Jeffro ... I love how you show what a "tool" Scholar is with simple concise answers - as opposed to his circular vagueness and catch-phrase way of arguing.
-ithinkisee
The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets
by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
a_ Christian
Jeffro, You wrote: According to Jeremiah 52:29, there were only 832 exiles taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year anyway (though 2 Kings 24:14 indicates about 10,000+ were taken) ... Sorry about being a stickler, because I know this is a bit off topic. But 2 Kings 24:14 does not refer to captives Nebuchadnezzar took from Jerusalem in his eighteenth year as Babylon's king. It is referring to the number of people he took from Jerusalem in his "eighth year" as king of Babylon, at the time he took Judah's king Jehoiachin prisoner. (2 Kings 24:12) Mike
-
scholar
Jeffro
Your claim that Neb took captives from Judah in his acc. or first regnal year is utter nonsense for there is no biblical or secular evidence for this fact. Provide your evidence. There is evidence for the twenty year gap because it is plainly revealed when the secular and sacred chronologies are compared for the difference of twenty years is stark.
The seventy years of Jeremiah are of exile -desolation and servitude as confirmed by Josephus from the destruction of the temple by Neb in his 18 th year until Cyrus released the exiles in 537.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
Your claim that Neb took captives from Judah in his acc. or first regnal year is utter nonsense for there is no biblical or secular evidence for this fact. Provide your evidence.
Berossus and Daniel both confirm that captives were taken at this time. Other sources indicate that booty was taken, which often included people as slaves.
There is evidence for the twenty year gap because it is plainly revealed when the secular and sacred chronologies are compared for the difference of twenty years is stark.
You claim that the evidence for the extra 20 years in the Society's interpretation is the extra 20 years. Circular reasoning at its finest.
The seventy years of Jeremiah are of exile -desolation and servitude as confirmed by Josephus from the destruction of the temple by Neb in his 18 th year until Cyrus released the exiles in 537.
Parrotting the same old rubbish I see. Since the largest exile occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, how can the Society justify starting the exile from his 18th year?
-
Jeffro
Sorry about being a stickler, because I know this is a bit off topic. But 2 Kings 24:14 does not refer to captives Nebuchadnezzar took from Jerusalem in his eighteenth year as Babylon's king. It is referring to the number of people he took from Jerusalem in his "eighth year as king of Babylon at the time he took Judah's king Jehoiachin prisoner.
Yes, it was in his eigth year. Thanks for picking that up. I had quickly re-read through the Insight book's on Captivity section shortly before posting and misread part of it, and I think I might have posted it without my usual caffeine I.V. But this point you have highlighted even better proves my original comment to 'scholar' that the number of exiles in what the Society reasons was 607 was barely an exile at all compared to the large number taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. (Jer 52:28, 2 Kings 24:14) Therefore the Society has even less justification for saying the 70 years of exile began in 607 (though compare Jeremiah 25:12 for the significance of the 70 years anyway).
-
scholar
Jeffro
There is no text in Daniel that says that Neb took Judean captives in his acc year or his first year and Josephus who sources Berossus clearly states that it was only in Neb's 18th year that he first took such captives beginning the period of seventy years. Also, the re is no cunieform evidence to prove your claim.
We justify the claim that the exile that began the seventy years began in Neb's 18th year because that was when the land began its desolation which also was a period of exile or a second exile and a period of servitude for the complete nation deported to Babylon.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
There is no text in Daniel that says that Neb took Judean captives in his acc year or his first year
A proper chronology of the relevant scriptures places Daniel 1:1 occuring in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. (As previously covered at lengh, there is no basis for the Society's pretending that "kingship" means something different to "reign" because there is no distrinction in the original text, and other words could have been employed if vassalage was intended.)
and Josephus who sources Berossus clearly states that it was only in Neb's 18th year that he first took such captives beginning the period of seventy years. Also, the re is no cunieform evidence to prove your claim.
Sheesh... that is your defense?? If Josephus did not mention the exile in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, then either Josephus simply did not mention all of the exiles, in which case his not mentioning exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year is immaterial... or, you are saying that Jeremiah 52:28 is wrong about exiles in the 7th year.
