Posts by Larsinger58

posted

47
Did Stephen believe he would have to wait 2000 years for a resurrection?
by Socrateswannabe in
1. watchtower
2. bible
in acts 7:59, the jews were casting stones at stephen and his last words were, "lord jesus, receive my spirit.".

the wts has contended that all of the ancients who died after jesus were in a sleep-like condition, awaiting a resurrection that eventually happened in 1918-1919 (depending upon which wt reference you are looking at).

and in fact, v. 60 says stephen "fell asleep in death".
Larsinger58

The first resurrection is back into the flesh just prior to the 2nd coming. The 2nd coming occurred in 1992, so everyone who needed to be resurrected has been resurrected.
Per 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrected ones are likened to seeds that are implanted into imperfect bodies. That just means they share a body with a modern person. That is sort of sci-fi, but it has two incredible advantages:
1) The resurrection is totally invisible! Think of bodies coming out of the graves and how much complication that would cause. They would need to be taken care of. They would need explaining. This way, it is invisible.
2) This solves the issue of orienting ancient ones to the modern world. If they came back in their own bodies then they would have to learn a modern language. It would take years of tutoring and mentoring to get them up to speed as to what happened since they died. But this way, they share the knowledge of a modern person and also speak a modern language! So the orientation is instant! Think of the time that is saved. To update a single person on what has gone on since they died, it would take another person many years to teach them. This means several people would be preoccupied with just helping the newly resurrected ones to adjust to the modern world. This way, their orientation is INSTANT! It's brilliant!
So, when you correct the ancient timeline, whether using the Bible or the VAT4956, Jerusalem's fall must occur in 529 BCE and thus the 2nd coming in 1992. So th4e 1st resurrection will have taken place before December 25, 1992. You didn't notice it because it was invisible.
I was aware of the modern identities of Daniel and Peter before I became the Christ. Those two just happened to be planted into persons I knew personally.
Now, I know you and the average person lack the faith or don't believe the Bible at all, and thus cannot accept this. But for those of us on the inside track, we accept what the Bible teaches and what the Bible teaches is coming true. Stephen is thus resurrected and sharing the modern identity of someone on the planet.
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.
Larsinger58

SD07:

I've read C.O. Jonsson's book, though that was probably a few years ago. Pretty technical stuff, but it was clear that the foundation on which 607 was resting was nonexistent just looking at the idea of 'Bible chronology' alone.
Just read much of Jeffro's website about this issue. Brilliantly executed. A very comprehensive rebuttal to that jehovahsjudgment website. Which, as a website is a massive paradox in its very existence, as it composes a JW response to material that JWs are supposed to be forbidden from reading in the first place.
--sd-7
LARS:
You're impressed, are you? Well guess what? They are not debating what the Bible really says! They are just tyring to suggest that 587 BCE and the reduced Neo-Babylonian timeline is reliable and well supported by secular records.
What they are AVOIDING is a direct confrontation between the Bible and secular! That's the REAL argument and discussion, but one that is being avoided. What we should be discussing is whether or not the Jews' understanding that the 70 years of Jeremiah were fulfilled by those deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II! When those last people were removed from the land, per Josephus, that's when the 70 years of desolation of Jerusalem began. Now that directly contradicts the NB timeline by 26 years. That is, the timeline by Josephus and the bible is 26 years longer for the Neo-Babylonian Period than the current show. So why are we not debating why Josephus and the Jews wanted to excpand their timeline. OR, why did the Persians reduce the timeline?
Of course, as soon as you start to investigate, you note immediately that the Babylonian records were "copied" by the Persians, meaning, obviously, revised. So it's a done deal. At his point, if you don't academically recognize a conspiracy of revision, you're simply incompetent or dishonest.
But THINK ABOUT ME!! Here I am, an XJW, a believer in the Bible full throttle. I start to do this research into the chronology. I early on realize the Bible dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE. I keep tredgining and studying and digging. Eventually, I realize it is not tha tdifficult to recover the true timeline, historically, astronomically, in every way. Now this should be of interest to anyone who wants to believe the Bible is true! In the meantime, you automatically know that anybody who wants to label me as "crazy" or a "lunatic" knows I have the truth and needs to try to suppress me. That's the only reason not to go through this. Why are we discussing 607 BCE vs 587 BCE? We should be discussing 455 BCE as the 1st of Cyrus versus 538 BCE!!! That's the REAL issue!
So I'm bewildered! There are just as many phony, dishonest people in these discussion boards as there are at the WTS! They are both on the same page trying to avoid dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE as does Martin Anstey! And for good reason. That reason being, a look into whether or not the Persians revised their history will yield the original timeline! That's what they don't want.
