Egypt, back from the dead? (page 2)

City Fan

Sorry Schizm.

Try the following books:

Babylon - Joan Oates ISBN 0-500-27384-7 (particularly chapter 5 pages 126 - 139) Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Greeks.

The Cambridge Ancient History Vol III Part 2. The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East, From the Eighth to the Sixth Century B.C. - various ISBN 0-521-22717-8

This volume is written by various authors, some of whom are often quoted by the Watchtower Society. Chapters to read on this subject are: Chapter 21: The Fall of Assyria (635-609 BC) by Joan Oates; Chapter 27: Babylonia 605-539 BC by D.J.Wiseman; Chapter 30: Judah until the fall of Jerusalem 700-586 BC by T.C.Mitchell; Chapter 35: Egypt, The 25th and 26th Dynasties by T.G.H. James.

For brief information about the rise of the Persian Empire see 'The Greek and Persian Wars 499 - 386 BC by Philip de Souza ISBN 1-84176-358-6 pages 19-24 Kyros the Great and the Persian Empire.

For a full list of Egyptian rulers and dynasties try 'Egypt, The World of the Pharoahs' edited by Schulz and Seidel ISBN 3-89508-913-3 pages 528-529 for chronological table based on Jurgen von Beckerath (Chronologie des pharaonischen Agypten)

Hope these references are helpful.

Schizm

Try the following books:.....................Hope these references are helpful.

well, thanks City, for the assignment. *LOL* you should realize though that since it was YOU that made the assertion, "In no way could Nebuchadnezzar be described as 'ruler over all mankind'" then the burden rests upon YOU to supply the proof that backs up your claim. all that you've done so far though, is say to Skiz: "The proof is in such and such books, and all YOU, Skiz, have to do is search for it." thus, you're asking me to carry what is rightly YOUR burden. since it is you that made the claim, then it is incumbent upon you to furnish specific "quotes" that you think would support your argument. as I've already demonstrated, the Bible indicates that Babylon, during Nebuchadnezzar's time, ruled the entire then known world. can you, or can you not, supply specific proof to the contrary?

Skiz

SixofNine

Skiz, you've had 3 post on this forum, all of them stupid. Please leave now, as we have our quota of the mentally challenged and the insane.

City Fan

Skiz,

Here's a quote about Nebuchadnezzar in another book I have:

'During his reign of 43 years, he took possession of the territories once occupied by the Assyrian World Power and extended his domain, taking in Syria to the north and Palestine to the west down to the border of Egypt.'

The book also has a map of the Babylonian Empire which does not include Egypt, Elam, Media, Anatolia, Scythia, Persia, Greece etc etc..

See pages 63-64 of the book 'Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy' 1999 published by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

Will this reference do??

Adam

you make assertions without showing your source.

And lets just forget my post with nearly all necessary documentation provided.

Schizm

City,

Skiz,
Here's a quote about Nebuchadnezzar in another book I have:
'During his reign of 43 years, he took possession of the territories once occupied by the Assyrian World Power and extended his domain, taking in Syria to the north and Palestine to the west down to the border of Egypt.'
The book also has a map of the Babylonian Empire which does not include Egypt, Elam, Media, Anatolia, Scythia, Persia, Greece etc etc..
See pages 63-64 of the book 'Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy' 1999 published by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
Will this reference do??

thanks for providing that "quote," City. it's nice to know that I'm not dealing with a lazy person here. however, to be honest, I personally see no justification for placing one's faith in what some so-called "history book" claims to have happened so long ago. do you really think that such books are infallible? 100% reliable? there are many people who think that just because something is written down in some sophisticated book somewhere that it has to be gospel truth. of course neither you nor I were there in order to verify the matter. did you know that people have disputes over far more recent history?

with reference to the publication produced by the WTS, that you call attention to, I don't accept just anything that its writers say as being gospel truth either. i know all too well that such ones are mere men, fully capable of misunderstanding many things. why is it though that you yourself would prefer to trust the world's history books over what the Bible itself says?

