 |
| 
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/5/2004 7:32 AM (GMT -6) |   | Concerning Egypt:
circa 570 BC
Ezekial 29:15
"It (Egypt) will be the lowest of the kingdoms, and it will never again lift itself up above the nations. And I will make them so small that they will not rule over the nations."
Tulunid Dynasty
868-905 AD
quote:
The dynasty was founded by Ahmed ibn Tulun, an able and witted Turkish who had been raised in the Abbasid court.
Ibn Tulun maintained his control over the government of Egypt until he gradually separated the province from the Abbasid Caliphate.
One of his early actions was to found a great army composed of foreign slaves. With this army he conquered Syria in 878.
Ibn Tulun built the city of Al-Qatae' (the wards) to the north of the Arab capital of Al-Fustat. Each of the ethnic groups of his army settled in a separate quarter in the new capital city.
Ibn Tulun built his great mosque in 879. The mosque is one of the biggest and oldest Islamic monuments in Egypt.
Ibn Tulun's rule was benevolent and Egypt became a rich state under his wise dominion. Money began to flow to the treasury. Tax collectors were strictly controlled. Thus the populaces were satisfied with the authority and the most important thing is that Egypt became a prosperous land.
Ibn Tulun sadly died in 884 and was succeeded by his son Khumaraweih.
Khumaraweih expanded the Egyptian rule to as far as the Euphrates. The Abbasids had to recognize him as a ruler. Moreover, relations improved between Khumaraweih and the Abbasid caliph. Khumaraweih sent his daughter, Qatr Al-Nada (dewdrop) to marry the Abbasid caliph. The ceremony was legendary.
http://www.youregypt.com/ehistory/history/islamic/tulunid/
Egyptian nation conquered Syria and extended itself as far as the Euphrates 1400 years after the prophecy.
Or is God hedging His bets by saying "the nations", so if Egypt did rule over some nations, He could reply, "I didn't mean those nations"? 
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/5/2004 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Sisters, what are some OTHER theories?
Your own theory gains greater credability if you present is besides some others. I know some.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/5/2004 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Sisters, what are some OTHER theories?
Your own theory gains greater credibility if you present is besides some others. I know some.
Fatimid Dynasty
Check out Egypt under the Fatimids:
quote:
The Fatimids, the next dynasty to rule Egypt, unlike the Tulinids and the Ikhshidids, wanted independence, not autonomy, from Baghdad. In addition, as heads of a great religious movement, the Ismaili Shia Islam (see Glossary), they also challenged the Sunni Abbasids for the caliphate itself. The name of the dynasty is derived from Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad and the wife of Ali, the fourth caliph and the founder of Shia Islam. The leader of the movement, who first established the dynasty in Tunisia in 906, claimed descent from Fatima.
Under the Fatimids, Egypt became the center of a vast empire, which at its peak comprised North Africa, Sicily, Palestine, Syria, the Red Sea coast of Africa, Yemen, and the Hijaz in Arabia, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Control of the holy cities conferred enormous prestige on a Muslim sovereign and the power to use the yearly pilgrimage to Mecca to his advantage. Cairo was the seat of the Shia caliph, who was the head of a religion as well as the sovereign of an empire. The Fatimids established Al Azhar in Cairo as an intellectual center where scholars and teachers elaborated the doctrines of the Ismaili Shia faith.
The first century of Fatimid rule represents a high point for medieval Egypt. The administration was reorganized and expanded. It functioned with admirable efficiency: tax farming was abolished, and strict probity and regularity in the assessment and collection of taxes was enforced. The revenues of Egypt were high and were then augmented by the tribute of subject provinces. This period was also an age of great commercial expansion and industrial production. The Fatimids fostered both agriculture and industry and developed an important export trade. Realizing the importance of trade both for the prosperity of Egypt and for the extension of Fatimid influence, the Fatimids developed a wide network of commercial relations, notably with Europe and India, two areas with which Egypt had previously had almost no contact.
