OK one more. I've seen the future and one day after DJ's helped like, 10,000 JWs to leave the org, we just won't see him anymore. And that will be sad. But what's really sad is how it will happen:
607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)
by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
djeggnog
This is a repost of my previous post, which contained a few dictation typos (where indicated in red), which are corrected in this repost.
@castthefirststone wrote:
This is my first post on this forum and I lurked here for some time. I can't honestly say that I buy into JW doctrine anymore but the 607 doctrine still intrigues me.
@djeggnog wrote:
This may be a waste of your time to read this response to your inquiry if your motivation for asking me this question is that you are intrigued by the question around which this thread has revolved.
@castthefirststone wrote:
In my opinion you have not answered any of Ann's or any of the other posters' questions regarding your wild assumptions on how you get to the 607 date. You keep latching onto irrelevant arguments and opinions and then writes verbose explanations on these, ignoring the fact that are right in front of you.
@djeggnog wrote:
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, right or wrong, whatever it might be, but I believe I have responded to the questions of many, including those put forward by the OP (@WMF) and @AnnOMaly, and I did so without making any "wild assumptions." If you believe my arguments and opinions are irrelevant, then nothing I have written here in response will likely matter to you.
@castthefirststone wrote:
Now if you are really as well intentioned as you profess to be, please provide a summary with verifiable proof of how you get to 607 BCE. Not paragraph after paragraph of this nonsense.
@djeggnog wrote:
The only "verifiable proof" I will provide in response to the request you make for a summary of how I arrive at the year 607 BC is citations from the Bible and a quote from Josephus' Against Apion.
@castthefirststone wrote:
Also add to this, your explanation why 607 BCE has any significance in Bible prophecy and why you spend so much time trying to defend it. Seeing that you say it's only the year that the temple was destroyed. You will probably say that you have a keen interest in archaeology and that's why you feel so strongly about 607 but can you really give that answer when everyone can see from your posts that this is not the case?
@djeggnog wrote:
I don't have any "keen interest in archaeology," so I wouldn't say this, but I already did explain the significance of 607 BC in a recent message, the highlights of which is as follows:
I have faith that Zedekiah's removal as a representative of God's typical kingdom here on earth marked the time when theocratic rule ceased to exist on earth, which event gives further significance to the year 607 BC, since 607 BC marks the year when the "seven times" of Daniel's prophecy began. (Daniel 4:25) My faith doesn't require Solomon's temple to have been destroyed by Babylon in 607 BC, but I believe the temple was destroyed during the "fifth month" (2 Kings 25:8) in Ab, 607 BC, and that Gedaliah was assassinated during the "seventh month" (2 Kings 25:25) in Tishri, 607 BC, in which year God's prophecy regarding the desolation of the land of Judah for a 70-year period "until the land had paid off its sabbaths" went into effect. (2 Chronicles 36:21) My faith has come to be greatly strengthened by the things I have come to learn from Jehovah's Witnesses as to the significance of 607 BC as it relates to the "seven times."
[1]
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
You seem to be using the term "faith" to mean something like "a decision". You have "faith that Zedekiah's removal..marked the time when theocratic rule ceased to exist on earth...", as if the available evidence doesn't matter. It is as if you feel it's just your decision, your faith, to believe what you want in this regard.
You also underscore the importance of 607 BC as the starting date for the gentile times calculation, which will eventually end up in 1914 AD. Can we assume that you perhaps went to the WT library CD, typed in "1914 607" and read, say, the literature related to the first 1000 hits? If so, can we further assume that you will drop this charade of denying the importance of 607 to the authority structure of the WTB&TS?
It also seems like, and correct me if I am wrong, you have this idea that secular history and the Bible are in conflict regarding the dating of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not the case. Rather, only by ignore the grammar and context of the scriptures surrounding the 70 years do you force a contradiction between secular history and the Bible, by insisting the 70 years is that of desolation. It is not - it is 70 years of servitude, for many nations. A plain grammatical reading of Jeremiah 25:1-18 makes this apparent. Perhaps this is why you feel like you need to just make a leap of faith, a decision to simply believe what you think the Bible says, when in reality, it is only the WT spin on the scriptures. And the WT has good reason to spin these scriptures... they have a vested interest.
I don't regard "faith" to be something akin to terminology, or, as you put it, some "term" that takes of "a decision," my own decision on a matter, but I know I cannot stop you from askewing what things I say here to mean what you yourself decide my words to mean. Most people would make assumptions and would just ask the question, "What did you mean?" but clearly you are not in the camp of "most people" and so here you demonstrate your preference to speculate what seemed best way to describe what I must have meant when I used the word "faith" and stated that "I have faith that Zedekiah's removal as a representative of God's typical kingdom here on earth marked the time when theocratic rule ceased to exist on earth...."
However, what I had in mind when using the word "faith" had nothing at all to do with any decision I had made, but I had in mind what Jesus meant when he used the word at Matthew 17:20. Now if upon your reading Matthew 17:20, you come away from it having concluded that Jesus was there telling his disciples about some need on their part to be able to make the tiniest of earth-shaking, mountain-uprooting personal decisions, I would conclude that you needed a tutor since Jesus was in this verse extolling the virtues of our having just a little bit of faith, if you could measure it out, maybe a thimble full in contrast with a bucket full of faith, "faith," he said, "the size of a mustard grain," which, as Jesus explains in another place (at Matthew 13:31, 32) "is, in fact, the tiniest of all the seeds" when sown in the ground, but when faith -- this tiny mustard seed -- is full grown, it "becomes a tree" where the birds of heaven can actually "find lodging" in it, "among its branches," which is the illustration that Jesus uses in describing faith.
Now you may have once been called one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but not many of those that are even now called such are, Jehovah's Witnesses, because of this thing called "faith" that they lack. The apostle Paul provides a definition for the word "faith" at Hebrews 11:1, and I know that because you were once one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you've read the definition that God's word provides for this word that you have here for some unknown reason decided it must mean for someone that continues to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, someone that was taught by Jehovah, as meaning something akin to a personal decision that I have made for myself, regardless of Paul's defining the word "faith" as being, in part, "the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." I see nothing in this portion of Paul's definition of the word that suggests "a decision" of any kind, but, like I said, if you were to come away from reading Hebrews 11:1 having concluded that Paul was referring to some personal decision, then maybe a tutor could prove to be beneficial to you since faith has nothing to do with any decision that you and I might make.
