Well, OT historical inaccuracies are not my specialty, and I'm not going to become specialized in it when 1) I can prove the Bible rediculous through other means and 2) it's already accepted by the majority of Christianity that there are errors. The only group that still clings to inerrancy are fundamentalists, which apparently you are. My condolences. If you feel you can legitimately discard arguments because of the format in which they're presented, good for you. It's your denial, not mine. If you would post a website to present your argument, I'd respond to it, because I don't care what format the argument is being made in, I care about how solid the argument being made is.

I got my information from a college class. You got yours from a Christian-science whateverthefuck. I'd say you're the one who needs to start proving something.

It's a fact that Biblical prophecies from the Bible concerning Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar didn't come true. If you want, I will post the verses, and then post a historical article from an encyclopedia contradicting those verses. Of course, this is EXACTLY what the website I linked to did, but that "doesn't count." Uh huh.

Okay, you're not making anything that even resembles an argument. I can't see how this is anything different from trolling. Copying and pasting is no different from spamming. Add to that some obvious flames and I'm having a hard time figuring out why I haven't thread banned you yet. If your next post doesn't have an actual argument in it, that is at least paraphrased, not plagarized so as to show that you put some degree of effort into posting, you will be thread banned. You've been warned.

Minion, the argument was whether the Bible has historical errors, correct? In my last post, I said it does concerning Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar, and that I can post these verses, and then post the encylopedia articles contradicting said prophecies. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? Don't bitch me out for not having an argument. You act like you're just here to repond to criticisms. Where's your arguments FOR historical accuracy and FOR only 2 people needed to have genetic diversity??

Don't tell me you have information if I want it. Post it. Quit telling us what you know and show us.

I'm dead serious. If the next post of yours doesn't have an argument that equates to more than "UR WRONG" you're thread banned.

Just curious: Don't scream at me.

What if he has to copy and past the said information?

Then he's not debating. He's plagarizing. That's not even legal.

I beg to differ.

If he posts the source of his information and he is using it as a debating aide, I don't see whats wrong with it.

Perhaps a link would suffice?

I am just asking because, you know, I don't want to get threatened with thread bans because I would post some data from another site with a link. PLEASE do not flip out on me, Minion. ;_;

Referencing is not copying and pasting verbatim a source. Try that with one of your professors. See if you don't get expelled.

Are you going to answer my question, or are you going to bark at me some more?

Besides which, this is the internet. Not a thesis on the historical validity of the Bible. Would it be a compromise if he gave you a link? Or would you not accept that, either?

Relax, Minion. Come listen to NPR with me in the truck with a cup of coffee. ;_;

Isaiah 19:21 And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it . 22 And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it : and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.

Part of this prophecy could be considered true. Nebuchadnezzar II defeated the Egyptian army:

"In the summer of 605 BC (or 607 BC by some sources), an important battle was fought there by the Babylonian army of Nebuchadrezzar II and that of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt (Jer. 46:2). The aim of Necho's campaign was to contain the Westward advance of the Babylonian Empire and cut off its trade route across the Euphrates. However the Egyptians were defeated by the unexpected attack of the Babylonians and were eventually expelled from Syria." (I had to use Wikipedia, since Brittanica and Encarta have restrictions on how much you can look at)

Howerever, this part of the verse never came true: "and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it." As well as "and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them."

The structure of the verse is A) Egypt converts to Judaism from polytheism, and worships YHVH. B) Egypt is smited (presumably by Nebuchadnezzar) and then healed to show them the power of God, B) they go back to worshipping Him. However, this never happened. Necho II ruled for the 26th dynasty of Egypt.

Previous to the 26th dynasty there was no sign of Judaism:

Following the 26th dynasty, still no sign of Judaism:

All information about Egyptian religion was found from: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/history7.html

Today, Islam is the official religion of Egypt so it can't be future prophecy. There has never been any evidence of a Jewish movement in Egypt, past present or future. This prophecy never came true. There's your argument. Respond.

First of all, good post.

