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 
well, that table didnt paste well – sorry.
LikeLike
Nate you not only misunderstood you just flat out ignored just about everything in my last post. the fact that Tyre can refer to either the island or the mainland does not mean we agree that the prophecy deals equally to both. When I said “You could reference them interchangeably.” before I meant the word not the prophecy and I should have been clearer on that. my apologies. what it does mean is that what is done to one can be properly be said was done to Tyre NOT has to be done to both. If someone said I am going to write on the walls of Tyre and does so on the mainland thats would be a fulfillment of the intent. it does NOT require he has to go write on the wall at sea as well.
“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”
Read my last paragraph and tell me where the city that Ezekiel reference was supposed to be and tell me how it was rebuilt under water. You are again totally ignoring the context of where God said he put the city and no you can’t even show the mainland is now built. Please look at Google maps and trace where the coast must have been as opposed to mainland tyre.
“I just have a difficult time seeing how all parts of Ezekiel’s prophecy could be said to have come true.’
I know you have diificulties but your difficulty has nothing to do with the text or with the data in it which specifically states that the city that will not be rebuilt is under water precisely fulfilled by their being ruins underwater. All of A city known as tyre was moved right into the sea and thats what all of 26 tells us and specifically 19-20
meanwhile in this alleged unfulfilled prophecy you STILL have not addressed the long odds that A city was scraped into the sea in precisely the way Ezek said – an area also historically known as Tyre. just coincidence? Ezek just happened to hit upon what happened with the mainland hundreds of years later? he should have gone to vegas I say 🙂 Or are you going to claim that too is not unique?
By the way I did a Google search of cities in the area that you claimed as ancient cities were all the same making Tyre not unique and NONE of them I saw were anywhere even a quarter in ruins. NADA. Took a quick break but have to get back. Please address the text and points I made. You are using a lot of “I think”, I have a difficulty”,” I don’t see” “Ezekiel thought”
None of those are statements of fact or anything in the text amd doesn’t provide anything by way of data to move on with.
LikeLike
If we were talking about an individual, and there was a prophecy that said His head shall be burned and he will be destroyed, so that nothing is remaining and so that he cannot even be identified as a man anymore.
And the man’s head was burned (score for the prophecy) and he lost a leg… and that was all. was the prophecy completely fulfilled?
I think that’s how were’re seeing this. Ezekiel made out like tyre (not just part of it) was going to be annihilated – yet is wasnt. It made it sound like tyre (not only part of it), would never be rebuilt – yet is was.
I’m not sure if this helps clarify or not?
LikeLike
And mike, on the ancient cities in ruins thing, are you saying that in your search all of the ancient structures still exist and are being used? I may be missing your point, although not intentionally.
LikeLike
Nate,
I think it’s fair to disagree with even this statement. Nebuchadnezzar was clearly mentioned in this passage so anything that his armies achieved is fair to use as fulfillment. It seems like speculation to try and fit it to later events. We can try and read Alexander into the passage but I would have a hard time trying to sell this reading to someone else without feeling like I was stretching things to try and save the passage from failure. Nebuchadnezzar’s name is there and no others are mentioned. Why read other names in when they were not listed?
And this isn’t just 10 or 15 years later. Alexander’s siege was 241 years later. Everyone who Ezekiel was speaking to was surely dead and even several generations would have died seeing Ezekiel’s prophecy as unfulfilled. Ezekiel seems to even concede this in 29:18 and then he only mentions giving Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar and in chapter 29 doesn’t mention that later on his chapter 26 prophecy would be fulfilled by someone else.
LikeLike
“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.”
Nate to be honest you are just attempting to do nothing but move the conversation away from the present discussion. Yes I find some of the things Nate said to be consistent with 1 john and I said so and related how I had handled a similar situation . If you are asking me to not see the bible as true and take your word over it then thats a dead end. You can’t ask a believer to abandon “let God be true and every man a liar”. Again Past and present Christians should be able to understand that. I do see ample reasons in Nate’s situation to confirm I john. Sorry Its just the truth. I would have read every word in the original, every translation and been fully versed on the issues before denouncing my faith. Nate admits openly he didn’t know some basic things. I don’t accept his charge that that was me making claims based on not knowing him. I made those claims based on what he himself admitted to.
