TO: ALL

I have some questions regarding the following two verses of Scripture:

"Ezekiel 29:10 Behold, therefore I [am] against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste [and] desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia.


Ezekiel 29:11 No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years."

taken from: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze029.html#top


Before anyone continues in this string I strongly encourage you to read Jezz's (Jezz is a moderator) string regarding the current schools of thought in Egyptology regarding chronology at: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27094

In regards to Ezekiel 29:11-12, I was wondering if anyone knows what Kitchen says who wrote the following book: On the Reliability of the Old Testament (see http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20788 for a review of this book and a short bio of its author).

Here is what the Bible inerrancy site Tektonics Ministries says:

"From this section, however, we have further observations regarding a point that is related:

"I would like to add that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt as Ezekiel prophesied. Not even Nebuchadnezzar claimed that."

In reply, we may note that our sources for this period are very sparse, and the best that can really be said is that there is no positive evidence that Nebbie took Egypt as prophesied. Extant records DO indicate that Nebbie did indeed conquer Egypt - whether he took them into captivity and left Egypt desolate for 40 years is neither proven nor disproven by our sources. However - it is known that it was Nebbie's policy to deport peoples from conquered lands (as he did with Judah), and there is a 33-year gap between the time that Nebbie attacked Egypt and the time that Cyrus defeated Babylon. Allowing either for rounded numbers or time to return to Egypt, we have a possible span into which we could see those 40 years. Therefore, for lack of evidence, this prophecy cannot be judged a priori a failure.

An interesting point, however, is raised by Ellison in this regard. Noting our sparse information, he writes [Elli.Zeke, 103]:

Except where a promise is confirmed by God's oath (Gen. 22:16; Psa. 105:9; Heb. 6:13) we are safe in concluding that every statement of God about the future has some element of the conditional in it, something ancient Israel was as unwilling to believe as we are...a change of behavior can annul the prophecy.
Ellison notes in this regard Jeremiah 18:7-10:

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

Ellison therefore proposes that Ezekiel's prophecy was unfulfilled because of a change of behavior on the part of Egypt. Is there evidence of this? None that is clear; although the sin of pride for which Egypt was convicted may well have been abandoned at the prospect of being shellacked by Nebbie's army. The question remains an open one."

taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/ajinod_11.html#zeke29

I also have a question regarding Ezekiel 29: 13-15

Here are the Scripture verses:

Eze 29:13 Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered:


Eze 29:14 And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return [into] the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation; and they shall be there a base kingdom.


Eze 29:15 It shall be the basest of the 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.

(see http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze029.html#top for the surrounding verses)

Here is what one Bible inerrancy site said:

"Egypt shall be the basest of the 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. Desperate for counsel, Dennis McKinsey observes that "Egypt has never been the basest of nations, and in the 1820’s Egypt conquered and ruled the Sudan, another nation." Egypt was certainly humbled to a very great degree, and so after Egypt got back from Babylon, it was quite low on the Near Eastern "baseness" list. Which nation of the kingdoms in power in Zeke's time would McKinsey place below it, and why? In regards to exalting itself, all the text is asserting is that Egypt would never again be a world power. Notice that it says it will not exalt itself over the nations (plural), not any nation. Conquering Sudan, a nation of poverty with it's own problems, hardly violates this prophecy. "

taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-ZEKE.html

Could anyone tell me if the Hebrew word in Ezekiel 29:15 must be translated basest?

Here is the Strong's citation:

shaphal (the Strong's number 8217)

shaw-fawl'
from 'shaphel' (8213); depressed, literally or figuratively:--base(-st), humble, low(-er, -ly).

also:

shaphal
base
2 Sam 6:22, Eze 17:14, Eze 29:14, Mal 2:9

basest
Eze 29:15

humble
Prov 16:19, Prov 29:23, Isa 57:15, Isa 57:15

low
Job 5:11, Eccl 12:4, Eze 17:6, Eze 17:24, Eze 21:26

lower
Lev 13:20, Lev 13:21, Lev 13:26, Lev 14:37

lowly
Psa 138:6

taken from: http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvs...EB82.htm#S8217 and http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvs...B821.htm#S8217

Also, does anyone know how fragmentary the archaeology is for the period when conservative scholars say that Egypt would most probably have been extremely desolate if it became desolate ( Mathew Henry states: "Some date the forty years from Nebuchadnezzar’s destroying Egypt, others from the desolation of Egypt some time before; however, they end about the first year of Cyrus, when the seventy years’ captivity of Judah ended, or soon after. Then this prediction was accomplished." taken from: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...6011-4236.html ).

