#5-Egypt's 40 year desolation prophecy

[Rotherham]

Egypt's 40 year desolation prophecy


There is a another prophecy that totally and utterly fails in the 587-centered chronology.

One year before Jerusalem was destroyed, Jehovah said through the prophet Ezekiel, “I will make the land of Egypt a desolate waste in the midst of desolated lands; and its own cities will become a desolate waste in the very midst of devastated cities for forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations” –Ezekiel 29:12

Yes, Egypt was to become a “desolate waste” with “devastated cities”, and this would last for “forty years”.

The reason Ezekiel gave such a warning at that time was because many Jews thought they could escape the coming calamity by taking refuge in Egypt. Jeremiah warned them not to flee to Egypt for this very reason. “If you yourselves positively set your faces to enter into Egypt... to reside there as aliens, it must also occur that the very sword of which you are afraid will there catch up with you... Do not enter into Egypt... I am sending and I will take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant... And he must come in and strike the land of Egypt.” –Jeremiah 42:15, 16, 19, 43:10-11

The desolation did not happen immediately after Ezekiel or Jeremiah made their prophecies. Some Jews did, in fact, flee to Egypt for safety. However, 16 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, Ezekiel announced that the time had come for Nebuchadnezzar to take Egypt.

In “the twenty-seventh year... the word of Jehovah occurred to me, saying: “Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar himself, the king of Babylon, made his military force perform a great service against Tyre.” For this service, Jehovah rewards the King.

“Here I am giving to Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon the land of Egypt, and he must carry off its wealth and make a big spoil of it and do a great deal of plundering of it; and it must become wages for his military force. As his compensation for service that he did against her I have given him the land of Egypt, because they acted for me”. –Ezekiel 29:17-20

Ezekiel 30:10 confirms that it is Nebuchadnezzar who is to remove all the people from that land. “I will also cause the crowd of Egypt to cease by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon.”

Remember that Ezekiel earlier said that the desolation of Egypt would last “forty years”. Jehovah also said, “At the end of forty years I shall collect the Egyptians together out of the peoples among whom they will have been scattered, and I will bring back the captive group of the Egyptians; and I will bring them back to the land of Pathros, to the land of their origin, and there they must become a lowly kingdom.” –Ezekiel 29:13-14

So, from the prophecy we discern the following:
1.Egypt would be desolated for 40 years (Ezekiel 29:12)

2.By Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 29:18, 30:10)

3.It was desolated after Ezekiel's last prophecy against her in his 27th year of exile. (Ezekiel 29:18)

4.After the 40 years, Egypt will be a lowly Kingdom. (Ezekiel 29:14)

When did this happen? From the Bible record we can only assume it happened shortly after Ezekiel said Nebuchadnezzar was given Egypt as compensation for his attack on Tyre. Interestingly, secular chronology agrees. An ancient clay tablet now residing in the British Museum, known as the Nebuchadnezzar Inscription, talks about Nebuchadnezzar's action against Egypt in his 37th year. That would be two years after Ezekiel said Egypt would be given to Babylon by Jehovah.


See attachments below

As you can see from our chart, in the 607-based chronology, Ezekiel makes his prophecy in 590 BCE, and Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is two years later in 588 BCE when he attacks Egypt. We can assume the Nebuchadnezzar Inscription is correct on this point, because it agrees with our Biblical chronology. So Egypt's 40-year desolation begins in that year.

Counting 40 years hence, we come to the year 548 BCE as the end of Egypt's desolation, when Jehovah would “bring back the captive group of the Egyptians” for them to become a “lowly kingdom”. Indeed, secular chronology also records that the last Babylonian King Nabonidus held an alliance against the Persians with Amasis II, the King of Egypt, in addition to the Lydian Empire. So far from being a competing world power, Egypt is now a “lowly Kingdom” just as the Bible said, resorting to military alliances with its previous opponent.

We can see from the chart that the Bible chronology provided more than enough time for all of these events. Egypt has 40 full years of desolation, with more than enough time afterwards to be repatriated and to forge an alliance with Babylon as the secular records claim.


However, as our other chart shows, the 587-based chronology of Egypt's desolation is a total mess.

According to their chronology, the 27th year of Ezekiel's exile (when he made his final prophecy against Egypt) was in 570 BCE. Again, relying on the secular records, Egypt was attacked by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year, which is two years later, 568 BCE.

All fine so far. But wait, just 21 years later the secular records say Egypt forged an alliance with Babylon! Worse still, the secular records say Cyrus conquers Babylon just another 8 years after that. The Bible says that Cyrus let all exiles go when he took power. Did he make an exception, that all exiles could leave and be repatriated except for Egyptians? The Bible doesn't mention anything of the sort.

According to the secular chronology, any such desolation could have only lasted 21 years, perhaps 29 years if you toss out the secular evidence that Egypt forged an alliance with the last Babylonian King. So, there was no 40-year desolation of Egypt. If the 587-based chronology is to be believed, the extensive prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel against Egypt failed miserably!

