Egypt, back from the dead? (page 3)

peacefulpete

too funny.....so your saying God keeps his promises he just waits till your dead!

City Fan

I just wanted to point out a couple of other lines of evidence to show that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered or desolated Egypt and that he was not the ruler of the whole of the known world.

Firstly Nebuchadnezzar II was famous for his building work in Babylon, including the hanging gardens. Something else he built was called the Median Wall. This wall was to the north of Babylon and stretched between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The Greeks believed this wall to be 100 feet high. The point is that this was a defensive wall to keep out the Medes from the north. Although Nebuchadnezzar had formed an alliance with this kingdom he realised that the Medes were becoming stronger and were becoming a threat to him. An alliance does not mean he ruled over the Medes and the wall proves he was fearful of an attack.

Herodotus mentions that the Babylonians mediated the peace between Media and Lydia after the battle of the eclipse in 585BCE but does not say that Nebuchadnezzar ruled these nations.

There are many archaeological and historical lines of evidence that show that rather than being made desolate by the Babylonians, the Egyptians under the Saite dynasty from Psammeticus I to Amasis were very prosperous. We can date the lengths of rule of these pharoahs using Apis bull stelae and death stelae. These give the lengths of the reigns of the first four pharoahs of the Saite dynasty as follows:

Psammeticus I - 54 years; Necho II - 15 years; Psammeticus II - 6 years; Hophra - 19 years.

Herodotus and Manetho both give the lengths of reigns of Amasis and Psammeticus II as 44 years and six months respectively. These lengths of reigns are also confirmed by various Persian documents and inscriptions.

According to the bible this 40 year desolation could not have happened until after the reign of Hophra. 2 Kings 24:7 shows that in the reign of Necho II Nebuchadnezzar had only conquered as far as the Egyptian border, and Jeremiah 44:30 says that Hophra (who was still ruling) would be given into the hands of his enemies.

So is there any evidence for a Babylonian conquest of Egypt during the reign of Amasis. After Amasis siezed the throne from Hophra there was a period of great prosperity and peace in Egypt. Numerous business documents have been discovered which show the prosperity enjoyed by Egypt at this time. To curb excessive wealth private individuals were encouraged to donate land to temples. These transactions are recorded in donation stelae.

Although the Egyptians no longer tried to expand eastwards, their sea trade and naval expeditions expanded much further than Syria. Herodotus and Diodorus comment extensively on this period. Diodorus says that Cyprus was captured during the reign of Amasis and Herodotus speaks of treaties between Amasis and Croesus of Lydia (Histories I.77) and Polycrates of Samos (Histories III.39). There are also many surviving records from Egyptian naval commanders who served under Hophra and Amasis.

There is a fragmentary text that shows a campaign by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year against Amasis but the objectives are uncertain being described as 'remote territories amid the sea'. Maybe this was to combat Egypt's growing influence in the eastern Mediterranean. But as yet not one inscription has been found in Egypt showing Nebuchadnezzar ruling.

peacefulpete

I imagine youv'e seen JC's explanation given in the new thread he just started. The same doctored chronology conspiracy. The rivers of Egypt congealing part he obliquely forgot. Thank you for your research and efforts to assist those with sincere questions.

City Fan

Pete,

Did you mean JC's? I looked at certain weblinks that try and defend this 40 year desolation prophecy and guess what? A guy called Jim Reilly defends it with yet another revised Egyptian chronology. None of these revised chronologies ever seem to match each other.

Adam

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

I agree with you. Many of the things it points out can easily be explained, justified, or otherwise debunked. However, it points out THOUSANDS of inaccuracies, cruelties, contradictions and other disturbing aspects of this book and not all of them have an easy answer. I would think that the word of God wouldn't need so much patching up with explanations and creative interpretations. Some say that the issues arise because the bible was written and translated by man and therefore isn't the pure thought of god. Well then, if that is the case, then the bible isn't the word of god is it?

peacefulpete

Yes, JC, not Hooby. Sorry to all parties involved.

hooberus

I agree with you. Many of the things it points out can easily be explained, justified, or otherwise debunked. However, it points out THOUSANDS of inaccuracies, cruelties, contradictions and other disturbing aspects of this book and not all of them have an easy answer. I would think that the word of God wouldn't need so much patching up with explanations and creative interpretations. Some say that the issues arise because the bible was written and translated by man and therefore isn't the pure thought of god. Well then, if that is the case, then the bible isn't the word of god is it?

The problem with the SAB is the massive amount of mis-understanding of basic theology that the site authors have that leads them to arguments such as:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/spirit.html

Also the previous example of a "false prophecy" regarding Joseph being brought out of egypt that I discussed earlier.

I think the site tries to make more of an impression by "volume" of arguments then by quality of arguments. If the site would drop all of its faulty arguments the number of proposed "inaccuracies" ; "contradictions" etc. would be decreased massively. The remaining much more limited amount of proposed discrepancies could then be researched by interested parties using the SAB site as well as Christaian appologetic sites such as the one that I linked to earlier.

Adam

I think the site tries to make more of an impression by "volume" of arguments then by quality of arguments

Again, I must agree with you. It sure would be nice if they only had the realy solid arguements listed. But simply because you have to sift thru a lot of dirt, doesn't mean that there aren't diamonds there. I would like to find a site like SAB that has sifted out only the really tough issues and the ones with very defensable points of contention.

mis-understanding of basic theology

I guess it all depends on who's interpretation you wish to believe. The JWs think that all other christian religions have a mis-understanding of theology. The Catholics think the Mormons have a misunderstanding of basic theology. The argument from SAB you list is a perfect example. Every church will have their own take on how to respond. One would say that this part is literal and the other symbolic. Another would say the same thing, but switch around which ones were to be taken literally and which weren't. Yet another would say that they are both true at the same time because God can shape-shift. The issue of which parts throughout the bible should be taken literaly and which should be taken figuratively is one which so many different organizations and scollars have all formed their own opinons on, most of them with very convincing arguements for why their conclusions are the right ones. Related to that is the issue of what the figurative parts mean. Again, many people and organizations have put in a lot of research and have very convincing reasons why they feel that thier interpretation is correct. In the end, the bible leaves one to choose between one man's interpretation and another's without giving difinitive answers.

City Fan

You're right Hooberus, I think the site does rely on quantity rather than quality. But it can give some good starting points to further research. I think the apologetic site you listed suffers from the same in that by trying to answer all the points on the skeptic site it mostly replies with brief non-arguments.

In the end, the bible leaves one to choose between one man's interpretation and another's without giving difinitive answers.

Adam - that's why I feel there is no point arguing on doctrine, it's just one man's interpretation against another.

hooberus

Adam - that's why I feel there is no point arguing on doctrine, it's just one man's interpretation against another.

Who does the Bible say the first man was? Is this just interpretation?

Egypt, back from the dead?

Share this