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 
Havent been able to read everything yet, but regarding your first comment about there not being a rebuilt city – I’d have to take another look back at all teh maps (past a present) before i concede that the mainland portion was not rebuilt.
However, i still think tyre included island and mainland, so for now at least, i’ll say I still think it’s very safe to say tyre is still there, rebuilt and repopulated.
LikeLike
why are we saying that there must be an ancient city present for the meaning “rebuilt” to hold true? all that would do that is for there to be an existing city, which there is.
LikeLike
I will concede this point, I do not think anyone is living is buried, torn down building materials. I think we can agree there.
LikeLike
“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.”
okay, so field. same question then, just insert “field.”
LikeLike
okay, so ezekiel was saying that the fields of tyre would be scraped clean, with it’s building, etc thrown into the sea. and that tyre (although he still means “actual building material which only applied to the fields of tyre”) will never be rebuilt nor reinhabitted?
and when ezekiel said that tyre would be covered water, he meant “actual building material that was built in tyre’s field?”
am I understanding now?
LikeLike
“The mere presence of buildings does not change that tyre as a city is not rebuilt.”
I guess, but I think that the cluster, teh grouping, the usage and the naming do indicate that tyre was rebuilt.
I think if we asked a resident of the present city, whether they lived in a city or not, that they would answer that they did in fact live in a city. sure, there opinion would be proof, but a grouping of occupied buildings, under a single name, typically means it;s a city. it built by someone. and since, like many other anient cites, it was sacked, it looks like it was rebuilt.
“I just finished complimenting you on being fair in fact.” thanks for the compliment.
I wouldnt say that nate is dancing any more than you are, i think maybe we’re all still not understanding each other’s terms perfectly. there have been something that I dont think you answered of his, so this seems to be more of coming at it from different angles and applying different meanings to words.
LikeLike
“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.”
that’s all very well, but it doesn’t negate the similarities either. you’re saying that tyre cant be said to have been rebuilt, yet there are visible ruins and actively used structures – regardless of size or quantity. It is possible to rebuild smaller or bigger than before and that happens all the time.
so if new building dont count as being rebuilt, or haven been rebuilt on top of old building materials doesnt count, then what’s the definition of “rebuilt” and which city meets that definition? The presence of water around or in or whatever to city has nothing to do with how rebuilt it is – it’s the structures that determines that.
so i’m not so sure it’s us who’s missed the point, but perhaps I’m mistaken.
LikeLike
“I think if one wanted to they could save the passage using this technique. The question remains how reasonable it is of course”
Nate I tell you what? Open Ezekiel 26 and read 19 and 20 and tell me then that the text does not put the city into the sea moving it into the depth. Theres a technique in there alright
its called prophecy.
If anyone “saved it’ it was Ezekiel and umm God.
Anyway good thing I run my own business or I would get fired. Later……well unless I am “blacklisted again” lol
LikeLike
are going off of how it reads or how it should read in order to workout?
LikeLike
you know, I was rereading back through the passages and something occurred to me. If the “they” in verse 12 means that ezekiel was through speaking about Neb, there’s nothing in the context to necessitate that they are still speaking about the “fields/mainland” exclsuivlely anymore.
a simple reading of the entire text, mike, seems to always indicate ezekiel meant that tyre, and not just a portion of it, was going to be destroyed completely and perminnatly. so far, you havent solidified your case that ezekiel really meant anything other than all of tyre.
and even if the actual brinks and pieces of lumber werent going to lived in again, the city certainly was and is – which is what ezekiel was talking about.
true, the building materials were thrown in the sea, but it doesnt even make sense to say that no one would live in broken bricks any more, Ezekiel was obviously talking the city as being uninhabited and never rebuilt.
he was just wrong.
after reading this passage several times today, I’m going back to wondering why we’re even having a discussion. Ezekiel says X and Y happened.
and if the ancient peoples understood these terms differently than I am applying them, please present your sources and evidence of such.
LikeLike
William,
Again William, I don’t think given what you have said previously you can still say he was wrong. You said you’d be fine accepting the prophecy as fulfilled if 241 years later Alexander totally destroyed the city and fulfilled everything to the letter. Given that methodology you cannot say he was wrong. You can only say that it looks like it is not fulfilled yet, but you can’t say he was wrong.