Egypt was not “removed from its soil” for four decades at all, the cities were not “without an inhabitant”, and the country was, in fact, ruled over by a King who was strong enough to forge an alliance with Babylon and Lydia against the Medo-Persians. The prophecies of 40 years of desolation with the country being abandoned, are nothing more than a joke. The country even managed to remain independent from the Persian empire after it later conquered Babylon. Some 40 years of desolation and abandonment that turned out to be! For ways some have tried to explain away the problems, see Appendix G

On the other hand, if one accepts the Bible's internal chronology that 607 is the date of Jerusalem's destruction, the 40 years of Egypt's abandonment fits perfectly. With the 607 date, Egypt has more than enough time to become repatriated and be ruled over by a King, to have a military alliance with Babylon and Lydia, and be strong enough to retain its independence against Medo-Persian rule for 14 years (as secular chronology also states).

What will you accept? The chronology of secular historians who mould the Bible to fit their chronology, making inspired prophecies fail? Or will you accept the complete and harmonious Biblical chronology, which gives us a time-line without contradictions, showing the total fulfillment of every prophecy Jehovah gave us? Will you judge the accuracy of secular chronology against the occasions where it agrees with the Bible, or will you only judge the Bible correct if the secular evidence happens to agree with it?

•Egypt was to be desolated for 40 years.

•After repatriation, Egypt had an alliance with the last Babylonian King.

•Cyrus let all exiles and prisoners free.

•Only the 607-based chronology allows for this.

Notice how the dates all fit together perfectly, and harmonize with both the bible record and secular history.

chart_egypt_bible[1].png (55.16 KiB) Viewed 31833 times

See how the dates directly contradict the prophecies in the Bible, and also causes a new additional conflict between the scriptures and secular history's record of Egyptian King Amasis II and his military alliance with Babylon.

chart_egypt_secular[1].png (61.73 KiB) Viewed 31833 times

[hperez]

You said"When did this happen? From the Bible record we can only assume it happened shortly after Ezekiel said Nebuchadnezzar was given Egypt as compensation for his attack on Tyre. Interestingly, secular chronology agrees. An ancient clay tablet now residing in the British Museum, known as the Nebuchadnezzar Inscription, talks about Nebuchadnezzar's action against Egypt in his 37th year. That would be two years after Ezekiel said Egypt would be given to Babylon by Jehovah.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah, but against what king does the Tablet says Nabuchodonosor came against in his 37th year? I think you are leaving that out.

The first problem we have is that your dates do not correspond with the established Egyptian Chronology. Again, Egyptian Chronology is established separate from Neo-Babylonian Chronology.
The following Chart gives us the secular established Chronology:

CHRONOLOGY OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH DYNASTY:

Psammetichus I 54 years 664 – 610 B.C.E.
Necho II 15 610 – 595
Psammetichus II 6 595 – 589
Apries (= Hophra) 19 589 – 570
Amasis 44 570 – 526
Psammetichus III 1 526 – 525

B.M. 33041: As mentioned earlier, this text refers to a campaign against king Amasis ([Ama]-a-su) in Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh year. A. L. Oppenheim’s translation of this scanty fragment reads as follows: “. . . [in] the 37th year, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Bab[ylon], mar[ched against] Egypt (Misir) to deliver a battle. [Ama]sis (text: [ . . . ]-a(?)-su), of Egypt, [called up his a]rm[y] . . . [ . . . ]ku from the town Putu-laman . . . distant regions which (are situated on islands) amidst the sea . . . many . . . which/who (are) in Egypt . . . [car]rying weapons, horses and [chariot]s . . . he called up to assist him and . . . did [ . . . ] in front of him . . . he put his trust . . .. “

This text is badly damaged, but it does definitely state that the campaign into Egypt took place in Nebuchadnezzar’s “thirty- seventh year,” and while it is true that the name of the pharaoh is only partly legible, the cuneiform signs that are preserved seem only to fit Amasis, and no other pharaoh of the twenty-sixth dynasty.

The Watch Tower Society dates the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar to 588 B.C.E. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 698), but this would have been during the reign of Apries (see the table) and not Amasis. Amasis did not come into power until 18 years later.

On the other hand, if Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh year was 568/67 BCE., as is established by all the lines of evidence presented earlier, this date is in excellent agreement with the reign of Amasis (570– 526 B.C.E.).

Consequently, not one of the four synchronisms I posted before with the independently established chronology of Egypt agrees with the chronology developed by the Watch Tower Society. The discrepancy in that Society’s reckoning is consistently about twenty years out of harmony.

YOUR POINT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE IF THAT ATTACK MARKED THE START OF THE PERIOD AND THE END IS MARKED BY NABUNIDUS. BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT PREMISE, I WILL NEED MORE TIME ON THIS ISSUE, BUT AS I POINTED BEFORE THE TABLET CONTRADICTS THE WATCHTOWER TIMELINE CLEARLY. IF YOU ARE GOING TO ACCEPT WHAT THE TABLE SAYS YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE ENTIRE CONTENT NOT JUST A PIECE OF IT. I DIFFERENT EVENTS CAN BE TAKEN TO MEAN WHATEVER WE WANT.

