The claim is made that the bible contains historically incorrect statements; for example that a false prophecy was issued by Ezekiel in Ezekiel 26.
According to the prophecies in Ezekiel 26, God would bring Nebuchadnezzar against the proud city of Tyre and would utterly destroy it. However, Ezekiel 29:18 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar failed to capture Tyre. How can these two statements be reconciled?
The following is taken from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epsmQOMp2XY
The issue here is that because there is a more inclusive prophecy, even if it later says Neb. would attack or besiege Tyre (in v.7) it would not be an exclusive prophecy. In fact even with this it says in v.7 “the king of kings… with a host of people” implying that many other nations would attack as well, even if Neb. was first. Also see Ezekiel 30:11 and Jeremiah 21:4-10 for examples of parallel language use (the Babylonian army depicted with general plurality).
Nebuchanezzer did in fact lay seige to the old city of Tyre and breach it's walls. However, during the seige the people had relocated the bulk of their possessions to an island nearby which was a part of an extended version of the Old City.
Ezekiel 26:11-12 continues with the he/they dichotomy; using neb. as a placeholder for all the hosts he will send against tyre. At best, he = neb. and they = alexander the great. See Jeremiah 20:4 and again in 5 for parallel language use (enemies – but king used as device to represent the agent). Ref. Greenberg 1995:534.
First, while nebuchadnezzar did destroy the coastal cities, the people of the port of Tyre had obviously relocated to the island city, which they were able to successfully defend against the Babylonian invaders. Nebuchadnezzar had defeated and plundered the cities on the shore, as Ezekiel prophesied in 26:7–11, but he could not defeat the island city. This fact is reported in Ezekiel 29:18 – and therein lies the answer to this connundrum; yes, a false prophecy was issued in Ezekiel 26, and in Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel admits to this and apologizes.
It is our contention that when the passage is exegeted carefully and properly, these verses are excellent witnesses to the divine inspiration of the Bible. More liberal Biblical scholars, however, have seized upon these verses as a parade example of the fallibility of Biblical prophecy. Robert P. Carroll has even written an entire book on failed prophecies in the OT (1979).
Liberals are virtually unanimous on the following interpretation:
If it is assumed the 30th year in Ezekiel 1:1 refers to Ezekiel’s age,2 then perhaps most of his ministry took place when he was between 30 and 50 years of age, since he was a priest (Ez 1:3; Nu 4:3). Interestingly, Ezekiel 29:17-20 is the last oracle in the book, dated “the 27th year, in the first month on the fi rst day” (29:17), i.e., April 26, 571 BC (NIV Study Bible: 1267). It is dated two years after the rest of the document was completed.3 This would have made the prophet 52 years old. So the last thing the poor prophet did, according to liberals, was to come out of retirement and try to patch up a false prophecy he had made. Needless to say, as a young, impressionable college student in 1957, all this was very perplexing to me. The following is how I first read it from Edwin Burtt's Types of Religious Philosophy,used as a text in my Philosophy of Religion class
“Moreover at least one pair of passages in the Bible indicates that the traditional theory of divine inspiration, with its claim of infallibility…is not intended by Scripture itself. [He then presents the above interpretation of Ezekiel 26 and 29]…These inconsistencies challenge explanation. Any attempt to explain them while adhering to the orthodox view of supernatural revelation plunges us into an almost intolerable dilemma (1951: 310–11), emphasis added.”
Most liberals are forced to accept the dating given to these passages in the book of Ezekiel. If they do not, they lose their golden textual sequence for refuting verbal inspiration. Both Ezekiel 26:1–14 and Ezekiel 29:17–20 would have to come from Ezekiel’s time; no later forger using Ezekiel’s name to enhance his religious agenda would attribute a false prophecy to him. Keith Carley, for example, says,
“The date cannot be later than [571 BC] for in 29:17ff it is acknowledged that things prophesied against Tyre had notbeen fulfilled at that time (1974: 178).” https://biblearchaeology.org/research/divided-kingdom/3304-ezekiel-26114-a-proof-text-for-inerrancy-or-fallibility-of-the-old-testament
So first of all, the claim that the bible is “standing it's ground” on some historically inaccurate fact is a false representation of what the book of Ezekiel says. In the book of Ezekiel, Ezekiel makes a false prophecy, and then he admits it and apologizes for it. The question then becomes why this story was even included, as it is a sort of embarrassment to the prophet Ezekiel.
(see: article-ibid for a complete answer to this claim).
A close reading of the text of Ezekiel 26:1–14 reveals the following facts:
1. The rubble from Tyre would be put into the sea. This was fulfilled in 332 BC by Alexander the Great’s army, 250 years after Ezekiel was written.
2. The passage does not state that Nebuchadnezzar would capture the island city and get its wealth. On the other hand, it does not say Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre at all—he conquered “Old Tyre.” It simply states he did not get anything of value from it. This is exactly what Ezekiel 29:17 states. There is no contradiction.
3. The total destruction of Tyre would be accomplished gradually by one nation after another.
4. In the end Tyre would be destroyed down to the bare rock and never rebuilt. The final destruction took place in AD 1291, almost 2,000 years after Ezekiel was written.
Thus it turns out that, with a close investigation of the text and history, Ezekiel 26 is actually a proof text for the inerrancy and supernatural origin of the Bible.