607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  thetrueone

  Chronicle of Nabonidus

  The Chronicle of Nabonidus ( scholarly edition ) tells us the story of the rule of the last king of independent Babylonia. The text is badly damaged and contains many lacunas. However, it makes clear that the rise of Cyrus was not unexpected. We meet him for the first time in Nabonidus' sixth year (=550 BCE), when he defeats the Median leader Astyages . A second reference can be found in year nine, when he defeats the king of a country that can not be identified (547 BCE).

  In addition, we learn that Nabonidus was not in Babylon for ten years. Instead, he seems to have tried to subject Arabia. In year three he conquered the kingdom Edom , which controls the direct road from Babylon to the Gulf of Aqaba. From year seven until year sixteen, Nabonidus stayed in the oasis of Temâ in the Arabian desert, from where he could easily go as far south as the oasis Iatribu (modern Medina).

  The events of year seventeen look rather desperate: although the New Year's festival ( Akitu) can now be celebrated, several divine guests fail to attend, which suggests that their home towns were under siege. We also learn about a short invasion by soldiers from the Sea Land.

  Throughout this text, 'Akkad' means Babylonia ; the first years show Babylonian military activity in Syria and the southeast of modern Turkey.

  [First line destroyed]
  Accession year (556/555 BCE): ... he lifted. The king brought their [lacuna] to Babylon.

  First year (555/554): They did [unintelligible] and he did not lift his [lacuna]. All their families [lacuna]. The king called up his army and marched against the country Hume [i.e., Cilicia].

  [lacuna]

  Second year (554/553): In the month Tebêtu , in the country of Hamath, it was cold.

  [lacuna]

  Third year (553/552): In the month of Âbu , to the Ammananum[in Cilicia], the mountains of [many?] fruit trees. All kinds of fruits he sent to Babylon.
  The king fell sick, but he recovered. In the month Kislîmu , the king called up his army, [he sent?] to Nabû Bel-Dan of Amurru, and marched to [lacuna]. Against the capital of Edom they pitched camp [lacuna] the gateway of Šintini [lacuna] he killed [lacuna] troops.

  Fourth year (552/551):[lacuna]

  Fifth year (551/550): [lacuna]

  Sixth year (550/549): King Astyages [litt: Ištumegu] called up his troops and marched against Cyrus [Kuraš], king of Anšan , in order to meet him in battle. The army of Astyages revolted against him and in fetters they delivered him to Cyrus. Cyrus marched against the country Agamtanu [the Median capital Ecbatana]; the royal residence he seized; silver, gold, other valuables of the country Agamtanu he took as booty and brought to Anšan. The valuables of the army of [lacuna]

  Seventh year (549/548): The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad . The king did not come to Babylon for the [New Year's] ceremonies of the month of Nisannu ; the image of the god Nabû did not come to Babylon, the image of the god Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida were given according to the complete ritu al; the urigallu-priest made the libation and asperged the temple.

  Eighth year (548/547): [blank]

  Ninth year (547/546): Nabonidus, the king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the ceremony of the month of Nisannu; the god Nabû did not come to Babylon, the god Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida for the gods of Babylon and Borsippa were given according to the complete ritual. In the month of Nisannu the fifth day, the mother of the king died in the Walled Camp, which is on the banks of the Euphrates , above Sippar. The crown prince and his army were in deep mourning for three days, an official weeping was performed. In Akkad, an official weeping on behalf of the mother of the king was performed in the month of Simanu .
  In the month of Nisannu , Cyrus, king of Persia, called up his army and crossed the Tigris below the town of Arbela . In the month of Ajaru he marched against the country U[...] , defeated its king, took its possessions, put there a garrison of his own. Afterwards, his garrison as well as the king remained there.

