Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

by TJ Curioso 87 Replies latest watchtower bible

AnnOMaly

Dammit Lars! Do you have to sabotage every 607 thread?
Larsinger58

SOSOCONFUSED SAID: The problem is that even if you had proof to the contrary which is tons of archaeological evidence - it won't matter to someone who thinks that the bible is 100% correct.
Soso, I'm afraid you are correct, at least fundamentally. I'm one of those. When I was confronted with archaeological evidence that did not agree with my own interpretation of the scriptures, after trying to make the archaeological evidence possibly match my own reference, I simply refused to believe or accept that evidence. But that doesn't mean there is no archaeological evidence being used by the WTS to support their claim.
Case in point is their manipulation of the Persian timeline. They need the 20th of Artaxerxes to be moved back from 445 BC in the popular timeline back to 455 BCE to match the "70 weeks" prophecy. They do this with the help of two archaeological references:
1) They amazingly found two tablets that are dated to year 51 of Artaxerxes. Secular history otherwise dates the rule of Artaxerxes, Longimanus to 41 years. But what can you do? This allows them to align the end of the rule of Artaxerxes, Longimanus to 424 BCE as does the secular history and date year 20 to 455 BCE. That is, 31 plus 424 = 455 BCE. Some think these tablets are just examples of alternative dating or erroneous, but it doesn't matter. It supports their claim related to redating year 20 of Artaxerxes I to 455 BCE.
2) Also supporting dating year 20 of Artaxerxes to 455 BCE is the need to reduce the rule of Xerxes from 21 years to just 11 years. This is done by presuming a 10-year co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius I. In this way, they are able to begin the 51-year rule of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) 10 years earlier than the secular timeline. But they use archaeological evidence from Persepolis showing Xerxes and Darius as co-rulers to do this! In the meantime, the current secular timeline does not recognize this apparent co-rulership. So you see, it depends on what archaeological evidence you can find out there to support your own timeline.
Another example is the VAT4956! Now previously, the WTS had totally dismissed this document as a 'copy" that merely reflected the popular chronology at that time, which was during the Seleucid Period, over 200 years after the fact. They backed off from claiming direct and deliberate revisionism had taken place, merely stating that that was simply the popular dating at that time. But they were correct in noting that just because the astronomical evidence matched 568 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, it didn't mean that the secular historical reference was correct. So they basically accepted that the VAT4956 dated to 568 BCE but that "year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar" was not correct. Thus they dismissed the VAT4956 as unreliable. But that was before Furuli came onto the scene. Furuli began to aggressively examine the VAT4956 and to find potential match-ups in the text to 588 BCE, which is their date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, reflecting a 20-year difference from the current secular dating to 568 BCE. They now boldly use the VAT4956 as an example of potential support for 588 BCE. They site numerous lunar references that match 588 BCE better than 568 BCE, but emphasize a reference in Line 3 of the text in which they discovered a precise match for 588 BCE which is a non-match for 568 BCE.
The reference to Line 3 found in Herman Hunger's translation says that "on the 9th day of Nisan (an error for the 8th) the moon was 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis" The WTS points out that on the 9th day of Nisan in 588 BCE, however, the moon, indeed, was 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis! Now that is an incredible coincidence! At any rate, true to form, they now flaunt this and claim that the VAT4956 can be used to support 588 BCE. Now this is ridiculous to those who know that while this lunar reference doesn't work for 568 BCE, there are multiple planetary match-ups that can only match 568 BCE. By the WTS noting that there is also this potential 588 BCE reference, they are suggesting that perhaps the text has double-dating to both 568 BCE and 588 BCE, with 588 BCE becoming a legitimate reference to the original timeline. That is, even though most of the lunar references and all of the planetary references in this diary match 568 BCE, the fact that you have a 588 BCE match suggests that the 588 BCE match was an intentional reference to what must have been the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II; the diary with all the other references simply being provided to "hide in plain sight" a reference to the original timeline in the midst of the references to the revised timeline.
Even so, as far as they are concerned, the VAT4956 can be used to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 588 BCE based on this reference. But in this case, it backfires on the WTS. That's because this line has been corrected as a reference to sigma-Leonis rather than beta-Virginis. That is because of Line 18 in the text which describes Venus immediately below "sap" the star called the "bright star at the end of [behind] the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A)(BSBLF). The actual planet in reference for this line is broken off and Herman Hunger had previously placed "the moon" matched this reference. But the moon was long out of Virgo by the 15th of the month and was never in a location "immediately below" the BSBLF. Herman Hunger admitted to this error and others have pointed out that this is clearly a reference to Venus in that position on the 15th. Venus was immediately below beta-Virginis on the 15th of Nisan; the moon was 10 days away in the constellation of Capricorn.