Not to incite anything which to be honest seems all your post was trying to do but If I have to accept that your word of being sincere real Christians overriding what 1 john says. I chose based on the evidence I see in this thread – 1 john.
IF anyone feels thats outrageous and wants to “blacklist” me again thats fine. I three quarter expect and expected it anyway. However anyone who was a Christian even nominally would understand that that position is not personal but also related to doctrine which I will not obligate myself to abandon because I am posting on a skeptic’s bog.
“So you can believe that we were never really Christians – I don’t see a problem with that.”
Yes of course thats why you wrote a long post just about not having a problem with it.
LikeLike
I agree with what William just said.
This is simply a manner of speaking. I use “I think,” “seems to me,” and other phrases like that to acknowledge that I could be wrong. I still reference specific verses, quote from other sources, etc, so there are plenty of data points there for us to discuss. But I won’t claim something’s a fact just to give it more force — I may believe something is a fact, or that I have a correct understanding of something, but I know from experience that I could be wrong about my beliefs.
Yes, I agree that when Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be cast into the sea, that was at least partially fulfilled by Alexander. I don’t know if it was done in the exact way Ezekiel imagined — but if that’s where the prophecy ended, I would find no fault with it. Whether it took divine insight to make that prediction, or whether it was just a lucky guess is a different conversation.
However, I’ve always viewed divine inspiration as infallible. So no matter how many points Ezekiel gets right, if he misses any major points, then I can’t say he was truly divinely inspired. If you don’t agree with the infallibility of scripture, then we won’t find anything to agree about in this prophecy — we’re just looking at it in different ways. For now, I’ll assume you agree that God’s word would be perfect, so just correct me if that’s an inaccurate assumption.
If Ezekiel prophesies that Tyre would be utterly (completely) destroyed, how can a partial destruction qualify as a fulfillment?
Who said it had to be rebuilt underwater? Looking at Google Maps, it’s obvious that the city encompasses the island, the causeway, and the mainland. Remember, the causeway was founded on debris from the old city, so in a way, I guess modern Tyre does sit on the underwater remains of the ancient mainland portion.
LikeLike
“1. When is the prophecy only talking about the mainland? Only when it specifically says so, or are their other instances?”
All of it was. You are free to show me any other passages that I have not dealt with that show the Island was the focus. Insisting on mainland will not work, in the midst of the sea in V5 properly refers to being thrown in the sea. All I see you really have left is 27 but thats a poem about a ship as tyre so of course it references in the sea.
Further 19-20 nails that the city was moved into the sea so it would not be inhabited – thats EXACTLY what the pasage says so clearly if it is to be rebuilt where it was removed to then to the sea and with goggles you must go. Ot mocking just trying to be funny (and lol probably failing)
Plus as I said – I don’t know how you would convince anyone that the mainland area was rebuilt while looking at a map. You are free to go and look
LikeLike
Howie, it doesnt specifically say that Neb’s army would scrape it clean. I do agree, that when reading it, it sure seems that way. and granted, now that i read it all well after the facts have transpired, once it gets to the “scraping” and the “casting into the sea” it says that god will do it, or that “they” will do it.
When reading the passages, and again well after the fact, it’s still hard to tell whether ezekiel intended for “they” to refer to the many nations or to neb’s men who entered the city through the broken gates.
Even so, there are other areas that still appear to be problematic. and i’m not saying it’s an outright score for the bible, as there is still some ambiguity surrounding ezekiel’s intentions regrading who was supposed to throw the stuff into the water, I’m just saying that I can see where a beliver would see it as a score, and I can leave it there.
again, I still think there are a couple of other areas that are not resolved.
