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 
“, why not accept it and start considering what that might mean for the big picture?”
thats just the thing nate. You failed to make your proof verses work and you KNOW IT. No one needs to accept your conclusion just because you were lazy and sloppy and didn’t do your homework. Begging does not substitute for proving your point. The facts of the text prove your failure. thats why you have been reduced to “i think Ezek could” and “Ezek thought”. All because your alleged powerful proof has crumbled for the rot (water reference -couldn’t resist) it always was
No?
Well then may I ask – Do you have any proof that the Tyre referenced by Ezek was definitely not the mainland city? Because from what I see everything you have depended on for that to stick has gone down in flames
1)”mainland” is not the normal meaning of field
2) “place” does not exist in v5
3) ezekiel 19-21 makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the end of tyre is to be under water not a rock above sea level
4) borders in the midst of the sea applies to any coastal area
5) chapter 27 is a metaphor of a ship out at sea
6) daughters slain by the sword are people not a walled city like old Tyre
7) port trade has nothing NADA to do with why Tyre was attacked but land trade was which relates to mainland tyre
8) The Bible itself refers to Tyre as on the mainland ( I haven’t missed you squirming away from answering how tyre the isle can border Sidon).
what have you got left besides begging and pleading? Nothing which is why you hand wave now that all my posts are nothing but attempts to muddy the water,
All your proofs are at best dubious.You have no way of proving the mainland was not the focus. If you do then present it but no you don’t. Your research was shoddy not only on this but just about everything I have read from you. Why don’t you give up and accept the wider implications. You exposed and are exposing your family to distress for no really good reason
“Ezekiel said that Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. That has simply not happened”
Really nate. I’ll just skip all the bare faced lying and dancing you just did about me and my position and just ask the question
how do you propose that with no city on the mainland area where tyre was, the entire city scraped into the midst of the sea and even the mainland being protected from being rebuilt as a city you are going to make that lie float? By ignoringd many nations coming up one after the other like the waves of the sea? Or with pretending as follows –
“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
When even William has had to admit theres no city on the mainland (I guess he will have to recant now). What? are you hoping that people will not realize the land they see with houses is on the isthmus?and they’ll miss that big area on the mainland marked ruins of tyre? Talk about twisting. You are getting truly desperate
LikeLike
“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”
Poor Nate. Flailing ever since being shown vs 19-21. No actually the only way to get you argument to stick is to insist on “mainland” when it translated that nowhere else , ignore that in the midst of the seas later refers to being thrown into it and have a fortified city slain by the
sword in contradiction to how the expression is used. In other words You nate are forced to take words in ways they are never used anywhere else, ignore the context and deny word usage in contemporary documents. I have proven this very easily and all just to make your unfulfilled prophecy narrative stick. but I mean all that twisting is just fine for you though right? now that you feel you don’t have to answer to WWJD.
” 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.”
A) You are now resorting to lying about my position. theres been more than enough posts and data from me for anyone to know that no one is denying there was a tyre on the Island.
B) claiming that where the harbors is is the only place that could be referred to is a huuuuuge stretch and obvious twisting. Where did you dredge that up from?
C)you showed you haven’t read any of the links where references are given that identify BOTH as tyre.
In addition you have just completely skipped the whole reason that Tyre was to be attacked – for rejoicing in Jerusalem’s destruction because it would bring LAND TRADE – not sea port trade Nate. That land trade included agriculture that would be grown and reared on the mainland and so the people most likely to be rejoicing at Jeruslem’s misfortune would be on the mainland unless you think they lived on the island and not on their land (shipped the cows and goats each night by ferry?). Context Nate …context. read not pontificate
“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.”
Desperate nonsense and a pretty intellectual dishonest ploy (and you dare to accuse me of word games). “Mike’s argument” need only show that there was a tyre on mainland and the focus of the prophecy could be there. You are confused Nate. Mike is not the one claiming this passage proves beyond all doubt errancy and non fulfillment. Mike only has to show that ezek could have been referring to the mainland and so may not be a non fulfillment and your claims go poof. You’ve got the burden of proof all wrong.Your begging and TWISTING hard but it doesn’t work
“”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? ”
Mike’s big claim or Ezekiel’s?? whose he talking to Nate?? Can you even read past your bias?