Lastly, has anyone read the information in these links?

http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/Main.html

http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/Book1.html

http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/Book2Index.html

If the information at the above links is true then the 40 year Egyptian desolation occurred but not at the time that many scholars posit it happened.

Lastly, it seems like our knowledge of ancient Egyptian history is very fragmentary. I cite the following information from the Brooklyn Museum of Art's website:

"How Do We Reconstruct Ancient Egyptian History?

In the third century B.C.—some 2,500 years after the first Egyptian dynasty—an Egyptian priest named Manetho recorded thirty-one dynasties of Egyptian kings in a book called the Aegyptiaca. Manetho wrote in Greek—probably not for a native Egyptian audience—and the Greek names he gave to Egyptian kings often appear in later literature. The information survives primarily as excerpts in works by early Christian writers, but errors may have been introduced as the text was copied over hundreds of years. Manetho did not always distinguish between legendary traditions and factual data, and the reign dates he lists for each king do not always correspond to other historical evidence. However, Manetho’s work does appear to reflect actual divisions in ancient Egyptian history, and Egyptologists continue to follow his system of dynasties.

Fragmentary ancient king lists also provide information about ancient Egyptian chronology and allow us to adjust Manetho’s dynastic system. A relief known as the Palermo stone records the reigns of kings prior to Dynasty 5 (circa 2500–2350 B.C.). Another example, a papyrus known as the Turin canon, lists the kings of Egypt from the earliest dynasties to the Hyksos rulers of the Second Intermediate Period (circa after 1630–1539 B.C.). The Turin canon was probably written during the reign of Ramesses II (circa 1279–1213 B.C.) of Dynasty 19. A relief in a temple in Abydos shows Ramesses and his father, Sety I (circa 1290–1279 B.C.), standing before a king list, honoring their ancestors. Many other royal and private inscriptions and texts have also provided historical information to modern Egyptologists."

taken from: http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/visit/...ine/timeline02

It also seem as if Bible archaelogy is very fragmentary in general. I cite the following:

LIMITATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

A website declares:

"While archaeology is of great help to our understanding the Bible, the biblical evidence in the text must be given priority over the archaeological evidence from the field. The reason for this is the inherent limitations of archaeology. The primary limitation of archaeology is the extremely fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence. Only a fraction of what is made or what is written survives. Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time. To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins. Even when this small percentage of sites are excavated, only a fraction of the site is actually examined, and then only a percentage of what is excavated is ever published. Of the 500,000 cuneiform texts that are known to have been discovered over the past 100 years, only 10% have ever been published."

taken from: http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html )

Consider these website's information also regarding the fragmentary nature of Bible archaeology:

A website declares:

"Forty years ago our knowledge of the great Assyrian empire and of its magnificent capital was almost wholly a blank. Vague memories had indeed survived of its power and greatness, but very little was definitely known about it."

http://www.fact-index.com/n/ni/nineveh.html

Another website declares:

"By the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, no physical evidence of Nineveh could be seen. Lucian of Samosata (A.D. 120-180), a Greek writer, lamented: "Nineveh has perished. No trace of it remains. No one can say where once it existed" (Magnusson, p. 175). Such a lack of visible remains led some scholars of the 19th century to express skepticism that Nineveh or any part of the Assyrian Empire even existed, much less dominated a significant part of the world."

taken from: http://www.ucg.org/booklets/BT/fromthedust.htm

I am posting this information at TheologyWeb and I may do a little followup today. I then plan on coming back to in September 1994. It will be interesting to see what people find out. I would like to join this string conversation in the future.

