Hey guys, and you Eggy,go check out Ian dury, and the blockheads, on youtube,( There aint have been some clever Bastards) lol, its religion nuetral.
607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)
by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
djeggnog
@djeggnog wrote:
According to the Encyclopedia Americana, Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadrezzar) was the king of Babylon from 625/624 BC for 43 years, and was succeeded by his oldest son, Evil-Merodach, as king of Babylon from 581 BC for two years. Evil-Merodach was assassinated by Neriglissar, his brother-in-law, who succeeded him as king of Babylon from 579 BC for four years, when he died as his son Labashi-Marduk succeeded him as king of Babylon in 575 BC for three months when he was assassinated. Nabonidus, who, like Neriglissar, was one of Nebuchadnezzar's sons-in-law, became the king of Babylon after Labashi-Marduk's assassination in 575/574 BC for 35 years along with his son Belshazzar, the crown prince, who as coregent in Babylon was also viewed as king, while Nabonidus primarily lived in Arabia. Cyrus overthrow of Babylon in 539 BC is what brought the Babylonian Dynasty to an end.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
What a whopper! The Encyclopedia Americana does NOT give those regnal dates. Bad eggnog!
The above-quoted statement was based on not just Volume 2 of the Encyclopedia Americana (regarding Nabonidus), but I omitted to mention Josephus, who provided the basis for some of my comments (such as those regarding Evil-merodach), and there are many more sources that I omitted to name, since I only wanted to list the kings of Babylon that reigned during the period when the land of Judah was paying off its sabbaths to fulfill 70 years. You are free to believe me or to not believe me. One more thing:
Where does the book of Leviticus declare how long the land would pay off its sabbaths?
Leviticus has nothing at all to do with any of this, so why do you make mention of it?
@AnnOMaly wrote:
The Bible actually indicates Jehoiakim was vassal before that, i.e. in his third year (Dan. 1:1,2).
@djeggnog wrote:
Yes, he was, but not for Babylon, for it was during the eighth year of his reign as king of Judah that he became Babylon's vassal king. Maybe you assumed something that Daniel did not mean when he referred to Jehoiakim's "third year" at Daniel 1:1, 2, I don't know, but while Jehoiakim had been enthroned for a total of 11 years, Jehoiakim had been a vassal king for Egypt at the time Nebuchadnezzar had defeated Pharaoh Necho in 625 BC. (Jeremiah 46:2) Jehoiakim became a vassal king for Babylon and then went on to revolt against Babylon in 620 BC after a three-year vassalage, which is to what "in the third year of his kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah" refers at Daniel 1:1.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
Where in the Bible do you get that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year?
@djeggnog wrote:
2 Kings 24:12:
"At length Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he with his mother and his servants and his princes and his court officials; and the king of Babylon got to take him in the eighth year of his being king."
You know what, @AnnOMaly? Your asking me this particular question makes it rather difficult for me to take what you are now saying seriously. Like I said in my previous message, I believe you are arguing with me just because you can do so. In this thread, my intent was to use the Bible "(and some common sense)" to prove that 607 BC is the year when Jerusalem and the land of Judah became desolate, just as the prophet Jeremiah prophesied at , and I believe I had done just that. What you're doing now is rather lame and I believe it is because you have your mind already made up as to the Bible being wrong, and I'm willing to accept this about you.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
ROFL!
A) You've referred me to a passage about Jehoiachin, not Jehoiakim.
You're absolutely right, @AnnOMaly! I was hurriedly preparing my last response to your post from the office this morning since the attorney with whom I work and I were just about to make a court appearance in Los Angeles Superior Court here in Downtown Los Angeles, which in my haste caused me to not post a proper response to your question regarding King Jehoiakim. The truth is I have already answered your question, but I thought I had located the definite response to it – which I didn't! – and instead posted something that had nothing at all to do with King Jehoiakim. I'm sorry about citing 2 King 24:12, which refers to Jehoiachin and not Jehoiakim, but this message will be a more definitive one.
B) The "eighth year of his being king" refers to the "king of Babylon," ya doofus!
If by "doofus," you mean "imperfect, that at times I might disappoint myself by saying something to someone that I did not intend to say, then you're right, and instead of @djeggnog, you may feel free to call me "Doofy" as a kind of nickname.
In the face of being unable to rebut my arguments, the rest of your answer is just you hurling your toys out your playpen in temper. Hilarious!