Ezekiel 26:19-20 (KJV)
19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;
and how does the rest of the passage before says that happens? Simple
”
“thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.”
theres nothing else in the entire passage that explains how tyre gets covered by water but being thrown there and its sure as day referring to the city. Your points are always so lightweight and you are now reduced to arguing with the text itself.
But let me guess thats mike playing word games by forcing you to look at the text just so ahem he can muddy the waters. of course. what else can you say?
I could blow all your other points and lies out of the water including the Mike says we should take build differently repeat lie – when you already admitted to the meaning rebuilt I use when it comes to a house but fudged on applying it to a city. Are you now saying a house with half finished ruins is rebuilt? Such silliness.
Heres whats really got you stuck. every proof text that 26 has to be directed at Tyre-the-port rather than mainland has been blown up AND YOU KNOW IT. Thats why you made up this
false burden of proof and other fabrications. Then of course you use the poor logic you use everywhere – If its not clear to me and mine or if it requires some research and is not as simpleas a grilled cheese that means its not inspired,
Its more or less one of your fall back fallacious arguments. if I have to really study a text then it proves God didn’t write it. i’ve read you – you use this horribly weak line of reasoning in everything. Its nonsense (and thats putting it lightly).
God says nations would come up like waves crystal clear one after each other but ummm I don’t get it or have another explanations so umm God should have made it clearer that he actually meant separate nations coming up one after the other.
God says daughter in the field would be slain with the sword which is never used any other way then shucks God should have made it clearer because some people ignore that.
God knew I would deny him so he should have made it harder for me to do it. One excuse after the other for either not studying, not reading more sources or even being mental lazy. Its an all purpose nonsense get out of jail free card piece of reasoning for anything more complex than rock,paper,scissors. Its never nate and company not applying themselves but some excuse against the text
” he would know that the heart of Tyre would be centered on the island for most of its history”
NO he would know that for most of Tyre’s history people in israel where Ezek lived identified tyre as the mainland tyre
and on and on that tired post goes with even more lying
“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. ”
NO it makes you a fabricator of my position and a liar because I never said nor implied anything even close to saying water logged material had to be used to rebuild. I have told you repeatedly EXACTLY as the text does (and you hate that it does0 its underwater so that it cannt be rebuilt or inhabited.
Lie some more nate. 19-20 has you on the run. It could not be any clearer the text states Tyre is to be in the midst of the sea under water. Quick come up with some other way to say covered by abundant waters is not plain enough and it should have been said some other way – thats always the fall back position as I stated for you
LikeLike
Ah, classic Mike, folks! 😀 Don’t worry — he’ll be here all week.
But “mainland” and “land” are pretty much synonymous. As you already said, that Hebrew word means “land” or “field”
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Then does Ezekiel contradict himself when he says “and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock” (v 4)?
But is a better fit for an island. Where were Tyre’s harbors? Oh, the island? Hmm…
A metaphor that works much better for an island.
Yes — the people that live in the suburbs.
That’s ridiculous and unfounded. Ezekiel said that Tyre believed it would profit from Jerusalem’s fall. Tyre is a singular entity — the mainland, the island — it was all “Tyre.” It had one king…
If you want to hold to Tyre and Sidon literally sharing borders, you have a bigger issue than whether Tyre was on the island or not.
Look Mike, the burden of proof is on you for maintaining that Tyre was only on the mainland. Nothing in the Bible gives us that impression, and we know from history, archaeology, common sense, and Ezekiel’s imagery that there’s no reason for thinking that Tyre was not already on the island at this time.
The evidence is simply not on your side, but kudos for cutting loose with so much rhetoric.
** photo credit: BibleAtlas.com
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t mind reading your diatribe today because it has actually become a bit humorous now that the pattern is obvious.
Someone said something to William on this post a few days ago. It went like this:
“Rhetoric is a man poor in logic’s game.”
Let me help you out: “@Howie: is that all you have to say? That’s what I thought. Speechless. You atheists have no leg to stand on and you know it, that’s why you remain silent after you have obviously been shown to be liars.”
LikeLike
Mike said:
Then this settles it, Mike. I’m not sure how you can act so angry at my thinking you were only referring to the mainland. I mean, you’ve gone to great lengths to say that Ezekiel was only talking about the mainland:
You’re horribly inconsistent. First of all, you can’t show that people in Ezekiel’s time would have thought that, nor have you explained how Tyre became so wealthy and important if it wasn’t using the island harbors.
