Lars,
WHY did they do it?
Ezekiel 29:12 - Prophecy of the Desolation of Egypt for 40 years
by VM44 104 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Larsinger58
Lars,
WHY did they do it?
Easy question. It was purely politics and the love of Xerxes. Xerxes became a very hated king in Greece after he destroyed all their architecture and sculpture. The Greeks were just aghast that he would do it and some wanted to just leave the destruction in place so they could see the audacity of it. But he also became a laughingstock in Greece. A play was even written about him. Besides that, some wanted revenge and thus there was always the threat of assasination.
Themistocles understood Greek logic. He understood revenge. So when it was clear it might stick that he could claim he was his own son, then that would improve his political situation, especially if he met a violent death. So he faked his death, historically speaking. Of course it worked over time, partially so. Then as I stated before, there was a need to make Darius a generation older so that he would be old enough to be the grandfather to Xerxes. So 30 years were added to the reign of Darius who died after his 6th year. Now history would reflect he ruled 36 years. To make up for this they would steal years from the previous Neo-Babylonian kings, which they did. But they could only squeeze out 26 years. That meant all the documents had to be revised, anything that would expose this secret, including business records. Since this was being done by the government, everyone had to comply.
And that is why the NB Period is 26 years shorter than the Bible shows. Later revisions added another 56 years to the Persian timeline thus distorting the chronology by 82 years at the point of the 1st of Cyrus. 30 years each were added to the reigns of Darius I and Artaxerxes II and the extra 21-year rule of Xerxes, separate from Artaxerxes is where 81 of those years are, which are easily removed from the timeline.
For instance. Darius begun Persepolis in his 4th year, confirmed by business texts. But he only finished one building and just barely that, which was his palace, leaving the other buildings he had started with Xerxes for Xerxes to complete. Another palace in Babylon only took 2 years to build. If we apply a similar timing here, it would seem from archaeolgy that Darius I died early 2 years after he began work at Persepolis. So the architecture actually supports the Bible's reference that he only ruled six years (Ezra 6v14,15)
In the case of Artaxerxes II, there are no surviving records to confirm him as the longest-ruling Persian king. Ktesias claims he was his physician for 17 years. That's our best reference of the length of his rule, 17 years vs 47 years. Knowing this, it is best to determine the Bible's true chronology, which is the 1st of Cyrus falling in 455 BCE.
Clearly, the only reason this has not become official is the influence of the academic world that does not want this knowedge to become official. It would represent a major dismissal of millions of historical books and embarrass the field of archaeology even if it answered many questions since the discrepancy does show up with RC14 dating or even pottery dating comparisons.
LS
-
Larsinger58
By the way, Jewish rabbis have always said the Persian timeline was too long and there were too many kings. So the original chronology was never lost. But for a long while Jews had to bow to the whim of Christians and Christianity was taken over by pagan Freemasons at the time of Constantine, so their influenced prevailed to keep this a secret as long as possible. So the weak archaeology and chronology are avoided by the academic world. That is, Persepolis and the identification of Nehemiah with Xerxes and Darius, and the absolute time/date of the Exodus, which in and of itself would create a focus on the revised timeline.
So even though archaeology at Jericho tells you when the Exodus must have happened, dishonest scholars pretend not to see it. Because once they do discuss it or consider it an optional timeline along with all the other theories, it will be all too clear it is the most substantiated, especially when the 10 plagues were designed to show the gods of Egypt were worthless and that is precisely what Akhenaten stated and responded to with his monotheistic Atenism. That's proof of the Exodus, something atheists don't want to deal with. Because if one thing in the Bible, particularly something like the Exodus, is thought to be supported by science and archaeology then it proves there is a God and the Jewish history is real! They would rather not deal with that.
Further, the corrected timeline will clearly confirm that the messiah should have arrived in 29 CE to fulfill that prophecy. So it would tend to make Judaism obsolete, those factions that deny Christ. So one question is, is it worth destroying the Jewish faith? Especially all the Jews have gone through? They are already being attacked by Christians as outside of God's favor, particularly by Jehovah's Witnesses! Another confirmation of Jesus Christ might be too much.
I believe JWs put too much light on chronology, like the 70 years, and thus those defending the 70 years are DESPERATE. They try to make it look like there is no contradiction with the Bible, when there clearly is a contradiction between the Bible, the 70 years, and revised NB records. So it is not that they are stupid, but at what price to make the correction.