The problem is, though, once you correct Line 18 to show that it was Venus below the BSBLF, then it is clear that the rear foot of Leo is a reference to the star in front of beta-Virginis. Now if you look at the star diagrams for the contellation of Leo (the lion), you can see that sigma-Leonis is the rear foot of the lion and the bright star immediately following it is beta-Virginis. But this thus affects Herman Hunger's assignment in Line 3. You see, the actual transliteration is that the moon was 1 cubit in front of the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A), which Herman Hunger had mistaken for beta-Virginis instead of sigma-Leonis in this particular text. Once it is clear from Line 18 that the "bright star behind the Lion's foot" is a reference to beta-Virginis, then the "rear foot of the lion" becomes a reference to sigma-Leonis. But there is no issue here because it is clear that sigma-Leonis is the usual and normal rear foot of Leo anyway. So the VAT4956 is simply generically referring to the "rear foot of the lion" as sigma-Leonis and the "bright star behind the Lion's foot" as beta-Virginis. But this correction means that the WTS is using the outdated and corrected reference for Line 3 to match 588 BCE. They coincidentally found a match in 588 BCE where the moon was 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis as Hunger originally translated, but Line 3 is not a reference to beta-Virginis, but sigma-Leonis. So Line 3 is not really a match to what the text actually says, but only to the error or misrepresentation in Line 3 and 18 that Hunger is trying to promote. Hunger in this case is a perfect example of why you can't trust scholars who have their own agendas in regards to ancient history. Archaeologists in particular are among those who often manipulate or misrepresent evidence in an anti-Biblical way.
But your point here is still well made. That is, that once a person is set in their minds in regards to their own chronology or timeline, they will refuse to accept any archaeological evidence that contradicts that, but will grab and flaunt any archaeological evidence that might support their own timeline.
I'm noting this because I know the feeling! I was very guilty of this myself. I had discovered from the Bible that Ezra and Nehemiah were among those who had returned from Babylon in the 1st of Cyrus and that the 1st of Cyrus has to be dated to 455 BCE per the Bible. I had no problems with that nor dismissing any archaeological or historical references to the contrary. To me the Bible was correct, rgardless. I was raised as a witness and their position was that if the Bible ever contradicted secular references, then you have to side with the Bible. Others have this very strong position as well. Case in point is Martin Anstey who in his "Romance of Bible Chronology" written in 1913 also believed that the Bible dated the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE [sic] based on his interpretation of the "70 weeks" prophecy and the baptism of Christ. We thus belieed that any records out there to the contrary must have been erroneous or fabricated. This meant, though, that Anstey believed that the Persian Period was 82 years too long.
Even so, it was temping to look at the astronomical evidence for this period, especially since the WTS quoted from the SK400 (Strm. Kambyses 400) in order to confirm that 537 BCE is a confirmed date for the return from Babylon. The SK400 dates 523 BCE to "year 7" of Kambyses. Believing 455 BCE was the true date for the 1st of Cyrus, and thus as I had been taught by the WTS that the fall of Jerusalem occurred 70 years earlier, I dated the fall of Jerusalem to 525 BCE. I half expected to find a confirmation in the SK400 of this alternative dating. What I did discover, was that the two lunar eclipses in the text were a match to 541 BCE and not 523 BCE. I then tried to match 541 BCE in some way to some concept of "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar II. But I couldn't. 541 BCE was 4 years earlier than when year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar fell in 525 BCE as I was currently believed. But even though it was clear that the SK400 was dating "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar II to 541 BCE, I just couldn't accept it. I just put it off as a mystery since I believed 525 BCE must have been year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar II per the Bible. So I just dropped the issue temporarily. I was delighted to discover the text was a mismatch for 523 BCE for "year 7" of Kambyses, but year 7 of Neb2 in 541 BCE didn't support the Bible's chronology either. That is, until reading later I came across Jeremiah 52:30!! I had tried and tried to figure out how to deal with the 4-year discrepancy between my dating and the dating in the SK400.
Jeremiah 52:30 recorded the last deportation of the Jews in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II! The land could not be desolate until all the people were removed out of the land! Further, Jeremiah 44:14 and 28 showed that those who had ran down to Egypt and survived Nebuchadnezzar's sword were to return to Judea. The context of Jeremiah 52:29, 30 also suggests the 23rd year deportation was from Jerusalem!
Jeremiah 52:29 "In the eighteenth year of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar, from Jerusalem there were eight hundred and thirty-two souls.

30 In the twenty-third year of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar, Neb·u´zar·ad´an the chief of the bodyguard took Jews into exile, seven hundred and forty-five souls."
Of course, I later found Josephus' reference in Ant. 11.1.1 that confirms that the 70 years of servitude to the kings of Babylon was served by the "poor people" who were last deported out of their own land which occurred in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II!
Meaning?
Meaning, I was wrong! I was wrong to date the fall of Jerusalem in 525 BCE. I was just following what I had been taught by the WTS! Even so, I was willing to believe what the Bible was saying and reject the archaeological evidence to the contrary. But it turns out in this case, the archaeological evidence actually supported the Bible! The Bible dates the last deportation in 525 BCE and the 19th year 4 years earlier in 529 BCE! That means year 7 falls in 541 BCE, which is the basis of the SK400's reference to "year 7" matched by these two eclipses in 541 BCE!!!