Egyptian ships sailed to Sicily and Spain. Egyptian fleets controlled the eastern Mediterranean, and the Fatimids established close relations with the Italian city states, particularly Amalfi and Pisa. The two great harbors of Alexandria in Egypt and Tripoli in present-day Lebanon became centers of world trade. In the east, the Fatimids gradually extended their sovereignty over the ports and outlets of the Red Sea for trade with India and Southeast Asia and tried to win influence on the shores of the Indian Ocean. In lands far beyond the reach of Fatimid arms, the Ismaili missionary and the Egyptian merchant went side-by-side.
http://workmall.com/wfb2001/egypt/egypt_history_the_tulinids_ikhshidids_fatimids_and_ayyubids_868__1260.html
Wow, quite an empire.
What were you saying POW?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/5/2004 8:42 AM (GMT -6) | | No. I'm just saying that we shouldn't think of every declaration as being a literal recording of mechanical truths. (Like "Its 98 degrees outside.") Many of these statements are made in the context of courts and rulers, and speak the language of that setting. They have overtones, like just that a warning is given and territory marked out -- politics. In that light it is not at all wierd if they aren't predictive in the way that a statement about chemical reactions would be.
That's just ONE other. I've heard about ten. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/5/2004 9:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
No. I'm just saying that we shouldn't think of every declaration as being a literal recording of mechanical truths. (Like "Its 98 degrees outside.") ... In that light it is not at all wierd if they aren't predictive in the way that a statement about chemical reactions would be.
Thanks for putting this forward. This is the explanation I generally favor, which probably comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following my discussion with Lee regarding Ezekiel and Tyre. The prophecy against Egypt is directed to Pharaonic Egypt, and Pharaonic Egypt began its final decline with its wars with Babylon. Egypt eventually became a Persian satrapy and then fell under Greek control, beginning with Alexander and continuing with the Ptolemaic dynasty. The pharaohs were no more, and so generally the prophecy is vindicated, which is all the historical/cultural context requires, in my opinion.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/5/2004 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
Thanks for putting this forward.
You are welcomed. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/6/2004 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
The prophecy against Egypt is directed to Pharaonic Egypt, and Pharaonic Egypt began its final decline with its wars with Babylon.
Ezekial 29:
1 In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the twelfth of the month, the word of the LORD came to me saying,
2 "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against all Egypt.
Against the current ruler of Egypt and against all Egypt.
If God had made a prophecy against England during Queen Victoria's reign that England would be small and never rule over other nations again, then 100 years later England is still a great power, would you say the prophecy was fulfilled because Victoria isn't queen anymore?
The prophecy was about the size of Egypt and whether Egypt ruled over other nations or not.
Ezekial 29:15
"It (Egypt) will be the lowest of the kingdoms, and it will never again lift itself up above the nations. And I will make them so small that they will not rule over the nations."
That the style of Egypt's government changed has no bearing on the prophecy. Regime changes are to be expected.
Egypt will "never again lift itself up above the nations".
For "never again" to mean anything, it has to mean "never again".
Fatimid Egypt ruled over other nations and was a large empire; prophecy unfulfilled.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/6/2004 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
I believe that you addressed well the perspective that Sisters comes to this from. But scott_jorgenson's possition remains unaddressed. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/6/2004 3:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Ezekial 29:
...
2 "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against all Egypt.
Against the current ruler of Egypt and against all Egypt.
Yes, I know. By "Pharaonic Egypt" is meant the civilization in Egypt of the time of the Pharoahs, not the Pharoahs themselves. You know: monumental architecture, worship of Ra, hieroglyphic writing, all prior to Persian conquest, Hellenization and so forth.
quote:
If God had made a prophecy against England during Queen Victoria's reign that England would be small and never rule over other nations again, then 100 years later England is still a great power, would you say the prophecy was fulfilled because Victoria isn't queen anymore?
