Posts by Jeffro

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

never a jw:

Even though humor doesn't seem to be your forte,

Evidently you don't understand what means.

I stilll appreciate your great work

Thanks.

Sorry if I sounded flippant.

Sorry if I didn't.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

never a jw:

Hey Jetro,

Jeffro.

I have kept correspondence with some apostates, even well known ones. I have done few translations to Spanish for them. The problem is that they live thousands of miles from California. I want to meet an apostate before I quit this JW business (when my children are out, few others too, why not). I want to find out if apostates have horns and tails. Hey, if they sit at the table of demons, horns and tails can be expected.

The term 'apostate' is used pejoratively by JWs. I do not identify as an apostate, as I have never been convinced that JW doctrines are true.

I'm not aware of any correlation between apostasy and the presence of a vestigial tail or cutaneous horns.

If you live somewhere near L.A., food is on me. You choose the place and I bring the credit card.

Thanks for the offer, but I do not live anywhere near California. Not even the same continent.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

I hate to be the fly in the punch bowl here (Because I think 607 BC is hogwash) but Luke 21:24 is actually a text book example of what is called the periphrastic progressive.

It should be noted that in addition to the fact that the grammar of Luke 21:24 indicates that the trampling (and the falling by the sword and the being led captive) was actually yet future, the Greek text of Luke 21:24 separately uses a future-tense verb (ἔσονται) in reference to the 'Gentile Times', further indicating that the alleged period had not yet begun.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

never a jw:

I am sure I can impress few people with this, even though I have no idea what the hell I am talking about.

Yes, I think few will be impressed by that. But if you'd said something more impressive, perhaps a few would be impressed.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

Continuance and customariness are two different lexical contexts

Continuance indicates an on-going action (e.g. Earth orbits the sun) whereas customariness indicates an action that is performed at intervals (e.g. I wash my hair).

That distinction is not relevant to the context of Burton's demonstration that both his examples (Luke 5:10 and 21:24) refer to things that start in the future, and then continue (or become customary).

At some point in the distant past (before the formation of Earth), an imaginary observer could employ the periphrastic progressive to say:

Earth will orbit the sun (continuance)
Jeffro will wash his hair (customariness)
Jerusalem will be trampled (continuance)
Simon, James and John will 'catch men' (but not in a gay way) (customariness)

In all these cases, it is a future event that continues in some manner.

Once the action has already started, saying it 'will happen' is no longer an instance of the periphrastic future progressive but the standard future progressive.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

I've already pointed out that 5:10 and 21:24 are two different lexical contexts and by my own reasoning

You're free to believe whatever you like. But your claim is not supported by the source material. Burton considers both examples to employ the exact same grammatical structure rather than 'two different lexical contexts'. So, claim that Luke 21:24 refers to an existing condition if you like, but don't claim that Burton supports your view. In fact, the only difference between the future 'trampling' and the other future events indicated at Luke 21:24 is that the others refer to a specific future event whereas the trampling would continue.

If anything, I'm claiming that Jerusalem was already under the heel of Rome at the time the words were allegedly spoken

'Already under the heel' is your own commentary, and has no bearing on the intended meaning of the future 'trampling'. As such, the association of the then-present situation under Rome (i.e. your own idiomatic description of the earlier situation under Rome as 'under the heel') with a future 'trampling' is an equivocation fallacy.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

Burton said the periphrastic future can indicate continuance or it can indicate customariness and gives an example of each.

Yes. But in each case, he refers to something that starts in the future and then continues, i.e. something that starts in the future and then becomes customary.

As indicated by Burton's examples, the concept of the Periphrastic Future refers to an action that starts in the future and then continues, as distinct from the standard Progressive Future, which may indicate an event that continues in to the future. (Compare Burton's example of the Progressive Future at Phillipians 1:18, where it indicates an action that is already happening and will continue to happen in the future.)

Are you claiming that Simon, James & John were already 'catching men' before they initially became disciples??

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

The interpolation is certainly his as you can see from this partial scan of page 36:

I'm not saying the interpolation isn't there. I'm saying you are misconstruing it. Look at the other verse (Luke 5:10) as an example. It very clearly does not refer to an action that had already started. See also my response above.

Burton is saying:

'Simon, James and John will become catchers of men and then continue to catch men.'
'Jerusalem will become trampled and then continue to be trampled.'

In neither case is any past action conveyed.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

It does carry the thought of a continuence of action that originated in the past

On further consideration, Burton's interpolation of "[continue to]" doesn't construe what you're saying at all. The conclusion you give has no basis in the grammatical form actually discussed. The presence of 'continue to' is only intended in the sense that the trampling will begin in the future and then continue.

And once you consider the other example about James and John becoming 'fishers of men' when they first became disciples, it is automatically ludicrous to claim this same grammatical structure indicates an action that originated in the past.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

BackseatDevil:

The "fall of Jerusalem" is technically around 586

The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, including his accession year, is quite definitely 587 BCE (unless you also shift the year for the beginning of his reign). This is confirmed by the non-accession reference to his 18th year for the same event. Definitely not 586 BCE.

Now, if you consider how long it took to get the Jews OUT of Jerusalem, you can imagine that it would take less time to get them back IN their dear city... but still take a couple of years, at least... past 537.

There is no reason to conclude that those who were first allowed to leave Babylon would take years to return to Jerusalem. Many Jews remained in Babylon, so it is neither necessary nor valid to try to determine how long it would take all of them to return. Those who left Babylon at the first opportunity after Cyrus' decree (which is misrepresented in the Bible as being specific to Jews) could be back in Jerusalem in as little as four months.

This is made apparent as they didn't start working on the foundation of the second temple until 520.

No. That claim isn't supported by either the Bible or Josephus (Against Apion, Book I and Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI). The foundations were laid in 537, then work was slowed by opposing forces, and then halted by Cambyses II ('Ahasuerus'), and building resumed in 520.

Also " 537 + 70 = 607" is going BACKWARD in time.

I think everyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the subject is aware of that basic fact. It's not clear why you think that's a problem. But if you prefer, it could be phrased as -607 + 70 = -537. In either case, the JW doctrine is still completely wrong.