  Tenth year (546/545): The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of the month of Nisannu ; Nabû did not come to Babylon, Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida for the gods of Babylon and Borsippa were given according to the complete ritual.
  In the month Simanu , the twenty-first day [lacuna] of the country of the Elamites in Akkad [lacuna] The governor of Uruk [lacuna]

  Eleventh year (545/544): The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of the month of Nisannu ; Nabû did not come to Babylon, Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida for the gods of Babylon and Borsippa were given according to the complete ritual.

  [large lacuna, containing years #12, #13, #14, #15]

  ... the river. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack.

  Seventeenth year (539/538): Nabû went from Borsippa for the procession of Bêl [lacuna] The king entered the temple of Eturkalamma ; in the temple he made a libation of wine. Bêl went out in procession. They performed the festival of the New Year according to the complete ritual [4 April]. In the month of [ Âbu ?] Lugal-Marada and the other gods of the town Marad, Zabada and the other gods of Kish, the goddess Ninlil and the other gods of Hursagkalama visited Babylon. Till the end of the month Ulûlu all the gods of Akkad -those from above and those from below- entered Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter.
  In the month of Tašrîtu , when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus] massacred the inhabitants. The fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas [litt: Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there. Till the end of the month, the shield carrying Gutians were staying within Esagila but nobody carried arms in Esagila and its buildings. The correct time for a ceremony was not missed.
  In the month of Arahsamna , the third day [29 October], Cyrus entered Babylon, [ unidentified objects ] were filled before him - the state of peace was imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, installed subgovernors in Babylon.
  From the month of Kislîmu to the month of Addaru , the gods of Akkad which Nabonidus had made come down to Babylon, were returned to their sacred cities.
  In the month of Arahsamna, on the night of the eleventh, Gobryas died [6 November]. In the month of Addaru , the [lacuna] day, the wife of the king died. From the twenty-seventh day of Adarru till the third day of Nisannu [20-26 March], an official weeping was performed in Akkad. All the people went around with their hair disheveled. When, the fourth day [27 March] Cambyses , son of Cyrus, went to the temple of [unintelligible], the epa-priest of Nabû who [lacuna] the bull [lacuna] They came and made the weaving by means of the handles and when he led the image of Nabû [lacuna] spears and leather quivers, from [lacuna] Nabû returned to Esagila, sheep offerings in front of Bêl and the god Mârbîti.
• 

  Alwayshere

  djeggnog, guess i had Nabopolassar on my mind 0n page 144. This indicates they mean

  King Neb. djeggnog said "I interpret" Daniel 2:1 to mean that Babylon was recognized as being

  3rd world power of the Bible History during the1st year of King Neb.Kingship

  in the year 607. You are quoting what is in the vol.1 of the Insight, page 576,left side under dreams.

  The Bible at Daniel 2 : 1 says very plain "And in the 2nd year of the Kingship of King Neb."

  So if you believe Neb. 1st year of Kingship is 624, his second year of Kingship is 623.

  Of course neither one is right. Neb. first year is 605 and 2nd year is 604.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Eggnog is the scholar and the master and we are all illiterate little children, ...yeah that makes perfect sense

  Eggnog you have now disappointed me totally and I no longer give you any benefit of any doubt. I lost patience with you in my last post. You seem to enjoy beng deliberately vague and stringing us along. Is that so you can then enjoy belittling us when we dont understand you I wonder. Your Ego is your downfall.
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I don't see the relevance of knowing when the Persian revolt began, but I suppose there are many ways in which the year 539 BC might be established. [I] do know that it isn't possible to establish the year when Babylon was deposed by means of the Nabonidus Chronicle or Ptolemy's Canon, but Eusebius indicates (also Diodorus and Africanus) Cyrus' first regnal year beginning Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 BC), and ending Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 BC), and since cuneiform tablets indicate that Cyrus ruled over Babylon for nine years (the olympiad year ran from July 1 to June 30), then subtracting nine years from 530 BC, one arrives at 539 BC.