At Psalm 71:5, the psalmist is actually declaring the faith he has in the Sovereign Lord Jehovah by his utterance of the words, "You are my hope, ... my confidence from my youth." The patriarch Abraham had confidence in Jehovah, for after having received the promise from God that he would make Abraham would become "a father of a crowd of nations" and "the entire land of Canaan" would be given to his seed as "a covenant to time indefinite" through Isaac, 'Abraham reckoned that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead,' because he had put his faith in God's promise coming true through Isaac, "and to his seed after him." (Genesis 17:5, 7, 8, 19-21; Hebrews 11:19). Abraham didn't actually see with his eyes what God had promised him, but he accepted God at His word, just as many of us do that accept personal checks for the goods and services we render to others, we putting our confidence in the endorsement scrawled upon the check by the payor, even if he or she should be a total stranger to us, that either the payor's bank or financial institution will honor the pledge made to us, or that our own bank's guarantee will make our confidence sure.
Just as Jehovah told Zedekiah through his prophet, Ezekiel, "Remove the turban, and lift off the crown, ... it will certainly become no one's until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him," the word "it" here referring to theocratic rulership, I have faith that the year of Zedekiah's removal as a representative of God's typical kingdom here on earth -- 607 BC -- marked beginning of the period when theocratic rule ceased to exist on earth. (Ezekiel 21:25-27)
Even as the 70-year period of desolation began in 607 BC -- btw, I know you don't like my referring to this 70-year period as being that of a "period of desolation," since you are of the opinion that this period was a "period of servitude," but it is my faith, my confidence, my belief, that God's prophecy by Jeremiah pertained to the desolation of the land of Judah for a 70-year period "until the land had paid off its sabbaths" (2 Chronicles 36:21) -- this 70-year period of desolation ended on time, just as Jehovah stated it would, 70 years later in 537 BC, for by then the Jews returned to the land of Judah and were back "in their cities." (Ezekiel 21:25-27; Ezra 3:1)
It is my faith that if Jehovah had imposed 70 years, and the prophet Daniel spoke of a period of 70 years "for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem" as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah, and the prophet Zechariah refers to this same seventy-year period when putting the question to the Jews, "When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?" (Zechariah 7:5)
In the event you're slow on the uptake, the point I make here is that the Jews had been fasting during "the fifth month" over the fact that Solomon's temple had been demolished by their former Babylonian captors in the fifth month, so Zechariah is reminding them of how they had fasted over its destruction during "the fifth month ... for seventy years," but for the wrong reasons, in that they had fasted over God's judgment that had befallen them and not because their own sins had brought God's judgment on them. (2 Kings 25:8, 9)
[2]
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
You seem to be using the term "faith" to mean something like "a decision". You have "faith that Zedekiah's removal..marked the time when theocratic rule ceased to exist on earth...", as if the available evidence doesn't matter. It is as if you feel it's just your decision, your faith, to believe what you want in this regard.
You also underscore the importance of 607 BC as the starting date for the gentile times calculation, which will eventually end up in 1914 AD. Can we assume that you perhaps went to the WT library CD, typed in "1914 607" and read, say, the literature related to the first 1000 hits? If so, can we further assume that you will drop this charade of denying the importance of 607 to the authority structure of the WTB&TS?
It also seems like, and correct me if I am wrong, you have this idea that secular history and the Bible are in conflict regarding the dating of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not the case. Rather, only by ignore the grammar and context of the scriptures surrounding the 70 years do you force a contradiction between secular history and the Bible, by insisting the 70 years is that of desolation. It is not - it is 70 years of servitude, for many nations. A plain grammatical reading of Jeremiah 25:1-18 makes this apparent. Perhaps this is why you feel like you need to just make a leap of faith, a decision to simply believe what you think the Bible says, when in reality, it is only the WT spin on the scriptures. And the WT has good reason to spin these scriptures... they have a vested interest.
I cannot stop you from assuming whatever it is you choose to assume, even the absurd, such as believing it possible for our sun to cease rising in the morning and setting in the evening. You can assume whatever it is you wish to assume, but I'm not like you or like most active Jehovah's Witnesses that are tied to the Bible libraries they maintain, which include the Insight book among many of our fine publications and/or to the WT Library cdrom. I long ago conducted the research I needed to conduct so that I'm well equipped to teach others according to things I have already learned and in accord with new things learned, but those among Jehovah's Witnesses that are new and those that tend to memorize and do not really learn from the things they read, so that they are prone to forgetfulness, and those whose memories have begun to fail them as they have gotten older in years do seem tied to researching things that they ought to already know. Maybe you've never noticed this, but unless the point I'm making should require my referencing one of our publications, I will typically include quotes from the Bible and not from our publications.
How good at you with details? For example, do you know when you were born? How about this: Do you know when president John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Texas? Wasn't it November 22, 1963? Do you remember if he was murdered in Dallas or in Houston? Would you have to do a Google search? What about the date on which the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Tennessee? Do you recall if the man was murdered in Memphis or in Nashville? Wasn't it April 4, 1968? Would you need to do a Google search or do you know things like this?
Do you know if Osama bin Laden killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by Navy Seals on May 1, 2011, or on May 2, 2011? That would be a trick question because here in Los Angeles, it was May 1, 2011, 8:40 pm, in New York, May 1, 2011, 11:40 pm, but in Abbottabad, it wasn't a surprise midnight raid, as this event has been described here in the US, but a May 2, 2001, 8:40 am, visit. This may be just a detail to you, but I tend to pay attention to details, just as I associate the deaths of a little over 2,800 people on September 11, 2001, based on Wall Street Journal numbers, with Osama bin Laden. I think of American Airlines Flight 11, Boston to Los Angeles; United Airlines Flight 175, Boston to Los Angeles; United Airlines Flight 93, Newark to San Francisco; and American Flight 77, Washington, DC, to Los Angeles. But that's me. How attentive are you to details?
Like, for example, I asked you about your own birth date, but do you know when your own children were born? What about the anniversary date of your marriage? Do you know when you were married (if married more than once, I'm referring to your first marriage)? What about the year in which a resolution was passed at a convention at which the attendees unanimously adopted the name, "Jehovah's Witnesses"? Was the year 1931 or 1935? Was this convention held in Columbus, Ohio, or was it in the Bronx, New York, at Yankee Stadium? Do the Polo Grounds ring a bell for you? If so, then why, since this resolution wasn't even passed in New York?
