Sheshonq

Unlikely.

Which is irrelevant to the mistakes you made:

1. Egypt did not conquer itself.
2. There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar ever entered Egypt on a military campaign, much less conquered it.

No. Babylon was still very much alive and prospering.

Jack the Bodiless

Why do you imagine that you can just make stuff up and get away with it???

OK, you claim to live in "Georgia". But Georgia was conquered by Osama Bin Laden back in 2001, and its population exiled for 40 years! If you want proof, there are several prophecies by Bin Laden that he would destroy America. So he must have done so... right?

So why do you claim to be posting from "Georgia", now that Georgia is uninhabited?

...Do you see a problem with this argument?

YOUR argument has exactly the same problem.

What part of "Nebuchadrezzar never conquered Egypt" do you not understand?

WVIncagold

Okay so again I ask you since you keep trying to squirm out of it do you expect this king from the north to raid Egypt in your lifetime? Your starting OP eluded to such. So lets get off this whole past Nebby and Tyre and lets really look at what Sugar is talking about. Ignore the past its irrelevant for the discussion. He is asserting that it is going to happen in the future. So Sugar please since you have the inside track on this when is it going to happen "soon" does not cut it. we need dates, times, and where we can expect so see the chariots come from east, west, north or south. You still fail to answer why we the other 99.9 percent of the world should care? You also have not defended that this destruction will be carried out with bows arrows on riders on chariots and wearing helmets and shields. Weapons today will not burn yet the prophesy says that they will how do you reconcile this fallacy? Also as you asserted if the world is on fire why would anyone need to warm their hands? You have answered none of these simple questions. You made an assertion that this is going to happen "soon". So quit squirming and answer these very simple questions. No inflection that horse=tank and dove=airplane or sword=dynamite. Words mean things and if god was giving visions he sure as all heck would of given his "prophet" the correct words if not accurate descriptions, none of which exist. You made a statement you were going to show the skeppies how wrong we are, well all you have shown is the ability to not answer questions. So please answer when is "soon" actual date, time and which direction the attack will come from. All you have accomplished is to show how much 'prophecy" is nothing more than a shill game as it always has been. Keep something vague enough then people read what they want into it. But when a prophecy is to dated and archaic as these for you to claim it is going to happen "soon" is just simple nonsense.

Darklighter

Sugar, I'm sorry but your response didn't address any of the issues I raised. You can't simply say "Yes, he did!" without providing evidence. But I know how easy it can be to get distracted so I'll say it again:

[OK, You did address this point, but you didn't answer it. How are the Egyptians today "continung" the sins of their forefathers? If Egypt is so bad and thus "soon" to be destroyed, why does God leave cities like San Francisco, Las Vegas, and Amsterdam alone? Perhaps they too will receive a warning and be destroyed in 2,500 years?]

sugarhitman

Read Joel 3. He makes it clear that in the last days Egypt will become desolate because of violence done to Israel. Ezekiel also mentions this. Read Zech. Joel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel all these prophets predict that all nations will rise against Israel to destroy and divide their land.

And Nebby did plunder Egypt. I will also remind you that it was Nebby who destroyed Jerusalem, but the prophets was predicting the 'Destroyer of the Gentiles' through him. Anybody who has studied prophecy knows that sometimes God decribes a future character through a present one. As Satan is described through the King of Tyrus, the Jewish Messiah in Isaiah's Israel the suffering servent, David, John the Baptist through Elijah and many more such examples. In the chapters dealing with the desolation of Egypt I will again point out the hints that are given. The 'day of the Lord' 'Time of the Gentiles' 'The darkning of the sun,moon, and stars' when this desolation occurs. This is Aremegeddon....the Day of the Lord....the time of the Gentiles.