[Rotherham]

Hello heber,

Again, you seem to focus on the wrong thing. Remember, I first trust Biblical data over worldy data. The fact is the fulfillment of this prophecy starting in Neb's 37th year would then bring about a 40 year desolation of Egypt. No matter who the king was, and as you say, it is nearly intelligible to determine that, regardless, a 40 year desolation had to follow. There's not enough time for this in the traditional chronology. Only the 607 chronology allows enough time for it to happen.

Regards,
Rotherham

[hperez]

Your comment would be true if and only if that period started and ended when you say they did, but that is what I will be analyzing further. For example, the exact date of Ezequiel's prophecy, and why that period could not have ended around 538 BCE which would have been 40 years from 568 BCE. Again, I need to look into it further I cannot just look at a tablet and say that is the beginning of that period. I am at work so I am unable to look at it further until tonight.

[hperez]

Egypt’s 40 year desolation prophecy

Ignoring the fact that 587 BCE is accepted by professional secular historians, the article continues its ad hominem attack on “Christendom and the apostates”.

This section of the article claims that a prophecy at Ezekiel 29:1–16 about Egypt being desolate for forty years must have been fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar. The fact that the passage does not actually mention either Nebuchadnezzar or Babylon is ignored. As with their interpretation of the ‘70 years for Tyre’, the article’s claims about ‘Egypt’s 40 year desolation’ are not supported by the Watch Tower Society.

The article quotes Ezekiel 29:12, which states that Egypt was to become a “desolate waste” for forty years. It then quotes parts of Jeremiah 42:15–16, 19 to suggest that the forty years of desolation would affect any Jews who tried to seek refuge in Egypt, despite the fact that the alleged beginning of Egypt’s forty years of desolation by its own interpretation (588 BCE) post-dates its own dating for when all of the Jews had already been exiled to Babylon, including those whom it alleges had sought refuge in Egypt (602 BCE), (Incidentally, Jeremiah 52:30 makes no indication that the exiles from the 23rd year were really from Egypt.)

Next, the article quotes Ezekiel 29:17–20, which states that Babylon would be given a victory over Egypt as a reward for carrying out judgement against Tyre. The fact that Ezekiel 29:17 introduces an entirely separate account separated by 16 years from the first part of the chapter is ignored. It is then alleged that the forty years of desolation of Egypt must have eventuated, despite the fact that neither secular history nor the Bible provide any evidence that it happened.

The article correctly states that Nebuchadnezzar went up against Egypt in his 37th (568 BCE) year, but incorrectly cites it as 588 BCE. The fact that the previous pharaoh, Hophra (aka Apries) was allied with Babylon in this attack—against the new pharaoh, Amasis II—is ignored, as is the fact that the attack was unsuccessful. The article then speculates that Egypt was desolate for forty years starting from 588 BCE, and makes the additional baseless claim that a later military alliance with Nabonidus supports that view. No explanation is offered for the logistics of exiling all of Egypt to Babylon, or for the circumstances of their supposed return. Significantly, their interpretation requires that Pharaoh Amasis had a protracted 64-year reign, encompassing the entire 40-year period of supposed desolation, ignoring the much more logical and secularly accepted view that Amasis’ 44-year reign was peaceful and prosperous. The article then indicates how secular history demonstrates that it didn’t happen, and claims that all of the secular history must be wrong. Notably though, the period of Amasis’ reign as uncontested ruler in Egypt after the death of Hophra was 40 years. As far as Hophra and his lineage were concerned, Egypt was destroyed during Amasis’ uncontested 40-year reign. Less than a year after the end of Amasis’ reign, Egypt became a “lowly kingdom” as part of the Persian empire, in keeping with Ezekiel 29:14–15.

Though there is also precedent in scripture for retracting a Babylonian victory over Egypt as a ‘reward’, this is also ignored. Specifically, the Bible indicates that Babylon was chosen to execute judgement on Jerusalem (Jeremiah 25:1–12; Jeremiah 30:11), but was then punished for its treatment of the Jews (Jeremiah 25:38; 51:34–36). Babylon apparently exceeded punishment “to the proper degree”, otherwise a subsequent judgement against Babylon would have been unjust. It is therefore consistent that Nebuchadnezzar, or his progeny, would later be denied as full a conquest of Egypt (Jeremiah 18:7–10). It is also worth noting that if Egypt had to be uninhabited during forty years of desolation, it would be more likely to occur during the Persian period from 525 BCE until 404 BCE while there was no pharaoh in Egypt. (However, there is no evidence that happened either.)The article provides a link to a chart that claims to be consistent with secular history, however the period given for the ‘forty years’ is not supported by any secular sources (or by the Watch Tower Society). In addition to the contradictory secular facts not explicitly shown in the chart, it is claimed that Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year was 588 BCE, which does not “harmonize with … secular history.” A second chart claiming to present “secular chronology” presents another straw man, postulating a 40-year Egyptian exile from 568 BCE until 528 BCE (though it does closely coincide with the unchallenged rule of Amasis II following the defeat of Hophra). The article then attempts to lead the reader with a series of questions that encourage fundamentalism and dogma to overrule logical analysis. Appendix G attempts to refute selected complaints about the 40-year period.

