@Alwayshere:
Some Bible scholar, Can't even give a scripture from the Bible.
I provided many scriptures in my posts, but you failed to comprehend them. Consequently, you are forced to ask me stupid questions that I choose not to answer for a third time. This problem of yours isn't my fault, is it? I mean, why should I feel responsible for your apparent disabilities? (I don't.) I obtained an education; you clearly did not, but this is a problem that you can remedy by taking a remedial course in reading comprehension. You cannot pretend to be have an education; either to have one or you don't.
You're fooling no one but yourself when you pretend to have understood what things I wrote in response to your questions the first and second times. I have no idea why you would take the position that your failure to understand those scriptures that I provided to you, those scriptures that your disabilities prevented you from comprehending, made it my fault because you couldn't bother to ask someone smarter than yourself what those scriptures that I had cited meant. Maybe you should consider asking someone now what they meant, but I'm done with you.
@AnnOMaly:
Where did you initially get 557 B.C. as the beginning of Belshazzar's 17 year rule?
I don't believe 557 BC to be the beginning of Belshazzar's rule, nor do I believe Belshazzar's reign lasted for only 17 years. Did you notice that whenever I attributed only 17 years to Belshazzar's reign, I would include this reference within a left and right bracket?
Nabopolassar, 646 BC for 21 years
Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years
Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years
Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years
Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months
Nabonidus and Belshazzar, coregents, from 575/574 BC for 35 years
[Belshazzar (557/556 BC) for 17 years]
End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC
The reason I would do this was as a kind of concession that Belshazzar was the king of Babylon for at least 17 years, as I indicated in my message to @TD, but it isn't possible for me to concede Belshazzar rulership over Babylon since I maintain that his father's reign, Nabonidus' reign, began in the year 575 BC and not 556 BC, which is year indicated in 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
In the same message that was directed to @TD, I told him that the following is my "king-list":
Nabopolassar, 646 BC for 21 years
Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years
Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years
Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years
Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months
Nabonidus and Belshazzar, coregents, from 575/574 BC for 35 years
[Belshazzar (572 BC) for 33 years]
End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC
Did you notice that again, when referring to Belshazzar's reign, that it appears within a left and right bracket? I am intentionally underscoring what I believe to be true as to Belshazzar's reign, namely, that in his father's third regnal year -- in 572 BC -- Nabonidus appointed the crown prince, his eldest son, coregent with respect to his rulership over Babylon, and based on Daniel's references to Belshazzar as the king of Babylon, I am satisfied that Belshazzar was recognized as the king of Babylon.
Once you realized that Belshazzar was appointed kingship over Babylon in Nabonidus' 3rd year, you alter your start date for his reign to 572 B.C. so that Belshazzar ruled 33 years. How do you know he reigned that length of time? Where is your evidence?
In this thread, I made reference to Professor Millard's work, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," published back in 1985. If you are really looking for evidence regarding Belshazzar's rule, you should maybe read it. Also, the "Verse Account of Nabonidus" indicates that it was during the "third year" of his rule that Nabonidus "entrusted the kingship" to his "oldest," Belshazzar. IOW, as to limiting Belshazzar's rule to only 17 years, there is archaeological evidence to the contrary; I don't believe 17 years to be accurate, but, then again, you want to make this 70-year prophecy a unfulfilled prophecy and you want the well-researched date of 607 BC to not be true, which is the year that the faithful and discreet slave has published for decades as being the beginning of the Gentile Times.
The Nabonidus Chronicle has Nabonidus' rule ending at his year 17. We all agree that his rule ended when Babylon fell in 539 B.C. It only takes basic math to figure that his 1st year would have been 555 B.C. Nabonidus' 3rd year, therefore, would be 553 B.C. So again, where do you get your alternative dates from?
We do not all of us agree -- meaning you and I don't agree -- that Nabonidus' rule ended during his 17th year; I believe his reign lasted for 35 years, beginning in 575/574 BC. I've provided above the source of my "alternative dates," but I expect you to ignore them, which is fine with me, @AnnOMaly.
@Witness My Fury wrote:
I highly recommend the book. Eggnog if you havent read it then I suggest you do and like me probably more than once to get the full sense of it.
@djeggnog wrote:
Enjoy reading [Jonsson's] book, @Witness My Fury. He is entitled to his opinion the same as you, but he ignores archaeological evidence that I have found to be illuminating.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
It's quite obvious you haven't even read his book ("I don't suppose Johsson's [sic] book explain's any of this ... ") so you have no real idea whether or not he ignores anything. But please explain anyway, what archaeological evidence do you imagine Jonsson has ignored?