1..it says the mainland would be scraped and thrown in the sea, but it says tyre would be under the sea. some or part? the text reads”tyre.” why isnt the whole thing underwater with only rocky parts to dry nest on? again, even if this is only talking about the rubble of the destroyed structures, then why wasnt the island’s building tossed in, and why is it that the parts of the island underwater even mentioned if it’s only referring to mainland building rubble?
and the others I mentioned earlier but am too tired to retype now…
LikeLike
Hi Howie,
I agree with you; however, early in chapter 26, Ezekiel does mention “many nations” attacking Tyre like “waves on the sea.” Some think that “many nations” refers to the diverse makeup of Nebuchadnezzar’s force, but others maintain that it includes attacks from folks like Alexander. I can see it either way, but I’m willing to concede that it could include Alexander’s attack. I find it suspect that Alexander wasn’t specifically named, since other parts of the OT claim that people like Josiah and Cyrus were named long before they were even born. But since there are other, larger issues with this prophecy (in my opinion), I don’t push too much on the Alexander thing.
Again, that’s just me, and I see why some people have a larger problem with it than I do.
LikeLike
This is plainly and utterly false – there is absolutely no doubt in my mind. You made statements I felt needed response to and I made no attempt to try and sabotage the much better discussion you guys are currently having regarding the passage. You want an angry atheist and you’ve got one – not because I’m angry at a god. I am angry that you insist over and over again on making statements like these about integrity that are just totally off from what is true.
This seems to be your main problem Mike. Just like somehow you thought a while back that when I said “picture” I was trying to mislead people into thinking that “picture” meant a picture taken by a camera. Mike, please google “define picture”. Are you jumping right away to integrity statements because you automatically have a preconceived notion of the sincerity of those who disagree with you? Is it impossible that someone can disagree with Mike Anthony and be sincere at the same time?
I am ready to drop this right now – I DID NOT intend it to move the conversation away from Tyre. Are you willing to drop it?
By the way, even with these behaviors of yours I see no reason to blacklist you. But I won’t keep silent either.
LikeLike
Btw, as far as other cities are concerned, places like Rome, Jerusalem, and London all have some old buildings, some visible ruins, and many more modern buildings that have been built upon what came before. Unless someone wants to argue that Rome, Jerusalem, and London have ceased to exist because they have layers and layers of “new construction,” then I see no reason to say that Tyre has ceased to exist.
LikeLike
yeah, mike, i get that there’s a huge field on the mainland, but I see building as well, but i guess we may have to agree to disagree.
and I guess now, if i understand right, we no longer think the prophecy referred to both parts, but to only the mainland now that you think the prophecy was only talking about the building materials being thrown into the sea?
and if all of the prophecy is only talking about the mainland, then why did it specifically say that the mainland would encounter certain things, and then tyre would encounter others?
again, to me it looks likes saying your knee was scraped, and you were destroyed, but in reality, your knee was scraped and you were punched in the stomach.
and I guess buried building blocks couldnt be re-inhabited, but that sounds like a very safe and flat prophecy. besides, tyre has now built on top of all of that rubble, so i think a case for being re-inhabited is still pretty good.
the source of tyre’s wealth and status was the island… I dont know, mike. It sounds like a Nostradamus prediction; vague here and there, is it the whole city or part, “never being rebuilt” only refers to the original building material as the city was rebuilt…
what else am i missing?
LikeLike
Nate and William,
I think if one wanted to they could save the passage using this technique. The question remains how reasonable it is of course. I think it is fair to have an opinion either way and I respect either one, but given my points above I lean one way.
If next year or in 20 years a nation came and fulfilled everything in this passage are you guys good then? We may be able to end the discussion right now then based on that. I don’t think you can say the prophecy is a failure if 241 years later it’s partially fulfilled. Why couldn’t 2500 years later it be fulfilled fully? I have no problem if this is your assessment but you should think about it. It may be this passage really is not as big a problem for you as you think. (can’t believe I am helping Mike out 😉 – I got over my anger quickly, I’m funny that way).
LikeLike
Howie, good point, and I absolutely agree. Just like nate, I was merely saying it’s close enough for a believer and there are other issues to discuss that arent so ready tossed aside.
But I agree. Often we’re told that parts of the bible, we’re having a hard time making sense of, god was writing in a way so that the people of the time would understand; and then parts that the people of long ago wouldnt have understood, go was writing a book for all time and all people. convenient way of doing things, or inconvenient – depending on your viewpoint.
LikeLike
Mike,
Sorry to make you think I’m trying to derail again, but just realized that you missed my point entirely probably because I wrote too much – you and all other Christians have absolutely no way of knowing whether you are saved or not given what you are trying to state.