The article restates its flawed conclusion that only “607-based chronology” allows for the forty years, ignoring the fact that the Bible gives no indication that such a period came to fruition.


The following website answers all the problems with the Watchtower and 607 Website misleading information: http://jeffro77.wordpress.com/response-to-607-website/

[hperez]

Hophra and the Watch Tower Society


One of the Pharaohs mentioned in the Bible is Hophra (aka Apries, aka Ha’a’ibra Wahibra).

Jeremiah 44:30 says: “This is what Jehovah has said: “Here I am giving Phar´aoh Hoph´ra, the king of Egypt, into the hand of his enemies and into the hand of those seeking for his soul, just as I have given Zed·e·ki´ah the king of Judah into the hand of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon, his enemy and the one seeking for his soul.”’””

The closest the Watch Tower Society gets to attempting to assign any years to Hophra is in a Questions from Readers article in the 1 October 1970 issue of The Watchtower (incidentally on page 607 of the bound volume). It states: “Egypt made one last attempt to remain a power in Asia. The ruling Pharaoh (believed to be Hophra) came to Canaan in answer to Judean King Zedekiah’s request for military support in his revolt against Babylon in 609-607 B.C.E.”

To cast more doubt on the years of Hophra’s rule, the Insight article about him says: “Hophra is believed to have reigned for 19 years. However, according to Herodotus (II, 161), he reigned for 25 years.” What they do not mention is that Hophra challenged the reign of his successor Amasis II (aka Chenibra Amose-si-Neith) for about 5 years, clearing up the supposed discrepancy with Herodotus. This is despite the fact that in Insight (volume 1, page 450) under Chronology (Problems of Egyptian Chronology) they state: “perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time.”

Contrast this with the fact that without any supporting documentary evidence the Society elsewhere states that in “(625 B.C.E.), Necho’s forces suffered defeat” at Carchemish (Insight, volume 2, page 483) and “Pharaoh Necho … killed [King Josiah] … (c. 629 B.C.E.)” (Insight, volume 1, page 418). Why is it that the Society willingly assigns years to Necho but appears less willing to do so for Hophra? Why do they not simply adjust Hophra’s reign by the missing 20 years like they do for Necho?

According to secular historians, Hophra ruled Egypt from 589-570 BCE.* Amasis took the Egyptian throne in 570 BCE, at which time Hophra became allied with Nebuchadnezzar to contest Amasis’ reign until Hophra was killed in 567 BCE. After Hophra’s defeat, Amasis ruled over Egypt for a further 40 years. This is in agreement with Jeremiah 44:30, which states that Hophra would be given into his enemies’ hands. Because the length of Amasis’ reign is known, and because it would be difficult to extend his already lengthy sole reign of 40 years to 60 years (required in order for ‘Hophra to come to Canaan in 609-607 B.C.E.’), it is difficult for the Society to indicate exactly when Hophra is supposed to have reigned.


Why not then just adjust the dates for Amasis by 20 years as well? This cannot easily be done because of the connection between Egyptian and Babylonian rulers. The Society’s acceptance for the so-called ‘pivotal year’ of 539 BCE is drawn from a “Babylonian clay tablet” (Insight, volume 1, page 453)—actually an astronomical diary catalogued as ‘Strm.Kambys.400‘—which “establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E”. This can not easily be separated from the fact that Cambyses ruled Egypt in 525BC, certainly not enough to create a 20-year gap.

Therefore, the Society is forced to admit either that it is wrong about 607 BCE, or conclude that a mystery 20 years is also missing from Egyptian history at exactly the same time as Babylon’s missing 20 years.

[hperez]

So, your so called Tyre and Egypt failed proof prophecies are not exactly as you show them to be. What you and the Watchtower do is you give the prophecy a specific meaning or interpretation and anything that does not conform is wrong. This is not much different then how the Watchtower ties several Bible verses and come up with the 1914 date.

What I have learned is that When you have Secular documentation that is so strongly established as it is the Neo-Babylonian chronology and to that we can add the Egyptian Chronology and such well documentation contradicts NO THE BIBLE, BUT YOUR INTERPRETATION, then you should sit back an analyze not how all that data is wrong(impossible), but where your interpretation might be wrong.