LS
-
Larsinger58
Now reflect on this in terms of Jehovah's witnesses. Let's say they know the timeline is wrong. What is the cost of changing it?
They would have to re-date the fall of Jerusalem to 529 BCE. That means 1914 doctrine and Satan being kicked out of heaven in 1914 would be a false doctrine!! Further, they would have to deal with a messianic scenario for themselves of significance with the messianic arrival in 1992!!
If the messiah joined their organization and took over, that would have been great. They would have admitted their error or accepted they were blinded by God and that's it. They would become the visible true church in the world headed by Jesus Christ himself. But that didn't happen. When Christ arrived he cast them out as the "evil slave." So something like this would destroy this religion. So they would ask, particularly with the 1975 fiasco, would it be worth destroying the faith of all these people and admit that Jehovah was no longer supporting them? Of course not. It is better to just ignore it and wait to see what happens. They're excuse would be that the new ones and weak ones couldn't handle that level of a scandal and thus it is better not to destroy and nullify the organization and all these people they had gathered.
Plus, think of the money involved? They've got millions of members who now purchase the literature they give away free in the community. They are a major corporation. Will they throw all that away and what is in place or the sake of truth? Of course not. They have lots of reasons, including not wanting to hurt the organization and destroy the faith of the witnesses to pretend the chronology is sound. So they promote 607 BCE as much as those opposed promote 587 BCE. But both use 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon based on the false chronology. So JWs are just as much an agency of lies as the secular system Satan has set up to protect the current timeline.
See, the false and the true both join in to swear by a lie.
LS
-
Leolaia
So you believe that Amasis was "in exile from Egypt" with friends. There is not the slightest intimation in Herodotus or elsewhere that Amasis — and all his subjects — were evicted from the land, much less for a duration of 40 years. His reign should have been the time of the worst diaster Egypt has ever experienced (as per Ezekiel) but instead his reign is depicted more as a "golden age" of prosperity, wealth, and power, with the Egyptians very much in the land with a large population. How was this "exile" supposed to have happened? All the Egyptians were uprooted from their cities, temples and their animals abandoned, every soul packed up and left, and the land was left deserted for 40 years, without even Babylonian garrisons keeping the people out? And then they all decided to move back and pick things up exactly where they left off, as if there weren't any interruption at all? And where did all the Egyptians go? Why isn't there a trace of this large-scale population movement in the Aegean or wherever they supposedly went? And though Amasis went into exile with his people, he somehow stopped counting the years of his reign, only to start counting where he left off when he returned? If it weren't for Ezekiel's prediction (which is made in ch. 29 because his earlier prediction of Tyre's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar didn't see fulfillment), is there any reason to suspect from the historical evidence that such an extraordinary event occurred? There would have been signs of it everywhere. The cessation of a scarab-producing workshop in Naukratis is a most flimsy basis for such a claim. We should have seen massive signs of disruption all throughout Egypt. There should have been destruction and interruption at Memphis, Heliopolis, Daphnae, Naukratis, Thebes, etc., and there hardly would have been complete silence about such a calamity, least of which by the Babylonian "victors". There should have been massive Egyptian settlements in Babylonia. And we wouldn't have instead all the historical evidence of life continuing as usual during Amasis' reign.
BTW, we know from Eusebius and Thucydides that Polycrates became tyrant of Samos in the 4th year of the 61st Olympiad, i.e. 533-32 BC, i.e. during the reign of Cyrus, not earlier when you have Amasis somehow in self-imposed exile from Egypt (with Cambyses' invasion of Egypt in the 3rd year of the 63rd Olympiad, as per Diodorus Sicilus). Historians generally agree that Amasis sought an alliance with Polycrates because the Persians were by then a serious threat to Egypt and he needed the kind of support that the insular Greeks could provide. As Persians were not sailors, Samos was relatively safe from Persian incursion whereas the naval fleet of Samos could be called on to protect the "Way of Horus" which was the main thoroughfare to Egypt along the coast. The alliance fell apart when Polycrates switched sides and began to support the Persians. Another Olympiad date is available for the burning of the temple at Delphi mentioned by Herodotus (2.180), on which occassion Amasis generously gave donations to the Delphians when they came down to Egypt seeking help. According to Pausanias, this event occurred in the 1st year of the 58th Olympiad when Diognetus of Crotona was victorious at the Games, during the archonship of Erxicleides at Athens (Graecae Descriptio, 10.5.13). This corresponds to 548 BC, about 20 years after Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Egypt (in his 37th year, i.e. 568/567 BC).
