Is the Bible the Word of God?

Howdy Percy,We debated this a couple years ago on Yahoo, and your argument now is now better than it was then! You are still hanging your hat on a few figures whose history is clouded in mystery. The first you cited, Amytaeus, was apparently a Libyan according to redstang281’s research (his opponent Mark24 concurred). Regardless, since there is so little we know about these few names you mention, it is unreasonable to include them in this analysis. They easily could not have been princes over Egypt (perhaps only part of Egypt), or they easily could have had non-Egyptian origin. The reasonable thing to do is to focus on those figures in history for whom we have ample evidence. Fortunately there are scores we can look at. The no princes prophecy is fulfilled to a tee. There is no way to get around it without invoking cloudy, murky data.I kept this from our last debate, a reference from a secular source with no axe to grind on this prophecy. This comes from ArabNet, Egyptian History:The Persians first invaded Egypt in 525BC, initiating a period of foreign domination of the country which lasted until 1952, when an Egyptian republic replaced the monarchy of King Farouk. The conquering Persians established the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty (525-404BC) which ruled Egypt with an iron hand.This source does mention the Amyrtaeus rebellion, but again we have the problems mentioned above.Regarding Nasser and subsequent presidents, there are two problems. Redstang mentioned the first, that Egyptians had been dispersed throughout the world that we cannot be certain they are ancestors to the original Egyptians. Another possibility comes from considering the word prince, which implies royalty and monarchy. In fact every Bible translation I have translates the word as prince (I have no idea where you got your bogus KJV version, mine certainly doesn’t read that way). I think it is quite clear that Nasser nor those who followed him are royalty.Obviously this didn’t convince you two years ago, and obviously it won’t now. If it were not for the implications of this staggeringly accurate prophecy, I’m quite sure you would not so readily reject it!This method of interpretation of facts by evolutionists is very common. They hang their hat on a sliver of data, ignoring the wealth of data that contradicts it. A classic example is the fossil record. Here we have 99.99% of the record consisting of intact fossils representing millions of species, yet there is not one sign of evolution whatsoever. Evolutionists cannot come up with a single example of a transitional leading up to the complex invertebrates, nor can they come up with a single link between what would have been an enormous jump between invertebrate and vertebrate. So, the evolutionist turns to that .01% of the record, the land vertebrates, where 95% of species are represented by a bone or less! (numbers from Dr Kurt Wise, not disputed by Andrew MacRae of Talk.Origins). You always get to hear about K. Hunt’s FAQ at Talk.Origins. The reason the evolutionists turn to this puny portion of the record is because wild speculation can run rampant (several on Hunt’s list have already been overturned by other evos). They always fail to mention to their audience that their evidence comes from a tiny sliver of the fossil record. They also fail to mention the mammoth 99.99% of the record that shows no signs of evolution whatsoever. Anyway, I’ve almost finished an article exposing the evolutionist’s grand illusion when they claim the fossil record supports evolution. I’ll post it here when it’s ready.PS. The following from Britannica Online is in response to your incorrect claim that Nebchadnezzar did not reak death onto the Egyptians: From cuneiform fragments he [Nebuchadrezzar] is known to have attempted the invasion of Egypt, the culmination of his expansionist policy, in 568/567. Britannica Online. This would easily fulfill the prophecy as it is described in Ezekiel 30. Why continue to fight a losing battle?

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 12-17-2001]