Who are you? Do you mean that because I misspelled the last name of the author of the book, Gentile Times Reconsidered, by Carl Olof Jonsson, the full title of it being "The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Chronology and Christ's Return," that this meant that I had read the man's book? Are you stupid? I never make statements out of a vacuum, and believe me when I tell you that the reason I have difficulty exchanging barbs with you -- which, tbh, that is exactly what we're doing, exchanging barbs with one another -- is because I really don't know if you're stupid. You could be, but the jury is still out on you. I'm hoping that you are suffering from a mental disability that makes it difficult for you to hear my words as one of Jehovah's Witnesses without regarding them -- that is, my words -- as coming from Jehovah's Witnesses or the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, which people you hate because Jesus promised that he would be with his anointed congregation "all the days until the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 28:20)
But I'm the one that is exchanging messages with you here, not the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm thinking that you think me to be stupid or foolish, but I can assure you that I am neither. Jonsson's book, on page 62, references Raymond Franz' book, Crisis of Conscience, and on page 176 of Franz' book, he references Jonsson's book in connection with his (Franz') statement as to how "607 B.C.E. ... was contradicted by all known historical evidence." IMO, Franz was quite foolish to have thought there to have been any real merit to Jonsson's conclusions, for had he actually read Jonsson's book and understood what Jonsson had actually wrote, he would certainly have discovered that his proofs that contradicted God's organization involved (1) a dream, (2) an eclipse and (3) a 54-year period that marks Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year, something that scholars like Jonsson are typically and profoundly guilty of doing:
First, he makes reference (on page 109) to a cylinder inscription (Nabon. No. 8) that "clearly establishes the total length of the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings up to Nabonidus, and enables us to know both the beginning of year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the crucial year in which he desolated Jerusalem." He refers (on page 111) to the same "Nabon. No. 8 as consisting of "'a report on the accession year and the beginning of the first regnal year of Nabonidus' and may be shown ... to have been written toward the end of his first regnal year (in the autumn of 555 B.C.E.)," which Jonsson says "helps us to establish the total length of the period from Nabopolassar to the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus." He then associates (on page 111) the inscription on Nabon. No. 8 and 24 (among others) with a dream that Nabonidus allegedly had "in his accession year," btw, the emphasis in italics on the words "accession year" are Jonsson's.
BTW, Jonsson makes reference (on page 109) to another cylinder inscription (Nabon No. 24) that "provides the length of the reign of each Neo-Babylonian king from the first ruler, Nabopolassar, onward and down to the ninth year of the last ruler, Nabonidus (Belshazzar was evidently a coregent with his father Nabonidus at the time of Babylon's fall)." Jonsson's mention of Belshazzar as "coregent with his father" destroys his Babylonian chronology that he attributes solely to Nabonidus. But forget about this for now; it's a funny fact to me, which is why I mention it now.
Jonsson then goes on to elaborate (on page 109) to another cylinder inscription (Nabon. No. 18) "from an unnamed year of Nabonidus" in which he says explains that a lunar eclipse had occurred on September 26, 554 BC, coincided with the dedication of Nabonidus' daughter "as priestess" when the moon had "set while eclipsed," which eclipse, according to a footnote, was reckoned based on astrologers "who regularly based their interpretations on astronomical events" (this is exactly what Jonsson writes in footnote 42 on page 110!) had only "occurred some "fifty-four years earlier, on August 24, 608 B.C.E." (this is in footnote 45 on page 111). Jonsson connects this dream (mentioned above) to a 54-year period (on page 112) in which he claims Nabonidus was commanded by the gods of Babylon (Marduk and Sin) to rebuild a Babylonian temple that had been devastated by the Medes to the "'sixteenth year' of Nabopolassar." Were you able to follow any of this? There's more!
