by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I've already examined your website Jeffro, no need to peddle your blog. Are you going to respond to the points or just talk about how wrong I am without haven proven a thing besides that you can name logical fallacies which you yourself have committed?
I have no need to 'prove' anything to you. I owe you nothing. I have considered the material in depth. I know the JW chronology is wrong both scripturally and historically.
Regurgitating quashed arguments
Endless threads with no resolution
C laiming JW status but ignorant of WTS advice
O verly patronising
Vexed by those who don't share his point of view
E xpert of the multi-font multi-colour post
R ound and round and round we go
Y ou've been found out mister
... these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years- Jeremiah 25:11
Nabonidus and Belshezzar killed in 539... 609-539=70
end of story...
(you don't get to make any conjectures here... )
Good point. I see three conclusions here:
None fit with the Watchtower doctrine, so the Watchtower doctrine of 1914 is false. So whose side are you on?
JWFacts... I was refutting Ethos conjecture that the "servitude" lasted all the way to 537 because the "king" need not be "alive" for the 70 years of servitude to run from 607 to 537.
But, Jeremiah 25:11 is clear... they would have to serve the KING... not an abstract temporary government that may or may not have existed after 539...
Was Jerusalem destroyed in 607 BCE or 587 BCE?
"There are only 5 Babylonian kings to deal with. It isn't hard. You don't need to bother with VAT 4956, Josephus, Ptolemy, Anstey, Bullinger, etc. etc. Just go by the actual kings, whose names and regnal lengths are known from tens of thousands of cuneiform tablets from many different towns and villages all over southern Mesopotamia. It is so simple a child could do it.
Starting with Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, and working backward.
Babylon falls to Cyrus the Persia -- 539 BCE (Date accepted by WT CD ROM 2001)
Nabonidus -- 17 years (WT agrees) For long periods he entrusted rule to his son, Prince Belshazzar
Labashi-Marduk -- 3 months (WT says less than 9 months)
Neriglissar -- 4 years (WT in agreement)
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years (WT in agreement
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years (In the 19th year of his reign he destroyed Jerusalem)
WT 1965 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage sonLabashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Nabonidus -- 17 years
17 = 539 BCE
16 = 540
15 = 541
14 = 542
13 = 543
12 = 544
11 = 545
10 = 546
9 = 547
8 = 548
7 = 549
6 = 550
5 = 551
4 = 552
3 = 553
2 = 554
1 = 555
0 = accession year = 556
3 months in 556
3 = 557
2 = 558
1 = 559
0 = accession year = 560
1 = 561
0 = accession year = 562
42 = 563
41 = 564
40 = 565
39 = 566
38 = 567
37 = 568
36 = 569
35 = 570
34 = 571
33 = 572
32 = 573
31 = 574
30 = 575
29 = 576
28 = 577
27 = 578
26 = 579
25 = 580
24 = 581
23 = 582
22 = 583
21 = 584
20 = 585
19 = 586 BCE
18 = 587 BCE
And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: And he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire. 2Ki 25:8 ,9
So Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar.
Now I'm going back to whatever it was I'm doing.
punkofnice:
19 = 586 BCE
18 = 587 BCE
And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: And he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire. 2Ki 25:8 ,9
Close. Except the author of 2 Kings (possibly Jeremiah) includes accession years, placing his reckoning of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 587BCE, not 586BCE. This is consistent with the reference to Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year at Jeremiah 52:29. (The rest of Jeremiah chapter 52 is a copy of 2 Kings 24:18 to 25:21,27-30, but verses 28-30 are an interpolation from Babylonian sources.)
Hmmm, nothing but insulting and blog peddling and a zealous, yet misguided 'rebuttal' to my points. All you are doing is repeating the same old 607 claims, but not proving anything. I could do the same thing. Look: 607 is right, 1914 is right, 587 is wrong, etc. etc. I suspect the argumentation (or lack thereof) are due to the fact that these are not typical, rehashed from Thirdwitness website, pro-607 arguments. I didnt even get to respond to the.'archaeological evidence' used for 587, but I doubt it will be even necessary since all you ard going to do is just repeat that its wrong over and over again. Ha! Imagine if these weak responses were thrown into a pro-587 thread by a JW.
I'll take my leave and wait for Londo to show up with some honest scriptural answers. Not the "he cant be king of Babylon even though the Bible and secular evidence has been brought forth to show that he most definitely can.
And thanks for bringing up the Babylonian reigns,, but.it didnt address anything I said but was merely a.rehash of.something you believe supports.587. It is getting comical at this.point.
I suspect the argumentation (or lack thereof) are due to the fact that these are not typical, rehashed from Thirdwitness website, pro-607 arguments.
You seem to think a great deal of the 'premises' that you've 'come up with'. But they're just the same old arguments. I've covered it before (and also responded to them here) and so have others. So go back to the old threads as was already suggested to you.
And you simply ignored the response to your first faulty 'premise'.
Ethos, I appreciate the work that you've put in to this. Londo is excellent on this subject as he's gone into it very deeply and is also a lover of God's word just as you obviously are.
I understand how hung up JWs are about 607BCE, becaue if it isn't the right date then neither is 1914. But I ask you, why is 1914 so important? Because it's the date Jesus Christ became king you may say, it was the beginning of his invsible presence. Yet JWs never taught this until 1943! (See Proclaimers book page 46,47, 133 footnote). They believed his invisible presence began in 1874 and and Armageddon was to be in 1914. Now (since 1943) they say his invisible presence had begun in 1914 and Armageddon would come within one generation. However, how many years have passed since 1914? Almost 100! The generation that saw 1914 have now passed away, so now an overlapping generation has had to be devised to still make 1914 fit. Don't you see the lack of logic here?
607BCE and 1914 are inextricably tied. One will not work without the other.
