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:  > The prophesy clearly implies that people would still be living in the > area[.]  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'.   Mr King also writes:  > So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000. > Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards > we are talking about a one-horse town.  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.