in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
Go read the Bible and count the years of the Reigns. Its there. Go count it.
It would be interesting (that's probably the wrong word) to see how doofus would reconcile 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 8:16 within his (borrowed) assertion that there weren't any co-regencies.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
There is a ‘lunar sabbath movement’, it’s not just something he’s come up with entirely on his own. It is a fringe branch of Adventism, with no widespread support, and no scholarly support. Much much smaller than JWs. It’s complete nonsense of course.
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
Yahweh (El) started out as just one of the various gods of the Canaanite pantheon. Which is little wonder, since the Israelites started out as a Canaanite tribe. So it’s also no surprise that their early stories retain elements of polytheism. Over time, Yahweh was singled out as Judah transitioned to monotheism.
is the change in jw dress policy a way to make the changes in df policy easier to accept?.
a way to devide?.
g..
The change in dress policy is probably intended to get more people to resume in-person meeting attendance, as well as to seem less out of touch with modern dress standards.
The change in df policy is to ‘show’ the government of Norway (and others) that they are (supposedly) improving their procedures. But it’s easy to see that giving people the smallest bit of attention only if they are making efforts to ‘return’ is just more emotional manipulation.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
Notice how jwposter, all through this thread, simply ignores each problem that is pointed out about his incorrect alternative history, and either focuses on what he thinks is his strongest point, or just moves on to the next incorrect assertion.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
Yes, it is referring to the people as well.
Your chosen verse in 2 Chronicles is about Judah. But Ezekiel 4:4-5 is specifically talking about Israel. You keep leaving out that part. Ezekiel 4:6 explicitly contrasts the 390 days for Israel with the 40 days for Judah. But you’re too caught up in your own nonsense to care about what it actually says.
And BTW, I'm not trying to lay blame. I'm trying to edify and be edified.
Just as well. You’re in no position to blame. Your nutty chronology is entirely wrong from start to finish.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
As you can see the inequity came after the three years of Rehoboam.
But that doesn’t say anything at all about the people of Israel. I should have specified that it says nothing relevant. (I fully accept the blame for thinking you would understand.) The 390 days isn’t about the people of Judah at all, much less its king.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
Right is about 393.5 years because the iniquity of Solomon's son didn't occur until after the 3rd year
Nonsense. Gill tries that trick, but the Bible says nothing about Rehoboam's fourth year (nor of Jeroboam I).
2Ki 25:8
🤦♂️'390 days' is in Ezekiel, not 2 Kings. Are you drunk? (He probably doesn't even realise 2 Kings counts accession year as part of the reign, but that's another issue.)
Let's read together 😒 ... Ezekiel 4:4-6:
4 “Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the people of Israel upon yourself. You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the people of Israel.
6 “After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the people of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.
Oh, it doesn't actually mention kings of Judah at all (or even kings at all). The 390 days is a judgement against the people of Israel as distinct from the people of Judah.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
Go count it. It is 390 years AFTER the reign of Solomon.
It’s actually 393.5 if you just blindly add them up. Aside from that, various passages describing reigns of Judah relative to reigns of Israel cannot be reconciled if one just naively adds up the reigns in this manner ignoring co-regencies.
So that would mean that the 19th year is right at or around 541BCE.
No. The passage says nothing about Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year. You’re just relying on a later Protestant interpretation of Ezekiel chapter 4. And you’re wrong about the end year of Solomon’s reign as well, most likely due to not properly understanding Tishri dating.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
(Just noticed autocorrect changed ‘co-regencies’ to ‘cogencies’ and it’s too late to fix it. I suppose doofus isn’t cogent either, so maybe not too much of an error. 🤣)