We justify the claim that the exile that began the seventy years began in Neb's 18th year because that was when the land began its desolation which also was a period of exile or a second exile and a period of servitude for the complete nation deported to Babylon.
(You mean "attempt to justify".) Why would the Jews refer to their exile as a period much shorter than for which most of them were actually there? It is a rediculous assertion.
-
scholar
Jeffro
Daniel 1:1 cannot be used to support the view that Neb took Judean captives in his first or acc year because Daniel does not tell us what year it was that coincided with the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship. However, Josephus does give us this relevant piece of information when he coincides this event as the Neb's 8th year with the 11 th year of Jehoiakim when the first deporation occurred in 617 BCE. Also, the Hebrew word translated kingship does not equate with reign so Daniel is not talking about the third regnal year of Jehoiakim but rather the third year of his vassalage as Josephus confirms.
Josephus who is the prominent authority on Berossus does not detail the histgory of Nebuchadnezzer but the Bible gives more informatgion and this is confirmed by what information Josephus does give for this period. Your opinion of the matter is unsupported by the Bible and by Josephus and by celebrated WT scholars.
scholars JW
-
Jeffro
Daniel 1:1 cannot be used to support the view that Neb took Judean captives in his first or acc year because Daniel does not tell us what year it was that coincided with the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship. However, Josephus does give us this relevant piece of information when he coincides this event as the Neb's 8th year with the 11 th year of Jehoiakim when the first deporation occurred in 617 BCE. Also, the Hebrew word translated kingship does not equate with reign so Daniel is not talking about the third regnal year of Jehoiakim but rather the third year of his vassalage as Josephus confirms.
Yes, Josephus indicates that Jehoiakim's 11th year is Nebuchadnezzar's 8th, and it should be enough for most people that 11 is not equal to 3, but you seem to be a special case in this area. If we take 8 off both, we arrive at Jehoiakim's 3rd year, and Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Therefore Josephus certainly does provide evidence that backs up Daniel 1:1 which confirms that Nebuchadnezzar took captives in his accession year. The 'kingship' thing again... 'scholar', we've been through this... the Hebrew word translated 'kingship' in the NWT is not a different word to 'reign' at all. There is simply is no different word used. You can't actually specify what two different words are contrasted, because there is only one word in question. Daniel didn't say 'vassalage', or 'rule relative to Nebuchadnezzar's rule', or anything confusing. He used the Hebrew word for 'reign', which does not indicate anything other than what would typically construed, specifically the third year from the start of his ruling (using the accession year system, which corresponds to his fourth year according to Jeremiah). If for argument's sake you were right, what alternative Hebrew word would you suggest Daniel would have used if he meant 'reign' instead of 'kingship'?
Josephus who is the prominent authority on Berossus does not detail the histgory of Nebuchadnezzer but the Bible gives more informatgion and this is confirmed by what information Josephus does give for this period. Your opinion of the matter is unsupported by the Bible and by Josephus and by celebrated WT scholars.
Your statement that my opinion is unsupported by the bible and by Josephus is simply a lie, as I have a constructed chronology which is completely harmonious with both. It is only the salivating WT scholars that I (along with the entire professional community) am at odds with.
You continually suggest that the Society's interpretation is factual on the basis that the Society's interpretation is consistent with the Society's interpretation, and that the facts must be wrong because they are not consistent with the Society's interpretation. Are you sure you know who's side you're on because you're certainly not making the Society's scholarship look too bright.
-
OldSoul
Not meaning to muddy the water again, but I would like to add something for the benefit of any lurkers.
This cognitive dissonance you are witnessing from Scholar is caused by a necessity to prove that Daniel 4:10-17 means Jesus started ruling in the heavens in 1914. Jehovah's Witnesses insist that is the case, and the only way their uncanny numerology could be true is if 607 B.C.E. is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem.
In other words, they take issue with the entire known world's view of history to try and establish their pet year of 1914 by Scripture. If you are thinking this sounds like twisting history and Scripture to fit dogma, give yourself a cookie, you're right.
OldSoul