>>2745
This is more like the sort of thing I had in mind and the video makes it sound quite impressive, but I'm still not buying it.
>Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the mainland city
Fair enough, although it did take 13 years.
>The debris of the city would be thrown into the water
The video claims this was fulfilled by Alexander the Great but Ezekiel clearly means that it will be done by Nebuchadnezzar's army.
>From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[b] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.
"They" obviously means Nebuchadnezzar's army, not Alexander's. Even if you ignore that, the verse on its own makes clear that the people who destroy the city will be the same people who throw the debris into the water. Perhaps this is a matter of translation and the original text doesn't make it absolutely necessary to read it this way, but the implication is obvious. The entire passage is clearly meant to intimidate the people of Tyre about Nebuchadnezzar's attack. Why would God also deliver information about an unrelated attack hundreds of years later and not differentiate between the two? For all that the guy in the video praises the prophecy's specificity, that's a pretty serious omission.
>many nations came against them
This falls into the category of "something that was likely to happen eventually without giving a specific date"
>the island city was eventually destroyed by Muslims in 1291
Okay, the prophecy doesn't say that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the island city, only that the Lord would, so that part of the prophecy came true if taken at absolute face value (although that interpretation does imply that God was on the side of the Muslims for at least part of the Crusades, kek). Again though, based on the context and tone of the chapter, the destruction prophesied in Ezekiel is clearly meant to be imminent. The only reason to read it as predicting an event 1800 years in the future is because you want the prophecy to be true and that's the only way it can be. There's no evidence in the text itself to suggest that.
>the city would never be rebuilt
>except it was
>but it doesn't count because it's not the same city
Well of course it's not the same city if the earlier one was utterly destroyed. If building a new city with the same name in the same place doesn't count as rebuilding the city, then what does?
>b-but it's not in the exact same spot
It's on the same island (or former island, since it's now connected to the mainland). Ezekiel 26:14 says
>And I will make thee [Tyre] 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.
Notice that it refers to the island itself and not the city. Does it refer to just the part of the island that had a city on it at the time the book was written or to the whole island? It sounds like the latter to me but I guess this super specific prophecy fulfilled in a specific way isn't specific enough to say for sure.
>fishermen laying their nets
Wow, fishermen on an island, big surprise.