Sincerely,

Ken

Nebuchadnezzar may have attacked and defeated Egypt, but he did not subjugate it, or exile its population. During the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Egypt was under the control of Pharaoh Amasis, who is rather well documented in both Egyptian and Greek sources, and was significantly powerful and prosperous.

Egypt was unable to withstand the Persians, but the latter days of the 26th dynasty, which was the time of Amasis, are considered to be the last great phase of Egyptian history. Suffice it to say, they were not led off in exile to Babylon, or conquered by Nebuchadnezzar.

By the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, no physical evidence of Nineveh could be seen. Lucian of Samosata (A.D. 120-180), a Greek writer, lamented: "Nineveh has perished. No trace of it remains. No one can say where once it existed" (Magnusson, p. 175). Such a lack of visible remains led some scholars of the 19th century to express skepticism that Nineveh or any part of the Assyrian Empire even existed, much less dominated a significant part of the world.

19th century scholars said a lot of things. So what? Citing information about how archeology is sometimes fuzzy is not very useful. Nineveh was discovered in the 1800s and we have a huge amount of documentation from there. Since that time, our knowledge of Ancient Near Eastern history has expanded enormously. However, it should be noted that in the case of Nebuchadnezzar and Amasis, we knew that he had a long, prosperous reign uninterrupted by a Babylonian exile, long before any European archeologists ever traveled to the Middle East. Amasis is discussed at length by Herodotus, and what he tells us is confirmed by the archeological evidence from Egypt.

TO: chsalvia

Several questions:

1) A website declares:

"Amasis who was probably the 5th ruler of Egypt during the 26th Dynasty, has been called the last great Egyptian Pharaoh. This is because the rule of his son, Psammetichus III, was very short lived, and in fact even in the last days of Amasis' life the Persians were already advancing on Egypt.

taken from: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amasis.htm

Notice the website above uses the qualifier: "probably". This goes to the heart of my questions and post above. What is our certainty?

Here is the same site's opinion regarding a pharaoh who is said to rule near the time of Amasis:

"The King commonly referred to as Apries (his Greek name), who's birth name was Wah-ib-re, meaning "Constant is the Heart of Re" and who's Throne name was Haa-ib-re, meaning "Jubilant is the Heart of Re Forever", succeeded his father, Psamtik II in February of 589 BC., of Egypt's 26th Dynasty. We believe he ruled Egypt until his defeat at the hands of Amasis in 570 BC. Some sources provide that Apries was the Biblical Hophra.

Herodutus claimed that the wife of Apries was called Nitetis, but there appears to be no contemporary souses evidencing her name. We are also told that in the fourth year of his reign, he managed to have Ankhnesneferibre, apparently the daughter of Psammetichus II, adopted as the successor of Nitigret for the title, God's Wife of Amun."

I do notice a degree of uncertainty here also.


Lastly, here some more commentary regarding the pharaoh's who are said to have ruled near this time:

The same website declares:

"Of the Late Period Pharaohs prior to the Persian Conquest of Egypt, some are fairly well known to us, while others are not. Of this latter group, Psammetichus II (Psamtik II) must be included. His birth name was Psamtik, while his throne name was Neferibre, meaning "Beautiful is the Heart of Re".

Psammetichus II was almost certainly the son of Nekau (Necho) probably by a Queen Chedebnitjerbone I. He ascended to the throne of Egypt we believe as the third king of Egypt 26th Dynasty (Saite Dynasty), probably in the year 595 BC at a time when Egypt was traveling down the road to eventual decline, though his reign is seen as a short respite; a reversal of his father's misfortunes. He probably only ruled for a period of about six years. We know a little about his family. He married a Queen Takhout (Takhut) of Athribis who provided him with a daughter named Ankhnesneferibre. We also know of a princess Herynebti Menekhoubaste and of course, Apries (Wahibre Haaibre), who succeeded him on the throne."

taken from: http://touregypt.net/featurestories/psamtik2.htm

Notice the URL says "while others are not" in regards to the knowledge of some of the Pharohs before Cyrus. I do recognize that the site also says the some of the Pharohs "are well known to us". Notice the URL also uses the words/phrases: "almost certainly" and "probably" and "we know little of his family".

