@sabastious wrote:
DJ, you are overthinking it, as usual. Have you ever thought that maybe the 70 years was not a literal number, but rather a description of the events?
@djeggnog wrote:
I don't know how to "overthink" anything, @sabastious. I just think and, believe me, this is not a hard thing for me to do. Nothing I've ever posted to JWN is as extensive as the charts posted by @AnnOMaly and @Alleymom, but I would suspect that you would accuse them of "overthinking" things, too. If you want, you can review a thread started almost a year ago by @Witness My Fury in which only those with the ability to think would be able to comprehend, which might not be you, if after reviewing it you are still of the belief that the 70 years may not have been "a literal number, but rather a description of the events," which conclusion would definitely be a facepalm moment for me. So, no, I haven't had such a thought.
@thetrueone wrote:
If you cant fight with intellectual honesty and broad based knowledge, then fight with Ad Hominem attacks.
As usual Djeggnog you lose every intellectual joist here on this forum
"As usual"? What is that supposed to mean? What "intellectual joist"? I made a comment to @sabastious and here you are like a child that rudely butts in when two adults are speaking as if you had something important to say to one of the adults, except you are like that child with nothing whatsoever of importance to say to me. You can comment on whatever it is you want in any thread you choose, and you don't seem shy about jumping in to threads to make one or more comments, but while it is commendable that you would jump in here with both feet to accuse me of having made an ad hominem attack directed at @sabastious, @sabastious is an adult and yet he didn't seem to take offense over my comment as you did.
In inviting @sabastious to review a year-old thread by @Witness My Fury, I sought to warn him that "only those with the ability to think would be able to comprehend" that thread, and I didn't know whether@sabastious was prepared to absorb all of the comments contained in a 26-page thread (over 14,000 views) to counter his remark about my "overthinking" things in believing "607 BC to be true."
I don't know how old you are, but this stunt of yours in my mind makes you resemble a child, so I'm not going to "diss" you (as you kids are wont to say) for daring to criticize me for my choice of words, but, in the future, you should let the adults work out their differences instead of you thinking that you can help when you haven't learned quite how to think and reason. Next time, don't post a message to me about how you felt about what it was you believe I may have said to @sabastious or to someone else, but, rather, post your message to @sabastious, and let him know how you didn't like what it was I said to him, because maybe he will listen to you with appreciation for your behaving like a big brother to defend him.
If I were to have told you here to man up, grow a pair and stop sucking up to people in the hope that this will make others like you or think you to be their guardian angel, that would be akin to an ad hominem, but I just want you to stay on topic and not go off the proverbial reservation by accusing me of doing something that you think to be untoward or god-awful on some level in your mind to someone else. I do have mild ad hominem for you, @thetrueone: Please grow up and please behave like the adult you're supposed to be, since the only reason I am reacting to this message of yours is because you posted a message to me pretending to be @sabastious' guardian angel, but not pretending to be simplemindedly goofy to have read something into a portion of my message to @sabastious' than was there. People typically don't want gossips or tattlers around them, and they don't like men-pleasures or suck-ups.
@djeggnog wrote:
@AnnOMaly created a table in this thread that I thought to have been well done, but the data contained in it is unreliable and requires that one put their faith in it in order to believe it (which she does). I especially liked @AnnOMaly's tables in this thread and @Alleymom's tables are excellent on page 2 of this same thread, but whatever their motives were in producing such great-looking tables, they feel quite justified that there is every reason to reject 607 BC and no reason at all for anyone to accept 607 BC as the date when Solomon temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon.
@AnnO Maly wrote:
How is it unreliable? If any of the data is incorrect, you must tell me and then I can correct it.
Well, the data is unreliable. I made some notes and tucked them somewhere on my computer or on my iPad, and I suppose I should have posted something to the thread that would jog my memory, but I didn't, so it seems that you and I won't be turning this thread into something that only a few of us on JWN can even understand, that is, beyond that which is on the surface.
@djeggnog wrote:
Why Ptolemy agrees with Berossus, but Josephus has a very different take on the Neo-Babylonian kings is a mystery, but the question of whether Nabopolassar ruled as king of Egypt is also a mystery? Berossus claims he did....
@AnnOMaly wrote:
See my post #2007 on THIS THREAD.
Ok. I look at it this weekend.
Burstein thought Berossus made a huge error in suggesting Nabopolassar ruled Egypt. However, Nabopolassar took over the conquered Assyrian territories which had included dominating over Egypt. See Susan E. Alcock (editor), Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History (2001, Cambridge University Press), pp. 374, 383. Thus it would be natural for Berossus' Babylonian source to view Necho as some 'rebellious satrap.'
