lee_merrill

Hi Jack,

Well, let's discuss the Tyre prophecy…

"Fulfilled as to the mainland Tyre, under Nebuchadnezzar. The insular Tyre recovered partly, after seventy years (Isaiah 23:17,18), but again suffered under Alexander, then under Antigonus, then under the Saracens at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Now its harbors are choked with sand, precluding all hope of future restoration, 'not one entire house is left, and only a few fishermen take shelter in the vaults' [MAUNDRELL]. So accurately has God's word come to pass." Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary.

Ezekiel 26:20 Then I will make you go down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you to dwell in the world below, among ruins from of old …

I think "you" here refers to people, though, not a place, places don't "dwell among ruins."

Well, it did fall, by Nebuchadnezzar's hand, but the destruction refers to the island, apparently:

Ezekiel 26:14 I will make you a bare rock…

And the island was a rock in the sea. Also, the island was, as you say, the main city, thus people would most naturally think of that as the focus here, I would say.

Couldn't the predictions in chapter 28 of Ezekiel have been written before Neb invaded, though? And do they not extend beyond that point, given that Neb started the process of the destruction of Tyre, and Alexander continued it?

Regards,
Lee

Jack the Bodiless

I suggest you read the links provided in post #5 of this thread.

"Tyre" was the island, not the coastal suburb. History records that Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer it after a long siege, and even Ezekiel recognized that fact. And Tyre still exists, there is a substantial town there, your source is simply wrong.
Again, it did NOT fall by Nebucadnezzar's hand. Nor was it destroyed by Alexander (though it did "fall" on that occasion).

It appears that Ezekiel was written during the siege of Tyre: partly before Tyre's victory over Nebuchadnezzar, and partly after.

lee_merrill

Hi Jack,

It was both, wasn't it? Primarily the island was thought of as Tyre, though, I agree.

This source, too?

I agree it was not destroyed by Alex, instead it appears to have sunk underwater. As predicted...

Ezekiel 26:19 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: "When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you..."

What indicates this, though? Except if we are assuming that prophecy can't take place. Only "never rebuilt" is still holding up, if it's underwater.

Regards,
Lee

Jack the Bodiless

Yes. Tyre still exists. The causeway has been enlarged by silt accumulation, and the island is now a peninsula: but it still exists.

This site has a map and a photograph of modern Tyre.

The "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" is Christian apologetics, not a reliable reference work.

lee_merrill

Yes, but not the island! Which I think was the pertinent part of the prophecy in this regard.

It isn't possible they could write with integrity?

But in any case, how about this reference?

"The most important recent archaeological find in [sp? probably "is"] a Phoenician cemetery from the first millennium B.C. Discovered in 1991 during clandestine excavations, this is the first cemetery of its kind found in Lebanon."

Now is this the best they have found, in reference to ancient Tyre?

Why are there no Phoenician ruins?

"Other excavated remains on this site date to the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods."

A notable absence of Phoenician remains...

Which I think, is evidence that the current city is not actually on top of the ancient one, the one Alexander went to so much trouble to attack.

Certainly Phoenician cemeteries could be a rare discovery everywhere, but there are other types of Phoenician ruins in other places: "Many ancient remains of a Phoenician settlement are found at the site of Nora, on the island of Sardinia, Italy. The earliest Phoenician remains date from the 7th century bc."

Regards,
Lee

Anat

From Phoenician Cities:
If the Phoenician remains lie underneath the present town, the ancient town must have been rebuilt. I suppose war and resulting instability had some part in delaying archaeological work.

John A. Broussard

Clearly that prophecy meant that locusts would invade the fields around Casablanca (White House for those of you who have forgotten your high school Spanish) and would leave a scorched earth behind--which they recently did. Voila, your prophecy came true.

Give me time, and I'll find other irrefutable evidence of the truth of your prophecy.

This is probably the best way to deal with those who state, categorically, that the prophecies in the bible (or koran or rig veda, or whatever) always come true.

Jack the Bodiless

The island IS still there. It isn't an island anymore, bcause of silt buildup along the siege causeway: but it's still there.

It's just been built on by others, probably demolishing most of the old stuff in the process. And parts of the old harbor area are indeed underwater: this is part of a process that's been going on in the Mediterranean for thousands of years (i.e. would have been known in Ezekiel's time).
Not in this case, no. This is obvious from the map and photograph of modern Tyre.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, first of all, excavating in a silted-up harbor indicates the city sank, does it not? So maybe the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties is not incorrect here, after all. This other reference also confirms the city sinking underwater:

"Looking down into the water one can see a mass of granite columns and stone blocks strewn over the sea bottom. Until recently the ruins of Tyre above water were few" (Nina Jidejian, "Tyre Through the Ages," Beirut: Dar El-Mashreq Publishers, 1969)

So I think that would indicate fulfillment of the prophecy, even if there are some ruins above water, apparently the ruins of Tyre that tourists can visit are still not enough for their tourism web page to speak about! And I don't think they would be bashful about that.

Regards,
Lee

noah

I was reading about the prophecy in Ezekiel that Tyre was to be destroyed completely. My assumption was this prophecy failed. However, I was reading an article by a Christian that attempted to explain the failure of this prophecy away thusly:
Tyre, as in the prophecy of Isaiah (ch. 23), is not the city of that name upon the mainland, *** (NT:3588) pa'lai (NT:3819) Tu'ros (NT:5184) or Balai'turos, Old Tyre, which was taken by Shalmaneser and destroyed by Alexander (as Perizon., Marsh, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, and Eichhorn supposed), but Insular Tyre, which was three-quarters of a mile farther north, and only 1200 paces from the land, being built upon a small island, and separated from the mainland by a strait of no great depth (vid., Movers, Phoenizier, II p. 288 ff.). This Insular Tyre had successfully resisted the Assyrians (Josephus, Antt. ix. 14. 2), and was at that time the market of the nations; and in Ezekiel's day it had reached the summit of its greatness as mistress of the sea and the centre of the commerce of the world.'
(from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)
Does anybody have any idea whether this is a legitimate explanation?