bttt
607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)
by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
djeggnog
@castthefirststone:
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.
Ok.
Back to your facts; you presented us this timeline based on your calculations:
* * *
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
How does what you say here prove that I attempted to fool anyone? For example, notice that by my having written, "Merbalos (four years)," I am saying that Merbalos reigned for "four years"; I do not write "six years," do I? Although in an earlier post I had erroneously indicated that the years, "559 BC - 553 BC," had spanned six years and not four years, in a subsequent post, I went on to assign the years, "559 BC - 555 BC," to Merbalos' reign in order to reflect a four-year span. If you believe that by my making this correction I was being dishonest, that I was attempting to fool someone, then I accept that, as far as you are concerned, I was being dishonest.
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 are asking me why I made the change from 533 BC to 535 BC, but I would think the answer would have been obvious. If Merbalos had reigned for four years, then "559 BC - 553 BC" would have covered a span of six years, not four, which would then have made the reign of Eiromos, who reigned for 20 years, off by two years. Perhaps you have a need to believe me to have been dishonest when I was making this correction, and that's ok since I know that there are doctors that have been successful in helping those with cynical dispositions overcome to some degree their propensity to view strangers, especially Jehovah's Witnesses, as if they were bogeymen whose goal is to control their minds. However, I was merely correcting an error that I had failed to see when I had initially posted the chronology of these Phoenician kings. The following table illustrates what it was I actually did:
Kings of Tyre
Regnal Years
Eiromos (20 years)
555 BC - 535 BC [553 BC - 533 BC]
Merbalos (4 years)
559 BC - 555 BC [559 BC - 553 BC]
Balatoros (1 year)
560 BC - 559 BC
Myttynos and Gerastartos (6 years)
566 BC - 560 BC
Abbalos (3 months) /
Chelbes (10 months)
567 BC - 566 BC
Ednibalos (2 months)
567 BC
Baal (10 years)
577 BC - 567 BC
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."
I don't know, but if you were willing to re-examine your theory, I believe you would realize that what you post here is consistent with my original error in that I have assigned the years "553 BC-533 BC" to Eiromos' reign, which was off by two years, and which error was corrected in a subsequent post when I assigned the years "555 BC-535 BC" to Eiromos' reign. What you discovered was just another typo, so as indicated in the following, the only change that would need to be made is in red:
Eiromos' 20-year reign spanned the years, 555 BC-535 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.
@castthefirststone:
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.
In Against Apion, I, xxi, Josephus wrote, in pertinent part, the following:
"Eiromos ... 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."
If we were to start with 539 BC, the year in which Cyrus "seized power," then according to Josephus, 539 BC would be Eiromos' 14th year, but note that he doesn't say the period of these Phoenician kings totalled only 54 years, but that "the whole period is 54 years, with 3 months in addition."
An inscription contained in the Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that the date of Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 16, 539 BC, and Ezra 1:1-3 states that it was "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia" -- Cyrus' first regnal year ran from Nisan 538 BC to Nisan 537 BC -- that in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, "Cyrus the king of Persia" caused a decree to go out to the Jews, to build to Jehovah "a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah," which decreed permitted "all his people" to "go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah," to "rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel."
Originally, I had indicated that Eiromos had reigned for 20 years, six years after Cyrus' rise to power in 539 BC until 533 BC, but Eiromos' reign ended in 535 BC, a difference of only four years. However, Josephus tells us that Eiromos reigned for 20 years "with 3 months in addition"; these three months I had not originally included in my calculations. While Cyrus' accession year began in Tishri 539 BC, his first regnal year began in Nisan 538 BC, so we end up not only with Eiromos' 14 years, but 14 years, 3 months, rounded up to 15 years, plus Cyrus' accession year: 16 years.
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 indicated above, your corrected timeline is irrelevant, since it is based on fewer assumptions than the ones I made, for based on the calculations used in my timeline, 577 BC is 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 may not agree with me, which is fine, but at least you better understand the bases upon which my timeline (above) lays out the "54 years, with 3 months in addition."
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!!!
I would love to use fewer words, but you may be one of the few here on JWN that might have understood my previous post had I used fewer words, but there are lurkers readings this thread that might not be as bright as you were to breakdown my calculations so as to flesh out where there may have seemed even to you to be a few discrepancies in my calculations. As you can now see from the above, you are mistaken; I didn't lose anything. Your calculations, @castthefirststone, didn't take into consideration the things that I took into consideration when interpreting what Josephus wrote in Against Apion, I, xxi.