As I showed before by the previous article nowhere does Ezequiel says that the 40 year period would be by Nabuchonosor. In chapter 29, we find two prophecies separated by just a small amount of 16 years. Then, again when we analyze history we find that it does not fit your interpretation as good as you think. Actually, the Watchotwer has even made comments that secular information does not show Egypt to have been desolate for 40 years during the period that you claim it happened.

Ezequiel 29:29 In the tenth year, in the tenth month on the twelfth day, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against all Egypt. 3 Speak to him and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me: 18 “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre.

Your timeline not only contradicts the well established Neo-Babylonian Chronology but also the independent Egyptian Chronology. I think it is worth mentioning that both agree with Berossus King list, yes remember the one that you ignore as simply wrong. I find it ironic you claim secular history backs your comments when none of it do. The tablet you quoted correctly saying that Nabuchodonosor attacked Egypt on his 37th year is correct, but you ignore that the attack was against an Egyptian King that was not in power on 588 BCE. Interesting enough Amasi was ruling in 568 BCE. Trying to establish a ghost interpretation you also fail to point out that such attack was not successful.


You still have to answer the mountain of data Babylonian/Egyptian and show where your missing 20 years are located. I will wait for a miracle to happen.

[Rotherham]

[hperez]

Mr. Rotherham


I think I previously answered your question which are more interpretation then actual facts. Why don't you answer the points brought up, it is not that long of a reading. You simply chose to dismiss all the information.

You see the following words did not take place during the rule of Nabuchodonosor " I will make the land of Egypt the most desolate of lands, and its cities will be the most desolate of cities for 40 years". You will not find any proof of that ever happening. That is why it is believed that precedent in scripture for retracting a Babylonian victory over Egypt as a ‘reward’, this is also ignored. Specifically, the Bible indicates that Babylon was chosen to execute judgement on Jerusalem (Jeremiah 25:1–12; Jeremiah 30:11), but was then punished for its treatment of the Jews (Jeremiah 25:38; 51:34–36). Babylon apparently exceeded punishment “to the proper degree”, otherwise a subsequent judgement against Babylon would have been unjust. It is therefore consistent that Nebuchadnezzar, or his progeny, would later be denied as full a conquest of Egypt (Jeremiah 18:7–10). It is also worth noting that if Egypt had to be uninhabited during forty years of desolation, it would be more likely to occur during the Persian period from 525 BCE until 404 BCE while there was no pharaoh in Egypt

Some think it is "There is the inference of Egyptian deportation by Josephus but it seems to be for an unspecified time. Some estimated dates of importance in considering the length of the Egyptian deportation are Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568 B.C. and Cyrus of Persia, defeated Babylon in 539 b.c"

Additionally, Ezekiel 30:5 speaks of more than Egypt being attacked. It alludes to Ethiopia, Libya, Lydia, and Chub. The expanse of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom seems to not have included all these countries

[Rotherham]

[hperez]

The only point I will make is that Egypt's prophecy was before Tyre.

[Rotherham]

Please directly answer this question. You are beating around the bush.

How then do you explain that God specifically prophecied that it would be Nebuchadnezzar who would desolate Egypt. Are you claiming that this is just a failed prophecy?

Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Hello Heber,

I think you are messing up the timeline.

Since we know that Neb attacked Egypt in his 37th year, the prophecy could not have been fulfilled before that. Otherwise there would be no reason to or cause to attack a desolate nation. Don't you see that according to the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar was definitely the one who was going to desolate Egypt. It specifically states that. Combined with your own trusted secular history, can't you see it could not have happened before Neb's 37th year. Therefore, there is not enough time to fit a 40 year desolation into your time frame. You would have to claim a failed prophecy.

Regards,
Rotherham

[hperez]

Well and that is something neither you or I can answer, because little is known about how that prophecy actually took place. Nowhere does it say that Egypt was desolate either in 588 BCE or in 568 BCE, so the only thing we have is that tablet, but we have other data showing that nowhere was Egypt totally desolate. So, neither you or I can impose a view based on such little evidence.

The bible does not say the 40 year desolation started at Nabucodonosor 37 th year, so either we stick to the Bible or we start accepting all the other tablets you chose to ignore. If you still insist on using that tablet to establish the start of the 40 year period then you also most accept it was Amasi on the throne. You cannot just pick and chose. The above timeline does put the prophecy of Tyre much closer, but I still hold it was not to be taken literaly.

You know what is really odd, here is a nation that has been totally destroyed, desolated, wasted, no more Army no more weapons, no more strong cities. I would think to develop all of that would takes years, if not decades. So, here in 546 BCE we have the strongest nation of the time Babylon making an alliance with a devastated nation to fight the Persians, uhg? Really, so there was no one else with which to make an alliance then with a totally devastated nation?

Ok, so you have Nabuchanezar completely destroying the Egyptians in 588 BCE, for 40 years the land was desolate all scattered. And you want me to believe that in just two years they were strong enough to even help? It would take two years just to get back to their land and start rebuilding again like it took the Israelites. Not even your timeline makes any sense.

Don't ask me if I think the prophecy fail, just tell me how it all happened? You are the one pushing your interpretation over us not me.

