def: Christian

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b] Don't you think that if N. had laid waste to Egypt as foretold in Ezekiel 30:10, that there would be some historical record of it?

There is, at least, historical record of Nebuchadnezzar invading Egypt (c. 568 BC). Amasis was indeed Pharoah at the time of Nebbie's invasion, but there isn't convincing evidence that he repelled Babylon's ...[text shortened]... ire people."

http://egypt.annourbis.com/AncientEgypt/chapter24.html[/b]

Your source here is actually an online reproduction of George Rawlinson's 1881 book "History of Ancient Egypt". Guess what Rawlinson cites as evidence of N.'s defeat of Amasis? Yes, that's right, the Bible! I have found no source in any encyclopedia, academic book or journal article that claims that N. conquered Egypt, nor that the land of Egypt was delivered to his hand, as claimed in Ezekiel 29:17.

Now, Ezekiel claims that N. will be given the land of Egypt, that he will "carry off her wealth and take her spoil and seize her booty". Given the way you interpret scripture, this could mean any number of things. It could just mean that N. will make a bit of money from a campaign against Egypt. You know, a few gold coins and souvenirs. But Ezekiel claims more than this. In Ezekiel 30:10 it is claimed that God will put an end to the wealth of Egypt through N. Now, this certainly did not happen, as even your source attests. By all accounts, even of those whose business it is to show that Scriptural prophecies are all fulfilled, Amasis continued after 568 B.C. to reign prosperously (see Ch. 23 of Rawlinson). Now, Ezekiel also claims that N. and his troops will "ravage the land...unsheathe the sword against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain." Perhaps, given the way you interpret Scripture, this just means that N. and his troops will draw their swords and kill an Egyptian in the street (or an out-place, if you prefer).

But if the destruction of Egypt is not going to be by N.’s hand, then why sandwich right between the end of Ezekiel 29 (expliciitly mentioning N.) and Ezekiel 30:10 (explicitly mentioning N.) the claim that Egypt’s “foundations will be overthrown”, that Egypt will be “set on fire”, that Egypt will “be pierced by a sword”, that her allies would all “fall by sword”, etc., unless this is to be done by N.? I mean, really, come on! God says N. is going to seize the wealth of N. Then God claims that the wealth of Egypt will be seized, Egypt will be pierced by the sword, that men will fall slain, etc. (but doesn’t say exactly by whom). Then God says, again explicitly, that the wealth of Egypt will be brought to an end by N., that N. and his troops will unsheathe the sword and fill the land with the slain. And what you take away from this? That the stuff in the middle, since it didn’t happen, must not actually refer to N.! This is precisely what I mean by hermeneutical gymnastics.

Further, note that in Ezekiel 29:17 N. is referred to as the "King of Babylon", and later he and his troops as "the most ruthless of nations". Now see Ezekiel 30:24, which reads that God "will strengthen the king of Babylon and put My sword in his hand...". Finally, see Ezekiel 32:10-12, which reads as follows:

"I will strike many peoples with horror over your fate; And their kings shall be aghast over you, When I brandish My sword before them. They shall tremble continually, Each man for his own life, On the day of your downfall. For thus said the Lord God: The sword of the king of Babylon shall come upon you. I will cause your multitude to fall by the swords of warriors, All the most ruthless among the nations. They shall ravage the splendor of Egypt, And all her masses shall be wiped out."

The textual evidence here clearly indicates that the prophecy refers to N. ravaging and wiping out the masses of Egypt.

Yet the only historical evidence we have of N. actually meeting Amasis in battle is during N.'s 37th regnal year and Amasis' 4th regnal year. This is given by a tablet fragment in the British Museum, which claims that Amasu (the Babylonian form of ‘Amasis&rsquo😉 , the “king of Mitsir” (‘Mitsur’ being the Assyrian for the Egyptians) gathered his troops and bribed a bunch of sea-folk (the Greeks). After that some mention of fighting is made, but the inscription ends without reference to an outcome of the battle. This can be found in the 1879 edition of the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology and, more recently, in Wiseman’s Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (pg. 94).