But at this point, I really don't care. I have everything I need to establish the rality and could care the fk less if anybody gets it right, especially out there who don't want to get it right. The VAT4946 and the SK400 are in my back pocket, and there is nothing anyone can do about it at this point. They want to maintain their darkness and their lies -- fine. That won't affect me and the light I give to my elect.
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.
Larsinger58
REDVIT2000:
How anybody can use Josephus as basis for any of type of chronological scholarship is beyond me.
his writings and especially Antinquities is riddled with inconsistencies and errors. The man clearly didn't have a grasp on time and dates. Using Josephus to support anything biblical is especially bad since nothing of what he says actually agrees with the bible.
For example:
1. Antiquities 1.3.4 says, "For indeed Seth was born when Adam was in his two hundred and thirtieth year,…" Genesis 5:3 says, " And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: "
LARS:
Okay, Red, this is how this works. You are showing by this many references how unreliable Josephus can be. I know. My position is that you have to take each reference individually and compare them to the Bible. So what I would expect you to do is to compare Ant. 11.1.1 with what the Bible says:
Ant. 11.1.1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.
Is this specific reference contradictory to the Bible, or another error or inconsistency? Here, Josephus is claming those who were removed off the land, that is, at the time of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II, served for 70 years and were released after the 70 years in the 1st of Cyrus. Now does the Bible agree with that? Or not? Is this another false or contadicting statement among so many? Now 100% of Josephus' history isn't wrong. Maybe 30% is? So, does this all into those references that agree with the Bible or not?
You bring up all these other references to show unreliability of Josephus generally, but would that apply to the 70 years? That's the question.
PLUS, Josephus was redacted. I have two versions of Josephus with different details. For instance, most quote him as noting that Jerusalem fell in year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar, five years before the last deportation. But another version says year 19, which is consistent with the Bible. Josephus in Antiquities claims that Evil-Merodach ruled for 18 years. Buty in Against Apion, only 2 years. But there's the question of redaction. Did someone else change that? Or did Josephus himself state that, trying not to contradict the popular revised timeline.
Now let me tell you something. I've been researching for the last 20 years! I have researched in university libraries all over. I'm in a position to recover the original timeline. But I'm also aware of those who are involved with aggressively suppressing the original timeline. So it is not as if "nobody noticed" there was a conspiracy by the Persians to manipulate the timeline. It's a matter of selective ignorance. The reason why the correction of the timeline bogs down is because it will cause such a HUGE academic mess. Let me just share one aspect of this. Let's say in today's world, nobody really cares one way or the other. Fine. But as soon as you correct the Persian timeline, you will inadvertently correct the Classical Greek timeline. You will discover that Plato sold-out to the Persians along with Xenophon, following in the footsteps of Themistocles, whom they admired. That is, they went for the money! The Persians had plenty of it. So just like the focus shifts from the actual scandal to the COVER-UP, that's what will happen here. The year Jerusalem actually falls will fade into obscurity when the Classical Greek philosophers are shown to be opportunists. You can't remove 82 years of fake Persian history without removing 56 years of fake Greek history. So suddenly, all the Classical Greek curriculae from all the universities around the world will have to re-write all that history. So the main fall-out will not occur in the "Biblical Studies" departments of these universities, but in the Classical Greek history departments who will suddenly be faced with linking Plato and his students along with Xenophon with masterminding this part of history. Now the choice is to just suppress and postpone this, or be honest. Honesty has never been a critical talking point in the academic world, which is more concerned with propaganda than knowledge.
So it is not that no one noticed any of this, this is just something that's "too big to fail"! I mean, the academic world is about jobs and tenure and lies and propaganda. So why bother correcting the timeline? The academic world will cop-out or trade-off for whatever is expedient anyway. There was one point where the Pope had a choice to go along with the original chronology or with Ptolemy's canon which used revised astronomical texts; the Pope decided to go with Ptolemy's false timeline. The "cover-up", thus, as I noted, will be more newsy than any concern over when Jerusalem actually fell.
So really, the only people who really need the timeline corrected are the elect, so that the Bible's chronology and prophecies can amaze us! And we have that! We have corrected the timeline and we're happy! If the world needs to maintain the ancient status quo, then great. All this stuff about me being "crazy" and a "lunatic" and all that, is just an effort to have to shut the fk up! It's not about whether I have the truth or not. It's about not rocking the boat. I can deal with that. Plus, you know, I have what I need from secular sources to confirm the Bible. I'm happy. Am I now interested in forcing the dishonest academic world to come clean? Hmmmm, no really.
