Satanus, You have no more freedom than I have. After all, Christians are "not under law." Because we are not, for us "Everything is permissible—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible—but not everything is constructive." (Gal. 5:18; 1 Cor. 10:23) Paul was here referring to Christian freedom. However, the same can be said of anyone's freedom. Including your own. Mike
a Christian
JoinedPosts by a Christian
-
73
Babylon is not the Symbolic CIty of False Religion.
by proplog2 inthe babylon with "graven images" quoted from jeremiah and isaiah was not a religious entity but a political entity.
jeremiah 43:12. .
jeremiah 43:13. .
-
-
-
73
Babylon is not the Symbolic CIty of False Religion.
by proplog2 inthe babylon with "graven images" quoted from jeremiah and isaiah was not a religious entity but a political entity.
jeremiah 43:12. .
jeremiah 43:13. .
-
-
a Christian
Hi Prop,
You asked: How would the destruction of the "thousands of legalistic so-called "Christian" sects which now make up Christianity" wreck the business of those involved in world trade?
I assume you refer to Rev. 18. There we read: 11 "The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more— 12 cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13 cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men. I believe organized Christianity will one day be outlawed worldwide, probably as part of a global ban on all religious activity, a ban which will in all likelihood be prompted by the terrorist acts of religious extremists. However, I believe Revelation deals only with events which will befall the "Christian" world, a world which in population now - according to "The World Almanac" - amounts to almost exactly "a third of the [entire] world" (Rev. 8:7,8,9,10,11,12; 9:15,18) When this happens many merchants will certainly "weep and mourn." Not just those merchants who are in the midst of selling various church organizations supplies to build their many cathedrals and mega-churches, ("every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble"). But also merchants who are then regularly selling church organizations all of the other kinds of things mentioned in Rev. 18, which they are then buying to make use of during their religious services and missions works. Satanus, You wrote: Haven't seen you for a while. I have had little time to spend on the Net lately. You wrote: I guess, since i am free of christendom, that means that i am freed from babylon. Yup. But sometimes freedom can be a dangerous thing. I hope you are using yours wisely. : ) Mike
-
73
Babylon is not the Symbolic CIty of False Religion.
by proplog2 inthe babylon with "graven images" quoted from jeremiah and isaiah was not a religious entity but a political entity.
jeremiah 43:12. .
jeremiah 43:13. .
-
-
a Christian
Babylon was the nation that held the Jews, God's people in the 6th Century BC, in bondage.
Who enslaves God's people, Christians, today? A former JW should have no trouble answering such a question.
The obvious answer is the thousands of legalistic so-called "Christian" sects which now make up "Christianity." And they do so on a Grand (make that "Great" ) scale. They now enslave the hearts and minds, to a greater or lessor degree, of some two billion people. And they do so, to a greater or lesser degree, in every nation on earth.
Though the ancient nation of Babylon was primarily a political entity and the bondage it imposed upon the Jewish people was primarily one of physical and geographical restraint, Babylon the Great binds God's modern people in a different way. It robs them of their Christian freedom.By telling Christians what they must think, what they must do, what they must believe, how they must act, where, how and when they must worship God, etc., etc., the "Christian" Churches of this world enslave God's people, Christians, today just as effectively as Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon enslaved God's people, the Jews, in the 6th Century BC.
-
31
Top ten issues to prove that JW's do not have "the truth"
by TweetieBird ini am trying to compile a list of proof's, issues, lies, etc that prove that the wts is not jehovah's channel.
.
what are your top reasons for now believing that it is not the truth?
-
-
a Christian
Thanks to all for your kind words. I'm glad my typing proved helpful to some.
I only wish I could undo all the damage I did several years ago, when I helped bring several people into the Watchtower cult.
-
31
Top ten issues to prove that JW's do not have "the truth"
by TweetieBird ini am trying to compile a list of proof's, issues, lies, etc that prove that the wts is not jehovah's channel.
.
what are your top reasons for now believing that it is not the truth?
