For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness: Pure conjecture without any backing oh except.........interpretation by the secular historians.

  ANY statement of fulfillment of Ezekiel 29-32 is pure conjecture without something else to back it up. A single witness cannot prove a thing, can it?

  The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society attach symbolic (figurative) meaning to almost every element of Ezekiel 29-32. Are you saying they are wrong?

  Jeremiah stated directly the possibility you called a strawman, take it up with Jeremiah. Jonah gave a specific example of the possiblity to which Jeremiah referred, was he lying?

  Our suggested possibilities have Scriptural backing and Watchtower Society backing (not that any of us need the latter).

  Your assertion of fact has no support whatsoever, from the Bible, from secular history, or from the Watchtower Society.

  Yeah, I think we are more likely right and you are more likely wrong about the 40 years for Egypt, but I don't care. Given the Hillah Stele argument that you have thus far ignored it doesn't even matter who is right about the 40 years, the JW 607 BC doctrine is, without any doubt, false. Plus, the entire "40 years for Egypt" argument is off topic, anyway.

  AuldSoul
• 

  jayhawk1

  Scholar and Thirdwitness, non-replies to my questions must mean I am on the right track. If you can't answer such simple questions, it invalidates your arguements. I am looking forward to a direct, easy to understand reply. Failure to do so means I must be right.
• 

  thirdwitness

  Sifting thru the mountain of endless meaningless words I have found a few things worth commenting on.

  Leo said; Your argument that the Egyptians did not record a 40-year period of desolation due to embarassment about it totally ignores the fact that what would have been the greatest embarassment for the Egyptians would have been the greatest triumph for the Babylonians, so their silence is equally if not more weighty.

  Actually the Babylonians do mention their conquest of Egypt in the 37th year of Neb as I am sure you are aware. But much of the chronicle is damaged and cannot all be read. I'm sure if it was all readable you would have your evidence from the Babylonians. The fact is there is not very much evidence about Egypt at all during this period of time. I firmly believe that someday when new evidence comes forth you will all be eating crow and the Bible will once again be proven to be accurate as in the case of Belshazzar and Pilate etc.
• 

  thirdwitness

  Jayhawk, I answered your question . Sorry but I just do not have time to educate you on how to know if it is literal or figurative other than a few brief statements such as look at the context, see what other scriptures say about it. For example, Revelation was given in signs. The wild beasts are not literal. What do you want me to do give you a run down from Genesis to Rev what is literal and what is figurative. Go study with JWs and learn the Bible for yourself.
• 

  Leolaia

  Your account of matters does not square with what is presented in archaeological reports because it is common knowledge that the remnants of the ancient city are submerged.

  Rubbish! You write this despite the fact that I posted data from the latest expedition in this thread, which thoroughly debunk this claim. Much of the island, including the southern Egyptian harbor and southern urban quarters, is submerged but about a third of the island including the northern Phoenician harbor (which was silted up and today stands on dry land) and the quarters adjacent to it still remains and is built up today with modern structures. Quotes that say the old city as a whole was submerged are demonstrably false, such as the following:

  "But as for the island city, it apparently sank below the surface of the Mediterranean, in the same subsidence that submerged the port of Caesarea that Herod had built up with such expense and care. All that remains of it is a series of black reefs offshore from Tyre, which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia B.C., since they pose such a threat to navigation. The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander's causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place; and we have no evidence at all that it was built up again after Alexander's terrible act of vengeance (Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 277)."

  The geological work by Marrier has shown this to be false. The present-day promontory contains the original island that existed throughout the whole Holocene and was occupied since the Bronze Age, at which time a harbor was created in what is today an urban neighborhood.
• 

  thirdwitness

  Meanwhile I wait for an answer:

  Other than the conclusions of historians based on their interpretation of the secular evidence do you have any scriptural reason whatsoever for arbitrarily deciding that the 40 year desolation never happened?
• 

  thirdwitness

  Leo while your pondering my last question please tell us what do you think Ezekiel meant when he said Tyre would never be rebuilt?
• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness: Actually the Babylonians do mention their conquest of Egypt in the 37th year of Neb as I am sure you are aware.

  I wasn't aware of that. I dont think the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is aware of it either. What is your reference to a conquest of Egypt as opposed to a victory in a battle against Egypt? Of course, I don't expect you to actually have a reference to support your statement. You never have had before, why start now?

  Have you found that WTS discussion on the inherent flaws and inconsistencies of the Adda-Guppi Stele yet? No? Didn't think so. When may I expect you to apologize for your faulty memory? There is no shame in apologizing, I've apologized several times on this forum.

  AuldSoul
• 

  thirdwitness

  
  Let me make this big enough so no one misses this question.

  Other than the conclusions of historians based on their interpretation of the secular evidence do you have any scriptural reason whatsoever for arbitrarily deciding that the 40 year desolation never literally happened?
• 

  AuldSoul

  do you have any scriptural reason whatsoever for arbitrarily deciding that the 40 year desolation never happened?

  No. Again, I haven't seen anyone say it didn't happen. All I have seen is people stating that there is no evidence of it happening and a wealth of evidence indicating it didn't. Also, several have shown you Scriptural reasons for avoiding the arbitrary decision that it did happen, while you have shown not one LOGICAL reason why I should believe it did happen.

  Do you have any Scriptural reason for arbitrarily deciding that the 40 year desolation of Egypt did happen? If so, show it. We have already shown that a prophecy of desolation uttered does NOT equate to a prophecy of desolation fulfilled, and so far your entire argument seems based on this false premise that directly contradicts the Scriptures. Have anything else to add, or just more of the same nothing you've been posting?

  AuldSoul