The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

Ezekiel 26:4 says:

"And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock."

In your opinion, does verse 4 refer to the mainland settlement, to the island settlement, or to both settlements?

Part only applies to the mainland and part to both. That is why it is broken by also and refers to God who is the true source and not to either singular commander.

No, verse 4 refers only to the island settlement. The word "they" can only refer to parties other than Nebuchadnezzar.

Here are the two parts of the verse:

"And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers."

"I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock."

Obviously, the "her" in the second part of the verse is the same as the "her" in the first part of the verse.

James Holding, who is one of your sources, says:

Verses 3-5 and 12-14 are "I/they" verses -- and form a minor chiastic structure around the central core of verses describing Nebuchadnezzar's actions alone. The linguistic pattern of this passage indicates that the "they" of v. 12 are the nations of v. 4. Not only is the pronoun ("they") the same, but in addition, only in these verses is Adonai YHWH the sole leader, and two unique actions -- net spreading, scraping -- are the same as those ascribed to the nations in 3-5. Bottom line: "they" in v. 12 does not refer to Nebuchadnezzar and his army; they, as one of the "nations" brought by Adonai YHWH, would have qualified to fulfill those passages, but so could any other nation brought against Tyre in its history following.

Please note:

"the 'they' of v. 12 are the nations of v. 4."

Only verses 6-11 refer to Nebuchadnezzar. If those verses had been put after verse 14, the chapter would have been much easier for people to understand. Here is what we would have if we put verses 6-11 after verse 14:

1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:

3 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.

5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God.

6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the Lord.

7 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

That makes the first 14 verses much easier for people to understand. I would not be surprised if that is the way that the verses were originally arranged, and that by the time that scribes copied the originals, verses 6-11 had become rearranged.

The rock part refers to the island because only the island was built directly on a rock. God was not prophesying an excavation but an attack.

I agree with that, but it is not surprising that by say 1200 A.D., the island fortress would have been substantially destroyed.

Please reply to my posts on the previous page, and to my post 209.

 

[1robin]

No it isn't since verse 19 refers only to the island settlement, and it has probably never been uninhabited. Even if the verse partly refers to the mainland settlement, it probably has never been uninhabited.

Multifaceted means making more than one prediction about an event. It does not mean more than one place is mentioned. However there does seem to be more than one place envisioned here through multiple events and details. An island is not one place anyway. I do not even known if one place can be defined meaningfully. What place? That continent, that state, that house, that chair, that spot, that molecule. What defines one place?

We are discussing verse 19, not some other verses. Verse 19 refers only to the island settlement.

Please reply to my three previous posts.

Neither the words island nor anything exclusive to an island appear in that verse. Your are making a mistake to limit the prophecy to where nothing was ever built again. The prophecy states that a place will be made uninhabited. That does not mean it will not be uninhabited at some point in the future. It just means that that city will be devoid of people at some point. I also think your relying too heavily on the meanings of the words used in translation. I suggest you look up the original Hebrew and see what he words mean that were used.

 

[1robin]

A Wikipedia article at List of sieges of Constantinople - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows that there were many sieges of Constantinople. Siege machines, and battering rams were used in the siege of Constantinople in 717-718 A.D. That is the siege of Constantinople that I mentioned in my post 182.

I did not say other siege machines were not there. I said that no other siege machine was able to breech the fortress. Only when some gargantuan gun was shipped to the site that the walls were breeched. That is what I said, though I cannot remember why I said it at this time.

Siege machines, and battering rams improved after Alexander’s time, but they still used the same basic principles, and those principles did not change until cannons were used after 1200 A.D. Therefore, there are not any good reasons to limit the time frame to before 1200 A.D.

This is irrelevant since no other candidates exist for this prophecy outside that time frame. You can expand what ever date ranges I gave you if you wish but my point was that the prophecy did not simply open the door to anyone who would eventually conquer Tyre. Not by a long shot. I am pressed for time so I am not going to contend with unnecessary contentions.

If the island fortress had been conquered say five years before cannons were first used in the Ancient Near East, and had not been rebuilt during the next five years, it is obvious that it would have never been rebuilt after cannons were used in the Ancient Near East.

Why is that and why is it relevant? I have lost my train of thought here.

You tried to limit the time frame to 500 years. Do you have any evidence that the island settlement looked like a bare rock within 500 years?

Alexander's attack took place within that time frame. Are you disagreeing that he demolished the structures on the rock? However you may expand my range of your estimation of cannon use is accurate. 500 years was a rough estimate anyway.

 

[1robin]

In your post 41, you mentioned a book that is titled "Science Speaks," that was co-written by Peter W. Stoner. He died in
1980. The book is available for free online at On-line book: Science Speaks by Peter Stoner (Peter W. Stoner). The book says:



Within a few days, I will discuss most of what Stoner discussed about the Tyre prophecy, but for now, consider the following from the book:

I do not remember using that book, I have no doubt you are correct, but as it has little to do with Tyre from what you posted about it why did you mention it. Especially since you did not expand the mention into a point of any kind.

You said that Ezekiel predicted that the island settlement would be made flat like the top of a rock, but Stoner says that that part of the prophecy refers to the mainland settlement.

Oh I see. If I quote anything by anyone I am responsible for defending everything that person ever claimed. Tough crowd. I think Stoner is terribly wrong here. The verse in question is:

•4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.

Since the pronoun They is used that suggests that more than one person is necessary for the event to occur. Only the island required more than one person to destroy. Plus no one would write than a city built on the beech would become a bare rock (prophet or not). That makes no sense at all. Add in the fact that it was well known that the island the fortress was on was a bare rock and we have all we need to sat Stoner was stoned. What is it I referenced him to prove anyway?

James Holding, who is another one of your sources that you mentioned in your post 41, also disagrees with you about that. You mentioned his article about the Tyre prophecy at Ezekiel Tyre prophecy defended. Holding says:

Please remember this. I never look at the names. I look up issues. If I agree with the logic used to conclude a specific issue I will cite the link. I do not read the entire paper or article. I have no burden to defend with everything a person I cited has ever stated. I only have to defend what it was I cited them for.