-
-
a Christian
It's hard to stop at ten. Here's fourteen. 1. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that there are two different "classes" of Christians with two different hopes for the future. They tell us that only a small minority of Christians will rule with Christ in his kingdom, and they say that the vast majority of Christians will be subjects of those kingdom rulers. However, the apostles taught that there was only "one hope" for all Christians. (Eph. 4:4-6) The apostles also forbid anyone to teach differently than they taught. Since Jehovah's Witnessers teach differently than the apostles on the issue of how many hopes there are for Christians, their two hopes/ two classes of Christians teaching is clearly contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. 2. The Watchtower Society commands Jehovah's Witnesses not to accept blood transfusions. It is widely understood by all Christian groups except Jehovah's Witnesses that the instructions recorded in Acts 15:29, "Keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication," were written as strong advise to new Gentile Christians as a way they could avoid offending Jewish Christians. We know this by reading the context. Acts 15:19, 20 says, "My decision is not to trouble those of the NATIONS who are turning to God, but to write THEM to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." It is plain that these words were not written as a binding decree imposed upon Christians. We know this because Paul later said that early Christians were, in fact, free to eat things sacrificed to idols ( one of the things Christians were advised to "abstain from" in Acts 15 ) so long as doing so did not stumble their brothers. (1 Cor. 8:4,7-9) We also know this because Paul said that for Christians, "All things are lawful but all things are not beneficial." (1 Cor. 6:12) Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses ban on blood is not scriptural. 3. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that crime, wars, contagious disease, earthquakes, famine and the like are signs of Christ's second presence and have been much worse since the year 1914 than in past generations. They teach that this proves that Christ returned in that year. The facts show that this is a misunderstanding of scripture. Read Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 carefully and you will find what Jesus was really saying. His point was that such conditions would exist all the way up to the time of his return and would not be signs of his return at all. He warned his disciples that they should not be worried by such things. He said, "These things must take place but the end will not come right away." (Luke 21:9) He compared the difficult times to come to "birth pains." (Mt. 24:8) For just as a woman must often undergo a long painful period of time before she finally gives birth, so Jesus indicated that our world had much pain to endure before he would finally return. To support their "composite sign of Christ's invisible presence" interpretation of scripture the Watchtower Society has shamelessly played with crime, war, disease and earthquake statistics ever since it first began in an attempt to prove their contentions. The truth is, however, since 1914 none of these problems has gotten worse and most have gotten much better compared to past generations. An objective study of scripture and history clearly shows that the Society's "composite sign" interpretation is not a teaching of scripture. 4. The name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was taken from God's words to Israel recorded in Isaiah 43:10. For a Christian group to take on such a name clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture. First, as mentioned, the words spoken by God recorded in Isaiah 43:10 were spoken to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. The Bible tells us that Christians are to be witnesses of Jesus just as the Jews were witnesses of Jehovah. Jesus said, "You will be witnesses of me." (Acts 1:8) And the Bible tells us that it was "by divine providence," by God's own direction, that His people in the post-Jewish age would be known by the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 11:26 NWT) Thus, instructing Christians to identify themselves by the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture. 5. Jehovah' Witnesses teach that Daniel chapter four indicates that Christ would return 2,520 years after the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by the ancient nation of Babylon. They say this destruction took place in the year 607 BCE. However, as all those who have studied this teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses in an unbiased way have discovered, this understanding of Daniel chapter four is in conflict with both scripture and ancient history. (Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 587 BCE. And the Watchtower's Daniel chapter four / "Seven Times = 2,520 years" interpretation has more holes in it than a hundred pounds of Swiss cheese.) 6. The same can be said about Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that the resurrection of all Christians who died before the year 1918 occurred in 1918. Paul said that those who teach that "the resurrection has already occurred" have "deviated from the truth" and "are subverting the faith." (2 Tim. 2:18) Jehovah's Witnesses teach that "the resurrection has already occurred." Thus, the teaching that the resurrection occurred in 1918 is clearly unscriptural 7. The teaching that Jesus appointed the men who run the Watchtower Society as his "faithful slave" "over all his belongings" in 1919 is certainly not clearly taught in scripture. Without any clear statement in scripture that Christ ever appointed the leaders of the Watchtower Society to such a position, such claims by the Watchtower Society are extremely presumptuous. And the Bible tells us that God hates presumptuousness. (Isaiah 13:11)