How is it that Under Amasis or Ahmose II, Egypt's agricultural based economy reached its zenith. Herodotus who visited Egypt less than a century after Amasis II's death writes that:

It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000[9]

As I have pointed out it seems logical that even though the first attack of Egypt would be in the hand of Nabuchodonosor allowing him to take their treasure which is what God had promised him, the second part of the prophecy in which the land would be desolate did not occur until after 525 BCE when there was no Pharaoh. ( It is also worth noting that if Egypt had to be uninhabited during forty years of desolation, it would be more likely to occur during the Persian period from 525 BCE until 404 BCE while there was no pharaoh in Egypt)

This is not complicated as you have mentioned that the prophecy against Babylon had its beginning in 539 BCE, but the complete prophecy did not happen until later, Why would it be out of real of possibility in this case? Just like the destruction of Babylon and the King did not mean the land to be desolate until much later In the same way the destruction by the hand of Babylon and the total desolation did not have to be one and the same. The truth is there was a Pharaoh over Egypt and the truth is that it was strong enough that even the strongest nation of the time Babylon went to him for help against the Persians that does not sound like a Nation that laid desolate for 40 years.

Ezequiel's words imply that is would be more then one nation "11 He along with his people,
ruthless men from the nations,will be brought in to destroy the land.
They will draw their swords against Egypt
and fill the land with the slain.
12 I will make the streams dry
and sell the land into the hands of evil men.
I will bring desolation
on the land and everything in it
by the hands of foreigners.
I, Yahweh, have spoken.

So, my final point after examining this prophecy is that as the Catholic Encyclopedia says even though Nabuchodonosor ravage the land of Egypt and took their wealth no occupation by Babylon was the result. I contend that as God promised Nabuchodonosor he got his pay for Tyre, but that the ultimate desolation for Egypt did not completely take place until another "nation" (ruthless men from the nations) came and completely destroyed Egypt.

Ezekiel also says the following "10 therefore, I am against you and your Nile. I will turn the land of Egypt into ruins, a desolate waste from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Cush. 11 No human foot will pass through it, and no animal foot will pass through it. It will be uninhabited for 40 years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt a desolation among[e] desolate lands, and its cities will be a desolation among[f] ruined cities for 40 years. I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them across the countries.

13 “For this is what the Lord God says: At the end of 40 years I will gather the Egyptians from the nations where they were dispersed. 14 I will restore the fortunes of Egypt and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin. There they will be a lowly kingdom. 15 Egypt will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself over the nations. I will make them so small they cannot rule over the nations.

Two questions with your interpretation. First, the cities were ruined, all Egyptians scattered and in two years they were that strong that even Nabunidus makes an alliance with them? You make an alliance with someone strong not with a bunch of scattered people.

Second, even when they returned they would measure to nothing it says a "lowly kingdom", "the lowliest of the kingdom" and " it will never exalt" and you say that they were powerful enough to fight against the Persians? Is that what "lowliest of kingdoms means?"

According to you is that what the prophecy meant to say?

[Rotherham]

[hperez]

Two years? Where's your math? If Neb attacked Egypt and desolated them in his 37th year, which according to us would have been 588 BCE, then 40 years would take us to 548 BCE, at least nine years before Babylon was attacked in 539 BCE. So where are the two years coming from that you are asking about?

_______________________________________

Babylon Alliance with Egypt was in 546 BCE as you yourself pointed out just two years after the supposed 40 years had ended. My math is well and fine, but I don't think you want to see the truth.

_____________________________________
You said
They were indeed a lowly kingdom as they surely could not stand on their own. That's why they had to join forces to fight the Persians. It never did exalt itself again.

----------------------------------------------------
So was Babylon also a lowly kingdom since they could not stand on their own.

As I showed before it makes no sense that Babylon makes an alliance with two other countries including Egypt to fight the Persians if such countries were in such a detrimental condition. Remember it was not until 539 BCE that the final battle took place, but the alliance was the Pharaoh that was always there took place in 546 BCE.

As far as the Tablet I agree there was a battle, if that was the beginnign of the 40 years I dont know. I also recognize the Tablet says that it was against Amasis who did not come into power until 570 BCE. Do you accept all the tablet says or just pieces whatever is convenient?

Insight on the Scriptures volume two pages 457-460 "Anticipating aggression from the Medes and Persians under Cyrus the Great, Nabonidus had entered into an alliance with the Lydian Empire and Egypt".

Who anticipated the attack? Egypt or Nabonidus? If it was Nabonidus does that mean Babylon was the loweliest of the kingdoms and that is why had to find alliances?

My question stand, if Egypt was the lowliest why did the King of Babylon even thought is making an alliance with a Kingdom that just two years prior was totally desolate? This alliance was in 546 BCE not 539 BCE.