Again, I see some level of uncertainty. How much I do not know.

Lastly, here is some more information regarding another pharaoh who is said to have ruled near this time:

"Nekau (II), who we know better as Necho, was either the 2nd or 3rd king of Egypt's 26th Dynasty, depending on whether we allow the rule of a nominal king Nekau I at the beginning of the Dynasty."

taken from: http://touregypt.net/featurestories/necho2.htm

Notice the website says: "was either the 2nd or 3rd king" . Again, I see
more uncertainty.

Lastly, here is some information regarding another pharaoh who is said to rule near this time:

"Psammetikhos I was the first ruler of the 26th Dynasty, though his reign overlaps that of the 25th Dynasty. We believe he ruled from about 664 through 610 BC. This is often referred to as the Saite period in Egyptian history, named for the power center of the Delta. It was not until Psammetikhos' ninth regnal year that he completely control Egypt. His birth name was Psamtik I, but he was known as Psammetichus I by the Greeks. His thrown name was Wah-ib-re, meaning "Constant is the Heart of Re" (Horus Name: Aib, Nebty Name: Neba, Bik-nub Name: Qenu).

Some Egyptologists place the 26th Dynasty in to Third Intermediate Period of Egypt's history, while others place it in the Late Period. Certainly, when Psammetikhos began his rule of Egypt, things were still chaotic, with various rulers claiming power. But Psammetikhos would consolidate his rule over Egypt, and reign for about a half a century, returning Egypt to stability."

Notice the above URL says: "almost certainly" and "Some Egyptologists place the 26th Dynasty in to Third Intermediate Period of Egypt's history, while others place it in the Late Period." Again, there is some uncertainty here and I am not sure how much is truly warranted.


2) If the pharaoh Amasis was prosperous was around the time of Nebuchadnezzar how long was he prosperous? Could there have been a 40 year desolation? I say the same regarding the time period between the other pharaohs.

3) In terms of the Eygyptologist consensus, what is the track record of Egyptologist community as far as getting things right in the long term? Is it a field like anthropology that has a habit of getting overturned often?

TO: ALL


Here is one last issue I saw mentioned at a website:

"Because most historians have selected 586 BCE for the date of the destruction of Jerusalem, the prophecy of Egypt's forty years is considered unfulfilled. However, if 608 BCE were chosen for the date of Jerusalem's fall then there would be ample time for the fulfillment of the prophecy, and also time for Egypt to have recovered and aligned itself with Babylon prior to 539 BCE. In this case the period of Egypt's prosperity (prior to the fall of Babylon) and the invasion of Egypt (by Cambyses after the alliance against Cryus) would make sense. For this reason I must dispute with Mr. Breasted by saying, that it is not probable that Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 586 BCE, and that the prophecy of Egypt's forty years was fulfilled as was foretold by Ezekiel. "

taken from: http://members.aol.com/gparrishjr/40years.html

I do not know how legitimate this authors hypothesis is.



NEXT ISSUE:


Some commentators believe the "40 year desolation" is not necessarily caused by Nebuchadnezzar. For example, it is possible that Nebuchadnezzar severely attacked Egypt and even made it desolate but not necessarily for 40 years. The Eyptians could have repented and thus avoided the 40 year desolation as mentioned above. Perhaps, the 40 year desolation will occur later due to future misdeeds of the Egyptians for example (or not at all).


I cite the following website:

"Jeremiah 46: 13-26, " This is the message which the Lord spoke to
>Jeremiah the prophet about the coming of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon
>to smite the land of Egypt ... verse 19: for Memphis will become a desolation;
>it will even be burned down and bereft of inhabitants ... 24: the
>daughter of Egypt has been put to shame. Given over to people of the
>north ... 26: and I shall give them over to the power of those seeking
>their lives, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and
>the hand of his officers ...."
>
>Apologetic: Still to be fulfilled.
>Rebuttal: Nebuchadnezzar is dead, and so is his empire; the prophecy
>cannot be fulfilled.
>

This prophecy you quoted has indeed been fulfilled. It was fulfilled around 586bc. In 1886 Sir Flinders Petrie discovered the ruins of a large castle. The front of this castle had a great open platform of prick work which matches Jeremiah's claim in verse 8. This confirms Nebuchadnezzar's annals which state that he did invade Egypt approximately 20 years after Jeremiah’s prophecy. Three inscriptions have been found near Tahpahnes confirming this as well.