Almost uncanny, huh? I have no need to conduct research through papers, books, cdroms or over the 'net to rediscover dates and facts that I've already learned know and have committed to memory, but what about you? I believe we began to be called Jehovah's Witnesses on July 26, 1931, but I have on occasion gotten a date or two wrong, but I usually do not since when I read something, I tend to commit what I've read to memory, for memorization doesn't last for very long, but if learning stuff is your thing, then what you learn can last a lifetime. I trust that you are not some punk kid thinking himself able to "step" to me, like the kids say, with some saved-up glop that you palm off to others as it were knowledge when a verse like John 3:16 -- a verse that is a kind of litmus test for counterfeit Christians worldwide -- speaks to what is the root of my salvation: The ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ without which no one at all could be saved.
I have said "my salvation," and not yours, for you have jettisoned your salvation by betraying Christ's brothers, instead of helping those to whom the work of bearing witness to Jesus, that is to say, bearing witness to the ransom, has been entrusted, when apart from the ransom no one can be saved from God's wrath. (Revelation 12:17; Matthew 25:42-45; Romans 5:9) You didn't feed and clothe them, so Jesus counts this failure on your part to receive his brothers hospitably as your not being hospitable toward him either.
Jesus said that he that believes in the good news and is baptized will be saved, for the power manifested by Jesus' blood is available only to those that exercise faith in it, but you would rather verses like John 3:16 remain murky to folks, and hinder Jesus' anointed brothers and their companions who endeavor to speak to people about God's provision for salvation, so that these folks, as well as the many lurkers here who are sitting on the fence as far as their faith is concerned, might not be condemned. (Mark 16:15, 16, 1 Thessalonians 2:16) In fact, it is by putting our faith in "the good news of Jesus and the resurrection," we thereby give evidence of our having accepted of Jesus' ransom. (Acts 17:18)
I've not denied the significance of 607 BC in this thread, but I see no link between 607 BC and some "authority structure," but you have more than once accused me of carrying on a "charade" as to the importance of 607 BC? I have said that 607 BC marks the beginning of the 70 years of desolation for the land of Judah. I have also said that 607 BC marked the beginning of the "seven times" of Daniel's prophecy. In both cases, 607 BC has significance, but since this thread is about the 70 years, and not about the "seven times," I have limited my remarks to discussing the 70 years. You want to discuss the "seven times," start a new thread, maybe I'll join that thread. Maybe I won't join it. You seek to trash the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses because you don't like the work we are doing on the planet, so you want to broaden this discussion because you cannot successfully prove the 70 years have a thing to do with Babylonian servitude. Accordingly, I am going to humor you a bit and pursue this servitude idea of yours.
[3]
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
You seem to be using the term "faith" to mean something like "a decision". You have "faith that Zedekiah's removal..marked the time when theocratic rule ceased to exist on earth...", as if the available evidence doesn't matter. It is as if you feel it's just your decision, your faith, to believe what you want in this regard. You also underscore the importance of 607 BC as the starting date for the gentile times calculation, which will eventually end up in 1914 AD. Can we assume that you perhaps went to the WT library CD, typed in "1914 607" and read, say, the literature related to the first 1000 hits? If so, can we further assume that you will drop this charade of denying the importance of 607 to the authority structure of the WTB&TS?
It also seems like, and correct me if I am wrong, you have this idea that secular history and the Bible are in conflict regarding the dating of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not the case. Rather, only by [ignoring] the grammar and context of the scriptures surrounding the 70 years do you force a contradiction between secular history and the Bible, by insisting the 70 years is that of desolation. It is not - it is 70 years of servitude, for many nations. A plain grammatical reading of Jeremiah 25:1-18 makes this apparent. Perhaps this is why you feel like you need to just make a leap of faith, a decision to simply believe what you think the Bible says, when in reality, it is only the WT spin on the scriptures. And the WT has good reason to spin these scriptures... they have a vested interest.
At Zechariah 7:5, in making reference to the 70 years of fasting that the Jews had done while they were exiles in Babylon, Zechariah asks: "When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?" You say that the Jews were fasting in the fifth month and in the seventh month of every year for 70 years because of servitude! Here's my question: What was the significance of them doing this in the fifth month, let alone in the seventh month?
What servitude was heaped upon the Jews in the fifth month to warrant fasting to God in the fifth month for these 70 years? Are you too stupid to appreciate how flawed your argument is here? Someone once told me that he was disfellowshipped because he refused to meet with the elders. "They got upset because I refused to meet with the elders" was the reason this guy was telling everyone. Jehovah's Witnesses are so unfair. Some believed this guy's reason; they couldn't appreciate how he had conflated his argument into a "Jehovah's Witnesses are so unfair" argument as he sough to appeal to the cynicism in others, which made it a flawed argument that doesn't pass the laugh test.
Your argument about fasting for 70 years of servitude doesn't pass the laugh test either. Such an explanation is not just flawed, but it is a reason based on ignorance. It makes no sense at all. It's not just a reason that borders on stupidity; it's a stupid reason. Conflating one's argument to suggest that the Jews were fasting over 70 years of servitude completely ignores the fact that the Jews were fasting in the fifth month over the destruction of the temple and in the seventh month over Gedaliah's assassination.
Actually, the guy was disfellowshipped because his "gay/faggot/homosexual/queer" lover approached the elders and repentantly admitted his grossly immoral sexual activity with this other guy with whom he had been involved for three months in a love tryst, so that the other one that refused to meet with the elders was disfellowshipped in absentia. Does this reason make sense or does "They got upset because I refused to meet with the elders" make for a more plausible reason as to why someone might have been disfellowshipped in your mind? This kind of thinking sounds demented, but I have no dog in the fight being waged by the gays and lesbians of the world, but if the use of the aforementioned derogatory descriptions by some, the ones I just quoted here, in squaring off against church leaders and politicians to paint others (like an elder) as homophobic to gain traction in a world when unanimity of opinion as to what constitutes righteousness doesn't exist, and things like discrimination, prejudice and segregation only serve to make the public discourse over equality and equal rights an impossibility, elders cannot wink at one form of sexuality as against some other form of sexuality for it gains no traction whatsoever with God. Jehovah's Witnesses have no authority to posit an opinion one way or the other as to how others might choose to live their lives, but we will gladly share with others the way of life that is outlined in God's word, which has His approval.