Ok, I fully read your comment now so I’m done with this – please please move on to Tyre – I helped you out on that if you didn’t notice.
LikeLike
“Yes, I agree that when Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be cast into the sea, that was at least partially fulfilled by Alexander. I don’t know if it was done in the exact way Ezekiel imagined — but if that’s where the prophecy ended, I would find no fault with it. ”
Good nate then show me where it goes on beyond the city being covered by the Sea. IF you can’t then by your own admission you can find no fault with it and your unfulfilled prophecy claim fails utterly
“But I won’t claim something’s a fact just to give it more force’
You missed my point entirely. I was not asking you say anything was a fact. I was asking you to deal with the post I made and the points I made not side step them as you did. When you reference for example what Ezekiel could have thought or did think- I mean seriously what in the world can be done with that? It has no point. we can’t deal with what he thought or considered outside of the text.
“If Ezekiel prophesies that Tyre would be utterly (completely) destroyed, how can a partial destruction qualify as a fulfillment?”
simple because it wasn’t partial. If Tyre being referred to is mainland Then its total in STUNNING fashion with all of it swpet into the sea by Alexander. Sorry no problem with infallibility there. Really you are just trying to claim that tyre is not interchangeable and EZEK 26 must refer to the island. Only none of your proof texts have held up as such.
The mainland is the after all the portion that would benefit most from Jerusalem’s fall and allow itto take more of the land
“Who said it had to be rebuilt underwater?”
Ezek does. please go back and read. Like I said you are not addressing the passage of 19-20. the she is the city and the city is in the water and it gets there by being scraped there. its all right there in the text.
“Looking at Google Maps, it’s obvious that the city encompasses the island, the causeway, and the mainland. ”
Mainland? Where? The ruins of Tyre is what shows on Google maps and it cannot be rebuilt. it could not be more obvious. The city limits ends just about where the mainland would have been. No way you can make that one fly
If you are trying to say mainland tyre was rebuilt because theres an isthmus and Island (less than half way built) thats of no force at all. Building next to the old city does not mean building the old city. That point is not even worthy of being debated much.
LikeLike
“This seems to be your main problem Mike.”
Here we go again but nah not trying to resurrect charges and claims. sheesh blacklist me who cares? I’ll still say it – thats soo dishonest
LikeLike
” Unless someone wants to argue that Rome, Jerusalem, and London have ceased to exist because they have layers and layers of “new construction,” then I see no reason to say that Tyre has ceased to exist.”
Sorry Nate as a strawman thats not even a good one. When you show me Jerusalem half in ruins or under water I will agree its not rebuilt consistent with good old Nehemiah’s usage. until then claiming the state of Tyre even on the isles is normal for ancient cities is an utter failure in addressing the fact of contemporary usage.
LikeLike
mike, ezekiel said the mainland would be scraped and tossed, and then it said tyre would be destroyed, covered by the sea, never rebuilt, never found, etc. the island was a huge part of tyre and arguably the more significant member. why say “tyre,” which represents the whole, when you only meant one part.
earlier you kept saying we couldnt say tyre was rebuilt, when only half of it was (which still confuses me because it never claimed “will never be rebuilt as it was”). well then why are you trying to say that total destruction is fitting to a partial destruction?
and i’d like to point out, that until very recently you viewed the prophecy as we did, that is referring to it’s geography, not exclusively it’s building materials. Under that way of thinking, the prophecy is an undeniable failure. I still think it fails, but wanted to point out your change in view during this discussion, so acting as if we’re simple minded or purposely trying to “not see” the prophecy as it is is disingenuous.
LikeLike
Mike,
😀
LikeLike
“Sorry Nate as a strawman thats not even a good one. When you show me Jerusalem half in ruins or under water I will agree its not rebuilt consistent with good old Nehemiah’s usage. until then claiming the state of Tyre even on the isles is normal for ancient cities is an utter failure in addressing the fact of contemporary usage.”
mike, i’m confused. I think I really do need a good definition on how you mean “build” and “rebuild.”
there’s ruins on tyre and new structures on tyre. thee other cities mentions mentioned have ruins and new structures. where’s the strawman?
