This is a continuation of a series where I critically read the book Prophecy Speaks. This book was sent to me by an anonymous person, presumably to convert me. You can read more about how the book came to me here, or find all posts in this series here.

In this article I talk about two things:

  • How the book argues that bible prophecy is a valid way of proving Christianity.
  • The first prophecy it talks of in detal — Ezekiel’s prophecy regarding Tyre.

Precognition God

Finally, after and amidst plenty of fluff, the author (via the lecturer character) gets to some apologetics.

To summarise:

1. The bible says that only God can predict the future.

“The ability to foretell is the seal of God’s deity which He claims cannot be counterfeited. The Bible challenges others to foretell the future: ‘Who, as I, … shall declare … the things that are coming, and that shall come to pass, let them declare’ [Isa. 44:7, ASV]

— Page 17

2. Bible prophecy can be shown to involve actual future prediction.

“Do you mean to imply that prophecy is as rigidly demonstrable as geometry?” he asked increduously.

“Yes I mean just that.”

— Page 13

3. Therefore God.

(A quick aside. I reject the premise of 1. Even if it were proven beyond doubt that the bible predicts the future, that doesn’t mean God did it. It could mean some people are psychic, or have visited time travelers. If you think those are silly, implausible things… I hate to tell you… so is God. However, I will concede that if the bible was the only book with proven future-prediction, it would be a very strong argument for God.)

Tyre

Here’s how it goes:

1. Ezekiel 26 talks about the fate of Tyre, an ancient city. Here are some important verses:

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.

Ezekiel 26:12

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.

Ezekiel 26:14

2. Ezekiel’s prophecies were written sixth century BCE (approx 580 BCE).

3. During the Siege of Tyre in 332 BCE, Alexander the Great used parts of the abandoned mainland city to make a causeway out to sea to approach the occupied, and fortified, island part of the city. (The mainland city was in ruins, according to the author, because of conquest some two centuries earlier.)

4. No-one has ever or will ever rebuild “old Tyre” — the location Alexander got his causeway material from.

5. The prophecy in 1 was accurate about 3 and 4. We know from 2 that the prophecies were written before the events of 3 and 4. Therefore this demonstrates actual future prediction.

Unlike the skeptic character, I do not live in 1933. I have the power of the internet at my fingers, to bring me the bible, skeptic material and the world’s history. Now, in the book, the skeptic character’s arguments against the Tyrian prophecy are mainly about the date of Ezekiel’s works (i.e. that they were written after 332 BCE). I don’t think it matters — there are other flaws which are easier to point out.

Firstly, go and read Ezekiel 26. It sounds like an Atlantis scenario:

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;

Ezekiel 26:19

The deep didn’t “bring up” to cover the city. Some general threw the bricks down into the sea.

But there’s a more certain flaw in the prophecy. As for old Tyre not being rebuilt:

“The third difficulty of your view is that old Tyre was to be built no more. This divine sentence of judgement has been a challenge down the centuries to every unbeliever on earth. God has had a challenge sounding for twenty centuries, daring you and every other skeptic to rebuild this city and thus disprove His Word.”

— Page 24

Go look at Tyre today. Tyre is not some barren rock.

Ah, but the lecturer explicitly mentions “old Tyre”. Why he would do that is beyond me. Ezekiel does not make any distinction between old and new Tyre, or even mainland and island Tyre. He could’ve made this distinction if he’d wanted, mainland and island Tyre had different names.

Let’s entertain the notion that a settlement must be on old Tyre to count. What is old Tyre?

It could be the mainland area, where the material came from for the causeway. This fits the historical naming of “old Tyre”. That this area was not resettled may have even been true in 1933 for all I know. But is it not true for today.

It cannot be the actual bricks and stone, because even this has been built upon — the sediment-enlarged causeway is teeming with buildings today and even was in 1934 (as per the below photo).

Too easy. What’s next?