Anyway, thanks for your input on trying to discredit Josephus, but it's a moot point. In this case, you need to comment on the specific reference at Ant. 11.1.1. So why don't you? What do you think? It's a direct paraphrase!
You compare Ant. 11.1.1 with 2 Chronicles 36:
"20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."
Ant. 11.1.1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.
Carl Jonsson doesn't deal with this. Ann O'Maly won't touch it. Jeffro ignores it. The WTS suppresses it. It's too HOT!
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.
Larsinger58

ANNIE-O: Rebuttals? I, Jeffro and others have already spent our precious time refuting your revisionist nonsense elsewhere. You keep forgetting.
ROFL! That's why I like you so much Annie! You're so funny! This is just another Freemason's tactic. If they can't win an argument, then they create confusion. When they are threatened by some evidence, sometimes they create discussions and pit one false teaching against the other, giving listeners a choice between two false ideas. That is what is happening here. The 70 years didn't begin with the fall of Jeusalem nor with the ascendancy of Babylon, it began with the last deportation. I'm the only one here promoting the Bible's true chronology, and you run like crazy from any rebuttal. This is no different than the game the WTS plays. They claim to answer questions and to have all the answers, but if they label you as an "apostate" then they think they don't have to answer anything and forbid their members to even listen to what they have to say. So it's just dishonest. Now I know you'd criticize the WTS for labeling detractors as "apostate" and refusing to answer their challenges, but you're doing the same thing with me.
Of course, I'm not stupid. There's no reason to avoid discussion with me unless you already know this chronology was revised and is false and you're just part of the machine to try and suppress any further investigation into "revisionist nonsense" since you likely know where that would lead, which is confirmation. But not to worry! The academic world apparently thinks all this revisionism and cover-up will inevitably come out; in fact, maybe they are planning to make it come out. In the meantime, they are scrambling for PD positions, that is, positions of "plausible deniability."
But even so, it's a compliment when someone doesn't want to debate with you since it confirms they are afraid of losing the argument. It means you are threatened by what I'm revealing. So thanks for running from a confrontation. What you're doing is just a version of what the WTS does by labeling someone an "apostate" which they think is a legitimate reason not to answer any concerns. It's the same Freemasonry b.s. -- two different sides of the same coin.
How's the move to Jamaica coming along?
Ha! Ha! Ha! It's not going to Hawaii! It's another country. Vacationing there is for the rich. Once I started investigating, it seems AIDS rampant there in the population, which would explain some backlash against gays in that country. It's also very violent. So not the "island paradise" I was hoping. So now I have no plans to go.
But I'll tell you, I've been gambling a lot more in casinos of late and it would seem that if I needed extra money to go there, it would be a simple matter of hitting a sufficient jackpot. I played roulette recently, which is a table game with poor odds, but I kept winning. I won so much, they ran out of the chips in my color and started having to pay me with casino chips. I also hit $1000 rather mysteriously playing multi-keno. I would have never played $20 a pop! But I accidentally hit the "play all cards" button and couldn't un-do it without playing at least once. When I did, I hit $60! No big deal when you are playing $20 a pop. But when I played that back I suddenly hit 4000 on one of the cards, which was $1000! Now that was interesting, particularly since I had done so well at roulette--unusually well. Then when I came home I hit $1000 on a $50 scratch off, again, not something I often do! So I figure, at some point, my gambling routine is just a covenient way to "launder" any extra funds I might need.
Anyway, Jamaica is out. I'm satisfied that some other xJW group figured out Christ would return in an imperfect body, which is inspired. I might be returning to Hawaii, though. Hawaii is where the kingdom headquarters are and the new buildings are already built. If Armageddon is to come soon, I suppose it would be expedient for me to already be in Hawaii. I have enough retirement income to live there -- you don't need a car. Plus I sing well enough now to make money in small venues. Of course, when you're a performer in a nightclub, especially in a resort like Hawaii, you can literally interact with thousands of people per week. So if you are under close surveillance, those who contact you or see you are going to be watched. But if you're performing for even just 100 people per night, there is no way to monitor that. I got tired of performing when I was doing it before--I was glad to get away from it. But now I've got the "bug" again and want to get out there on stage again. My parents are here but in a nursing home, but other than them, I'm so disconnected here. So we'll see. Whatever Jehovah wills for me and what the JIOR arranges, I'll be ready.
Hope you're doing well! Any fun vacation plans for this Summer?
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.
