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 
“they are either so inconsequential to be anything meaningful”
you dont mean to suggest there are even little errors and/or contradictions in the bible do you?
LikeLike
“claiming well I will stick to englsih no matter what the hebrew says”
not what I said. I read and understand english,. and again, when i use an interlinear bible, showing the original text, I am still going off of the scholar’s translations because I dont read nor do I speak ancient hebrew.
Maybe if i werent so lazy i would have learned the ancient tongue and script, i’ll try to do better. How long did it take you to learn the language? did you learn it in seminary?
LikeLike
William, you said:
William – just wanted to make sure you know I wasn’t trying to be nit-picky or just win some point (I think you probably know that by now with me). I just want to try and make sure we’re all being careful with the interpretation to make sure we’re getting as close to possible to the original intentions. You probably also know that I believe that doing that is not as easy as any of us make it out to be (including what I make it out to be 😉 )
LikeLike
“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.”
and this isnt accurate, and I’d dare say not even honest, it’s certainly poorly formulated. we both consult different versions – nate has referenced several here, in this discussion. I can only assure you that we have consulted interlinear bibles before at many different times for many different occasions.
but your basely accusations do little for our discussion aside from distracting from the topic at hand.
perhaps I am just not as educated as you are, that very well could be, so then please post your definition of “rebuild” as well what a more accurate translation of the ancient hebrew should have been.
as I’ve said before, perhaps it’s merely that we are just misunderstanding one another’s terms.
LikeLike
“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.”
more desperation…the prophecy was fulfilled but not in the time frame expected although no such time table was ever presented in the prophecy as alleged. Thats your story and you are sticking to it?
“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.”
and more desperation. What does 19-20 identify the city as William. Why not answer this time. besides you don;t even have the mainland to help you. You know even if you hold to the city not being what the city was made out of The mainland was not rebuilt. I could have swore i just saw you admit that.
Your only real hope is to try again with claiming the island is the focus of the prophecy or you might have to concede that if its the mainland its ALL been fulfilled. The fulfilled non fulfilled prophecy
SO where is the verse that shows the island was the focus? Where? Nate has tried “mainland” but its not the regular meaning of the word. Cpter 27n but is almost all poetry envisioning the city as a ship. Nate has tried “borders in the heart of the sea” but all coastlands have borders in the heart of the sea. Meanwhile I have PROVEN that tyre is referred to in the Bible as having borders with Sidon and the ISLAND cannot have borders with SIDON.
SO what DO you have?
You have a tyre identified as sharing borders with Sidon and you have everything fulfilled in regard to that Tyre identified in the Bible. Doesn’t deny theres a Tyre on the Island also but reference does not have to be made to both. Simple
What you have is an utter failure in proving an unfulfilled prophecy
LikeLike
howie, you’re good. over the course of my time with this blog, I have come have tremendous respect for you; they way you think and write as well as how you deal with people.
LikeLike
“post your definition of “rebuild” as well what a more accurate translation of the ancient hebrew should have been.”
Good night no. I am not answering that question again. GO back and read. I’ve answered it like ten times and no you cannot logically accuse me of dishonesty. Nate claimed to have never heard of “daughters in the field” even though its right there in the most popular version of the Bible and you have claimed the English is sufficient because you speak it. Those are not my claims I made up about you . Those are things that you have said and none of those admissions are consistent with doing any real study of Ezekiel 26. they just are not.
LikeLike
“not what I said. I read and understand english,. and again, when i use an interlinear bible, showing the original text,”
and what interlinear told you desolate meant uninhabited as you claimed.That must be the world’s worse interlinear. but no i am not claiming anyone has to learn hebrew. Like I said download a free bible software with strong’s. That takes you 90% of the way and then not you but Nate can stop with the claim that usage of a word in another passage in the bible has no bearing on the meaning of a word rebuild elsewhere in the Bible. Its just a totally silly claim when studying languages and word meanings and yes it does tend to indicate theres a bias not an honest search for the truth. doesn’t prove it but its an indicator.
LikeLike
Wish you guys the best . Nothing productive in any of the replies I am getting here at the moment and its a time drainer
LikeLike
you’ve confused me every time. You seem to jump around and avoid ever being very specific. i havent seen a clean on concise definition from you. once i think i understand what you;re saying, you’ll say something to the contrary.
right now, from what you’ve said, it seems like you’re saying that “rebuilt” would only include using the original building materials, and constructing them in the original layout and footprint.
but that’s a little different from the real definition and usage, but again, I dont speak or read ancient hebrew. when I look up the hebrew word, the scholars have a transliterated it into “rebuild.” so i am asking for clarification from a you, a self proclaimed hebrew scholar, what is the definition for that word, as was originally intended.
if i missed your actual definition, help me out by cutting and pasting…
but i’ll be honest, i have serious doubts regarding your hebrew scholarship – I imagine you’re like me, and only read interlinear bibles, relying on english translations.
do you have any other education besides seminary? was it accredited?