LikeLike
“yeah, mike, i get that there’s a huge field on the mainland, but I see building as well, but i guess we may have to agree to disagree.”
🙂 You know what given how you have been pretty fair so far today I am going to go out on a limb and say – i don’t think we do disagree. I think deep down you know and will probably admit soon that that area is NOT a rebuilt city. it just might take you a little time to get around to it.
“and I guess now, if i understand right, we no longer think the prophecy referred to both parts, but to only the mainland now that you think the prophecy was only talking about the building materials being thrown into the sea?”
as I said before I have given you two answers. I still don’t think on the island you have a good point either. There is no ancient city in the entire area I have seen despite Nate’s claims that meets being half in ruins or under sea. It fails the usage of the word built in those days and even today
“and if all of the prophecy is only talking about the mainland, then why did it specifically say that the mainland would encounter certain things, and then tyre would encounter others?”
It doesn’t. We’ve covered this. There is no “mainland” in the entire Hebrew text . the word everywhere else in the Bible is interpreted field and the septaugint which is the greek version states field as well.
“and I guess buried building blocks couldnt be re-inhabited, but that sounds like a very safe and flat prophecy.”
You shall be scraped into the sea? safe prophecy?:) GO ahead how me where else that happened.
“besides, tyre has now built on top of all of that rubble, so i think a case for being re-inhabited is still pretty good.”
Nope. As the ithmus indicates by its rapid widening and as I have provided links to the locals admitting – the ruins disappearing into sediment build up – If anyone is living down there they have a really big air tank and some shovels. Its down there in…nah let me let Ezek say it
“down to the pit, to the people of old time…..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. (which is above ground)
Its a remarkable Prophecy so remarkable that even when sceptic bloggers try to claim its unfulfilled the text still comes back and bites their claim in the rear. 🙂
Destroyed? check
scraped into the sea unlike just about any other city? check
City moved into the pit ? Check
uninhabited down in the lower parts of the earth? check
Bonus? area above the sea level unrebuilt on the mainland and protected by the uN from ever being built?
Shucks its freaking awesome . 🙂
:)…sorry guys your unfulfiled prophecy is quite the bust once you look at all the text and do proper research beyond the english version you choose.
LikeLike
“and i’d like to point out, that until very recently you viewed the prophecy as we did ”
I still do WIlliam. I stated before I see two ways of seeing this prophecy and either one does not meet the unfulfilled status no matter what you claim. I specifically said to you in one of our heated exchanges that two answers are better than one
“I still think it fails, but wanted to point out your change in view during this discussion”
Again the second view does not change my view on ruins not being built. Its still a fact no matter how it is denied that Nehemiah in the very same Bible reveals Build does not mean still lie in waste. The mere presence of buildings does not change that tyre as a city is not rebuilt. You can look at half the area on the Old island in ruins and you can see he mainland in no shape way or view as a rebuilt city. That said yes. I do see the mainland focus as a lot stronger than I did before and I still have not heard how you can overcome that the prophecied end of tyre is to be placed in the water in the midst of the sea. its what the passage says – not merely be surrounded by it.
“so acting as if we’re simple minded or purposely trying to “not see” the prophecy as it is is disingenuous.”
Thats funny I don’t recall saying that to you. Do I think Nate is dancing. yes I do but I have not thought you were. I just finished complimenting you on being fair in fact. However regardless of any previous views if one finds new evidence, gets new data and still will not address it then at some point it does become “not wanting to see”. I am not saying anyone is there yet but Nate IS leaning there.
LikeLike
“there’s ruins on tyre and new structures on tyre. thee other cities mentions mentioned have ruins and new structures. where’s the strawman?”
WOW! I mean how many times do I have to say it? I’ve said it like twenty times in this thread. NO ONE..NEVER EVER has stated that other cities do not have some ruins. Thats EXACTLY why its PURE straw to raise that as an objection to my point. What i have said over and over again is that no city in the region has over half its prior location underwater or in ruins. Sidon up the road does not ave it, Lowly Nazereth to the south doesn’t. Haifa? no. Damascus? No
The claim that Tyre is just like any of these ancient cities is just nonsense.
LikeLike