I also researched Arabian historical archives and this statement referring to the deterioration of Pharaoh’s empire was taken directly from these archives:

Gradually, though, the power of the kingdom was eroded through invasion, ending ignominiously when Amasis, "the Drunkard", was forced to depend on Greek forces to defend his Kingdom .

One mistake that people make is that they link separate prophecies and assume they will be fulfilled together. Nebuchadnezzar's prophecy was fulfilled just as Jeremiah recorded. Nebuchadnezzar was only foretold as the one who will weaken the Egyptian defenses. The destruction of Egypt and the 40 year desolation was not concerning Nebuchadnezzar. It is unclear if the 40 year desolation ever took place. When placed inside of a historical perspective, forty years is not a long time range. It is possible that this also may have been fulfilled or it may be yet to come.

Let me give a clear example of prophecy that is assumed to be linked but is separate. In Isaiah 61 the coming of Christ is foretold:

1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

The rest of this chapter goes on to give the complete picture of all that the Messiah will fulfill including the day of vengeance and judgement upon the earth. But look at how Jesus read this prophecy in Luke 4:
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus only read what is now known as Isaiah 61 verses 1 and half of verse 2. His first coming was only to fulfill the grace of God and become salvation to those who recognize Him as Lord. The vengeance was not going to be fulfilled and the foretold earthly kingdom was not to be fulfilled until after His crucifixion and at a much later date at the promise of His return. The Jews wanted to make him king and each time they came with the idea to crown him, he deflated their ideas of making him king. The cross was essential for salvation. The earthly kingdom will be fulfilled upon His return. Both are clearly prophesied but the religious leader missed this plan because they were too busy trying to fit Christ into their prediction. They couldn't see that God is not bound to our predictions about what He will do. When men predict wrong, they are the ones that are fallible, not God. The Bible is inspired, our predictions about how biblical prophecies will be fulfilled are not inspired but are almost always errant."

taken from: http://www.exchangedlife.com/skeptic/jeremiah.htm

Here is a website which gives further elaboration regarding the prophecy being fulfilled in the future:

http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq459.html

Sincerely,

Ken

Originally posted by kendenmeyer

Notice the website above uses the qualifier: "probably". This goes to the heart of my questions and post above. What is our certainty?

That's a rather weak response. There is never any certainty with history, or anything else other than mathematics and formal logic. What is your certainty that Jesus rose from the dead based on? Or are you not completely certain?

The point is, we are justified in believing to be true that which is most probable. It is probable that Amasis had a long, prosperous reign. Thus, we are justified in believing that Ezekiel's prophecy is probably incorrect, if taken literally.

Of course, I would be willing to accept that Ezekiel's prophecy was meant in a more general, non-literal, poetic sense.

Notice the above URL says: "Some Egyptologists place the 26th Dynasty in to Third Intermediate Period of Egypt's history, while others place it in the Late Period."

Kendenmeyer, whether or not we place the 26th dynasty in the Late Period or the 3rd Intermediate Period is a matter of personal preference, not historical fact. It is like saying, "some scholars think the 1960s officially began the computer age, others would say the 70s."

"Late Period" and "Third Intermediate Period" are simply labels. They do not necessarily represent two distinct periods of time. However, the "Late Period" is usually distinguished from the "Third Intermediate Period", since the term "Intermediate Period" usually refers to times of chaos in Egyptian history, but the Late Period was a period of stability and prosperity.

TO chsalvia:

You wrote:

:

That's a rather weak response. There is never any certainty with history, or anything else other than mathematics and formal logic.

I realize that you are probably not a Egyptologist not that you have to be an Eyptologist to answer my question. The thrust of my previous post:

How certain is the Egyptologists consensus regarding Amasis?