[Rotherham]

Hello Heber,

It doesn't matter when they made an alliance with them. Just because Egypt was desolate does not mean all Egyptians were gone, they were dispersed and captive by Babylon. For some reason, Babylon let's them end their captivity and then immediately, within a couple of years or so, forms an alliance with them. What is so hard to understand about that? Maybe Egypt asked to join them or visa versa, it makes no difference. We simply know there was an alliance BEFORE 539BCE!

Next question:

So if you agree that Neb attacked Egypt in his 37th year, that means Egypt had not yet been desolated, right?

Regards,
Rotherham

[hperez]

It doesn't matter when they made an alliance with them. Just because Egypt was desolate does not mean all Egyptians were gone, they were dispersed and captive by Babylon. For some reason, Babylon let's them end their captivity and then immediately, within a couple of years or so, forms an alliance with them. What is so hard to understand about that? Maybe Egypt asked to join them or visa versa, it makes no difference. We simply know there was an alliance BEFORE 539BCE!

Next question:

So if you agree that Neb attacked Egypt in his 37th year, that means Egypt had not yet been desolated, right?

====================================================================
It does make a difference and your timeline does not make any sense. You are just pushing your view against documentations and reality. Amasis is the Pharaoh that Nabuchodonosor attaked. It is the same Pharaoh with which Nabonidus makes an alliance. There was not total dispertion. Also, my point stands you make an alliance with someone that has an Army not just a bunch of people you just let them out that makes no sense and there is no proof. The powerful does not need an alliance with the loweliest of the kingdoms that is a ridiculous notion. Israel made alliances, but it was always with more powerful nations looking for protection.

That you don't want to see the difference is a different problem, but it does make a difference who makes an alliance with whom and for what reason. To think that Egypt was in a position to be of any help against the Persian in just two years to me is not a sound idea. Nowhere did it mention that Babylon released any Egyptians back to their land. You are simply imposing your interpretation and that is it there is no place to reason.

I agree Nab attacked Egypt in his 37th year. Do you agree it was Amasis in power and not Aries? The problem is that Amasi did not start ruling until 570 BCE, so it does not fit your timeline, but it sure does the understanding this battle took place in 568 BCE.

Egypt was never desolate during that period, so that is why I can see how the prophecy might have been as the one about Babylon. Even though it had its beginning in 539 BCE it extended until its final fulfillment.

[Rotherham]

[hperez]

I agree Nab attacked Egypt in his 37th year. Do you agree it was Amasis in power and not Aries? The problem is that Amasi did not start ruling until 570 BCE, so it does not fit your timeline, but it sure does the understanding this battle took place in 568 BCE.


Heber, once again you are being circular by using traditional chronology to prove traditional chronology. Do you know what circular reasoning is? This is not a problem if the chronology we use is correct because that would mean that Amasis did not start ruling until 590 BCE, twenty years sooner than traditional chronology has him ruling. Stop using unproven evidence as proof. It's an extreme logical fallacy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Amasis ruled for 44 years:


Both Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 BCE.) and the Graeco-Egyptian priest and historian Manetho (active c. 300 B.C.E.) give forty-four years to Amasis and six months to Psammetichus III.
Manetho’s Egyptian History, which was written in Greek and probably was based on the temple archives, is preserved only in extracts by Flavius Josephus and Christian chronographers, especially by Julius Africanus in his Chronographia (c. 221 C.E.) and by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicon (c. 303 C.E.). Africanus, who transmits Manetho’s data in a more accurate form, gives forty-four years to Amasis and six months to Psammetichus III. This agrees with Herodotus’s figures.—W. G. Waddell, Manetho (London: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp. xvi–xx, 169–174.
And these lengths of reign have been confirmed by modem discoveries, as follows: In the papyrus Rylands IX (also called “Petition of Petiese”) dating from the time of Darius I (521–486 B.C.E.), the forty-fourth year of Amasis is mentioned in a context indicating it was his last full year. Each year, a prophet of Amun of Teuzoi (Psammetkmenempe by name) who lived in the Nile Delta, used to send a representative to fetch his stipend. This he did until the forty- fourth year of Amasis. This, in itself, is not decisive. But in the “Demotic Chronicle,” a report on the compilation of Egyptian laws written under Darius I, there are also two mentions of the forty-fourth year of Amasis as some sort of terminal point. Finally, the same figure is given in an inscription from Wâdi Hammâmât.

W. Spiegelberg, Die Sogenannte Demotische Chronik (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1914), p. 31; Kienitz, op. cit., p. 156; and Richard A. Parker, “The Length of Reign of Amasis and the Beginning of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo Abteilung, XV, 1957, p. 210. For some time it was held that Amasis died in his forty-fourth regnal year, and because of the Egyptian nonaccession year system, whereby a king’s accession year was reckoned as his first regnal year, they gave Amasis only forty- three full years.