Why would you assume that I am unable to "rebut" anything? Did you posit an argument? If you did, I didn't read it. At any rate, I will now go on here to post a proper response to your question on which I admit I flubbed though not intentionally.
Let me back up a bit: Again, your question was:
@AnnOMaly wrote:
The Bible actually indicates Jehoiakim was vassal before that, i.e. in his third year (Dan. 1:1,2).
@djeggnog wrote:
Yes, he was, but not for Babylon, for it was during the eighth year of his reign as king of Judah that he became Babylon's vassal king. Maybe you assumed something that Daniel did not mean when he referred to Jehoiakim's "third year" at Daniel 1:1, 2, I don't know, but while Jehoiakim had been enthroned for a total of 11 years, Jehoiakim had been a vassal king for Egypt at the time Nebuchadnezzar had defeated Pharaoh Necho in 625 BC. (Jeremiah 46:2) Jehoiakim became a vassal king for Babylon and then went on to revolt against Babylon in 620 BC after a three-year vassalage, which is to what "in the third year of his kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah" refers at Daniel 1:1.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
Where in the Bible do you get that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year?
My answer is based on 2 Kings 24:1, which I did not quote in my previous response:
"In his days Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon came up, and so Je·hoi´a·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him."
I would ask that you not ignore this time this portion of my response to your question as to 'where in the Bible do I learn that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year.'
Just as I had written in my previous message in response to your question, we learn upon reading Jeremiah 46:2 that "it was during the fourth year of the reign of King Jehoiakim's reign that the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadrezzar), was victorious over the king of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho; this was in the year 625 BC.
"The next year, in 624 BC, Nebuchadnezzar officially ascended to the throne following his father's death, Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year, which was his second accession year, and in his fifth regnal year as king, Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal king; this was during Jehoiakim's eighth year in 620 BC. (2 Kings 24:1) However, Jehoiakim's rebellion some three years later -- that would be the years 620 BC, 619 BC and 618 BC -- resulted in both Jerusalem being besieged by Babylon and in Jehoiakim's death in 618 BC, so that his son, Jehoiachin, then became Babylon's vassal king during Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year until Jehoiachin's vassalage ended after about three months in 617 BC. (2 Kings 24:11, 12)
@the prisoner No 6:
Eggy old chap its not a crime to hold your hands up, admit you were wrong, I have had to do this so many times since I arrived at this site, mostly no one but me was aware, sometimes here publicly.
But I have no reason to 'throw my hands up,' so to speak here. As I just explained, I didn't respond to the question that I had been asked as to King Jehoaikim, which I'm now doing. This question is one of many questions that I've fielded in the past, and I can assure you that my answer to this question and to all such questions regarding the soundness of the year 607 BC isn't wrong.
Initially when I first lurked here I kind of looked at your posts and hoped you would be able to rebut and defend theWTS I [secretly] hoped you had the answers and i would not have to confront the inevitable fallout of having to face up to the fact I had been duped, and its not an easy place to be, but this is where we are
I cannot and I do not claim to have all of the answers to the questions folks here on JWN might pose, but I do believe I have the answers to all of the questions that pertain to what the Bible teaches in support of the year 607 BC as the year in which "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon" by the Jews began, during which "the land [of Judah would pay] off its sabbaths ... to fulfill seventy years." (Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:21)
If you should lack faith in what things you have read for yourself in the Bible, then you are certainly free to believe that you were duped by Jehovah's Witnesses to believe 607 BC to be the year in which the land of Judah began to pay off its sabbaths to fulfill 70 years. You were not duped, @the prisoner No 6, but you are certainly free to believe you were if this should be your choice.
@PSacramento:
607 has been beaten to death.
It has? Ok.
It has been shown over and over and over to be wrong.
Ok.
It has been shown via the bible, via history, via astronomy, via archeology.
I may have referred to cuneiform tablets, but I have primarily referred to the Bible in making the case that the land of Judah began to pay off its sabbaths to fulfill 70 years in the year 607 BC.
@Mad Dawg:
I have some questions here:
Does the Bible speak clearly of the nations serving Nebby or not?
Yes.
If yes, please show it clearly. There is nothing clear about the walls of text you post.
The basis of my "yes" here is Jeremiah 25:11, which states:
"And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
Why are you referring to a Babylonian tablet to establish the date? You have said on other threads that you could establish the date using only the Bible.
