In his post 42, thirdwitness wrote:
: Before you bring up the prosperous rule of Amasis according to Herodutus during this time of Egyptian history let me do it for you.
In post 7742, Leolaia has done an admirable job of debunking your nonsense. I will add to it.
: And then note this:
: Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959, Vol. 8, p. 62) comments on Herodotus’ history of this period: "His statements prove not entirely reliable when they can be checked by the scanty native evidence."
: The Bible Commentary by F. C. Cook, after noting that Herodotus even fails to mention Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Egypt, says: "It is notorious that Herodotus, while he faithfully recorded all that he heard and saw in Egypt, was indebted for his information on past history to the Egyptian priests, whose tales he adopted with blind credulity. . . . The whole story [by Herodotus] of Apries [Hophra] and Amasis is mixed with so much that is inconsistent and legendary that we may very well hesitate to adopt it as authentic history. It is by no means strange that the priests should endeavour to disguise the national dishonour of having been subjected to a foreign yoke." (Note B., p. 132)
You're a very naughty boy, thirdwitness! You borrowed the above two paragraphs virtually verbatim from the Insight book, Vol. 1, p. 698, under the topic "Egypt, Egyptian". Have you no shame in plagiarizing the words of "the faithful and discreet slave"? One of its legal corporations, such as The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, is liable to take legal action against you!
Anyway, your quotations really have nothing to do with proving your case. The Britannica statement is merely a general observation that sometimes ancient historians get things wrong. Duh! What a revelation! But such general comments are meaningless without substantiating data. And Leolaia has given plenty of substantiating date in post 7742, that Herodotus' statements about the period of Amasis' reign are generally reliable.
As for the Society's quoting F. C. Cook, this is a very typical example of its scholastic dishonesty. While Cook certainly states what is quoted, what is quoted leaves out the context and, most importantly, Cook's statements that completely devastate the Society's overall claims. Note that Cook published an extensive set called The Bible Commentary around 1876.
In the "Note B." mentioned in the Watchtower quotation, Cook is mainly concerned with his perception that certain historical details mentioned by Herodotus do not quite correspond with the prophecies of Ezekiel 26-29. He states (pp. 131-2):
We have seen that the prophecies of Ezekiel against Egypt were in all probability delivered at the commencement of the reign of Apries or Pharaoh-Hophra (see Introduction S III). At this time Ezekiel predicted his downfall. That Pharaoh-Hophra was deposed and put to death is unquestioned, but the circumstance of his overthrow and the condition of Egypt which ensued are stated by Herodotus in terms which do not appear to correspond with the prophecy of Ezekiel.
Cook then goes on to complain that Herodotus states that Apries' successor Amasis was crowned king after a revolt, whereas he believes that Nebuchadnezzar actually conquered Egypt in a limited way, killed Hophra and perhaps installed Amasis as king. It is in this argument that Cook makes the statements quoted (or rather plagiarized by thirdwitness) above.
But none of this has anything to do with Ezekiel's 40-year prophecy about Egypt. Indeed, in "Note B." Cook, after concluding his argument as described above, goes on to talk about this prophecy. His comments are devastating to the Watchtower's and thirdwitness' claim that this prophecy is literal (pp. 132-3):
There is yet another discrepancy between the narrative of Herodotus and the prophecy of Ezekiel. The prophecy speaks of the utter desolation of Egypt; the historian says that in the reign of Amasis the land was most flourishing, "both with regard to the advantages conferred by the river on the soil and by the soil on the inhabitants," and that the country "could boast no less than 20,000 inhabited cities" (Herod. II. 177). This is also confirmed by the existence of many monuments bearing the mark of this reign, which attest the wealth and luxury of the inhabitants (Wilkinson, I. p. 180).
Nebuchadnezzar's occupation of Egypt was of no long duration, and his ravages, though severe, must have been partial; when the army was withdrawn, Amasis took to building. Peace with Babylon was favourable to internal works, but since the peace was in truth subjugation, it was hollow and in fact ruinous. It is evident that wealth and luxury are at all times consistent with a state of imminent ruin. Even in the later days of the Jewish monarchs we find prophets lifting up their voice against riches and maginficence (Jer. xxii. 14).
But the more complete solution of the difficulty is to be found in the observation, that God is often wont to fulfil his decree by a gradual rather than an immediate process. This was seen in the case of Jerusalem itself, where, after the captivity of Jeconiah, there followed a kind of lull which deceived many into the belief that the storm was over. And so in regard to Egypt. The ravages of Nebuchadnezzar were the beginning of the end, and all the desolation which followed may be looked upon as a continuous fulfilment of the decree of the Almighty Ruler of the universe. The savage fury with which Cambyses swept over Egypt amply realized all that Ezekiel foretold. So that when the Ptolemies established their new Egyptian kingdom, Old Egypt had become a riddle for the antiquary. It is true many places recovered a considerable degree of wealth and prosperity, as we find from the descriptions of Herodotus, Bubastis for instance (see on xxx. 17). But from his time the kingdom never again became really independent. The 28th dynasty, which lasted nearly 100 years, is simply a list of the Persian kings, from Cambyses to Darius Nothus. . . So thoroughly was the prophecy of Ezekiel fulfilled: They shall be there a base kingdom, it shall be the basest of kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations; for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.