The gaining of class protection for those seeking cover for aberrant deviant sexual activity based on sexual orientation has brought to the fore a much greater number for whom the love of God has cooled off as sexual promiscuity involving same-sex couples is becoming more prevalent, but while sexual intimacy and relationships between unmarried persons may be condoned by the world, God's word imposes limits on such relationships, so those whores, gigalos, sluts, studs, nymphos, Casanovas, trollops, dogs, tramps, womanizers, bimbos, Don Juans, hussies and skanks all, whose sexual orientation may be acceptable to the world, such persons are unacceptable to the God of the Bible and steps will be taken in God's organization to root out those who float arguments regarding their sexuality while ignoring the boundaries set by God. Such arguments are really in the same category as your flawed argument that would have the Jews fasting in the fifth month of every year for 70 years over their captive state.
It is noteworthy at Jeremiah 25:17-26 that among the "nations" listed to whom Jeremiah had been sent to make them drink from Jehovah's "cup" to whom Jeremiah 25:11 refers in connection with the "seventy years" over whom the "king of Babylon" Jeremiah indicated would have dominion are "Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and her kings, her princes," and the very next verse -- Jeremiah 25:12 -- speaks to the king of Babylon being called to account by Jehovah for the actions taken against his people "when seventy years have been fulfilled.
While your reading of Jeremiah 25:1-18 led you to conclude that this passage was referring to 70 years of servitude, my reading of this passage does not lead me to such a conclusion and has nothing to do with any "leap of faith" on my part or any spin on the part of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, which is only a publishing corporation staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses, and has nothing at all to do with our discussion here. I have not quoted from any of our publications and have only provided references to the Bible, so this accusation of yours about some "WT spin" or how "the WT has good reason to spin these scriptures" doesn't resonate with me since you are not having this discussion with a printing corporation, nor with the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is you should believe I'll suffice under the circumstances as their proxy. To the contrary, I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and not anyone's proxy, and I've not spun anything and you cannot prove that I've done this. This notion of yours about servitude simply makes no sense.
@djeggnog wrote:
It is really not necessary for you or anyone to know the significance of 607 BC or believe what 607 BC means as it relates to theocratic rule. The only thing that one must believe is that Jehovah is the true God and that, by our exercising faith in the blood of his son, Jesus Christ, we will realize the benefits of his ransom sacrifice, namely, everlasting life.
[4]
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
Right. However, most of is here have been JWs, and we know there's more to the story. After all, you mean to tell me it doesn't matter if we don't join ourselves to God's organization here on earth?
According to JW theology, the WTB&TS is God's appointed organization, God's mouthpiece! Shouldn't we all become JWs, if in fact the WTB&TS God's chosen representative on earth? If you answer, "no" - then why are you a JW? If you answer "yes", then why do you deny the imporance of 607 - since it's the first link in the 607/1914/1918 chain that the WT uses as proof that they were chosen as God's organization. Denying 607 is denying the WT's given proof that they are the FDS?
Perhaps this is another area of "faith"/"decision" for you. You deny the importance of 607, attaching a noble concept of "faith", even though it is not really even Biblical faith that you have, in an attempt to minimize the realization the WT if full of crap.
No, it doesn't matter to me whether you do so or not and, I should add, that contrary to what you have been believed to be true about yourself, you were not of our sort, not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Like me before you and after you, you only pretended to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses have faith, which we do not know until this fact about a person becomes manifest after a year, two years, three years, 10 or 20 or maybe 50 years. Jesus taught his followers that 'nothing that is hidden remains hidden.' (Luke 8:17) Oops.
What you should decide to do in this regard is entirely up to you. If you should believe God to be using some other organization in connection with a similar preaching activity that is taking place worldwide by Jehovah's Witnesses in fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy at Matthew 24:14, then I would expect you to be aligning yourself with that organization.
[5]
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
Right. However, most of is here have been JWs, and we know there's more to the story. After all, you mean to tell me it doesn't matter if we don't join ourselves to God's organization here on earth?
According to JW theology, the WTB&TS is God's appointed organization, God's mouthpiece! Shouldn't we all become JWs, if in fact the WTB&TS God's chosen representative on earth?
If you answer, "no" - then why are you a JW? If you answer "yes", then why do you deny the imporance of 607 - since it's the first link in the 607/1914/1918 chain that the WT uses as proof that they were chosen as God's organization. Denying 607 is denying the WT's given proof that they are the FDS?
Perhaps this is another area of "faith"/"decision" for you. You deny the importance of 607, attaching a noble concept of "faith", even though it is not really even Biblical faith that you have, in an attempt to minimize the realization the WT if full of crap.
I would have say "no" for one should not do anything just because someone else, like one of your family members, for example, might be doing that thing. Not according to JW theology, but according to the Bible, one must themselves put faith in the good news about Jesus Christ, exercise faith Jesus' ransom and get baptized to be saved. (Mark 16:15, 16)
[6]
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
Right. However, most of is here have been JWs, and we know there's more to the story. After all, you mean to tell me it doesn't matter if we don't join ourselves to God's organization here on earth? According to JW theology, the WTB&TS is God's appointed organization, God's mouthpiece! Shouldn't we all become JWs, if in fact the WTB&TS God's chosen representative on earth?
If you answer, "no" - then why are you a JW? If you answer "yes", then why do you deny the [importance] of 607 - since it's the first link in the 607/1914/1918 chain that the WT uses as proof that they were chosen as God's organization.
Denying 607 is denying the WT's given proof that they are the FDS?
Perhaps this is another area of "faith"/"decision" for you. You deny the importance of 607, attaching a noble concept of "faith", even though it is not really even Biblical faith that you have, in an attempt to minimize the realization the WT if full of crap.