The Apis bull stele, and all the other dated records, contradict your ad hoc construal of the duration of Amasis' reign (29 years in length with a 40-year break between his 5th and 6th years). This stele in the Louvre states that the bull died in the 23rd year of Amasis, which is below your upper limit of 29 years, but it also states that the bull was born on the 5th year of Amasis (on the day after New Year's Day) and lived only to be 18 years and 6 months old. This demonstrates that the span between the start of the 5th year and the 23rd year was continuous without break, during which this bull lived in Memphis as the incarnation of Ptah. A replacement Apis was discovered in the 24th year of Amasis (P Vindob 3873), and the next Apis was born in Amasis' 27th year and buried in Cambyses' 6th year. Now add to this information the grave stele (in Leyden) of a man born on day 1 of month 11 in year 1 of Necho II who died on day 28 of month 8 in year 27 of Amasis, with a lifetime of 65 years 10 months and 2 days. That means that a period of 65 years should extend from the first year of Necho II to the 27th year of Amasis. This demonstrates again that there was no hidden 40-year period during the reign of Amasis. A third grave stele (of the priest Psammatechus) similarly indicates that a span of 71 years and 4 months should extend between the 2nd day of the 10th month of the 3rd year of Necho II and the 6th day of the 2nd month of the 35th year of Amasis. The 35th year of Amasis? You said his reign topped out at 29 years. And the duration of 71 years again proves that no phantom period of 40 years existed, as it matches what is known elsewhere about Saite chronology. There are also many dated documents from Amasis' reign, which clearly show that his reign continued to his 44th year. A scan of the published literature mentions: (1) a Rylands papyrus contract from the 8th year of Amasis, (2) Louvre 7848 is double-dated to the lunar month and the secular month (on the 21st day) in the 12th year of Amasis, which corresponds astronomically to 5 October 559 BC, (3) Louvre 10935 contains a land donation document from the 15th year of Amasis, (4) a Massara quarry inscription is dated to the 22nd year of Amasis, (5) a post-nuptial contract dated to the 23rd year of Amasis rescinding an earlier contract made in the 15th year, (6) Cairo 30657 is another papyrus dated to the 24th year of Amasis, (7) a demotic document from Siut, the capital of the 13th nome, is dated to the 28th year of Amasis, (8) a Louvre sharecropping contract written in demotic is dated to the 35th year of Amasis, (9) two demotic papyri in the Louvre dated to the 36th year of Amasis, (10) a Mother of Apis burial dated to the 37th year of Amasis, (11) a receipt of a cow papyrus dated to the 39th year of Amasis, (12) a demotic palimpsest dated to the 41st year of Amasis, (13) another demotic papyrus written in the 4th month of the 41st year of Amasis relating a military expedition to Nubia, (14) a stele from the 44th year of Amasis stood in the quarry of Mokattum (cf. Herodotus, Historiae 2.175 on Amasis' use of the quarries for his large-scale building activities). It is quite clear that Amasis' reign was longer than 29 years, and there is no room for a mystery period of 40 years (nowhere attested) to be squeezed into the early portion of Amasis' reign.
-
PSacramento
Lars,
After reading your last couple of posts I can see where you are coming from.
Good luck with that.
-
alice.in.wonderland
Leolaia, why is it you always systematically choose to elect historical accounts that contradict the Bible as “accurate”?