Why is the consensus that certain?

Why is the consensus uncertain regarding Amasis?

How uncertain is the consensus of Egyptologist regarding Amasis?

If there is some uncertainy regarding the consensus of Egytologist regarding Amasis and his reign, why are they uncertain?

Who are the Egyptologists/scholars who are dissenting regarding Amasis and his reign? Why are they dissenting?

How often historically has the consensus of Egyptologists been overturned? What is their recent track record as far the consensus of Egyptologists being correct?

Lastly, I revised my previous post a little.


TO: ALL

Interesting facts:

Here is a brief history of Egyptology:

A website declares:

"From the 1890's onwards, the subject of Egyptology became progressively more professional as a result of the work of scholars such as William Matthew Flinders Petrie, who introduced and developed meticulous techniques of field recording and excavation."

taken from: http://www.egyptologyonline.com/history1.htm

It seems as if the field did not begin to gain a whole lot of momentum until the following event occurred:

A website declares:

"The first great "media event" in the history of Egyptology has to have been Howard Carter's discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun in 1922, which captured the imagination of the world and inspired subsequent generations of scholars to come."

taken from: http://www.egyptologyonline.com/history1.htm

So it seems as if the whole field is a relatively new field that is about 80-90 years old. My hunch is that the data is very fragmentary based on what I have read regarding archaeology.



Sincerely,

Ken

I thought we'd established that when God says he'll do something, it's a guarantee that either:

1) He'll do it, or
2) Not.

That's good enough to keep me from complaining about God not following through with his declarations.

How certain is the Egyptologists consensus regarding Amasis?

The scholarly consensus is "certain", i.e. pretty sure, about Amasis. There are no dissenting opinions among Egyptologists about the prosperity, or relative length of Amasis's reign.

Why is the consensus that certain?

Because the historical evidence testifies this.

Why is the consensus uncertain regarding Amasis?

They are not uncertain. Not unless you're talking about absolute certainty, in which case your concerns are irrelevant, since all historical knowledge is not absolutely certain.

Who are the Egyptologists/scholars who are dissenting regarding Amasis and his reign? Why are they dissenting?

As far as I know, there are no mainstream Egyptologists or scholars who disagree about the reign of Amasis being long, and relatively prosperous.

How often historically has the consensus of Egyptologists been overturned? What is their recent track record as far the consensus of Egyptologists being correct?

I don't know. Obviously, all historians have been wrong from time to time. As of now, we are justified in believing Ezekiel's prophecy is incorrect, if taken literally. Your vague concerns about Egyptian history are not warranted by the data.

So it seems as if the whole field is a relatively new field that is about 80-90 years old.

It is over a century old.

My hunch is that the data is very fragmentary based on what I have read regarding archaeology.

It depends on what you mean by fragmentary. Egyptian history is one of the most well-documented of all ancient Near Eastern cultures. The Late Period is particularly well documented. Certainly, there are obscure periods, such as the First and Third Intermediate Periods, but the 26th dynasty is very well documented by both Greek sources and Egyptian sources.

to: chsalvia

I think the resource below perhaps may begin to answer some my questions and others who have the same questions. I realize that you are not a Egyptologist or a historian of Eygyptology and could not answer my questions to the level I wanted although you did offer some input.

Here is something interesting I cite for people who have an interest in exploring things further although the book cited is a little dated:

"I am looking for some information on the history of Egyptology, particularly
>some review of the history of ideas about ancient Egypt, different schools
>of thought, and how Egyptologists' theories have changed over the last two
>centuries. Does anything like this exist?

You might start with Fred Gladstone Bratton, A History of Egyptian
Archaeology (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968)."

taken from:

https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ay/001760.html


to: ALL


I think I defined the issues in my previous post. I would be interested in seeing what other have to say or if people do additional research. In all likelihood, I plan on making my next post in September if I make future post. This prophecy was one of the last great "mysteries" of the Old Testament I was interested in exploring. I wanted to give TWEB a head start and see what TWEB members come up with.

Sincerely,

Ken

Originally posted by kendemyer

Jesus only read what is now known as Isaiah 61 verses 1 and half of verse 2.

