Joel Pearson

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?

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.