Because I love God and like Him, I love the world for whom his son died. I am appreciative of what Jesus did in giving his life as a ransom in redemption of my sinful state so that I might now have the prospect of eternal life along with other appreciative ones for whom Jesus died. I'm quite thrilled over the hope I have in connection with my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
[7]
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
Right. However, most of is here have been JWs, and we know there's more to the story. After all, you mean to tell me it doesn't matter if we don't join ourselves to God's organization here on earth? According to JW theology, the WTB&TS is God's appointed organization, God's mouthpiece! Shouldn't we all become JWs, if in fact the WTB&TS God's chosen representative on earth? If you answer, "no" - then why are you a JW? If you answer "yes", then why do you deny the imporance of 607 - since it's the first link in the 607/1914/1918 chain that the WT uses as proof that they were chosen as God's organization.
Denying 607 is denying the WT's given proof that they are the FDS?
Perhaps this is another area of "faith"/"decision" for you. You deny the importance of 607, attaching a noble concept of "faith", even though it is not really even Biblical faith that you have, in an attempt to minimize the realization the WT if full of crap.
I don't deny the significance of 607 BC as 607 BC is a marked year, not just in connection with the 70 years we've been discussing in this thread, but also in connection with the "seven times." (Daniel 4:25) However, I don't see the nexus between the 607 BC and whether or not "the faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45-47) when scriptural discernment indicates in the modern history of Jehovah's Witnesses that the slave was duly appointed by Jesus over all of his belongings.
[8]
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
Right. However, most of [us] here have been JWs, and we know there's more to the story. After all, you mean to tell me it doesn't matter if we don't join ourselves to God's organization here on earth? According to JW theology, the WTB&TS is God's appointed organization, God's mouthpiece! Shouldn't we all become JWs, if in fact the WTB&TS God's chosen representative on earth? If you answer, "no" - then why are you a JW? If you answer "yes", then why do you deny the imporance of 607 - since it's the first link in the 607/1914/1918 chain that the WT uses as proof that they were chosen as God's organization. Denying 607 is denying the WT's given proof that they are the FDS?
Perhaps this is another area of "faith"/"decision" for you. You deny the importance of 607, attaching a noble concept of "faith", even though it is not really even Biblical faith that you have, in an attempt to minimize the realization the WT if full of crap.
You have here invented a concept of your own, that you are calling "faith," but as I explained at the outset of this message, this concept of yours isn't faith at all. Not only is this a strawman, but that you have here accused me of denying the significance of 607 BC suggests that you're deliberately ignoring what I have said here regarding its significance to Jehovah's Witnesses. I think it would be wise for you to read Hebrews 11:1 and then review my explanation of what faith it.
@djeggnog wrote:
I don't feel any need to prove that the 70 years foretold by Jeremiah were fulfilled in 537 BC, since I am convinced by faith that this 70-year period began in 607 BC, but I have no doubt that you are here seeking proof that Solomon's temple was destroyed in 607 BC during Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (18th regnal year), which, again, is my belief. In responding to your question, I cannot ignore that what I believe -- what Jehovah's Witnesses believe -- is in conflict with many of the beliefs held by some here, to the effect that it was after some 18 years of Babylonian domination that began during Nebuchadnezzar's accession year of 605 BC that the Solomon's temple suffered destruction by the Babylonians in 587 BC during Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. I'm going to probably be withdrawing from this thread soon, but the following is my response to your question.
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
by faith = I am just deciding this because I want to.
Withdraw, the damage you have done to the reputation of those who may hope to seriously believe the fall of Jerusalem was 607 can not be undone. When you come to your senses, hopefully in the years to come, you can look back on this and know you did some good.
What "damage"? This is pretty much the same strawman argument, which I've already addressed in this response.
@djeggnog wrote:
The Bible itself indicates that it was during Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year that Solomon's temple was destroyed (Jeremiah 52:29), or during his 19th year if his accession year were included (Jeremiah 52:12; 2 Kings 25:8), so the issue revolves not so much around when Nebuchadnezzar's accession year occurred or even when his 19th year occurred, but when the 70-year period of desolation that Jeremiah foretold for the land of Judah began.
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
Wrong. Jeremiah never [foretold] seventy years of desolation for the land of Judah. In Jeremiah 25:11-12, he made it clear it was 70 years of servitude for "these nations", or "these nations round about" v.9. In Jeremiah 29:10, it was seventy years "for Babylon" (NASB). These are the only two times the 70 years is mentioned in Jeremiah, and it's pretty clear that the 70 years was a reference to Babylonian domination of many nations, such that the nations (plural 25:11-12) would serve Babylon.
I believe I've responded adequately to this opinion earlier in this message, so I feel no need to add to that response.
Your above statement is the first place you go wrong. It's also the first way the WT tries to force you into denying the available evidence against 607 - by setting up a false conflict between secular history and the Bible.
Why do you do this? I've not mentioned the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society once (except in direct response to your mention of the WTS) and yet you keep telling me about what seem to me to be a disagreement that you have with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, when I have here been responding to your objections as to my reasons for siding with what God's word says as against secular history as to the desolation of the land of Judah having lasted for a 70-year period "until the land had paid off its sabbaths" (2 Chronicles 36:21), which period I believe began in 607 BC and ended in 537 BC.
You see, I have faith that if God said "70 years" that he meant "70 years," which I think is the crux of your difficulty here in understanding what I've been saying to you here. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and, as such, I'm telling you what things I believe as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not here to tell you what to believe, but I'm merely telling you what I believe by faith, and I really don't care that you refuse or cannot accept by faith what things I believe. What I choose to believe is my decision to make, just as what you choose to believe would be your decision to make. No matter how strongly you might believe that you are in the right here, my faith that God's word is in the right here is much stronger than your beliefs.
@djeggnog wrote:
During the first year of Cyrus' rulership, which historically would have been in the year 539 BC, Daniel indicates how he discerned the fulfillment of "the devastations of Jerusalem," according to Jeremiah's prophecy, had amounted to "seventy years." (Daniel 9:1, 2) Because it was by "the seventh month" of 537 BC, the Jews had repatriated the land of Judah so that they were back "in their cities," the 70-year period of desolation would have begun in 607 BC, which, according to the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. (Ezra 3:1; Jeremiah 52:12)
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
Wrong, he [discerned] the number of years for fulfilling the desolations of Jerusalem. There is a big difference between the desolations being 70 years, and the 70 years "fulfilling" (or bringing to an end) the desolations of Jerusalem. Since the 70 years was that of servitude to Babylon, and Babylon had just been conquered, the period spoken of in Jeremiah was over, and now, the next step according to Jeremiah (25:12) was for the desolation to end (or be fulfilled). Daniel draws attention to the end of the period, not the period as a whole.