A bit earlier in Note B., Cook stated with regard to the gradual decline of Babylonian influence during Amasis' rule (p. 132):
Since, in the decline of Babylonian power under the successors of Nebuchadnezzar, Amasis may have very well shaken off the yoke and freed himself from the tribute; he would also in such case have established his authority over his own subjects.
This explains why Amasis, in 547 B.C., would have been able to ally himself with the Babylonians against the Persians. But if Egypt had been completely desolated until 548, there would have been no time for the repatriated people to establish themselves, much less form an army capable of challenging the Persians.
Finally, commenting on the crucial verses 10-12 in Ezekiel 29, Cook wrote (p. 129):
10-12. We have no record of the circumstances of the Chaldaean invasion of Egypt (see Note A at end of Chapter). We gather of what nature it must have been by comparing the description of the results of Sennacherib's conquest (Isai. xxxvii. 25 foll.), and of the ravages of an invading army in Joel. Compare also 2 K. xxi. 13 and Jer. xlvi. 19, where the removal of the inhabitants is especially mentioned. We are not to insist upon minute fulfilment of every detail of prophecy. Desolation and ruin are described by depicting their usual accompaniments. The prophecy insists upon the general fact that Egypt will for a time, described as forty yeas, be in a state of collapse.
forty years] No great stress is to be laid on the exact number of years. The number of years passed by the Children of Israel in the wilderness became to the Hebrews a significant period of chastisement. See above iv. 6. and Note B at end of Chapter.
In Note A, Cook gives a list of ancient documents that fully establish the dates of the kings of the 26th dynasty of Egypt (Leolaia documents many of these). His dates are the same or within one year of currently accepted dates. Of course, this leaves no room for a 40-year complete desolation of Egypt.
: It is not surprising that Egyptian records do not contain any references to a 40 year desolation at that time just as they do not record the Hebrew's exodus from Egypt almost one thousand years earlier.
Completely irrelevant, for reasons indicated above.
: As one investigator of the matter says: "To cover up the humiliating defeat at the hands of Babylon, the Egyptian priests later invented the story that Egypt was never more prosperous than during these 40 years! Yet archaeologically the period in Egypt is a total blank. A few remains have been attributed to this period -- a dated grave here and there. But they were only late reburials of those who died abroad in captivity and whose families could afford the expense.
What investigator? You've given yet another unattributed quotation. Readers will note, given your scholastically dishonest plagiarizing of the Society's literature, and its grossly dishonest use of F. C. Cook's comments, that you are not to be trusted.
: The only document to record the total destruction of Egypt was discovered in 1878. In that year a mutilated cuneiform cylinder was discovered, disclosing an event of Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-seventh year. It was purchased by the British Museum. The fragmentary remains are difficult to translate. The record is cast in the form of a plaintive prayer from Nebuchadnezzar to Merodach, god of Babylon.
Your lies about this have already been exposed by another poster. That document says nothing whatsoever about a total destruction of Egypt.
Here is another reference that directly contradicts a literal interpretation of Ezekiel's 40-year prophecy:
The Keil-Delizsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. IX, "Ezekiel, Daniel", "The Prophecies of Ezekiel", p. 8.) discusses Ezekiel 29:10-12 and concludes:
The number forty is neither a round number (Hitzig) nor a very long time (Ewald), but is a symbolical term denoting a period appointed by God for punishment and penitence (see the comm. on ch. iv. 6), which is not to be understood in a chronological sense, or capable of being calculated.
This is essentially what F. C. Cook said in the above quotations.
Many other Bible commentaries say essentially the same thing as the above, and it would be guilding the lily to quote them.
The point is now sufficiently established: the 40-year "desolation prophecy" of Ezekiel 29:10-12 must be taken as at best figurative or symbolic, for the following reasons:
(1) Ezekiel 26 contains a prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt; it was destroyed and rebuilt several times in the course of history and exists today with some 270,000 inhabitants.
(2) The false prophecy of Ezekiel 26 shows that all other prophecies in Ezekiel must be viewed in light of demonstrated historical facts.
(3) The 40-year prophecy of Ezekiel 29 contradicts known historical facts, as demonstrated by Leolaia and other posters.
(4) Various Bible commentators agree that the figure of 40 years in Ezekiel 29 must be viewed as figurative or symbolic.
(5) Watchtower defenders have given no reason to doubt the above points, but have given only speculation and mere nay-saying.
AlanF