8. The Watchtower Society's use of the name "Jehovah" is not scriptural. They have added the name "Jehovah" many times to the text of the New Testament even though they admit that, "…no early surviving Greek manuscript of the ‘New Testament’ contains the personal name of God." ( The Watchtower March 1, 1991 p. 28 ) The Watchtower Society has said that they believe that the writers of the New Testament used the divine name in their original writings but that their original writings were later corrupted. However this contradicts what the Society itself has said. The Society tells us that, "Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today." ( You Can Live For Ever in Paradise on Earth, 1982 p. 53 ) So, the fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses had no business inserting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations when that name is not found in any early surviving Greek manuscript of the New Testament. Historians tell us that the personal name of God, as used in the Old Testament, was not used in either its written or spoken form for many years before the time of Christ. Because the Jews were afraid overuse of the divine name might amount to "taking the name of the Lord in vain," they actually forbid its use altogether. The Bible tells us that for Christians the name of Jesus should be promoted above every name. (Phil. 2:9) Jehovah's Witnesses do not do this. Their putting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations and promoting that name above every name, rather than the name of Jesus as the Bible says Christians should be doing, is clearly "unchristian." 9. Jehovah's Witnesses insist that all their members must regularly engage in their work of preaching and disciple making. However, the Bible says that God gave only "some as evangelists" and only "some as teachers." (Eph. 4:11) Though all true Christians are certainly moved to share their faith with others when the opportunity arises, the teaching that all Christians are required by God to regularly serve as door-to-door preachers contradicts the scriptures.
10. On this same line of thought, the Watchtower Society's demand that all Jehovah's Witnesses who share their faith with others keep track of their time doing so, and then report that number of hours they do so each month to their congregations is also contrary to the teachings of scripture. Jesus said that those who let others know what good works they are doing already have their reward in full. But he said that those who give in secret will be the ones who are rewarded by their father in heaven. (Mt. 6:1-4) Jehovah's Witnesses who are "regular publishers" let their elders know exactly how much time they spend preaching. Jehovah's Witnesses who are "Pioneers" let everyone in their congregations know how many hours they preach just by the act of "Pioneering." The Watchtower Society encourages this kind of "trumpet blowing," contrary to the teachings of Christ. 11. Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to decide for themselves many minor matters which certainly should be left to an individual Christian's conscience. For instance Jehovah's Witnesses are not even allowed to decide for themselves if they will give their mother a card on Mother's Day or celebrate their child's first Birthday. This is not Christianity. It is legalistic Phariseeism. The Bible says that "Where the Spirit of God is there is freedom." ( 2 Cor. 3:17 ) With this verse in mind, since freedom of action, thought and speech to make decisions for themselves in minor matters such as these does not exist among Jehovah's Witnesses, we can only view the many legalistic prohibitions, which the Watchtower Society imposes on Jehovah's Witnesses, as coming from men not God.
12. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to let any member of the military or police join their religion even though the first Gentile accepted into the Christian congregation was a Roman army officer. Peter baptized Cornelius without ever demanding that he first resign from the military. (Acts 10) The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses treat baptismal candidates differently than Peter did shows that, in this area also, they teach commands of men as doctrine. ( Matt. 15:9 )
13. Jehovah's Witnesses "disfellowship" people for things never mentioned in the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for using tobacco, for celebrating Christmas, for working for a Christian charitable organization and, more and more often today, simply admitting that they doubt the Watchtower Society's claim that it is God's exclusive channel for truth on the earth. Disfellowshipping and then shunning people for such unbiblical reasons clearly shows that the Watchtower Society's instructions to congregational Elders to disfellowship Jehovah's Witnesses for such things do not come from God.
14. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they are considered by God to be Christians and that only they have any hope of surviving Armageddon. Some of Jehovah's Witnesses actually deny the Society teaches this. However, as well informed member of Jehovah's Witnesses know, they do. As the Sept. 1, 1989 issue of the Watchtower tells us on page 19, "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the 'great crowd,' as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." Jehovah's Witnesses have consistently taught that all members of Christendom's Churches, who are still its members when Armageddon strikes, will be executed by God. This amounts to judging and condemning others in the worst way. Who God accepts as Christians and who he will destroy at Armageddon is a judgment that is God's to make, not ours. Jesus commanded his followers to "Stop judging and you will not be judged," and "stop condemning and you will not be condemned." ( Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37 ) Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that God only accepts the worship of Jehovah's Witnesses, only considers them to be Christians and that only they "have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system," is not a teaching of Scripture and, in fact, is totally contrary to the teachings of Christ. -
20
For our Biblical experts: Artaxerxes reign began in 474 BCE?
by sir82 ina question for leolaia, peaceful pete, narkissos, and/or any others who might know this:.
in this week's "what does the bible really teach" book study lesson, the appendix that is covered talks about the famous "70 weeks of years" prophecy of daniel 9:25. the society claims that the "69 weeks" runs from 455 bce to 29 ce, coinciding with jesus' baptism.. they derive the 455 bce date as "the 20th year of the reign of artaxerxes".
they claim that "historians agree that" artaxerxes began his reign in 474 bce.. i did a quick google search, and found absolutely nothing even remotely hinting at 474 bce as a beginning date for anyone.
-
-
a Christian
Joe,
Yup, that was me. I've discussed several aspects of this subject matter for a few years now on a few internet discussion boards. While doing so I have sometimes used just my first name (Mike), sometimes also my last name (Satterlee), and sometimes just a nickname (a Christian). I don't think I've ever gone by any other name though. So, if you catch me posting anyone else's words as my own feel free to call me on it.
Mike
-
20
For our Biblical experts: Artaxerxes reign began in 474 BCE?
by sir82 ina question for leolaia, peaceful pete, narkissos, and/or any others who might know this:.
in this week's "what does the bible really teach" book study lesson, the appendix that is covered talks about the famous "70 weeks of years" prophecy of daniel 9:25. the society claims that the "69 weeks" runs from 455 bce to 29 ce, coinciding with jesus' baptism.. they derive the 455 bce date as "the 20th year of the reign of artaxerxes".
they claim that "historians agree that" artaxerxes began his reign in 474 bce.. i did a quick google search, and found absolutely nothing even remotely hinting at 474 bce as a beginning date for anyone.
-
-
a Christian
Alan, You wrote: The lumping of the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks into one continuous period never made any sense to me.
I don't believe JWs lump the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks into one continuous period. As a JW I always understood the division this way: Seven weeks (49 years) after Nehemiah issued his order to begin Jerusalem's rebuilding her rebuilding would be complete. Sixty-two weeks later the Messiah would appear. Half a week later he would die. Half a week later the "seventy weeks" would end when God's Spirit was poured out on the gentiles. I think historians agree that it most likely took about fifty years of reconstruction before Jerusalem looked much like it did before it was destroyed by Babylon. JWs believe that Daniel's "70 Weeks" began to run when Nehemiah ordered the work to begin on the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall after Artaxerxes issued a decree in his 20th year which permitted Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem to rebuild that Holy City. (Neh. 2) They believe these "70 Weeks" ended seven years after Christ's baptism when God's Spirit was first poured out on gentile believers. (Acts 10) On these points I agree with them. Though I take issue with them when it comes to some very important historical details. Some of which some here may find quite interesting.
All historians now assure us that Artaxerxes' 20th year of ruling Persia took place in 445 BC, not 455 BC as JWs maintain. And 490 years after 445 BC brings us to 46 AD, which was seventeen years after Christ's baptism, not seven. How then can I understand that Artaxerxes' decree in his 20th year as king has anything to do with Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy? Because strong evidence suggests that Nehemiah did not return to Jerusalem and give his command to begin rebuilding that city until the year 440 BC, even though the Bible tells us that Nehemiah had been granted permission by Artaxerxes to issue such a command in Artaxerxes' 20th year as king of Persia, which historians assure us took place in 445 BC. (Neh. 1:1-6) The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that Nehemiah "came to Jerusalem" not "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" as the Bible seems to say, but in his "twenty and fifth year." (Ant. XI, 5, 7) The fact is that the Bible does not actually say that Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' 20th year. It only tells us that Artaxerxes then gave Nehemiah permission to do so. While Josephus, on the other hand, tells us of the time that Nehemiah actually "came to Jerusalem." Concerning this matter, in his book, "History Of Israel" (third edition, 1981, pg. 381) John Bright tells us, "The Bible gives us the impression that Nehemiah set out at once, accompanied by a military escort (Neh.2:9). But Josephus (Ant. XI, 5, 7), who follows the Septuagint text, the first part of which is preserved in 1 Esdres, places his arrival only in 440. Though assurance is impossible, this may be correct. If Nehemiah first went to Babylon and collected Jews to accompany him, as Josephus has it, and then having presented his credentials to the satrap of Abah-nahara, attended to the procurement of building materials before proceeding to Jerusalem, as he possibly did since work was begun soon after his arrival, the date is not unreasonable."