Another one of your sources disagrees with you. In your post 8, you mentioned a source at Fulfilled Prophecy as an Apologetic | Christian Research Institute. Consider the following:

What you quoted was exactly what I stated. The prophecy was about the island as far as bare rock goes. It was Alexander that performed it using a causeway and a navy. That is exactly what I have been stating. Which part disagreed with me?

 

[1robin]

No, verse 4 refers only to the island settlement. The word "they" can only refer to parties other than Nebuchadnezzar.

Here are the two parts of the verse:

"And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers."

"I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock."

Obviously, the "her" in the second part of the verse is the same as the "her" in the first part of the verse.

It is possible you are right here, though it is not certain. The first part states that they will break down the walls of Tyrus. This can mean either the mainland only, the island only, or both. Remind me why this is crucial please.

James Holding, who is one of your sources, says:

Please note:

"the 'they' of v. 12 are the nations of v. 4."

That was very confusing. Any use of they would necessarily include Nebuchadnezzar. He is the only party mentioned by name. It would be impossible to use they and not include him. It seems your suggesting otherwise but this is so obvious I can believe it. Can you clarify what it is your driving at?

Only verses 6-11 refer to Nebuchadnezzar. If those verses had been put after verse 14, the chapter would have been much easier for people to understand. Here is what we would have if we put verses 6-11 after verse 14:



That makes the first 14 verses much easier for people to understand. I would not be surprised if that is the way that the verses were originally arranged, and that by the time that scribes copied the originals, verses 6-11 had become rearranged.

I am not defending the level of efficiency and level of clarity in the arrangement of verses. I will allow that a better or preferred way of arranging a story may exist. I claim only that the bible is sufficiently clear as the needs of faith require. I do not claim it is the epitome of clarity in all cases. What is the point to this?

As a side note. I believe revelations to be the most ominous and bone chilling text ever written about anything. When a writer wants to be a terrifying and ominous as he can often it is straight to revelations for movies and books. Would you agree?

I agree with that, but it is not surprising that by say 1200 A.D., the island fortress would have been substantially destroyed.

Please reply to my posts on the previous page, and to my post 209.

It is astronomically surprising since fortresses and towns not fractionally as strong as Tyre dot that entire area even until today. That place is full of forts that have not been eradicated, much less annihilated from existence entirely.

Let say you were inventing a false prophecy in Ezekiel's day. Since almost no fortress is ever obliterated and even fewer eradicated entirely from existence would it be a better idea to go with the 99 out of a hundred odds and predict it would only be attacked, or the 1 in a hundred odds that it will obliterated from existence? Would you not have gone with the odds if you were making up a lie you wanted people to believe was true. Actually the odds are far worse than I supplied.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument 1

Siege machines, and battering rams improved after Alexander’s time, but they still used the same basic principles, and those principles did not change until cannons were used after 1200 A.D. Therefore, there are not any good reasons to limit the time frame to before 1200 A.D.

This is irrelevant since no other candidates exist for this prophecy outside that time frame.

On the contrary, any group of candidates before about 1200 A.D. are relevant.

You can expand what ever date ranges I gave you if you wish but my point was that the prophecy did not simply open the door to anyone who would eventually conquer Tyre.

Yes it did.

Argument 2

You tried to limit the time frame to 500 years. Do you have any evidence that the island settlement looked like a bare rock within 500years?

Alexander's attack took place within that time frame. Are you disagreeing that he demolished the structures on the rock?

What evidence do you have that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock?

Argument 3

The prophecy was about the island as far as bare rock goes. It was Alexander that performed it using a causeway and a navy.

You are right that Ezekiel meant that the island would look like a bare rock, but you have not provided any evidence that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock.

Argument 4

The causeway is irrelevant since Ezekiel said that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea. Any naval force over the next 1700 years that used siege machines to attack the fortress would have caused parts of the walls to fall into the sea.

Argument 5

It is not surprising that by say 1200 A.D., the island fortress would have been substantially destroyed.

It is astronomically surprising since fortresses and towns not fractionally as strong as Tyre dot that entire area even until today. That place is full of forts that have not been eradicated, much less annihilated from existence entirely.

Every case is different. Many ancient forts were never rebuilt for various reasons.

Do you have any evidence that the fortress was never rebuilt after Alexander defeated it? A Christian website at Isaiah 23 says:

The destruction of the island fortress of Tyre by Alexander was predicted by Zechariah about 515 BC. (Zec. 9:3,4) After being destroyed by Alexander Tyre was rebuilt again but never regained the prominence described by Isaiah and Ezekiel as the center of old world mercantile activity.

Perhaps the island fortress was rebuilt to some extent. The causeway would have made the fortress less strategic, but it would still have had some military, and economic value, and still had two ports.

I previously mentioned an article at 10 Forgotten Ancient Civilizations - Listverse that discusses ten forgotten civilizations that no longer exist. Those were entire civilizations, not just one fortress.

Argument 6

The building of the causeway did affect the history of the island, but there was not anything miraculous about the building of the causeway, and Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about a causeway being built from the mainland to the island.

It is plausible, if not probable that the island fortress was partly rebuilt after Alexander defeated it. In any case, we know that eventually, it became more desirable for residential purposes than as a fortress. There was nothing miraculous about that.

Argument 7

Quote:

"They declined his request and told him that he could use the temple that was located in the secondary part of the city on the main shore. Alexander was not interested in this temple and sent a second negotiation team to the city. These negotiators were beheaded and tossed from the city walls into the sea. This act led to Alexander's decision to lay siege to Tyre."

Alexander the Great and the Siege of Tyre - Military.Answers.com

In your opinion, why did Alexander go to Tyre?

Wikipedia says:

The Siege of Tyre occurred in 332 BC when Alexander set out to conquer Tyre, a strategic coastal base. Tyre was the site of the only remaining Persian port that did not capitulate to Alexander. Even by this point in the war, the Persian navy still posed a major threat to Alexander. Tyre, the largest and most important city-state of Phoenicia, was located both on the Mediterranean coast as well as a nearby Island with two natural harbours on the landward side.