I've made a note of these points you made here, but none of this has jogged my memory as to what it was about which I made a few notes.
@djeggnog wrote:
It's clear to me that @AnnOMaly doesn't trust the Bible (and, of course, this is no secret to @AnnOMaly), but I could have a beer with both she and @Alleymom is because they are as intense about what they believe as I am about why I believe the Bible.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
I know you prefer to think that, but it's clear to me that you are blocking out all the times I have used the Bible's own testimony to support my arguments so you can remain prejudiced to any disconfirming biblical and secular information presented to you falsifying the WTS's chronological scheme.
You've got biblical information (not secular information) that falsifies the Neo-Babylonian king-list, do you? No, you don't, but I am not now going to be discussing this with you (even though I'd like to do so). I feel as if this is all old ground that we've covered, but I'm not prejudiced from giving consideration to anything biblical or secular that you might have.
However, @AnnOMaly, you don't use the Bible to support your arguments; you use it only when the Bible supports your arguments. You are not alone, for many people do this and I'm ok with that. This is not to say that you use the Bible to win an argument, but there are many people that do use it for this purpose, and when I discern that this is what someone is doing, I lose interest because I never use the Bible to win an argument and I'd rather go to Starbucks and humiliate the person on the chessboard.
@djeggnog wrote:
If you want, you can review a thread started almost a year ago by @Witness My Fury in which only those with the ability to think would be able to comprehend, which might not be you, if after reviewing it you are still of the belief that the 70 years may not have been "a literal number, but rather a description of the events," which conclusion would definitely be a facepalm moment for me. So, no, I haven't had such a thought.
@sabastious wrote:
I can see only one of three conclusions. The archaeological evidence is either supportive of (1) a Satanic historical conspiracy of epic proportions (2) The Bible uses numbers to describe recurring events (3) The Bible's historical date is wrong
1 is paranoia and 3 is is explained by 2, leaving the second option as the most attractive.
Ok.
With the God of Numbers in mind, DJ, what do you make of this scripture:
Revelation 2:10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.
I don't know a "God of Numbers," and if perchance you are referring to Jehovah God, I don't have your frame of reference, @sabastious.
Again, we have the number 10 and again we have it connected to something bad happening to God's children. We definitely have a pattern here wouldn't you say?
A "pattern"? I don't see a pattern. How so?
What does it all mean? Does God want numbers bouncing around in certain people's heads? As a student of the Bible the answer should be a resounding, yes! Not dates, but numbers.
Ok.
@Londo111:
As a person apparently loyal to "the Slave", you shouldn't even be on this forum. How do you reconcile that to yourself?
I don't have a problem posting messages to JWN, let alone being on this forum reading the various threads. It would seem that it is you for whom my being here and posting here presents a problem. There's nothing with which I feel any need to reconcile myself.
Don't you know your disobedience to their directive to not frequent such forums is making you disloyal?
Disobedient to what? Disloyal to whom? Your conscience? You may have been one of those Witnesses that never quite learned that what you supposed to be doing with the things you were learning is training your conscience, not thinking that you were being groomed to be some kind of superpoliceman of other Jehovah's Witnesses to enforce what things you might regard as being congregation rules Christian freedom neither exacts nor imposes any rules upon anyone, unless one's own conscience should be defiled in some way by something. You might have concluded for whatever reason that the elders in God's organization are in many ways like the Pharisees, who were faultfinders and rule makers, and there are some congregations
There are many in God's organization that have an inordinate fear of the elders, an unhealthy fear of men, rather than a healthy fear of God. Just as there exists ignorance among the rank and file in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, many of the elders are ignorant of many things themselves, so it is not uncommon to hear about investigations being conducted by some of the elders into the personal affairs of someone in whose care they were appointed as spiritual shepherds, which "investigations" have turned out to be witch hunts, with elders either being appointed or someone else being appointed by one of them, to stalk a fellow Christian, not with a view to helping them to overcome some problem, but with a view to disgracing them in the eyes of the congregation, their spiritual brothers and sisters, by maybe a public reproof or a disfellowshipping action based on some rule infraction.
