Forest Gump says it best " Stupid is as stupid does "
607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)
by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Bungi Bill
WMF,
You have a PM.
Bill
-
The Finger
Jehovah's Witnesses no longer use the book The Truth Shall Make You Free. In the event you didn't know, we don't use the Vindication, Light or the Time is at Hand books either; older publications are retired when some of things contained in them become stale
Stale, no longer fresh and pleasant to eat.
"Without previous knowledge or design on the part of any one connected with The Watchtower, the time for the Columbus (Ohio) convention was fixed for July, 1924. Exactly ten years , to the day, from the beginning of the World War the message “Civilization Doomed” was delivered in support of the “Indictment”, which time marked the last typical jubilee; and, showing that the antypical jubilee must begin in 1925, the message announced the doom of Satan’s organization and that the time had come when the people should go free. The year 1925 marked the due time for the great jubilee, and the announcement was made in due course. But the world rulers failed to heed God’s message and to “proclaim liberty throughout all the land”."
"Light, Book One, by Judge J.F. Rutherford. Published in 1930 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society." Page 135.
I think stale is the wrong word.
-
cantleave
Stale = Unfulfilled prophecy = LIES
There's an interesting definintion of "The Truth"
-
thetrueone
There's an interesting definition of "The Truth"
Why would anyone with a bit of common sense not realize that the WTS. is publishing house that gets its financial support by
the sales and distribution of its published litature, be absolutely concerned about " The Truth ".
Of course they are going to twist and undermined the truth.
The very foundation of this religious publishing organization is founded on misrepresentation and lies. !!!!!!
-
castthefirststone
@djeggnog
I wasn't going to post here again but I have changed my mind. As many have eluded here, it seems that you can't count and that you change your opinion of a date on a whim. You boast about your memory and how intelligent you are which only attracts more ridicule and this you thrive on: as it distracts from the facts.
Back to your facts; you presented us this timeline based on your calculations:
Post 431 and 433 of djeggnog:
"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"
You tried to fool us by adding two years to Merbalos' reign as 559 - 553 = 6 and not 4. Josephus tells us that Merbalos reigned for 4 years not 6.
You probably realised your error and then fraudulently changed Eiromos' reign to end at 535 BC in Post 434 of djeggnog:
Eiromos (20 years) = 555 BC - 535 BC
Merbalos (four years) = 559 BC - 555 BC
Balatoros (one year) = 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 an earlier post you said that Eiromos started his reign in 533 BC when you stated:
"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."
Why did you change it to 535 (going 2 years back), when you clearly stated it started in 533 BC? You were trying to prove that Baal started his reign in 577 BC as this suited your needs. You made a mistake and then tried to correct it, by being dishonest.
You compounded this mistake by this statement in post 434 of djeggnog:
"Eiromos' 20-year reign spanned the years, 553 BC-533 BC, during which period Cyrus had become "ruler of the Persians." Since Eiromos reigned as king for four years after Cyrus had deposed Babylon in 539 BC, we can take the difference of 16 years (Eiromos), 4 years (Merbalos), 1 year (Balatoros), 6 years (Myttynos and Gerastartos), 1 year (Ednibalos, Chelbes and Abbalos), and 10 years (Baal), which total 38 years, and when we subtract 38 years from 539 BC [-539 + (-38)], we arrive at 577 BC."
Eiromos reigned for at least 6 years after Cyrus had become "ruler of the Persians". Cyrus became the ruler in the 14th year of Eiromos and not his 16th year. I suggest you go read Josephus again.
Here is a corrected timeline, using the 14th year of Eiromos:
Cyrus 539 BCE + 13 (13 as he was reigning for 13 and 539 was his 14th year) of Eiromos = 552 BCE
Eiromos (20 years) 552 BC - 532 BC
Merbalos (4 years) = 556 BC - 552 BC
Balatoros (1 year) = 557 BC - 556 BC
Myttynos and Gerastartos (6 years) = 563 BC - 557 BC
Abbalos (3 months) = 563 BC
Chelbes (10 months) = 564 BC - 563 BC
Ednibalos (2 months) = 564 BC
Baal (10 years) = 574 BC - 564 BC
Ithobalos (Reign unknown from Josephus, but at least 13 years) = At least 587 BC - 574 BC
Your "other" method:
-539-13(Eiromos)-4(Merbalos)-1(Balatoros)-6(Myttynos and Gerastartos)-1(Abbalos and Chelbes and Ednibalos)-10(Baal) = -574 So its 574 BC or 575 BC if you stretch Eiromos reign a bit and deduct 14 years. NOT 577 BC = NOT A FACT!!!