First, I noted that the OP (@Witness My Fury) began this thread by making mention of Carl Olaf Jonsson's book "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" into this thread:
Now Carl Olaf [Jonsson] in The Gentile Times Reconsidered does the heavy lifting and demolishes 607 totally and full kudos goes to him for his excellent book, but we all know most Witnesses will stop reading and thinking the minute they detect any contrary viewpoint, so I wanted a way using ONLY the bible as a 1st step before [unleashing] the hounds on them.
Subsequently, there was a post from @Larsinger58 to which I did not directly reply, but in it I noted his mention of "Nabonicus Chronicle, Cyrus Cylinder, and Babylonian Chronicle" as well as "VAT4956," and specifically as to the latter he wrote:
Just in passing, C.O. Jonsson used to consider the VAT4956 as the most important ancient text for dating the NB Period.
It doesn't much matter whether I can establish the date using only the Bible or not if one doesn't put faith in what it says, and@Larsinger58 and @AnnOMaly, as two examples, clearly do not believe what the Bible says, and because I recognize their arguments as originating with proponents of 587 BC, I feel I must also provide corresponding arguments as well to address, even if not comprehensively so, the arguments that they have made.
Even if you should refer that I not respond to those that would make reference to such extrabiblical sources, it would be foolish to pretend that these arguments weren't injected into this thread, and yet I have also provided scriptural proof that the land of Judah began to pay off its sabbaths to fulfill 70 years in the year 607 BC. I tend to respond to posts in the way I choose to respond to them, so, @Mad Dawg, I'm going to ask you to please not concern yourself with how I respond to the posts in this thread, ok?
If the authority of the GB rests on them being "chosen" in 1919, which depends on the "prophecy" of 1914, which in turn rests solely on a Babylonian tablet; then doesn't that mean that your entire religion rests on Babylonian writings - not the Bible?
Now it seems your concern about what I decided to address in my posts that may have been extrabiblical in nature in response to those here that introduced mention of these matters into this thread was disingenuous, for why would you now be asking me a question about the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, for whom I've come to know from other thread to which you have posted you have a pathological hatred, or about "a Babylonian tablet"? Other than this, I have no comment.
Bear in mind that I don't question if Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled. I question if it were fulfilled in the manner that the GB says it was. Without the supposed "double fulfillment", which is not required by the text, then it doesn't matter if Jerusalem fell in 597, 617, or 627.
I don't care what your reason may have been for positing such questions; I really don't. I believe that you are only interested in using JWN threads to bash Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't care to engage you over things that must keep you up at night. I don't care if bashing Jehovah's Witnesses should be the reason you are able to get up every day, for I know that eventually the day when the relief you seek from your "anxieties of life" will come.
My point here is that I don't have the time for this kind of nonsense from anyone. If you want to bash Jehovah's Witnesses, do that, but I'm not going to facilitate your bashing us, considering that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, by responded to "loaded" anti-governing body, anti-Jehovah's Witness-type questions from you or from anyone.
@djeggnog
-
thetrueone
According to the Encyclopedia Americana, Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadnezzar) was the king of Babylon from 625/624 BC for 43 years.
Wrong every where else says that he was or became king after the death of his father not until 605 BCE.
He lived from 634 – 562 BC and ruled Babylon from 605 BC – 562 BC
Which brings up the question how does the WTS. evaluate this documented fact confirmed by many pieces of archaeological evidence ?
Of course the WTS rather use their date because its fits oh so well with a said prophecy.
( you know every person in the bible told the truth because they were all perfect men) just like all the men of the WTS publishing company.
-
AnnOMaly
@AnnOMaly wrote: ...
I thought you were done with me and my meritless, fruitless arguing ;-)
[Ann formerly] What a whopper! The Encyclopedia Americana does NOT give those regnal dates. Bad eggnog!
[djeggnog] The above-quoted statement was based on not just Volume 2 of the Encyclopedia Americana (regarding Nabonidus), but I omitted to mention Josephus ...
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA DOES NOT GIVE THE DATES YOU ATTRIBUTE TO IT. That makes you grossly dishonest in saying what you did.
[Ann formerly] Where does the book of Leviticus declare how long the land would pay off its sabbaths?
[djeggnog] Leviticus has nothing at all to do with any of this, so why do you make mention of it?
I thought you'd researched this subject. Get your NWT and check the cross-references to 2 Chron. 36:21. When you've done that, please come back and answer my questions regarding harmonizing the three texts.