Secondly, if you concede that Tyre did encompass both the island and mainland, then the prophecy is obviously a failure. Tyre was not utterly destroyed, it was rebuilt, and it has remained inhabited.
You’ve succeeded in making a simple issue extremely complicated. Congratulations.
LikeLike
Although this is a scriptural battle that will NEVER be won, I have to insert a comment related to Mike’s assertion:
3) ezekiel 19-21 makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the end of tyre is to be under water not a rock above sea level
If this is true, then why did Ezekiel write the following in 26:14?
I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets.
How does anyone spread nets underwater?
It’s seems to me that our friend Ezekiel wasn’t as “CRYSTAL CLEAR” as some would claim.
LikeLike
“Then does Ezekiel contradict himself when he says “and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock” (v 4)?”
Nope. do try to apply your self, Its scraped like a rock and the rest of the passage tell us where – into the sea. you merely assume that the scrape is the end result when the passage tells you exactly the end result. lOl I think by this time you know you have failed
“But “mainland” and “land” are pretty much synonymous.’
No they are not and we both know you are back pedalling. Mainland as you indicated before you knew it was mostly translated as field was a key argument for why the island had to be in view because mainland express a difference to Isle.
“But is a better fit for an island. Where were Tyre’s harbors? Oh, the island? Hmm…”
LOl so you think borders in the heart of the sea means Port. 🙂 if not mentioning where the ports makes no point . You are funny though Nate. I give you that
“A metaphor that works much better for an island.”
Yes because islands are rowed and move into deep waters where they sink 🙂
“That’s ridiculous and unfounded. Ezekiel said that Tyre believed it would profit from Jerusalem’s fall. Tyre is a singular entity — the mainland, the island — it was all “Tyre.”
Ah so striking at the mainland would be striking trye eh? Progress in thinking at last. So if Ezek says tyre and hits the manland its completely accurate to say its a blow against all of tyre. Don’t be back pedalling now nate. Thanks you jsut made my point
that being the case where would the trade that would normally have walked or rode to Jeruslaem go – you know it – the mainland where there were the only agriculture was
“If you want to hold to Tyre and Sidon literally sharing borders, you have a bigger issue that whether Tyre was on the island or not.”
daydreaming. You see any border on your picture in the water? or did you just think posting a picture that doesn’t prove your point would substitute for a point
“Look Mike, the burden of proof is on you for maintaining that Tyre was only on the mainland. ”
That lie has been shot down. you can spin it out a million times more to save face. I need do no such thing. You just made my point for me . I only have to show an attack on the mainland could legitimately can be considered a strike at tyre as one entity. You were so busy trying to twist our of one implication you ended up spinning right around to mine . end game
Since you have admitted they are one and the same and have none of your proof passages left standing then its YOU that would have to show that the prophecy has not come to pass even though EVERYTHING has come to pass for the tyre on the mainland that youjsut admitted was one entity.
Can you prove tht the manland was not the focus as a strike against tyre? No so your unfulfilled prophecy just went bust by your very own final admission (took you long enough)
Kudos for making a key point of mine
LikeLike
“will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets.
How does anyone spread nets underwater?”
A) they spread nets in the sea Nan. Its called fishing
B) fishermen at tyre have been know to spread nets over ruins in the sea
Prophecy fulfilled either way
LikeLike
“Ah so striking at the mainland would be striking trye eh? Progress in thinking at last.”
what you keep ignoring and trying to dance around, or perhaps honestly missing, is that ezekiel’s prophecy wasnt just for the field’s/mainland/land (a portion of), but for ALL of tyre. did some of the things that Ezekiel said would happen to tyre, happen to parts of tyre? some, yes. But not to the whole, and some parts werent fulfilled at all.
and your latest response to nan appears to be a contradiction to what you’ve said before as well as just blatant rubbish.
and where exactly did you learn ancient hebrew?
LikeLike
yeah, mike, let’s move over to the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah. I believe nate has an older article already covering it. game?