LikeLike
mike, what does desolate mean? I just looked it up again in case I was mistaken, and I see it actually does mean uninhabited.
LikeLike
Nate,
Your long comment at 1:55pm is pretty much how I see it. I have a hard time trying to lift the passage out of it’s context and time-frame given what you say and given some of the points I made before.
For what it’s worth, some scholars do agree with keeping it in the context and time-frame, but I don’t think any conservative scholars agree with that. And some obviously suggest that only conservative scholars are the ones who want to honestly find out what is the truth about reality and everyone else just wants to prove what they would prefer to be true. I don’t hold to that, but I know some do. It’s clear everyone has biases.
Another interesting point is that there seems to be some discrepancy among manuscripts regarding that pronoun switch. Septuagint doesn’t seem to have the switch, but either way I don’t see the problem. The “they” fits perfectly well with the armies and it keeps those verses in the context of the people he was talking to and about. Again several scholars seem to agree with this so I don’t see why this is a dishonest approach.
You can even find some Christians online conceding to the failure of this prophecy. e.g. here. I’m not saying that their interpretation is correct because they are Christian, but it’s false to claim that atheists who think this interpretation makes more sense only do so because they do not want to believe in God.
LikeLike
William, this is a very kind thing of you to say and you didn’t have to say it. Thank you. Way more often than not, you and Nate and I see things from very close to the same perspective. To be honest I don’t think I deal with some people all that well. I am a bit too sensitive to people who play mind games and I haven’t figured out a good way to get over that in order to have a productive conversation with them. You’ve probably noticed I’m conversing with only you and Nate right now.
LikeLike
” The “they” fits perfectly well with the armies and it keeps those verses in the context of the people he was talking to and about. Again several scholars seem to agree with this so I don’t see why this is a dishonest approach.”
Howie its not my blog so i cant keep you from twisting. I never said anything about pronoun switch and being dishonest. Citing variants in the the septaugint does not prove the case either because then you have to determine which was the original and you can’t prove a non fulfillment. What is remarkable is that right where that change occurs is right where ALexander take up and we have that in some of our oldest manuscripts.
What is dishonest is not looking at 19-21 and only picking out “not found when i suits out of context and running as nate does from the implications of the rest and how it changes the end result of the entire prophecy with tyre the city CLEARLY being under water in the prophecy.
LikeLike
“right now, from what you’ve said, it seems like you’re saying that “rebuilt” would only include using the original building materials, and constructing them in the original layout and footprint. ”
This will be my last post on the subject because its obvious you guys can’t deal with what I have put before you. William You’ ve tried this lie before and I have corrected it and said I said nothing abut building materials and now you are back again with the exact same lie. Even with the ruins in the sea you can get your goggles and use any building material you like …lol
Here last time – rebuild is exactly as nehemiah used it
Nehemiah 2:3-5 (KJV)
3 And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
4 Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven.
5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it.
Here Neh states his city needs to be built because it lays waste even though there were buildings built in Jerusalem and people lived there
A house is built when it is ready to be lived in. A city is definitely not built when over half of the original city lies in waste. twist it, lie about it, whatever, knock yourself out. When you are all done the mainland will still be there unrebuilt by any standards and protected by the UN from even being rebuilt.
So either get the scuba gear on or go look for building permits on the mainland. times a wasting.
Theres a fulfilled prophecy you can actually try to go an unfulfill because Nate’s argument had the air let out of it by just reading the passage and looking at the original langauge. So book the ticket to Lebanon and go help him out by giving him more to work with. Thats you best shot because that Google map shot of the main land with it being in ruins – knocks your point out cold.
Bye.
LikeLike
Mike,
Ok, that wasn’t my point, but that’s no problem, I think we’ve all missed each other’s points on this post. You wouldn’t have agreed with my point anyway which was why I didn’t really think it was worth floating in your direction.
For all my whining I’m glad at least that I was able to read about somebody else’s point of view here. I always like reading different perspectives. Thanks for that.
LikeLike
“Btw, if there are any bystanders who are simply watching this exchange, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.”
And around and around it goes … and where it stops, nobody knows. 🙂
One thing does seem pretty obvious throughout this entire discussion, an agreement will never be reached between the main players.
I love reading the comments on Nate’s blog, but on this particular topic, its beginning to get awfully boring. (Sorry.)
LikeLike
Not trying to stir anything back up, since it looks like things are winding down, but I’ve been unable to comment for a few hours and wanted to answer a few remaining things.
