Is the Bible the Word of God?

Welcome back, Redstang.The term prince imply's royalty, so it would mean no more royal native rulers.The term prince by itself implies princes, not all royalty, nor does it in any way infer native rulers.The prophecy has as far as I can see, 63 possible solutions. ie 3 contextual meanings of erets, multiplied by 3 possible meanings of no more, & 7 possible meanings of prince.All of the translations Percy has given are as valid as the ones you wish to accept.Erets
1/ Country, territory (nothing to do with peoples)
2/ Inhabitants of the land (not necessarily native)
3/ People of the land&No more, no longer, no one,&"prince" - nasiy, nasi - hebrew word for ruler http://www.bju.edu/bible/h/5350.html
http://www.prophezine.com/tcode/dc1.htmlprince, ruler, leader, captain, chief, governor, president (! That’s Nasser in, then)So, applying Percies rules, the prophecy fails no.1 ,The prophecy must be specific. For example, "There will be wars and rumors of wars" does not qualify as a specific prophecy. The determining factor in deciding specificity is that there must be only one event, one person, one whatever, etc, in history to which the prophecy could reasonably apply.& to quote joz once again ; a prophecy that provides a plenum of solutions is not verified by the passing of one of those solutionsYou may disagree with the inclusions of some meanings, but the president one is from a christian prophecy web site.In any case, the prophecy only needs two possible solutions to be unverified.This prophecy is vague, & therefore does not prove the validity of the bible as word of God.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Before I answer your questions:Do you accept the fact that a non egyptian prince has ruled egypt since at least 2,300 years ago until 1952?

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 01-12-2002]

---

Redstang writes:
Do you accept the fact that a non-Egyptian prince has ruled Egypt since at least 2,300 years ago until 1952?

---

Simply based upon the available evidence, no. Plus by your interpretation this prophecy is forever, so you can't say "until 1952."But even more importantly, why are you holding us to a higher standard of evidence than you hold yourself to. You once said:

---

Redstang wrote in message 44:
Although there is no historical record of this outside of the bible, this does not mean it didn't happen.

---

I think this is a horrible standard for making historical judgments, but if this is the standard you hold yourself to then it's only fair you not hold others to a more strict standard.The most significant problem for this prophecy is that it predicts Egypt would fall to Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian when it in fact fell to Cambyses the Persian.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

---

Redstang writes:
Do you accept the fact that a non-Egyptian prince has ruled Egypt since at least 2,300 years ago until 1952?

---

​

Simply based upon the available evidence, no. Plus by your interpretation this prophecy is forever, so you can't say "until 1952."

​

But even more importantly, why are you holding us to a higher standard of evidence than you hold yourself to. You once said:

​

---

Redstang wrote in message 44:
Although there is no historical record of this outside of the bible, this does not mean it didn't happen.

---

​

I think this is a horrible standard for making historical judgments, but if this is the standard you hold yourself to then it's only fair you not hold others to a more strict standard.

​

The most significant problem for this prophecy is that it predicts Egypt would fall to Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian when it in fact fell to Cambyses the Persian.
--Percy

---

I have found many contradictions in the history of egypt during the time of nebuchadnezzar. From this I say it is unfair to say that because history records egypt fell to the persians instead of nebby that the prophecy did not come true.Do you have any evidence to support that history has any contradictions from 2,300 years ago until 1952?I'm waiting til we reach an agreement on this before I get into proving anymore details.

---

Redstang writes:
"Amyrtaios was the only ruler of the Twenty-eighth Dynasty. He is thought to have been a Libyan. He ruled Egypt from Sais for six years."

​

I had come across other sites that suggested he was Libyan but I can't seem to find them now.

---

You forgot to mention where your quote came from.The following cite comes from The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume VI, Macedon, 401-301 BC, Cambridge University Press, 1984. It states that Amyrtaeus was a native ruler well after the Persian conquest: --Percy

---

Redstang writes:
I have found many contradictions in the history of Egypt during the time of Nebuchadnezzar. From this I say it is unfair to say that because history records Egypt fell to the Persians instead of nebby that the prophecy did not come true.