Some who harmonize the accounts of Nehemiah and Josephus in this way point out that it took Solomon nearly four years to procure similar kinds of building materials before he was able to begin building the Temple. (2 Chr. chapters 1 and 2 and chapter 3, verses 1 and 2) And Solomon was much better funded than Nehemiah, and unlike Nehemiah, Solomon was able to conscript all the labor he needed for his building project, rather than having to spend time finding volunteers.
Other scholars agree with Bright's assessment of Josephus' probable accuracy in this matter. For instance, Sigmund Mowinckel, a highly regarded Scandinavian Bible scholar, believes that Josephus used a separate Greek version of Nehemiah that in several respects differed from that preserved in the LXX. He argues that Josephus' chronological information on the Persian kings did not result from his own calculations, or from any mistakes some say he must have made in this matter. Mowinckel argues that Josephus must have been quoting from a now lost Greek version of Nehemiah. On Josephus' statement about the 25th year of Artaxerxes, Mowinckel maintains that Josephus' figures are most likely the original ones. He writes, "In my opinion the balance [of evidence] is in favor of [the figure] '25'." (Vol. 3, p.45 of Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehema, Vols. 1-3, Oslo, 1964)
But how does the fact that Nehemiah did not give his order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem until 440 BC help us to make sense of Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy? As most students of Bible prophecy know, Daniel's "seventy weeks" are generally understood as referring to seventy weeks of years (seventy sets of seven years) totaling a period of 490 solar years. But the Jews used a lunar calendar! Their years were lunar years, not solar years. So a week of years to the Jews would have meant seven lunar years. And seventy weeks of years to the Jews would have meant 490 lunar years, not 490 solar years.
At the time of Daniel, on average about every three years, the Jews added an extra month to the end of their lunar calendars to make sure that they never fell too far out of sync with the solar year. But at the time Daniel wrote his "Seventy Weeks" prophecy the Jews had no set system of doing so. When they decided that it was time to add an extra month to their calendars they called this extra month "second Adar." However, the fact that they then sometimes added an "intercalary" month to their lunar calendars does not change the fact that, to the Jews, a "year" normally meant 354 days. For that is the number of days which one of their calendars most often contained. Their calendars usually consisted of six 29 day months and six 30 day months. So, to the Jews who lived at the time Daniel wrote his "Seventy Weeks" prophecy, a “year” would have been understood to mean a lunar year, and a "week" of years (literally a “seven” of years) would have been understood to mean seven lunar years. And “seventy weeks” of years would have been understood to mean 490 lunar years, none of which were then either automatically or routinely solar-adjusted.
Now, since one lunar year contains 354.367 days, 490 lunar years contain 173,639.83 days. And 173,639.83 days divided by 365.2425 (the number of days in a solar year) equal 475.40 solar years. With these things in mind, I have come to conclusion that Daniel's "seventy weeks" were a period of 475.4 years which ran from 440 BC to 36 AD. I believe those 475.4 years began at the time Nehemiah gave his "commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25 KJV; Neh. 2:17,18). And I believe those 475.4 years ended at the time God acted to "confirm the [new] covenant with many" by pouring His Holy Spirit out on Gentiles for the first time (Dan. 9:27 KJV; Acts 10). I believe the "many" here referred to were the "many nations" God promised Abraham that he would one day become "father" to. (Gen. 17:4)
As anyone who has thoroughly studied the history of this prophecy's interpretation knows, this is by no means a new idea or a novel one. In the year 221 AD Julius Africanus in his work entitled "Chronographia" argued that the 490 years were lunar years of 354 days each, which he converted into 475 solar years. He counted them from the 20th year of Artaxerxes, which he correctly dated to the 4th year of the 83rd Olympiad (=445/444 BC). From this date, he said, to "the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (30/31 AD, his date for the death of Christ), there are reckoned 475 years, which take 490 according to the Hebrew numeration, as they measure the years by the course of the moon; so that, as is easy to show, their year consists of 354 days, while the solar year has 365 1/4 days." (Africanus' Chronographia XVI, 3 translated in The Ante-Nicence fathers, Vol. VI ed. A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, p. 135) Many later expositors followed Africanus in doing this.