LikeLike
“Then this settles it, Mike. I’m not sure how you can act so angry at my thinking you were only referring to the mainland. I mean, you’ve gone to great lengths to say that Ezekiel was only talking about the mainland:”
Stop dodging nate. you did not say prophecy relates to only the mainland you said
“” 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 never claimed there was no tyre located on the island – too different things and waaaay too dishonest given I have NEVER said there was no tyre on the Island – only that there was the mainland too”
You have settled only that you can do a mean misrepresentation of my view
“You’re horribly inconsistent. First of all, you can’t show that people in Ezekiel’s time would have thought that, nor have you explained how Tyre became so wealthy and important if it wasn’t using the island harbors.”
where is the inconsistence? thats just rhetoric. I can show that. I cited passage all over the Bible that tyre was reffered to as the mainland city 9and for the umpteenth time not necessarily exclusive) beside you just admitted they were one entity destroying forever that anyone in Israel would make any distinction in speech with the two and therefore would call the mainland tyre. Second I said absolutely NADA about them not using Island ports.Thats your beg – oh wherever the ports are is where the prophecy must take place.
Further tyre was known in Israel for its wood and produce they didn’t need ships there they walked and rode.
“Secondly, if you concede that Tyre did encompass both the island and mainland, then the prophecy is obviously a failure. Tyre was not utterly destroyed, it was rebuilt, and it has remained inhabited.”
total silly nonsense.I conceded that they were one entity and so an attack on one would be an attack on Tyre. You are now desperately begging that though they are one entity in order to be attacked they would have to be attacked at both sites. Do you understand what the phrase “one entity ‘ even means? and don’t try to change words to fudge my position I said nothing about encompass. By that twisted rational you could look at tyre the island and if it was sraped you would say not not fulfilled because it didn’t happen twice once on the mainland and once on the isles. sheesh talk about twisting. they are either one entity or not. If so an attack on any location is properly an attack on Tyre.
LikeLike
“and your latest response to nan appears to be a contradiction to what you’ve said before as well as just blatant rubbish.
See there Howie…thats rhetoric. No answer with any fact just babbling and barfing. Keep watching william and you will get the hang of how to identify it better in the future
LikeLike
Wheres the contradiction William. If you can’t show one then we can put you down for your 3rd or 4th lie.
LikeLike
“yeah, mike, let’s move over to the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah. I believe nate has an older article already covering it. game?”
rules of engagement first. If its going to be the nonsense – if you look at the hebrew, word usage ,verses and context then its word games nonsense that Nate loves then theres no point.
Still you can give me a link. I am always good for a good chuckle.
LikeLike
“See there Howie…thats rhetoric. No answer with any fact just babbling and barfing. Keep watching william and you will get the hang of how to identify it better in the future”
see mike, this illustrates one of your many problems.
first, howie didnt say that, i did. the name is attached to each comment, so your attention to detail is very suspect since you’ve done this a number of times.
secondly, you’re a pot calling the kettle black with this, smart guy. In fact, you dont have to leave the quoted remarks in the post to see it.
why do you feel it necessary to be such a jerk? seriously? because someone disagrees with you, doesnt mean they’re lying – that’s a huge leap. It’s rude and inaccurate. of all people in this exchange, you should be the one trying to set the example of how one should conduct themselves.
Just because someone misunderstood you doesnt mean they’re twisting your words, it could mean that you’re just not clearly stating your case. from all the questions to you asking for clarification, i’m thinking it’s the latter.
I’m still confused about your position. your details seem fuzzy and then we’re leaping around from mainland to island, then back to mainland only, etc, etc.
was all of tyre supposed to be destroyed or only part of it?
was all of tyre to be permanently destroyed or only part?
was all of tyre to be underwater or only part of it?
was all of tyre to never be rebuilt or only part of it?
Was all of tyre never to be “find-able” or only part?
was all of tyre to be desolate, or only part?
* parts of the island are still above water, still inhabited, and still has an active port.
* all of the mainland is above water (the ancient structures may be underwater), part has structures on it and it is still included as part of tyre.
* the causeway, built with mainland’s structure materials, is now part of tyre, with buildings, and currently populated.
If ezekiel’s prophecy only meant that the above would happen, which he didnt, then it was a lackluster and safe prophecy. wow (sarcasm). when reading the text, as a mere human, ezekiel is giving the impression that tyre will be utterly, completely, and permanently destroyed. It’s still there, above water and very populated.
again, i’m going off of the english translations for the most part. you are once again encouraged to offer what you think the correct transliteration should have been and why.
man, I’m going over to the virgin birth. I’ll wait for the rest of there…
LikeLike
“first, howie didnt say that, i did. the name is attached to each comment, so your attention to detail is very suspect since you’ve done this a number of times.”
even your off points have no substance, I referred to Howie because of something earlier that your post illustrates in regard to rhetoric.