More recently there are two sources that deny that Amasis was ever defeated by N. First, the Oxford Ancient History of Egypt, by Ian Shaw, claims “Ahmose II [Amasis’ Egyptian name]… was able to defeat a Chaldean invasion of Egypt in the fourth year of his reign, and after that the Chaldeans had sufficient problems within the empire to keep them fully occupied for the early part of his reign” (pg. 373). According to this source, Amasis was threated by Cyrus and the rise of the Persian empire, but died shortly before Cambyses’ successful campaign against Amasis’ son. Second, in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (No. 26., 1984), it is claimed that Greek mercenaries helped to successfully defend Amasis from N.’s invasion.

There was no Babylonian subjugation of Egypt after N.’s seige of Tyre. There was a humiliation of Egypt before the seige, when N. crushed the forces of Necho II at Carchemish in 605 B.C., and there was the domination of Egypt by Persia after Amasis had died. N. did not subjugate Egypt. Even if, as some commentators have supposed, N. put Amasis on the throne, this occurred before the battle mentioned on the tablet fragment. There is absolutely no historical record I have been able to find of N. subjugating or dominating Egypt during Amasis’ reign. There is certainly no historical record of N. desolating Egypt for forty years, scattering the Egyptians to the wind, or anything else of the sort.

Originally posted by epiphinehas

Then the verses are prima facie contradictory. If God intended to send many nations against, Tyre, then it seems awfully strange that God would also say that N. would enter the gates as though into a breached city, and that he would trample the streets, put the people to the sword, and send Tyre's mighty pillars crashing to the ground. That s t that the peninsula remains populated is a moot point.

The problem is that, in the ancient world, 'Tyre' did not refer to the mainland but to the island. It was the island that held all the temples, all the governmental buildings, the material wealth, and the two ports. It was the island that had walls 25' thick and 150' high surrounded with battlements. The mainland did not consist of a large central city, but a string of villages running down the Lebanese coast, none of which were surrounded by walls and towers and pillars, though the nearest held a garrison of soldiers. The town nearest the island was called "Sazu", and then "Ushu", not "Tyre". This is confirmed in Katzenstein's "The History of Tyre". So, although N. surely did conquer the coastal villages (Ushu itself was in ruins when Alexander arrived there), he never conquered Tyre itself.

That the prophecy in question refers to the island is clear enough from Ezekiel itself, which locates Tyre "in the midst of the sea", claims that it sits "enthroned in the heart of the seas", that it will die "in the heart of the sea". But, look, even if the conquest in Ezekiel does refer to the mainland cities, these cities were rebuilt and exist today, which contradicts Ezekiel 26:14 and 26:21. Now, you may claim that these passages refer to the island city of Tyre, but the earlier passages refer to the mainland. But this is precisely the sort of gymnastics I've been alleging. Even though the mainland was not called 'Tyre', and even though it wasn't heavily fortified, and even though all the imagery and content of Ezekiel indicate that 'Tyre' refers to an island, you feel free to just claim that, conveniently, some of the prophecies in Ezekiel refer to the mainland. Well, whatever gets you through the night.

Originally posted by kirksey957
That is always going to be your "trump card" that no one understands scripture like you do. When you start this millenial rule and thousand year reign nonsense, you are the one taking Joel out of context. If we follow your line of logic, the prophet Joel had absolutely nothing to say to the people of his time. Was he or was he not addressing the concerns of his time?

Joel may have been addressing 'the concerns of his time' elsewhere in the book, but not in that particular portion of it.
You don't even need much knowledge of hermeneutics to confirm this - common sense will do. Joel 3:12 says, 'For there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations,' which in the light of many other Scriptures that Christ will judge the nations clearly refers to Jesus as Judge. Common sense question: Has Jesus judged the nations yet; answer: no. Conclusion: This prophecy will be fulfilled after Christ judges the nations at His second coming.

QED

Originally posted by Henry23
Joel may have been addressing 'the concerns of his time' elsewhere in the book, but not in that particular portion of it.
You don't even need much knowledge of hermeneutics to confirm this - common sense will do. Joel 3:12 says, 'For there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations,' which in the light of many other Scriptures that Christ will judge t ...[text shortened]... his prophecy will be fulfilled after Christ judges the nations at His second coming.

QED

Will you be entering the next round of the sermon competition? Of course you know you must submit to the judging in much the same way that Christ will judge the nations.

Originally posted by Henry23
...common sense will do.