And again Nebby was not to completely destroy Tyre. Because Ezekiel have him coming against the mainland city with land based weapons. The critics have not come up with a reasonable explanation to explain this. If Ezekiel was living during these times why would he have Nebby building a fort, and siege mounts against an island fortress? Where was he to build them in the water? Did his horses and chariots have that which is associated with Santa and his magical sleigh, able to wisk through the air over land and water? Common sense is key here. And Ezekiel was no dummy. And when the scripture said they would lay your wood, stone, and dirt in the water, which part was laid in the water? The mainlnd city. All these things happened to the mainland city. Ezekiel, whatever the name you want to call it, did not seperate the mainland city from the island one they are one and the same. And another thing, in this chapter we have the words uninhabited and desolate and then a place to srpread nets upon. Now this is a contradiction, because a place to spread nets upon is not a desolate and uninhabited place because fishermen esp. then made their homes at these sites. God says the desolation will happen when He brings the sea over Tyre. In ch.27 we are told that the inhabitants and all that they own will fall into the sea perishing along with the city on this day. These are clear seperate judgements against two locations. And if Nebby and the nations were to completely destroy Tyre, then what will be the purpose of bringing the sea over something that isn't there. And if all these judgements were to happen at the same time, then how can it be inhabited by fishermen when it is destroyed and desolate? The critics have no answer for these. The only argument they use is the grossly incorrect one that seperates the mainland city from the island city, that makes Nebby the author of Tyre destruction, and the bringing the sea over Tyre and Nebby's siege happening at the same time. An incorrect interpretation= a self-deluded view of a failed prophecy= Delusion....period. :wave:

Sheshonq

No, he didn't.
If you think he did, then show the evidence.

You can't - and every time we ask you for it, you vanish for a few days and hide your head in a hole because you know THE PROPHECY FAILED. :rolling:


Wrong. Ezekiel stated that he would destroy Tyre - all of it.

Oh, yes we have - and you've been unable to refute it.

WVIncagold

Quit going off topic! This is about the future! not past your OP is that Egypt will have this in the future! So quit retreating into the past. Address the argument you put forth that Egypt will experience this in the future! You conveniently backslid into the past and tried to make the topic something else as soon as you couldn't defend or make rationale that a bunch of bronze age warriors riding in chariots and using bows and arrows were going to destroy Egypt and send it into a 40 year period of total desolation in the future. Hey its your topic not mine. You fail to address why this would be important to the 99.9 percent of the rest of the world and why we would care let alone how bronze age tactics like a phalanx could have any merit in a war conducted today. Your OP was that Ol'Zeke was discussing the future and then you promptly left your own OP to travel down another road. Unfortunately others have followed you and not held you to task on your OP. I want to remind everyone thats why I posted and highlighted your OP here to bring it back. This is about the future. So please point to where the encampments of these bronze age warriors are lurking making their bows and arrows to lay waste to Egypt? I think this point out just how absolutely silly and childish it is to believe in prophecy because as these have shown they fail to produce anything credible. You tried to prove it in the past and failed miserably. So then you tried to shift it to the present and oops those silly verses keep tripping you up. So then you try to cover up the glaring stupidity of trying to equate prophesy in the CE so you try to jump back into the past. Its like trying to nail jello to the wall. The bible doesn't mean what it says when it doesn't conveniently conform to what you believe and the bible doesn't say what it means when your backs against a wall and facing an inconvenient truth. So when is this desolation going to happen? When can we expect the chariots to ascend and destroy modern Egypt in the future?:wave:

Jack the Bodiless

...Except that he did no such thing.

As you cannot address this, it's game over for sugarhitman. :wave:

I accept your surrender (again).
Chapter and verse?

Why haven't you got the hang of citing chapter and verse yet, sugarhitman?
Nope.

Ezekiel is quite clear on this: it's Nebuchadrezzer king of Babylon who is supposed to conquer, pillage and depopulate Egypt. Just as it was Nebuchadrezzer king of Babylon who was supposed to attack Tyre (you now want to claim that Satan was supposed to do that?), and Nebuchadrezzer king of Babylon who was then going to be paid off with Egypt's wealth.

Changing names mid-story makes a mockery of the Bible. When Jesus was crucified, maybe that was a code-word for "Judas" or "Pontius Pilate". Maybe Lazarus was the messiah and raised Jesus from the dead. Maybe Pharaoh led the Hebrews to freedom from the tyrrany of Moses. Who knows? You have retreated into cloud cuckoo land. Another surrender.

JayW

Whether or not it was Nebuchadnezzer that plundered Egypt,it was plundered by the Babylonians.

makerowner

1. No it wasn't, or at least not during the time period of the prophecy. Instead it had a period of great prosperity during the time when it was supposed to be uninhabited.
2. Even if that were true, the prophecy says Nebuchadrezzar was going to do it, so it would still fail.