I'm not going to read Larsinger58's lengthy posts, as they generally consist of delusional drivel. However, if anyone (other than Larsinger58) has specific questions about 607 or about Lars' drivel, feel free to ask.
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso 87 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Larsinger58
JEFFRO: I'm not going to read Larsinger58's lengthy posts, as they generally consist of delusional drivel. However, if anyone (other than Larsinger58) has specific questions about 607 or about Lars' drivel, feel free to ask.
Of course you won't, Jeffro. This is standard Freemasony cop-out. "See no evil, hear no evil and you speak no evil." If you don't learn anything or see anything, you don't have to address it. You get out of a rebuttal. Which is your choice.
But as I noted in regards to Ann, who takes a similar position, this is no different than the witnesses feeling they don't have to address issues brought up by anyone they consider to be "apostate."
So let's just say someone brings up an issue you don't want to deal with or that you want to suppress. You just label them "delusional" or a "lunatic" or characterize what they say as "drivel" so that it doesn't look like your running from an argument, but that is all that you're doing. But, also as I told Ann, that's sort of a compliment because it means what I present is too powerful for you to deal with.
What is really funny is that it is not difficult to recover the original timeline and to show that the Persian Period was artificially expanded. The Jews have always claimed the Persian Period was too long and had too many kings. That was a general reference to their knowing that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king.
So far from me being "delusional", Jeffro, you are in DENIAL or are just dishonest. So I support the WTS' reading of 2 Chronicles which clearly shows that the land had to be desolate for a full 70 years to pay back its sabbaths. This is precisely what Josephus claims as well, only Josephus shows the 70 years coordinating with the last deportation in year 23 rather than with the fall of Jerusalem. That means there is no way that the Bible's history or Josephus' history for this period matches the current secular history, which reflects a shorter Neo-Babylonian Period. That is the real topic here that you want to avoid. You need to address the issue of revisionism but you're running. You're running because you know the more you find out, the clearer it will be there is a clear option to date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and reduce the Persian Period.
But let's just step back. If someone knows in advance they are going to lose a debate, avoiding the debate is one way not to be embarrassed. All you're doing is confirming you know I know what I'm talking about and you are refusing to deal with the issue of the 70 years of exile of the last deportees. You get out of a confrontation on the point by making me look "delusional" and crazy and thus unworthy of a response.
All I can say is that "You may run, but you can't hide." You and Ann and COJ want to protect this false timeline and discussing my issues will expose the false timeline, so you need to avoid me like a plague and try to suppress my freedom of speech, rather than addressing the issues at hand. If you truly had a better argument, you'd simply make that argument and disprove me. But you can't, so you run. It's really quite funny.
You're just getting out of a losing argument, Jeffro. That's all. So look in the mirror.
-
Larsinger58
SLIMBOYFAT: I think the reason many people still believe in 607 CE is because they take what the Bible says seriously. The best way to get JWs to see sense is to show them that the Bible contradicts itself. The Bible itself is open to various interpretations, including the JW one.
This is true in some cases, but not in the case of 607 BCE or when the Bible itself begins and ends the 70 years. JWs require that the land is completely devoid of people after the 7th month of year 18, the same year they date Jerusalem's fall. But:
1. Jeremiah 44:14, 28 clearly notes that those who fled down to Egypt would return to Judea. They don't address what happens to Jeremiah and Baruch who certainly would have been spared Nebuchadnezzar's sword. What happened to them? I'll tell you. They were deported in year 23 after returning to Judea! So 607 BCE doesn't work just on that "relative chronology" alone. This is not a matter of "interpretation," therefore, but a matter of avoiding and ignoring scripture.
2. 2 Chronicles says the 70 years of servitude was to be served by those who had escaped from the sword, which is a reference to the remnant who were left alive by Nebuchadnezzar II when he descended upon Egypt in year 23!
2 Chron. 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 above is not open to interpretation. "Those remaining from the sword" is a reference to those who had ran down to Egypt. Thus the reference to the 70 years of servitude is specifically connected to those of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. So there is really no room for "interpretation" here as to which deportees were to serve the specific 70 years while the land paid back its sabbaths.