Of course the 'common sense' in question is not nearly as common as you would have us believe.

Originally posted by bbarr
The problem is that, in the ancient world, 'Tyre' did not refer to the mainland but to the island. It was the island that held all the temples, all the governmental buildings, the material wealth, and the two ports. It was the island that had walls 25' thick and 150' high surrounded with battlements. The mainland did not consist of a large central city, but kiel refer to the mainland. Well, whatever gets you through the night.

The problem is that, in the ancient world, 'Tyre' did not refer to the mainland but to the island.

"Founded at the start of the third millennium B.C., Tyre originally consisted of a mainland settlement and a modest island city that lay a short distance off shore..."

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

"The city started as both an island and mainland community..."

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/tyre.html

The mainland did not consist of a large central city, but a string of villages running down the Lebanese coast, none of which were surrounded by walls and towers and pillars.

Ushu was definitely considered part of Tyre. Didn't Tyre have a king? Was he king of just one little island city? No, because Tyre as a whole obviously included the surrounding mainland cities as well. In the same way Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx are all considered part of New York City.

And I find it extremely difficult to believe that the flourishing mainland port cities in question were utterly without walls, obelisks, pillars, gates, or defenses of any sort. After all, wasn't this region under constant threat?

But, look, even if the conquest in Ezekiel does refer to the mainland cities, these cities were rebuilt and exist today, which contradicts Ezekiel 26:14 and 26:21.

Wrong. The Tyre that Ezekiel prophesied against was the Phoenician Tyre. The Tyre existing today is the Lebanese Tyre. The Phoenician Tyre was utterly destroyed and has never been rebuilt.

"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

__________


Setting aside for a moment our argument over whether N. was spoken of as the sole destroyer of Tyre or not, let my ask you this: Why do you consistently ignore the fact that everything Ezekiel prophesies about Tyre has come true? If not by N.'s hand, then by another's? For example, Alexander threw the destroyed remains of mainland Tyre into the sea in order to build a causeway to the island, "...and they shall lay the stones and the timber and the very dust from your demolished city out in the midst of the water."

Here's what my Amplified Bible includes in its footnote for Ezekiel 26:14:

"Ezekiel (26:3-21; 28:6-10) foretold utter destruction for Tyre, naming not less than twenty-five separate details, each of which in the following centuries came true literally. Mathematicians have estimated, according to the "Law of Compound Probabilities," that if a prophecy concerning a person, place, or event has twenty-five details beyond the possibility of human collusion, calculation, coincidence, and comprehension, there is only one chance in more than thirty-three and one-half million of its accidental fulfillment. Yet Tyre's history at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and then more than two centuries later at the hands of Alexander the Great, and centuries after that at the hands of the Crusaders, was the striking fulfillment of each detail of the prophets' forecasts. No other city in the world's history could have fulfilled them. The authenticity and credibility of God's Word leaves no chance for sane denial."

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Mathematicians have estimated....

They either picked some biased Christian mathematicians or misrepresented their statements in an attempt to deceive. I always wonder why Christians frequently behave in this manner - deliberate deception in the hope of defending a theology which preaches honesty.
There are so many things wrong with that probability calculation that even you should be honest enough to admit that you can see the flaws.

[edit]
It is also very important to remember when dealing with prophesy, that your interpretation of the text of the prophesy must not be influenced in any way by the actual facts. If the text was given to someone who knew nothing of the actual historical events surrounding tyre, would they come to the same interpretation. If not, then the interpretation is invalid as it proves that multiple interpretations are possible.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The problem is that, in the ancient world, 'Tyre' did not refer to the mainland but to the island.

"Founded at the start of the third millennium B.C., Tyre originally consisted of a mainland settlement and a modest island city that lay a short distance off shore..."

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

...
Here's what my Amplified Bible in . The authenticity and credibility of God's Word leaves no chance for sane denial."[/b]

I've just finished reading through the whole debate concerning Tyre between bbarr and epiphinehas.

I must congratulate you, epiphinehas, in my opinion you have soundly refuted bbarr's objections and presented evidence that any intellegent and intellectually honest person would have to acknowledge.

Note also in Ezekiel 26:12 how the pronoun used in the prophecy changes from 'he' (used until verse 11 and refering to Nebbie) to 'they' (used from verse 12 and refering to Alexander and his forces). This is a subtle yet significant change.

