Bible prophecy - Nothing compares

Since tektonics.org - one of your recommended sites - claims that Ezekiels prophecy against Tyre - a clear example of a failure - is one of the "flagship" examples of fulfilled prophecy, it is rather clear that there is no significant record of verifiable fulfilled prophecies from the Bible.How does a record of failed prophecies help the Bible ?(Oh and since you recently discussed Jonah you know full well that Jonah's prophecy against Ninevah was not fulfilled - which according to Deuteronomy 18:22 proves that Jonah was a false prophet and his message did not come from God).

So Jeremaiah also contradicts Deuteronomy, which makes no exceptions. Your answer then is that Deuteronomy is in error, and that God sometimes chooses not to fulfil prophecies.As for Tyre, the book of Ezekiel itself (29:18) states that Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer the city.So I repeat the question. If there is such clear evidence of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, why is a failure touted as a "flagship" example of a success ?

It doesn't deal with Deuteronomy.It DOES illustrate Turkel's habit of not linking to the essays he is arguing against.

Nebuchadnezzar DIDN'T destroy the city.The "island colony" IS the city.Alexander isn't mentioned in the prophecy.So the prophecy failed.

Buz, you need to do *your* homework. You made many mistakes in your last post.You might like to consider how it could be that Nebuchadnezzar's army could "make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise" (26:12) yet receive "no wages".So to your points.The many nations are in 26:2. In 26:7 this is explained "Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings..."Nebuchadnezzar and his subject peoples are "many nations".Your points 2,3, 5 and 6 are irrelevant so long as Nebuchadnezzar is the supposed victor - if he fails to do those things then the prophecy fails for that reason, too.Your point 4 contradicts the claim that Alexander is the fulfilment.And your point 7 is wrong - it didn't happen so the prophecy fails for that reasonTyrehttp://phoenicia.org/cities.htmlTyre - WikipediaThe Romans built on the island
Autour du Monde, photos du Monde, photos de voyagesProphecy failed.

Well I notice that in post 21 your quote of the Encyclopedia Britannica clearly contradicts your claim that the island was just a "colony".As to your claim about 26:12 it is absolutely clear that 26:12 is a continuation of 26:11 which is certainly about Nebuchadnezzar. The first word of 26:12 (in the KJV translation) is "And". Your reading practically discounts Nebuchadnezzar's role in the prophecy - yet he, and only he, is named as the leader of the attacking army. So how can you claim that the prophecy is about Alexander two and a half centuries later ?

Your quote in Post 21 clearly states that the island was part of the city of Tyre. The only mention of a colony states that Tyre (the WHOLE city!) was probably founded as a colony of Sidon.So when you say that I should "read more carefully" you mean that I should ignore what it really says and pretend that it means what you would like it to say. Sorry Buz but I don't think that even you are illiterate enough to really beleive that the Britannica supports your claim that the island was just a colony of Tyre. It quite definitely contradicts you on that point, and I don't see how you can honestly deny such an obvious fact.And I note that you continue your usual habit of calling arguments that you cannot answer "yada". Obviously my arguments are so "weak" that they have defeated you. Did you really think that repeatedly using such an obvious tactic does anything for your credibility ?
YOU need to "get real".