An article at Major Battles of Alexander's Asian Campaign quotes Arrian as saying:

When the answer from Tyre was brought to Alexander, he sent the ambassadors back in a rage.

That means that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers. He probably threatened them. Alexander could have been furious with the Tyrians for strategic reasons, for religious reasons, or both. Whichever is the case, it doesn't matter since he was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers, and he plausibly, or probably would have attacked the fortress even if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers.

The same article quotes Alexander via Arrian as saying:

Friends and allies, I see that an expedition to Egypt will not be safe for us, so long as the Persians retain the sovereignty of the sea; nor is it a safe course, both for other reasons, and especially looking at the state of matters in Greece, for us to pursue Darius, leaving in our rear the city of Tyre itself in doubtful allegiance, and Egypt and Cyprus in the occupation of the Persians. I am apprehensive lest while we advance with our forces towards Babylon and in pursuit of Darius, the Persians should again conquer the maritime districts, and transfer the war into Greece with a larger army, considering that the Lacedaemonians are now waging war against us without disguise, and the city of Athens is restrained for the present rather by fear than by any good-will towards us.

You said:

Alexander was obsessed by Persia not Tyre. His eye was on Babylon not the coast. His direction of advance was south east, not west.

Alexander attacked Tyre in 332 B.C. The Battle of Gaugamela occurred in the next year, which was 331 B.C. Wikipedia says that the Battle of Gaugamela "was a decisive victory for the Hellenic League and led to the fall of the Persian Empire." Wikipedia also says that Alexander conquered Babylon in 331 B.C.

So Alexander's plans from 332 - 331 B.C. worked out quite well regarding Tyre, Darius, and Babylon.

Argument 8

There are not any good reasons why some Babylonians would not have told Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar was going to Tyre. Ezekiel, and other Hebrews, hated Tyre, and were jealous of it, so Ezekiel being told about it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar since Ezekiel wanted him to defeat the mainland settlement.

That is not evidence. It is an assumption based on hypotheticals.

Not at all. It is certainly reasonable to assume that the Hebrews, including Ezekiel, hated Tyre, and that such being the case, it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar if Ezekiel had learned by ordinary means about his plans to attack the mainland settlement.

We cannot know to what extent Ezekiel might have been accepted, and befriended by some of the Babylonians, and what they might have told him about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement. In addition, Ezekiel might have overheard some people discussing the plans.

Months of military preparations took place in Babylon before Nebuchadnezzar went to Tyre. The preparations would have been observed by many people, and would have been discussed by many people. No one living today could possibly reliably estimate how many Babylonians knew about the plans.

 

[Agnostic75]

I believe Daniel predicted that Babylon would fall and never be rebuilt. That was even worse. Babylon was the most fortified city in history. It was like predicting New York would soon disappear even if it was surrounded by our entire military, and never be rebuilt. The last attempt to rebuild it occurred when Sadam Hussein tried to do so. As is usually the case when God predicts something. That was gulf war I and he failed. Combine these with over 2000 additional ones and you get almost proof (in fact it is proof of the supernatural at least).

Daniel mentions Babylon, but most debates about Babylon that I am aware of are about what Isaiah says about Babylon in Isaiah chapter 13, and chapter 21.

I do not want to discuss Babylon prophecies in this thread. If you wish, you can start a new thread on the Babylon prophecy.

As I have told you before, an evil God who is omniscient would be able to predict the future. You have said that there is not any evidence that that is the case, but there is not any evidence that that is not the case. Your claim that God is who he says he is is not reasonable evidence merely because you claim it is.

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. If God is an evil God, and is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument 1
On the contrary, any group of candidates before about 1200 A.D. are relevant.

I replied that you could use 1200AD if you wished but that would still give the range a limited duration instead of a open ended duration which was your original claim. 1500 years is a tiny fraction of the infinity your argument used. Also ship born battering rams were never very popular and I can think on no other instance of their being used. I would narrow your range to about 800AD but even keeping it at 1200 renders your "if anyone ever destroyed Tyre it would satisfy the prophecy" quite absurd.

Yes it did.

My goodness. You limited the time frame to 1200AD and then said it was open ended. Which is it?

Argument 2
What evidence do you have that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock?

The final act that brought down the fortress is well known. It was battering rams at all points seaward and catapults from the causeway. What was left was a bare rock with a pile of stones on it. The stones were cleared because historical records show it was used to spread fishing nets upon and the stones have been found used as building material in structures many miles away. It is now a complete bare rock sitting under the Mediterranean. What you see above land is what accumulated upon the causeway. If you were there and looked you would see bare rock covered by a few feet of water.

Argument 3
You are right that Ezekiel meant that the island would look like a bare rock, but you have not provided any evidence that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock.

You just repeated the same question as above.

Argument 4
The causeway is irrelevant since Ezekiel said that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea. Any naval force over the next 1700 years that used siege machines to attack the fortress would have caused parts of the walls to fall into the sea.

The point is that Nebuchadnezzar and alexander made concerted and vast efforts at throwing tons of what was Tyre into the water just as predicted. Your saying the prediction is invalid even if child kicked a stone in the water or a modern construction bulldozed a wall into the ocean, what kind of logic is that. Exactly what was predicted occurred. If in the future we nuked the area and threw metric tons of debris in the water would that make Ezekiel's prediction less true.

Argument 5
Every case is different. Many ancient forts were never rebuilt for various reasons.

That is not even close to being relevant. 99 out of a hundred forts were never annihilated from existence. If I was lying I would have went with the odds and said it would still remain. You have two choices. Guess or prophecy. Guesses would always go with the odds. Prophecy would defy the odds.

Do you have any evidence that the fortress was never rebuilt after Alexander defeated it? A Christian website at Isaiah 23 says:

That site links what was rebuilt with a small settlement there today. That settlement is not where the Tyre were discussing was located and was built by the Assyrians. An interesting picture I once found had a column or two from the old Tyre with the new city your talking about in the background. No city was built on the old, but one was built in the vicinity. I noticed a bunch of things I think are drastically wrong with other claims in that site. I need a bit to investigate it further.