At some point you’d obviously run into a statistical issue which questions whether it’s miraculous or not, but you still can’t say he was wrong if you allow taking the passage out of it’s context in the first place regarding Alexander.
LikeLike
touche, howie. I agree with you now and on your earlier point to the same affect – I was merely… oh well, i think you’re right and I think ezekiel was wrong.
I was entertaining mike’s points in order to see if i missed anything in my consideration, yet even so, i still see several gaps in logic.
I think it is safe to assume you and I are really on the same page here,as I think is often the case.
maybe you and I are even the same person, but with different experiences. doesnt make sense, i know, but i thought i’d type it regardless.
LikeLike
“true, the building materials were thrown in the sea, but it doesnt even make sense to say that no one would live in broken bricks any more, Ezekiel was obviously talking the city as being uninhabited and never rebuilt.”
Lol…….. the passage flat out says that it will be underwater so that it will not be uninhabited but it makes no sense to you??….too funny…. Its just so obvious you can’t handle what that passage says because it puts a serious dent in your unfulfilled prophecy.
and then before that you have the nerve to ask
“are going off of how it reads or how it should read in order to workout?’
when its you trying desperately to twist out of what the passage says.
LikeLike
“it” being tyre.
mike, no one disagrees with you that buried building materials will be uninhabited. Ezekiel says tyre will be uninhabited.
as simple reading of text gives the impression ezekiel, claiming to speak for god, said that tyre would be completely and permanently destroyed. yes, he specifically spoke for a moment about the fields or what scholars have translated to the mainland, but then he speaks in general about the city tyre.
I think it’s twisting the passage to try and insist that ezekile was only talking about the actual building material that rested in the field of tyre.
LikeLike
Sorry if this is tedious, but I’m going straight back to the source. I’m using the ESV, so if anyone has a problem with that, feel free to say so.
So God is judging Tyre because of its attitude toward Jerusalem. These were current events to Ezekiel, so it would make sense that if God is upset with the residents of Tyre during Ezekiel’s time, then those are the people he’s going to wreak havoc upon.
So “they” — the “many nations” will break down Tyre’s walls and towers and make her a bare rock. Tyre will be plundered, and its dependent villages will be destroyed.
Now Ezekiel gets more specific and says that Nebuchadnezzar will bring his army against Tyre and destroy the dependent villages, set up a siege wall, use a battering ram, and break down Tyre’s towers. His horses, wagons, etc will enter the city and trample the streets. The pillars will be broken down and the people will be killed.
In verse 12, he switches pronoun use from “he” to “they.” There’s never any clarification given to whom “they” is, which is very poor grammar. The closest antecedent would be Nebuchadnezzar’s army, who have supposedly already broken down the towers and entered the city. Maybe someone could argue that the change in pronouns means Ezekiel’s talking about someone other than Nebuchadnezzar entirely, but that’s simply speculation. The strongest case, grammatically, is that he’s still talking about Nebuchadnezzar’s army. That case is strengthened by the fact that the next things to happen are all things that would naturally follow an army breaching the gates to the city: they would plunder the city, tear down all the walls and buildings, and throw everything into the sea. The music of Tyre would be heard no more — it would simply be a bare rock. It would never be rebuilt, and the most activity that would be seen on it would be fishermen spreading nets.
All of Tyre’s neighbors will be struck by the devastation that would befall Tyre.
How literally do we take this section? If the city is literally going to be underwater, then why would Ezekiel need to say that it would never be inhabited or rebuilt? Those statements are entirely unnecessary if we’re to understand that the city of Tyre can never be considered independently of the inhabitants of Ezekiel’t time or of the actual buildings and materials that formed the city back then. But that’s a really bizarre way of thinking about a city. We think of no other cities in that way.
And if one is going to maintain that when Ezekiel talked about Tyre he only meant the mainland, then why point to Alexander’s attack at all? No one disputes that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland section of Tyre.
Also, as we’ve mentioned before, Ezekiel himself says that Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts failed (29:18):
And it also goes against earlier Bible passages that talk about the wealth of Tyre, which we all know was due to its status as a trading center. No one disputes that the harbors were on the island; therefore, the other vital parts of the city would have been on the island as well. How else could they have easily transported the goods from the ships, when the major harbors were on the island?