“why do you feel it necessary to be such a jerk? seriously? because someone disagrees with you, doesnt mean they’re lying – that’s a huge leap”
i call you a liar when you lie. its not a huge leap. Look at what you did with “same materials” claiming I said any such thing. I corrected you like five times and you responded to those post but still came back with the EXACT claim as my position over and over. That just strains credibility .NOw you barf that something i said is nonsense and contradictory and can’t even muster any proof.
Its not honest discourse and I am sorry it seems to me you just keep asking the same questions over and over as a device. plus the last person that claimed they had apologized and I should accept there non apology apology lasted only a few days before proving they meant exactly what they said which they claimed they didn’t
So you guys don’t get any brownie points to be lecturing on that subject
“man, I’m going over to the virgin birth. I’ll wait for the rest of there…”
you guys have fun..with no agreement on terms of debate I am not interest in wasting anymore time with the empty claims you will whine about when that falls apart on you too.
LikeLike
ah, yes, i see the irony. well, my foot fits in my mouth… and my attention to detail is suspect at times too.
mike, you’re still a jerk though. and if you could specifically answer the questions as they’re given, that would be helpful.
all apologies.
LikeLike
mike, you’re funny. I wasnt asking for any apology – but i forgive you all the same.
I could be that i was mistaken, but i wasnt lying. I ask the same questions because your answers still leave the prophecy unfulfilled. the only thing that’s empty here is ezekiel’s “prophecy.”
I honestly thought you meant “same materials” because you kept saying tyre couldnt be rebuilt because the building materials were still underwater and then kept asking, “how can something that’s underwater and buried be inhabited again?”
so are you lying or mistaken? I was just confused and arent much better now. i still dont know exactly how ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled.
in case you’re tired of sidestepping:
was all of tyre supposed to be destroyed or only part of it?
was all of tyre to be permanently destroyed or only part?
was all of tyre to be underwater or only part of it?
was all of tyre to never be rebuilt or only part of it?
Was all of tyre never to be “find-able” or only part?
was all of tyre to be desolate, or only part?
* parts of the island are still above water, still inhabited, and still has an active port.
* all of the mainland is above water (the ancient structures may be underwater), part has structures on it and it is still included as part of tyre.
* the causeway, built with mainland’s structure materials, is now part of tyre, with buildings, and currently populated.
If ezekiel’s prophecy only meant that the above would happen, which he didnt, then it was a lackluster and safe prophecy. wow (sarcasm). when reading the text, as a mere human, ezekiel is giving the impression that tyre will be utterly, completely, and permanently destroyed. It’s still there, above water and very populated.
again, i’m going off of the english translations for the most part. you are once again encouraged to offer what you think the correct transliteration should have been and why.
LikeLike
“mike, you’re still a jerk though.”
LOL….I love the pure unabashed hypocrisy of you guys. You even show yourself to be what you accuse others of and its all good like you are excused from having morality. Good because it so easy since you lay it out there for the world to see.
Have a great week!
LikeLike
“Its not honest discourse”
yeah, i know, and i think we’re all sort of tired of it. Maybe if you stop doing that, things will go a little more smoothly, even if we end up not agreeing.
why not test the waters of the virgin birth? I know I’ve looked up the hebrew as best as I could on that subject. you? why am i asking, sure you have.
let’s go. we’ve worn this one out, time for another…
LikeLike
“I love the pure unabashed hypocrisy of you guys. You even show yourself to be what you accuse others of”
you’re a pot calling the kettle black again and again. I’d be tempted to laugh if it werent so sad that you didnt see it.
I mean, i dont think I’m excused from morality, do you think you are? it looks like you’re saying, “it’ s okay for me to do it since you did it.” The fools-golden rule. sure, i can dig it, but then i dont pretend to abide by a religion that frowns upon it, while being so self-righteous at the same time.
take care my friend, you’ll be missed. I was really curious to see what you’d do with isaiah.