Perhaps the island fortress was rebuilt to some extent. The causeway would have made the fortress less strategic, but it would still have had some military, and economic value, and still had two ports.

There are current structures on the island but not the part Alexander attacked. It is underwater. What has been built on is what accumulated on the causeway over the years.

I previously mentioned an article at 10 Forgotten Ancient Civilizations - Listverse that discusses ten forgotten civilizations that no longer exist. Those were entire civilizations, not just one fortress.

I love list verse. There have probably been tens of thousands of civilizations in history. I would imagine several hundred ceased to exist. Few were world powers like Carthage and the point is that few went down just exactly as a prophet proclaimed they would. I however have not been using Carthages fall as evidence for anything.

Argument 6

The building of the causeway did affect the history of the island, but there was not anything miraculous about the building of the causeway, and Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about a causeway being built from the mainland to the island.

It is plausible, if not probable that the island fortress was partly rebuilt after Alexander defeated it. In any case, we know that eventually, it became more desirable for residential purposes than as a fortress. There was nothing miraculous about that.

A causeway it's self like this one was extremely hard to build, he failed three times and was under fire the whole time, but I never used it as a prophecy as Ezekiel did not mention it. He only mention throwing building material in the water which the causeway facilitated. It was used to spread nets on it and no Phoenician ever reconstructed it. Some later cultures tried to build small shacks on it until an earthquake sent it underwater.

Argument 7



In your opinion, why did Alexander go to Tyre?

I have given this from historical sources many times. He was promised Tyre's master Sidon's loyalty. To test this loyalty he asked to worship in their temple. He was refused so he sent messengers and when the were killed and displayed it meant a fight to the death.

Wikipedia says:



An article at Major Battles of Alexander's Asian Campaign quotes Arrian as saying:

I see wiki agrees with me.

That means that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers. He probably threatened them. Alexander could have been furious with the Tyrians for strategic reasons, for religious reasons, or both. Whichever is the case, it doesn't matter since he was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers, and he plausibly, or probably would have attacked the fortress even if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers.

It is silly debating at what stage he was maddest but it went like this:

1. Sidon promised Tyrian neutrality or help.
2. To test this Alexander asked to worship in their temple.
3. They refused but offered the secondary temple. Strike one.
4. Alexander sent emissaries to again ask to enter the temple.
5. Refusal. Strike two.
6. They beheaded and displayed these messengers on their walls.
7. Armageddon for Tyre had begun.
8. The destruction of his causeways and the burning of his siege ramps made a determined Alexander decide to destroy Tyre completely and take or kill everything.

The same article quotes Alexander via Arrian as saying:

He and I are in agreement. Alexander did not want to attack Tyre but Persia. He hoped Sidon's allegiance would leave no enemy behind him as he advanced on Babylon. However Tyre's refusal to let him in the temple left him with no choice but to eradicate it before he could do so. So he trashed Tyre then assaulted Babylon just as your sources said.

Alexander attacked Tyre in 332 B.C. The Battle of Gaugamela occurred in the next year, which was 331 B.C. Wikipedia says that the Battle of Gaugamela "was a decisive victory for the Hellenic League and led to the fall of the Persian Empire." Wikipedia also says that Alexander conquered Babylon in 331 B.C.

I can't keep describing the first half of one of the largest military conquests ever. I have to leave anyway. Tell you what I will do is post Alexander's entire campaign, though I do not see the relevance as soon as I can and respond to the rest of this. If you can repost the part I left un answered so it will remind me of what I promised here and what I left un answered.

 

[Agnostic75]

On the contrary, any group of candidates before about 1200 A.D. are relevant.

I replied that you could use 1200 AD if you wished but that would still give the range a limited duration instead of a open ended duration which was your original claim.

What do you mean by open ended?

1500 years is a tiny fraction of the infinity your argument used.

1500 years is not an infinity, and 1200 AD from the time that Ezekiel supposedly wrote the prophecy would be about 1700 years, not 1500 years.

Also ship born battering rams were never very popular and I can think on no other instance of their being used.

But the use of battering rams against the fortress had about 1700 years to occur. Alexander was merely the first, or one of the first people to use them in naval warfare.

I would narrow your range to about 800 AD but even keeping it at 1200 renders your "if anyone ever destroyed Tyre it would satisfy the prophecy" quite absurd.

There are not any good reasons to limit the time frame to before 1200 A.D.

It is not absurd to say that it is reasonably possible that someone other than Alexander would have defeated the island fortress by 1200 A.D. However, there are not any good reasons not to include Alexander since there was not anything miraculous about anything that he did at Tyre.

You can expand what ever date ranges I gave you if you wish but my point was that the prophecy did not simply open the door to anyone who would eventually conquer Tyre.

On the contrary, Ezekiel only mentioned Nebuchadnezzar by name, and many nations could refer to any parties other than Nebuchadnezzar.

 

[Agnostic75]

What evidence do you have that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock?

The final act that brought down the fortress is well known. It was battering rams at all points seaward and catapults from the causeway.
What was left was a bare rock with a pile of stones on it.

Please quote some historical sources that say that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock. I assume that it would have been very unlikely for Alexander to destroy the temples at the island settlement.

It is now a complete bare rock sitting under the Mediterranean. What you see above land is what accumulated upon the causeway. If you were there and looked you would see bare rock covered by a few feet of water.

Ezekiel 26:19 says:

"For thus saith the Lord God; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee."

At https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...PHK0HkcJ-Bg4i3XuB1EZckXRXuT6XLSkTjbv8h0Zm-3D-, there is an aerial photograph of the causeway. There are not any good reasons to assume that all of what the photo shows is the causeway, and not also part of the island where it was during Alexander's time. Since the causeway is not covered with water, why would most of, or all of the island be covered with water? Please quote some modern sources that say that all that is left above water is the causeway.