I'm sorry about citing 2 King 24:12
OK :-)
[Ann formerly] Where in the Bible do you get that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year?
[djeggnog] My answer is based on 2 Kings 24:1, which I did not quote in my previous response:
"In his days Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon came up, and so Je·hoi´a·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him."
Let's stop here for a moment. Let it be noted that no regnal year is mentioned - only a period of 3 years: beginning year unknown; end year unknown.
I would ask that you not ignore this time this portion of my response to your question as to 'where in the Bible do I learn that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year.'
I didn't ignore it. I didn't see the answer. But to humor you, let's continue ...
Just as I had written in my previous message in response to your question, we learn upon reading Jeremiah 46:2 that "it was during the fourth year of the reign of King Jehoiakim's reign that the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadrezzar), was victorious over the king of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho; this was in the year 625 BC.
OK. And yet still nothing that could lead us to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal in Jehoiakim's 8th year.
"The next year, in 624 BC, Nebuchadnezzar officially ascended to the throne following his father's death, Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year, which was his second accession year, and in his fifth regnal year as king, Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal king; this was during Jehoiakim's eighth year in 620 BC. (2 Kings 24:1)
Well you've assumed that Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim vassal in his 8th year and you've again cited 2 Ki. 24:1 which, as we've seen, doen't mention a regnal year and doesn't support your assumption. (By the way, there's no such thing as a 'second accession year.')
However, Jehoiakim's rebellion some three years later -- that would be the years 620 BC, 619 BC and 618 BC -- resulted in both Jerusalem being besieged by Babylon and in Jehoiakim's death in 618 BC, so that his son, Jehoiachin, then became Babylon's vassal king during Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year until Jehoiachin's vassalage ended after about three months in 617 BC. (2 Kings 24:11, 12)
So getting back to my questions:
- Can you explain how Jehoiakim came to be Nebuchadnezzar's vassal BEFORE he invaded the land and besieged Jerusalem for the first time, as you claim, in 618?
- Where in the Bible do you get that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year? So far, you've failed to provide anything grounded in Scripture to support this assumption.
... and @AnnOMaly, as two examples, clearly do not believe what the Bible says ...
I'm taking the Bible's testimony very seriously. The Bible is key in helping to dispel erroneous WT notions about chronology and the 70 years. Please don't repeat that falsehood again.
-
djeggnog
@AnnOMaly wrote:
And yet still nothing that could lead us to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal in Jehoiakim's 8th year.
Why do you say this? Jehoiakim had been a vassal of Egypt before the king of Egypt was defeated in 625 BC. This would have been the eighth year of Jehoiakim's rulership and would also have been the beginning of Jehoiakim's three-year vassalage for Babylon.
@djeggnog wrote:
The next year, in 624 BC, Nebuchadnezzar officially ascended to the throne following his father's death, Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year, which was his [second "accession" year], and in his fifth regnal year as king, Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal king; this was during Jehoiakim's eighth year in 620 BC. (2 Kings 24:1)
@AnnOMaly wrote:
Well you've assumed that Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim vassal in his 8th year and you've again cited 2 Ki. 24:1 which, as we've seen, doen't mention a regnal year and doesn't support your assumption. (By the way, there's no such thing as a 'second accession year.')
First, you're right about there being no such thing as a second accession year, but I use this expression to indicate the period before the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's regnal year, so what I should have done was to have used quotation marks around the word "accession" as I have done this time in the above quote.
Second, I had cited 2 Kings 24:1 which verse makes reference to Jehoiakim, the same verse that I had cited in an earlier post, but after I had mistakenly quoted 2 Kings 24:12, which verse makes reference to his son, Jehoiachin, I pointed out to you that it had been intent to cite 2 Kings 24:1, which I have done again so that there would be no misunderstanding.
Third, you're complaining to me that the words "regnal year" aren't used in 2 Kings 24:1, but neither are the words "accession words" used anywhere in the Bible, so, again, it seems you just want to argue just for the sake of doing so since you realize your argument is a futile one. If Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebopolassar, should die in 625 BC, and Nebuchadnezzar, as Nebopolassar's son, the crown prince, should at this time ascend to the throne of Babylon as its king, it may be "assumed" that 625 BC would be Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, even if the words themselves do not appear in the Bible. If you insist on making this argument, then it might be more aptly described as a conclusion based on an assumption.