LikeLike
still not wanting answer direct questions that would clarify your position, i see.
here they are again in case you missed them twice:
was all of tyre supposed to be destroyed or only part of it?
was all of tyre to be permanently destroyed or only part?
was all of tyre to be underwater or only part of it?
was all of tyre to never be rebuilt or only part of it?
Was all of tyre never to be “find-able” or only part?
was all of tyre to be desolate, or only part?
* parts of the island are still above water, still inhabited, and still has an active port.
* all of the mainland is above water (the ancient structures may be underwater), part has structures on it and it is still included as part of tyre.
* the causeway, built with mainland’s structure materials, is now part of tyre, with buildings, and currently populated.
If ezekiel’s prophecy only meant that the above would happen, which he didnt, then it was a lackluster and safe prophecy. wow (sarcasm). when reading the text, as a mere human, ezekiel is giving the impression that tyre will be utterly, completely, and permanently destroyed. It’s still there, above water and very populated.
again, i’m going off of the english translations for the most part. you are once again encouraged to offer what you think the correct transliteration should have been and why.
LikeLike
“NOw you barf that something i said is nonsense and contradictory and can’t even muster any proof.”
come on, you’ve been chastising everyone for being lazy, it’s embarrassing now that you want something handed to you. go back and read through the post like a good hard working guy. set the example.
LikeLike
I realized upon reflection today that there is one thing that probably you and Nate don’t understand that leads to some confusion in your minds so I figured I’d drop in since its the only thing thats left for you to duck and run from and really the only honest misunderstanding you could have left. I like to be thorough so I’ll clear it up just in case
IF you don’t do much reading following archaeology then you probably would not realize that almost all other cities besides Mainland Tyre have ruins and the ones subsequently rebuilt are built on those ruins in part. Seldom if ever would any ancient civilzation dig up even the foundations of a house much less a city so theres always something left to be found or built on, When a city “rebuilt” its always on that infrastructure. In all those situations as in 19-20 the city IS the foundations and whats on it or built back on it.
Mainland Tyre IS unique in that unlike all of these cities the entire city including foundations were scraped into the sea. This is what makes this prophecy so remarkable when you get to verse 19 and 20. Tyre is prophecied to have everything that would be still there from a city removed. The walls,buildings.but uniquely the foundations down to the dirt underneath it. ALl gone – city completely removed so it could not be built again on its foundations and rebuilt like any city that is rebuilt is. The entire city down to the ruins are gone
and it happened to mainland Tyre as prophesied! 🙂 What happened NOWHERE ELSE but as you ponder verse 19-20 its so clear and powerful. What god is saying is that you will be no more – So completely obliterated as a city, scraped unlike any other so that the entire city is moved and placed into the sea so much that no one could ever find it to build upon ruins like any other city in the ancient world. great stuff!!
So now you know it has nothing to do with rebuilding with the same materials or any of the garbage you were saying even before we talked just about mainland tyre. Its saying in fact he opposite that there is nothing left to build and the city with foundation to build on is gone!
The beautiful thing about all this is that skeptics and atheists like yourselves are stuck. rather than it being a normal prediction this unique prophecy is fulfilled complerly hundreds of years after you admit it was written . the uniqueness is obvious if you even followed the archaeology of ruined cities. Never found indeed – whether to be found to rebuild in the original foundations of found to visit – unless you go dig in the sea floor.
Of course it doesn’t hurt even though the city can’t be rebuilt at the bottom of the sea it hasn;t even been built on the mainland.That just bonus so Christians can laugh at nate looking on google maps and saying a city is on the mainland.
LikeLike
“was all of tyre supposed to be destroyed or only part of it?
was all of tyre to be permanently destroyed or only part?
was all of tyre to be underwater or only part of it?
was all of tyre to never be rebuilt or only part of it?
Was all of tyre never to be “find-able” or only part?
was all of tyre to be desolate, or only part?”
LOL….sometimes you just have to give sceptics enough room to talk themselves into a box and then they do.
Notice the desperation? Now begging for the word ALL to be in the prophecy. Nope we have one city in the prophecy there is no all. Since even Nate now admits they are one entity an attack on the one city is an attack on Tyre.The city of Tyre as represented by the mainland is scraped into the sea fulfilling everything (of course bonuses are allowed 🙂 )
the end.
Begging now that its “all” is so desperate as if the passages says two cities instead of one has to be scraped and two buried. Its is just nowhere in the prophecy. Sorry
LikeLike