The causeway would have helped to prevent erosion on the east side of the island, which would have helped to prevent most of, or all of it from being covered with water.

The island was more substantial geologically than the causeway was, so it is reasonable to assume that much of it would stay above water like the causeway did.

If Alexander tore down all of the structures on the island, what did he do with the rubble? If he cast it into the sea, that would have helped to prevent the island from becoming covered with water. If Alexander left the rubble on the ground, that would also have helped to prevent the island from becoming covered with water.

 

[Agnostic75]

The causeway is irrelevant since Ezekiel said that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea. Any naval force over the next 1700 years that used siege machines to attack the fortress would have caused parts of the walls to fall into the sea.

The point is that Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander made concerted and vast efforts at throwing tons of what was Tyre into the water just as predicted.

Ezekiel 26:12 says:

"And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water."

The verse has to refer only to the island fortress since that is where most of the riches, and merchandise was, and probably where all of the pleasant houses were. As far as I know, Nebuchadnezzar did not have anything to do with tearing down the walls of the island fortress. In addition, the use of the word "they" excludes Nebuchadnezzar.

What evidence shows that Alexander made "vast efforts at throwing tons of what was Tyre into the water"?

 

[Agnostic75]

The building of the causeway did affect the history of the island, but there was not anything miraculous about the building of the causeway, and Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about a causeway being built from the mainland to the island.

It is plausible, if not probable that the island fortress was partly rebuilt after Alexander defeated it. In any case, we know that eventually, it became more desirable for residential purposes than as a fortress. There was nothing miraculous about that.

A causeway itself like this one was extremely hard to build.......

Yes, but the building of the causeway was not miraculous, and Ezekiel did not say, or imply that a causeway would be built from the mainland to the island. All that he said was that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea.

.......he failed three times and was under fire the whole time.......

Same as before.

He only mentions throwing building material in the water which the causeway facilitated.

No it didn't since verse 12 says that the rubble would come from the island fortress, not from the mainland settlement.

It was used to spread nets on it.......

I assume that nets were spread on the island before, and after Alexander defeated it.

.......and no Phoenician ever reconstructed it.

But that does not reasonably prove that God was responsible for that. Surely all non-Christian historians would agree with me, and even some Christian historians. Many of the Phoenican city-states were not in a position to adequately rebuild themselves, let alone rebuild the island fortress, and some of them joined Alexander's attack on Tyre. In addition, as I showed in one of my previous posts, many of them had small populations.

The issue of rebuilding mainland fortresses is much different than the issue of rebuilding the island fortress. When mainland fortresses were defeated, there were often still lots of other places for people to build residential settlements, but the island was small, and was surrounded by water, and when it became desirable for solely residential purposes, it was natural that people tore down what was left of the fortress.

I love list verse. There have probably been tens of thousands of civilizations in history. I would imagine several hundred ceased to exist. Few were world powers like Carthage and the point is that few went down just exactly as a prophet proclaimed they would. I however have not been using Carthage's fall as evidence for anything.

Since it is not miraculous that hundreds of civilizations ceased to exist, there are not any good reasons to assume that there is anything miraculous about the island fortress ceasing to exist.

What evidence do you have that the island fortress was not rebuilt after Alexander defeated it? It only took a few breaches for Alexander's soldiers to quickly defeat the island's soldiers, so the fortress would have been largely undamaged, and would still have had a lot of strategic, and economic value. The mainland settlement was partly rebuilt, and flourished for centuries. There are not any good reasons to assume that the island fortress was not largely rebuilt, especially since it was more valuable than the mainland settlement was.

 

[Agnostic75]

That means that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers. He probably threatened them. Alexander could have been furious with the Tyrians for strategic reasons, for religious reasons, or both. Whichever is the case, it doesn't matter since he was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers, and he plausibly, or probably would have attacked the fortress even if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers.

It is silly debating at what stage he was maddest but it went like this:

1. Sidon promised Tyrian neutrality or help.
2. To test this Alexander asked to worship in their temple.
3. They refused but offered the secondary temple. Strike one.
4. Alexander sent emissaries to again ask to enter the temple.
5. Refusal. Strike two.
6. They beheaded and displayed these messengers on their walls.
7. Armageddon for Tyre had begun.
8. The destruction of his causeways and the burning of his siege ramps made a determined Alexander decide to destroy Tyre completely and take or kill everything.

There was nothing miraculous about any of that.

You said that the main, or only reason why Alexander attacked the island fortress was because the Tyrians hung his messengers, but since he was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers, it is plausible if not probable that he would have attacked the fortress anyway. Arrian, and some modern sources, say that Alexander had some strategic reasons for attacking the island fortress.

Tyre's refusal to let him in the temple left him with no choice but to eradicate it before he could do so. So he trashed Tyre then assaulted Babylon just as your sources said.

As I said, "Arrian, and some modern sources, say that Alexander had some strategic reasons for attacking the island fortress."

Alexander attacked Tyre in 332 B.C. The Battle of Gaugamela occurred in the next year, which was 331 B.C. Wikipedia says that the Battle of Gaugamela "was a decisive victory for the Hellenic League and led to the fall of the Persian Empire." Wikipedia also says that Alexander conquered Babylon in 331 B.C.

I can't keep describing the first half of one of the largest military conquests ever.

You don't have to. The only reason why I mentioned that was to show you that stopping to defeat the island fortress did not stop Alexander from defeating Babylon during the next year, and did not stop him from winning the Battle of Gaugamela during the next year, which largely caused the defeat of the Persian empire.

Tell you what I will do is post Alexander's entire campaign, though I do not see the relevance as soon as I can and respond to the rest of this.

That is quite odd since most or all of my arguments about Alexander were in response to things that you said. You can waste your time posting Alexander's entire campaign if you wish.

 

[Agnostic75]

There are not any good reasons why some Babylonians would not have told Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar was going to Tyre. Ezekiel, and other Hebrews, hated Tyre, and were jealous of it, so Ezekiel being told about it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar since Ezekiel wanted him to defeat the mainland settlement.