So I felt delighted but also a little guilty because I didn't trust the archaeological evidence when it came to my interpretation or MISINTERPRETATION of what the Bible had said. But the Bible wasn't dating the 70 years from the fall of Jerusalem as the WTS had been teaching and had taught me all my life, but from the last deportation, a fact confirmed by Josephus!!
Same thing happened with me with the VAT4956! I was very much suppotive of the WTS' position on the VAT4956 which was that it was created during the Seleucid Period and was a "copy"of original astronomical texts from 568 BCE. The astronomy was correct for 568 BCE, but the "historical" reference to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II had been distorted or revised. So even though the VAT4956 dated year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 568 BCE it could easily be dismissed as fraudulent because it was not a contemporary Babylonian text. It clearly was a conspiracy text being used to re-date the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II in line with the revised timeline.
But by now, computerized astronomical programs were available for home use and it was just fun to see how the astronomy recorded in this ancient text matched the ancient skies! Thus one becomes fascinated by the precision of the solar system. But then an incredible chance event occurred. I was going through and charting each reference in the VAT4956 and looking at those references with my astronomy program, which I noted, was quite fascinating! When I got to line 8, though, I was forced to adjust the lunar position based on the text rather than the location of observation from Babylon. When the location of the program was aligned witih Babylon (Bagdad), it showed the moon was about 1 cubit below beta-Gemini instead of 4 cubits below at the time of sunset. When there is a clear discrepancy between what the text says and the astronomy program, I adjust the location to match the text as best as I could. The astro program maintains that location until you change it. I had already determined that year 47 fell in 511 BCE, so I was checking for any matches in the VAT4956 and up til I changed the observation location based on Line 8, I had found no matches. But when I incidentally was checking back for day 9 of Nisan in 511 BCE, suddenly the moon was precisely 1 cubit in front of sigma-Leonis! I was astronished. When the program was aligned to Bagdad, the moon was not in that location. I had become familiar enough with the VAT4956 to know that this was a precise match for Line 3! But I was also frightened! I knew the other error in the text, that is, Line 14 where the moon was 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis was a non-match for 568 BCE, but also a non-match for 511 BCE as I had hoped. I knew, though, if Line 14 turned out to be a match for 511 BCE as well, then like the SK400, the VAT4956, which was also a diary, was also a text that had dating back to the original timeline.
So I looked at day 5 of Sivan for 511 BCE and sure enough, the moon was precisely in that location, 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis! But, of course, NOW I no longer dismissed the VAT4956 as a phony document. Now all of a sudden I was embracing the document and flaunting how it had dating back to the original timeline, just as the SK400 does!
But, again, we can see what's happening here. I'm no different than the WTS! When the VAT4956 wasn't working for them, they dismissed it. But when they saw it could help their timeline, they suddenly published the match in Line 3 (even though we know now it is to the wrong star). Same with me. I was dismissing the VAT4956 as well, which I could since it is a "copy", but as soon as I found that Lines 3 and 14 matched 511 BCE, suddenly the VAT4956 is the document I promote to support the original Biblical timeline which dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE when 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus.
Of course, when 511 BCE dates year 37 per the VAT4956, it matches 541 BCE for year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II. So now there are two "diaries" that can be used to support the 455 BCE chronology, as long as you date the 70 years beginning at the time of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II, thus in 525 BCE! So now I claim (in my own mind--) perfect harmony between some archaeological evidence and the Bible. I also use the archaeological confirmation of a co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius I to insert a 4-year co-rulership. When we follow Greek records that Artaxerxes I died in the 8th year of the Peloponnesian War and that war is redated to 403 BCE, then year 8 falls in 396 BCE. Thus the 41-year rule of Artaxerxes would have begun in 437BCE. Since Artaxerxes and Xerxes were the same king and Artaxerxes was 18 when he began to rule, the year his "father" became king, it means that Xerxes was born in 455 BCE (397 + 18 = 455 BCE). That is the year Cyrus became king who was the grandfather of Xerxes. Even so, per the Bible, the 6-year rule of Darius I would have been from 439-433 BCE. That would mean there was a 4-year overlap between the rule of Xerxes-Artaxerxes from 437-433 BCE. But no problem because you can confirm the co-rulership from the bas-reliefs at Persepolis, something I learned from the WTS!
Martin Anstey undestood the Persian Period contradicted the Bible by 82 years, but never figured out where or how to remove those extra 82 years. No problem now. Just remove 30 years from Darius I and Artaxerxes II, and remove the 21-year rule of Xerxes by combining it with the 41-year rule of Artaxerxes I since they were the same king. That removes 81 years quite easily off the bat. The odd last 1 year is removed by making year 1 of Kambyses a co-rulership year with his father, Cyrus.
I believe what the Bible says, no matter what. I'm just happy I've found a lot of secular references that support the 455 BCE chronology dating the 1st of Cyrus that year. But at the same time, I dismiss right and left anything presented that contradicts that! But the people pushing 587BCE for year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar II are doing the same thing. They have their favorite proofs and use them to contradict the Bible. So that's the way it goes. If you believe 587 BCE is the year of Jerusalem's fall, then likely nothing anyone presents either from the Bible or secular records will change your mind.