  @TD wrote:

  I think the only relevance would lie in the fact that the Nabonidus Chronicle mentions that event and links it with a [specific] year of Nabonidus' reign. The 6th year of Nabonidus needs to correspond to the year 550BC. --Else something is wrong somewhere.

  Well, @TD, here's that "king-list" based on Ptolemy's Canon:

  Nabopolassar, 627 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 606/605 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 562 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 560 BC for four years

  Nabonidus, from 556 BC for 17 years

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  Now here's the point I would make: According to Ptolemy's Canon, Nabonidus' reign began in the year 556 BC, so if Nabonidus' sixth regnal year would have begun in the spring on Nisan 1, 551 BC, and ended in the spring on Adar 29, 550 BC, but for the fact that this is just a hypothetical. IOW, I don't believe the regnal years assigned to the kings of the Babylonian Dynasty in Ptolemy's Canon to be correct. I believe Nabopolassar's reign began in a year earlier than in the year 627 BC; try 646 BC. I also believe that Nabonidus ascended to the throne of Babylon as king earlier than in the year 556 BC and that he reigned longer than just 17 years; try 574 BC with his accession year being 575 BC, and with his son, Belshazzar, who is not mentioned in Ptolemy's Canon, serving during his Nabonidus' third regnal year (572 BC) as coregent with his father as the king of Babylon.

  At any rate, you have presumably good reasons to conclude that the year 550 BC must "correspond" to Nabonidus' sixth regnal year. I get to 550 BC differently than you do, but, even so, we seem to both "get" there. This means that Nabonidus' reign has to have been longer than 17 years (which is my point!) and that it has to have extended an additional 18 years to the year when it fell to the Medes and Persians in 539 BC. While Ptolemy's Canon doesn't specifically list Belshazzar, based on what the Bible book of Daniel states, I believe Belshazzar was definitely the king of Babylon when it was deposed.

  Anyone at all that should believe otherwise is free to do so, but I'm fine with assigning 35 years to Nabonidus as king of Babylon and with assigning his son, the crown prince, Belshazzar, 33 years also Nabonidus' coregent and the second king of Babylon, which explains why Daniel refers to Belshazzar at Daniel 5:7-9 as "King Belshazzar," and why Belshazzar promised to make Daniel "the third one in the kingdom" since Belshazzar himself was the second one in the Nabonidus' kingdom, his father being the foremost one.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  Thats the trouble with the Watchtower, they always "assume" instead of proving what they say.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Here's your problem though: You're talking to someone that is one of Jehovah's Witnesses; you are not talking to the Watchtower that you seek to disparage at every chance you get. I am the one here providing proof of the things I have been saying here, with the inclusion of secular works that contain information that bears upon the Belshazzar's having been confirmed by archaeologists as king of Babylon, Nabonidus' son, and note that I've not quoted anything to you here from the Watchtower or from any of our publications. In fact, I've been primarily using the Bible here, but if you feel you must bash the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society or other Jehovah's Witnesses for the things I have been saying to you in this thread, then so be it.

  I didn't assume anything or ask you or anyone else here to assume anything. I've merely told you the truth, and if you should be at all interested in verifying the same evidence for yourself that I have uncovered instead of exhibiting your bias against Jehovah's Witnesses, then all you would have to do is do a little research for Professor Millard's "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," which was published back in 1985.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  The Insight Book vol.1 page 458 2nd paragraph says, you can count forward or backward from a pivotal point and goes on to say 539 is a pivotal point. So use 539 and count up with the years you used 17,35,4,2,43, and 21. How do you get 646?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Here you are [again] quoting something you read in one of the two volumes of the Insight book, when you don't believe anything [what] the Insight book has to say, so what difference could it possibly make to you what this book says about the year 539 BC?

