2 Kings 24:12 and 2 Kings 25:8 identify sieges in Nebuchadnezzar’s 8th and 19th years (counting his accession year as his first year). Jeremiah 52:28, 29 provide accession-year references to the same events as Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th and 18th years, and the earlier siege on Jerusalem was from late 598 BCE to early 597 BCE, ending before Nisan. Babylonian records confirm events for Nebuchadnezzar’s early years of reign including the siege in his 7th year, using Nisan-based accession dating. Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year was 605 BCE, so it is simple arithmetic to confirm that his 7th year (not counting accession year) began in 598 BCE and his 18th year (not counting accession year) began in 587 BCE, not 586.
Posts by Jeffro
-
88New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.
by waton infor what it is worth to those interested.
1914.. tel-aviv university.
"biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.
-
-
-
88
New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.
by waton infor what it is worth to those interested.
1914.. tel-aviv university.
"biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
These are scientists mind you.
🤦♂️
Why not use 539 as the base date since 539 is a historical fact.
The method is for dating events involving significant fires (”they use archaeological findings containing magnetic minerals which, when heated or burned, record the magnetic field at the time of the fire”), such as that in Jerusalem’s destruction. They can’t just arbitrarily pick any year as a ‘base date’.
-
88
New method to absolutely date Fall of Jerusalem.
by waton infor what it is worth to those interested.
1914.. tel-aviv university.
"biblical military campaigns reconstructed using geomagnetic field data.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
It is important to take note of this because some people can argue that God let the Jews out earlier than 70 years and reconcile 586 but that cannot apply to the land. Therefore, if 539 was the end of the 70 year desolation of the land, the desolation must have begun 70 years earlier.
“21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.” —2chr 2: 21
ALL the days
A dishonest rendering, coupled with an equally erroneous conclusion. The parenthetical phrase rendered there as “until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath” is from Leviticus 26:34-35 and isn’t the “word spoken by Jeremiah” at all. Making the second part of that quote the beginning of the sentence ending with the part about 70 years is simply wrong. Babylon’s 70 years definitely ended in 539 BCE. But ‘serving Babylon’ didn’t mean exile, and exile is explicitly identified as a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon (Jeremiah 27:8-11).
A group of Jews returned to rebuild the temple in 538 BCE (though many Jews stayed in Babylon). Going back to Leviticus chapter 25, verse 8 indicates 49 years of sabbaths, which is entirely consistent with the period from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (not 586) until 538 BCE.
Also, the paper doesn’t purport to identify 586 as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, but instead uses a traditional date of the event as a basis for comparing magnetic levels to establish approximate dates for other events.
-
8
January 2023 Study Watchtower - both sides of the mouth!
by BoogerMan ini've added to it in bold letters:.
january 2023 study watchtower, page 20, pars.
1 - 3.. almost 2,000 years ago, jesus gave his life in our behalf, opening the way for us to gain everlasting life.
-
-
Jeffro
ozziepost:
Does that make it a Satanic ritual?
Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 364:
This ‘eating’ would have to be done in a figurative way, by exercising faith in the value of Jesus’ perfect human sacrifice.
The Watchtower, 1 April 2007, page 19:
Human sacrifice in any form is demonic, and true worshippers of God stay away from anything that is connected with such a practice.
-
7
Books-of-Titus-and-Philemon-Study-Edition-Now-Available-Online
by Wonderment inhttps://www.jw.org/en/whats-new/books-of-titus-and-philemon-study-edition-now-available-online/.
-
-
Jeffro
Wonderment:
The Revelation book? How long will that take? The Revelation book might be their biggest challenge yet.
It also will collect notes from previous publications. But given the changes in their most recent Ezekiel commentary along with other nonsense about Gog, the ‘king of the north’, etc, I wouldn’t be too surprised if a new attempt at a Revelation commentary might be in the making.
-
7
Books-of-Titus-and-Philemon-Study-Edition-Now-Available-Online
by Wonderment inhttps://www.jw.org/en/whats-new/books-of-titus-and-philemon-study-edition-now-available-online/.
-
-
Jeffro
Most of the ‘study notes’ repeat information in other publications so it’s not a as though it’s quite the mammoth effort it’s portrayed to be. I think they release the Study edition gradually to make JWs think they’re always getting something new despite the very limited number of ‘new releases’ compared to years ago.
-
28
Was Jesus the Messiah circumcised ?
by smiddy3 inhas this question ever been raised before by jehovah`s witnesses?
and what`s the significance, if any ?.
-
-
Jeffro
smiddy3:
Was Jesus the Messiah circumcised ?
No. Whilst there was probably one or more itinerant rabbis who form a basis for stories about Jesus, “Jesus the Messiah” didn’t exist, and therefore was not circumcised. -
38
Have JW `s ever faced the topic of Jesus having inherited Adamic sin ?
by smiddy3 inaccording to the bible all humans male and female have inherited sin because of adam and eve`s disobedience to god .. god may have impregnated mary with a life force , however it was still sinful mary who gave birth to jesus after nine months in her body who is /was supposedly without sin ?.
mary must have passed on some of her sinful state to jesus having been in her womb for the past nine months , surely.
and there is nothing in the bible / scripture to say otherwise ?.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
Nope. Given Jesus’s miraculous birth, it’s not magic, it’s God’s Holy Spirit
‘Holy Spirit’ Is an entirely unverifiable and poorly defined concept with no inherent meaning, and for any practical purpose is indistinguishable from ‘magic’. And there is no evidence that Jesus’ birth was in any way ‘miraculous’ (another euphemism for ‘magic’).
-
38
Have JW `s ever faced the topic of Jesus having inherited Adamic sin ?
by smiddy3 inaccording to the bible all humans male and female have inherited sin because of adam and eve`s disobedience to god .. god may have impregnated mary with a life force , however it was still sinful mary who gave birth to jesus after nine months in her body who is /was supposedly without sin ?.
mary must have passed on some of her sinful state to jesus having been in her womb for the past nine months , surely.
and there is nothing in the bible / scripture to say otherwise ?.
-
-
Jeffro
Basically , their answer is ‘magic’. The original 1988 version of Insight said under the entry for Jesus:
Since actual conception took place, it appears that Jehovah God caused an ovum, or egg cell, in Mary’s womb to become fertile, accomplishing this by the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth. (Ga 4:4) Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the same person who had resided in heaven as the Word, and only in this way could he have been an actual son of Mary” … “From the results revealed in the Bible, it would appear that the perfect male life-force (causing the conception) canceled out any imperfection existent in Mary’s ovum, thereby producing a genetic pattern (and embryonic development) that was perfect from its start.
The entire passage was deleted in the 2018 revision.
-
10
Babylon the Great and the last Pope
by mikeflood inwhat do you guys think of the evangelicals theory about babylon the great and the last pope...just starting this big book out of curiosity...like 500 pages...it seems there is a lot of different thinking from the borg.
-
-
Jeffro
'Babylon the Great' was actually first-century Rome.
Hope you didn't pay for the book.