>ROB
>>There are many religious books in the world that have many good
>>things to say. But only the Bible has fulfilled prophecies-with more
>>fulfillments still to come. The Bible has _never been wrong_ in the
past, and it
>>won't be wrong in the future. It does not even abrogate itself.
>
>TILL
>The Bible has _never been wrong_ in the past? What planet has this
>guy been living on? I'll cite just one example of many prophecy
failures in
>the Bible. Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Egypt
and
>that it would lay waste for 40 years, but this never happened.
LUNDBERG
Now, now, now Mr. Till/Adnan you know better than that. I'm not
interested in the Hale Bopp bunch. I like it quite nicely right here on
Earth.
Why are you imposing that the passage MUST happen during the prophet's
life? Or for that matter must happen period? Why can't this still be
yet to come?
TILL
Well, duh, the answer is right in front of Lundberg's eyes if he would just
open them. Ezekiel's prophecy was pronounced against "Pharaoh, king of
Egypt" (Ezek. 29:2-3). The rule of the pharaohs ended long ago, so does
Lundberg expect a return to Pharaonic rulership in Egypt? If so, does he
also expect Nebuchadnezzar to be resurrected? That's a very relevant
question, because this prophecy clearly made reference to Nebuchadnezzar as
the instrument for Yahweh's destruction of Egypt.
>18 Mortal, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labor hard against
Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet
neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he
had expended against it.
>19 Therefore thus says the lord Yahweh: I will give the land of Egypt to
King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and
despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army.
>20 I have given him the land of Egypt as his payment for which he labored,
because they worked for me, says the Lord Yahweh.
>21 On that day I will cause a horn to sprout up for the house of Israel,
and I will open your lips among them. Then they shall know that I am Yahweh.
>
This part of the "prophecy" specifically states that Yahweh would give Egypt
to Nebuchadnezzar as compensation for all of the work Nebuchadnezzar had
unsuccessfully expended against Tyre (although chapter 26 predicted that
Nebbie would take Tyre and destroy it forever), so how can this be a
reference to something that would happen at some distant time in the future
after that Nebuchadnezzar was long dead? That would make sense only to a
biblical inerrantist desperately grasping for straws to save face.
Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt continued into chapter 30 where he again
made it clear that the prophecy was directed against "Pharaoh, king of
Egypt" (vs:20, 22, 24-25). The tirade continued even into chapter 31 where
verse 2 again made it clear that the prophecy was about "Pharaoh, king of
Egypt," and on into chapter 32, where again the tirade is directed against
"Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (v:2). These chapters also make it clear that
Nebuchadnezzar would be Yahweh's instrument that would destroy Egypt.
>Ezekiel 30:10 Thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will put an end to the hordes
of Egypt, BY THE HAND OF King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon.
>11 He and his people with him, the most terrible of the nations, shall be
brought in to destroy the land; and they shall draw their swords against
Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.
>12 I will dry up the channels, and will sell the land into the hand of
evildoers; I will bring desolation upon the land and everything in it by the
hand of foreigners; I Yahweh have spoken.
>
Nebuchadnezzar was referred to later by his title "king of Babylon" later on
in this chapter. Notice also the references to "Pharaoh king of Egypt."
>Ezekiel 30:>9 Thus I will execute acts of judgment on Egypt. Then they
shall know that I am Yahweh.
>20 In the eleventh year, in the first month, on the seventh day of the
month, the word of Yahweh came to me:
>21 Mortal, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; it has not been
bound up for healing or wrapped with a bandage, so that it may become strong
to wield the sword.
>22 Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: I am against Pharaoh king of
Egypt, and will break his arms, both the strong arm and the one that was
broken; and I will make the sword fall from his hand.
>23 I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them
throughout the lands.
>24 I will strengthen the arms of the KING OF BABYLON, and put my sword in
his hand; but I will break the arms of Pharaoh, and he will groan before him
with the groans of one mortally wounded.
>25 I will strengthen the arms of the KING OF BABYLON, but the arms of
Pharaoh shall fall. And they shall know that I am Yahweh, when I put my
sword into the hand of the KING OF BABYLON. He shall stretch it out against
the land of Egypt,
>26 and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them
throughout the countries. Then they shall know that I am Yahweh.