it-1 p. 698 Egypt, Egyptian
At Ezekiel 29:1-16 a desolation of Egypt is foretold, due to last 40 years. This may have come after Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Egypt. While some commentaries refer to the reign of Amasis (Ahmose) II, the successor of Hophra, as exceedingly prosperous during more than 40 years, they do so primarily on the testimony of Herodotus, who visited Egypt over a hundred years later. But as the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959, Vol. 8, p. 62) comments on Herodotus’ history of this period (the “Saitic Period”): “His statements prove not entirely reliable when they can be checked by the scanty native evidence.” The Bible Commentary by F. C. Cook, after noting that Herodotus even fails to mention Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Egypt, says: “It is notorious that Herodotus, while he faithfully recorded all that he heard and saw in Egypt, was indebted for his information on past history to the Egyptian priests, whose tales he adopted with blind credulity. . . . The whole story [by Herodotus] of Apries [Hophra] and Amasis is mixed with so much that is inconsistent and legendary that we may very well hesitate to adopt it as authentic history. It is by no means strange that the priests should endeavour to disguise the national dishonour of having been subjected to a foreign yoke.” (Note B., p. 132) Hence, while secular history provides no clear evidence of the prophecy’s fulfillment, we may be confident of the accuracy of the Bible record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus#As_told_by_other_.27liars.27
Although The Histories were often criticized in antiquity for bias, inaccuracy and plagiarism — Lucian of Samosata attacked Herodotus as a liar in Verae Historiae and went as far as to deny him a place among the famous on the Island of the Blessed — modern historians and philosophers take a more positive view of Herodotus's methodology, especially those searching for a paradigm of objective historical writing. A few modern scholars have argued that Herodotus exaggerated the extent of his travels and invented his sources yet his reputation continues largely intact: "The Father of History is also the father of comparative anthropology", "the father of ethnography" and he is "more modern than any other ancient historian in his approach to the ideal of total history."
As told by other 'liars'
As mentioned earlier, Herodotus has sometimes been labeled 'The Father of Lies' due to his tendency to report fanciful information. Much of the information that others subsequently reported about him is just as fanciful, some of it is vindictive and some of it is blatantly absurd, yet it is interesting and therefore worth reporting: Herodotus himself reported dubious information if it was interesting, sometimes adding his own opinion about its reliability.
Doesn't this cast some doubts in your mind about the authenticity of the historians you presume correct?
http://www.niasnet.org/iran-history/artifacts-historical-places-of-iran/cyruscylinder/
Farman-e-Kourosh also known as the ‘Cyrus the Great Cylinder’, is an artifact of the Persian Empire, consisting of the first declaration of human rights issued by the emperor Cyrus the Great inscribed in Babylonian (Akkadian) cuneiform on a clay cylinder. The cylinder synchronizes with all known world history.
Offering human sacrifices (often newborn infants) was a very ancient custom practiced by the Babylonians, Egyptians and the Assyrians unlike the inspired Bible writers and the declaration of human rights issued by the emperor Cyrus the Great.
There's good reason to avoid making the mistake of believing everything bias historians in servitude to polytheistic deities record rather than the infallible Word of God.—2 Chron. 36:19-23.
While world history outside the original Bible canon is necessary to arrive at conclusions, discretion and objectivity should be used before arriving at foregone conclusions. -
Mad Sweeney
There's good reason to avoid making the mistake of believing everything bias historians in servitude to polytheistic deities record rather than the infallible Word of God.
"God" and "infallible" have no place in a scientific discussion. Those are matters of faith, not tangible pieces of evidence. The statements attributed to Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, and anyone else who the Catholic Church deemed fit to include in "The Holy Bible" based on nothing but tradition are no more or no less reliable than any other historical statements. Some call Herodotus a liar. Some think Ezekiel was a loon. You have to weigh all the evidence and realize that EVERYONE has SOME sort of bias; the key is to KNOW WHAT THEIR BIAS IS and then take it into account, NOT SIMPLY DISMISS the persons statements AD HOMINEM.
-
alice.in.wonderland
This is the general stance of most atheists because of their religious exposure to Christendom's churches:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-390-Religion.aspx
Most major religions have believed in the existence of a supernatural realm, a realm beyond the natural world of physical objects and bodies governed by causal laws, the world we perceive with our senses and can study by rational methods. Some religions posit a personal god (or gods); others believe in impersonal supernatural forces. (See George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History, chapter 1.) Objectivism rejects any notion of the supernatural as incompatible with the objectivity and regularity of nature as identified by reason. There is no credible evidence of miracles, magic, or other supernatural phenomena in nature.
The dominant forms of religion in our culture posit a personal god, a Supreme Being, who created the world, is omnipotent and omniscient, imposes moral duties on man, and expects worship. Those who accept this idea have the burden of showing why such a hypothesis is necessary. In this regard, Objectivists are atheists because the arguments for the existence of such a being are not sound. Objectivists reject the existence of God for the same reason they reject the existence of elves, leprechauns, and unicorns: because there is no credible evidence of such beings.
