For those who want to know the truth they will have to read the blog. I see that some just keep on saying the same thing disregarding the documented proof. Let me end the deafening silence by saying:
READ THE BLOG.
thirdwitness
JoinedPosts by thirdwitness
-
149
Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?
by listen innot a society apologist!!
just wanting to know what you all think.
does this "sound" fair & balanced, you decide.
-
-
-
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
-
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
thirdwitness
And still no one tackles the 40 year desolation of Egypt problem except with the silly stuff like this didn't get fulfilled. You might as well say the bible is not accurate and true if you are going to say that.
-
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
thirdwitness
We have already covered that. If you people would only read the information you would already know. But many of you seem like you just don't really want to know the truth. Read it if you do.
What about 519 BCE?
B ecause of the facts mentioned in the previous arguments, showing that the 70 years of Jerusalem’s desolation really was 70 years (not 50!), some have suggested that perhaps 587 BCE is correct, but the date of Babylon’s defeat is the one that is wrong. Perhaps, they say, that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, lay desolate for 70 years, and then Babylon was conquered in 519 BCE at which time the exiles were released.
Of course, there is abundant secular evidence to show that 539 BCE is the date of Babylon’s defeat, and most importantly, such evidence is accepted by us because it does not contradict the scriptures. Aside from that, the 519 date is unscriptural.
If Babylon was defeated 20 years after generally accepted, that would push all events afterwards forward by 20 years also. This is because many historical dates are based on the date of Babylon’s defeat.
This would affect the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, the Seventy Weeks prophecy. The “word to go forth and rebuild Jerusalem” would have been given in 435 BCE, not 455 BCE. Hence, Jesus was born in 19 CE, baptized in 49 CE, and died in 53 CE. The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome would have subsequently occurred in 90 CE.
Either Jesus isn't the Messiah, Roman history is terribly unreliable, or these dates are simply wrong. The 519 BCE date is impossible, 539 BCE is the only acceptable and reasonable date for the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire, thus making 607 BCE the date for the destruction of Jerusalem 70 years earlier.
- The 539 date does not contradict the scriptures and happens to be supported by secular chronology.
- The 519 date causes serious problems with the Messiah prophecies.
So as you see we have covered that angle and your theory just will not fit with Roman and 1st century chronology. We have looked at this from every angle and have studied this in depth. After you read the information then see if you can come up with something new, not something already covered and disproved as impossible.
-
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
thirdwitness
Secular Chronologist 1: Lets see here, this Assyrian tablet says Hoshea ruled for 11 years. I think that's what it says. Does that look like an 11 to you.
Other sec chron: But the Bible says it was 18 years?
Sec Chron 1: The Bible? Youre not going to put it above this broken incomplete copy of an original document are you. Why, don't you know this was copied by Joe Astrologists. And he was copying the words of the mighty King Exxagerationists. This is much more accurate than the Bible.
Sec Chron 2: oh, yes, I see your point . How foolish of me. Ok 11 years it is for Hoshea. But now this messes up Pekah's rule. The bible said 20.
Sec chron 1: No problem , make it 6 years for Pekah. We have to make it fit in with this broken copy of Historian Brown Nose. He knew King Say I Did That very well . He wouldn't exxagerate his accomplishments.
Sec chron 2: Yes , the truth must come out. How can anyone believe the Bible. It is so inaccurate. INspired of God? Yeah right. They can't even harmonize with each other much less with what the great King Erase His Name AND Subsitute Mine said that he did. -
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
thirdwitness
Wikepedia: Pekah ("open-eyed"), was king of Israel, the son of Remaliah, and a captain in the army of Pekahiah, king of Israel. William F. Albright has dated his reign to 737 BC-732 BC, while E. R. Thiele offers the dates 740 BC-732 BC. Although Pekah is said to reign for twenty years in the Book of Kings, such a lengthy reign cannot be supported from the evidence of the Assyrian chronicles, which show Menahem to have been King in 740 BC and Hoshea to have been King from 732 BC.
