There has been a lot of discussion about Tyre.  In sum, Ezekiel prophesied
that the place would be mashed and never rebuilt; as there are a lot of
people living there, it would appear that Ezekiel was not literally correct.

This doesn't bother me at all, because I understand the language Ezekiel used
differently than do so-called Biblical literalists.  For example, it sometimes
happens that someone says "My grandson is the cutest baby!" and then turns
around and sees the granddaughter and says "Oh!  Isn't she the cutest thing!?"

This person is not literally claiming to have lined up all the babies in the
world according to cuteness and discovered his own grandchildren tied for
first.  Rather, he is trying to express his emotions using words that are very
object-oriented.  Because this example is one that is common to many people,
nobody misunderstands the intent of the statements; the Bible, however, is
often at the mercy of people who assume that everything within must be exactly
literally true.  For those people, the existence of Tyre is a problem; for me,
it is not.


Turning to the latest person trying to defend Ezekiel, we read this from
John E King:


No, it implies nothing of the kind.  If you had nothing but the prophecy from
Ezekiel, and you were told you interpret it literally, you would never say
"Oh, he means that there will be houses and businesses and plants and stuff
like that."  You would read "I will make you a bare rock" and "You will never
be rebuilt", and you'd conclude that Tyre would be a bare rock.  The only way
to get from `fishing nets' to `houses and buildings and a medium-large
population' is if you KNOW that all that latter stuff is there.

In other words, your answer means that Ezekiel misled everybody who read the
prophecy at the time it was written.  There is no way that, given a literal
reading, they could read this passage and conclude "medium-size city".

You seem to feel that "Never be rebuilt" means "be rebuilt" -- maybe so, but
it is hardly a `clear implication'.




Well, no.  That's only a bit less than the population of Annapolis, where I'm
from.  You know, the Naval Acadamy, the state capital, George Washington
resigned his commission in the statehouse?  Annapolis may not be New York, but
it's at least a two-horse town.

But supposing 22,000 people is a "small town" -- it's still 22,000 people
MORE than Ezekiel predicted.


And you've said nothing about the other problem.  In chapter 26, Ezekiel
predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will will destroy Tyre and loot all their
valuables.  However, Nebuchadnezzar did NOT destroy Tyre, and in chapter 29
Ezekiel even quotes God as saying "he and his army got no reward from the
campaign he led against Tyre."

Let's ignore Alexander for a moment, and just pay attention to chapter 26.
Ezekiel says N. would destroy Tyre, and N. did NOT destroy Tyre.  Ezekiel says
that N. would plunder their valuables, but N. did NOT plunder their valuables.

Regardless of what you think about Tyre _now_, the fact is that N. died before
the place was destroyed.  Ezekiel said N. was going to do it, and N. did not.

 *

This post is, of course, pointless.  Inerrantists have an amazing ability
to rewrite the Bible as needed to fit whatever they want it to say.

For example, I expect Mr King to respond to the comments about Ezekiel 26
by pulling some "clear implications" out of hat.

When Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your towers", that clearly implied
that the walls would still be standing so people would know where the towers
used to be.  And when Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your fine houses
and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea", that clearly implied
that N. would never set foot on the island.  And when Ezekiel wrote that N.
would "build a ramp up to your walls", that clearly implies that N. would
spend 13 years stomping around on the mainland and never get close to the
walls.

See?  A few "clear implications" that are totally contrary to the text, and
you can reconcile anything you want.