Larsinger58

JEFFRO: I had no idea you had such extensive commentary about the NB period and 607 BCE! I'm quite impressed. I reviewed everything and have these two notices for now:
1) As I noted before, above, Josephus' 13-year siege of Tyre begins in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar II and thus ends in the 20th of Nebuchadnezzar II. The Bible notes that the first to drink the bitter cup of Nebuchadnezzar II would be Jerusalem, so this reference for the destruction of Tyre does not contradict this. Both you and the JW commentary, though, along with COJ all apply this 13-year period of siege to a time that ends a few years before the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar II. Now this is just a technical note for you to be aware of in case you were not aware of it. Even so, your commentary loses credibility if you're misquoting or misrepresenting references that others of us are aware of. So I'l wondering if you're going to correct this? I don't see how it would make much difference. In the case of COJ, though, he tries to use this 13-year siege to claim that there was no time available for a 7-year absence from the throne for Nebuchadnezzar II. There are extant records for all the period except for the period just before the fall of Jerusalem and up to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, but he misquotes Josephus regarding the 13 years.
2) I found this comment from your commentary:
The article falsely concludes that those proponents seek “some other event around the year 607″ for their explanation of the seventy years, though the Bible clearly indicates that the period ended at Babylon’s fall in 539 BCE, not at the unsubstantiated time for the Jews’ return in 537 BCE (Jeremiah 25:11-12; Daniel 5:26-31).
The witnesses are correct that the 70 years would end with the return out of exile, that's a point easily proven. But your counterpoint that the 70 years somehow ends with the fall of Babylon is not Biblically correct. That's because Babylon was conquered by the Medes and the Persians; Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. Then Darius the Mede took over ruling Babylon. The Bible specifically states that the 70 years of servitude would end when the "royalty of Persia begins to rule..." Note 2 Chronicles 36:
20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."
The only reason the Bible makes a critical distinction between Darius the MEDE and Cyrus the PERSIAN, was because it was not when Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians and Darius the Mede took over Babylon that the 70 years were to end, but only when Cyrus took over rulership of Babylon. Per Josephus, the 70 years were to be served by those who were last deported out of Egypt. 2 Chronicles confirms that these seventy years would be served by those last deportees out of Egypt, that is, those "remaining from the sword."
Zechariah 1 confirms that 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem dates year 2 of Darius the Mede, and 70 years after mourning and fasting over Gedeliah ended in the 4th year of Darius the Mede. This would be a good point for you to point out in your rebuttal of the WTS, since they do not realize that Gedeliah did not die until year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar, a year after the fall of Jerusalem! He began to be mourned the following year and that's where there is a 2-year difference in the 70 years, one that ends in year 2 of Darius the Mde and one that ends in year 4. At any rate, the Israelites were still in exile. This thus confirms that the 70 years had not begun yet and that Cyrus had not begun to reign over Babylon yet. When the 70 years is applied to the last deportees in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, then the exile of 70 years would not have ended until 74 years after the fall of Jerusalem! Zechariah confirms this. It would also confirm that Darius the Mede ruled for a full six years before he abdicated over to Cyrus, who began counting a new rulership fro year 1. This also confirms that Darius the Mede was a [grand]son of Nebuchadnezzar II!
So you need to make some revisions on that particular statement. The 70 years end with the "royalty of PERSIA" comes to rule, which does not include the royalty of the Medes and thus does not include the short period of time Darius the Mede ruled over Babylon while the Jews were still in exile. So the Babylonian empire did not end with the fall of Babylon, even if you date it to 539 BCE. It ends 6 years later after the rule of Darius the Mede, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II.
Darius the Mede had no heirs. Cyrus was is nephew-in-law. Cyrus was married to the daughter of Astyages, who was the half-brother of Dariuis the Mede. Therefore, the royal line of the Medes came through Astyages daughter and her children by Cyrus. So after the death of Cyrus, the royal line of the Medes would again rule over Persia. The royalty of the Medes and Persians were thus united in the children of Cyrus.
After the male heirs of Cyrus died out (Kambyses, Bardiya), then again the royal line of the Medes had to continue through the daughter of Cyrus, Atossa, who was married to Darius I. So even though Darius I was a Persian, his children were direct descendants of the royalty of the Medes.
Have you ever heard of the "Chronicle" by Sir Isaac Newton. He laid out the timeline much as you have. If you haven't seen it, you might find it interesting! This is just the history from the fall of Nineveh down to the when Cyrus takes over Babylon:
609. Josiah slain. Cyaxeres and Nebuchadnezzar overthrow Nineveh, and, by sharing the Assyrian Empire, grow great.
607. Creon the first annual Archon of the Athenians. The second Messenian war begins. Cyaxeres makes the Scythians retire beyond Colchos and Iberia, and seizes the Assyrian Provinces of Armenia, Pontus and Cappadocia.