I believe that the facts of history, together with a knowledge that the Jews used a lunar calendar, combine to show that the Messiah (meaning "anointed one") was first presented to Israel in the year 29 AD by John the baptist, after sixty-nine weeks of lunar years had passed, when John anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the waters of his baptism in "the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar." (Luke 3:1,21). At that time Jesus Christ was "cut off" from his people and, quite literally, "had nothing for himself." (Dan. 9:26) For he then began a forty day long fast in the wilderness. Then, after three and a half years, in the middle of Daniel's seventieth week, in the spring of 33 AD, Christ's sacrificial death brought an end to the Jewish system of sacrificial offerings. (Dan. 9:27) Finally, three and a half years later, at the end of Daniel's "Seventy Weeks," in the early fall of 36 AD, Christ "confirmed a covenant with many" (Dan. 9:27) when he, for the first time, poured out his Holy Spirit on non-Jewish people. (Acts 10)
Doing so confirmed the fact that God, from that time forward, would give everyone who put their faith in Jesus Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, complete forgiveness of their sins and eternal life. With this fact in mind, the good news of what Jesus Christ had done for mankind then began to be preached to all people on earth, just as Christ said that it would be. (Math. 24:14)
Though I favor the understanding I have just presented, that Nehemiah did not give his on site order to begin Jerusalem's rebuilding until five years after Artaxerxes' 20th year, there is also another solution to this ancient puzzle which also fits all the facts of history. This solution eliminates the problem of Nehemiah taking five years to get to Jerusalem, which some people have a hard time accepting. Historians tell us that Artaxerxes did not gain legal control of Persia's throne until six years after the assassination of his father Xerxes. Because he did not, it is very possible that Nehemiah did not count the first six years of Artaxerxes' reign, during which time their legality was being contested. Those who have thoroughly studied the way in which Bible writers reckoned the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings tell us that at times they apparently employed this "legal count" system of reckoning.
If Nehemiah reckoned Artaxerxes' reign in this way then when he referred to Artaxerxes' 20th year he would have been referring to the same year Josephus referred to when he told us Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' "25th year," 440 BC.
The historical information which strongly suggests that Nehemiah may have employed this "legal count" system of reckoning is contained in the works of several ancient historians. I'll here give you a condensed version of it.
Artaxerxes came to the throne of Persia in August of 465 BC following the murder of his father Xerxes. To gain the throne for himself Artaxerxes and his supporters, the real murderers, blamed Xerxes' murder on the rightful heir to the throne, Artaxerxes' older brother crown prince Darius. They then had Darius unjustly executed. For the next six years Artaxerxes' legal right to rule Persia was hotly disputed. Why? Because ancient Persia was not a "banana republic" in which anyone willing to assassinate their country's head of state and then take his place with the support of several armed friends had just as much a legal right to run their country's government as anyone else did. Ancient Persia was then governed by a hereditary monarchy. In that monarchy, upon the death of a king, the right to rule legally passed from a father to his first born son. If that first born son was, for some reason, legally disqualified from becoming king, the right to rule then passed to the king's next oldest son. If a king had no son who was legally qualified to inherit the throne, upon his death the right to rule passed to his oldest brother.