>
Another reference to the king of Babylon and the havoc he would wreak on
Egypt is in chapter 32.
>Ezekiel 32:11 For thus says the Lord Yahweh: The sword of the KING OF
BABYLON shall come against you.
>12 I will cause your hordes to fall by the swords of mighty ones, all of
them most terrible among the nations. They shall bring to ruin the pride of
Egypt, and all its hordes shall perish.
>13 I will destroy all its livestock from beside abundant waters; and no
human foot shall trouble them any more, nor shall the hoofs of cattle
trouble them.
>
So the answer to Lundberg's question is simple. The fulfillment of this
prophecy could not be yet in the future, because it was too specific too
many times in specifying that Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon would
destroy the Egypt of Pharaoh. All of the devastation that Ezekiel predicted
in his long tirade against Egypt didn't happen, so obviously the prophecy
failed and failed miserably.
Is there an explanation for why Ezekiel singled out Egypt for this tirade?
I think so. First, Ezekiel raved throughout his book about what Yahweh would
do to the nations around Israel, none of which predictions were fulfilled.
Second, Egypt was an enemy of Israel and a symbol of past enslavement, so it
is easy to understand why Ezekiel included Egypt in his tirades. Third,
Ezekiel said that he was a captive in Babylon when he wrote his book (1:1).
If that is so, then he would have been in a position to know that
preparations were underway in Babylon to invade Egypt. Having witnessed
Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem, Ezekiel would have naturally
assumed that the power of the Babylonian army spelled certain doom for
Egypt. As it turned out, however, Nebuchadnezzar did attack Egypt but
failed to take it. Hence, Ezekiel's prophecy failed, and inerrantists have
been stuck with trying to salvage something from the prophet's excessive
ravings (as seen in Lundberg's comment immediately below).
LUNDBERG
Can prophetic language be symbolic at times? YES, at times it is. Could it
be that it hadn't happened yet? YES Could it be that if it hadn't happened
yet, that it could and will happen? YES, possibly.
TILL
If this is a position that Lungberg intends to take, he needs to defend it.
YES in uppercase letters three times doesn't prove anything except that
Lundberg knows that his case is weak. Let him explain in what sense Egypt
was "symbolically" given to Nebuchadnezzar as compensation for his failure
to take Tyre. Let him explain when Egypt was "symbolically" laid waste for
40 years. Let him explain when foot of neither man nor beast passed through
Egypt for 40 years (symbolically, of course). Let him explain when
"symbolically" Egypt was not inhabited for 40 years. Let him explain when
"smbolically" the Egyptians were scattered abroad among the nations. Let
him explain when "symbolically" the Egyptians were brought back from their
dispersion among the nations, etc., etc., etc. All of these things were
listed as part of the devastation and destruction that Yahweh, through
Nebuchadnezzar, would bring upon Egypt, but there are no historical
indications that any of them happened.
"Could it be that it hadn't happened yet?" Lundberg asked. Well, yes, it
not just "could be" that it hasn't happened yet; it obviously HASN'T
happened yet. That's the whole point.
"Could it be that it will happen yet?" he asked. Yes, that's a convenient
dodge, isn't it? If 10,000 years from now none of this has happened,
biblical inerrantists could plead that it hasn't happened yet but just be
patient and it will. What kind of defense is that? Also, if Lundberg
intends to argue that this WILL happen some day, he needs to give us a
rational reason why, with all of the references to Nebuchadnezzar and
Pharaoh king of Egypt, anyone should think that the intention of the prophet
was that all of this would happen some day long after the parties
specifically named would be dead.
I think it's time to ask my question again. Are inerrantists never
embarrassed by the ridiculous scenarios that they have to postulate to
explain away the obvious discrepancies in the Bible?
Jerry McDonald, I see that you are back on the list again. Maybe you would
like to tackle the problem of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt.
By the way, Mr. Lundberg, I found your e-mail address rather ironic. For
those who may not know, "pensee" in French means "thought," but I didn't see
much thought in Lundberg's attempt to salvage this failed prophecy.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net