Witness My Fury:
I'm more amazed about the fact that Lars isnt already all over this thread posting his mental delusions as fact and consigning yet another great thread to the trash pile.
Shhhh!
Posts by Jeffro
-
78More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society
by Jeffro init seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
-
-
Jeffro
-
78
More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society
by Jeffro init seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
-
-
Jeffro
Why does the historical-messianic interpretation begin with the decree by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (Ezra 7) but JW's use Nehemiah 2:1, 5-8, to pinpoint Nehemiah going forth to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem “in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king" as 455?
Those who accept the historical-messianic interpretation place the baptism of Jesus around 26CE, in keeping with various suppositions that he may have been born around 4BC. JWs dogmatically insist that Jesus was baptised in 29CE, so 458 doesn't suit their purposes.
-
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso ini received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.
accepted comments on the points at issue.. .
conclusion.
-
-
Jeffro
Jeffro, Those are good comments for the 40yrs desolation of Egypt. Is it not more likely that Ezekiel could just be wrong on this?
It's entirely possible that some of the details given by Ezekiel are just plain wrong. Though that isn't necessarily the case... with a 'but'...
The modern version of the book is almost certainly the result of extensive editing after the original, to which various details were added or changed later to give the appearance of 'prophecy'. This is evidenced by the fact that the Greek Septuagint version of the book (2nd century BCE), which most likely represents an earlier version (earlier than 'ours', but later than the original that probably does date back to the sixth century BCE in some form), contains less detail than later Hebrew versions that resemble 'our' version. There was therefore plenty of time to amend the accounts.
So whilst Ezekiel (the person, if he actually existed) almost certainly didn't really 'prophesy', the content of Ezekiel (the book) may indeed include details of events that actually happened - with a great deal of political and theological spin - after the original writing, but prior to the book in its completed form.
If the details in Ezekiel are correct (regardless of whether they are actually 'prophetic'), the explanation I've provided for the 'forty years' is nothing more than a plausible 'best fit'. The interpretation I've suggested neither contains nor requires anything 'magical'.
-
78
More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society
by Jeffro init seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
-
-
Jeffro
jwfacts:
Can you provide more detail on [their incorrect placement of the reigns of Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I]?
For the correct years, see just about any encyclopedia.
For the incorrect years of the JW interpretation, see Insight on the Scriptures, volume 2, pages 613-616, "The Reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes".
They (and various other Christian groups) shift the start of Artaxerxes' reign from 465 BCE to 475 BCE in order to move his 20th year to 455 BCE, to in turn shift the alleged start of their interpretation of the '70 weeks' of Daniel chapter 9 to 'fit' the '69th' week to 29 CE.
However, the '70 weeks' actually referred to periods of '7 weeks' (=49 years = 587 BCE to 538 BCE, 'Messiah' = Cyrus; see also Isaiah 45:1), '62 weeks' (= 434 years = 538 BCE to 104 BCE, 'Leader' = Aristobulus [first priest to declare himself king after the exile]) and '70th week' (Jannaeus [killed Aristobulus]).
The retrofit of the '70 weeks' 'prophecy' to supposedly point to Jesus is a later Christian forgery. Their premise for shifting the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes is therefore redundant.
-
78
More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society
by Jeffro init seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
-
-
Jeffro
Phizzy:
The Book of Daniel had not in fact been written when Alexander was alive it seems, so folklore that story is.
Well, yeah. I was trying to be subtle.
-
78
More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society
by Jeffro init seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
-
-
Jeffro
EdenOne:
Josephus writes that Alexander the Great visited Jerusalem in 332 BCE and was met by High Priest Jaddua.
Yes, however the story about the Jews showing Alexander the 'prophecy' is almost certainly folklore.
If this is the same Jaddua mentioned in the book of Neemiah 12:22, then certainly there must have been some editing made to the book at a later stage, right...?
Yes. And, yes. The original version was a combined work of 'Nehemiah' and 'Ezra', compiled in the late 4th century BCE, and then subsequent alterations were made to the text.
-
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso ini received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.
accepted comments on the points at issue.. .
conclusion.
-
-
Jeffro
On to the '40 years for Egypt'... This is taken from Ezekiel 29:1-16.
Firstly, the passage that mentions 40 years does not mention Babylon. The part of the chapter that does mention Nebuchadnezzar (verse 17 onwards) is an entirely different pronouncement separated by over 10 years (compare verses 1 and 17).
There is no evidence that Egypt was ever depopulated for a continuous 40-year period. If that happened at all, it would be more likely to occur during the Persian period.
However, there is another more likely interpretation. The rule of Pharoah Apries (Hophra) was contested by Amasis II. According to Herodotus, Amasis was raised as a commoner, and was not from a kingly line. Amasis ruled from 570 until 526 BCE. After Amasis took the throne, Apries fought against him, but was finally defeated in 567. The uncontested portion of Amasis' reign was... forty years. The reign of Amasis II was actually prosperous, but as far as Apries' lineage was concerned, Egypt was 'destroyed'.
After the reign of Amasis, Egypt soon became subject to the Persian empire (Ezekiel 29:14).
-
78
More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society
by Jeffro init seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
-
-
Jeffro
Comatose:
Trying to keep track of those people and which Darius is whom...
Thing is, it's not even hard to verify. It makes me wonder what the Watch Tower Society's 'researchers' actually spend their time doing.
-
78
More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society
by Jeffro init seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
-
-
Jeffro
The likely reason the Watch Tower Society opts for the earlier 'Darius' is probably to reduce suspicion that the book of Nehemiah was edited by people other than the eponymous author decades after it was originally written.
Their assignment of 443 BCE for Artexerxes 32nd year is also wrong. The correct year is 433 BCE. This error is introduced by their incorrect placement of the reigns of Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I in order to preserve the fraudulent interpretation of the 'seventy weeks' 'prophecy' as pointing to 'Jesus'.
-
78
More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society
by Jeffro init seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
-
-
Jeffro
It seems that more often than not, when the Watch Tower Society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong. This seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters! Insight on the Scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):
Nehemiah 12:22 mentions the recording of Levitical heads of paternal houses “in the days of Eliashib, Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua . . . down till the kingship of Darius the Persian.” Since Eliashib was high priest at the time of Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem (Ne 3:1) and since by the time of Nehemiah’s second visit to that city (following the 32nd year of Artaxerxes [443 B.C.E.]) Joiada had a married son (Ne 13:28), it is likely that the “Darius” mentioned was Darius Ochus (also called Nothus), who ruled from 423 to 405 B.C.E.
No, Watch Tower Society. The conclusion that the "Darius" mentioned here is Ochus is not "likely". It's wrong.
Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan and Jaddua were priests who officiated consecutively (for 37, 23, 39 and 51 years, respectively) from 470 BCE until 321 BCE. Whilst Joiada and Johanan's periods each had some overlap with Ochus (who did indeed "rule from 423 to 405 B.C.E"), Jaddua didn't at all. The only 'Darius' contemporary with Jaddua was Darius III Artashata (336 BCE - 330 BCE, also called Codomannus).
Morons.
