Posts by City Fan

38

Egypt, back from the dead?

by peacefulpete in

the desolation of egypt .

jeremiah 43:8-13 .

then the word of yhwh came to jeremiah in tahpanhes, saying, "take large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick which is at the entrance of pharaoh's palace in tahpanhes in the sight of some jewish men and say to them, 'thus says yhwh of hosts, the god of israel, "behold, i am going to send and get nebuchadnezzar the king of babel, my servant, and i am going to set his throne over these stones that i have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them.

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.

38

Egypt, back from the dead?

by peacefulpete in

the desolation of egypt .

jeremiah 43:8-13 .

then the word of yhwh came to jeremiah in tahpanhes, saying, "take large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick which is at the entrance of pharaoh's palace in tahpanhes in the sight of some jewish men and say to them, 'thus says yhwh of hosts, the god of israel, "behold, i am going to send and get nebuchadnezzar the king of babel, my servant, and i am going to set his throne over these stones that i have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them.

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.

38

Egypt, back from the dead?

by peacefulpete in

the desolation of egypt .

jeremiah 43:8-13 .

then the word of yhwh came to jeremiah in tahpanhes, saying, "take large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick which is at the entrance of pharaoh's palace in tahpanhes in the sight of some jewish men and say to them, 'thus says yhwh of hosts, the god of israel, "behold, i am going to send and get nebuchadnezzar the king of babel, my servant, and i am going to set his throne over these stones that i have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them.

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.

38

Egypt, back from the dead?

by peacefulpete in

the desolation of egypt .

jeremiah 43:8-13 .

then the word of yhwh came to jeremiah in tahpanhes, saying, "take large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick which is at the entrance of pharaoh's palace in tahpanhes in the sight of some jewish men and say to them, 'thus says yhwh of hosts, the god of israel, "behold, i am going to send and get nebuchadnezzar the king of babel, my servant, and i am going to set his throne over these stones that i have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them.

City Fan

Hooberus,

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?

38

Egypt, back from the dead?

by peacefulpete in

the desolation of egypt .

jeremiah 43:8-13 .

then the word of yhwh came to jeremiah in tahpanhes, saying, "take large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick which is at the entrance of pharaoh's palace in tahpanhes in the sight of some jewish men and say to them, 'thus says yhwh of hosts, the god of israel, "behold, i am going to send and get nebuchadnezzar the king of babel, my servant, and i am going to set his throne over these stones that i have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them.

City Fan

Adam, No.

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

38

Egypt, back from the dead?

by peacefulpete in

the desolation of egypt .

jeremiah 43:8-13 .

then the word of yhwh came to jeremiah in tahpanhes, saying, "take large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick which is at the entrance of pharaoh's palace in tahpanhes in the sight of some jewish men and say to them, 'thus says yhwh of hosts, the god of israel, "behold, i am going to send and get nebuchadnezzar the king of babel, my servant, and i am going to set his throne over these stones that i have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them.

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.

38

Egypt, back from the dead?

by peacefulpete in

the desolation of egypt .

jeremiah 43:8-13 .

then the word of yhwh came to jeremiah in tahpanhes, saying, "take large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick which is at the entrance of pharaoh's palace in tahpanhes in the sight of some jewish men and say to them, 'thus says yhwh of hosts, the god of israel, "behold, i am going to send and get nebuchadnezzar the king of babel, my servant, and i am going to set his throne over these stones that i have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them.

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.

38

Egypt, back from the dead?

by peacefulpete in

the desolation of egypt .

jeremiah 43:8-13 .

then the word of yhwh came to jeremiah in tahpanhes, saying, "take large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick which is at the entrance of pharaoh's palace in tahpanhes in the sight of some jewish men and say to them, 'thus says yhwh of hosts, the god of israel, "behold, i am going to send and get nebuchadnezzar the king of babel, my servant, and i am going to set his throne over these stones that i have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them.

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.

11

Them annual visits

by tazmaniac in

jw
friends

i just had my first "annual" visit since leaving over 3 years ago.

someone in my family told me elder so and so stopped to see me.

so i knew they were on my trail.

City Fan

I had a visit by an elder a few months ago, even though it's been nearly a decade since I left.

I thought 'what the hell' and invited him in. He was really nice though and talked about his family, my family and others I'd not seen in years. After about 20 minutes or so he said something strange. He said "I really should be encouraging you to come back to the hall but I'm not going to".

After that he talked about how no-one really cared for older people at the hall these days or visited them like they used to. He said 30 years or so ago the witnesses looked after each other more.

He stayed for about an hour after which I wondered who was meant to be encouraging who!

And that was it.

38

Egypt, back from the dead?

by peacefulpete in

the desolation of egypt .

jeremiah 43:8-13 .

then the word of yhwh came to jeremiah in tahpanhes, saying, "take large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick which is at the entrance of pharaoh's palace in tahpanhes in the sight of some jewish men and say to them, 'thus says yhwh of hosts, the god of israel, "behold, i am going to send and get nebuchadnezzar the king of babel, my servant, and i am going to set his throne over these stones that i have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them.

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?