His first coming was only to fulfill the grace of God and become salvation to those who recognize Him as Lord.

The vengeance was not going to be fulfilled and the foretold earthly kingdom was not to be fulfilled...

... until after His crucifixion...

... and at a much later date...

... at the promise of His return.


Ken

What you writewrite, Ken, is largely confirmed in the interpretation which is submitted below:

Isa. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me (Jesus); because the LORD hath anointed me (the messiah ben Joseph) to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Isa. 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year for of the LORD, (Christ),....

(Ken: "Jesus read this prophecy in...

Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.


20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him."


NOW:
Where Jesus stopped can be seen as the beginning, where he will start upon his Second Coming:

Isa. 61:2 ...and the day of vengeance (yet to come) of our God, (the Word); to (deliver a Holy) comfort (to) all that mourn (the calamities during the long wait);

Isa. 61:3 To appoint (a time) unto them (these survivors of Holocaust), that mourn (the wait) in Zion (returned), to give unto them beauty for ashes (of Hitler's crematoriums), the oil of joy for mourning (in the tragedy of diaspora), the garment (of Holy Peoples), of praise for the (remorseful) spirit of heaviness; that they might be called (the two) trees of righteousness, (the House of Jacob and the House of Judah), the planting (as witnesses) of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

Isa. 61:4 And they shall build the old wastes (of the Promised Land), they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.

Isa. 61:5 And strangers (in Gaza and the West bank) shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien (nations) shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.

Isa. 61:6 But ye shall be named the (Kohanim, Aaronic) Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the (Aaronic) Ministers of (our) God (who once stood before Moses): ye shall eat the riches of the (Christian) Gentiles, and in their glory, (Jesus), shall ye boast yourselves.

Isa. 61:7 For your shame ye shall have double, (Old Testament and New); and for confusion (in lack of understanding) they shall rejoice in their portion (of scripture): therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.

Isa. 61:8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt
offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an
everlasting covenant with them.

Isa. 61:9 And their seed shall be known among the (Christian) Gentiles, and their offspring among the people (living in Israel): all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed (of Abraham) which the LORD hath blessed, (Hebrew Christians).

Isa. 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, (Christ), my soul shall be joyful in my God, (the Word); for he hath clothed me with (Scripture), the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of (Christian) righteousness, as a bridegroom, (Scripture), decketh himself with ornaments, and as a
bride, (Christianity), adorneth herself with her jewels.

Isa. 61:11 For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth (from the Word) before all the nations.

TO: All

I stumbled on a string authored by Jezz regarding the current debates in Egyptology regarding chronology and so I updated my initial post.

Here is Jezz's string: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27094

I also made a small amount of small revisions to my original post to this string.

As I stated earlier in all likelihood I do not plan on making another post until September when my work schedule has less hours.

Sincerely,

Ken

TO: ALL

There are three additional things I wanted to mention:

1) Here is something the Smithsonian is reported to have said:

"...On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work."

taken from: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9156/ssotb.htm

Just in case the above link goes dead here is the same information at another site:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/n...s/0403lead.asp


2) It should be recognized that many of the most heated of the controversies in Bible archaelogy has to do with dating. I personally, think this is now the weakest link in archaeology.

Here is a website that discussing archaeological dating:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defd...3/r&r9311a.htm

Also for those who are interested here is a site which is a general Bible archaeology site which will be very informative for those who wish to read a introductory site having to do with Bible archaeology:

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=185


3)I wanted to slightly revise an earlier post. I now wish to say it seems as if the field of Egyptology began in earnest and with at least some degree of rigor about 80 to 100 years ago (before I said 90 instead of 100).

Sincerely,

Ken

Here is another problem in discovering what happened in ancient Egypt:

A website declares:

"Ruling elites also seem to have an 'arrogance' problem. They are known to "edit down" accounts of their rival predecessors (e.g., they 'scratch out' their accomplishments on memorials), 'edit up' accounts of their genetic predecessors (e.g., make their ancestors into deities), and omit material that is not flattering to them (e.g., boast about winning a battle when they had lost the war).