Larsinger58

ANN O'MALY: Dammit Lars! Do you have to sabotage every 607 thread?
Oh, palleeze, Ann! Believe it or not, I'm not the biggest propaganda queen on this board -- YOU ARE! I might be a very close second, but you spread your own propaganda here as much as I do. I have to post here to clean up your crap! Case in point:
ANNIE O!:
I’m not so sure Zechariah’s 70 years are Jeremiah’s 70 years.
They are not. Jeremiah's 70 years relate to the period of Babylonian domination over the nations. Zechariah's 70 years relate to the period of mourning over the temple's ruined state up to Darius I's time. The question was whether there should still be fasting in the fifth month (temple destroyed) and the seventh month (Gedaliah's assassination).
First of all, you are propagating COJ's opinion that the 70 years were years of servitude to Babylon. Josephus clearly begins the 70 years of servitude in year 23, the last deportation as does the Bible. Those who were to serve the 70 years were those who were last deported in year 23. When their 70-year exile and servitude was over, they would be released when the "royalty of Persia" came to rule, that is, when Cyrus the Persian began to rule over Babylon, not Darius the Mede. Darius the Mede was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II and thus a legitmiate Babylonian king. As you will see, he ruled for a full 6 years before abdictating to Cyrus. The Jews were still in exile during this 6-year rule of Darius the Mede. They were not released until Cyrus took over at which point he began to count his rulership with year 1 again. Interestingly enough, Zechariah proves the Jews were still in exile some 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem and for 70 years after the mourning over Gedaliah, which began 2 years after the fall of Jerusalem.
Now, Zechariah 1 confirms that 70 years expired in year 2 of "Darius" at a time the Jews were still in exile. Zechariah 7 mentions the expiration of 70 years after the mourning in the "seventh month" which would have been for Gedeliah. These 70 years ended, however, in year 4 of "Draius." Thus the first thing we must note is that the mourning for Gedeliah began 2 years after the fall of Jerusalem. That merely reflects that Gedaliah did not die the same year as Jerusalem's fall, but a year later. When you check the context, Gedeliah was inviting those in the surrounding area to come into Jerusalem and harvest summer fruits. Spring months were 1, 2 and 3. Summer followed in 4, 5 and 6. Jerusalem didn't fall until the 5th month, which was in the summer. It is more likely Gedeliah invited scattered Jews in the area to return to harvest summer fruits, therefore, prior to the beginning of summer and thus sometime in the late spring which would give them time to eventually return and harvest the summer fruits beginning the 4th month. This would have also given him time to interact with the Babylonians and be assured of their true intentions for these last remaining ones, which was not to send them off into exile, but to work the land. There is also the issue of the plot to assasinte Gedaliah, which he was told about but chose to ignore. All that works out better when this takes place over the next several months and into the next year. Thus Gedaliah's death in the seventh month was in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar II. The Jews in Babylon likely heard about this 5 months later as it took that long to get news back to Babylon. Upon hearing this, they would have begun to mourn and fast over Gedeliah in the 7th month. That's why there is a 2-year gap from the 70 years from the fall of Jerusalem and the 70 years from the mourning in the 7th month.
The fact that the 70th year of mourning over Gedeliah in the 7th month is 2 years later than the expiration of 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem, therefore, completely contradicts you jive statement above. The 70 years of mourning in the 7th month is not the same 70 years following the fall of Jerusalem! There's a 2-year difference between the two. You talk as if these are the same 70 years. But notice the context here in Zechariah.
Zechariah 1:12 So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?”
Now this was a continuous period of 70 years of denunciation of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. So at this point in the 2nd of Darius, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were still in a state of denouncement, meaning they were still desolated. Thus the reference here of when Jehovah was going to "show mercy" to Jerusalem and the cities of Jerusalem was just a way of saying when were the people going to be allowed to return to Jersualem and the cities of Judah to rebuild and bring them back to life!
Therefore, your statement that this is the 2nd year of "Dariu I" is completely ridiculous. The Jews were long out of exile by the 2nd of Darius I and the temple was nearly complete by the 2nd year of Darius I. In fact, they completed in his sixth year after a 2-year interruption. By contrast, if the Jews are still in exile in the 2nd year of Darius, this must be a reference to Darius the Mede!
But does that work? Of course! How so? Because, again, per both the Bible and Josephus, the 70 years of servitude of the last deportees did not begin until year 23, and thus 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem in year 19. So per Josephus and the Bible, some 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem meant they still had 4 years to go before their 70 years were up. So no problem that the Jews are still in exile in the 2nd year of Dariius the Mede. This also means that Darius the Mede ruled a full 6 years before Cyrus took over.
But this makes your point about Jeremiah's 70 years relating to Babylonian domination. That's why COJ's reference is both a moot point and a joke. How so? Because if you want to apply a 70-year reference to 70 years of Babylonian domination, go ahead and do so, that's your interpretation. But that still would not affect the fact that the Jews were still in exile at Babylon 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem and were to remain in exile for another 4 years.
So nothing you stated has any foundation in any remote kind of Biblical truth. It's just one false statement and misrepresentation after another.