First of all, my deconversion from Christianity was based on many things, not one prophecy. I did research this rather thoroughly before coming to a conclusion on it, and I believe my initial post shows that. Mike can criticize my approach all he likes, but the simple fact is this: everyone who commented on this thread obviously knows far more about this issue than the typical Christian. I spent a lot of time on it and looked at various translations. If I had seen the “field” thing before, I didn’t find it very significant and didn’t remember it when Mike mentioned it. It’s a fact that I don’t know Hebrew. However, it’s also a fact that Bible translators do know it, and they have reasons for translating words they way they do. Does God require us all to be scholars in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek just to decipher his word?
When it comes to this particular prophecy, Mike is forced to make it fit only the mainland portion of Tyre. That’s not something that can be proven from the context, however. In fact, far earlier portions of the New Testament reference the power and wealth of Tyre, which was gotten through its trade. No one denies that Tyre’s only harbors were on the island portion of the city, so to claim that Tyre wasn’t located on the island at this time is a huge stretch.
I think that Ezekiel’s prophecy applied to both the mainland and island portions of Tyre. Much fuss has been made over the Hebrew word that is translated “fields” in some versions and “mainland” in others. The word commonly means “field” or “land.” So when Ezekiel says something about Tyre’s “daughters on/in the field/land” it’s easy to see why many translators take the “land” or “mainland” view. Whether they’re right or not is somewhat irrelevant, as even “field” doesn’t mean Ezekiel couldn’t have also been talking about the island portion of Tyre. For Mike’s argument to work, he would have to show that Tyre was definitely not on the island at that time, and there’s no way to show that.
Consider this: if God really inspired Ezekiel, and the prophecy was only supposed to refer to the mainland, why wasn’t the prophecy more specific on that point? God would know what lay in store for Tyre’s future — he would know that the heart of Tyre would be centered on the island for most of its history; he would know that Tyre would continue to be rebuilt and would continue its identity as a trade hub for centuries after Nebuchadnezzar and centuries after Alexander; he would know comparing Tyre to a ship in chapter 27 and saying its borders were in the heart of the sea would further support the notion that Ezekiel is talking about the island. So why use any of that language, if Mike is correct in suggesting the prophecy only talked about the mainland?
Even if the prophecy was about the mainland, it’s still populated today as well:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tyre/@33.2696204,35.2075573,1790m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x151e7d902f915d95:0xcf0e3fc6fb997408
Mike’s big claim is that Tyre can’t be rebuilt because it was cast into the sea. How do you throw a city into the sea? At most, you can tear down its buildings and throw their materials into the sea. But is that the city itself? When New Orleans was devastated from Katrina, or Rome burned, or Atlanta burned, or Chicago burned, did those cities cease to exist? Or were they rebuilt? And did rebuilding them mean that we had to reuse burned or water-logged materials?
To suggest that this is what Ezekiel intended either makes Ezekiel or his audience buffoons. Why would you need to specify that a city wouldn’t be rebuilt with materials that had been torn down? When has anything ever been rebuilt that way?
So, Mike says that “rebuild” isn’t used the way we normally think of it, because Nehemiah used “rebuild” when talking about Jerusalem, even though it still had some buildings and people living there. But how is that different from Tyre? The Chicago fire did not level 100% of Chicago, but we still talk about it being “rebuilt.” The same happened with Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar only destroyed the mainland portion. And even though Ezekiel prophesied that he’d make off with lots of loot, Ezekiel says in chapter 29 that he actually didn’t. The island portion of the city was untouched. When Alexander took the island portion about 250 years later, he didn’t level the entire city. It was repopulated and the damage was repaired, leading to another long period of prosperity. Even if restricting “rebuilt” to how it was used in Nehemiah still causes this prophecy to fail.
I appreciate Mike’s ability to play word games and act as though the rest of us are crazy, but his approach is nothing but an effort to muddy the waters and claim victory. I know he won’t agree with that assessment (obviously), and he’ll actually accuse me of the same thing. But at the end of the day, it’s as simple as this:
Ezekiel said that Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. That has simply not happened. Instead of fighting so hard against that fact, why not accept it and start considering what that might mean for the big picture?
Mike, thanks for the discussion. Sorry this comment was so long, but I was trying to catch up on all I missed. We’re not going to agree. I’m sure you’ll have a response to some of what I’ve said here, so I might have short replies to any points you bring up. But I intend for this to be my last major point on this issue, so I’ll try to avoid being so wordy in the future.
Thanks
LikeLike
I’m impressed how respectful this exchange was for the most part, given how things started,
I think this willingness to have a more quality dialogue is noteworthy 🙂
I think that if something is found to be factual and true, then it should be acknowledged,
despite how that fact was presented or who it was presented by.
Not everything valuable and important to us can be proven or measured.
What’s important is to then assess what can be measured, what is factual, to the best of our ability. Like the dynamics of family relationships for example.