  I think you are claiming a problem that really doesn't exist, except in your own mind, for you are the one using the number "17" used in [Ptolemy's] canon instead of the number "35." Just refer to the number of years in the king-list included in my response to @TD, that is, if you are truly interested in knowing how it is one arrives at 646 BC as being the beginning of Nabopolassar's reign.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  So when was King Neb. 1st year to rule?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year was 624 BC; his accession year was 625 BC.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  djeggnog, guess i had Nabopolassar on my mind 0n page 144. This indicates they mean King Neb.

  Again with the "they." You might wish you were exchanging messages with the "they," that is to say, the brothers at the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society that are responsible for publishing the Insight volumes, but you are instead exchanging messages with me, and now I'm going to tell you directly and frankly what it was I told you in my previous message, albeit indirectly through @TD.

  You are able to read the words you found in Volume 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, under the heading "Aramaic" in the second column, last paragraph ("It continued to be employed during the time Babylon was the World Power (625-539 B.C.E.)...," which words are referring to "Official Aramaic" that gradually came into use after the eighth century BC, but what you don't comprehend is the fact that "they" are not referring to King Nebuchadnezzar at all, but to the period 625 BC to 539 BC during which Babylon had become a World Power when Official Aramaic was used.

  I wrote that there is nothing in the sentence contained within the parentheses above that would indicate that it is referring to any aspect of Nabopolassar's rule, "let alone anything to the effect that Nabopolassar's rule began in 625 BC," and yet now you are saying, "This indicates they mean King Neb."? Wrong! There is nothing in the sentence contained within the parentheses above that would indicate that it is referring to any aspect of Nebuchadnezzar's rule either, "let alone anything to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar's rule began in 625 BC."

  The sentence that you are failing to comprehend -- "It continued to be employed during the time Babylon was the World Power (625-539 B.C.E.)..." -- contains the inference that Babylon had become a world power during the years 625 BC and 539 BC, and this inference is true, but this sentence is not saying that Babylon had become a world power in the year 625 BC. This would be a false inference. What this sentence is saying is that during the 86-year period when Babylon had become a world power, Official Aramaic was being employed or was actively being used by the Babylonians, but what this sentence doesn't indicate is the year during this 86-year period when it was that Babylon become a world power.

  Here's an analogy: If this statement had been, "The war in Iraq began to be waged during the period when George W. Bush was president of the United States (2001-2008)...," this would not necessarily mean that the Iraq War began in the year 2001, would it? No, for this would be a false inference to draw, the same as it would be a false inference to state that President Barack Obama began prosecuting the Iraq War in 2008 when he was elected president of the United States even though he didn't become president until President Bush's term of office ended in 2009, and there is nothing in this statement that indicates that it refers to the Obama presidency at all. Get the point?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I interpret the reference to "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 to mean that Babylon was recognized as being the Third World Power of Bible history during the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship in the year 607 BC, although the Babylonian Dynasty began with the reign of Nabopolassar in 646 BC and ended during the rule of Belshazzar when Babylon was deposed by the Medes and Persians in 539 BC.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  djeggnog said "I interpret" Daniel 2:1 to mean that Babylon was recognized as being 3rd world power of the Bible History during the1st year of King Neb.Kingship in the year 607. You are quoting what is in the vol.1 of the Insight, page 576,left side under dreams.

  I've done what now?

  You are here making reference to the text in Volume 1 of the Insight Book on page 576, under the heading "Daniel" in the first column, last paragraph, that begins "Nebuchadnezzar's dreams" (not "vol. 1 of the Insight, page 576, left side under dreams"), that contains the phrases "Nebuchadnezzar's second year" and "607 B.C.E.," which reads as follows:

  "Nebuchadnezzar's dreams. In Nebuchadnezzar's second year (probably dating from Jerusalem's overthrow in 607 B.C.E.), he has a dream that 'agitates his spirit.' All the wise men being unable to reveal it, Daniel comes before the king and not only tells him the dream, by divine revelation, but interprets it, thereby saving himself and the other wise men from execution. This prompts Nebuchadnezzar to make Daniel 'ruler over all the jurisdictional district of Babylon and the chief prefect over all the wise men.' (Da 2:48) His three companions receive high positions outside the court, while Daniel serves in the court of the king."