Tell you what, @Londo111: Try not to let it get to you what it is I am doing on JWN, because you have no say whatever in the matter of whatever it is I should decide to do or not do. Just mind your own business and if @Simon should decide that he doesn't want me posting messages to his website, then I'm pretty sure he's capable of deleting my account, ok? If you should find it either disturbing or irritating to see me posting messages here to JWN, then you really should leave -- really -- because you may one day and without advance warning venture into another thread and discover -- like you did in this thread -- that I've posted a message to that thread, too. Perhaps your conscience is greatly overburdened and it needs to take a break. Just so you know, my conscience is clear and I don't care what someone else's conscience may decide I should not be doing, for I am guided by my own conscience not someone else's. (1 Corinthians 10:29)
For the record, Jerusalem's Destruction in 587/586 BC is fully in harmony with the Bible.
No, it isn't.
In fact, this date can almost be derived from the Bible alone. I say almost because one needs an astronomical diary to pinpoint the year 539 BC.
I'd be interested in hearing how you arrive at 587 BC (or 586 BC) using only the Bible. I don't care to use "an astronomical diary." Please take me through how you are able to arrive at 587 BC (or 586 BC) using only the Bible.
How can one accept the diary that pinpoints 539 BC and discount the rest, like VAT4956?
I don't know, but I don't much care either.
And what about the following?
* The astronomical diary B.M. 32312
* The Saturn tablet B.M. 76738+76813
* The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1417
* The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1419
* The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1420
* The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1421
* LBAT 1415
* Lunar eclipse Text no. 5 in Hunger, ADT V.
* Text no. 52 in Hunger, ADT V.
* Planetary tablet, SBTU IV 171
What about these things? Am I supposed to make your case for you or are you trying to find out whether or not I'm familiar with these items you list here? What is your real question?
Wherein the tens of thousands of economic, administrative and legal documents from Babylonian times are the 20 extra years that would be needed to support a 607 BC date?
I don't know, but perhaps I will know once you have explained to me how it was you were able to arrive at 587 BC (or 586 BC) using only the Bible. It seems to me that using 587 BC, instead of 607 BC would be a loss of 20 years, and the trick is to be able to get those "20 extra years" back in the Neo-Babylonian chronology (if you can).
What about Adad-guppi stele? It is the obituary of Nabonidus's mother, dating the lengths of every Neo-Babylonian king.
Nabonidus' mother is irrevelant. Why do you mention this woman?
What about the prosopographical evidence from that time?
The what? The "prosopographical evidence"? From what time?
How about the synchronisms with the Egyptian chronology?
What does Egyptian chronology have to do with the destruction of Solomon's temple and the destruction of Jerusalem back in 607 BC or, if you prefer, in 587 BC?
All of this harmonizes with the Bible. All of this points to 587/586 BC as the time of Jerusalem's destruction. THE VERY STONES ARE CRYING OUT!
All of what harmonizes with the Bible"? Don't just throw stuff out that you think sounds important as if you are trying to impress me. I want you to impress me by filling in the blanks that you have convenient left out -- all of them.
Jesus said: We must worship God with spirit and TRUTH. In line with that, here are some other questions. If 607BC is valid, scripturally and historically, why does the Society need to misrepresent quotes from scholars and historians?
Yes, Jesus did say this at John 4:23, 24, but do you have you made a list of these quotes from scholars and historians that were misrepresented in something printed by the Society in one of its publications? In a magazine article or in a book? If you do, for each such quote that you have in mind -- I hope you don't have a lot of them -- please complete the following:
(a) What is the quote;
(b) Who authored the quote; and
(c) When was the quote made?
Why did their articles in the October/November Public edition list a reference that said the planetary observations on VAT4569 were unclear, when the reference said no such thing?
Is this a big deal? Is this information to which you refer also something that other Christian denominations besides Jehovah's Witnesses advance or is this specifically related to Jehovah's Witnesses. I ask because other Christian denominations get things wrong -- many of them are of the belief that Jesus is God, for example -- but do you also rail against these other Christian denominations about the things they publish that aren't clear?
Why did they say the month of Nissan began on May 2 during Nebuchadnazzar's 37th year, when the month on Nissan NEVER began that late?
I'm going to need to see the quote to which you refer in context, so that I don't guess wrong as to what it is exactly you are referring.
And more recently, why did they misrepresent Ephraim Stern in the June Awake?
And what is the significance of this misrepresentation? Please don't make me guess to what you are referring, ok? I don't want to guess.
@thetrueone:
If lies and dishonest deception are to be used to sustain an organization's self image then it will be so, the Truth will have to be found elsewhere.
Here you are again. You must fancy yourself to be a cheerleader. What truth is there that has to be found elsewhere? The truth of God or do you mean some other "truth"? When you answer, should you answer, please don't cut-and-paste someone else's words from one of our publications. I'd rather you answer me using your own words. Thanks.
@djeggnog