Now JWs avoid the idea that the last deportees were from Egypt. In fact, they invent some Jews in the surrounding areas outside of Judea and not Egypt as the ones being deported in year 23. This confirms how dishonest they are, but also that it would be very evident that if they taught that those last deported were out of Egypt, which Josephus clearly notes, then the common perception would be that they would have to travel through Judea to get to Babylon, which is precisely what occurred. They can't afford that thought coming up, so they invent an imaginary group of Jews for this last deportation rather than following the Bible and assigning them to the surviving remnant of Jews from Egypt. Here's their cop-out on this as found in the Insight book:
Some two months later, after the assassination of Gedaliah, the rest of the Jews left behind in Judah fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah and Baruch along with them. (2Ki 25:8-12, 25, 26; Jer 43:5-7) Some of the Jews also may have fled to other nations round about. Probably from among these nations were the 745 captives, as household heads, exiled five years later when Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehovah’s symbolic club, dashed to pieces the nations bordering Judah. (Jer 51:20; 52:30) Josephus says that five years after the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar overran Ammon and Moab and then went on down and took vengeance on Egypt.—Jewish Antiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7).
See that? 'PROBABLY'... Now this makes one think that it is a mystery where the last deportees came from! The Bible clearly indicate they were from the the few remaining ones down in Egypt! This is a deliberate avoidance. That's why JEFFRO is such a phony as well. He refuses to address this issue by claiming he doesn't read my posts. He has extensive, detailed discussion but he never addresses who the last deportees were. 2 Chronicles leaves no room for interpretation! Those "remaining from the sword", meaning those down in Egypt are the ones who had to serve the 70 years. That means the 70 years did not begin until they were deported, which Josephus confirms was in year 23.
But the above cop-out by the WTS by claiming these came from the surrounding areas backfires on them totally. That's because, as we note, cities in the Northern Kingdom such as Tyre were to be deported as well. Why? Because the entire region of both the northern and southern kingdoms had to be desolated for 70 years! It wasn't just Judea that had to pay back these 70 years of sabbaths! So if even by the WTS' imagination there were Jews in the surrounding area around Judea, that would confirm the 70 years had not begun since those areas as well had to be desolated. Since these aeas were populated by other nations, the Bible speaks of other nations serving Babylon for these specific 70 years as well.
Now, I'm not claiming I won this argument. I'm just asking somone to notice and comment on the 70-year interpretation by Josephus and noting that the Bible also agrees with Josephus. But COJ, Ann, Jeffro and the WTS are all cop-outs on this critical point. They deal with this by claiming they don't read my posts and/or that they discussed this earlier and disproved me. Anything but to come to the table and give their opinions about 2 Chronicles 36 and the specific reference to the 70 years connected with "those remaining from the sword."
So, really, the IDEA that this is up for grabs and various interpretations is a false premise in and of itself. There is no room for "interpretation" here when you get right down to it.
Now, YOU should ask why Jeffro and Ann are avoiding this detail of the discussion? Why is the WTS not teaching that those of the last deportation came out of the remnant from Egypt? Why is the WTS avoiding Jeremiah 44:14,28 which clearly notes those who had ran down to Egypt who survived being killed would return to Judea! Oh, let me just quote that:
14 And there will come to be no escapee or survivor for the remnant of Judah who are entering in to reside there as aliens, in the land of Egypt, even to return to the land of Judah to which they are lifting up their soul[ful desire] to return in order to dwell; for they will not return, except some escaped ones.’”
28 And as for the ones escaping from the sword, they will return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah, few in number; and all those of the remnant of Judah, who are coming into the land of Egypt to reside there as aliens, will certainly know whose word comes true, that from me or that from them.”’”