That is not evidence. It is an assumption based on hypotheticals.

Not at all. It is certainly reasonable to assume that the Hebrews, including Ezekiel, hated Tyre, and that such being the case, it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar if Ezekiel had learned by ordinary means about his plans to attack the mainland settlement.

We cannot know to what extent Ezekiel might have been accepted, and befriended by some of the Babylonians, and what they might have told him about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement. In addition, Ezekiel might have overheard some people discussing the plans.

Months of military preparations took place in Babylon before Nebuchadnezzar went to Tyre. The preparations would have been observed by many people, and would have been discussed by many people. No one living today could possibly reliably estimate how many Babylonians knew about the plans.

The writer of a blog at http://500questions.wordpress.com/2...rately-predict-the-future-of-tyre-ezekiel-26/ says:

"Ezekiel knew that Babylon had already conquered the Assyrians (612 BC), and was about to deal a final blow to Jerusalem
(587 BC). He also knew Babylon was in the process of incorporating most of the Eastern Mediterranean. Tyre, with its wealth and strategic ports, was an obvious target."

In your post 41, you mentioned a book that is titled "Science Speaks," that was co-written by Peter W. Stoner. He died in
1980. The book is available for free online at On-line book: Science Speaks by Peter Stoner (Peter W. Stoner).

I do not remember using that book, I have no doubt you are correct, but as it has little to do with Tyre from what you posted about it why did you mention it?

You mentioned Professor Stoner as a source, and you quoted what a Christian said about some of his online book. It would be nice if you could keep up with your own sources, some of whom disagree with you about certain issues, and with my replies to your arguments. In my post 220, I told you that I quoted Professor Stoner because he claims that Alexander building the causeway fulfilled Ezekiel's prediction about, as Stoner said, "Its stones and timber are to be laid in the sea."

When I told you that verse 12 refers only to the island settlement, you said:

"I see no problem."

Professor Stoner disagrees with you, and as I also showed, so do at least two of your other sources. Conservative Christians commonly claim that Alexander fulfilled part of the prophecy by building the causeway even though Ezekiel clearly implied that the rubble would come only from the island fortress.

Please reply to my previous five posts.

 

[Agnostic75]

In my post 154, I provided reasonable evidence that verse 12, which mentions the rubble, refers only to the island fortress.

It says this:

Quote:

4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.

Meaning that both would do so and both did so.

I mentioned verse 12. Why did you mention verse 4? Verse 12 says:

"And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water."

You have agreed with me that that verse refers only to the island fortress. In addition, you have agreed with me that the top of a rock refers only to the island fortress.

Chapter 26 says that both settlements would be destroyed, but the mainland settlement is not mentioned until verse 6.

They is the meat of the issue.......It uses pluralities in every case where more than Nebuchadnezzar was needed to accomplish what it stated. It uses the singular in every single case where only what Nebuchadnezzar accomplished what was mentioned.

I agree, and that is why verse 4, and verse 12, which both use the word "they," refer only to the island fortress.

What evidence do you have that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock?

The final act that brought down the fortress is well known. It was battering rams at all points seaward and catapults from the causeway. What was left was a bare rock with a pile of stones on it.

Please quote some sources that say that Alexander substantially destroyed the walls of the fortress, and most of, or all of the buildings inside the fortress.

After Alexander left Tyre, I think that it is probable that the island fortress was rebuilt, or still used as a fortress since it was largely undamaged, and still had a lot of strategic, and economic value. There is not any evidence that the walls were breached from the causeway.

The mainland settlement was partly rebuilt, and flourished for centuries. It is even more likely that the island fortress was still used as a fortress because it had more military, and economic value than the mainland settlement did.

As you know, Alexander's generals fought over his empire after he died, and one of those generals was Antigonus. Part of an article at LacusCurtius ? Diodorus Siculus ? Book*XIX Chapters*49?65 quotes what the ancient Greek historian Diodorus Siculus said about Antigonus' attacks on Tyre. Consider the following from Diodorus Siculus:

Antigonus.......then went back to the camp at Old Tyre and made preparations for the siege.

He himself, after summoning ships from Rhodes and equipping most of those that had been built, sailed against Tyre. Although he pressed the siege with vigour for a year and three months, controlling the sea and preventing food from being brought in, yet after he had reduced the besieged to extreme want, he permitted the soldiers who had come from Ptolemy to depart each with his own possessions; but when the city capitulated, he introduced into it a garrison to watch it closely.

The first to be finished of the ships that had been made in Phoenicia were also at hand fully equipped; including those captured at Tyre, they were one hundred and twenty, so that in all there were gathered together about Antigonus two hundred and forty fully equipped ships of war. Of these there were ninety with four orders of oarsmen, ten with five, three with nine, ten with ten, and thirty undecked boats.

That apparently refers to Antigonus' attacks on the island fortress, not the mainland settlement. Alexander must have left a garrison and ships of his own at the island fortress when he left Tyre.

If Alexander did not complete the causeway before he defeated the island fortress, he probably did not complete it after he defeated it since it would have had more strategic value if he did not complete the causeway.

In an article at http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/107/, the Ancient History Encyclopedia says:

"Alexander's request was simple: he wished to sacrifice to Heracles in Tyre. ( The Phoenician God Melqart was roughly the equivalent of the Greek Heracles.) The Tyrian's recognised this as a Macedonian ploy to occupy the city and refused, saying instead that Alexander was welcome to sacrifice to Heracles in old Tyre, which was built upon the mainland. Old Tyre held no strategic importance - it was undefended and the Tyrian navy was stationed in the harbours of new Tyre."

Alexander attacked the island fortress in 332 B.C. Antigonous attacked the island fortress in 315 B.C., or 17 years after Alexander attacked it. When Antigonous attacked the island fortress, the mainland settlement still probably had no strategic importance.