No, I would say the prophecy was generally and non-literally fulfilled because today's United Kingdom bears only pale resemblance in geopolitics, territory and wealth to the Empire on Which the Sun Never Set, the empire in existence at the time of the prophetic utterance in your example.
quote:
The prophecy was about the size of Egypt and whether Egypt ruled over other nations or not...That the style of Egypt's government changed has no bearing on the prophecy. Regime changes are to be expected...Fatimid Egypt ruled over other nations and was a large empire; prophecy unfulfilled.
The label "Pharaonic Egypt" refers not primarily to the style of government but to the whole ancient Egyptian culture and civilization and way-of-life. (Just as "Phoenician Tyre" refers not to the style of government but the whole culture and civilization and way-of-life in Tyre at the time of Hiram and thereabouts.) So when I say Ezekiel's prophecy was loosely fulfilled with the final decline and conquest of Pharaonic Egypt, I am saying it was fulfilled in the final decline and conquest of the whole culture and civilization of that ancient Egypt which is characterized, not just by the Pharoahs themselves and their form of government, but by hieroglyphic writing, monumental architecture, Ra and Nut and their whole related system of polytheistic mythology, etc.
That Egypt was as distinct from Moslem Egypt as today's American Southern civilization is distinct from its antebellum precursor. Are you saying that a prophecy delivered against the South in antebellum days, predicting its complete destruction, could not be considered fulfilled simply because there are still plenty of Southerners, living in the same states and cities now as then? Again, that stretches literalism unjustifiably far. What does it matter that civilizations as fundamentally different as the modern South and the antebellum South, or Moslem Egypt and Pharaonic Egypt, share the same names and locations? You are right, the prophecy is not literally fulfilled, something I have agreed with you all along, but that is not to say it is therefore necessarily unfulfilled - not when critical literalism is the wrong, anachronistic standard to apply in the first place.
Again, I do not approach this from a perspective critical of the open view of the future. I am, you could say, open to the open view. But I do approach this from the perspective of desiring fidelity to the historical and cultural context of biblical prophecy, which was less demanding in perceiving fulfillment than are our modern, essentially scientific, standards.
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/7/2004 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
The prophecy isn't addressed to the Pharaohs. It says the Egyptians will be the lowest of kingdoms. I don't think the entire Bible is to be read literally, but if we are going to change "Egyptians" to "Pharaohs" or "ancient Egyptians" we need pretty compelling evidence. The words Egypt and Egyptians are used interchangably except that one is singular and one is plural. God said that the Egyptians would never again rule over other nations. He was either wrong or temporarily forgot how to communicate His thoughts.
Is this response addressed to me? If so, please see my above posting. I've not claimed the prophecy is addressed to the pharaohs. I've claimed it is addressed to Pharaonic Egypt, because it is Pharaonic Egypt that the Hebrew Bible always assumes when referring to "Egypt" and the "Egyptians" - because it is that civilization and culture that those labels identified in the historical context - because in the historical context, it was only that civilization and culture that was ever known in the land of Egypt. And as with everything else in scripture, we need to look to the historical context to determine the meaning of a passage - including Ezekiel's oracle against Egypt.
Consider: if a prophecy from the 20th century A.D. was addressed to "Americans" we would consider it to be meant for the present United States, but if a prophecy from the 15th century A.D. was addressed to "Americans" we would consider it to be meant for the native cultures of the time, and it would be anachronistic to look at features of the present United States as either fulfilling or refuting that prophecy. So too it is anachronistic to look at Moslem Egypt, whether of the Faramids or today, to either fulfill or refute a prophecy delivered against the totally different Egypt of Ezekiel's time.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/7/2004 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott, so the prophecy that Damascus would "be removed from being a city",
that could have been fulfilled by everyone leaving town for the weekend?
Isaiah 17:1
The oracle concerning Damascus.
"Behold, Damascus is about to be removed from being a city
And will become a fallen ruin."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/8/2004 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Let's say I told you that sometime in 2004 America will be brought low and never rise again. Let's say the massive armies of, I don't know, Botswana come and wipe out our whole society. But, a thousand years later, some guys living in present day Provo develop some amazing war technology and start an empire. My original "prophecy" would be false. If I wanted to talk about present day Americans, I could have done that...
