[Editor’s note: the one asking this question did some follow-up research, finding his own really useful additional information on what Nebuchadnezzar did to fulfill the prophecies in Ezekiel and Jeremiah. His additional information is at the end of my original response.]
‘According to his own annals, Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt, CONQUERING parts of the Nile valley in 567 BC and “dealt a severe blow to its supremacy and power.”’ Is it really true that Neb’s annals states that and if so, could you please send me, if you can, a link so I can see the annual text myself? If not, could you let me know where you got your references from regarding that? You also said that “Jeremiah’s prophecy that Egypt would be conquered by Babylon was also fulfilled” . This is obviously different to what you say 6 years later in your answer to the Ezekiel question. What changed during that time?
If I sound judgmental or antagonistic please forgive me. I am Christian but this prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt has really got to me! I’d appreciate a reply if/when you can.
It is entirely possible that the two answers I gave are not in perfect agreement, and if so, I apologize. I get a LOT of questions, making it difficult to do a top notch research on every single question. I apologize if what I said was only partly correct. Here is some relevant research:
The name of the journal is Israel Exploration Journal
I feel that I have found as much as I can considering my limited resources. I came across an essay which states that according to the Elephantine Stela of Amasis (which I think documents a rebellion and rise of Amasis against Apries – ‘Hophra’ in the Jeremiah 44 – and involves Nebuchadnezza’s invasion of Egypt) Nebuchadnezzar never intended to conquer but “ invaded Egypt in order to defeat Amasis and to support Apries” (https://istina.msu.ru/media/publications/article/1e3/4f2/2758543/The_Elephantine_Stela_of_Amasis_Endl.pdf). This may strengthen the possibility that Ezekiel and Jeremiah weren’t prophesying a conquest considering the notion that the prophecies were directed at Nebuchadnezzar who obviously had his own intention to make war but not conquer.Regarding Ezekiel 29: 19, I looked through the Bible to find any part where the notion of “giving” land was not related to possessing or conquering land. So far all I can come across is, coincidentally, a verse by the same prophet, Ezekiel 11:17. The context of the prophecy is (depending on interpretation) the exiles returning to the land of Israel after the Persian conquest of Babylon. In this verse God says to the exiles that He’ll “give” them the land of Israel. This “giving” clearly doesn’t mean they’ll be ruling the land because when the exiles returned the land was still part of the Persian empire. Therefore, the conclusion is that God is saying He’ll give the exiles the ‘usage’ of the land i.e homes to live, crops, potential for prosperity etc. I believe this conclusion can only be so if the prophecy is interpreted to be regarding the exiles in 6th century and not the establishment of Israel in 1948 (unless one can say that this is a double-fulfilment prophecy). If this conclusion is right then we can be assured that the “giving of land” in Ezekiel 29: 19 is regards the wealth of the land rather than the occupation – especially when cross referenced with the phrase “array with the land” in Jeremiah 43: 12.The biggest problem I have with the 2 prophecies is Jeremiah 43: 9-10 where Jeremiah says Neb will place his throne on the hidden stones in Tahpanhes. However, looking at this it seems there is some mystery. Is God saying Neb will be ruling Tahpanhes? If so why does he say Neb will set his throne on the hidden stones? The “throne” seems figurative for his rule. Is God saying he’llTahpanhes or just the hidden stones? Why are the stones hidden? It has occurred to me that maybe what God is saying is that Neb will have ‘hidden’ i.e unofficial influence over Tahpanhes or even Egypt. I have no evidence of this but I read somewhere (I can’t find the source now) that Neb (I think) made an alliance with Egypt towards the end of his reign. If this is true then it’s possible that he would’ve had indirect influence over Egypt since a lower country will try to please a more powerful ally. This could explain the metaphorical throne on the hidden stones outside pharaoh’s palace in Tahpanhes. It’s only a theory and I don’t have the resources to dig deeper but maybe something worth looking into unless you have discovered something else regarding that passage.Best wishes,Jacob