Well, the Bible doesn't say "Egypt" it says "Mizraim"; modern Egypt calls itself "Misr". For "Assyria" it says "Asshur", which nowadays is called "Syria". It's talking about peoples who continue to this day (Egyptians and Assyrians) and who still have nations of the same name. What happens is that churchianity sidelines all this stuff into realms like eschatology when it makes more sense on its face value. All the peoples told they would continue to exist still exist, all the peoples told they would cease to exist have ceased to exist. I'm pretty confident that applies to all nations in the Bible.

You could allegorize away the whole passage and say Egypt, Israel, and Assyria only mean classes of covenant people who will have some kind of transference relationship among them; that would be silly but it's not like it's false. But the problem is that it makes people think the straightforward literal meaning isn't true. Egypt will have a special blessing in the future and will be called "my people" as a special unique nation. That's not putting words in God's mouth, it's quoting them.

You seem to misunderstand the two meanings (which TINAE spots immediately) even as you use them yourself. When he says they are seed you agree they are descended. Then you say that doesn't count as being children because you're acting like "children" and "father" can only have one meaning. But as with words for children, Jesus also uses "father" the same way, 8:56: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day." So he admits Abraham is their father in one sense, but he says the devil is their father in another sense. And this is perfectly consistent with their attack on his fatherhood (adoptive via Joseph; 8:41 challenges his legitimacy) while he points out his greater Father is God. Everyone knew "father" had multiple meanings. But you don't.

So I'm not adding words at all when I say

The LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people.

Then said Jesus to those Jews .... I know that ye are Abraham's seed .... Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.

But you are adding words when you say "It can’t specifically be talking about the borders of nations because Assyria isn’t even a nation anymore", "Jesus clearly says they aren’t the 'children of Abraham'", "He specifically says Abraham is not their father", "Lineage doesn’t matter at all anymore".

You say I'm justifying Zionism, which is an argument here that I've realized for 5 years relies upon duckspeak. Nobody knows what they mean by accusing another of Zionism. I justify all peoples having equal rights of self-determination. If Zionism means such an equal right, fine, if it means some greater right than some other people, I don't follow it. I also uphold that all Biblical peoples have different rights spelled out by their national blessings and cursings, equally interpreted. If the Bible promises a blessing or a cursing, fine, but if someone interprets different promises differently, I don't follow that interpretation. Everyone here who acts like they know what Zionism is has never been able to define it in such way as to avoid the fact that these very simple rules are applied objectively the same across the board and with no respect to any meaning of Zionism. If you want to call out Zionism, criticize any person's or organization's statement or action and I'll be happy to agree or disagree with you. IMHO the Arabs got a questionable deal from Henry McMahon in 1915 but nobody goes there because Arabs haven't taken the high moral ground on it for 110 years since. The high ground would be to renegotiate from equal self-determination rights. When you hint that you don't like some national promises existing in the Bible you're acting like the Arabs, whose existence comes from a national promise to Ishmael in the Bible.