At first, I had a hard time dealing with this and it seemed to be a nontrivial issue, but that was largely due to my allowing you to convince me that there is historical certainty about whether or not there was a large Jewish population in Egypt. That is false. It is known that there was a large population during the Ptolemaic period, which, according to most of the sources I've consulted, is when this prophecy is fulfilled. At the very least, whether or not there was a strong Jewish population in the nation known as Egypt at the time (it wasn't exactly what it was today - it was much larger) is debatable. Check out this wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._Jews_in_Egypt

Concerning the Sacrifices - there is a reason why this prophecy could be figurative. According to Mosiac Law, there can be no temple build for sacrifices expect in Jerusalem, which we know is not in Egypt. Therefore, Egyptians that were following YHWH would not be literally making sacrifices. It is possible that it is a reference to revelation, where it mentions people of all nations will come to worship in Jerusalem, or it could be some sort of allusion to Christ, as he and his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod (ie the Egyptians will know the Lord - they knew Him when He visited).

There is also a theologian Athanasius of Alexandria who is quoted saying:

So here we have at least some Historical corroboration of the event.

I'm still researching, but I thought I would share what I've found so far, so that you know that I haven't been hiding. I also have a midterm and other things taking up my time, so it hasn't been easy. I will have to look for a good historical reference that we can both argee is trustworthy and see what that has to say about the history of the Jews in Egypt, but wikipedia is not bad about this sort of thing. I read a BBC article about how a study was done comparing wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britianica with regard to history and science and it is effectively just as good a source.

Ah... I agree Jews lived in Egypt. However the verse to me implies a conversion of Egyptians to Judaism. By Jewish "movement" I meant significant conversion of the population, which is what the verse implies to me. The article on Wikipedia only mentions Jewish immigration, not conversion, which is a much different matter IMO. Also, it seems this immigrant Jewish population remained fairly seperated from the rest of the culture:

Islam was the religion actually convert the Egyptian population.

The problem with putting these specific verses into prophecy concerning Jesus fleeing to Egypt or Revelation means you have to put the surrounding versus into that same time period to keep context. Every group of events in this chapter is prefaced with "in that day" which implies this entire chapter of prophecy concerns a specific set of events having a direct cause-and-effect relationship, not a "this part happened in 700 BC, this part happened in 2 AD, this part happened in 350 AD." If each set of events wasn't preceeded by "in that day" I wouldn't make this argument, but "in that day" is used to describe events that happen together, such as Jesus' prophecies about the end times. It's easy to take a few verses out to explain them as prophecy for Christ, but I don't think this is a legitimate way to interpret the text.

Well, I'd appreciate a less biased source. This information is coming from a Christian bishop. I think he'd jump on the chance to proclaim a prophecy was being fulfilled in his life whether it was historically accurate or not. I also didn't find the bottom of his biography too encouraging:

Also, I'd still make the case that you can't take those 2 verses and put them in a 350ish AD context while the rest of the verses in the chapter are shuffled into other time periods.

Well, then you haven't read it within the context of the chapter.

Clearly, this is pointing out that the Jews of Egypt will be mostly confined to 5 cities. Hardly a wholesale conversion of Egypt to Judaism. And according to the wikipedia article:

So there is historical corroboration of the verse. Don't get hung up on what the difference between a city and a district is. There probably was none. In Hebrew, I'm willing to bet that a "city" was just a large settlement, as opposed to a village.

This is also justification enough for the prophecy mentioning Judaic practices, as it does not specifically say that the Jews made sacrifices in Egypt; just that they made them. It also speaks of a highway between Egypt and Assyria which they could have used to travel to Judah to make their sacrifices.

As far as the timeline goes, "that day" is a very (and I'm willing to argue purposely) vague period of time. The Ptolemaic - Roman period lasted from 400 BC - 641 AD. This was when the population of Jews was at it's peak. It also encompases the time when the Jews inhabited the 5 cities as well as the time that Jesus' et. al. fled to Egypt. It is also possible that it marks the beginning of an Era which is still happening. We don't know. Isaiah didn't give us a specific timeline. All we can say with certainty is that "day" is not meant literally, as it would be impossible for all of this to take place in the span of 1 day. In fact, if you were to say "back in such and such day" you would be talking about a fairly large period of time. One might say, "back in the day, we were hunter gathers." The period of time this person would be talking about would be several centuries.