---

I don't know that I could agree about "many contradictions", but I recognize that much about this period in Egypt is unknown and/or uncertain. From such sparse information it is impossible to legitimately conclude that Nebuchadnezzar never razed and pillaged Egypt, but neither can you derive corroboration.Razing and pillaging on a major scale tends to be remembered, it gets historians attention, and it leaves archaeological artifacts, eg, celebratory tablets describing military successes. Cambyses's Egyptian conquest is well documented, but for an earlier Nebuchadnezzar conquest there is nothing, just brief mention of a skirmish at Egypt's border. It seems very unlikely that all evidence of anything as significant as the Nebuchadnezzar conquest described in the Bible could have completely vanished.Let's back up a moment and take stock. The Ezekiel 31 prophecy (which actually begins at Ezekiel 30) was cited as evidence that the Bible is the word of God because it contains accurate prophecy, but the prophecy is of an event that history never records. It might have happened, but if your goal is persuasion it might be better to pick a prophecy involving something history agrees actually took place.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

Before I answer your questions:

​

Do you accept the fact that a non egyptian prince has ruled egypt since at least 2,300 years ago until 1952?

​

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 01-12-2002]

---

No, you have claimed Farouk I was an albanian, can I see the reference pls. http://www.presidency.gov.eg/html/e_king_ahmad_fouad_ii.htmlKing Fouad II was born in Cairo, he was Egyptian, the son of Farouk I. Fouad II was a prince of Egypt.According to your prophecy, the one you think is the best translation,"and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt"Fouad II fits the bill. There are translations that say rulers, but then thats not the translation you think is best, is it?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
No, you have claimed Farouk I was an albanian, can I see the reference pls.

---

King Farouk I"The King is of Albanian blood, was born in February 1920" http://www.nefworld.org/nefnotes/retro_details_master.asp?notes_id=278"Eleven years later, Italy invaded Albania. Zog fled into exile in Egypt with King Farouk, who was of Albanian descent from the dynasty founded by the great Mehmet Ali. " http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Albania.html
http://www.presidency.gov.eg/html/e_king_ahmad_fouad_ii.html"Egypt is now considered independent. Fuad I, descendant of Muhammad Ali, the Albanian who ruled Egypt from 1805 to 1848, becomes king. " http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mahfouz%20egypt.htmI can get more if that's not enough.

quote:

---

King Fouad II was born in Cairo, he was Egyptian, the son of Farouk I. Fouad II was a prince of Egypt.

---

​

I think I have proven King Fouad II was a non egyptian as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
King Farouk I

​

"The King is of Albanian blood, was born in February 1920"

​

---

His blood is irrelevent to his nationality. This does not prove he was albanian. You need a birthplace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

​

"Eleven years later, Italy invaded Albania. Zog fled into exile in Egypt with King Farouk, who was of Albanian descent from the dynasty founded by the great Mehmet Ali. "

​

"Egypt is now considered independent. Fuad I, descendant of Muhammad Ali, the Albanian who ruled Egypt from 1805 to 1848, becomes king. "

---

I don't deny Farouk, Fouad I or II had albanian blood, its their birthplaces thats important. Being born in Egypt is what will make them Egyptian. To my knowledge, I have Welsh & Irish blood, but I was born in London, the son of English parents. Whats my nationality?

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

​

I think I have proven King Fouad II was a non egyptian as well.