You [also] have to consider that Daniel, and the start of verse 2, makes it very clear that he got it from Jeremiah. There are only two scriptures in Jeremiah the mention the 70 years, and they are both clearly referencing servitude. So unless you want to set up a contradiction in the Bible, you have no leg to stand on.
You are persuaded for whatever reason to a very different opinion about this than mine, and I'm satisfied that you and I are at an impasse in this regard; I see no difference, let alone any "big difference," between what Jeremiah writes at Jeremiah 25:11 regarding the nations having to "serve the king of Babylon seventy years" and what he writes in the very next verse at Jeremiah 25:12 about the king of Babylon being called to account for what how he has treated his people "when seventy years have been fulfilled."
You are certainly as free as I am to draw your own conclusion as to the significance of what Daniel wrote at Daniel 9:2, but you have not identified any contradiction in my beliefs with what the Bible says. You have perhaps identified at least one chapter in the Bible that you do not quite understand. There is, btw, a third reference by Jeremiah in the book of Jeremiah regarding "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon": Jeremiah 29:10. There is also a fourth reference by Jeremiah in the book of 2 Chronicles regarding "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon" by the Jews during which the land would pay off its sabbaths "to fulfill seventy years": 2 Chronicles 36:21.
Yet another way the WT tries to force you to think there is a need to deny the secular evidence.
You keep making assertions that you cannot prove: In what way does the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society apply force (or try to apply force) to make me think there to be a need to deny secular evidence? I don't deny secular evidence; I just don't accept it as being applicable to when Solomon's temple was destroyed, which I believe to have been in the year 607 BC. If secular history were to agree with what the Bible says, I would be of a different opinion, but at present, secular history contradicts the Bible, and I choose to side with what the Bible says over what secular history says.
@djeggnog wrote:
Now it's true that secular records as to the dates for Nebuchadnezzar's reign are not in agreement with the Bible's, for if Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 43 years, as secular records assign to the length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, then 25 years after his 19th year, Nebuchadnezzar's reign would have ended in 582 BC, and the first regnal year of his son, Evil-Merodach, as king of Babylon would have begun in 581 BC.
But if Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 606 BC as secular history asserts, then his 19th year would have been in 587 BC, and his death would have occurred some 25 years after his 19th year in 562 BC, and the first regnal year of his son would have begun in 561 BC, so that Evil-Merodach's first regnal year would have occurred 20 years later than it does in the Bible.
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
Do your math again, but remove those mysterious 20 years demanded by the false WT chronology, and everything falls into place..
My math is fine.
@djeggnog wrote:
Josephus tells us, according to Phoenician records, that it was "in the reign of king Ithobalos" that "Naboukodrosoros [Nebuchadnezzar] besieged Tyre" over a period of "13 years." We can deduce from what Josephus writes that Baal ascended to the throne of Tyre in 577 BC, which was the first regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar's son, Evil-Merodach, as the king of Babylon. Here is what Josephus wrote according to John Barclay's translation of Against Apion, Book I, Chapters 21:
"The calculation of dates goes like this. In the reign of king Ithobalos, Naboukodrosoros besieged Tyre for 13 years. After him Baal reigned for 10 years. Thereafter judges were appointed: Ednibalos, son of Baslechos, was judge for 2 months, Chelbes, son of Abdaeos, for 10 months, Abbalos, the high-priest, for 3 months; Myttynos and Gerastartos, son of Abdelimos, were judges for 6 years, after whom Balatoros was king for 1 year. When he died they sent for Merbalos and summoned him from Babylon, and he reigned for 4 years; when he died they summoned his brother Eiromos, who reigned for 20 years. It was during his reign that Cyrus became ruler of the Persians. So the whole period is 54 years, with 3 months in addition; for it was in the seventh year of the reign of Naboukodrosoros that he began to besiege Tyre, and in the fourteenth year of the reign of Eiromos that Cyrus the Persian seized power."
Merbalos' brother, Eiromos, reigned for 20 years (553 BC - 533 BC); Merbalos reigned for four years (559 BC - 553 BC); Balatoros reigned for one year (560 BC - 559 BC); Myttynos and Gerastartos ruled as judges in Tyre for six years (566 BC - 560 BC); Abbalos ruled as a judge for three months and Chelbes ruled as a judge for ten months (567 BC - 566 BC); Ednibalos ruled for two months as a judge and Baal reigned as king for 10 years (577 BC - 567 BC).
What this means is that if Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years "in the reign of Ithobalos," then Ithobalos' reign would have begun before Nebuchadnezzar's siege on Tyre began in 607 BC and Ithobalos continued to be king of Tyre some 13 years later in 594 BC until Baal's reign began in 577 BC, which means that Ithobalos survived Nebuchadnezzar's death in 581 BC. But what Josephus mentions that I missed when I had reviewed this portion of Chapter 21 of Against Apion in the past is that Cyrus the Persian had seized power "in the fourteenth year of Eiromos." Since Eiromos' 14th year would correspond to 539 BC, the year when Cyrus deposed Babylon, this would mean that Eiromos reigned for another six years after Cyrus' rise to power in 539 BC until 533 BC.
But if Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC as secular history asserts, then when the siege on Tyre ended in 574 BC, some 13 years after it began in 587 BC, Baal's ten-year reign would had begun, which contradicts the Phoenician timeline with indicates that it was during the reign of Ithobalos that Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege against Tyre took place. If Baal's reign as king of Tyre began in 577 BC after the reign of Ithobalos ended, then Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege ended during Baal's reign, which cannot be the case for such a conclusion would be in conflict with Josephus' recitation of Phoenician secular history (as quoted above).
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
How is it that you "deduce" from Josephus, the absolute date of 577 BC as the date Baal ascended to the throne of Tyre? Where did you get that from? Without that first date at the beginning of your long monologue, the rest is irrelevant.
Like this (you might want to use a date calculator):
Eiromos (20 years) = 553 BC - 533 BC
Merbalos (four years) = 559 BC - 553 BC
Balatoros = 560 BC - 559 BC
Myttynos and Gerastartos (six years) = 566 BC - 560 BC
Abbalos (three months) /
Chelbes (ten months) = 567 BC - 566 BC)
Ednibalos (two months) = 567 BC
Baal (10 years) = 577 BC - 567 BC
In this thread, nothing is irrelevant but faith, or haven't you been paying attention to your own arguments?
