not be found in verse 21. . Since it is to achieve a real result it cannot even be considered symbolic
We have nothing in the text that tells us how Tyre will be covered in water except 26:12 – the scraping of Verse 5 explained as being laid into “the midst of the waters”
The -parallel to scrape in verse 5 is
Ezekiel 26:12 (Darby)
12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy wares; 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 WATERS.”
Here the midst of the waters answers the midst of the sea. it indicates that the expression as far as the text is concerned is NOT the geography of Tyre the island but the actual throwing of the city into the sea itself. In other words – really in the midst of the sea.
The whole point Nate is that the judgement of Tyre is to bring it into the ocean deep. tyre’s great pride was its seamanship and ships. its power in the sea was exactly that – as masters of the sea with sea trading and seamanship.
SO what Ezek, prophet or no prophet, writes is that Tyre is to be sunk in the sea
I can’t see a way around this. Perhaps you can come up with one and I am not being snotty when I say this. I only recently saw this and realized the implications. I saw verse 5 just as you did but 19-20 seems unambiguous -The fate of Tyre is NOT to be above sea level but to be covered in the sea . This matches the end game of chapter 27 which states that the end of Tyre the great shipping enterprise is to be thrown into it
Ezekiel 27:26-27 (Darby)
26 Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters; the east wind hath broken thee in the heart of the seas.
27 Thy substance, and thy markets, thy merchandise, thy mariners, and thy pilots, they that repair thy leaks, and they that barter with thee, and all thy men of war that are in thee, along with all thine assemblage which is in the midst of thee,SHALL FALL INTO THE HEART of the seas in the day of thy fall.”
Taking this understanding back to verse 5 this is what it would mean
“I will scrape you tyre into the midst of the water. I will lay all your dust, house, walls ,timber and stone into the water and you shall be for the spreading of nets there in the midst of the sea.”
Thing is that happened. fishermen have used the stones and rocks thrown into the sea to spread nets on. Tyre did become a place to spread nets in the midst of the sea because Tyre was thrown into the ocean by Akexander when he built the causeway
Again I and a lot of people have read the geography into the text rather than let the text speak for itself. However unless you can find some way to explain How the prophecy about being completely buried in the seas and covered by water allows Tyre to not be under water and above sea level it has to be the interpretation. A rock above sea level is neither in the deep nor covered over by abundant waters.
Incidentally this also would make clear that a far as the text is concerned the city is the buildings scraped into the sea and not the land that is left. She tyre is in and under the ocean not on land. She will never be rebuilt because under water she cannot be found. She cannot inhabited and she cannot be rebuilt.
Got to run. Have a good day.
LikeLike
“Hi, Mike. we got off on the wrong foot. I’ll do better. ”
We both will. I think that now we are concentrating on what the text say rather than CLinton or me talking about atheists in general ( i still don’t understand why saying most – not all – atheists do something which they do is so insultive but I’ll let it go) it pretty productive
Ahh….. but I still did wish to clarify something that I think Nate took real offense to and that is questioning his former Christianity. Its not personal and you will find that issue with any Bible believer that knows his Bible. its not consistent scripturally to think that someone truly saved left the faith. it s a doctrinal belief made pretty firm by 1 john.
1 John 2:19 (Darby)
19 They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have surely remained with us, but that they might be made manifest that none are of us.
So when People doubt the true nature of salvation of someone who says otherwise its because they believe the bible.
Anyway I DO NOT want to get into all that again but I did not want to let stand that it was just some baseless accusation or have Nate thinking it was a personal shot
William you can tell me otherwise but I think my last post above answers almost all your questions in regard to what I mean. I probably will not have anytime to answer anymore until late tonight or tomorrow. Have a good day
LikeLike
Thanks for the response. I agree, I believe your previous post answered most, if not all of my questions. Once I have time, i will review them further and get back.
thank you.
LikeLike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for all the clarification.
Your points about “daughters on the mainland” are interesting and worth consideration. But since you and I both agree that Ezekiel probably meant both the island and mainland portions, I don’t see any need to debate that further.
Since we agree that Tyre encompassed both locations, I have a hard time seeing how you believe the prophecy has been fulfilled. Yes, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland portion of Tyre, and Alexander later threw that debris (and possibly debris from any rebuilt mainland portions that he might have destroyed) into the sea to create his causeway to the island. I don’t see a problem with Ezekiel’s prophecy up to that point.
Where I think his prophecy fails is that Alexander did not level the island portion of Tyre and did not throw all of its remains into the sea. And from that point, Tyre did not remain destroyed and uninhabited — it was immediately repopulated and rebuilt. Its identity remained the same. Did its exact footprint change over time? Sure, but that’s true of every city. And many of its changes have been the result of natural forces (sediment buildup, changing sea levels, etc), not from attacks, as Ezekiel prophesied.
It’s true that fishermen spread nets there, but in what coastal city do fishermen not spread nets? I think the crux of that statement is that Ezekiel thought the site of Tyre would only be used for that and not a place to live, work, and conduct trade.
Even if we did try to restrict Ezekiel’s prophecy to just the mainland portion, that area has been rebuilt as well. I just have a difficult time seeing how all parts of Ezekiel’s prophecy could be said to have come true. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood your argument.
Thanks
LikeLike
Mike,
I am very happy to see the discussion be more productive and less about rhetoric and character judgments. If I may, I’d like to take a hopefully brief moment to respond to your side note here.