606. Nebuchadnezzar invades Syria and Judæa.
604. Nabopolassar dies, and is succeeded by his Son Nebuchadnezzar, who had already Reigned two years with his father.
600.Darius the Mede, the son of Cyaxeres, is born.
599. Cyrus is born of Mandane, the Sister of Cyaxeres, and daughter of Astyages.
596. Susiana and Elam conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. Caranus and Perdiccas fly from Phidon, and found the Kingdom of Macedon. Phidon introduces Weights and Measures, and the Coining of Silver Money.
590. Cyaxeres makes war upon Alyattes King of Lydia.
588. The Temple of Solomon is burnt by Nebuchadnezzar. The Messenians being conquered, fly into Sicily, and build Messana.
585. In the sixth year of the Lydian war, a total Eclipse of the Sun, predicted by Thales, May the 28th, puts an end to a Battel between the Medes and Lydians: Whereupon they make Peace, and ratify it by a marriage between Darius Medus the son of Cyaxeres, and Ariene the daughter of Alyattes.
584. Phidon presides in the 49th Olympiad.
580. Phidon is overthrown. Two men chosen by lot, out of the city Elis, to preside in the Olympic Games.
572. Draco is Archon of the Athenians, and makes laws for them.
568. The Amphictions make war upon the Cirrheans, by the advice of Solon, and take Cirrha. Clisthenes, Alcmæon and Eurolicus commanded the forces of the Amphictions, and were contemporary to Phidon. For Leocides the son of Phidon, and Megacles the son of Alcmæon, at one and the same time, courted Agarista the daughter of Clisthenes.
569. Nebuchadnezzar invades Egypt.Darius the Mede Reigns.
562. Solon, being Archon of the Athenians, makes laws for them.
557. Periander dies, and Corinth becomes free from Tyrants.
555. Nabonadius Reigns at Babylon. His Mother Nitocris adorns and fortifies that City.
550. Pisistratus becomes Tyrant at Athens. The Conference between Crœsus and Solon.
549. Solon dies, Hegestratus being Archon of Athens.
544. Sardes is taken by Cyrus. Darius the Mederecoins the Lydian money into Darics.
538. Babylon is taken by Cyrus.
536. Cyrus overcomes Darius the Mede, and translates the Empire to the Persians. The Jews return from Captivity, and found the second Temple.
From: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15784/15784-h/15784-h.htm
This is a quote from the "Insight" book about Cyrus, reflecting the secular historical conflict as to whether Cyrus was the grandson or son-in-law of Astyages:
The early history of Cyrus II is somewhat obscure, depending largely upon rather fanciful accounts by Herodotus (Greek historian of the fifth century B.C.E.) and Xenophon (another Greek writer of about a half century later). However, both present Cyrus as the son of the Persian ruler Cambyses by his wife Mandane, the daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes. (Herodotus, I, 107, 108; Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, I, ii, 1) This blood relationship of Cyrus with the Medes is denied by Ctesias, another Greek historian of the same period, who claims instead that Cyrus became Astyages’ son-in-law by marrying his daughter Amytis.
(Insight, vol 1, page 566)
Well, that's it for now. Since you've gone this far, you may as well avoid any unnecessary surprises or missteps. Thanks for keeping the topic of Bible chronology alive.
As far as me being the Christ, I don't care if you don't recognize me, but I have to admit it when I'm confronted so that later people can't say I should have revealed who I was. But don't you think it is rather absurb that the VAT4956 hides the true chronology of Nebuchadnezzar II which was revised by the Persians? 511 BCE dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar and dismisses 568 BCE as the fake date. There's no getting around it. But in that case, 529 BCE dates the fall of Jerusalem and that, in turn, based on the "2520 years" of the "7 times" prophecy as understood by JWs would date the 2nd coming in 1992. That's when the spirit of Christ came to dwell in the physical body of the prodigal son as the bible prophesied--I just happen to be that person. At any rate, I find it rather dishonest of you, if you believe so much that 587 BCE is the confirmed date for the fall of Jerusalem that you don't talk about the 2nd coming occurring in 1934 vs. claiming that "7 times" prophecy shouldn't be applied that way. That makes your true motives rather suspicious.
Anyway, its great you are attacking the witnesses false teachings, but you could be a lot more effective if you were consistent in representing the evidence.
THANKS -- I've got to go gamble now! I'm desperate to lose all my money!
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.
Larsinger58

ANN O'MALY: Dammit Lars! Do you have to sabotage every 607 thread?