I like your question at the end - why do they consistently ignore the fulfillments of these detailed prophecies? It is not for lack of evidence, so it must be because they do not want - at any cost - to believe that the Bible is true, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Getting back to the prophecy: This oracle was proclaimed by Ezekiel in the 11th year of the exile (Ezek 26:1) which took place in 597 BC, in other words, in 586 BC. Shortly after this the siege of the mainland city, which was completed in 573 BC, commenced. The destruction of the island portion of the city of Tyre was completed by Alexander in 332 BC, as you discussed, in exact fulfillment of the prophecy.

Once again, this exact fulfillment of detailed prophecy hundreds of years in the future would make any honest seeker of truth sit up and take note.

God 2 - Sceptics 0

P.S. epiphinehas, maybe this whole debate and it's outcome vindicates your observations that online appologetics is to a large degree a waste of time - a fruitful debate can only take place between two or more intellectually honest parties. I should probably stop wasting my time with it.

Originally posted by Henry23
I've just finished reading through the whole debate concerning Tyre between bbarr and epiphinehas.

I must congratulate you, epiphinehas, in my opinion you have soundly refuted bbarr's objections and presented evidence that any intellegent and intellectually honest person would have to acknowledge.

Note also in Ezekiel 26:12 how the pronoun used in the wo or more intellectually honest parties. I should probably stop wasting my time with it.

I have always found both bbarr and Epiphenehas to be thoroughly intellectually honest.

That one disagrees with a claim, and searches out source material to develop and support their arguments, does not indicate intellectual dishonesty. Failing to be convinced, while continuing to search out evidence, does not make one intellectually dishonest. That an argument reaches impasse or simply peters out (which this one may or may not do), does not indicate intellectual dishonesty on the part of either party.

The fact that two parties might start from different axiomatic bases does not indicate any intellectual dishonesty. Having an a priori vested interest in one’s own position does not entail intellectual dishonesty, at least unless one is aware of such vested interest but seeks to hide it—intellectual honesty may itself be such a vested interest, as might be the desire to test one’s thinking against the good minds of others in argument. Inadvertent self-contradiction in the course of arguing does not entail intellectual dishonesty; one may seek to resolve the contradiction (once recognized) without surrendering one’s initial position. [I am not ascribing any of these to either bbarr or Epi here.]

Your honestly believing that one party has carried the day, certainly does not make the other party intellectually dishonest just because they disagree. Your believing that anyone who does not agree must be unintelligent or intellectually dishonest does not make it so.

Both of these guys are intelligent and honest. So far as I know, you are as well. Why not just learn from the presentations by both sides in this good argument, be convinced however you are convinced, and leave it there.

Originally posted by Henry23
I've just finished reading through the whole debate concerning Tyre between bbarr and epiphinehas.

I must congratulate you, epiphinehas, in my opinion you have soundly refuted bbarr's objections and presented evidence that any intellegent and intellectually honest person would have to acknowledge.

Note also in Ezekiel 26:12 how the pronoun used in the ...[text shortened]... wo or more intellectually honest parties. I should probably stop wasting my time with it.

Prophecies: They're not off by a few hundred years; they're just that much more incredibly far-sighted! 😀 Great entertainment. Do keep it up.

Originally posted by Henry23
I've just finished reading through the whole debate concerning Tyre between bbarr and epiphinehas.

I must congratulate you, epiphinehas, in my opinion you have soundly refuted bbarr's objections and presented evidence that any intellegent and intellectually honest person would have to acknowledge.

Note also in Ezekiel 26:12 how the pronoun used in the ...[text shortened]... wo or more intellectually honest parties. I should probably stop wasting my time with it.

There is a THeological Forum Debate Room that has strict rules on debating. It is the best place I have seen on the net for debates.

There is a strict word count per submission.

There are three rounds.

There two closing statements again with stict word count.

Then each opponent gets to ask the counterpart three questions each with only so many words for questions and for answers.

Then there are moderator selected questions from the audience to either of the participants.

Those were the best debates I have participated in. They use to be called THEOLOGICALFORUMS.ORG I think.