So, yes, indeed, it is a matter of "interpretation" if you use just one scripture to base the entire argument on. COJ goes out of his way to discuss whether the service is "for" or "at" Babylon. But who cares? The argument does not hinge on that sole reference. I hinges on 2 Chronicles who tells us just who was to serve 70 years. Plus the concept that those last deported out of Egypt are the ones that would serve the 70 years is a secular reference via Josephus! That is, Jews themselves via their traditional history have always understood those last deported were the ones who were to serve the 70 years. So where does his concept of 70 years of Babylonian domination come from? Certainly not from the Jews! \
Fact is, Josephus gives his own interpretation of when the 70 years takes place and links that to Jeremiah's prophecy. Since clearly, a Jewish interpretation and historical reference about the 70 years is going to carry lots of weight in this argument, the best way to deal with it is to suppress it and avoid it. Those who do so, like the WTS, Jeffro, Ann, COJ and others, are thus just dishonest. They have their own agenda in this discussion. But at the same time, by aggressively avoiding discussing 2 Chronicles, they prove their propaganda is false. They don't want to go on record and look incredibly stupid by contradicting the obvious, so the next best thing is to avoid it altogether. What choice do they have.
So while, indeed, many texts in the Bible might be open to more than one interpretation; who the Bible says was to serve 70 years is not open for interpretation. It's open for interpretation if you avoid 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 44, but if you include those references, then it is clear who were to serve 70 years. So there are just as many liars and deceivers inside the organization as outside, it appears.
But, you know, ultimately, there will be a price to pay for knowingly misleading others. Teachers bear a heavier burden of judgment.
Now they all pretend to reject me as the "messiah." But if I'm truly the messiah, then it will not be about them rejecting me, but me rejecting them in the end. When the day of judgment comes and I'm in the judgment seat, what choices will I have regarding them?
-
Larsinger58
DEAR JEFFRO: I know you won't read this, no problem. But this will invalidate your webpage and your false chronology. this is why your propaganda doesn't work. Here's a quote:
"Syncellus preserves the record that in the fourth year of Apophis I, Joseph came as a slave into Egypt."
Do you know what this means? It means that Christian historians never lost who the pharaoh of the Exodus was. Basically, Apophis I is dated c. 1600 BC. If Joseph arrived in his 4th year, arriving at age 17, then 13 years later when he was 30 and the 7 years of plenty began, his father Jacob would have arrived about 8 or 9 years later in the 25th year of Apophis I. The Exodus occurred 215 years after Jacob's arrival. If year 25 fell c. 1575 BCE, when you count down 215 years you arrive at 1360 BC which is the time of Amenhotep III. So Syncellus knew even c. 800 AD that the pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenhotep III. Manetho as well links the Exodus to "Amenophis" (Amenhotep III).
But this is another example of "selective ignorance" as you like to exercise. That is, insisting not to read things or concern yourself with information which allows you to remain ignorant of things. Prominent archaeologists, therefore, focus on either 1446 BCE as the date of the Exodus or during the time of Rameses II based on the reference in the Bible that the Israelites built at Pi-Rameses. They totally ignore other references that Amenhotep III was the pharoah of the Exodus. Even so, when archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon dug up Jericho, she was forced to date the destruction by the Israelites between 1350-1325 BCE. The fall of Jericho occurs 40 years after the Exodus and this would give you the range for the Exodus between 1390-1365 BCE. This is precisely the time of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten! It confirms the hitorical reference from Syncellus that Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the Exodus. But popular archaeologists don't make that connection for you! They choose selective ignorance like yourself. If you don't read anything, you can claim you don't know anything! So if you read most commetnary regarding the Exodus you'd think nobody really knew who the pharaohs of the Exodus were, but that's not the case.
Same thing with these 70 years! The context of these 70 years of Babylonian domination as fostered by Carl Jonsson, suggests that the issue of when the 70 years occur is up for grabs or confusing as far as the Bible is concerned. But he totally ignores Josephus' reference to Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the 70 years and thus he ignores the traditional historical reference of the Jews when the 70 years takes place, which is in concert with the last deportation. Carl Jonsson's reference to Babylonian domination sounds great if you don't know about Josephus' reference to the 70 years.
