From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Thebes (was: I'm God.)
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:46:01 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Michael takes some offense with my judgment against Josh Mcdowell's statement
about the prophesy of Thebes:

>> Jim Merritt quotes my response to a Josh Mcdowell claim, that Thebes was
>> be destroyed and never again had native rulers:
>> 
>> >> 7. Thebes-Memphis
>> >> 	destroyed, no more native rulers
>> >
>> > Memphis is the old Egyptian capital city near Cairo.  It is where the
>> > pyramids and Sphinx are located.  While I would not call it in any way 
>> > a thriving city, it is definitely ruled by Egyptians.  
> 
> And continues with his admission that he got misled by the Greek's odd
> naming of the upper-Egyptian sometimes capital as Thebes.  I must place
> a mild objection against the style of "refutation" used in this case
> against claims of prophecy fulfillment.  If one is going to honestly
> note the extravagance of interpretation needed by sectarians to conclude
> that their favorite prophecies HAVE been satisfied, one should be just
> as careful on the other side.

To tell the truth Michael, I was not trying to comment at all about actual
Bible passages or prophesies, nor I did not investigate the exact lines in the
Bible which Josh Mcdowell used to decide that there was a prophesy saying
there would never again be native rulers of Thebes.  In fact I have
specifically avoided actual debate on what the Bible actually says on the
subject, and have instead, dealt solely with those Mcdowell claims which I saw
presented.  Instead of treating Josh's claims as accurately reflecting the
Bible, I've treated Josh's claims about the existence of these "prophesies" to
be about as trustworthy as his assertions about the eventual fulfillment of
these same "prophesies." We could though, expand this argument to include the
actual Bible passages, even though that was not my original aim, and discuss
whether Josh is accurately representing the Bible with the prophesies he
presents. 

Presently though, let's go on with our disagreement on Josh's claims.  Now
when I read the words "no native rulers" I must admit that think in terms of
vassal states or colonial rule, or perhaps complete permanent destruction of
the city.  This is because, if you interpret "native rulers" to mean a
specific line of rulers, or even that the ruler must be from a ethnically
pure, and genetically isolated line of the original inhabitant, the the
"prophesy" becomes trivial whether Mcdowell meant the Thebes in Greece or the
Thebes in Egypt.  This interpretation does seem to be your requirement for
"native rulers:"

> I suppose one COULD say that after centuries of foreign Spanish rule, 
> the Valley of Mexico is once again ruled by native Aztecs.  ...  
> But any such claim strikes me as exceptionally odd, in that there is (besides
> some archaeological > nostalgia and some continuity -- by absorption into
> parish life -- at the pueblo level) no native Aztec alive anywhere in the
> Valley or anywhere else on earth. 
> 
> The case of Egypt is the same, but more so.  ....  There remain some final
> embers of ancient Egyptian culture up to about 400 (the last dated
> hieroglyphic inscription is at Philae near Aswan, from 394 C.E.), but the
> culture is dead, dead, dead.  Even if Mubarak or a successor adopts the double
> crown and starts erecting steale with hieroglyphs, I would not reckon their
> "rule" to be native Egyptian in any ancient sense. 

By those criteria Michael, Josh's prophesy becomes completely unremarkable. 
Can you name even one Royal line, which has lasted since the time of the
Pharoahs? Or can you name one area in the European/North African/Asian area
(and especially one from the middle east) which has been free of conquest and
could thereby be considered to be inhabited by "natives." Spain is not ruled
by ethnically pure natives, nor England or France, or Italy, or Egypt , or
Israel, or Syria, or etc ad nauseum.  By the criteria you set, Josh's
prophesies would have been just as accurate for any "government" of that time
(Actually by standard of longevity, the "Egyptian" line did quite well). 
Personally I judge the possible significants of a prophesy not merely by
how accurate it is shown to be, but also by how remarkable it is.  If you
reduce Josh's prophesy to merely meaning that a particular line of Pharoahs
would pass away, you have passed from the remarkable to the completely
mundane, and even into the realm of expected.  To state that a city will
*always* be either abandoned or be a vassal to a non-native government is a
remarkable claim.  On the other hand, to say that a present government will
eventually and permanently pass away, is merely stating the obvious. 

By the way, by the standards you used to judge the prophesy Josh presents,
Josh is also correct about Tyre.  Oh yes, a city called Sur has been built on
the ruins of Tyre, but the actual city-state of Tyre is no more, and the
people of Sur are not ethnically pure descendants of the original Tyre.  Of
course using that same standard, the same claim can be made about any city of
that time or even later.  That claim is even true for such huge and reasonably
stable edifices as the Rome of Julius Caesar, or the Constantinople produced
by Constantine.  If you are willing to keep making such fine distinctions,
then while it is true that such prophesies become "fulfilled", they are
trivially fulfilled and thus become trivial. 

By the way Michael, I do not suspect you of defending Josh Mcdowell, as you
have made your opinion of him clear on other occasions.  I am guessing (and you
are more than welcome to correct me if I am wrong) that you found one example
of a argument from Josh, which you found not too painfully far from your own
beliefs, and felt that I was rationalizing it in order to be able to dismiss
all Bible prophesies.  Actually I was ignoring the issue of whether it was a
Bible prophesy, and was just pointing out that the facts of the situation do
not match what Josh Mcdowell presented them to be. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our 
    actions.  Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. 
    Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
                                Al Einstein