John A. Bloom is a distinguished Christian scholar who teaches at Biola University, which is also where William Lane Craig teaches. Consider the following:

http://faculty.biola.edu/john_bloom/

Professor of Physics

Ph.D., Annenberg Research Institute, Philadelphia
Ph.D., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
M.Div., Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, PA
B.A., Grinnell College, Grinnell, IA

Dr. Bloom serves as Chair of the Chemistry, Physics, and Engineering Department and as the Academic Director for Biola's M.A. in Science and Religion program (www.biola.edu/scienceandreligion), which he founded in 2004. He teaches a variety of undergraduate courses in Physics and graduate courses in the MASR. His research interests include the integration of Christianity with the sciences, and Apologetics. Dr. Bloom also has an interest in viable alternative energy sources and equipped his home with photovoltaic solar panels that supply most his home's electrical needs. He lives in La Mirada with his wife and son.

Professor Bloom believes that God inspired the Tyre prophecy, and he discusses the prophecy in part an article at http://www.bethinking.org/is-christ...d-prophecy-of-value-for-scholarly-apologetics. Consider the following from the article:

From Arrian's descriptions it is very clear that Alexander did not level the island fortress, in fact, he had Tyre rebuilt. Tyre remained an important trading and manufacturing center that was fought over by Alexander's immediate successors, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.

Obviously, Arrian, and Dr. Bloom disagree with you. Dr. Bloom says that the "will never be rebuilt" part of the prophecy was not fulfilled until almost 1300 A.D.

Please reply to my previous six posts, and to my post 209.

 

[1robin]

What do you mean by open ended?

If we attacked Tyre it would not be in the manner described in Ezekiel so it is not a prophecy that could have occurred at any date.

1500 years is not an infinity, and 1200 AD from the time that Ezekiel supposedly wrote the prophecy would be about 1700 years, not 1500 years.

I did not even hint that it was. In fact my claims are based on the fact that it was a limited date set.

But the use of battering rams against the fortress had about 1700 years to occur. Alexander was merely the first, or one of the first people to use them in naval warfare.

However Tyre required naval battering rams. Hence the reference. Tyre was not coming down by any other means until the invention of gun powder.

There are not any good reasons to limit the time frame to before 1200 A.D.

Ok I was being very liberal and granting your argument for the sake of time. I will no longer do so.

It is not absurd to say that it is reasonably possible that someone other than Alexander would have defeated the island fortress by 1200 A.D. However, there are not any good reasons not to include Alexander since there was not anything miraculous about anything that he did at Tyre.

There was no claim that Ezekiel predicted Alexander specifically. He predicted the destruction of Tyre by means which preclude modern fulfillment and which were extremely rare in the ancient world as well as today. Alexander just happened to be the guy. The prophecy only mentions weapons and tactics that are ancient. In fact it does so, so obviously that the primary argument against it was that it only allowed for Nebuchadnezzar and what he would do. Unlike of example Armageddon there are no markers which link it with modern war like flesh being stripped off the skeleton before it could hit the ground. I am pressed for a time again but soon instead of agreeing to your own dates I will be far more strict about the time frame allowed for by the language.

On the contrary, Ezekiel only mentioned Nebuchadnezzar by name, and many nations could refer to any parties other than Nebuchadnezzar.

I am surprised to have you acknowledge the opposite of what most of the prophecies critics claim is the major flaw with it. I have began to indicate why the date of the prophecy is not open ended since you would not even allow even 1200 AD to be a limit. I will in the future add to these but am having more problems with good old reliable science at the moment. It is a good thing the US has about 6 of everything or we would have a ground based AF.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Quote:

"They declined his request and told him that he could use the temple that was located in the secondary part of the city on the main shore. Alexander was not interested in this temple and sent a second negotiation team to the city. These negotiators were beheaded and tossed from the city walls into the sea. This act led to Alexander's decision to lay siege to Tyre."

Alexander the Great and the Siege of Tyre - Military.Answers.com

There is not any credible evidence that Alexander's main reason for attacking the island fortress was because the
Tyrians hung his messengers. I have posted evidence from ancient, and modern sources that say that Alexander had strategic reasons for attacking the fortress. Arrian showed that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers, which suggests that it is plausible if not probable that Alexander would have attacked the island fortress even if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers.

Alexander did not want to attack Tyre but Persia. He hoped Sidon's allegiance would leave no enemy behind him as he advanced on Babylon. However Tyre's refusal to let him in the temple left him with no choice but to eradicate it before he could do so. So he trashed Tyre then assaulted Babylon just as your sources said.

First you claimed through Military.Answers.com that the hanging of Alexander's messengers led to his attacks against the island fortress, and now you claim that Alexander had religious reasons for attacking it.

You can expand what ever date ranges I gave you if you wish but my point was that the prophecy did not simply open the door to anyone who would eventually conquer Tyre.

On the contrary, Ezekiel only mentioned Nebuchadnezzar by name, and many nations could refer to any parties other than Nebuchadnezzar.

What do you mean by open ended?

If we attacked Tyre it would not be in the manner described in Ezekiel so it is not a prophecy that could have occurred at any date.

All of the kinds of weapons that Nebuchadnezzar used against the mainland settlement were still in use in 1200 A.D. Siege engines and battering rams improved, but they still used the same basic principles in 1200 A.D. as they did during Nebuchadnezzar's time, so there area not any good reasons to limit the time frame to before 1200 A.D.

But the use of battering rams against the fortress had about 1700 years to occur. Alexander was merely the first, or one of the first people to use them in naval warfare.

However Tyre required naval battering rams. Hence the reference. Tyre was not coming down by any other means until the invention of gun powder.

Ezekiel did not say anything about naval battering rams.

It is not absurd to say that it is reasonably possible that someone other than Alexander would have defeated the island fortress by 1200 A.D. However, there are not any good reasons not to include Alexander since there was not anything miraculous about anything that he did at Tyre.

There was no claim that Ezekiel predicted Alexander specifically. He predicted the destruction of Tyre by means which preclude modern fulfillment.......

Nothing in the prophecy precludes fulfillment before 1200 A.D. In my post 235, I provided reasonable evidence that Alexander did not tear down nearly all of the island fortress, and that it was rebuilt. In addition, the mainland settlement was partly rebuilt, and flourished for centuries.