Mike, I give you credit for your tenacity. But the fact that you have to go to great lengths to make Ezekiel’s prophecy match only the mainland is good evidence that there’s a problem with the prophecy.
Simply put, Ezekiel said Tyre would be completely destroyed and never rebuilt, but that just did not happen.
LikeLike
Btw, if there are any bystanders who are simply watching this exchange, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. It doesn’t appear that Mike, Howie, William, or I are going to change our positions — we simply view this in completely different ways. But if there’s anyone out there whose mind wasn’t made up at the outset, has this discussion helped at all, or are we just wasting time?
LikeLike
Oh, and there’s one more point I forgot to make concerning verses 19-21. If we’re going to take it completely literally, then not only must Tyre be underwater, it must be among ruins and dead people from all over the world:
LikeLike
I find it odd that so much time is spent on this one bible prophecy. Even if there was a consensus agreement to be made on this one little bible difficulty that favored the christian apologist. There are still countless other discrepant bible prophecies, lgoical contradictions, immoral acts by God, and well over 1000 documented bible contradictions in the bible.
To be fair and honest, solving one little bible contradiction in prohecy does not turn the tide.
LikeLike
“So God is judging Tyre because of its attitude toward Jerusalem. These were current events to Ezekiel, so it would make sense that if God is upset with the residents of Tyre during Ezekiel’s time, then those are the people he’s going to wreak havoc upon.”
And Neb did so I fail to see the point, Further the issue that Tyre was to be addressed for was looking to be enriched by Jerusalem’s fall something much more related to the mainland than the island since Tyre on the mainland held land lock with Israel
“In verse 12, he switches pronoun use from “he” to “they.” There’s never any clarification given to whom “they” is, which is very poor grammar.
The they is the many nation mentioned before. there is no grammar problem and seriously – you know Hebrew to know what is bad grammar in Hebrew?
“The strongest case, grammatically, is that he’s still talking about Nebuchadnezzar’s army.”
nope that argument falls flat on its face – Neb is referred to as he. the specifics start out in verse 7 with the Hebrew FOR indicating the beginning of how this would all happen. its all singular and you are tying to ignore that in defiance of grammar not in support of it. Neb and his army are referred to operating under what HE would do. The they is to the nations. The shift in pronoun is undeniable and obvious considering the he that proceeded it. Its just miraculous though that when it does switch pronouns the fulfilment begins to be made by other leaders. 😉 Old Ezek just happened to make the change in pronouns just when he started talking about what later Alexander would do. What are the odds eh?
“it would simply be a bare rock. It would never be rebuilt, and the most activity that …. would be seen on it would be fishermen spreading nets.”
As verse 19-20 PROVES and you are now ignoring again the city is to be put under water. I’ve asked how you reconcile that but you have not answered (probably because it can’t be denied what is stated there). it also doesn’t say a thing about activity. Thats just made up.
“How literally do we take this section? If the city is literally going to be underwater, then why would Ezekiel need to say that it would never be inhabited or rebuilt? ”
19-20 show that you have that entirely backward so much so the question doesn’t even make sense once you read it .the passage straightforward says that it will be covered with water SO THAT it will not be inhabited. How you get redundancy out of that i have no idea.
“And if one is going to maintain that when Ezekiel talked about Tyre he only meant the mainland, then why point to Alexander’s attack at all? ”
Umm he scrapes the ruins into the SEA fulfilling the prophecy???
“Also, as we’ve mentioned before, Ezekiel himself says that Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts failed (29:18):”
Nate go ahead and show me the word fail. this is probably one of the most nonsense claims of the whole argument made by sketpics. It states no such thing – it states that
“yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against her.”
All that says is he did not get wages out of Tyre for whatever reason (wealth escaped to boats, the isle or whatever.) not that he achieved nothing there. As a matter of fact if a job was not accomplished there there would be no reason for wages. the passage actually says he did do a service and not only a service but a GREAT service which makes absolutely no sense if he accomplished nothing. This is one ofthe classic begs of the Till contingency that is a complete non-sequitor and goes splat on closer examination
“Mike, I give you credit for your tenacity. But the fact that you have to go to great lengths to make Ezekiel’s prophecy match only the mainland is good evidence that there’s a problem with the prophecy.”