Originally posted by twhitehead
They either picked some biased Christian mathematicians or misrepresented their statements in an attempt to deceive. I always wonder why Christians frequently behave in this manner - deliberate deception in the hope of defending a theology which preaches honesty.
There are so many things wrong with that probability calculation that even you should be hon ...[text shortened]... not, then the interpretation is invalid as it proves that multiple interpretations are possible.

It is also very important to remember when dealing with prophesy, that your interpretation of the text of the prophesy must not be influenced in any way by the actual facts. If the text was given to someone who knew nothing of the actual historical events surrounding tyre, would they come to the same interpretation. If not, then the interpretation is invalid as it proves that multiple interpretations are possible.

An important point. Whether I want, or do not want, to believe a prophecy has no bearing. The prophecy that is claimed to predict actual historical events must be tested against subsequent actual historical events—such prophecy must be read through history, not the other way around. And new historical discoveries must always be factored in.

Otherwise, such putative future-telling* cannot be tested at all, and one can read into it whatever one wants to—not, as I noted before, that I am critical of such other readings.

If one is permitted to just keep retro-fitting future-tellings to whatever (and however) historical events turn out to be the case, then using them as apologetical arguments for the (historical) inerrancy of scripture becomes a farce. One then stands in need of an apologetics for their apologetics.

Epi knows all this, and is honestly—in the course of mounting an argument—searching out supportive historical evidence, while trying to steer clear of the kind of error that you mention. I think maybe he bumped against the rocks a bit with his parsing of metaphor versus literal phrases in such close context, but I think he realized that and backed up before smashing his boat on the shoals. That’s how these arguments** sometimes develop.

I have really enjoyed this one so far, precisely because both parties are searching out and relying on the history; I think it might be the first extended attempt to do that for an argument over prophecy on here (there have been arguments of other kinds, of course). It is also the kind of argument, no matter if the exchanges are sometimes sharp, that by its nature shows the opponent respect—the respect of being worth the effort to engage in sustained argument. Kudos to both of them.

________________________________

* As a technical matter, future-telling may be part of prophecy, but the prophets are not strictly future-tellers (as I also noted before). Daniel, for instance, although it includes future-telling, is not included among the prophets (the nevi’im) in the Jewish division of scriptures, but among the “writings” (ketuvim). This is not any kind of disparagement of the book (no more than Kings, say, or Esther are disparaged by being in that division); it is just that Daniel does meet the other prophetic criteria, like speaking God’s justice to the people of Israel in his time—as did Isaiah and Jeremiah, for example.

** “Argument” for me, as I use it here, is an affirmative, not a disparaging, term. But, as jaywill points out, these are not formal debates.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The problem is that, in the ancient world, 'Tyre' did not refer to the mainland but to the island.

"Founded at the start of the third millennium B.C., Tyre originally consisted of a mainland settlement and a modest island city that lay a short distance off shore..."

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

"The city started as both an island an enticity and credibility of God's Word leaves no chance for sane denial."[/b]

Excuse me if I do not your sources seriously. I am providing you with academic sources from reputable and credentialed scholars in peer-reviewed journals. You are giving me stuff you come across on the web. Middleeast.com is a travel website, and I can’t find out who wrote the entry on Tyre. Barry Schindle is the author of the second source, but as far as I can tell he is neither faculty nor student at the university where the site is hosted. The emuseum of which this source is a site is student run, so it wasn’t faculty that wrote the page you cite. In any case, poor Barry Schindle’s article is contradicted by one of the sources he himself cites. Although he claims that the Tyre started as both an island and mainland community, one of his sources (http://tyros.leb.net/tyre/) claims simply that Tyre was an island, and makes no mention of any mainland city by the same name. In short, your sources suck.

But, if you want sites from the web, this one seems better than either of yours:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/the_hitch/article576617.ece

“Tyre was an island fortress until Alexander the Great took it in 332 BC and built a causeway linking it to the mainland. The island itself is said to have been created by Hiram, King of Tyre, who sent cedars of Lebanon to King David for his palace and to Solomon for the first Temple in Jerusalem. Hiram linked the two Ambrosian Isles to create his city, with the principal harbour on the north.”

Note that this is backed up by the work of actual archeologists, who have published their findings in the Journal of Archeological Science, which you can search out for yourself, as the Times article cites the relevant journal article.