Fourth, as to Jehoiakim's vassalage to Babylon, I made the following statement in this thread --
Now the first time that Nebuchadnezzar had besieged Jerusalem was in 620 BC during Jehoiakim's third year of his vassal kingship to Babylon over Judah. (Daniel 1:1)
-- and note that in my statement I cite Daniel 1:1 as support for my statement, which states:
"In the third year of the kingship of Je·hoi'a·kim the king of Judah, Neb·u·chad·nez'zar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it."
Your argument, @AnnOMaly, has no merit whatsoever. Now I assume the patriarch Abraham to have been Esau and Jacob's grandfather, even though the word "grandfather" is not used anywhere in the Bible. Is my conclusion about Abraham's relationship to Esau and Jacob based on a wrong assumption? Perhaps, but even if you don't wish, for whatever reason, to accept the fact that Jehoiakim, before his eighth year as king of Judah, had been a vassal king for Egypt, I'm ok with that, and if you are unprepared to accept the fact that Jehoiakim, during his eighth year as king of Judah, had been a vassal king for Babylon, I'm ok with your unwillingness to make such assumptions, but what I'm saying to you here is that I believe your argument to rather frivolous, even silly.
@djeggnog wrote:
However, Jehoiakim's rebellion some three years later -- that would be the years 620 BC, 619 BC and 618 BC -- resulted in both Jerusalem being besieged by Babylon and in Jehoiakim's death in 618 BC, so that his son, Jehoiachin, then became Babylon's vassal king during Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year until Jehoiachin's vassalage ended after about three months in 617 BC. (2 Kings 24:11, 12)
@AnnOMaly wrote:
So getting back to my questions:
- Can you explain how Jehoiakim came to be Nebuchadnezzar's vassal BEFORE he invaded the land and besieged Jerusalem for the first time, as you claim, in 618?
I can and I have done so using the Bible, but you have chosen not to believe the Bible.
- Where in the Bible do you get that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year? So far, you've failed to provide anything grounded in Scripture to support this assumption.
I would expect someone that doesn't believe anything that the Bible should say that contradicts your own point of view to be making such an assertion, but I feel no need to answer this question a third time
@djeggnog wrote in response to @Mad Dawg:
It doesn't much matter whether I can establish the date using only the Bible or not if one doesn't put faith in what it says, and@Larsinger58 and @AnnOMaly, as two examples, clearly do not believe what the Bible says, and because I recognize their arguments as originating with proponents of 587 BC, I feel I must also provide corresponding arguments as well to address, even if not comprehensively so, the arguments that they have made.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
I'm taking the Bible's testimony very seriously. The Bible is key in helping to dispel erroneous WT notions about chronology and the 70 years. Please don't repeat that falsehood again.
No, the Bible is key to learning what things we must do today to be saved. Bible chronology serves a beneficial purpose, but the fact that you think using the Bible to argue the veracity of recorded Bible history as against secular history to be key to 'dispelling erroneous WT notions about chronology' suggests to me that you have taken a different view of the Bible than I. You use the Bible to winning arguments totally misses its purpose, for winning arguments is not its purpose.
My hope is that by reading what things I have said to you (and others) in this thread that the lurkers here might see how you use the Bible and how I use it, and come to realize that the arguments made here on JWN against their believing the Bible based on what prejudices they might hold against Jehovah's Witnesses or more specifically the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses are totally without merit. What is important is our believing that it is by our exercising faith in God's provision of the ransom that He provided through Jesus that we can become reconciled to God.
All of these things that are included in the Bible regarding the kings of Babylon that had been given dominion over the sons of Israel during those years from 607 BC when Jerusalem and the land of Judah lie desolate to pay off its sabbaths for some 70 years teach us that Jehovah is not just a God of prophecy, but a God of truth as well. The fact that Jehovah freed His people from Babylonian captivity so that a remnant was able to return to restore true worship in Jerusalem in 537 BC in keeping with the prophecy uttered by His prophet Jeremiah is faith strengthening to Christians today whose faith is based upon the confidence they have gained from the things they have read in the Bible.
Christians put their faith in what Jesus taught regarding God's word being the truth, and not only does it pose no difficulty for them to believe that Jehovah's day is coming, but its poses no problem for them to believe that Jehovah's day will come upon everyone that dwells upon the face of all the earth. Some people have read God's word of truth, the Bible, without their comprehending the significance of the things that they have read in it, and some people have never read the Bible at all, but Jehovah's Witnesses have obtained accurate knowledge as to the meaning of God's prophetic word, the significance of Bible history recorded by Ezra, the prophecies of Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezekiel, among others, so that we are now able to help people to make sense of the things they read in the Bible that are hard to understand.