Oh, palleeze, Ann! Believe it or not, I'm not the biggest propaganda queen on this board -- YOU ARE! I might be a very close second, but you spread your own propaganda here as much as I do. I have to post here to clean up your crap! Case in point:
ANNIE O!:
I’m not so sure Zechariah’s 70 years are Jeremiah’s 70 years.
They are not. Jeremiah's 70 years relate to the period of Babylonian domination over the nations. Zechariah's 70 years relate to the period of mourning over the temple's ruined state up to Darius I's time. The question was whether there should still be fasting in the fifth month (temple destroyed) and the seventh month (Gedaliah's assassination).
First of all, you are propagating COJ's opinion that the 70 years were years of servitude to Babylon. Josephus clearly begins the 70 years of servitude in year 23, the last deportation as does the Bible. Those who were to serve the 70 years were those who were last deported in year 23. When their 70-year exile and servitude was over, they would be released when the "royalty of Persia" came to rule, that is, when Cyrus the Persian began to rule over Babylon, not Darius the Mede. Darius the Mede was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II and thus a legitmiate Babylonian king. As you will see, he ruled for a full 6 years before abdictating to Cyrus. The Jews were still in exile during this 6-year rule of Darius the Mede. They were not released until Cyrus took over at which point he began to count his rulership with year 1 again. Interestingly enough, Zechariah proves the Jews were still in exile some 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem and for 70 years after the mourning over Gedaliah, which began 2 years after the fall of Jerusalem.
Now, Zechariah 1 confirms that 70 years expired in year 2 of "Darius" at a time the Jews were still in exile. Zechariah 7 mentions the expiration of 70 years after the mourning in the "seventh month" which would have been for Gedeliah. These 70 years ended, however, in year 4 of "Draius." Thus the first thing we must note is that the mourning for Gedeliah began 2 years after the fall of Jerusalem. That merely reflects that Gedaliah did not die the same year as Jerusalem's fall, but a year later. When you check the context, Gedeliah was inviting those in the surrounding area to come into Jerusalem and harvest summer fruits. Spring months were 1, 2 and 3. Summer followed in 4, 5 and 6. Jerusalem didn't fall until the 5th month, which was in the summer. It is more likely Gedeliah invited scattered Jews in the area to return to harvest summer fruits, therefore, prior to the beginning of summer and thus sometime in the late spring which would give them time to eventually return and harvest the summer fruits beginning the 4th month. This would have also given him time to interact with the Babylonians and be assured of their true intentions for these last remaining ones, which was not to send them off into exile, but to work the land. There is also the issue of the plot to assasinte Gedaliah, which he was told about but chose to ignore. All that works out better when this takes place over the next several months and into the next year. Thus Gedaliah's death in the seventh month was in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar II. The Jews in Babylon likely heard about this 5 months later as it took that long to get news back to Babylon. Upon hearing this, they would have begun to mourn and fast over Gedeliah in the 7th month. That's why there is a 2-year gap from the 70 years from the fall of Jerusalem and the 70 years from the mourning in the 7th month.
The fact that the 70th year of mourning over Gedeliah in the 7th month is 2 years later than the expiration of 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem, therefore, completely contradicts you jive statement above. The 70 years of mourning in the 7th month is not the same 70 years following the fall of Jerusalem! There's a 2-year difference between the two. You talk as if these are the same 70 years. But notice the context here in Zechariah.
Zechariah 1:12 So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?”
Now this was a continuous period of 70 years of denunciation of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. So at this point in the 2nd of Darius, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were still in a state of denouncement, meaning they were still desolated. Thus the reference here of when Jehovah was going to "show mercy" to Jerusalem and the cities of Jerusalem was just a way of saying when were the people going to be allowed to return to Jersualem and the cities of Judah to rebuild and bring them back to life!
Therefore, your statement that this is the 2nd year of "Dariu I" is completely ridiculous. The Jews were long out of exile by the 2nd of Darius I and the temple was nearly complete by the 2nd year of Darius I. In fact, they completed in his sixth year after a 2-year interruption. By contrast, if the Jews are still in exile in the 2nd year of Darius, this must be a reference to Darius the Mede!
But does that work? Of course! How so? Because, again, per both the Bible and Josephus, the 70 years of servitude of the last deportees did not begin until year 23, and thus 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem in year 19. So per Josephus and the Bible, some 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem meant they still had 4 years to go before their 70 years were up. So no problem that the Jews are still in exile in the 2nd year of Dariius the Mede. This also means that Darius the Mede ruled a full 6 years before Cyrus took over.