The biggest obstacle to most of the proof/ evidence (science based) atheists or agnostics is they haven't observed or experienced any intervention from God in society or in their personal life so they're left with a lot of unanswered questions. This is not the case in Jehovah's Organization.
The truth of the matter, is God has a powerful method of revealing his existence to faithful men of old as well as his modern day human subjects.
. . .On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23
Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving let your petitions be made known to God; and the peace of God that excels all thought will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:6-7
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them. Hebrews 11:1-2
As far as I'm concerned the Bible meets the criteria of scientific evidence for divine inspiration.
No other book took so long to complete as the Bible. In 1513 B.C.E. Moses began Bible writing. Other sacred writings were added to the inspired Scriptures until sometime after 443 B.C.E. when Nehemiah and Malachi completed their books. Then there was a gap in Bible writing for almost 500 years, until the apostle Matthew penned his historic account. Nearly 60 years later John, the last of the apostles, contributed his Gospel and three letters to complete the Bible’s canon. So, all together, a period of some 1,610 years was involved in producing the Bible. All the cowriters were Hebrews and, hence, part of that people “entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.”—Ro 3:2.
The Bible is not an unrelated assortment or collection of heterogeneous fragments from Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, it is an organizational book, highly unified and interconnected in its various segments, which indeed reflect the systematic orderliness of the Creator-Author himself. God’s dealings with Israel in giving them a comprehensive law code as well as regulations governing matters even down to small details of camp life—things that were later mirrored in the Davidic kingdom as well as in the congregational arrangement among first-century Christians—reflect and magnify this organizational aspect of the Bible.
Rbi8 p. 8 Introduction
This 1984 revised edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures richly enhances accurate Bible knowledge by means of several distinctive features such as the marginal (cross) references, an extensive footnote apparatus, a concordance (Bible Words Indexed) and an appendix. Modern computerization has assisted greatly in preparing these features.
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. -
Leolaia
There is no systematic choosing of sources that contradict Ezekiel's oracle on Egypt's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. They all do. Herodotus is important for giving the only connected narrative for Amasis' reign, but it is hardly the only source; I have already mentioned scores of primary documents from Amasis' reign in this thread and the archaeology shows that there wasn't any interruption as well. The Apis stele and all the dated documents show that life continued as usual after Nebuchadnezzar's campaign, and the testimony of later Greek historians (Herodotus, Diodorus, Plutarch, etc.) is the same. It changes nothing whether Herodotus was unreliable, and if he was unreliable in this specific case, such should be demonstrated rather than presumed a priori. It should not be forgotten what Ezekiel predicted in his oracles. As a consequence of Nebuchadnezzar's campaign, (1) Amasis would be killed (Ezekiel 29:5), (2) Egypt would be left without any ruler (30:13), (3) Tanis, Thebes, and other important cities would be razed (30:8, 14, 16), (4) the land of Egypt would be become completely depopulated without an inhabitant for 40 years (29:10-11, 30:23), (5) all the surviving Egyptians would be scattered among the nations in captivity (29:12). If this had happened, this would have been the worst disaster to ever befall Egypt. There is not the slightest indication that this happened and every indication that Amasis continued to live and reign as pharaoh until the reign of Cambyses. The Apis cult stayed put in Memphis and continued without sign of interruption (contrary to 30:13 which states that "I will put an end to images in Memphis"), everyday life continued throughout Amasis' reign as the papyri and inscriptions attest. This is similar to claiming that the US became completely depopulated during 1812-1852 as a result of the US losing the War of 1812, even if every piece of writing from that period shows that life continued without interruption in America throughout the 19th century.
The oracles in Ezekiel about Egypt are not reports of history; they are warnings to nations given by the prophet, and this does not mean that history must have happened a certain way because a prophet said it would. No wonder one could think prophets have a 100% success rate if one could just change the history to fit the prophecy. Note too how Jeremiah describes the coming fall of Babylon -- the cataclysm would be so immense that the land would be empty without inhabitant, the city would be razed (Jeremiah 51:2, 11, 26-30), and the exiles would have to flee for their lives (v. 6). Is that what happened too? But here it would be harder for you to dismiss history because the Bible itself shows (such as in the first chapter of Ezra) that what Jeremiah expected is not what actually took place.