@djeggnog wrote:
Instead, the Bible supports Phoenician secular history as recounted by Josephus in Chapter 21 of Against Apion, which indicates that (1) Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre during Ithobalos' reign, and (2) Ithobalos reign ended before Baal's ten-year reign began in 577 BC. This conclusion can be reconciled with the belief that Nebuchadnezzar died in 582 BC at which time his son, Evil-Merodach, succeeded to his father's throne as king of Babylon, and that Evil-Merodach's first regnal year began in 581 BC.
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
You quote Josephus' Against Apion, and yet, how do you reconcile the fact that in the same work Josephus states:
"Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius." (Against Apion Book I, Chapter 21)
Do you reconcile this by another... "decision"?
This silly strawman is back. What "decision"? I'm going to leave it to you to reconcile what you just quoted without any understanding as to what Josephus meant. Maybe you can find someone that is willing to read and explain what Josephus wrote in Against Apion, I, xxi, but I did respond to this very same question when @AnnOMaly put it to me early on in this thread. Until you asked me this question, I didn't know how much you didn't know about this subject.
By putting this question to me, your ignorance has become apparent, and you come off as someone a little "wet" behind the ears. My unsolicited suggestion to you: Go back, find my response to her question, and then come back here and ask me any follow-up question(s) that you feel you need to ask me. BTW, I do not guarantee that I'll respond to any follow-up questions you might ask in this thread, since I will probably be withdrawing from this thread soon, but I've no interest really in telling you what to do.
I'll just say this much: Josephus refers to "fifty years" of the Phoenician historical account as a figure of speech, since in Against Apion, I, xxi, the true "state of obscurity" was "fifty-four years," and not "fifty years." It's quite clear you have no idea to what this obscure 50 years to which Josephus refers is, and that you're probably going to be doing a little homework tonight on what Josephus had to say about the reigns of the kings of Tyre over the 54-year period during Eiromos' reign when "Cyrus became ruler of the Persians."
Maybe, like @AnnOMaly, you are a fan of Carl Olof Jonsson, from whose book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Chronology and Christ's Return, she found to be rather informative, even the parts of it where he pats himself on the back on his own research on Nabonidus in footnote 51 (on page 112) of his book where he claims that "all scholars agree that Nabonidus reckons the fifty-four years from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar until his own accession-year...." Read my entire post and you should probably read Jonsson's speculation -- I mean, remarks, on the 54 years in his book. Ok?
@djeggnog
-
mrsjones5
Eggman, you need to write a book and throw it away cuz no one cares about your drivel here.
-
just n from bethel
For Jehovah's Witness lurkers - In case you missed it - here's DJeggface coming to your defense:
Now you may have once been called one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but not many of those that are even now called such are, Jehovah's Witnesses, because of this thing called "faith" that they lack.
Are you not thankful that you have such a loving Christian brother in DJ that thinks so highly of you and is so non-judgemental? Are you not proud that of all those calling themselves Jehovah's Witnesses, this is the guy that is here attempting to defend your beliefs?
TO DJ:
From the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses:
PLEASE STFU.
From all us JWNers: Please don't stop your posts here. Thank you for helping our families leave the org. We couldn't have done it without you. You're the best.
-
Witness My Fury
Oooh he's angry. You can tell because the post length goes nuclear....(Egg there's really no need to repost whole posts that make your new post 5 times longer than it needs to be and just confuses the hell out of anyone trying to read your drivel. ....well UNLESS that is your intention of course) ..... ((There's also no NEED to repost your whole post again with typo corrections, no one cares or reads your drivel enough to worry about it, seriously you do like the sound of your own voice don't you))
Egg, even though I'm still officially shunning you because you are an apostate, I will contest this little point of note as I SKIMMED over your drivel: (no I don't want a reply thankyou as I'm not talking to you)
since this thread is about the 70 years, and not about the "seven times," I have limited my remarks to discussing the 70 years.
Err, No retard, this thread is mine and it is about what it states in the thread title. That generally is what a thread titles purpose is, that's right, it's to let people know what the thread is about.
As 607 is in the title and not "70 years" as you wish to hold it down to, then that means ALL relevance TO and FROM 607 in this case, including the one you with such obvious and begruding reluctance quietly acknowledge as being directly linked to 1914 in JW teaching.
Just n from bethel, you express what we all know, this guy is retarded "special".
-
-
-
cantleave
Idiotnog - why do you come here and embarrass yourself.
-
AnnOMaly
djeggnog:
The majority of your post contains yet more long-winded irrelevancies, defends your blind faith in your own personal, quasi-JW position and tries to justify why you play fast and loose with the Bible texts. Nothing new, but you've really excelled yourself this time.
Here are some comments on the snippets peppered here and there that were relevant to the topic:
Zech. 7:5 - wasn't this discussed already? Which '70 years' was Zechariah referring to again?
A reminder: verse 1 gives the date of the prophecy - Darius' 4th year, month 9, day 4, i.e. December 6th/7th, 518 BC.
Why was the prophecy given? Verses 2 and 3 say it was because some men from Bethel wanted to know if they should CONTINUE the weeping and fasting ritual in the 5th month. Note the phrase, "THESE O how many years?"
And how many of "THESE" years had they'd been fasting? Verse 5 says "seventy." Do the math. 518 + 70 = ? You get the correct result, yes?
[eggie to MeanMrMustard] There is, btw, a third reference by Jeremiah in the book of Jeremiah regarding "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon": Jeremiah 29:10.
Only, the exiles weren't "at Babylon" 70 years, were they? You have yet to address this.
There is also a fourth reference by Jeremiah in the book of 2 Chronicles regarding "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon" by the Jews during which the land would pay off its sabbaths "to fulfill seventy years": 2 Chronicles 36:21.
Your misunderstandings about the 70 years here was discussed at the beginning of the thread, remember?
I don't deny secular evidence; I just don't accept it as being applicable to when Solomon's temple was destroyed, which I believe to have been in the year 607 BC. If secular history were to agree with what the Bible says, I would be of a different opinion, but at present, secular history contradicts the Bible, and I choose to side with what the Bible says over what secular history says.