At this time all mankind is living in God's "year of goodwill," which began in the year 1914, but this year of goodwill will soon come to an end, for God's "day of vengeance" -- Armageddon -- will mark the end of this system of things, and usher in a new heavens and a new earth that God has promised where righteousness will dwell. In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses today are searching out those deserving to hear the message about the Kingdom of God from us, a message that will bring to them the same peaceful relations with God through the Lord Jesus Christ that we ourselves enjoy as Christian, as followers of Jesus Christ.
Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to provide a release to those held captive to falsehoods, including false religious systems of worship that cannot save anyone, by providing spiritual healing to those that are blind to the many truths that the Bible teaches. Jehovah's Witnesses teach others that those putting faith in the good news regarding God's kingdom and are declaring this good news to others in making public declaration for salvation are really blessing themselves, and that everyone that lives by means of the good news are being saved along with those to whom they declare the good news the same as we.
@djeggnog
-
PSacramento
At this time all mankind is living in God's "year of goodwill," which began in the year 1914,
And you have proof of that, right?
Oh yeah, that is the whole point of 607BC, except nothing really happened in 607BC, since the fall of Jeruslame has been shown to have happened in 597 BC ( give or take a year ;) ).
Right, gottcha.
And people here say you have no sense of humor !
-
cantleave
idiotnog is a genius, he knows more than every acheologist in the world.
He has had a Watchtower education. It's better than going to University ya know!
-
just n from bethel
DJ said: My hope is that by reading what things I have said to you (and others) in this thread that the lurkers here might see how you use the Bible and how I use it,
Unfortunately, DJ's longwinded posts reflect a complete lack of biblical knowledge. He can't even get the right Kings straight as Ann so easily schooled him. The end result is that, few if any lurkers read DJ's post in their entirety, because after just a few sentences they see how deluded he is. This is what they realize after about 5 minutes into one of his posts:
It's obvious nobody in his congregation listens to him or takes him seriously. He treats most other Jehovah's Witnesses with contempt, even calling them stupid here in public. He wonders aloud in his posts of the likelihood that most Jehovah's Witnesses in the organization will be killed at armageddon because he perceives them as not being as smart as himself. (Can you imagine, what it must be like for a Jehovah's Witness lurker to come on this forum and see the only one here attempting to defend JW positions is a guy that can't stand most of his fellow JWs?) They see an arrogant self-absorbed magalomaniac that puts himself out there to give the impression that he's an elder, when in fact - it is so glaringly manifest that he is a permanent pass-over (someone that the elders/CO will never make an elder, despite his deep desire and constant attempts and beggings to be one). Yep - he is THAT GUY. The guy that everybody pretty much ignores in the hall. The guy whose comments the WT/Bookstudy conductor tries to avoid at all costs.
He has proclaimed himself a genius because he went to the library and can quote from books as recent as the 1960's. Half of his diatribe, is fluff, trying to put words in other posters' comments. He tries to create straw man arguments about why other posters are here, spending sentence upon sentence about their supposed motives - when everyone knows why people are here: to discuss truthful JW related matter with freedom of speech that JWs are not permitted to have. Which brings us to the final point that every single lurker observes: DJ hypocritically and deliberately breaks the commands of Jesus' (supposed) appointed faithful and discreet slave by posting here and engaging in dialogue and association with disfellowshipped apostates.
Any lurker that is a JW sees his posts and then sees his lying excuses about how he thinks he has a pass from the GB to post here - realizes that this Witness is one of the absolute worst representatives they could ever hope to have here. If DJ was half-way honest, he would at least admit that the WT would consider it dangerous to associate and talk with disfellowshipped ones. An honest witness would admit, that if they would print out their posts and share them with their local elders, they would be warned to stop - and that if they didn't stop posting - they would eventually be disfellowshipped. Guaranteed!
So what happens at that point to lurkers - that is active/doubting JW lurkers - is they realize that not only does DJ present faulty logic, lies, and zero biblical evidence to support his claims, so the lurkers make their final leap off the fence. They realize that pages upon pages of what DJ spouts cannot overturn the truth as the Bible and historical evidence so clearly shows, in just a couple paragraphs. Thanks to DJs futile attempts to go on and on with no logical or reasoning skills, and zero biblical evidence, many many doubting lurkers up and leave the org for good. All thanks to you - DJ.