For example, Ramases II (likely pharaoh of the Exodus) was one of the kings who vigorously pursued this [OT:PTLTR:224]:

"Negatively, the Ramesside kings were content simply to destroy the names and memory of the Aten kings wherever possible (restoring the names of Amun and the gods)..."

A second example can be seen in Assyria. So, CAM:181:
"Not surprisingly, the version of history presented in the Assyrian annals was biased, but sometimes the inscriptions of Assyria's rivals and neighbors provide a corrective. The royal correspondence of the Assyrian court also gives a more objective view. About 1,300 letters between Sargon and officials from all over this empire, and agents living outside the borders of Assyria, have survived. Many of the letters are fragmentary, imprecisely dated, and, as much of the background information was omitted because it was familiar to the correspondents, are often difficult to interpret. Still, they reveal the issues with which Assyrian domestic and foreign policy was concerned, which are not evident in the official propaganda. The royal inscriptions create an impression of inevitable success, implying that there was no resistance to the will of the king, before whom, with the gods on his side, all had to submit. The correspondence, in contrast, cast doubt on the outcome of some of the policies, describing how omens and oracles were consulted before any action was taken and recording failures as well as successes." "

taken from: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html

Have any of you heard of the mountain that moved in Egypt? I had heard of a Canadian minister that went over to Egypt, as his father had been a missionary there, and the Coptics (Christians) said that when they were being forced to convert to Islam, that they were teased that if they said to this certain mountain, 'move' and it did, that they wouldn't have to convert. The minister was told that they fasted and prayed for three weeks, and went out to the mountain, knowing if God didn't answer their prayer they would have to die. They prayed, and the mountain moved (20 feet I think) and this minister said he saw where the ground looked definitely like it had moved.
So, I would say that is a sign of God doing what He said. And if He says He is going to have mercy, and not do something He said He was going to do, I don't see a problem with that. Seasanctuary, you remind me of Jonah with your complaint of God being merciful! :)

Now this is my hope for Egypt, Israel and Syria
Isaiah 19:23-25
"In that day Egypt and Assyria will be connected by a highway. The Egyptians and Assyrians will move freely between their lands and they will worship the same God. And Israel will be their ally. The three will be together, and Israel will be a blessing to them.
For the Lord Almighty will say, 'Blessed be Egypt, my people. Blessed be Assyria, the land I have made. Blessed be Israel, my special possession!"

Have any of you heard of the mountain that moved in Egypt? I had heard of a Canadian minister that went over to Egypt, as his father had been a missionary there, and the Coptics (Christians) said that when they were being forced to convert to Islam, that they were teased that if they said to this certain mountain, 'move' and it did, that they wouldn't have to convert. The minister was told that they fasted and prayed for three weeks, and went out to the mountain, knowing if God didn't answer their prayer they would have to die. They prayed, and the mountain moved (20 feet I think) and this minister said he saw where the ground looked definitely like it had moved.
So, I would say that is a sign of God doing what He said. And if He says He is going to have mercy, and not do something He said He was going to do, I don't see a problem with that. Seasanctuary, you remind me of Jonah with your complaint of God being merciful! :)

This is exactly how Christianity spread. Here is a wild story, no proof, no names, no documentation, pure gossip, and yet learning is quite happy to believe it. People claim that in Jesus' time, anyone could check out the story and prove if it was true or not. The problem is, is that anyone that didn't believe it would not have cared enough to actually check it out, and those that wanted to believe it never would. As I read more and more here, that absolute gullibility of people astounds me more and more.

Hey learning, a UFO landed in my backyard, the landing prints are still there. A bunch of people saw it, so you know it must be true!

Here's a name for you Stinky, the name of the minister is Rev. David Mains, of CrossRoads ministry (In Ontario, Canada - there is an American David Mains minister, this is the Canadian one). Look him up on the web. You'll find that his father was a missionary in Egypt. Write to him and ask about this.

This is not how Christianity spread. God's Spirit speaking to our hearts is how it spread. Sometime He did miracles, but mostly He just worked in our hearts, which is really a bigger miracle, come to think of it, in how stubborn we can be.