Egypt, back from the dead? (page 4)

City Fan

Adam, No.

Was Jesus raised as a spirit? Is this just interpretation?

I don't think you've ever given an answer in your own words to the original problem posed by this thread, that Jeremiah and Ezekial prophecied the utter desolation and destruction of Egypt for 40 years, and that this prophecy failed.

And I think asking the question about Adam misses the point I was making. I could argue about the word Adam meaning the name of the first human, or being the word for mankind in general. I could argue that the Genesis creation account is two separate creation myths. I could argue that the stories of Adam are based on the Mesopotamian Adapa or the Egyptian Geb or a mixture of both. But I wouldn't call these 'doctrines'. A doctrine would be, say, the idea of the trinity. I notice you had a thread recently called 'Troublesome trinity verses part 10'.

See what I mean?

Adam

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

What a lame come back. Sure there are several things that the bible doesn't leave to interpretation. The the name of that fictional character in the children's story about a viscious bastard of a god killing every living thing, including innocent animals and innocent children, in a flood that encompassed the entire globe, was named Noah. No interpretation needed there. But what about all of the things that DO require interpretation? Care to address any of those?

peacefulpete

I'll just add that many of the arguements at sites like the Skeptic Bible are quite legitamate dispite apologists (like our former selves) having prepared responses to them. A simple reading of the text without elaborate exegesis reveals hundreds of subtle contradictions and impossibilities that are often the product of conflation of competing traditions and imperfect editing. We had become so accustomed to, even skillful at explaining away difficulties as JWs, that yet now we miss problems that others who did not have our experience recognise.

Schizm

City,

i want to pursue our subject further, but first I would like to know what you think with regards to the extent of Medo-Persia's rule.

as you do with regards to Babylon, would you also argue against Medo-Persia having ruled the entire known world of its day?

please note the following text, along with my thoughts regarding that text, and tell me what you think:

Daniel 2:39 says:
39 And after you [Babylon] there will rise another kingdom [Medo-Persia] inferior to you; and another kingdom [Greece], a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.

this verse can be discerned as saying that, like Babylon, both Medo-Persia and Greece was to "rule over the whole earth." t hat Cyrus, king of Persia, did exercise World Rule is attested to by his own words: "All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah ... has given me." (Ezra 1:2) a secular document as well, known as the Cyrus Cylinder, has Cyrus proclaiming himself to be ruler of the world: "I am Cyrus, king of the world...."

Skiz

City Fan

Skiz,

I'm not sure I would credit Cyrus himself with the words at Ezra 1:2. In the bible he seems to be one of several great ancient rulers who attributes his successes to Yahweh without changing the national religion to reflect this belief. In the Cyrus cylinder it is the god Marduk who chooses Cyrus as the new king of Babylon, and Cyrus also praises his gods Bel and Nabu for the conquest.

Was he the King of the world? Well again, strictly speaking he wasn't, but his kingdom was larger than Nebuchadnezzar's. The Cyrus cylinder shows how all the lands previously ruled by Babylon were now ruled by Cyrus. So all the land between the upper and lower seas (the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf) was added to his empire. But again this did not include Egypt. But his kingdom did include Lydia, Baktria, Media and Persia which never belonged to Nebuchadnezzar. But Cyrus died in 530 BC before Egypt was taken.

Cyrus' son Cambyses spent the first few years of his reign building up a navy to defeat Pharoah Amasis, using Ionian and Phoenician ships. Egypt fell in 525 BC and the Persian Empire grew even stronger under the two Kings Darius and Xerxes. An inscription found in Iran to Darius the Great King lists 23 lands all under his subjection. The Persian Empire was far greater and longer lasting than the Babylonian Empire.

Again, strictly speaking, did Darius and Xerxes rule the whole world? They both failed to fully conquer Greece and both had to deal with Ionian uprisings sponsored by the Athenians. If you're asking me if I think the Persian Empire ruled over the whole world then I'd say yes, well most of it anyway.

City Fan

Skiz,

To me that verse at Daniel 2:39 is saying that the second kingdom would be 'inferior' to babylon and it would be the third kingdom which would rule over all the earth. Could you give me your reasons for saying that this second kingdom was Medo-Persia and the third was Greece?

Thanks.

CF.

peacefulpete

Remember the King and I story? Siam was the whole earth.

The idea that the middle east was the whole known world is preposterous. These nations had been doing trade with far off lands such as India, and China for centuries by this time.

City Fan

Pete, you're right.

When I say I think Darius I and Xerxes ruled over most of the 'whole' world I mean the biblical world. It's obvious that none of the ancient rulers of bible times ruled countries like India, China or Russia etc.

Egypt, back from the dead?

Share this