But aren't you being hypocritical, Ann? Here you are spreading these lies and you want me not to spread mine? Why is it that you want to suppress freedom of speech of others who happen to contradict what you are promoting? But it doesn't work that way. You can't just request someone to shut the fk up while you talk without contradiction. Instead of proving a rebuttal to my position, you just want me not to state it. You claim I'm "sabbotaging" this post, when you're the one spreading the lies! ???
PERSONAL NOTE - SEMI-OFF TOPIC: Anyway, far more important than ancient chronology is that I've been winning money gambling. I went to Shreport and accidentally won $1000! I accidentally hit a "play all games" button on this multi-keno game but couldn't get out of it without putting up $20! Normally I play 30-50 cents max! So I put in another $20 and played that round and won $60.00 right off. Well, I broke down and said 'what the heck!" and just played the $60 back, expecting to lose. But on the last pull I hit 4000! That is, 4000 quarters, which is $1000! I was delighted. But I hadn't learned my lesson. I was just throwing the money away and winning it back. When I got home I bought $200 worth of scratch-offs, including two $50 tickets! Insane! But one of the $50 tickets paid back $75 and the other $1000!!! So I'm really desperate to go back to Shreveport to gamble for a few days! All that to say what? All that to say that you're gonna get a break from me because I sure ain't taking my laptop to the casino to hook-up in my room and post about Bible chronology, as fun as that is! Normally I mmight if the internet was free, but they charege per 24 hours -- no way! I know that's only to discourage people from getting distracted in their hotel rooms instead of staying in the casino until they completely lose all their money. But I'm extremely happy these days, ecstatic, and the hotel rooms are cheap and wonderful at the casinos. The hotel I like staying in has a whirpool bath. So I like lighting tea candles all around and turning off all the lights and just soak in the warm water and bubbles! I enjoy getting away from the stress of the city and just relax and enjoy being THE CHRIST! I like to gamble because it is a win or loose situation when it comes to life, sometimes. Anyway, I know you'll be happy for me and that will explain why I won't be able to answer your numerous questions for a few days!! Anyway, your above post is a bit aggressive and God wanted me to remind you that if someone is instrumental in stumbling some unsuspecting lowly one, the penalty is extra severe. So just cool it, Ann! You can always quote someone and say, "Carl Jonsson thinks the 70 years relate to Babylonian domination and I tend to agree with him..." rather than just coming out with these dogmatic, bold and absurdly false statements like above. Okay? OK! Wish me luck!!!
InChristAlone

I actually read all of that and found it quite fascinating. I didn't understand it all, but fascinating nonetheless.
Jeffro

Larsinger58:
But I know it must be a bit annoying to Jeffro that this has shown up as a discussion point here.
It is quite annoying that you have shown up at the discussion. I'm not sure why any other aspect should worry me though.
I have already covered all the points about the website in question at my article already linked in this thread, so it is unnecessary to reply to your rambling posts here.
Suffice it to say, you are wrong, and you're not the 'Messiah'. Get professional psychiatric treatment.
Larsinger58:
First of all, you are propagating COJ's opinion that the 70 years were years of servitude to Babylon.
Well that's just stupid. The basis for the '70 years' being "of servitude to Babylon" is from the Bible, not 'COJ's opinion'. Jeremiah 25:11 says: "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years". I knew this years before I had even heard of 'COJ'.
AnnOMaly

But aren't you being hypocritical, Ann? Here you are spreading these lies and you want me not to spread mine?
So you admit you're spreading lies, hey?
We can definitely crown you,
Alas, I cannot hope to come close to receiving that honor.
Rebuttals? I, Jeffro and others have already spent our precious time refuting your revisionist nonsense elsewhere. You keep forgetting.
How's the move to Jamaica coming along?
redvip2000
How anybody can use Josephus as basis for any of type of chronological scholarship is beyond me.
his writings and especially Antinquities is riddled with inconsistencies and errors. The man clearly didn't have a grasp on time and dates. Using Josephus to support anything biblical is especially bad since nothing of what he says actually agrees with the bible.
For example:
1. Antiquities 1.3.4 says, "For indeed Seth was born when Adam was in his two hundred and thirtieth year,…" Genesis 5:3 says, " And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: "
2. Antiquities 1.3.4 says, "Seth begat Enos in his two hundred and fifth year;" Genesis 5:6 says, " And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: "
3. Antiquities 1.3.4 says, "Seth begat Enos in his two hundred and fifth year; who, when he had lived nine hundred and twelve years, delivered the government to Cainan his son, whom he had in his hundred and ninetieth year." "He" is not clearly defined but the context would suggest that "he" means Enos not Seth. This being the case, Antiquities is saying Enos had Cainan when Enos was 190 years old. Genesis 5:9 says, " And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: "
4. Antiquities 1.3.4 says, "Cainan, when he had lived nine hundred and ten years, had his son Malaleel, who was born in his hundred and seventieth year." Genesis 5:12 says, " And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: "
5. Antiquities 1.3.4 says, "This Malaleel, having lived eight hundred and ninety-five years, died, leaving his son Jared, whom he begat when he was in his hundred and sixty-fifth year". Genesis 5:15 says, " And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: "
6. Antiquities 1.3.4 says, "Now Mathusela, the son of Enoch, who was born to him when he was one hundred and sixty-five years old". Genesis 5:21 says, " And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: "
7. Antiquities 1.3.4 says, "Now Mathusela, the son of Enoch, who was born to him when he was one hundred and sixty-five years old, had Lamech for his son when he was one hundred and eighty-seven years of age; to whom he delivered the government, when he had retained it nine hundred and sixty-nine years." Genesis 5:25 says, " And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: " Genesis 5:31 says, " And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. " When Methuselah was 969 years old, Lamech had already died five years earlier. Methuselah could not have passed the government to somebody who was already dead.