You said:
With the word “most” it isn’t as insulting to me. Your previous language sounded like “all”, but I misunderstood.
You said:
To believe that doctrinally is fine, but you were going further and reading Nate’s comments as confirmation of your belief – and you were harping on them quite a bit to dig into Nate’s character and sincerity.
I am not Nate so I can only speak for myself. I am perfectly fine with someone believing that I was never a Christian. I actually don’t see any reason to be so stubborn about claiming that I know for sure I was a TRUE Christian – I don’t believe anymore that there even is such a thing, so in that regard whatever you believe doesn’t really matter. But back in the day I certainly very much thought I was an evangelical Christian – and if you question that statement, then it would bother me because it is an honest claim. But the fact is, what if my understanding of Christianity had some important missing factor that would have been the deciding factor of making me a TRUE Christian (if there is such a thing)? I’d never know because I took advice from many on what those factors needed to be and was very sure those factors were there. I converted when I was 19 from Judaism and my first year as a Christian I was very sure that Jesus had died for my sins, that the bible was inerrant, that I had confessed and repented of my sins, that my sins had been washed away, and that I was following Jesus. Intellectually I believed that the doctrines of evangelical Christianity were true and in “my heart” I had committed to following along with whatever I thought the beliefs required of me. While I thought my father would disown me I informed my parents of my new beliefs and when my parents said they thought it was a phase in my life I assured them that it was definitely not a phase in my life. I was very excited in that first year and prayed, read the bible, attended several campus meetings, and tried to spread the word as much as I could. But after that first year doubts began to grow until after 5 years they were so overwhelming I realized the doubts weighed more than the belief and it wasn’t honest to claim I was a Christian anymore.
But again, while all of the above is the honest truth, it is also true that there could have been something missing that I’m not aware of that made it that I was actually not a Christian, so I’m fine with that. It may also be as some of my friends say that I am actually still a Christian right now even though I really do not think that the beliefs are true. Who knows, maybe it doesn’t matter what we actually truly think we believe. Perhaps there is some kind of subconscious thing that is actually opposite of what we honestly and sincerely believe (or at least what we think we believe). All that is fine. But then this calls into question everyone’s salvation. While you may be extremely sure of your belief right now, you don’t know what tomorrow may bring. With this kind of methodology there is no way I can see how anyone can know that they are truly saved. Again, I don’t believe there is such a thing.
So you can believe that we were never really Christians – I don’t see a problem with that. But as you are doing very well in your more recent comments, there is no need to try and piece together actions or items within our statements which you think confirm that belief and harp on those. Whatever it may be, your doctrinal belief could stand no matter whether we are sincere or not.
LikeLike
I’ve reread the text and made a spreadsheet of the events, in sequence, with verses cited.
I think I understand mike’s interpretation, and I think there is some merit to it. Several of the verses referring to Nebuchadnezzar’s part specifically mention the mainland of tyre. However, some of my original questions remain:
1. When is the prophecy only talking about the mainland? Only when it specifically says so, or are their other instances?
2. The prophecy never seems to speak specifically and only regarding the island, excluding the mainland (unless I missed it), so why isn’t the mainland under water? And if the mainland is only referring the structures that were cats into the sea, why wasn’t the island’s?
3. Verses 13 through 21 specifically seem to be saying that the tyre will be erased. It’s destruction will be so profound that it will practically vanish – but this has not happened. If god didn’t mean that it would be totally annihilated, how would Ezekiel have conveyed the idea of total and permanent destruction differently, more precisely or more clearly?
Sequence of Events:
description
event verse
1 26:3 bring many nations against tyre
2 26:4 the many nations shall destroy the walls and pull down the towers
3 26:4 scrape away rubble and make bare rock
4 26:5 out of the sea, tyre will be a place to spread fishing nets
5 26:5 she we become plunder for the nations
6 26:6 her (settlements/daughters) on the (mainland/fields) will be ravaged by the sword
7 26:7 Nebuchadnezzar will come against tyre
8 26:8 Neb will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword
9 26:8 Neb will set up siege works against tyre and build a ramp up to tyre’s walls and raise shield against tyre
10 26:9 Neb will direct the blows of the battering rams against tyre’s walls and demolish the towers
11 26:10 Neb’s horses will be so many that they will cover tyre with dust and the walls will tremble at their noise
12 26:10 Neb’s men will enter the gates once broken through
13 26:11 the hooves of Neb’s horses will trample all their streets
14 26:11 Neb will kill tyre’s people and strong pillars will fall
15 26:12 “They” (Neb’s men or the many nations) will plunder tyre’s wealth
16 26:12 “they” (Neb’s men or the many nations) will break down the walls and demolish the houses, and throw stones, timber and rubble into the sea
17 26:13 God will put and to tyre’s songs and tyre’s music will be heard no more
18 26:14 God will make Tyre a bare rock, and it will become a place to spread nets
19 26:14 you will never be rebuilt
20 26:19 God will make tyre a desolate city, like uninhabited cities
21 26:19 god will bring the ocean’s depths over tyre, and it’s vast waters over tyre
22 26:20 god will place tyre in a pit, and tyre will not return
23 26:21 god will bring them a horrible end and tyre will be no more.
24 26:21 Tyre will be sought, but never will be found
LikeLike