There are more than 125,000 marginal (cross) references in this edition. These citations demonstrate that there is at least a second witness to almost every Biblical matter. A careful comparison of the marginal references and an examination of the accompanying footnotes will reveal the interlocking harmony of the 66 Bible books, proving that they comprise one book, inspired by God... It would be nice to hear your version of the harmonious theme contained in the Bible if Jehovah's Witnesses have it all wrong.
You assert this as if it were a self-evident fact. It is not. The Bible is an anthology of many different books with a multiplity of themes and perspectives; the idea that it has one "harmonious" theme is a product of systematic biblical interpretation that privileges one particular theme as the theme of the Bible (to the exclusion of other possible themes), which is then read into parts of the Bible where it is entirely foreign (the Garden of Eden story is a classic example). Also the later portions of the Bible (such as the NT) are literarily dependent on older books that came be regarded as scripture; they thus engage in intrabiblical exegesis and interpret the OT in innovative ways. What you may see as one theme shared between an OT text and the NT text that quotes it may more objectively be seen as the case of an NT text interpreting an OT text (such that the OT text often does NOT share the same concepts that the interpreting text finds in it). So many of the so-called OT "prophecies" of Jesus are only such retroactively; they are made into prophecies by virtue of an NT text (or an independent exegetical tradition found outside the Bible) reading them as such. The "harmonious theme" is in the eye of the beholder and is subjectively based on whatever interpretative theology one has. The "main theme of the Bible" as stated by JWs is different from that stated by Baptists or by Catholics, each has a different slant. The arbitrariness of this can be glimpsed by replacing the NT with the Mishnah, which is equally interpretive of the OT. If one calls this combined text the "Bible", one can similarly find "one harmonious" theme throughout, but it wouldn't be the theme according to JWs or the theme according to any other Christian group but it would be the "main theme" of the Bible as seen through the lens of Judaism. But that doesn't make the Mishnah necessarily inspired or having supernatural origin. The same could be said of the many pseudepigraphal or other parabiblical writings that develop OT themes innovatively which are not found within the confines of Bible canon, even though they often anticipate ideas later found in the NT.
Why should it be less than likely that imperfect ancient human relics and remnants can distort this theme? The reliance on this type of reasoning to establish truth, accepting historical data that distorts Bible truth, is actually more fallible than depending on the evolutionary fossil record for evidence against the Genesis account. At least fossils can be subjected to scientific scrutiny whereas ancient human renderings can only be taken verbatim by blind faith. I can present numerous accounts of historical documents that are fictional.
You again demonstrate my earlier point about your a prioristic stance. The notion of a 40-year depopulation of Egypt is already "Bible truth" to you before you consider any actual evidence of what really happened. And your only stance towards that evidence is to discredit it — it is fallible in contrast to the Bible's presumed infallibility, it distorts, it may well be fictional. Bear mind that the Watchtower Society's chronology is founded on just these "imperfect ancient relics" to establish the date 539 BC that is foundational to their chronological scheme. It is not enough to dismiss the value of these facts to just say, oh well, who knows, maybe they were faked, maybe they were just mistaken. What's good for goose is good for the gander. What cause is there to suspect that in this case and not in the other that the documents of everyday life are wholly inaccurate, and not just wholly inaccurate but erroneous in precisely the same way each time? These were legal documents, tombstones, letters, monuments, every single one from that time that bears a date. Think about it. They were not reporting history; they were involved in what was the here-and-now. It would be as if all the newspapers, new tombstones being erected, divorce papers, legal contracts, etc. being written today, right now, bore the date of 1981, or claimed that Ronald Reagan was still president now in 2010, or claimed falsely on tombstone epitaphs that someone died at age 91 when really she was 131 years old. Why would people do that? Are they stupid not to know what year it is, or was there a massive conspiracy to have every single document bear the wrong date (while all agreeing on that wrong date)? And what's the deal with people living so long?
AnnOMaly...That is really interesting to read, a bit of an inconsistency now with respect to Amasis' reign. And while in the past they may have tried to fudge the fulfillment timeframe, the fact remains that Ezekiel's oracles were specific: the oracle in ch. 29 from Ezekiel's 27th year specifically names "Nebuchadnezzar" as the one responsible, and the same is true with the oracle in ch. 30 which again names Nebuchadnezzar (v. 10, cf. v. 24) as the one who would destroy Egypt, sell the land, remove any native ruler, burn the cities, and make the peoples go into exile. Since Amasis outlived Nebuchadnezzar and no such disaster befell Egypt during his reign, these statements concerning Nebuchadnezzar did not come to pass. With respect to the fact that BM 33041 lacks information on the outcome of the battle, we probably do have a report of the outcome of that battle in the Elephantine Stele from the same year, reporting that Amasis defeated an army of Asiastics near the eastern border, with Apries dying in the battle.
