by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
hi leolaia
I accept your viewing bible as a flawed book means you cannot accept it as the inspired infallable word it is to me saying Egypt is prophesied biblically to be desolate for 40 years and this backs up the dates involved but not secularily which has no findings on this you will dismiss it.
followers of God and his word the bible have to give the bible precedence over secular sources even if they disagree.
Reniaa
Reniaa, the 40 yrs of Egypt has been thrown into the mix as though it makes 586/7 not work and only 607 work. However, using 607 conflicts with all verifiable history as well as the bible. So we all need to take the time to work out what the deal is with Egypt.
You know, some posters here who are apologists for JW and dare quibble with Leolaia, dorayakii and others is pretty sad.
Take comfort though, I doubt the GB could do much better then you all.
Great posts, I learn a lot! Thanks for sharing your education and research. It is a real asset to those who know that numbers like 7 (gentile times) and 2520 (a number that is decidedly NOT in the bible) fails to equal 607 BCE, 1914, or the one true religion YHWH chose in 1919.
Thanks again!
Ann O Malley wrote
AllTimeJeff #1620
Meanwhile, more history books then can be found have the date as 587/586 BCE as the date of Jerusalems fall, the year off being for those use the zero year or not.
(Hope you don't mind, ATJ.) Just to clarify for any newer readers - the ambiguity as to whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 derives from the Bible's dating of its fall in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (in one Scripture) and in his 19th year (in another Scripture). A judgment has to be made on whether the writer was using the accession year system (0-1-2-3-etc.) or non-accession year system (1-2-3-4-etc.) for counting regnal years.
Ann, I appreciate the correction. I actually read up on that a little last night. I got myself confused. Thanks!
I accept your viewing bible as a flawed book means you cannot accept it as the inspired infallable word it is to me saying Egypt is prophesied biblically to be desolate for 40 years and this backs up the dates involved but not secularily which has no findings on this you will dismiss it.
I was simply asking if there is any historical evidence that such a thing ever occurred. Is there, or is there not? You are positing that the kingdom of Egypt disappeared off the face of the earth, without inhabitant, for 40 years in the sixth century BC. Is there any trace of such an unprecedented upheaval occurred for the bulk of Amasis' reign? (Wikipedia) What happened to the Egyptians, what did Nebuchadnezzar do with them if he depopulated the entire population of Egypt? We know specifically of foreign settlements in Babylonia (such as the Surru settlement mentioned in my post above), and records contain hundreds of names of West Semitic exiles and their descendents (for an exhaustive list, see Ran Zadok's article "The Representation of Foreigners in Neo- and Late-Babylonian Legal Documents," published in Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp, 2003). Where are all the names of Egyptian exiles, or their descendents living in Mesopotamia? The records mentioning Egyptians are mainly "from a later period, namely late-Achaemenid—early Hellenistic Susa" (p. 513). There should have been a massive population of Egyptians living in Neo-Babylonian Mesopotamia.
followers of God and his word the bible have to give the bible precedence over secular sources even if they disagree.
The oracles in Ezekiel about Egypt are not reports of history; they are warnings to nations given by the prophet, and you seem to have an attitude towards his oracles that the prophet himself did not have. The oracle against Egypt was given solely because what had been predicted about Tyre failed to materialize; the author candidly admits this (compare 29:18 with 26:7-13). By your criteria, Nebuchadnezzar II must have actually overthrown and destroyed Tyre entirely, never to be rebuilt, because that is what the author wrote in ch. 26. But that would flatly contradict with what the author writes in ch. 29. If the oracle in ch. 26 is not a literal report of history concerning Nebuchadnezzar, why should ch. 29-30 be taken as such?
When he posted in this forum, thirdwitness insisted that on account of what Ezekiel wrote, Tyre was in fact never rebuilt and that the town today called Tyre was not located where the ancient city was. This was completely false, as was copiously demonstrated in those threads.
I accept your viewing bible as a flawed book means you cannot accept it as the inspired infallable word it is to me saying Egypt is prophesied biblically to be desolate for 40 years and this backs up the dates involved but not secularily which has no findings on this you will dismiss it.
Reniaa, even if one was to view the Bible as the 'inspired infallible word' of God, one would run into problems of how to interpret this passage due to the lack of biblical and secular evidence to enlighten us. The problem is compounded by having an overly-literalistic approach to interpreting prophecy like you, 3W and others have. For instance,
Who was the Pharaoh abandoned to the wilderness and given for food to the animals, i.e. killed (Ezek. 29:5)?
When was Egypt left without a chieftain (30:13)?
Likewise, with Jeremiah's prophecies (ch. 51) about Babylon's fall where God was going to bring about such a cataclysm upon the city at the hands of the Medes, that the land would be empty, without inhabitant, the city would be ruined (vs. 2, 11, 26-29) and where God's people would have to flee for their lives (v.6). We know the land wasn't emptied and laid desolate by the Medes (Babylon's demise took centuries). Neither did God's people have to flee for the lives. They left Babylon in a peaceful, orderly fashion with the blessing of the new Persian king. Leolaia's already mentioned Tyre - that's another one.