I disagree. This chapter concerns the entire country of Egypt. This can be proven with the very first verse:

Isaiah 19:1 "The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it."

The heart of Egypt is destroyed, which shows how these prophecies are a Nationwide event. The "five cities" reference is more appropriately interpreted as a part of the string of events that are to show how completely the Lord will change the face of Egypt.

There are three reasons why I'd get hung up. One is that it specifically names the one city "city of Destruction" - giving it a specific name implies a more important role than just a district within a city, in my opinion. It gives it symbolic value. I think it's along the lines of the 7 churches in Revelation. Most Christians associate those churches as representative of problems with Christianity as a whole, not just specific churches that were doing wrong. The same applies to this, in that the cities are representative of Egypt as a whole.

Secondly, I believe it's city because of the nation-wide feel of other verses. To suddenly limit the scope of the verses to districts within a city doesn't fit the context of the rest of the chapter.

Finally, and most importantly, the Wikipedia article says it was divided into 5 districts, yes, but only 2 of them were Jewish. You'd need all 5 to be Jewish if you're claiming this verse is prophecy concerning Jewish infiltration of Egypt.

Correct, but "in that day" still ties this entire chapter together. It's safe to say that when "in that day" is used, in generally means within the lifespan of a person. "In that day" implies that the person living during that time will see all those things come to pass (generally speaking).

Also, you didn't counter my point that these verses speak of a conversion of native Egyptians, not the immigration of Jews. This chapter describes the arrogance and punishment of Egyptian idolaters, so the subject is native Egyptians. Claiming that the immigration of Jews fulfilled this prophecy is bogus IMO.

Well, I have something to say, but at this point, I only foresee us bickering back and forth about what Isaiah intended when he used certain words to describe something. I've been in these arguments before and unless you have an ancient Hebrew scholar on hand, they go nowhere. I've shown how this passage could possibly have been fulfilled and you disagree with my interpretation of it. I guess we just have to agree to disagree then, but at the very least, one cannot say that this prophecy clearly hasn't been fulfilled. Because the Bible is not written specifically for us to read, it is possible for anyone to read anything they like into it without much difficulty. Only when you go over each word with a fine-toothed comb and a good concordance can you have a proper argument about what certain words mean. I have such a book, if you're interested, but not with me right now.

One thing I will say, though, is that I thought you had already asserted that Isaiah 19:1 was talking about Nebuchadrezzar's defeat of the Egyptian army, as Isaiah 19:21 (the original verse in question) has nothing to do with that.

The idea of the Egyptians being converted is really something you're reading into the passage. That may be what it means, it may not. Jewish Egyptians were still Egyptians. They didn't need to be converted. Maybe they went astray and this passage is talking about their eventual return to their practices.

I agree, Bible debates often become futile when neither person knows Hebrew (not counting the fact that even those who know Hebrew still end up debating this stuff).

Well, because of the way I interpret it I think it clearly hasn't been fulfilled. My interpretation may be wrong, but it's the (hopefully unbiased) conclusion I've come to from the information we have on hand.

Yea, I have a Strong's and Matthew Henry's commentary and a few study Bibles, but all of them are at home. Trying to make an argument with internet sources gets irritating because it's so much faster and easier for me to use my books.

Well, it's sometimes said that these prophecies on Egypt were in part fulfilled by the history of Nebuchadrezzar vs Egypt. I had said that it was possible to attribute some of the smiting of Egypt to the battle Neb. won against the Egyptian army, but it wasn't anything I was trying to prove.

There is only one subject in this chapter: Egyptians. In order for this prophecy to be fulfilled, you're claiming that "Egyptians" actually means immigrant Jews living in Egypt for verse 21, but this doesn't work for the other places "Egyptian" is used in this chapter.

"2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom."

The word "Egyptian" represents the general population of Egypt. You can't randomly restrict the scope of this noun to mean "Jewish people living in Egypt" for verse 21. To me this is simply putting your own spin on the word for the sake of trying to justify a prophecy. The last verse seals the deal:

"Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance."

IMO, clearly a nation-wide conversion prophecy that didn't happen. I would think that God only calls a country his "people" when a great deal (majority) of them convert to Judaism. This never happened with Egypt.