The facts we do have are not dependent on our preferences, We have different perspectives, but they should be aligned to the facts we have, not to select certain facts to fit our perspectives 🙂
But we are human after all, this is no easy task to strive for 🙂
LikeLike
“Like the dynamics of family relationships for example.”
was meant to be an example of – “Not everything valuable and important to us can be proven or measured”
I inserted it into the wrong sentence 🙂
LikeLike
mike, I guess I totally missed that you were defining “rebuilt” to be used in the way you said Nehemiah did. I wasnt lying, and I dont think you are now, although I think you’re twisting and stretching.
Nehemiah wanted to rebuild the temple and walls, primarily. And while there were buildings in jerusalem, it was the temple, to the jew, that gave it (the city of david) significance. To the non-jews who occupied Jerusalem prior to Nehemiah’s arrival, and during, Jerusalem was still a city.
I actually cant really believe you’re using nehemiah’s situation to define all of your terms when we’re talking about something in Ezekiel.
I cant tell if you’re so boisterous and insistent on calling people “liars”, etc in order to make it look like your position is better than it is, like some sort of theological puffer fish; or if you’re really convinced that the back and forths, and strict definitions based on a singular usages in specific, but differnt contexts, is totally sensible.
I guess I’m at a loss. I havent been using “rebuild” incorrectly. nehemiah was referring to the people and a city of the jews, when talking about jersusalem which at that time was without the temple and without jews. You dont know the definition of desolate, wont offer what you think it means, and insist that the rubble underwater isnt inhabited, and then say that you’re not referring to the rubble.
I’m trying to keep up. I’m an educated man, but I am just not following you. If you can look at a present day map of tyre, and know the city’s history, and can say that ezekiel’s prophecy of complete and permanent destruction was fulfilled, then there is nothing I can say to you. you just cant reason with unreasonable people – or at least, i cannot.
you cant even say, “well, i see what you mean, but…” I’m not the liar here, mike.
LikeLike
If the bible is considered inerent and there is so much argy-bargy about semantics and twisting words over the Tyre prophecy, then move to the Virgin Birth prophecy, a more blatant piece double-dealing spurious nonsense you are unlikely to find. And if one prophecy is shown to be fraudulent rubbish then there is no reason to suspect the rest aren’t either.
Period.
LikeLike
what he said
LikeLike
“then move to the Virgin Birth prophecy, a more blatant piece double-dealing spurious nonsense you are unlikely to find.”
that would be something new and less boring than Nate’s fabricating and lying about me and my position in his last post (and yeah Nate if you want a list of where you lied about my position I’d be glad to furnish it and I’ll leave out where you finally came clean and went back to your Clinton like accusation I was supposedly to accept your apology for – incidentally proving a HIGH degree of hypocrisy).
just one question for the new subject though. IF you and your blog crew claim looking at context, hebrew meaning of words and word usage is “word games” (what a load of garbage) and anything requiring study according to nate means its uninspired because its not easy for the lazy then whats to stop you from saying the same in another thread.
Hint even if we never get to that debate – why was the kid specifically asked to come along in the Virgin birth passage? the whole thing starts to unravel there but ooooh it might take some study so Mike will be playing “word games” (again what a load of garbage -looking at the verses, and the words and their usage is word games – biased to the core and finding truth my eye lol 🙂 )
LikeLike
LOL….I see now where William thinks Nehemiah is the only one hat uses “build” that way. Read em and weep. I said I was done on this subject but nate’s and William’ fabrications test the resolve. 🙂
2 Chronicles 8:1-2 (Darby)
1 And it came to pass at the end of twenty years, when Solomon had built the house of Jehovah and his own house,
2 that the cities which Huram had given to Solomon, Solomon built them and caused the children of Israel to dwell there.
twenty years?? but but but according to Nate and william a thing being built does not have to be even close to being finished before it can be said to be built??
Nehemiah 7:1 (KJV)
1 Now it came to pass, when the wall was built, and I had set up the doors, and the porters and the singers and the Levites were appointed,
What do you mean Nehemiah? the walls were only built after the doors has been put in place and it was ready but but but we all know when something is even less than half built its ctually built. 😉
Jeremiah 31:4 (KJV)
4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.Build thee and I will be rebuilt??
What?? that almost sounds like theres a point at which something is being built but not yet built until it reaches a certain point but but but William and Nate say thats not so Bible.
Haggai 1:2 (KJV)
2 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the LORD’S house should be built.
Haggai 1:4 (KJV)
4 Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?
But something being in waste and so not rebuilt is what Nehemiah said and William and Nate say thats just the context of Nehemiah – get with the program Haggai. Get with the program.
You guys are soo funny. The lengths you will go simply to avoid what every scholar knows you have to do when reading an ancient text – read contemporary usage – just to fuel your own bias and atheist agenda you call twisting and word games. Obvious and pathetic ploy.
LikeLike