Following king Xerxes' murder and the execution of crown prince Darius, Artaxerxes' older brother Hyspases was legally next in line to inherit Persia's throne. However, Hyspases was then away governing the Persian Provence of Bactria. Because he was, Artaxerxes was able to sit on his father's throne. It is said that for the next few years Hyspases rightly maintained that he held the legal right to rule Persia. Sometime during the first few years of Artaerxes' legally disputed reign as king, he and his older brother Hyspases met on the field of battle to resolve this issue, and some others. In Artaxerxes' effort to suppress what historians call "the Bactrian revolt," he then killed his older brother Hyspases. However, when Artaxerxes killed Hyspases he did nothing to remove the cloud of illegitimacy that then hung over his rulership of Persia. If anything, he only darkened that cloud. For a son or a brother of a king who killed the king was not legally allowed to inherit the kingdom from the king he had killed. So, at the time Artaxerxes killed Hyspases, the right to rule Persia legally passed to Xerxes full brother, Achamenes, who was then away governing Egypt.
It was not until the year 459 BC that Artaxerxes finally gained the legal right to rule the Persian empire, an empire he had been illegitimately ruling since 465 BC. For it was in that year that Artaxerxes' uncle Achamenes was killed in a battle in Egypt. It was only at that time, in 459 BC, that Artaxerxes was finally able to legally wear the crown of the king of Persia.
Nehemiah serving at the King's court would have been aware of these legal matters which put the legality of the first six years of Artaxerxes' reign in question. If Nehemiah, like other Bible writers who recorded chronological information, did not count years of a king's rule in which their right to rule was legally in question, he would have counted 459 BC as Artaxerxes' first year as Persia's king. And if Nehemiah counted 459 BC as Artaxerxes' first year, he would have counted 440 as Artaxerxes' 20th year. In other words, we have strong reason to believe that Nehemiah may have reckoned the reign of Artaxerxes differently than the way in which it was then commonly reckoned, the way in which Josephus' sources reckoned it, and the way in which it is commonly reckoned today. When Nehemiah wrote of Artaxerxes' "20th year" he may not have been referring to the year 445 BC, as has long been thought, but to 440 BC, just as Josephus clearly was when he told us that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' "25th year." And sixty-nine "sevens" of years (483 lunar years) after 440 brings us to AD 29, the year Jesus became the Messiah. -
21
American Idol ... will Chris win?
by free2beme ini admit, i watch this show regularly and it is a major discussion in the work space.
we all think chris is going win and it is his contest to loss at this point.
although there are a couple of men who like kat.
-
-
a Christian
Wedensday,
You wrote: almost everytime they [DialIdol] have had the bottom person, the one that should go home-wrong. It has been the one above them that went home. right now Chris and Kat are within a few votes of each others.
You are right about that. They are actually only predicting that either Chris or Kat will go home. Both of their names are in red, meaning either of them can go. The margin of error makes this too close to call. I think Kat is gonna go.
Mike
-
21
American Idol ... will Chris win?
by free2beme ini admit, i watch this show regularly and it is a major discussion in the work space.
we all think chris is going win and it is his contest to loss at this point.
although there are a couple of men who like kat.
-
-
a Christian
Chris will not only not win. He will be voted off tomorrow night. Here are the latest stats from Dial idol as of 12:45 AM EST:
First their "Score" based on a weighting of the busy signals taking into several factors:
DialIdol
RankIdol DialIdol Score Margin Of Error Actual Rank 1-2 Taylor Hicks 38.027 1.658 - 1-2 Elliott Yamin 37.18 1.67 - 3-4 Katharine McPhee 33.04 1.724 - 3-4 Chris Daughtry 32.72 1.728 - Busy signal % all 8 lines:
Idol Busy Percent Actual Rank Taylor Hicks 81.349 - Taylor Hicks #2 80.319 - Elliott Yamin 78.987 - Elliott Yamin #2 77.981 - Chris Daughtry 72.317 - Katharine McPhee 69.724 - Katharine McPhee #2 67.099 - Chris Daughtry #2 63.809 - -
26
Taylor is BACK!! (American Idol)
by Mulan ini just watched taylor's performance.
i don't think the judges loved him too much, but i sure did.
he was great.. it's only half over so no comment on the others yet.
-
-
a Christian
As I said from the moment I first saw him. This guy is going to win this thing.
Like every week so far, Taylor's voting line is the busiest according to DialIdol which measures how often every contestant's line is busy. The more often their line is busy the more votes they are getting. Accortding to this site Taylor has been the top vote getter every week without exception.