But this makes your point about Jeremiah's 70 years relating to Babylonian domination. That's why COJ's reference is both a moot point and a joke. How so? Because if you want to apply a 70-year reference to 70 years of Babylonian domination, go ahead and do so, that's your interpretation. But that still would not affect the fact that the Jews were still in exile at Babylon 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem and were to remain in exile for another 4 years.
So nothing you stated has any foundation in any remote kind of Biblical truth. It's just one false statement and misrepresentation after another.
But aren't you being hypocritical, Ann? Here you are spreading these lies and you want me not to spread mine? Why is it that you want to suppress freedom of speech of others who happen to contradict what you are promoting? But it doesn't work that way. You can't just request someone to shut the fk up while you talk without contradiction. Instead of proving a rebuttal to my position, you just want me not to state it. You claim I'm "sabbotaging" this post, when you're the one spreading the lies! ???
PERSONAL NOTE - SEMI-OFF TOPIC: Anyway, far more important than ancient chronology is that I've been winning money gambling. I went to Shreport and accidentally won $1000! I accidentally hit a "play all games" button on this multi-keno game but couldn't get out of it without putting up $20! Normally I play 30-50 cents max! So I put in another $20 and played that round and won $60.00 right off. Well, I broke down and said 'what the heck!" and just played the $60 back, expecting to lose. But on the last pull I hit 4000! That is, 4000 quarters, which is $1000! I was delighted. But I hadn't learned my lesson. I was just throwing the money away and winning it back. When I got home I bought $200 worth of scratch-offs, including two $50 tickets! Insane! But one of the $50 tickets paid back $75 and the other $1000!!! So I'm really desperate to go back to Shreveport to gamble for a few days! All that to say what? All that to say that you're gonna get a break from me because I sure ain't taking my laptop to the casino to hook-up in my room and post about Bible chronology, as fun as that is! Normally I mmight if the internet was free, but they charege per 24 hours -- no way! I know that's only to discourage people from getting distracted in their hotel rooms instead of staying in the casino until they completely lose all their money. But I'm extremely happy these days, ecstatic, and the hotel rooms are cheap and wonderful at the casinos. The hotel I like staying in has a whirpool bath. So I like lighting tea candles all around and turning off all the lights and just soak in the warm water and bubbles! I enjoy getting away from the stress of the city and just relax and enjoy being THE CHRIST! I like to gamble because it is a win or loose situation when it comes to life, sometimes. Anyway, I know you'll be happy for me and that will explain why I won't be able to answer your numerous questions for a few days!! Anyway, your above post is a bit aggressive and God wanted me to remind you that if someone is instrumental in stumbling some unsuspecting lowly one, the penalty is extra severe. So just cool it, Ann! You can always quote someone and say, "Carl Jonsson thinks the 70 years relate to Babylonian domination and I tend to agree with him..." rather than just coming out with these dogmatic, bold and absurdly false statements like above. Okay? OK! Wish me luck!!!
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.
Larsinger58

SOSOCONFUSED SAID: The problem is that even if you had proof to the contrary which is tons of archaeological evidence - it won't matter to someone who thinks that the bible is 100% correct.
Soso, I'm afraid you are correct, at least fundamentally. I'm one of those. When I was confronted with archaeological evidence that did not agree with my own interpretation of the scriptures, after trying to make the archaeological evidence possibly match my own reference, I simply refused to believe or accept that evidence. But that doesn't mean there is no archaeological evidence being used by the WTS to support their claim.
Case in point is their manipulation of the Persian timeline. They need the 20th of Artaxerxes to be moved back from 445 BC in the popular timeline back to 455 BCE to match the "70 weeks" prophecy. They do this with the help of two archaeological references:
1) They amazingly found two tablets that are dated to year 51 of Artaxerxes. Secular history otherwise dates the rule of Artaxerxes, Longimanus to 41 years. But what can you do? This allows them to align the end of the rule of Artaxerxes, Longimanus to 424 BCE as does the secular history and date year 20 to 455 BCE. That is, 31 plus 424 = 455 BCE. Some think these tablets are just examples of alternative dating or erroneous, but it doesn't matter. It supports their claim related to redating year 20 of Artaxerxes I to 455 BCE.
2) Also supporting dating year 20 of Artaxerxes to 455 BCE is the need to reduce the rule of Xerxes from 21 years to just 11 years. This is done by presuming a 10-year co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius I. In this way, they are able to begin the 51-year rule of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) 10 years earlier than the secular timeline. But they use archaeological evidence from Persepolis showing Xerxes and Darius as co-rulers to do this! In the meantime, the current secular timeline does not recognize this apparent co-rulership. So you see, it depends on what archaeological evidence you can find out there to support your own timeline.