My tongue was planted in my cheek when I likened this discussion to @AnnOMaly being chessmated or having a losing poker hand, but I have been here sharing here what I understood Josephus to have been saying by laying out the "54 years, with 3 months in addition" period of the reigns of the Phoenician kings to make the point that Nebuchadnezzar and his son, Evil-Merodach, were both dead in 577 BC when Baal's reign began.
Now according to @AnnOMaly, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year is 605 BC, so his first regnal year would have been 604 BC and his 18th year would have been 586 BC, which means that Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd regnal year would have been 561 BC. Therein lies the problem: @AnnOMaly's dates don't add up, for, according to Josephus, Nebuchadnezzar's didn't survive the end of Ithobalos' reign, whose reign ended in 577 BC, the year when Baal's reign began. It was during Ithobalos' reign when Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year-long siege on Tyre occurred, but Nebuchadnezzar wasn't alive when Baal's reign began in 577 BC.
If Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year was 582 BC, then Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year would be 607 BC. We can know this by doing the math: Just subtract 25 years from 582 BC [-582 + (-25) = 607]. This means that Nebuchadnezzar died during Ithobalos' reign, some five years before Baal's reign began in 577 BC. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year couldn't have been 561 BC, since by 561 BC, he would have been dead for some 21 years (582 BC) and his son, Evil-Merodach, for some 18 years (579 BC).
FACT 1 - Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege on Tyre occurred during Ithobalos' reign.
FACT 2 - Ithobalos' reign ended where Baal's reign began: In 577 BC.
@djeggnog
-
castthefirststone
@djeggnog
With all the typos that you make, I suggest you change your keyboard as it seems faulty. It is difficult enough to read everything you post but compound that with your typing mistakes, it makes it almost impossible to follow your logic.
I want to know, if you knew you made a mistake and later corrected it, why didn't you inform us, like an honest person does? You rather opted to try to slip it past the forum and then blame it on typing mistakes. You made at least three typing mistakes when you tried to explain your Tyre chronology. My opinion is that it isn't typing mistakes but rather deviously trying to draw conclusions that makes no sense.
As far as your "corrected" Chronology, here are my observations:
1. You add 3 months to Eiromos. This is nonsense as Josephus is clear on how long he reigned. The 3 months comes from Abbalos reign, not Eiromos. Please also add to this explaination how 54 years and 3 months are attributed to the reign of the Phoenician kings.
2. You try to confuse the issue with regnal year of Cyrus. Josephus mentions Cyrus from the Chaldeans perspective and contrasts it to the Phoenicians history. Cyrus took over the kingdom from the Chaldeans in 539 BC, which you are in agreement with. I don't see how the regnal year allows you to add another year to Eiromos' reign. If you use the regnal year of Cyrus, it takes you futher away from your precious 577 BC that you cling to. It certainly doesn't allow you to add anything to Eiromos. You also round up 14.25 years up to 15 years adding 0.75 years to the reign, when Josephus mentions nothing of the kind. All of your reasoning are devious methods to try to confuse the unknowing reader. Go read Proverbs 3:32, you hypocrite!
3. Please provide proof for your statement that Nebuchadnezzar was dead when Baal was reigning. I am not interested in an arithmetic lesson, provide proof that Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 BC (562 BC is the generally accepted date, by the way) or provide proof that Nebuchadnezzar was dead when Baal was reigning. Neither of these statements are correct and two incorrect assumptions doesn't proof anything.
-
djeggnog
@castthefirststone:
With all the typos that you make, I suggest you change your keyboard as it seems faulty. It is difficult enough to read everything you post but compound that with your typing mistakes, it makes it almost impossible to follow your logic.
I don't usually type anything; I dictate, and what you often read are the result of recognition errors, as to which I wouldn't expect you to know anything.
I want to know, if you knew you made a mistake and later corrected it, why didn't you inform us, like an honest person does? You rather opted to try to slip it past the forum and then blame it on typing mistakes. You made at least three typing mistakes when you tried to explain your Tyre chronology. My opinion is that it isn't typing mistakes but rather deviously trying to draw conclusions that makes no sense.