As you can see the above timeline proves nothing and disproves nothing. You try to add an additional 2 years and then state that this disproves conventional chronology but I fail to see what it disproves. You are making extraordinary claims, where is your proof?
You then continue with circumlocutious statements that tells Ann she has lost the debate but in actual fact you have proven absolutely nothing! Josephus doesn't prove or disprove any chronology (and you know it), unless you want to discuss the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar, according to Josephus. I know it won't serve your needs either as it won't fit into your chronology theories and might only discredit the translations of Josephus somewhat. If Josephus is the only proof you have, then you have lost this debate a long time ago, which is why you feel the need to retract from this thread.
Fact1: Baal didn't start his reign in 577 BC as djeggnog stated, as this will contradict Josephus.
Fact2: Even if Baal somehow started his reign in 577 BC (if one uses flawed djeggnog logic), this still proves absolutely NOTHING!!!
-
AnnOMaly
castthefirststone:
If he has the chutzpah to show his egg-smeared face again on this thread, he'll blame his inconsistencies on typos and you for being over-picky and lacking comprehension skills!
An additional comment about Ithobaal - the one who reigned during the siege and preceded Baal. H.J. Katzenstein's The History of Tyre (referenced in one of the footnotes in Barclay's translation of Josephus that djeggnog helpfully c&p-ed for us on p.16) p. 326 draws our attention to a prism called "The Court of Nebuchadnezzar" (see ANET 2 , p. 308) which is believed to be dated to c. 570 BC (real chronology; which would be c. 590 BC, eggie's chronology). In it is a list of officials attending Neb's court in Babylon. First among the foreign kings serving Neb's Court is "the king of Tyre" and Katzenstein believes it must be referring to Ithobaal who, like Jehoiachin, was hauled off to Babylon at the end of the siege.
Eggie would have to resolve this problem: who was the exiled "king of Tyre" at Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian Court if (according to eggie's posts #430, #431 and #432, and rehashed in #434) "Ithobalos continued to be king of Tyre some 13 years later in 594 BC until Baal's reign began in 577 BC" and meant that "Ithobalos survived Nebuchadnezzar's death in 581 BC"?
-
Crisis of Conscience
djeggnog is "fried" from all the responses proving him wrong.
He loyally submits, as seen below.
CoC
-
castthefirststone
I would just like to thank everyone that has taken the time to post on this thread. Thank you WitnessMyFury for starting this thread and thank you Ann for your tireless efforts to point out djeggnog's errors and false statements. Each and everyone that has posted on this thread has helped me better understand the accusation that conventional Babylonian chronology is incorrect. The onus is not on the conventional historians to proof 607 BC incorrect but the onus is on the accusers to proof that 587 BC is incorrect. This is something they are not willing to engage in, and then you get deluded individuals like djeggnog trying their luck.
I enjoyed the comic relief, provided by some, as it helped to take the edge off from sometimes reading through what I can only describe as pointless drivel, so I thank everyone for contributing. I even would like to thank djeggnog and 20571pnt428571 for contributing, as their contribution has driven the final nail into the coffin of their 607 BC theory.
@Ann: Thank you for posting the information on H.J. Katzenstein. I am not a historic expert by any stretch of the imagination and you have helped me greatly to understand some of the specifics. Even when you made a mistake you were humble enough to admit it, without excuses, and this by itself speaks volumes against djeggnog.
-
AnnOMaly
So glad that this thread was of value to you, castthefirststone. Not the best kind of thread to cut your chronological teeth on, IMHO, as the 607 defenders' posts were nearly all froth with sprinklings of blunder-ridden argumentation difficult to sieve through. There have been far more able 607 defenders who are better acquainted with the subject and can, at times, have you scurrying to the library or Google search :-)
I'm by no means an expert in history either. It's stuff you learn along the way. The Katzenstein book I got three or more years ago because I was clueless about Tyre's long history (especially fitting it in with Bible prophecy) and it was recommended to me. It's proved very useful.
