Jump to content


Joel Pearson's Content

There have been 5 items by Joel Pearson (Search limited from 29-March 23)


Sort by                Order  

#447049 Ezekiel and Egypt's Desolation

Posted by Joel Pearson on 08 December 2013 - 07:39 PM in Theology

Thanks Ken and Russel :) I completely agree that it is insignificant compared to the proof that exists. The idea that Ezekiel chs. 29-32 were not inspired did not occur to me from your comment (instead I had ideas of mistakes which inspiration has allowed...)

 

Maybe you're right about the non-absolute desolation--- didn't think about that... thanks again!




#447046 Ezekiel and Egypt's Desolation

Posted by Joel Pearson on 08 December 2013 - 04:28 PM in Theology

Thanks everyone. I have some Q's though :)

 

"The only problem with this prophecy is that we have no historical record to verify it." - Fortigurn

 

I'd be okay with an absence of historical mention... however it seems as though there were actually people dwelling in Egypt at the time when the desolation was supposed to be occurring: an inscription by Amasis has been found dating to his 23rd year here, and apparently both Egypt and Babylon made an alliance against the Egyptians in 547 BC (here; although I don't know whether or not this is dependent on Herodotus). 

 

"Of course, this is yet another reason why a fundamentalist view of the Bible, where if the Bible is seen to be wrong in one area, it is wrong everywhere, is useless for a robust faith." - Ken Gilmore

 

Why do you suggest this is an example? I accept God can work with a faulty understanding, but I struggle to accept that God's original teachings and promises can be wrong... (hopefully I'm not misunderstanding your point...)




#447036 Ezekiel and Egypt's Desolation

Posted by Joel Pearson on 06 December 2013 - 08:46 AM in Theology

I've been wading through some allegedly failed prophecies in the bible, and I've been struggling a bit with the Ezekiel's prophecies of Egypt's desolation:

  • Eze 29:9: "The Land of Egypt will become a desolation and waste"; Ezek 30:7: "They will be desolate."
  • Eze 29:11,13: "It will not be inhabited for forty years"..."at the end of the forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered."
  • Eze 29:12; 30:13: "I will scatter the egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands

Herodotus, who learned about this period of history from Egyptian priests, says that Egypt actually became very prosperous under the reign of Amasis. Other sources, like Encyclopaedia Britannica, and this article report that Herodotus' sources (the Egyptian priests) were quite unreliable. The priests didn't even mention an invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, whereas it is mentioned in the article above that an inscription has been found to show that Babylon actually DID invade Egypt. Various other places which I didn't keep note of say much the same thing.

 

It therefore seems that not much is known about the period. Boulton says that Nebuchadnezzar rarely made record of his own military expeditions, and Egypt never kept track of their failures- so it's a recipe for historical blankness. From Nebuchadnezzar's invasion in 567 BC to Egypt's defeat to the Persians in 525 BC is 42/3 years, giving time for forty years of desolation (Eze 29:11), and perhaps a return from captivity (Eze 29:13), followed by Egypt's continual existence as a base kingdom.

 

But here's what I'm struggling with- it  certainly doesn't seem that Egypt was uninhabited for that period of time, therefore it seems that the desolation needs to be interpreted as figurative (i.e. Egypt would have been subjected to Babylon as a tribute nation...). Is it possible to prove that it was non-literal? Or am I heading in the wrong direction completely?




#446503 Granville Sharp Rule

Posted by Joel Pearson on 02 September 2013 - 12:36 AM in Theology

Alright, thank you for that :)



#446475 Granville Sharp Rule

Posted by Joel Pearson on 31 August 2013 - 08:21 AM in Theology

I have been reading a thread in the apologetics library that discusses the Granville Sharp Rule in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1. Before reading that thread, I had accepted the Granville Sharp rule, and thought that the response to the Trinitarian arguments would be answered in the following way:

Titus 2:13
The verse should read 'the appearing of the glory of our God and saviour Jesus and Christ' (as opposed to 'the glorious appearing' in the KJV). When it is translated this way, it would seem to indicate that the Christ will appear in the glory of his father. This is consistent with the teaching of Matt 16:27; Mk 8:38.

2 Pet 1:1
Similar to the above verse, this verse would seem to be saying that Christ is the righteousness of God. This would be in the same way that 'we might become the righteousness of God IN HIM [Christ]' (2 Cor 5:21). Christ will be called "Yahweh our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6; 33:16).

I also found the Granville Sharp rule interesting in considering Thomas' statement in John 20 ("my Lord and my God")- this statement has two definite articles, therefore according to that rule would imply two different subjects.

I found the thread that I mentioned very interesting, especially considering the scriptural consistency argument. While I now realise that the Granville Sharp rule is not as authoritative as I had previously thought, I'm still wandering:
(1): Should I then change the way I explain Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1?
(2): Does the anti-trinitarian hint in John 20:28 lose it's power?
(3): If the Granville Sharp rule doesn't apply to 2 Pet 1:1, I'd understand that it then means that we obtain faith through the righteousness of God, and the righteousness of Christ. How would I then explain why the NT doesn't say "the righteousness of Christ" at all, while "the righteousness of God" is mentioned often?

Thanks! I know very little about Greek rules etc. so I'd be quite interested to know how I should accurately explain these passages when talking to a Trinitarian. :)