Ezekiel 29:12 - Prophecy of the Desolation of Egypt for 40 years

by VM44 104 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  alice.in.wonderland

  Leolaia, the point I was trying to make is history is not science. There are experts that have provided “secular” accounts to back Bible history and chronology:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Furuli

  Rolf Johan Furuli (born 19 December 1942 is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo.

  He is currently involved in translation of non-Christian religious texts, and is considered an expert in ancient languages. In 2005, he finished a doctoral thesis suggesting a new understanding of Classical Hebrew. This study has been privately published.

  Furuli started his studies of New Babylonian chronology in 1984. Based on these studies, he has attempted to defend the view held by Jehovah's Witnesses—of which Furuli is a member—that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BC rather than 587 BC.

  Alongside Norwegian, English and Hebrew, he is able to read Akkadian, Aramaic and Greek. He has written works about Bible translation and Biblical issues.

  As long as you judge the historicity of what's recorded in Biblical accounts excluding the possibility of the Bible being inspired of a higher power, human fallacy can always be used to discredit history recorded in the Bible. The existence of wicked supernatural forces can misconstrue human history. It's certainly convinced you has it not? While secular history serves a relative purpose, the existence of the invisible spirit realm is better assessed from scientific methods and personal experience, not obscure uninspired historical data written by imperfect men.

  Jehovah's Witnesses strive to accurately assess Bible history in comparison with the grand scheme of all things unlike Christendom's Churches. Like I said before: 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.
• 

  bohm

  "As long as you judge the historicity of what's recorded in Biblical accounts excluding the possibility of the Bible being inspired of a higher power, human fallacy can always be used to discredit history recorded in the Bible. The existence of wicked supernatural forces can misconstrue human history. It's certainly convinced you has it not? "

  Alice, I really hope you are genuine. Cant you see that when you come here and tell someone she has been convinced by Satan himself instead of discussing the evidence she lay before you, and you also accuse that person of delibrately excluding the possibility the bible is correct, it really just look like a smearing compaign?

  What if i told you: "YOU are excluding the possibility the bible is NOT correct. Human fallacy can allways be used to discredit the history not recorded in the bible. The existence of wicked forces can miscontrue human history. It has certainly convinced YOU has it not?", would you find that very convincing and, excuse me, christian? Would you not prefer i discussed the evidence you put forth and focused on that instead of your relationship with Satan?
• 

  bohm

  Alice: When you write: the existence of the invisible spirit realm is better assessed from scientific methods and personal experience, not obscure uninspired historical data written by imperfect men.

  Can you elaborate on the scientific method is NOT used in the study of history, what method they DO use and how you feel the scientific method confirm a spirit realm? (which fields of science, what data, what experiments, etc). Can you also provide a reference to what definition of 'the scientific method' you use?
• 

  Leolaia

  Did Cyrus slaughter and take captive every person in Babylon, such that Babylon was left without an inhabitant, such that all the Jews had to run for their lives? Yes or No?
• 

  PSacramento

  The bible is "infalliable" when it does NOT contridict what science has proven, when it does SEEM to do that, OUR interpretation must be adjusted accordingly and we must not simply "ignore" science and research.

  Using secular (sceintific) evidence when it "works" for us and ignoring it when it doesn't is wrong.

  Leolaia, you have a PM :)
• 

  Leolaia

  The bible is "infalliable" when it does NOT contridict what science has proven, when it does SEEM to do that, OUR interpretation must be adjusted accordingly

  This predicates the interpretive process on a presumption of infallibility; it is thus presupposed outright rather than demonstrated on its own. I strongly disagree with this condition because it can lead the interpreter to adopt rather strained and improbable (if not impossible) interpretations in order to harmonize what is written with what science and history have to say.