First, your original prophecy probably should be considered fulfilled, at least in the biblical sense. It depends on how different "Provoan" way of life - culture, civilization, technology, religion, language, etc - is from that of today's American society against which your prophecy was delivered. In a thousand years, and with an intervening Botswanan empire, it would be highly unlikely that the Provoans would display much resemblance or continuity to us in the USA today. Therefore by the criteria I am suggesting the Bible applies itself, your prophecy could be considered fulfilled - again, not fulfilled literally and exactingly by critical standards, but generally and viscerally, which is the biblical standard.
(Incidentally, I would also point out that your excessively-critical standard would essentially mean that no prophecy of the form "Nation (or people) X will be destroyed forever" could ever be considered true, by definition, because in the long history of the world it is almost inevitable that people calling themselves X and living in region X will appear again, given enough time. But, as I've been saying, it is overly literal and simplistic to consider that prophecy against X merely refers to anyone calling themselves X living in region X at any point in time, no matter how far into the future. Biblical prophecy was delivered to a community in time in response to their situation and their need, and thus assumes their situation in defining its terms even as it addresses that situation. Or do we believe that scripture is not fully relevant to the very people to whom it was given in the first place, and instead contains secret meaning discernible only eons into the future?)
And that gets me to the other part of my answer, which is about the biblical standard. If you want to see the biblical standard in action for discerning fulfilled prophecy, see how Matthew treats the Old Testament writers. See how Peter treats Joel in Acts 2. It is not a modern and critical standard, which is what you anachronistically insist on applying. It is much more allusive and visceral a standard than that. It is not a standard we would allow ourselves, in our modern critical culture, to apply today to prophecy given to us today - because the non-literal biblical standard is as anachronistic to us as our critical literalism would be to them. But does that matter, when God's revelation and the forms of literature through which it was appropriated, were given to them and not us?
We Christians are usually quite agreed that scripture should be interpreted first in its historical context - asking ourselves, "what would it have meant to the author and audience in the day." What is it about prophecy that lets us think we can abrogate that historical-grammatical method of interpretation and instead insist on interpreting according to what the translated passage would mean first of all, not to them, but to us today?
I'm sorry if I still haven't made myself clear. I'd suggest reading Craig Hill's In God's Time or Brent Sandy's Plowshares and Pruning Hooks for more scholarly, but still eminently readable, treatment of the subject of prophecy in the way I've been addressing it.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/9/2004 9:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
Scott, so the prophecy that Damascus would "be removed from being a city",
that could have been fulfilled by everyone leaving town for the weekend?
Isaiah's prophecy against Damascus found its fulfillment in the conquest of the Syrian Kingdom by the Assyrian Empire in 732 B.C. The context of Isaiah 17 is the crisis in which the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Syrian Kingdom of Damascus had united against the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Speaking a word addressed to that situation, and to the king and people of Judah who were in dire need, Isaiah prophesied the downfall of both the Northern Kingdom and Damascus. The Assyrian assault around 732 B.C. besieged, heavily damaged, captured and sacked Damascus, killed its king, and forever ended the Damascus with which Isaiah was concerned: the independent Aramaic kingdom that had allied with the Northern Kingdom to nearly destroy the Southern Kingdom. After the Assyrian conquest, Damascus was never again an independent Aramaic-culture city-state, being dominated henceforth by the "usual suspects" - Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. Only in Moslem times, between one and two thousand years later (I don't recall just when), do we find Damascus the capitol of a glorious power again - and of course that Damascus, its culture and civilization, had virtually no connection with that of Isaiah's time and concern.
No, it is not a literal fulfillment. As a physical city named Damascus, it has never been completely destroyed, literally reduced to a "ruinous heap" and abandoned "forever". But seen within the biblical context, it is a figurative fulfillment, which is all the context of biblical prophecy demands. I won't go further into justifying that claim of the proper context for understanding prophecy, as my other postings in this thread, and in the companion thread on Ezekiel 26, have done so more than enough :-)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:54 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|