Well…..I guess if by lengths you mean actually looking at the passage , what it says , the hebrew (in a hebrew document no less what a thought? 🙂 ), allowing the passage to say what it does say in 19-20 instead of attempting to ahem…. ignore it), actually applying some scholarship to reading a text within its contemporary usage as ALL experts claim must be done rather than begging on bended knee that it does not matter then of course you feel that way. I would expect you would. I’ve told you before you conveniently exerted little effort in dealing with the text most likely from years ago or you would have known about such things as “Daughters in the fields” (just the most widely read translation in all world) rather than hearing it the first time here.
I’ve set out to do what I aimed to do and that was to show that only by ignoring the various meanings of Hebrew, begging that one translation is right to shoe horn an interpretation and generally ignoring parts of the text can anyone claim that Ezekiel 26 is an unfulfilled prophecy.
I’ve done that better than I even thought I would. Seeing you retreat/hand wave around from today’s points on verses 19-20 sealed that realization. Thanks for the opportunity
LikeLike
“The they is the many nation mentioned before. there is no grammar problem and seriously – you know Hebrew to know what is bad grammar in Hebrew?”
do you? what are your credentials?
and again, we’re all reading from the english, which was transliterated bu scholars. so looking at the grammar makes perfect sense. If the scholars who translated the bible were wrong, what is a more accurate translation?
LikeLike
“Oh, and there’s one more point I forgot to make concerning verses 19-21. If we’re going to take it completely literally, then not only must Tyre be underwater, it must be among ruins and dead people from all over the world:”
A true sign you are getting desperate with 19-20 and its obvious implications that destroy your position. For goodness sake man. Apply a little study – the word your treasured translation is claiming is world is eres which means land. It can be a land of a nation around a city – just land. I’m sorry but its baffling that a former alleged Christian would give up his a faith without even looking at the original language the Bible was written in or even another translation. Did you do nothing but read Till?
LikeLike
“All that says is he did not get wages out of Tyre for whatever reason (wealth escaped to boats, the isle or whatever.) not that he achieved nothing there.”
the passage says that tyre would be looted. neb didnt do that – but to be fair, alexander could have – although Howie makes a great point, that is the passage was written to people who would have thought it was coming soon, not hundreds of years later.
again, mike, everyone agrees that rubble was tossed into the sea. everyone agrees that no one will inhabit or dwell in rubble whether above or below the sea.
What we’re saying, is that when reading ezekiel, it is saying that the city, that is tyre, will not be lived in again – not the old materials – that really is just silly.
When chicago was burned down, did it have to be rebuilt with the burned up timbers in order to be considered rebuilt? I’m really not getting your definition.
seriously, can you just supply a definition for how you’re understanding “rebuild” and then supply a few actual examples to support it?
LikeLike
“do you? what are your credentials?
Seminary training.
“and again, we’re all reading from the english,
”
Sorry but you’ve mentioned this a couple times Theres just no excuse for such a lazy approach. There are free bible program s online that you can download and look up Hebrew and greek words. Claiming that you can study and understand fully Shakespeare in spanish without consulting the english it was written in is just utterly ridiculous.
I don’t have to know you or Nate – arguing the things you argue without even consulting other versions much less the original languages of the bible shows no effort consistent with having cared enough about your Christianity. Ban me from the blog for telling the truth on that. I am not being mean and I am not angry just telling it like it is. Theres more oomph and commitment to Christianity needed to name it. Even if you ended up abandoning the faith You should know these things inside and out not be begging out of knowing the things you should know if you had studied this issue or claiming well I will stick to englsih no matter what the hebrew says. Crazy stuff
LikeLike
” There are still countless other discrepant bible prophecies, lgoical contradictions, immoral acts by God, and well over 1000 documented bible contradictions in the bible”
been there seen that and they are weaker than the bible prophecy by far. I eat those alleged contradictions for breakfast. they are either so inconsequential to be anything meaningful or more usually the same kind of ignoring context and language as seen in this thread.
LikeLike
” I’m sorry but its baffling that a former alleged Christian would give up his a faith without even looking at the original language the Bible was written in or even another translation.”
cant speak for nate, but i consult an interlinear bible from time to time, but even when doing that i rely on the translated definitions provided by the scholars who translated the text.
which translation would you suggest we go from and how educated are you in ancient hebrew?
LikeLike