Those are the kinds of difficulties you run into when insisting on literalistic fulfillments. It's all very nice trotting out the line about believing in God's inspired, infallible word, but believing the Bible isn't the issue here. The issue is how to understand the writers' intent, use of language (e.g. is it 'artistic poetic rhetoric' [C.J.H. Wright]?), the political, cultural climate of the time, and being open to other possibilities as to how the prophecy may have been fulfilled rather than wanting to squeeze them into our preconceived ideas.
To give another angle on the 40 years, see this old Bible commentary http://www.ccel.org/ccel/cook_fc/provez.i.vii.xxix.html and scroll down to the footnotes on pp. 372, 373. I don't think there have been any new discoveries since 1876 that would negate the information there and BM 33041 about Neb's campaign against Amasis in Neb's 37th year or 568 BCE doesn't shed any more light on fulfillment.
Leolaia
Post 13183
Scholar is fully aware of the scholarly discussion on Daniel with its many interpretations by scholars as shown in commentaries, monograghs and published jornal articles. His posts cannot consider every facet of scholarly debate as the objective is to adhere to the points that are raised. All that you do is raise a 'smokescreen' in order to impress and confuse the reader with techical information that is not relevant to the point of discussion at hand.
The Bible clearly discusses the prediction and the fulfillment of Neb's seven year madness and absence from the throne and the Society's publications certainly teach this further we also interpret the 'seven times' as having a greater fulfillemt because this is the obvious intent of the dream in Daniel 4.
However, scholars generally find no support for the above two views simply regarding the dream as legend or court fable so apostaes and higher critics have created a problem for thbemselves. Such ones usually believe in NB chronology as being factual and is the basis for their chronologies but how can such ascheme be trusted when some of the prominent historical details are not considered within the entire framework of NB chronology. Any chronology that omits that biblical history in connection with Neb's reign must be suspect especially when such a chronology is to be compared and preferred over the Bible.'
NB chronology omits any reference to the following:
1. The seventy years
2. Neb's assault and destruction of Jerusalem at the removal of Zedekiah
3. Neb's absence from the throne for seven years
It is true that in the case of the latter point 3 there are comparable stories which support the tradition of this event concerning Neb's temporary demise but the there is no accounting of the seven years within the framework of NB chronology and its internal history. In short, if a chronologist takes the view that the Neb's seven years did not occur at all that means that the literal interpretation of Daniel is false as it did not occur and is unhistorical. If such is the case then the only reasonable interpretation that has any validity is the secondary or major fullfillment as eschatological history.
scholar JW
AllTime Jeff
Post 1620
The Bavylonian records do give any calendrical dates as we know it but simply events linked with a regnal year which allows scholars to determine a date for that event. Those dates are based on scholarly interpretation because there is always some fluidity involved in most cases. The date 607 BCE is calcuable as is 587 or 586 BCE and such calculation has been explained in the Society's publications.
Just because a date is 'popular'does not make it correct for science is full of the 'popular' being consigned to the dustbin of history where such a false chronology belongs. Your research about the importance of Absolute Dates as being unimportant is utter nonsense for any decent textbook shows the necessity of having absolute or astronomically fixed dates as being essential. Scholars do not accept 586 or 587 as a pivotal date because these dates do not have the status required, it is only Carl Jonsson who would like to have it so.
Celebrated WT scholars most certainly can prefer 539 BCE over other dates for three good reasons and these are scholarly status, biblical context and methodology.
You still have not given me the precise calender year for Jerusalem's Fall for it must either 586 or 587 BCE for it cannot be both. You must try again.
scholar JW
Leolaia
Post 13180
No, the secondary fulfillment does not override the primary one but supplements it as it is the purpose of the dream and Neb's experience in the first place as Neb had to be shown that God's rulership was superior to his. This proves that you cannot separate the two for these are bound up together by means of the expression 'times' and the vocabulary of the Kingdom of God.
There is no inconsistency with Jehovah's selective use of a pagan ruler to enact a prophec tis drama or history in the fulfillment of prophecy for there are numerous precedents for this in the Bible. You state a problem whence there is no problem except in your own mind asa a lack of understanding. Gentile Rulers have been used by Jehovah to execute his authority in certain ways and means in respect particularly to that first Kingdom of God on earth, Jeruslaem which had to be punished many times by pagan rulers. The book of Daniel throughout explains and develoips God's Kingdom by means of the various World Powers and their relationship with the Holy Ones of God. This same theme is tasken up with the book of Revelation. You need to see things as a theological perspective and not bury your pretty self in the mire of higher criticism which has no place for the spiritual.
scholar JW
AnnOMaly
Post 960
No desperation was needed because those Bible Students were people of faith and had faith in Bible prophecy and the Lord's Return. Do you share such a faith in God's Promises? Their predictions and prophesying about 1914 were vindicated by the facts of modern and eschatological history. For many decades 606 BCE served its purpose and with Providence certain adjustments have been made much to the celebration of our now wondrous Bible chronology, a Jewel in the Crown so to speascholar.
scholar JW