Yep - nobody can get people to drop their attachment to the Watchtower faster than DJ. He's the GB's worst nightmare. The elders are more worried about the damage someone like him does than anybody else on this forum. Rightly so - for DJ helps accomplish more exits from the org than anyone could possibly imagine. I'd guess about 10 people for every sentence of his. And about 50 people for every run-on sentence of his. If I could ever get my believing family members to disobey the GB and the WT and come here like DJ - his posts would be the first ones I'd show them. It would probably take half a day for them to drop the org completely after reading him.
For that - DJ - we thank you. Please never stop posting here. I realize your only friend is your computer that you sit and talk to all day long, but I promise - lurkers are listening to you. It just has the opposite effect of what you claim you want. It does exactly what the GB and WT fear though, and leads many many JWs away from their controlling org. Thank you.
-
AnnOMaly
[Ann formerly] And yet still nothing that could lead us to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal in Jehoiakim's 8th year.
[djeggnog] Why do you say this? Jehoiakim had been a vassal of Egypt before the king of Egypt was defeated in 625 BC. This would have been the eighth year of Jehoiakim's rulership and would also have been the beginning of Jehoiakim's three-year vassalage for Babylon.
625 is now Jehoiakim's 8th year of rulership??? Make your mind up.
First, you're right about there being no such thing as a second accession year, but I use this expression to indicate the period before the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's regnal year ...
It's still gobble-de-gook.
... you're complaining to me that the words "regnal year" aren't used in 2 Kings 24:1, but neither are the words "accession words" used anywhere in the Bible, so, again, it seems you just want to argue just for the sake of doing so since you realize your argument is a futile one.
Please pay attention. There is no mention made in 2 Kings 24:1 of what year in Jehoiakim's reign Nebuchadnezzar made him his vassal. 2 Kings 24:1 does not support your claim that it was his 8th year. Do you understand?
... as to Jehoiakim's vassalage to Babylon, I made the following statement in this thread --Now the first time that Nebuchadnezzar had besieged Jerusalem was in 620 BC during Jehoiakim's third year of his vassal kingship to Babylon over Judah. (Daniel 1:1)
-- and note that in my statement I cite Daniel 1:1 as support for my statement, which states:
"In the third year of the kingship of Je·hoi'a·kim the king of Judah, Neb·u·chad·nez'zar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it."
This does not support your statement that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's 3rd year of vassalage - this is a classic example of you not believing the Bible's testimony. It states, very plainly, that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's 3rd year of kingship. Using WTS time, this would date the siege to 625/624.
[Ann formerly] - Can you explain how Jehoiakim came to be Nebuchadnezzar's vassal BEFORE he invaded the land and besieged Jerusalem for the first time, as you claim, in 618?
[djeggnog] I can and I have done so using the Bible, ...
You have done no such thing. You have merely restated your assertions that he did, sandwiching those assertions between red herrings, misinformation and ad hominem.
How did it come about that Jehoiakim became vassal before Nebuchadnezzar invaded and besieged Jerusalem for the first time? Perhaps you're not getting my drift. You see, a king would become a vassal of another king only if he was forced to do so. How would a king force another king to submit to him? What would it be necessary to do to put the frighteners on Jehoiakim? Answer: invade the land and besiege the capital city. Therefore, there would have been an invasion and siege before your claimed 'first time.' Both Dan. 1:1,2 and 2 Kings 24:1 support this when you don't try to twist their words. Soon after the Battle of Carchemish, Jerusalem was besieged and Jehoiakim capitulated - submitting to the Babylonian yoke for a while.
... but you have chosen not to believe the Bible.
I've already politely asked you not to tell lies. Why are you continuing to do so? And you still haven't apologized for grossly misrepresenting one of your sources.
[Ann formerly] - Where in the Bible do you get that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year? So far, you've failed to provide anything grounded in Scripture to support this assumption.
[djeggnog] I would expect someone that doesn't believe anything that the Bible should say that contradicts your own point of view to be making such an assertion, but I feel no need to answer this question a third time.
You haven't even answered it a first time - this is glaringly obvious for any reader of this discussion to see.
-
just n from bethel
40 Love Ann. Match, Set, Game: Ann.