Another reminder (how can you boast about your phenomenal memory when, after your misconceptions have been corrected many times over, you trot out the same nonsense?). Here it is in bolded caps so that hopefully it'll be imprinted on your brain:
SECULAR HISTORY DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE FOR THIS PERIOD. THE DATE 587 BC FOR JERUSALEM'S DESTRUCTION HARMONIZES WITH THE BIBLE.
Think you can remember that?
Like this (you might want to use a date calculator)
You might want to take your own advice.
Baal (10 years) = 577 BC - 567 BC
End of Tyre's siege - 594 BC according to you. 594 - 577 = 17 YEARS LONGER THAN JOSEPHUS' CALCULATION! Therefore, you cannot use his Tyrian king list to support your argument, can you?
I'll just say this much: Josephus refers to "fifty years" of the Phoenician historical account as a figure of speech, since in Against Apion, I, xxi, the true "state of obscurity" was "fifty-four years," and not "fifty years."
You are completely hopeless! This was all laid out in idiot language for you and still you don't understand.
Maybe, like @AnnOMaly, you are a fan of Carl Olof Jonsson, from whose book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Chronology and Christ's Return, she found to be rather informative, even the parts of it where he pats himself on the back on his own research on Nabonidus in footnote 51 (on page 112) of his book where he claims that "all scholars agree that Nabonidus reckons the fifty-four years from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar until his own accession-year...." Read my entire post and you should probably read Jonsson's speculation -- I mean, remarks, on the 54 years in his book. Ok?
What is wrong with you?
It's not 'his' speculation at all; scholars have come to their conclusions based on the evidence; and there is no hint of self-aggrandizement in the footnote. You seem to be transferring your own unwholesome tendencies onto another person again (or is it that his extensive research makes you feel inadequate?). Anyway, it certainly looks like you have a bee in your britches regarding something else that cannot be reconciled with your own personal time-line! ;-)
-
djeggnog
@MeanMrMustard wrote:
How is it that you "deduce" from Josephus, the absolute date of 577 BC as the date Baal ascended to the throne of Tyre? Where did you get that from? Without that first date at the beginning of your long monologue, the rest is irrelevant.
@djeggnog wrote:
Like this (you might want to use a date calculator):
Eiromos (20 years) = 553 BC - 533 BC
Merbalos (four years) = 559 BC - 553 BC
Balatoros = 560 BC - 559 BC
Myttynos and Gerastartos (six years) = 566 BC - 560 BC
Abbalos (three months) /
Chelbes (ten months) = 567 BC - 566 BC)
Ednibalos (two months) = 567 BC
Baal (10 years) = 577 BC - 567 BC
@AnnOMaly wrote:
You might want to take your own advice....
End of Tyre's siege - 594 BC according to you. 594 - 577 = 17 YEARS LONGER THAN JOSEPHUS' CALCULATION! Therefore, you cannot use his Tyrian king list to support your argument, can you?
Why shouldn't I? Because this happens to be a kinglist that doesn't fit your notion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BC? I don't have a problem relying upon the Tyrian kinglist provided in Josephus' Against Apion, I, xxi, and I do appreciate that Josephus poses a big problem for you and for all of you for whom 587/586 BC is so precious.
On page 98 of the book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Chronology and Christ's Return, its author, Carl Olof Jonsson provides a "Table I" on page 98 that ostensibly assigns the dates of the regnal years of the Neo-Babylonian kings, starting with Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar, which looks something like the following:
TABLE 1: THE REIGNS OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN KINGS
ACCORDING TO BEROSSUS AND THE ROYAL CANON
NAME BEROSSUS ROYAL CANON B.C.E. Nabopolassar 21 years 21 years 625-605 Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 43 years 604-562 Awel-Marduk* 2 years 2 years 561-560 Neriglissar 4 years 4 years 559-556 Labashi-Marduk 9 months —
556 Nabonidus 17 years 17 years 555-539 *Called Evil-Merodach at 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31.
Jonsson prefers calling this kinglist, "Royal Canon," rather than "Ptolemy's Canon" or "the Ptolemaic Canon" because, according to Jonsson's book, Prof. Otto Neugebauer believes "Ptoloemy's Canon" to be a misnomer, believing this kinglist to have been in use long Cladius Ptolemy was born. Be that as it may, Jonsson goes on to state the following on page 113:
"If, as has been established, Nabonidus’ first year was 555/554 B.C.E., Nabopolassar’s sixteenth year must have been 610/609, his first year 625/624 and his twenty-first and last year 605/604 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar’s first year, then, was 604/603, and his eighteenth year, when he desolated Jerusalem, was 587/586 B.C.E.—not 607 B.C.E. These dates agree completely with the dates arrived at from Berossus’ figures and the Royal Canon."
According to the Phoenician records, when Baal began to rule as king of Tyre in 577 BC, Nebuchadnezzar and his son, Evil-Merodach, were both deceased, and Evil-Merodach's brother-in-law, Neriglissar, had assassinated Evil-Merodach, had been ruling for two years as king of Babylon. come his successor to the throne of Babylon, was which is about Evil-Merodach was assassinated by his brother-in-law, who succeeded him as king of Babylon from 579 BC for four years.
Actually, 605 BC would have been Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, so that his first regnal year would have been 604 BC and his 18th year would have been 586 BC, and what is more, according to Jonsson's chronology, Nebuchadnezzar's last regnal year -- his 43rd year -- would have been 561 BC. But how can this be the case when Nebuchadnezzar, who died in 582 BC, had been dead for five years, and Evil-Merodach, who died in 579 BC, had been dead for two years, when Baal became the king of Tyre in 577 BC?
According to Josephus, the Phoenician kinglist indicates that Baal succeeded Ithobalos in 577 BC and Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre during Ithobalos' reign, whose reign ended in 577 BC. This means that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre before 577 BC because Josephus clearly refers to Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year-long siege of Tyre, and this siege occurred during Ithobalos' reign. If Nebuchadnezzar doesn't survive the end of Ithobalos' reign, which is the beginning of Baal's reign in 577 BC, then Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year couldn't have been 561 BC, could it? Well, is it possible that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, when he deposed Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's temple, was 586 BC? Nope, AnnOMaly. Your dates just don't add up, but mine do:
If Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year was 582 BC, which I believe it to have been, then subtracting 25 years from 582 BC (582-25), we arrive as what would have been Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, 607 BC. My dates add up and yours do not, so check! I believe that's mate, @AnnOMaly.
@djeggnog