If the Bible were to Be God's word; then it needs to be clear, authoritative, and inerrant.

The original manuscripts of the Bible, the ones and the specific parts that are inspired by God, did not contain any errors. The fact that minor errors may have crept in over the centuries of transmission does not prove the original wasn't God's word, nor does it prove the current Bible isn't God's word. To illustrate; if you wrote a 100 page book; and during the copying at the printery the editor took out one single page and replaced it with something else, does it now prove that this is no longer your book? No, heck, %99 of it is the same as it was originally, and it still bears your name. So I don't see how people making minor changes to their own renderings of God's word makes it not his word. I agree that God can't lie, but remember that God only inspired the originals, he didn't oversee the translation and transmission; that was a wholly human endeavour. So Pro needs to understand the claim here; the claim is not that God inspired the translating of the Bible into different version, hence, we don't need inerrent TRANSLATIONS, we only need inerrent ORIGINALS, and since Pro doesn't have access to the originals, he can't critique them as containing errors. Further, I think the Bible we do have is very clear in terms of its core doctrines especially as it relates to salvation. Like He says its not clear on the salvation method, well, "to him," maybe because of his own ideas he brings to the text. But examining each of the verses he gave in context in see no contradiction between them as far as salvation goes, and they are pretty clear to me. So the problem isn't that the Bible isn't clear, but that we have worldviews which cause us to look at clear statements in very different ways. Now, as for being authoritative, what does that mean? No book in itself is authoritative except to those who choose to adhere to it. I believe it, so I let it be an authority in my life, he doesn't. That's no fault of the Bible or God, but its up to him to choose whom he will serve and what sources of authority he will submit to. Onto the prohecy: Eze 26:3 NIV "therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves." The term Adonai, Soverign Lord, places God in charge of this move against Tyre. He is the one who cause "many nations" to come up. Vs 4: "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock." We see again the same pairing of God and the nations: "they" and "I." The nations will scrape Tyre off, destroy the walls, and break down the towers. ANY nations are eligible for this action. Vs 5: "Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations." Once again, the I/nations pair is still in view here. Vss 6-7 "and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD. For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army." Adonai now brings on a specific attacker - Nebuchadnezzar. This brings on the first of "the nations" against Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar comes WITH all these things, and now note how the pairing changes: Vs 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." Notice how the pairing I/they is not used, but it is now "he" -Nebuchadnezzar who is "in charge" of the scene. And of course "he" personifies his own army here, and those things with him (horses, etc) This language continues in verses 9-11, personifying his troops and horses under him: the horsemen, chariots and wagons are all "his." "His" horses will trample, "he" will kill; but note the change in verse 12. Vs 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." We return to "they" for the first time since v. 4. And: Vs 13: "I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more." We also now return to "I": Adonai, the Soverign Lord. Then it continues: Vs 14: "I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD." Ezekiel gives us two pairings: the I/they of Adonai the sovereign, leading the nations; and the he/personified-possession army of Nebuchadnezzar. Ezekiel therefore indicates that Nebuchadnezzar will do specific actions, and that "nations" will perform certain actions. Nebuchadnezzar brings one of those nations on the scene, but the language tells us that the actions of 3-5 and 12-14 may be performed by any nations God brings against Tyre and need not be actions of Nebuchadnezzar. 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 the sole leader, and two unique actions -- net spreading, scraping -- are the same as those ascribed to the nations in 3-5. So "they" in v. 12 does not refer to Nebuchadnezzar and his army; they, as one of the "nations" brought by Adonai, would have qualified to fulfill those passages, but so could any other nation brought against Tyre in its history following. Therfore, I contend that this passage does not teach that Nebuchadnezzar would be the one to destroy the city; that was the job of any of "the nations," and it was Alexander the Great and his army which qualify to be among them who would conquer it. Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was the first of the nations to come against Tyre. Alexander's forces were put together from a coalition of Greek city-states. Each of these was an independant nation unto itself. Alexander's father, Philip II, unified through war these city-states,as well as the regions of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece proper under his rule - giving his son the unified force he needed to complete his conquest. This was a coalition composed of many nations - and thus fulfills the prophecy that "many nations" would come upon Tyre to seige her. Alexander also got help from his friends in Macedon and from the Phoenician city-states Aradus, Byblos, and Sidon; ships also came from Enylos, Soli, Mallos, Rhodes, Lycia, and Cyprus to help Alexander overcome Tyre. (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre. New York: Columbia U. Press, 1915, p.58) With the exception of Macedon, each of these was an entirely separate nation from those in Alexander's land forces. What about the claim the city would never be rebuilt? Compare this to an inscription by the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III: "I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore." (Moshe and Trude Dothan, Peoples of the Sea, p.27) Cleary when Ramsses tells us his enemies were "made non-existent," he was not meaning this literally, since he goes on to indicate they were captured. In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we have more trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..." Literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-existent), and that is what we have here. "Never be rebuilt" is trash talk like that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people, so common in the ANE.