In verses 19-21, Ezekiel said that there would come a time when the city is "desolate," "no longer inhabited," and submerged underwater.
This wording implies the passage of time for v. 19-21 to come to pass. There is no such implication in the text. The events in v. 19-21 directly follow those in the preceding verses. So Nebuchadnezzar and his forces break through the gates and flood into the city and slayed the people. What then? Did they just pack up and go home? Or would they take their plunder, demolish the buildings, and throw the rubble into the sea? The narrative structure demands that v. 19-21 complete the story told in the lament. The apologetic reading divorces this natural conclusion to the siege from Nebuchadnezzar, throws it several hundred years later, as the conclusion to some other siege by some other attacker otherwise not mentioned in the text. The justification of this is the reference to plural "many nations" in the beginning of the lament, as if this implies several sieges by different nations. But as I pointed out in the thread that is now locked, there is just one siege narrated here and Ezekiel otherwise uses plural "nations" to refer to Nebuchadnezzar's army which, as other OT texts show, consisted of the armies of Chaldea, Syria, Edom, Moab, etc. (absorbing these forces as a consequence of the nations' vassalage to Babylon).
Also the text says that Tyre is "never to be rebuilt"...a critical fact omitted in the above sentence.
I believe that this was fulfilled completely by Alexander when he tossed the ruins of mainland Tyre into the sea to build the land bridge that helped him to conquer the island of Tyre.
This was debunked in the thread that is now locked. There was no such city as "mainland Tyre". The nearby city on the Lebanese coast was instead called Hosah in the Bible and Osa and Ushu in Egyptian and Akkadian inscriptions. These were suburbs of Tyre but were not called Tyre; Ezekiel in fact called the mainland suburbs "Tyre's daughters" (Ezekiel 26:6, 8, "settlements on the mainland" in the NIV), not Tyre itself. Tyre was an island city and was described repeatedly as such by Ezekiel, who described it as "in the midst of the sea" (26:5), "powerful in the sea" (26:17), as having its borders "in the heart of the seas" (27:4), as being like a ship in the sea (27:27-34), and whose king declares himself as "surrounded by seas" (28:2).
The city that Ezekiel describes as razed and thrown into the sea was island Tyre, an event that would leave the island as bare as a shiny rock. This was not a mainland city and Ezekiel did not refer to Hosah as "Tyre" but as "her daughters on the mainland" (which were already destroyed in v. 8 before Nebuchadnezzar then besieges Tyre itself in v. 9-14). Alexander could not have thrown Tyre's debris into the sea before he even got there.
Alexander's conquest brought an end - a permanent end - to the Phoenician Empire.
Not really. The center of Phoenician power rather shifted to Carthage. Perhaps the author has heard of the Punic Wars? No?
And from that point on, the Phoenician city of Tyre ceased to exist.
False. Tyre was rebuilt shortly afterward as Strabo clearly states and remained a Phoenician city even in Roman times. The end of the Phoenician "empire" (whatever that means) did not mean the Phoenician people ceased to exist. And the Lebanese are largely the descendents of these people. So even if we grant the unlikely proposition that Ezekiel foretold Alexander, the rebuilding of Tyre contravenes this "fulfillment".
A city cannot be more desolate or more uninhabited than one that no longer exists. And yes, there is indeed a city called Tyre in modern-day Lebanon, and indeed it might be sitting on the exact same spot as the original Tyre.
This is utter nonsense. Yes, modern Tyre is on the EXACT SAME SPOT as ancient Tyre. This as been demonstrated to be the case geologically and archaeologically. And this site today is in the middle of an urban center. Yet this author states that because the modern city is not identical to the ancient Phoenician city that existed over 2,000 years ago, that city no longer exists and thus is "uninhabited". LOL!! This bizarre argument ignores what the word "rebuild" means.