The Destruction of Tyre, Fulfilled Prophecy?

by VM44 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  VM44

  I found this article online that defended the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the destruction, or desolation, of Tyre.

  The writer claims that the ancient "Phoenician city of Tyre" that "Ezekiel was speaking of, and that city no longer exists", and that the modern day city that is there today is "Lebanon's Tyre".

  --VM44

  Destruction of Tyre: A detailed look at Ezekiel 26:1-21 and some objections that skeptics have

  http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/tyre.htm

  In verses 19-21, Ezekiel said that there would come a time when the city is "desolate," "no longer inhabited," and submerged underwater. 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. Alexander's conquest brought an end - a permanent end - to the Phoenician Empire. And from that point on, the Phoenician city of Tyre ceased to exist. 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. But this is Lebanon's Tyre - not the Phoenician Tyre that had taunted the Jews and had gloated over the destruction of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It was the Phoenician Tyre that Ezekiel was speaking of, and that city no longer exists:
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  This sounds like circular reasoning to me, especially this:

  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. But this is Lebanon's Tyre - not the Phoenician Tyre that had taunted the Jews and had gloated over the destruction of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It was the Phoenician Tyre that Ezekiel was speaking of, and that city no longer exists:

  Obviously Phoenician Tyre no longer exists - how could it when Phoenicia no longer exists? The country that was Phoenicia is now part of Lebanon. Phoenicia disappeared as a country in 149 BC, as is shown here:

  Cyrus the Great conquered Phoenicia in 538 BC. Phoenicia accepted rule by the Persians, and Phoenician influence declined after this. It is also reasonable to suppose that much of the Phoenician population migrated to Carthage and other colonies following the Persian conquest, as it is roughly then (under King Hanno) that we first hear of Carthage as a powerful maritime entity.

  Later, the rise of Hellenistic Greece eventually ousted the remnants of Phoenicia's former dominance over the Eastern Mediterranean trade routes, and Phoenician culture disappeared entirely in the motherland. However, its North African offspring, Carthage, continued to flourish, mining iron and precious metals from Iberia, and using its considerable naval power and mercenary armies to protect its commercial interests until it was finally destroyed by Rome ca. 149 BC at the end of the Punic Wars.

  According to the prophecy in Ezekiel, Tyre would never be rebuilt, yet the modern city of Tyre, as even jws will admit, stands on the site of the ancient city. That is hardly proof of a fulfilled prophecy.
• 

  Leolaia

  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.
• 

  AlanF

  The author's argument is stupid on its face. By such 'logic', Jerusalem was never rebuilt after the destruction in 70 A.D. because the new one was a Roman city, or Jordanian city, or Israeli city.

  Such morons have an agenda, and that is to prove their narrow cult doctrines 'correct' at any expense -- even the truth.

  AlanF
• 

  tijkmo

  i just watched the movie - alexander

  tyre doesnt even get a mention
• 

  daniel-p

  Tyre has ben destroyed like a dozen times - so I guess this means prophecy is just really thorough?
• 

  VM44

  Here is the whole article. Notice that the article does mention the multiple destructions of Tyre that daniel-p pointed out above, but these destructions of Tyre only prove even more so to the author that Ezekiel's prophecies were true. --VM44

  Destruction of Tyre:
  A detailed look at Ezekiel 26:1-21 and some objections that skeptics have

  As for the prophecy found in Ezekiel 26, the difference between a believer and a skeptic can boil down to a single word - the word "they" in verse 12.
  
  The skeptics contend that the word "they" in verse 12 refers to Nebuchadnezzar's men in verses 7-11. And if that were true, then one could argue convincingly that the prophecy was not fulfilled.
  
  But, the believers, including myself, contend that the word "they" in verse 12 refers to the "many nations" in verse 3 and the "nations" in verse 5. And if this is true, then one could argue convincingly that the prophecy was fulfilled. With this rendering of the word "they", Tyre was supposed to be attacked by a succession of nations, like the sea casting up its waves, one at a time, over time. And Tyre was indeed attacked by a succession of nations over time. Since the days of Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre has been conquered or ruled over by the Greeks, the Persians, the Romans, the Crusaders and the Arabs, who destroyed the city, again, in 1291.
  
  Skeptics and believers can certainly agree that verses 7-11 are specifically about Nebuchadnezzar and his men. But, nowhere in those verses is the word "they" ever used. In fact, it almost seems that Ezekiel goes out of his way not to use the word "they." Take a look:
  
  ". . . I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon . . ."
  
  ". . . He will ravage your settlements on the mainland . . ."
  
  ". . . he will set up siege works against you . . ."
  
  ". . . He will direct the blows . . ."
  
  ". . . with his weapons . . ."
  
  ". . . His horses will be so many . . ."
  
  ". . . when he enters your gates . . ."
  