8. Antiquities 1.6.5 says, "Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge." Genesis says 11:10, " These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: "
9. Antiquities 1.6.5 says Serug was 132 years old when Nahor was born. Genesis 11:22 tells us it was 30.
10. Antiquities 1.6.5 says Ragau had Serug we he was "one hundred the thirty". Genesis 11:20 tells us he was 32 years old.
11. Antiquities 1.6.5 says Pheleg was the same age, one hundred the thirty, when he had Ragau. Genesis 11:18 tells us Peleg was 30 years old when this happened.
12. Antiquities 1.6.5 Heber begat Pheleg in his one hundred thirty fourth year. Genesis 11:16 tells us Eber was 34 when Peleg was born.
13. Antiquities 1.6.5 says Salah was 130 years old when Heber was born. Genesis 11:14 tells us it was 30 years old.
14. Antiquities 1.6.5 says Arphaxad was 135 when Salah was born. Genesis 11:12 tells us Arphaxad was 35 years old when Salah was born.
mP

redvip:
Josephus was given all the holy writings when the temple was destroyed in 70ad. If anyone has access to jewish history and should be qualified to write up an encyclopedia it would be him. You seem to forget hte bible has a lot of "junk" in it, perhaps its simpler to believe that J weighed everything and wrote a more correct updated history.
Larsinger58

JEFFRO: I had no idea you had such extensive commentary about the NB period and 607 BCE! I'm quite impressed. I reviewed everything and have these two notices for now:
1) As I noted before, above, Josephus' 13-year siege of Tyre begins in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar II and thus ends in the 20th of Nebuchadnezzar II. The Bible notes that the first to drink the bitter cup of Nebuchadnezzar II would be Jerusalem, so this reference for the destruction of Tyre does not contradict this. Both you and the JW commentary, though, along with COJ all apply this 13-year period of siege to a time that ends a few years before the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar II. Now this is just a technical note for you to be aware of in case you were not aware of it. Even so, your commentary loses credibility if you're misquoting or misrepresenting references that others of us are aware of. So I'l wondering if you're going to correct this? I don't see how it would make much difference. In the case of COJ, though, he tries to use this 13-year siege to claim that there was no time available for a 7-year absence from the throne for Nebuchadnezzar II. There are extant records for all the period except for the period just before the fall of Jerusalem and up to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, but he misquotes Josephus regarding the 13 years.
2) I found this comment from your commentary:
The article falsely concludes that those proponents seek “some other event around the year 607″ for their explanation of the seventy years, though the Bible clearly indicates that the period ended at Babylon’s fall in 539 BCE, not at the unsubstantiated time for the Jews’ return in 537 BCE (Jeremiah 25:11-12; Daniel 5:26-31).
The witnesses are correct that the 70 years would end with the return out of exile, that's a point easily proven. But your counterpoint that the 70 years somehow ends with the fall of Babylon is not Biblically correct. That's because Babylon was conquered by the Medes and the Persians; Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. Then Darius the Mede took over ruling Babylon. The Bible specifically states that the 70 years of servitude would end when the "royalty of Persia begins to rule..." Note 2 Chronicles 36:
20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."
The only reason the Bible makes a critical distinction between Darius the MEDE and Cyrus the PERSIAN, was because it was not when Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians and Darius the Mede took over Babylon that the 70 years were to end, but only when Cyrus took over rulership of Babylon. Per Josephus, the 70 years were to be served by those who were last deported out of Egypt. 2 Chronicles confirms that these seventy years would be served by those last deportees out of Egypt, that is, those "remaining from the sword."
Zechariah 1 confirms that 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem dates year 2 of Darius the Mede, and 70 years after mourning and fasting over Gedeliah ended in the 4th year of Darius the Mede. This would be a good point for you to point out in your rebuttal of the WTS, since they do not realize that Gedeliah did not die until year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar, a year after the fall of Jerusalem! He began to be mourned the following year and that's where there is a 2-year difference in the 70 years, one that ends in year 2 of Darius the Mde and one that ends in year 4. At any rate, the Israelites were still in exile. This thus confirms that the 70 years had not begun yet and that Cyrus had not begun to reign over Babylon yet. When the 70 years is applied to the last deportees in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, then the exile of 70 years would not have ended until 74 years after the fall of Jerusalem! Zechariah confirms this. It would also confirm that Darius the Mede ruled for a full six years before he abdicated over to Cyrus, who began counting a new rulership fro year 1. This also confirms that Darius the Mede was a [grand]son of Nebuchadnezzar II!