  Please tell me where in the above-quoted paragraph did I quote from Volume 1 of the Insight Book on page 576, under the heading "Daniel" in the first column, last paragraph, that begins "Nebuchadnezzar's dreams"? Unless someone here on JWN (like you!) should make specific reference to something contained in our literature, I am hardly found quoting from our literature in my messages because I prefer using my own words to convey my thoughts. I didn't quote anything from anywhere; I merely recognized Babylon as being the Third World Power of Bible history during the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship in the year 607 BC," and if I had been quoting, I would have used quotation marks and written "607 B.C.E." instead of "607 BC," which proves I wasn't quoting from anything.

  The Bible at Daniel 2 : 1 says very plain "And in the 2nd year of the Kingship of King Neb." So if you believe Neb. 1st year of Kingship is 624, his second year of Kingship is 623. Of course neither one is right. Neb. first year is 605 and 2nd year is 604.

  Actually, no; you are plainly wrong here and have misinterpreted what the prophet Daniel is stating at Daniel 2:1. Where did you get the idea that Daniel was an exile in Babylon during "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar"? You believe you understand what you read at Daniel 2:1, but you really don't understand what this verse is saying at all even though I have made its meaning clear in an earlier message I posted to this thread. Sometimes it's possible to guess the correct meaning of a scripture, but it's better to know what other scriptures that provide guidance to understanding what one reads in the Bible correctly say so that we do not have to resort to guessing. I'm not guessing here, and by the use of logic and math with a little common sense, you won't feel any need to guess either. I don't care if you think you're right, because whatever it is that you might think, you're going to still be wrong unless you are willing to listen to me.

  I indicated that I had interpreted the reference to "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 to mean that it is evident that Babylon was recognized as being the Third World Power of Bible history during Nebuchadnezzar's first year of kingship in the year 607 BC, because Daniel cannot be referring to Nebuchadnezzar's second regnal year since 2 Kings 25:1-11 indicates that it was during "the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon" -- in the year 607 BC -- that Jerusalem came under siege by Babylon so that Jerusalem's wall was successfully breached and its temple destroyed through Nebuchadnezzar's chief of the bodyguard, Nebuzaradan. This passage also states that Zedekiah's sons were all slaughtered as Zedekiah watched, after which Zedekiah himself was blinded, bound and led prisoner to Babylon.

  The significance of the words "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 does not mean that Nebuchadnezzar had begun to dream dreams during Nebuchadnezzar's second year, which, counting from his accession year, would have been the year 624 BC, because his first regnal year would have been the year 625 BC. How do we know this? Because 2 Kings 24:12 states that when Jehoiachin's vassalage to Babylon ended, he became an exile in Babylon along with his wives, his mother, his court officials and other "foremost men," were taken captive to Babylon, and Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, whose names Nebuchadnezzar changed to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego "in the eighth year" of Nebuchadnezzar's being king.

  Do you see now? This means that it isn't possible that Daniel's reference to "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 could have been referring to Nebuchadnezzar's second year as king of Babylon since Daniel didn't become an exile in Babylon until Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year as king of Babylon. Furthermore, 2 Kings 24:17, 18, indicates that Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, reigned as king of Judah "for eleven years," which means that it wasn't until Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year that Zedekiah's reign ended and when Babylon destroyed Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

  Now do the math, @Alwayshere: If Nebuchadnezzar's first year, counting from his accession year, would be the year 625 BC, then Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year would be the year 607 BC ((625-607) + 1 = 19). You may not be willing to believe Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year is the year 607 BC, and that's ok, but the only point I'm making here, regardless of the year you prefer, is this: If Daniel wasn't in exile during Nebuchadnezzar's second year as king of Babylon, then it should be obvious that Daniel must have been referring to Nebuchadnezzar's kingship using a different perspective at Daniel 2:1, namely, he was referring to the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship, with the typical kingdom of God now deposed, as the dominant world power.