Skiz

greven

Skiz, what you said about current history books can just as easily be said about the bible, something you seem to put more trust in. Let me rephrase what you said about secular historybooks but now apply it to the bible:

I personally see no justification for placing one's faith in what some so-called " divine history book" claims to have happened so long ago. do you really think that such books are infallible? 100% reliable? there are many people who think that just because something is written down in some sophisticated book somewhere that it has to be gospel truth. of course neither you nor I were there in order to verify the matter. did you know that people have disputes over far more recent history?

I know all too well that [the writers of the books of the bible] are mere men, fully capable of misunderstanding many things.

See? The same can be said about the bible. Now why do you value a 'history' book written by ancient and ignorant hebrews with a political and religious agenda, to be more reliable than current history books?

Greven

City Fan

Skiz,

with reference to the publication produced by the WTS, that you call attention to, I don't accept just anything that its writers say as being gospel truth either

If that is how you feel about WTS books and writers then I'm not sure why you have earlier quoted from the 'Revelation, Grand Climax' book to defend your argument.

Your basic argument is that Egypt must have been conquered by Nebuchadnezzar because the dream prophecy in Daniel 2 calls Nebuchadnezzar 'King of kings' and the ruler of all men. There is also the prophecy of the desolation of Egypt which started this thread. Do you know why this prophecy was given?

Jeremiah chapter 37 shows how Pharoah sent an army to help Jerusalem and break the Babylonian seige but then it withdrew. Jeremiah blamed Jerusalem's seige and destruction on Judah's continued reliance on Egypt. Judah chose wrongly as Egypt was weaker than Babylon. So in the end Egypt let Judah down by failing to defend Jerusalem. So this is why the prophecy is given that Egypt would also be made desolate by Nebuchadnezzar.

But the bible never speaks of Nebuchadnezzar actually conquering Egypt apart from in prophecies. Secular sources and the bible AGREE that Nebuchadnezzar only captured as far as the border of Egypt. The Babylonian Chronicle agrees with 2 Kings 24 v7 that Nebuchadnezzar only conquered as far as the brook of Egypt (a desert stream on the border of Egypt). There is a fragmentary Babylonian text which may indicate a campaign against Pharoah Amasis in 568 BC but its objectives are unclear.

As I've previously discussed Egyptian kinglists are unbroken for the Saite dynasty as follows: Psammeticus I 664-610; Necho I 610-595; Psammeticus II 595-589; Apries 589-570; Amasis 570-526; Psammeticus III 526-525. Then there are Persian rulers after Cambyses conquered Egypt.

why is it though that you yourself would prefer to trust the world's history books over what the Bible itself says?

I like to look at as many sources as possible when looking at a historial event and I include the bible in these sources. But I make a distinction in the bible between actual historical events and prophecies. Can I ask why you view the verse at Daniel 2:38 so literally? A literal reading would mean that God had given Nebuchadnezzar every man, bird and beast in the whole inhabited earth to rule over. Why would Babylonian documents not confirm this world supremacy?

peacefulpete

Schism you have come across as less than sincere in your request for references in support for our position. When offered them to examine you insisted it is our responsibilty to educate you as you have no interest in researching on your own. Then when this documentation was offered by Cityfan you dismiss it as worthless opinion of men. Why the game? If you believe the Bible is infallable and unassailable just say so, we are familiar with the mind set involved.

hooberus

Contrary to the prophecy in 48:21 , Joseph died in Egypt, not Israel. Gen.50:24

The "Skeptics' Annotated Bible" is very poor in many of its arguments:

"And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers." Genesis 48:21 (note: Genesis 48:21 does not say that Joseph would not die in Egypt but that some day that he would be brought back to Israel.)

"And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence." Genesis 50:24-25

"And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you." Exodus 13:19

The prophecy of Genesis 48:21 was fullfilled during the Exodus.

The following site discusses some of the arguments used by the "Skpetics' Annotated Bible"

http://www.tektonics.org/sabgen.html

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html

Egypt, back from the dead?

Share this