What I will typically do is use brackets, as I have done many times in this thread, to indicate that I have corrected a typo, either my typo or someone else's typo, and at times I might even highlight a typo by using red type, as I have also done in this thread. I have no need to be dishonest and I don't care if my conclusions don't make any sense to you. I'm not really talking to you, per se, but to the lurkers of this thread.
As far as your "corrected" Chronology, here are my observations:
1. You add 3 months to Eiromos. This is nonsense as Josephus is clear on how long he reigned. The 3 months comes from Abbalos reign, not Eiromos. Please also add to this [explanation] how 54 years and 3 months are attributed to the reign of the Phoenician kings.
I don't believe I'm going to do that. You explain this "54 years and 3 months" for yourself.
2. You try to confuse the issue with regnal year of Cyrus. Josephus mentions Cyrus from the Chaldeans perspective and contrasts it to the Phoenicians history. Cyrus took over the kingdom from the Chaldeans in 539 BC, which you are in agreement with. I don't see how the regnal year allows you to add another year to Eiromos' reign. If you use the regnal year of Cyrus, it takes you [further] away from your precious 577 BC that you cling to.
The year 577 BC is not "precious" to me. My calculations pointed to the year 577 BC. If I had used a different number when referring to the reign of Eiromos -- say, the number "14" -- then I would have landed in the year 579 BC, which would also not be precious to me, but the date to which my calculations will have pointed. As I have already explained, I think it necessary to give some consideration to when the first year of Cyrus' reign began and to the fact that Josephus says that there were three additional months beyond the 54 years.
I think it important to keep in mind that in Against Apion, I, xxi, Josephus referred to the reigns of the Phoenician kings to make the point that the Phoenician histories, which occurred during the time when Solomon's temple lay desolate in a "state of obscurity for fifty years," provide some context with respect to the Chaldean histories with respect to Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege on Tyre during the reign of Ithobalos. IMO, if you didn't get this point, then it was really a waste of your time reading this chapter. Again, none of this is about my finding any particular year -- 577 BC or any other year -- "precious." If today was July 7, 2011, and you told me that four days from now -- not "54 years and 3 months" but just four days from now -- you will be dropping a check in the mail addressed to me for $300 (US), then I would expect you to do this on July 11, 2011, because four days from today I would land on July 11, 2011. Now had you said five days from today, then I would expect you to be mailing that check on July 12, 2011. If you had said "54 years and 3 months" from today, then I would expect you to be mailing that check, even if my expectation were totally implausible, on October 7, 2065. You have to know that your objection here to my calculation wastes time.
It certainly doesn't allow you to add anything to Eiromos. You also round up 14.25 years up to 15 years adding 0.75 years to the reign, when Josephus mentions nothing of the kind. All of your reasoning are devious methods to try to confuse the unknowing reader. Go read Proverbs 3:32, you hypocrite!
You are an apostate, and yet you are here telling me to read God's word? Ok, if you insist, but back to the point, let me ask you something: How many months are there between Tishri 539 BC and Nisan 538 BC? Perhaps you should give some thought to the answer you get after you have made this rather simple calculation.
3. Please provide proof for your statement that Nebuchadnezzar was dead when Baal was reigning. I am not interested in an arithmetic lesson, provide proof that Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 BC (562 BC is the generally accepted date, by the way) or provide proof that Nebuchadnezzar was dead when Baal was reigning. Neither of these statements are correct and two incorrect assumptions doesn't proof anything.
What's wrong with you? If Baal began to reign as the king of Tyre in 577 BC, then his predecessor, Ithobalos, would not have been reigning, correct? Why would you need proof that Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 BC when if Josephus indicated that Ithobalos was the king of Tyre when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre, then according to the popular premise that his siege on Tyre began in 587 BC and ended 13 years later, then this siege would have occurred during the reign of Baal, who Josephus essentially tells us had by 574 BC been ruling as the king of Tyre for three years since 577 BC. If Ithobalos was no longer the king of Tyre in 574 BC, then logically Nebuchadnezzar wasn't either. Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe Josephus indicated that the siege occurred during the reigns of both Ithobalos and Baal, did he?
@djeggnog
-
castthefirststone
@djeggnog it's ironic that you ask me what is wrong with me. What is wrong with you?
You call me an apostate, but what makes me an apostate? Posting on this site? What does that say about you? I suppose you are correct, I am an apostate, an apostate against falseness and lies that you keep spewing. Dictating must be lamest excuse I have ever heard. How do you dictate a wrong number?