  @djeggnog
• 

  AnnOMaly

  djeggnog:

  The list of unanswered questions is still awaiting your attention. Perhaps you think that if you ignore them they will go away. They won't.

  [Response to TD] Now here's the point I would make: According to Ptolemy's Canon, Nabonidus' reign began in the year 556 BC, so if Nabonidus' sixth regnal year would have begun in the spring on Nisan 1, 551 BC, and ended in the spring on Adar 29, 550 BC, but for the fact that this is just a hypothetical.

  For the sake of clarity, Nabonidus' accession (0) year was 556 B.C. and his 6th regnal year was 550/549 B.C.

  IOW, I don't believe the regnal years assigned to the kings of the Babylonian Dynasty in Ptolemy's Canon to be correct. I believe Nabopolassar's reign began in a year earlier than in the year 627 BC; try 646 BC. I also believe that Nabonidus ascended to the throne of Babylon as king earlier than in the year 556 BC and that he reigned longer than just 17 years; try 574 BC with his accession year being 575 BC, and with his son, Belshazzar, who is not mentioned in Ptolemy's Canon, serving during his Nabonidus' third regnal year (572 BC) as coregent with his father as the king of Babylon. ...

  ... Anyone at all that should believe otherwise is free to do so, but I'm fine with assigning 35 years to Nabonidus as king of Babylon and with assigning his son, the crown prince, Belshazzar, 33 years also Nabonidus' coregent ...

  You keep repeating the same assertions but they remain unsubstantiated! Again:

  On what evidence are you basing your alternative dates?

  How do you know Nabonidus and Belshazzar reigned for the periods you allege?

  If you cannot at least attempt to provide any sound bases for your claims, then you (like our celebrated Neil McF.) are just another stuffed shirt.

  [Response to Alwayshere] I don't care if you think you're right, because whatever it is that you might think, you're going to still be wrong unless you are willing to listen to me.

  This says it all.

  "Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." - Prov. 26:12 KJV.
• 

  Dutch-scientist

  So Djeggnog;

  you say when the romans destroy Jerusalem at 70 AD they became world power then?

  For the Babylon case they had Judah already under control before they destroy Jerusalem. Even after the destroy of this city they went no world power beacuse they have still big fights with Egypt!

  If you project your philosophy on WWII you will create also an mess what you already do now for this Babylon case.

  If you compare outher war campains you see the same line coming back!

  If you accept 539 BC as an event where you descriped the fall of Babylon then theer are consequences what you dont try to see.

  You can not say with this value then that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC its the same saying 5 + 2 = 9

  We know that the answer is 9 but we dont try to see how we get to 9.

  If you like to promote 607 BC the you need to drop 539 BC as the fall for Babylon and need to make it 559BC for this event.

  WTS and math cant go into one door thats for shure.
• 

  Alwayshere

  djeggnog, When did Assyria fall?

  Where in the Bible does it say, "the kingdom of Judah was deposed during

  Neb. 18th year?
• 

  djeggnog

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  The Bible at Daniel 2 : 1 says very plain "And in the 2nd year of the Kingship of King Neb." So if you believe Neb. 1st year of Kingship is 624, his second year of Kingship is 623. Of course neither one is right. Neb. first year is 605 and 2nd year is 604.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Actually, no; you are plainly wrong here and have misinterpreted what the prophet Daniel is stating at Daniel 2:1. Where did you get the idea that Daniel was an exile in Babylon during "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar"?

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  When did Assyria fall?

  What difference does it make when it was Assyria fell to the Babylonians? This thread is about when it was Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. You didn't answer my question about this idea of yours regarding the reference in Daniel 2:1 to Nebuchadnezzar's second year. Did you understand the things I spelled out for you in my last message?

  Where in the Bible does it say, "the kingdom of Judah was deposed during Neb. 18th year?