  Having said that, it is clear in this case that there is a problem with interpretation, specifically, the view that a prophetic oracle could be equated with a historical document of what happened, that whatever a prophet writes about his own future corresponds 1:1 with actual history. This is what alice.in.wonderland and the Society and thirdwitness presume. It is better to understand that prophets were giving warnings about the future rather than prophecies that are strictly history-before-the-fact. The prophet Ezekiel himself shows between ch. 26 and 29 that he recognized that his warnings did not always come to pass as expected, and new oracles could be issued on account of what actually transpired. In the case of the Egypt oracle, it is an empirical fact that Amasis did not die in the 4th year of his reign on account of Nebuchadnezzar's campaign but continued on in Egypt for another forty years, without interruption. There are scores of documents and evidences to that effect, and nothing at all outside of Ezekiel to intimate that things happened entirely differently. What was written in Ezekiel about what would happen did not happen. One could adopt an interpretation that saves the prophecy by claiming he was talking about a larger Egypt or spiritual Egypt insead, but this violates the usual rules of exegesis (and such an ad hoc interpretation is motivated by non-textual concerns). Or one could simply recognize that these predictions did not come to pass, but the significance of this could be debated: e.g. whether Ezekiel meant them more as warnings or as 100% going-to-happen predictions of the future.
• 

  alice.in.wonderland

  "Can you also provide a reference to what definition of 'the scientific method' you use?"

  Scientific investigations into the origin of nature:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief

  
  
  The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief is a bestselling book by Francis Collins in which he advocates theistic evolution. Francis Collins is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as the Director of the US National Institutes of Health. In the book, Collins describes briefly the process by which he became a Christian.
  
  This gentlemen here is a Particle Physicist, String Theorist, Cosmologist:
  http://www.chron.com/channel/houstonbelief/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=calton&plckUserId=calton

  He has a wealth of knowledge to share:
  
  Has matter/energy always existed?
  
  "I just find it odd that a true scientist does not remain humble and agnostic" - Supespook
  
  How does humility imply agnosticism? Are you also surprised by scientists who are atheistic instead of agnostic?
  
  I am a theist because I believe it provides the greatest metaphysical explanatory power with the fewest non-trivial assumptions. I feel that naturalism, while a plausible and logically consistent worldview, ultimately runs into too many difficulties to be taken seriously. I do not assert this with a sense of brute dogmatism, but rather as my personal view which you are welcome to challenge (how else can I learn?).
  
  "Just because we don't understand the true origin of the universe today, doesn't mean that we will never find the answers" - Superspook
  
  If one insists on holding out for a scientific answer, then you will never find the answer. Any proposed explanation for the origin of the universe will be metaphysical and outside the reach of empirical science, whether it is theism, a string derived model, or turtles all the way down.”
  
  This here explains some more precise methods for reaching conclusions:
  
  600 million years of vertebrate evolution and no transitional species?
• 

  PSacramento

  This predicates the interpretive process on a presumption of infallibility; it is thus presupposed outright rather than demonstrated on its own. I strongly disagree with this condition because it can lead the interpreter to adopt rather strained and improbable (if not impossible) interpretations in order to harmonize what is written with what science and history have to say.

  Hmmm, a valid point and one that we have seen.

  Still, I do think that bible and science can be reconciled in things that science can prove and that the bibel makes a "concrete" claim, like how long a King rules or where.

  I don't think it is applicable to Genesis for example, which seems to be more of a story of creation rather than a history of creation, knwo what I mean?
• 

  PSacramento

  I am a huge fan Of Francis Collins and he website biologos.org.

  AIW, I think that, since you brought up his Book, you should check out the website.
• 

  PSacramento

  The prophet Ezekiel himself shows between ch. 26 and 29 that he recognized that his warnings did not always come to pass as expected, and new oracles could be issued on account of what actually transpired.

  I think that, somewhere along the lines, because of the notion of "inerrant" and "infalliable", it was lost that prohecies in of themselves are not written in stone because they tend to be warnings as much as "will happen events", fact is, if a prophet said that A and B is gonna happen because of C, then if C becomes D then A and B will not happen.