In part of your first post in this thread, you mentioned a source at Bible Evidences - Accuracy of Prophecy. The source says:

"It wasn't until the 12th century A.D. before the final prophetic chapter was closed on the once great city of Tyre."

In my post 235, I mentioned a modern Christian source named John A. Bloom, who is a professor at Biola University, which is where William Lane Craig also teaches. I quoted where he says that the island fortress was rebuilt after Alexander defeated it. Consider the following from the same article:

Tyre served as a major trading and manufacturing center throughout the Byzantine and Muslim periods. During the Crusades, Tyre remained strong and well-fortified, surviving a siege by Saladin in 1187-88 A.D. Finally, in 1291 A.D., the last wave of the nations crashed against Tyre. The Mamluks from Egypt took Tyre, massacred the citizens or sold them into slavery, and destroyed the city as part of their 'scorched-earth' policy to thwart any attempt by the Crusaders to return.

I did not mention that in my post 235, but it is in the same article where I quoted John A. Bloom. What Professor Bloom said about the Mamluks might refer to the island fortress, and the mainland settlement, but perhaps only to the island fortress.

Verse 12 says:

"And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water."

Contrary to what many conservative Christians claim, including most of your sources, the building of the causeway did not fulfill verse 12 since the verse says that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea, not the rubble from the mainland settlement.

I have began to indicate why the date of the prophecy is not open ended since you would not even allow even 1200 AD to be a limit.

About two weeks ago, in my post 216, I said:

Ezekiel implied that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea. The odds are not astronomical that no one would have done that by say 1200 A.D.

So I did allow for a time limit of 1200 A.D. about two weeks ago.

Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement in 586 B.C. If Ezekiel wrote the prophecy in 586 B.C., 1200 A.D. would be 1786 years later. That is easily enough time for the island settlement to be defeated, and largely destroyed.

What evidence do you have that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock?

The final act that brought down the fortress is well known. It was battering rams at all points seaward and catapults from the causeway. What was left was a bare rock with a pile of stones on it.

Please quote your sources.

It is now a complete bare rock sitting under the Mediterranean. What you see above land is what accumulated upon the causeway. If you were there and looked you would see bare rock covered by a few feet of water.

There is not any credible evidence that all of the original island is under water. The island was more substantial geologically than the causeway was, so there are not any good reasons why some of it is not under water. At https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...PHK0HkcJ-Bg4i3XuB1EZckXRXuT6XLSkTjbv8h0Zm-3D-, there is an aerial photograph of the causeway. There are not any good reasons to assume that all of what the photo shows is the causeway, and not also part of the island where it was during Alexander's time. Since the causeway is not covered with water, why would most of, or all of the island be covered with water? Please quote some modern sources that say that all that is left above water is the causeway.

The causeway would have helped to prevent erosion on the east side of the island, which would have helped to prevent some of it from being covered with water.

If Alexander tore down all of the walls of the fortress, and all of the buildings on the island, which of course he didn't, what did he do with the rubble? If he cast it into the sea, that would have helped to prevent the island from becoming covered with water. If Alexander left the rubble on the ground, that would also have helped to prevent the island from becoming covered with water.

Please summarize your main arguments in this thread.

 

[1robin]

Please quote some historical sources that say that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock. I assume that it would have been very unlikely for Alexander to destroy the temples at the island settlement.

I thought we had been over this. You cannot draw arbitrarily strict requirements for what was trash talking among all ANE cultures, which is in Hebrew and what I am sure lost a little of it's original intent in translation. For example it says the dust shall be swept from you. Is there a sincere person anywhere that thinks this means Alexander was to get a broom and shop vacuum and clean if the island. When it says like a bare rock does it mean it should look like a boulder in a clean room somewhere, like a picture in a geology journal, what you think a bare rock is, what I think, what an alien thinks? Or are we to use simple common sense and get the intent of the words? God was saying the pride of man had turned a rock into a formidable fortress, it had led those in it to boast over Israel's suffering and their own invulnerability. God would essentially take away what they boasted in and reduce it to rubble. He would break their fortress on the rock it was founded upon in a way that was both absolutely remarkable and unpredictable and also that was possible by human agency (in this case). The bible and prophecy more than any other issue is cryptic and symbolic in many cases. You must do as all other sincere readers have done and honestly look at the intended message, not try and write off something by applying arbitrary and meaningless literalness to verses without cause. By any rational interpretation to be intended to suggest their fortress and their pride was to be broken and left in ruin upon the rock that supported it. It was, despite all probability to the contrary. No one suggests Alexander did not beat the walls into rubble over time and leave the place a ruin upon a bare rock so I will not bother sourcing that.

Ezekiel 26:19 says:

"For thus saith the Lord God; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee."

At https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...PHK0HkcJ-Bg4i3XuB1EZckXRXuT6XLSkTjbv8h0Zm-3D-, there is an aerial photograph of the causeway. There are not any good reasons to assume that all of what the photo shows is the causeway, and not also part of the island where it was during Alexander's time. Since the causeway is not covered with water, why would most of, or all of the island be covered with water? Please quote some modern sources that say that all that is left above water is the causeway.

The causeway would have helped to prevent erosion on the east side of the island, which would have helped to prevent most of, or all of it from being covered with water.

The island was more substantial geologically than the causeway was, so it is reasonable to assume that much of it would stay above water like the causeway did.

If Alexander tore down all of the structures on the island, what did he do with the rubble? If he cast it into the sea, that would have helped to prevent the island from becoming covered with water. If Alexander left the rubble on the ground, that would also have helped to prevent the island from becoming covered with water.

Do you have any idea how trivial and petty these objections sound. I said nothing about erosion nor did Ezekiel. Almost all the original island was submerged by an Earthquake, not erosion. The rock did not wash away but is still intact and bare, lying underwater where the earthquake left it. It was not a major quake and the causeway being broken instead of smooth simply started collecting debris until a whole new and different island was constructed slightly out of position with the old. You can clearly see this from most aerial photos that had good light.