The Bible says he ruled for 9 years prior to his vassalship to Assyria , followed by 9 more years as a vassal to Assyria. Total: 18 years. Wrongo says secular chronology of the pagan astrologers! Hoshea's rule only 9 or 11 years. -
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
thirdwitness
So here are the possibilities:
Nebuchadnezzar 43
Evil-Merodach 18
Neriglissar 4
Interim Ruler 4
Labashi-Marduk .75
Nabonidus 17
Another possibility:
Nebuchadnezzar 43
Evil-Merodach 2
Neriglissar 4
Interim rulers 20
Labashi-Marduk .75
Nabonidus 17
One thing for sure. The Bible is correct and the 40 year desolation of Egypt took place as did the 70 years on Tyre and the 70 years desolation of Judah. Therefore, somewhere in the King's list there is an additional 20 years that secular historians do not acknowledge. Secular historians often change king's reigns to suit their fancy. -
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
thirdwitness
The following was not written by me:
The Secular Evidence
King Lists
For the chronologists of the Seleucid period, who sought to establish an absolute chronology by aligning known astronomical data with the years of certain kings on their lists, an unknown interregnum would invalidate all of their results prior to the interregnum. Thus, the astronomical data would be correct for the year in which it occurred, but the year of the reign of the king to which the data was assigned would be wrong. In considering the reigns of the kings mentioned in the Bible modern chronologists cannot reconcile their reigns with the reigns of pagan kings found on ancient king lists who were known to be their contemporaries. In order to reconcile the differences the modern chronologist invents co-regencies between the reigns of the various Biblical kings. Had the modern chronologist considered the possibility of interregnums then such radical action would not be necessary.
One particular problem comes into consideration when the Biblical period of 70 years of desolation for the land of Israel is compared with the sum of the reigns of the kings who ruled in Babylon during that period. Because the reigns of the kings do not add up to 70 years for the period in question many chronologists dispute the credibility of the Biblical record. However, if these chronologists, who hold fast to the popular method, were to have considered the possibility of an interregnum then the apparent contradiction would disappear.
The possibility exists that an interregnum occurred after the reign of Neriglissar. This concept becomes extremely plausible when one considers Nabonidus' statement that Labashi-Marduk was but a young man when he ascended the throne. With the great Median king Astyages still the dominant ruler in the region, it is not unreasonable to conclude that after the death of Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk was much too young to assume the responsibilities of being king; thus, Astyages could have appointed commanders to oversee the various provinces in Babylon until such time as Labashi-Marduk had come of age. Under these circumstances no business documents could be dated to the reign of a king, which would explain why none exist for this period of interregnum. It is also likely that with the decline of the Median Empire that Nabonidus revolted and killed Labashi-Marduk. -
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
thirdwitness
Secular historians say:
Nebuchadnezzar 43
Evil-Merodach 2
Neriglissar 4
Labashi-Marduk .75
Nabonidus 17
This is only 67 years. We however say it was 87 years from the beginning of Neb's rule until 539 conquest.
Who ruled during those missing 20 years if 607BCE is correct?
Antiquities of the Jews, Book 10, Chapter 11 Josephus
NOW when king Nebuchadnezzar had reigned forty-three years, he ended his life.
When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life; and after him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it in all but nine months; and when he was dead, it came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus; against him did Cyrus, the king of Persia, and Darius, the king of Media, make war;
Now, after a little while, both himself and the city were taken by Cyrus, the king of Persia, who fought against him; for it was Baltasar, under whom Babylon was taken, when he had reigned seventeen years.
Nebuchadnezzar: 43
Evil-Merodach: 18
Niglissar: 40
Labosordacus: 0.75
Naboandelus: 17
While the years do not agree with the Bible it does show that their is some question about the years that 2 of the kings ruled.
Heres something that is interesting.
2 kings 25:27 And it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that E´vil-mer´o·dach the king of Babylon, in the year of his becoming king, raised up the head of Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah out of the house of detention; 28 and he began to speak good things with him, and then put his throne higher than the thrones of the kings that were with him in Babylon. 29 And he took off his prison garments; and he ate bread constantly before him all the days of his life. 30 As for his allowance, an allowance was constantly given him from the king, daily as due, all the days of his life.
Doesn't this give the impression that EvelM outlived Jehoiachin? Jehoiachin would have been 55 years old in his 37th year of exile because he was 18 when he went into exile. Evelmerodach ruled for 2 years so says historians. But notice the scripture says that evelM basically took care of him 'all the days of his life'. If evelM only ruled 2 years this means that Jehoiachin must have died before he was 57 otherwise EvelM did not take care of him 'all the days of his life.' Since Jehoiachin at this point was being well taken care of I would think that he would have lived much longer than 57. While this cannot be confirmed it at least shows the likelihood of EvelM ruling longer than 2 years. 18 years would seem more likely since Chin would have been 73 years old at the end of his rule.
This does confirm that Neb ruled for about 43 years. -
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
thirdwitness
All I was proving was that the 70 years ended in 539 bce and not in 537 bce like you jw apologists in watchtower denial want to believe.We all know that Babylon was prophesied to be a desolate waste to time indefinite.That was not the issue.
Sorry, but you did not prove that at all. You proved that Babylon would be a desolated wasteland sometime after the 70 years expired which it did become. That is all the prophecy proves.
And for the ones who claim that the same evidence that proves 539 also proves 587. This is incorrect. To arrive at 539 persian kings are involved. To arrive at 587, the reigns of Babylonian kings are involved.