But in 1957, in the article referred to above, R. A. Parker demonstrated conclusively that Amasis reigned for forty-four full years. This, of course, moved the reigns of the earlier kings of the Saite dynasty one year backwards. The beginning of the dynasty, therefore, was re-dated to 664 instead of 663 B.C.E., as had been held previously. (R. A. Parker, op. cit., 1957, pp. 208– 212.) Since 1957, Parker’s conclusions have obtained general acceptance among scholarsThe figure given by Herodotus and Manetho, therefore, is strongly supported by this combination of inscriptions.

As to Psammetichus III, the highest date available for this king is Year Two. Three documents (papyri) dated to the third, fourth, and fifth months of his second year have been discovered. And yet, this is no contradiction to the statement made earlier that the rule of this king actually covered only six months. How so? The Egyptians used a nonaccession year system. According to this system the year in which a king came to power was reckoned as his first regnal year. Psammetichus III was dethroned by the Persian king Cambyses during his conquest of Egypt, generally dated to 525 B.C.E. by the authorities. At this time the Egyptian civil calendar year almost coincided with the Julian calendar year. If the conquest of Egypt occurred in the sixth month of the reign of Psammetichus III, this must have been in May or June, 525 B.C.E.108 With this prerequisite, his six months of rule began at the end of the previous year, 526 B.C.E., quite possibly only a few days or weeks before the end of that year. Though he ruled for only a fraction of that year, this fraction of a few days or weeks was reckoned as his first regnal year according to the Egyptian nonaccession year system. Thereby his second regnal year began to count only a few days or weeks after his accession to the throne. Thus, although he ruled for only six months, documents dated up to the fifth month of his second year are, in view of the supporting evidence, only what we should expect to find.

Since, Cambyses took Egypt in 525 BCE and Amasis II clearly ruled for 44 years your misinformation is exposed. He could not have been ruling in 590 BCE.

I will excuse from any further arguments you are simply in my view hypocritical in your reasoning and I don't need to go any further. I have used the Bible not just secular Chronology. You are so hypocrite to bring up secular documentation to support your view and then accuse me of using it? How hypocrite is that? You have no proof whatsoever that Amasis started ruling in 590 BCE and I have provided ample proof of the opposite which you cannot disproof. The only thing you use is simple interpretation. You want to impose your interpretation in what has been proven without any doubt, unless people like you simply dismiss it.

You are a hypocrite to complaint why and how Astronomy(heavenly observations such as Eclipses) can be used as proof of anything, but then you use them to support your own view.

You don't have a problem using Kambys 400, but then you accuse me when I use similar sources? I think that just proof that you have no interest in the truth unless you make it fit somehow.

The bottom line in all of this is that you will simply parrot your views no matter how ridiculous they are and undocumented. So, stop using secular sources to support your views yourself. It is the ultimate hypocrisy to cite one tablet to support your finding and then dismiss the rest without any proof of what you are saying. It is not just one table Mr. Rotherham it is thousands and none supports your view. This is no just a tablet. I am not surprised about how all of this went down you simply mimic the Watchtower tactics. As far as your comment about Apostate, human rights applies to everyone else until they become Jehovah's Witnesses then your freedom of speech is taken away. For an Organization that claims and spend so much time to try to convert others in the lie of being open minded and free, that right disappears for anyone stupid enough to get baptized.

It was fun.

Regards

Heber J Perez

[Rotherham]

So are you saying we are done discussing these issues altogether?

Regards,
Rotherham

[hperez]

If you stop playing games I will continue, but I will not dwell in nonsense arguments. You either accept secular documentation and stop accusing me of using them or you stop totally from using it. I know
Watchtower tactics and you have no solid documentation, but simply Bible interpretations.

[hperez]

Well, you either stop your hypocritical comments or I am done. You use secular documentations to support your views when is convenient and then accuse me of using them? Now, that is the upmost hypocrisy.

You have no real support of why not using them, but your own interpretation of Bible prophecies that is all. No documentation and actually all your Bible information can be explained by viewing it in a different way, which is not something abnormal. Specially, when we look at how the Watchtower explains things.

You cannot pick and chose what you accept on the basis of an interpretation, specially when you have so much data backing the other side. It is just the most ridiculous and hypocritical scholarship stance anyone, but an Organization hack can take.

[Rotherham]

Hello Heber,

Everyone involved in chronology studies accepts that there is a point in time when secular chronology is not trustworthy. All we are saying is that something happened during the time of Neb and his sons that lost 20 years. There is therefore nothing hypocritical about finding agreement with cuneiforms that do not contradict the Biblical timeline. YOu complain alot about that stance but you haven't offered any valid reason why that is not acceptable, except your own biased views of what constitutes hypocrisy.

Like I said, I can demonstrate circa 1914 for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ without our understanding of chronology. In fact, I can demonstrate it using YOUR chronolongy if you want me too. Since we are at an impasse with chronology prior to 539 BCE, maybe that's the way to go. Is that what you would prefer? All that has to be demonstrated is when would there be a feasible time for the seven times to begin. I can do that with or without our view of chronology. I can do it with yours, just a different event. Up to you.

Regards,
Rotherham