Same with the VAT4956. Once you have established that you don't read my posts, you don't have to deal with Lines 3 and 14 matching up with 511 BCE. The only reason you have the 511 BCE dates in the VAT4956 is because all the original astronomical texts were being destroyed and this was a desperate way to preserve some record of the original timeline. But look what happens when you just presume that 511 BCE was the original year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II! It means you have to reduce the dating of the Neo-Babylonian Period by 57 years. That affects the dating of the Assyrian Period that is based on a single eclipse, now dated to 763 BCE. That means you have to try to find another match for that eclipse as close to 57 years later as you can. No problem. The eclipse of 709 BCE, 54 years later works! In that case, Shishak's invasion now dated per the 763 BCE eclipse in 925 BCE, gets dated 54 years later to 871 BCE. The invasion occurs in year 5 of Rehoboam but during the time of Solomon, thus during a 6-year co-rulership. When 871 BCE dates year Solomon's 39th year, then his 4th year falls in 906 BCE and the Exodus in 1386 BCE! Thus the VAT4956 and the fall of Jericho point to the same coordinated period of the time of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. In fact, if you use the KTU 1.78 text which records a solar eclipse at Ugarit which is customarily dated to year 12 of Akhenaten, then the 1st of Akhenaten would be revised to occur in precisely 1386 BCE!
But where is Jeffro to comment on any of this? He is no where because he knows this puts pressure on him to consider that the current timeline is revised, which it is! But the Bible itself dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE based on the return of the Jews to their homeland in 1947!
So I have the TRUTH. You have lies. But that isn't because I haven't provided you with the truth. I have the light, you have darkness. But as the Bible prophesied, you love the darkness and insist on remaining in the darkness by selectively ignoring what you don't want to hear about learn about.
But I'm not worried. If I'm truly the Christ, then Judgment Day will be a reality just like I am. Only thing is, I'll be in the judgment seat, no you.
-
Jeffro
Larsinger, I'm not reading any of your stupid crap. I did not read any further than "Freemason".
Get professional help, you deeply disturbed person.
-
Phizzy
Rolf Furulli seems to be the only academic who supports 607 and it is not his area of academic expertise, biblical exegesis.
He also had no qualifications in reading the cuneiform tablets that pertain, but has made it a retirement project to acquire the necessary skills. He was criticised, when working as a professor, for being an amateur who pontificated on the tablets with no expertise in the field whatever.
Has he reported any sudden new evidence from this source that stands scrutiny from other experts in the field ?
Surely Jah will direct him to find this evidence for the foundation doctrine of the JW religion ?
No 607=no 1914= no 1919= the GB/FDS are frauds.
Come on Rolf ! your religion is looking more silly by the day.
-
Rattigan350
Why does it matter?
The beginning of the gentile times is not based on the destruction of Jerusalem. Only the WTS tradition is. Because the WTS is hard headed, they want to stick with Russell's reasoning (though they changed everything else). And everyone against the WTS goes against that.
The gentile times is based on when the promise to David got paused. Jehvoah told David that he seed That is not about the destruction of Jerusalem but when the kings in the line of David lost their sovereignty. Since they lost that before the destruction of Jerusalem, then it does not matter when Jerusalem was destroyed.
2 Sam 7:12 "I shall certainly raise up your seed after you, which will come out of your inward parts; and I shall indeed firmly establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly to time indefinite. 14 I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son. When he does wrong, I will also reprove him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of Adam. 15 As for my loving-kindness, it will not depart from him the way I removed it from Saul, whom I removed on account of you. 16 And your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.”’”
That is for David, then Solomon then on to be kings in Jerusalem on down to Jesus. Well, Jesus never became king. So what happened. The Gentile times.
"your very throne will become one firmly established ". Prior to Jerusalem's destruction the throne was lost when they were invaded and were subject to other nations and that started the gentile times when then ended in 1914.
-
Jeffro
Rattigan350:
The gentile times is based on when the promise to David got paused.
I would go a step further and say the 'gentile times' is an ultimately meaningless term rooted in allegory and folklore.
-
Rattigan350
'"genile times' is an ultimately meaningless term rooted in allegory and folklore."
That may be true, but I was addressing how they are barking up the wrong tree on this oft argued and misconstrued issue.
-
Jeffro
Rattigan350:
'"genile times' is an ultimately meaningless term rooted in allegory and folklore."
"genile times"? That's not quite what I said. How do you get copy-and-paste wrong??
That may be true, but I was addressing how they are barking up the wrong tree on this oft argued and misconstrued issue.
Indeed. Thing is, the JW view of the 'gentile times' is definitely entirely wrong, independent of whatever other arbitrary 'alternatives' are postulated for the term.