I asked you about the 54 years and three months and how it connects to the reigns of the Phonecian kings because you brought it up. You use the three months of the 54 years to add 2 years to Eiromos' reign. Perhaps you should get a narrator to read back your posts to you as it seems that you can't remember what you posted. Back to Josephus, the fourteenth year of Eiromos is when Cyrus took the kingdom. Josephus doesn't say in his 16th year and then add three months to his 16th year. Nothing you say can remove those facts, it is not an interpretation, it is explicitly stated as such. As I said before you trying to confuse the issue with Cyrus' regnal year doesn't work as it makes the starting point of the 13 years of Eiromos one year away from your precious 577 BC.
577 BC is also wrong because you can't stretch Eiromos' reign in the context of Josephus. Josephus clearly states that he only reigned 20 years. This is the same problem you have with stretching Nabonidus/Belshazzar reign. You have absolutely no proof for either assumptions, yet you brazenly continue to try to proof your theories by spewing fallacies.
I didn't join this forum to debate anything. I joined as I wanted to see if there was anyone that can defend the theory that 607 BC is the correct date and the established 587 BC is incorrect. You seem to be the only person willing to engage on this issue and the rest of the accusers that make up the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses are not willing to defend their position regarding this. You have failed to do so and use deceit to try to prove your theories.
-
castthefirststone
For the benefit of any lurkers that find it hard to follow what djeggnog has written:
djeggnog posted in post 431 the following as "proof" that 607 BC is correct and 587 BC is not:
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).
According to the above he told us that Merbalos reigned for 4 years but 559-553 BC is 6 years. When I called his bluff he said it was a typing mistake. He made the same typos in 3 consecutive posts and later corrected what he called a "typo" in post 434 by adjusting the start of Eiromos reign to 555 BC. You are free to make up your own mind if 553 BC and 559-553 BC are typos as he asserts.
His whole argument is flawed of course as he takes one paragraph out of Josephus and then chooses which information to use and which to discard, giving no proof (other than crazy arguments) for his assertions.
He takes the reign of the kings literally, but discards the 50 years that the temple laid desolate saying it's symbolic. He also discards the 54 years but only uses the 3 months "in addition" to add that to Eirosmos 14th year. The 3 months is taken completely out of context but he gives no reason how the 3 months relate to Eirosmos. He also ignores Eirosmos 14th year and rather takes it as Eirosmos' 16th year to get to 577 BC for the beginning of Baal's reign. He does all this to cover up his obvious (my opinion) lying or mistakes as he puts it. He also chooses to ignore the 7th year of Naboukodrosoros (Nebuchadnezzar) when according to Josephus Nebu started the 13 year siege on Tyre in his 7th year.
The issue really is: Can Josephus be used to disprove conventional chronology, when you have to rely on the same conventional chronology to get to the start of Cyrus' rule? You can make up your own mind from the above explanation if he is using the material available to him honestly.
-
Witness My Fury
Copy and paste from the other Eggtard thread:
He's Watchtarded remember so don't expect any honest analysis or discussion on any point whatsoEVER.
Expect more of this: circular reasoning, bait and switch, topic derailment, evaisive, dodging, convoluted, cherry picking, Looooooooong self agrandising unprovable nonsensical posts with the sole aim of making him look smart and you look dumb (this only occurs in his own deluded worldview of course).
We on the other hand who have removed our WTS blinkers can see the reality of the situation which is that HE is one who looks dumb and dumber and continually dumberer for as long as he continues to not recognise that he is under mind control in a mind control cult.
(Yes those were references to the films of the same names, not me being thick.)
-
-
AnnOMaly
Wey hey! Eggie came back for more!
-
thetrueone
Expect more of this: circular reasoning, bait and switch, topic derailment, evasive, dodging, convoluted, cherry picking, Looooooooong self agrandising unprovable nonsensical posts with the sole aim of making him look smart and you look dumb (this only occurs in his own deluded worldview of course).
That is why I left this discussion, there wasn't any solid sense of reasoning and rational logic to Djeggnog's presenting argument or information.
It isn't hard to disseminate the misinformed information coming from the WTS., for they were always more concerned about selling
literature and attracting attention to themselves and their literature.
The WTS. is and always have been a commercialized religious organization seeking and cultivating authoritative power and the expansion of such.
