Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Critics believe that Nebuchadnezzar seiged Island Tyre, but how could he do this with horses and chariots and seige mounts against an island? And if Alexander could not reach it without the causeway, how did Nebuchadnezzar reach it? Nebuchadnezzar's army was land based so how could he seige an island his army could not reach. Ezekiel as wise as he was would not have made a foolish prediction such as Nebuchadnezzar attacking island Tyre with a land based army like horses and seige mounts. I have yet to read any history explaining in detail how Nebuchadnezzar pull this off if indeed he seiged island Tyre.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Also Nebuchadnezzar is not predicted as destroying the walls of Tyre but making a breach. "Your walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into your gates, as men enter into a city where is made a breach. A breach is a gap or opening within a wall. And how could he enter a gate when the whole wall is destroyed? Now compare this with verse 12...And THEY shall break down your walls, and destroy your pleasent houses: And they shall LAY (not toss or throw but LAY which means build) your stones and your timber and your dust in the midst of the water (note he chooses to use water instead of sea hmmmm). Meaning they would destroy your houses and walls and lay them in the water. Exactly what Alex did. Nebuchadnezzar could in no way seige island Tyre with the army he had. Can any of you give me a source that details the seige of island Tyre by Babylon? Thanks I would love to know.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You keep talking about failed prophecies but that prophecy spoken against Old Tyre has come true.

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 26:3 therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold, I am against thee, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth its waves to come up.

Ezekiel 26:4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 26:17 And they shall take up a lamentation over thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited by seafaring men, the renowned city, that was strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, that caused their terror to be on all that dwelt there!

Ezekiel 26:18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be dismayed at thy departure.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 26:19 For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: 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 the great waters shall cover thee;

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 27:4 Thy borders are in the heart of the seas; thy builders have perfected thy beauty.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Now I am being accused of word playing when I bring up a good arguement such as that some historians has Nebuchadnezzar attacking Island Tyre. Again I ask, how did he do it? How could he have reached the island with a land based army? History it seems is silent about this, why? is it because Nebby layed seige to a mainland city? Which would no doubt prove Ezekiel's prophecy. I repeat can any of you cite or direct me to your source which details the attack of island Tyre by Babylon. And dont just brush me off with accusations such as me engageing in word play. This is a good question that deserves an answer. If alex coudnt attack the island without the causeway, how did Nebby do it without a causeway....and without ships? Please explain.