So you need to make some revisions on that particular statement. The 70 years end with the "royalty of PERSIA" comes to rule, which does not include the royalty of the Medes and thus does not include the short period of time Darius the Mede ruled over Babylon while the Jews were still in exile. So the Babylonian empire did not end with the fall of Babylon, even if you date it to 539 BCE. It ends 6 years later after the rule of Darius the Mede, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II.
Darius the Mede had no heirs. Cyrus was is nephew-in-law. Cyrus was married to the daughter of Astyages, who was the half-brother of Dariuis the Mede. Therefore, the royal line of the Medes came through Astyages daughter and her children by Cyrus. So after the death of Cyrus, the royal line of the Medes would again rule over Persia. The royalty of the Medes and Persians were thus united in the children of Cyrus.
After the male heirs of Cyrus died out (Kambyses, Bardiya), then again the royal line of the Medes had to continue through the daughter of Cyrus, Atossa, who was married to Darius I. So even though Darius I was a Persian, his children were direct descendants of the royalty of the Medes.
Have you ever heard of the "Chronicle" by Sir Isaac Newton. He laid out the timeline much as you have. If you haven't seen it, you might find it interesting! This is just the history from the fall of Nineveh down to the when Cyrus takes over Babylon:
609. Josiah slain. Cyaxeres and Nebuchadnezzar overthrow Nineveh, and, by sharing the Assyrian Empire, grow great.
607. Creon the first annual Archon of the Athenians. The second Messenian war begins. Cyaxeres makes the Scythians retire beyond Colchos and Iberia, and seizes the Assyrian Provinces of Armenia, Pontus and Cappadocia.
606. Nebuchadnezzar invades Syria and Judæa.
604. Nabopolassar dies, and is succeeded by his Son Nebuchadnezzar, who had already Reigned two years with his father.
600.Darius the Mede, the son of Cyaxeres, is born.
599. Cyrus is born of Mandane, the Sister of Cyaxeres, and daughter of Astyages.
596. Susiana and Elam conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. Caranus and Perdiccas fly from Phidon, and found the Kingdom of Macedon. Phidon introduces Weights and Measures, and the Coining of Silver Money.
590. Cyaxeres makes war upon Alyattes King of Lydia.
588. The Temple of Solomon is burnt by Nebuchadnezzar. The Messenians being conquered, fly into Sicily, and build Messana.
585. In the sixth year of the Lydian war, a total Eclipse of the Sun, predicted by Thales, May the 28th, puts an end to a Battel between the Medes and Lydians: Whereupon they make Peace, and ratify it by a marriage between Darius Medus the son of Cyaxeres, and Ariene the daughter of Alyattes.
584. Phidon presides in the 49th Olympiad.
580. Phidon is overthrown. Two men chosen by lot, out of the city Elis, to preside in the Olympic Games.
572. Draco is Archon of the Athenians, and makes laws for them.
568. The Amphictions make war upon the Cirrheans, by the advice of Solon, and take Cirrha. Clisthenes, Alcmæon and Eurolicus commanded the forces of the Amphictions, and were contemporary to Phidon. For Leocides the son of Phidon, and Megacles the son of Alcmæon, at one and the same time, courted Agarista the daughter of Clisthenes.
569. Nebuchadnezzar invades Egypt.Darius the Mede Reigns.
562. Solon, being Archon of the Athenians, makes laws for them.
557. Periander dies, and Corinth becomes free from Tyrants.
555. Nabonadius Reigns at Babylon. His Mother Nitocris adorns and fortifies that City.
550. Pisistratus becomes Tyrant at Athens. The Conference between Crœsus and Solon.
549. Solon dies, Hegestratus being Archon of Athens.
544. Sardes is taken by Cyrus. Darius the Mederecoins the Lydian money into Darics.
538. Babylon is taken by Cyrus.
536. Cyrus overcomes Darius the Mede, and translates the Empire to the Persians. The Jews return from Captivity, and found the second Temple.
From: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15784/15784-h/15784-h.htm
This is a quote from the "Insight" book about Cyrus, reflecting the secular historical conflict as to whether Cyrus was the grandson or son-in-law of Astyages:
The early history of Cyrus II is somewhat obscure, depending largely upon rather fanciful accounts by Herodotus (Greek historian of the fifth century B.C.E.) and Xenophon (another Greek writer of about a half century later). However, both present Cyrus as the son of the Persian ruler Cambyses by his wife Mandane, the daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes. (Herodotus, I, 107, 108; Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, I, ii, 1) This blood relationship of Cyrus with the Medes is denied by Ctesias, another Greek historian of the same period, who claims instead that Cyrus became Astyages’ son-in-law by marrying his daughter Amytis.
(Insight, vol 1, page 566)
Well, that's it for now. Since you've gone this far, you may as well avoid any unnecessary surprises or missteps. Thanks for keeping the topic of Bible chronology alive.