  ". . . The hoofs of his horses will trample . . ."
  
  ". . . he will kill your people . . ."
  
  Nebuchadnezzar is not the "many nations" referenced in verse 3. Instead, he is the first of the "many nations" referenced in verse 3. And the word "they" in verse 12 is not a continuation of the Nebuchadnezzar theme, but rather a continuation of the "many nations" theme of which Nebuchadnezzar is the starting point.
  
  Only in verses 7-11 is Nebuchadnezzar specifically and unquestionably referred to. And in these verses, only the mainland of Tyre is addressed - never the island. The destruction of the island and the looting of the island, then, is the job of the "many nations" of verse 3. And many nations did attack, conquer and rule over the island.
  
  As for the claim that Ezekiel 29:17 is an admission from Ezekiel that his prophecy about Tyre failed, because Nebuchadnezzar did not get any loot from Tyre, take a look again at verses 7-11. Those are indeed the only verses that specifically mention Nebuchadnezzar, and these verses do not refer to loot or plunder. Like the destruction of the island itself, the prophecy of plunder was to be carried out by the "many nations" of verse 3.
  
  In verses 19-21, Ezekiel said that there would come a time when the city is "desolate," "no longer inhabited," and submerged underwater. 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. Alexander's conquest brought an end - a permanent end - to the Phoenician Empire. And from that point on, the Phoenician city of Tyre ceased to exist. 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. But this is Lebanon's Tyre - not the Phoenician Tyre that had taunted the Jews and had gloated over the destruction of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It was the Phoenician Tyre that Ezekiel was speaking of, and that city no longer exists:
  
  " The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town. "
  - Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition.
• 

  stevenyc

  And, as I pointed out on that "other" thread, with regard to Alexander destroying the city, and putting it under water, well in AD 502 an earthquake hit the entire region, from Beirut to Akko, and this is when the parts of Tyre that are below sea level fell. Not by ANY nations. It rebuilt itself after that as well. In the byzantine time it went through its second golden era

  From the (1) Department of Geology, Atomic Energy Commission of Syria and Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Damascus University: (r = richtre scale) 502 August 22 Friday, Akka: r8; Tyre: r7-r8, Sidon: r7-r8; Beirut: r7, Palestine: r6; Safad: r6?;Reina: r6?

  Joshua the Stylite: 502 August 22, Friday: Ptolemais destroyed to the extent that nothing stayed standing. Half of Tyre and Sidon fell down. In Beirut, only the synagogue fell down. Parametric catalogues – Plassard and Kogoj (1981): 502 August 21- 22, in Lebanon I = IX, half of Tyre and Sidon were destroyed, at Beirut ( I = VII) some damage in houses, remarkably in the synagogue (Joshua the Stylite). – Ben-Menahem (1979): 502 August 21 off coast Acre, Io= X, Ml= 7.0, Acre destroyed. Destruction at Sur, Sidon, Beirut and Byblos. Latrun (Nicopolis) destroyed (Amiran; Plassard and Kogoj). Seismological compilations – Guidoboni et al. (1994): 502 August 22, Akka I = X, an earthquake happened between 501 and 502, where Akka was overturned and destroyed completely, half of Tyre and Sidon fell, the synagogue in Beirut fell down (Pseudo- Joshua’s Chronicle). Palaces in Palestine were also affected (Russell). – Russell (1985): 502 August 22, Akko was overturned by an earthquake at night and nothing left standing. Half of Tyre and Sidon fell. The synagogue at Beirut fell down (Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite). Safad and Reina in Galilee could be affected.
• 

  Faraon

  Even Ezekiel 29:18,19 admits that Nebuchadnezzar did not take Tyre. The god Jehovah inspires, instead, another failed prophecy against Egypt.

  18"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a hard service against Tyre: every head was made bald and every shoulder was peeled; yet had he no wages, nor his army, from Tyre for the service that he had served against it. 19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. 20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor for which he served against it, because they wrought for Me, saith the Lord GOD

  .

  I don’t know, though, if we can blame Ezequiel and call him a false prophet, if big J lied to him.

  Ezekiel 14:9

  9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand upon him and will destroy him from the midst of My people Israel

  .

  And there you have it. The word of the father of lies.

  Faraon
• 

  Kenneson

  Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both destroyed by atomic bombs. The old Japanese cities are gone forever. But, does that mean that no new Nagasaki and Hiroshima arose from the ashes? And what if Japan now belonged to the United States? Again, would that mean that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were never rebuilt? Yet, isn't that what the text in Ezekiel 26:14 says: "Never will you be rebuilt." Never will Tyre be rebuilt. When did this take place? Tyre continued to exist after Nebuchadnezzar, after Egypt, after Rome, after the Crusaders, after the Muslims, and continues up until this day. Where does it say that it could be rebuilt, only not by the Phoenicians?