  Why do you ask me this question when you've more than aptly demonstrated that when it comes to discussing these questions, you are an illiterate because of an inability to comprehend certain concepts that are necessary if one is going to be able to analyze the answers given to perplexing questions like this one as well as the related ones that have been raised in this thread? Like I stated in my last message, you are someone that believes that you understand what you read in the Bible, such as what you read at Daniel 2:1, but because you currently lack the degree of humility necessary to be able to understand the things I've told you here, you resort to guessing and your guesses are all wrong.

  Like I also stated, I don't care if you think you're right, because whatever it is that you might think to be right, you're still going to be wrong unless you are willing to listen to me. You still may not agree with me, but at least were you to hear me, were you to listen to what things I have said to you here, you would at least be in a position to know what it is you would need to verify to see whether or not the things I have said to you here are so, to see whether or not I have spoken the truth.

  At Matthew 18:3, Jesus said that we must "turnaround and become as young children," which means you must be teachable: Listen to what I say and then verify what things I have said to you because no one can do the second unless they have first listened. Letting yourself be teachable as are little children that aren't haughty, they don't think too highly of themselves, that have a humble spirit, that are willing to listen, this is what humility means. Be teachable.

  If you are here seeking answers to questions about the fall of Jerusalem because you think by your doing so you will gain eternal life, then you're wasting your time in this endeavor (John 5:39); Jesus stated that if you do not have the love of God in you, your having all of the answers to such questions will not lead to eternal life. (John 5:42) Since knowledge can 'puff one up,' and those having the love of God in them doesn't allow themselves to become puffed up with it since love "does not get puffed up," while 'love builds us up.' (1 Corinthians 8:1; 13:4) Be teachable.

  Even if you should think the person from whom you have requested directions to get back to your hotel when you become a bit disoriented or lost in a strange town may dispense bad advice to you because of one of your biases that make it hard for you to trust people -- because he's a homeless person, because he's a black guy or a Hispanic guy, because he's a white guy sporting lots of tattoos that make you think he could be a member of a gang, or because he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses -- be humble enough to at least listen to the directions he gives you; you don't have to put faith in those directions, mind you, but at least you heard them. This will then put you in the position to go ask someone else for directions to your hotel with the hope that by obtaining verification of the advice you were initially given, you will not be led astray, and you will indeed be joyful because, by so doing, you were able to make it back to your hotel. Be teachable.

  I may have a vast knowledge of the truth, but I also realize that 'I don't yet know the truth as I ought to know it'; this is my attitude. (1 Corinthians 8:2) All of the things I have said here, even if the way I may have articulated some of them should have sounded rather harsh to you, I have said for your upbuilding, not to tear you down, but to help you gain knowledge of things I have discerned that you, and well as others here, clearly do not know, in order that you might be able to conduct the kind of satisfying research that leads to joy because you did it, because you verified for yourself the things that you heard me say here, and because you will have 'proved to yourself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.' (Romans 12:2)

  You really should not want to be like some of those here on JWN that are "puffed up with pride, not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." (1Timothy 6:4) They will throw out all sorts of arguments for consideration, not out of love for God and neighbor, but to (hopefully) win the arguments that they advance for no good purpose. If you are content to posit one useless arguments after another, that's ok, but hopefully those lurking this thread will have heard the points I've made here and will 'carefully examine the Scriptures themselves to verify for themselves whether what things I have said here are really so.' (Acts 17:11)

  @djeggnog
• 

  PSacramento

  The funniest part in this whole thread is when DJ self proclaims himself a biblical scholar !!!

  Still laughing about that one !
• 

  AnnOMaly

  djeggnog:

  Yes, I'm still here.

  Listen to what I say and then verify what things I have said to you because no one can do the second unless they have first listened.

  How can anyone further verify the things that you have said when you refuse to answer legitimate questions about those things that you've said, hmm?