---

http://www.presidency.gov.eg/html/e_king_ahmad_fouad_ii.htmlYou most definately have NOT proven Fouad II was not Egyptian. I repeat, "King Fouad II was born in Cairo, he was Egyptian, the son of Farouk I. Fouad II was a prince of Egypt."The meaning you require for the biblical prophecy to be true is in contention, but no matter, even if they were all albanian born, only one of 63 possible solutions would have come to pass, proving nothing. It is a side argument. The prophecy is vague.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[b] [QUOTE] Let's back up a moment and take stock. The Ezekiel 31 prophecy (which actually begins at Ezekiel 30) was cited as evidence that the Bible is the word of God because it contains accurate prophecy, but the prophecy is of an event that history never records. It might have happened, but if your goal is persuasion it might be better to pick a prophecy involving something history agrees actually took place.
[/B][/QUOTE]I did not say anything about ezekiel 31. Ezekiel 30 contains the curse of discontinued native rulers which I am offering as evidence as the word of God.600bc-300bc is rather murky data. However, what we have is good solid historic data from 300bc to now. 300-present records the prophecy as true. Can you deny that?

[b] [QUOTE] You most definately have NOT proven Fouad II was not Egyptian. I repeat, "King Fouad II was born in Cairo, he was Egyptian, the son of Farouk I. Fouad II was a prince of Egypt."
[/b][/QUOTE]Is president bush a native american? He must be because he was born here, right? duh... [b] [QUOTE] The meaning you require for the biblical prophecy to be true is in contention, but no matter, even if they were all albanian born, only one of 63 possible solutions would have come to pass, proving nothing. It is a side argument. The prophecy is vague.
[/b][/QUOTE]Now hold your horses. I said we were going to agree that none of the princes from 300bc til 1952ad have been natives. After we do that, then I'll move on to the prophecy. One thing at a time.

President Bush is a native American because he was born there.From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary :Native \Na"tive\, a. ve, Nelf a serf.
1. Arising by birth; having an origin; born. [Obs.]Anaximander's opinion is, that the gods are native,
rising and vanishing again in long periods of times.
--Cudworth.2. Of or pertaining to one's birth; natal; belonging to the
place or the circumstances in which one is born; --
opposed to foreign; as, native land, language, color,
etc.3. Born in the region in which one lives; as, a native
inhabitant, race; grown or originating in the region where
used or sold; not foreign or imported; as, native oysters,
or strawberries.From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary :Native \Na"tive\, n.
1. One who, or that which, is born in a place or country
referred to; a denizen by birth; an animal, a fruit, or
vegetable, produced in a certain region; as, a native of
France.2. (Stock Breeding) Any of the live stock found in a region,
as distinguished from such as belong to pure and distinct
imported breeds. [U.S.]From WordNet (r) 1.6 :native
adj 1: being such by origin; "the native North American sugar
maple"; "many native artists studied abroad" [ant: foreign]
2: existing at birth; "man's connatural sense of the good"
[syn: connatural, inborn, inbred]
3: belonging to one by birth; "my native land"; "one's native
language" [ant: adopted]
4: being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the
beginning; "native Americans"; "the aboriginal peoples of
Australia" [syn: aboriginal] [ant: nonnative]
5: as found in nature in the elemental form; "native copper"
n : a person who was born in a particular placeClearly, by these definitions, Bush is a native American, every bit as much as the pre-European mongoloids.The Indian population that existed before caucasians arrived were native too. Though, according to your reasoning, they are native asians, having crossed the bering straight 10,000 years ago.By these definitions, any prince born in Egypt is native to Egypt. King Fouad II AT LEAST, was an Egyptian native prince.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Like I said before, I'm not getting into proving what the bible means until you agree the following.from 343ad-1952bc all the kings and their sons were a different race of people than ancient egyptians.Regardless of what the bible says or means, do you agree that this is true?

Problem is bud of the same race is:a)A damn fool statement given the amount of interbreeding that occurs between human "races"...b)Only one possible interpretation out of a variety of meanings + prophecy is to vague...you said that the bible was chock-a-block full of prophesies that were realized so bring in another....

I don't mean to be deliberately vague or evasive, but aren't Egyptians caucasian, same as albanians?Regardless, I agree that the genetic "makeup" is different to ancient Egyptians, which I think is your point.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.