As far as me being the Christ, I don't care if you don't recognize me, but I have to admit it when I'm confronted so that later people can't say I should have revealed who I was. But don't you think it is rather absurb that the VAT4956 hides the true chronology of Nebuchadnezzar II which was revised by the Persians? 511 BCE dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar and dismisses 568 BCE as the fake date. There's no getting around it. But in that case, 529 BCE dates the fall of Jerusalem and that, in turn, based on the "2520 years" of the "7 times" prophecy as understood by JWs would date the 2nd coming in 1992. That's when the spirit of Christ came to dwell in the physical body of the prodigal son as the bible prophesied--I just happen to be that person. At any rate, I find it rather dishonest of you, if you believe so much that 587 BCE is the confirmed date for the fall of Jerusalem that you don't talk about the 2nd coming occurring in 1934 vs. claiming that "7 times" prophecy shouldn't be applied that way. That makes your true motives rather suspicious.
Anyway, its great you are attacking the witnesses false teachings, but you could be a lot more effective if you were consistent in representing the evidence.
THANKS -- I've got to go gamble now! I'm desperate to lose all my money!
Larsinger58

ANNIE-O: Rebuttals? I, Jeffro and others have already spent our precious time refuting your revisionist nonsense elsewhere. You keep forgetting.
ROFL! That's why I like you so much Annie! You're so funny! This is just another Freemason's tactic. If they can't win an argument, then they create confusion. When they are threatened by some evidence, sometimes they create discussions and pit one false teaching against the other, giving listeners a choice between two false ideas. That is what is happening here. The 70 years didn't begin with the fall of Jeusalem nor with the ascendancy of Babylon, it began with the last deportation. I'm the only one here promoting the Bible's true chronology, and you run like crazy from any rebuttal. This is no different than the game the WTS plays. They claim to answer questions and to have all the answers, but if they label you as an "apostate" then they think they don't have to answer anything and forbid their members to even listen to what they have to say. So it's just dishonest. Now I know you'd criticize the WTS for labeling detractors as "apostate" and refusing to answer their challenges, but you're doing the same thing with me.
Of course, I'm not stupid. There's no reason to avoid discussion with me unless you already know this chronology was revised and is false and you're just part of the machine to try and suppress any further investigation into "revisionist nonsense" since you likely know where that would lead, which is confirmation. But not to worry! The academic world apparently thinks all this revisionism and cover-up will inevitably come out; in fact, maybe they are planning to make it come out. In the meantime, they are scrambling for PD positions, that is, positions of "plausible deniability."
But even so, it's a compliment when someone doesn't want to debate with you since it confirms they are afraid of losing the argument. It means you are threatened by what I'm revealing. So thanks for running from a confrontation. What you're doing is just a version of what the WTS does by labeling someone an "apostate" which they think is a legitimate reason not to answer any concerns. It's the same Freemasonry b.s. -- two different sides of the same coin.
How's the move to Jamaica coming along?
Ha! Ha! Ha! It's not going to Hawaii! It's another country. Vacationing there is for the rich. Once I started investigating, it seems AIDS rampant there in the population, which would explain some backlash against gays in that country. It's also very violent. So not the "island paradise" I was hoping. So now I have no plans to go.
But I'll tell you, I've been gambling a lot more in casinos of late and it would seem that if I needed extra money to go there, it would be a simple matter of hitting a sufficient jackpot. I played roulette recently, which is a table game with poor odds, but I kept winning. I won so much, they ran out of the chips in my color and started having to pay me with casino chips. I also hit $1000 rather mysteriously playing multi-keno. I would have never played $20 a pop! But I accidentally hit the "play all cards" button and couldn't un-do it without playing at least once. When I did, I hit $60! No big deal when you are playing $20 a pop. But when I played that back I suddenly hit 4000 on one of the cards, which was $1000! Now that was interesting, particularly since I had done so well at roulette--unusually well. Then when I came home I hit $1000 on a $50 scratch off, again, not something I often do! So I figure, at some point, my gambling routine is just a covenient way to "launder" any extra funds I might need.
Anyway, Jamaica is out. I'm satisfied that some other xJW group figured out Christ would return in an imperfect body, which is inspired. I might be returning to Hawaii, though. Hawaii is where the kingdom headquarters are and the new buildings are already built. If Armageddon is to come soon, I suppose it would be expedient for me to already be in Hawaii. I have enough retirement income to live there -- you don't need a car. Plus I sing well enough now to make money in small venues. Of course, when you're a performer in a nightclub, especially in a resort like Hawaii, you can literally interact with thousands of people per week. So if you are under close surveillance, those who contact you or see you are going to be watched. But if you're performing for even just 100 people per night, there is no way to monitor that. I got tired of performing when I was doing it before--I was glad to get away from it. But now I've got the "bug" again and want to get out there on stage again. My parents are here but in a nursing home, but other than them, I'm so disconnected here. So we'll see. Whatever Jehovah wills for me and what the JIOR arranges, I'll be ready.
Hope you're doing well! Any fun vacation plans for this Summer?

Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

Share this