Yes, Ushu was under Tyrian control, as were other cities up and down the coast. Sidon was not, but I think Carthage and other colonial towns were as well. So what? Are you claiming that if N. sacked Ushu that the prophecy is fulfilled, even though it claims N. will sack Tyre? Suppose I prophecy that Canada will conquer the United States. Would that prophecy be fulfilled if Canada succeeded in conquering only Seattle? Of course not. Or suppose I prophesy that Jersey will conquer New York. Is that prophesy fulfilled if Jersey sacks Brooklyn but fails to conquer any of the other burroughs, even after a 13 year siege? Of course not. On your view, the sack of a suburb is equivalent to the sack of a city. Even if the mainland suburbs of Tyre were also called ‘Tyre’, do you really think that Ezekiel is referring to mainland suburbs? Surely not, given the actual textual evidence I presented earlier. According to Ezekiel, Tyre dwells in the midst of the sea! But, no matter. After all, Ushu probably had a wall here or there, and probabaly had a street or two, and some inhabitants. On your interpretation, it would be sufficient for the prophecy in Ezekiel to be confirmed that N. strolled into Ushu on a horse, kicked over some poor farmer’s wall and then put him to the sword! One wonders why the prophecy bothered with all the apocalyptic imagery, given how modest the required results of N.’s campaign would need be to satsify prophecy. Why not “Lo, and it will come to pass that N. and his hordes, the most ruthless of nations, will vandalize a mainland street of Ushu!” Whatever makes the prophecy come out true, right Epi? Of course, given these gymnastics, there is no reason for sober people to take talk of prophecy as bearing any confirmatory or evidential relation to the spiritual claims in the Bible. If really anything at all will satisfy prophecy, then the satisfaction of prophecy does not constitute evidence. You should think about that.

Your claim about Phonecian Tyre never being rebuilt is ridiculous. Suppose Canada, jealous of our freedoms, invades Seattle and burns it to the ground before eventually being repelled. If we rebuild a city on the ruins out of new material, call it ‘Seattle’, house the same citizens, govern it by the same laws that governed the city previously, etc., then the rebuilt city is Seattle. It is not as though the identity conditions for cities are tied to particular materials, else cities would, as a matter of fact, fail to persist through changes of infrastructure. Now, suppose that Canada is never repelled; that it conquers Seattle and claims it as a new city of British Columbia. Does it follow that Seattle ceases to exist? After all, now we’re talking about Canadian Seattle, not the Seattle of the United States! Of course not. Paris didn’t stop being Paris in 1940 and then suddenly start being Paris again in 1944.

Not everything prophesied of Tyre has come to pass. That is precisely my point! So alleging that I am ignoring the accuracy of prophecy is question-begging. Ezekiel 26:12 reads “and they shall cast into the water your stones and timber and soil”, and this happens subsequently to the plundering, looting and razing. This is supposed to be that which leads to the island being turned into a “naked rock”. You, however, in a desperate attempt to salvage prohecy, ignore the context of Ezekiel 26:12 and claim that it refers to Alexander’s causeway. But Alexander’s causeway was built prior to the plundering, looting and razing of the island. Give me a break. Are you claiming here that the plundering, razing and looting mentioned in the prior verses again refers to some hapless suburb, and not to actual Tyre? In any case, even if I grant your "many nations" interpretation, not everything claimed of Tyre has come to pass. Tyre was rebuilt just after Alexander's conquest, which is why it was possible for one of Alexander's generals to sack it again eighteen years later (a campaign that took over a year, showing that even after Alexander's conquest, Tyre was far from in defenseless ruins). It was rebuilt after this, too. Tyre has never been lost and has been consistently rebuilt. Further, claiming that Tyre would eventually fall is not that implausible, since it had been besieged six or seven times in the 120 years prior to N., and had capitulated more than once. It wasn't until 1291 that Tyre was finally left in ruins by Muslim invaders. Perhaps you think that Ezekiel also refers to the Muslims. Perhaps you think that Ezekiel refers to whomever, from N. on the Muslims, has attacked Tyre. Perhaps you think that Ezekiel refers to all and only those things that make Ezekiel come out true. If so, then this debate is done.

Spare me references to the Bible as archeological evidence, even if the Bible super-duper and amplified. It is the credibility of the Bible that is here at issue.