He then says (on page 112) how "it is obvious that Nabonidus reckons the 'fifty-four years' from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar to the beginning of his own reign when the gods commanded him to rebuild the temple." And then (in footnote 51 on page 112) he says "all scholars agree that Nabonidus reckons the fifty-four years from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar until his own accession-year when .... Nabonidus was commanded to rebuilt the temple." What Jonsson is really saying in this footnote is that he agrees with himself as well as with these scholars about the 54 years, but he doesn't explain to us the significance of Nabopolassar's 16th year. He cracks the case wide open! He then references Ptolemy's Canon ("the Royal Canon") and explains (on page 113) that summing up the last five years of Nabopolassar's 21-year reign, Nebuchadnezzar's 43 years, Evil-Merodach's two years, and Neriglissar's four years, ignoring Labashi-Marduk's three-month reign, "(5+43+2+4) we get fifty-four years-exactly as Nabonidus states on his stele," and the emphasis in italics on the words "fifty-four years-exactly" are Jonsson's.
I do know that Franz is the now-deceased leader of the cult following that exists here on JWN, with many JWN members here clearly having memorized at least some of the text that they found through reading either one or both of Franz' books, as well as having learned much about the truth from having either been born-in or having studied with one of Jehovah's Witnesses. You seem to have read a portion of Jonsson's book, but I only covered here pages 109-113 of Gentile Times Reconsidered and I can absolutely guarantee that if you happened upon these five pages that you didn't get it, (why?) because the man said nothing scholarly. Reading such books can make those whose faith is weak fall victim to the stupidity of the author. Perhaps this is what happened to you, for the Bible warns that "by smooth talk and complimentary speech" such folks are able to "seduce the hearts of guileless ones." (Romans 16:18)
You want to be a disciple of Franz and I'm fine with that, but I would have disfellowshipped the man, too, for teaching what things that are contained in his books, things that those among God's people who were weak in faith would, upon reading them, likely be persuaded to a different opinion due to their inability to discern that they were being deceived by an apostate. It is for their sake that the faithful and discreet slave as represented by our governing body warns against reading apostate literature or visiting apostate websites. BTW, JWN isn't an apostate website, for clearly as long as I'm here and @Simon doesn't declare it to be otherwise, it isn't, and IMO it's dangerous for those whose faith is weak to be reading the vast majority of the threads that are available here. I use your posts to speak to the lurkers here on JWN, because I really don't have anything to say to a disciple of a dead guy. (Jesus, on the other hand, is very much alive, and I believe we ought to be his disciples!) I might see your messages, but when I have nothing to say, I will just skip them.
Anyone here that should have concluded, as Franz did, that he was somehow shafted by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, treated unfairly by our governing body for buying into Jonsson's nonsense -- and I quoted exactly without editorializing what Jonsson writes in Gentile Times Reconsidered -- is as misguided as was Franz and Jonsson, both of whom had formerly been Jehovah's Witnesses, but who chose to become apostates that seemed to delight in undermining the things that they learned the Bible teaches.
Yes, @AnnOMaly, I'm guilty of making not a few typos in my posts, like, for instance, when I spelled Jonsson's last name incorrectly, and I think you might make a fine proofreader, except that, in the bigger picture, my typos aren't all that important. There may even be at least one typo in this message, but thanks for all you do. But I am also guilty of ignoring those here that tend to post cut-and-pasted remarks with which they associate themselves, remarks that were originated by others, which remarks they do not understand and are indefensible (as per the recent messages posted by @thetrueone) because I'd rather exchange posts with the author of such remarks than their lackeys that merely glom onto or gravitate to folks they think to be smarter than they.
I hardly ever quote from our publications; my quotes primarily come from the Bible because I've studied the Bible and have made it my own, so that my faith needs no "crutch" on which to stand. I am standing based solely on my faith and if I'm smarter than you, then why not listen to me? why not imitate me even as I am an imitator of Christ? why not imitate my faith? (1 Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 3:17; Hebrews 13:7) One can always do their own research to see if the things I have said here are truly the case, but you have to hear what I said before you can verify what things I've said here.
I'm sure you know well that Jehovah's Witnesses have their own language, their own words, as it were, which is why it is that you are able to understand what I am saying here even though you no longer claim to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is unfortunate. But you weren't distressed, in fact, no one here on JWN that has ever studied with or been one of Jehovah's Witnesses in the past felt any distress over the prediction which has already begun to fail as in New Zealand, as of the time when I'm posting this message, it is already a few minutes past 6:00 pm on Saturday, May 21, 2011, because you have been enlightened as to the fact that Armageddon will be preceded by the outbreak of the great tribulation, which is a sobering thought for many of you here. I only wish you and others here would return to Jehovah before it becomes too late to do so.
@djeggnog
If you believe he said nothing 'scholarly' then methinks you are the one that doesn't 'get it.'