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

by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  The Finger

  "these conjectured years by paring the with citations from non-existentWatchtower articles."

  DJ eggnog

  I looked up the Watchtower 68 article on "The Book of Truthful Historical Dates" It exists in my library.

  Interestingly the following article is on 1975 "Why are you looking forward to 1975" Where it says (page 500)

  "This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens no the Son, but only the Father."

  "Even if one cannot see beyond 1975 is this any reason to be less active."
• 

  Bungi Bill

  Witness My Fury;

  Indeed - as I said at the outset, those various WTS publications mention the length of the reigns of the various Babylonian kings:

  - "go read the Watchtower!"

  - All anybody has to do is to then count backwards from what the WTS believes to be the "Absolute Date" of 539 BC to establish the dates of the reigns of the five last kings of Babylon ( not too difficult a task, surely - but then again maybe to some it is beyond their capabilities?)

  Of course, if certain ones (no names mentioned!) still want to continue denying the obvious, then that is their problem.

  Bill.
• 

  cantleave

  If you are not a member of the Rank and File, that means either you are not baptised or a member of the GB. In either case that proves you to be a liar.

  BTW you ain't no genius either.
• 

  Dutch-scientist

  Hi Egg,

  You say:

  "Not one of the Watchtower articles you cite here provide any of the dates you inserted into your post. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe these dates you provided in your message to be accurate. You didn't get them from theWatchtower, so where did you get them?"

  So all mentioned dates in the WT are not accurate ( 1914, 607BC, 537BC and 539BC )

  If you proof 539BC then you disaprove 607 BC or if you state 607 BC is true then you disaprove 539BC ( then the 70 years are also wrong!) .

  So egg which one you choose, you can not serve two lords in this case.

  I think you do your cherry picking stuff and that you cannot choose any statement then i didnt mentioned to motivate one of your statements!
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Eggie, you're leaping around more energetically than a demented frog :-D

  [djeggnog to Bill] The Bible doesn't even provide specific dates when the kings of Babylon ruled, but we can rightly conclude that Nabonidus ruled for longer than just 17 years, ...

  *Boing!*

  If the Bible doesn't list specific dates for the Babylonian kings' rules, and doesn't even mention Nabonidus AT ALL, how can you draw any valid conclusions about Nabonidus' length of reign?

  ... since Belshazzar, his eldest son, was recognized in the Bible as having been the king of Babylon in 539 BC when Cyrus deposed Babylon, ...

  *Boing!*

  Belshazzar's mention in the Bible does squat to help you conclude anything about Belshazzar's length of co-regency nor Nabonidus' length of reign. All we know from the Bible is that Belshazzar's kingship over Babylon ended when the Medes and Persians overran the city (with no date given).

  Ahh but here it comes ...

  ... and by our comparing the king-lists of historians along with what the Bible says, ...

  Yes, you need extra-biblical sources to anchor any 'Bible dates'! But you can't have it both ways, eggie. You can't appeal to king-lists and other historical sources to bolster your preferred dates because they, in conjunction with the biblical record, establish that your preferred dates are bogus!

  ... it is clear that Nabonidus had to have ruled for 35 years from the year of his accession to the throne of Babylon (following Labashi-Marduk's death) until the year 539 BC (which means that Nabonidus' reign had to have begun in 575/574 BC), since Nebuchadnezzar's 43 years, Evil-Merodach's two years and Neriglassar's four years, along with Labashi-Marduk's three months, total 49 years, so that Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year would have been 624 BC (575 BC - 49 = 624 BC).

  *Boingty-boing-boing!*

  Again, your BC dates and length of reign for Nabonidus are pure fantasies. I'm also curious to know why you chose Nabonidus and Belshazzar to plug that 20 year gap and not any of the other kings? In fact, there's a few 'solutions' you could have tried - all lacking historical and biblical foundation, of course, but perhaps a little more imaginative ;-)
• 

  Witness My Fury

  but disfellowshipping is not automatic despite what you may believe to be the case.

  Egg, I never said it was. Go and reread what I did actually say.

  BTW, no one is disfellowshipped for visiting or posting messages to an apostate website

  Hmm well i'm sure there are some here who would say otherwise due to personal experience. Plus if this was really the case why do you keep bleating on about saying this ISN'T an apostate website... if it doesnt matter?
• 

  Bungi Bill

  WTS literature agrees that Nabonidus ruled for 17 years, and you only have to pick up your copy of Insight on the Scriptures to find this (Volume 2, p.457, Nabonidus), where it clearly states:

  Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire, father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts, he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556 - 539). He was given to literature, art and religion. (Quoted word for word)

  Notice that Insight on the Scriptures even does the calculation for you, so that you don't have to make the effort of subtracting 17 from minus 539, in order to discover that Nabonidus reigned between 556 and 539 BC!

  Bill.

  PS: Witness My Fury, all this appears not simple enough for one certain individual - seemingly, somebody needs to teach him how to count! When I first began posting on jehovahs- witness.net, I never imagined that I would be teching Grade 2 maths.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Bill if you have followed endured this whole thread, then you will see how maths goes completely out the window when the person is factoring in other deluded reasonings.
• 

  OUTLAW

  As to the point I made about your're being on this site Egg. If you or I were to go and speak to your body of elders or CO

  and discuss with them your posting on here in attemps to defend JWs from ex JWs, apostates, persons weak in faith (their terminologies),

  we all know what their advice to you would initially be. Get off that site!!.....Witness My Fury:

  You are assuming that I am a part of the rank and file; I'm not. Enough said ......DjEggNogg

  Your not a Rank and File JW?..

  Most of us figured that out long ago..LOL!!..

  You consider yourself Special..

  Not part of the WBT$ GB..Not a Rank and File JW..

  Theres nothing left..

  What Position in the WBT$,did you "Invent" for Yourself?

  ....................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  cantleave

  20571 - Oh FFS!!!! Read the whole thread before posting complete crap. All your spurious arguments and reasonings have already been torn to shreds.