Another example is the VAT4956! Now previously, the WTS had totally dismissed this document as a 'copy" that merely reflected the popular chronology at that time, which was during the Seleucid Period, over 200 years after the fact. They backed off from claiming direct and deliberate revisionism had taken place, merely stating that that was simply the popular dating at that time. But they were correct in noting that just because the astronomical evidence matched 568 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, it didn't mean that the secular historical reference was correct. So they basically accepted that the VAT4956 dated to 568 BCE but that "year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar" was not correct. Thus they dismissed the VAT4956 as unreliable. But that was before Furuli came onto the scene. Furuli began to aggressively examine the VAT4956 and to find potential match-ups in the text to 588 BCE, which is their date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, reflecting a 20-year difference from the current secular dating to 568 BCE. They now boldly use the VAT4956 as an example of potential support for 588 BCE. They site numerous lunar references that match 588 BCE better than 568 BCE, but emphasize a reference in Line 3 of the text in which they discovered a precise match for 588 BCE which is a non-match for 568 BCE.
The reference to Line 3 found in Herman Hunger's translation says that "on the 9th day of Nisan (an error for the 8th) the moon was 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis" The WTS points out that on the 9th day of Nisan in 588 BCE, however, the moon, indeed, was 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis! Now that is an incredible coincidence! At any rate, true to form, they now flaunt this and claim that the VAT4956 can be used to support 588 BCE. Now this is ridiculous to those who know that while this lunar reference doesn't work for 568 BCE, there are multiple planetary match-ups that can only match 568 BCE. By the WTS noting that there is also this potential 588 BCE reference, they are suggesting that perhaps the text has double-dating to both 568 BCE and 588 BCE, with 588 BCE becoming a legitimate reference to the original timeline. That is, even though most of the lunar references and all of the planetary references in this diary match 568 BCE, the fact that you have a 588 BCE match suggests that the 588 BCE match was an intentional reference to what must have been the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II; the diary with all the other references simply being provided to "hide in plain sight" a reference to the original timeline in the midst of the references to the revised timeline.
Even so, as far as they are concerned, the VAT4956 can be used to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 588 BCE based on this reference. But in this case, it backfires on the WTS. That's because this line has been corrected as a reference to sigma-Leonis rather than beta-Virginis. That is because of Line 18 in the text which describes Venus immediately below "sap" the star called the "bright star at the end of [behind] the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A)(BSBLF). The actual planet in reference for this line is broken off and Herman Hunger had previously placed "the moon" matched this reference. But the moon was long out of Virgo by the 15th of the month and was never in a location "immediately below" the BSBLF. Herman Hunger admitted to this error and others have pointed out that this is clearly a reference to Venus in that position on the 15th. Venus was immediately below beta-Virginis on the 15th of Nisan; the moon was 10 days away in the constellation of Capricorn.
The problem is, though, once you correct Line 18 to show that it was Venus below the BSBLF, then it is clear that the rear foot of Leo is a reference to the star in front of beta-Virginis. Now if you look at the star diagrams for the contellation of Leo (the lion), you can see that sigma-Leonis is the rear foot of the lion and the bright star immediately following it is beta-Virginis. But this thus affects Herman Hunger's assignment in Line 3. You see, the actual transliteration is that the moon was 1 cubit in front of the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A), which Herman Hunger had mistaken for beta-Virginis instead of sigma-Leonis in this particular text. Once it is clear from Line 18 that the "bright star behind the Lion's foot" is a reference to beta-Virginis, then the "rear foot of the lion" becomes a reference to sigma-Leonis. But there is no issue here because it is clear that sigma-Leonis is the usual and normal rear foot of Leo anyway. So the VAT4956 is simply generically referring to the "rear foot of the lion" as sigma-Leonis and the "bright star behind the Lion's foot" as beta-Virginis. But this correction means that the WTS is using the outdated and corrected reference for Line 3 to match 588 BCE. They coincidentally found a match in 588 BCE where the moon was 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis as Hunger originally translated, but Line 3 is not a reference to beta-Virginis, but sigma-Leonis. So Line 3 is not really a match to what the text actually says, but only to the error or misrepresentation in Line 3 and 18 that Hunger is trying to promote. Hunger in this case is a perfect example of why you can't trust scholars who have their own agendas in regards to ancient history. Archaeologists in particular are among those who often manipulate or misrepresent evidence in an anti-Biblical way.
But your point here is still well made. That is, that once a person is set in their minds in regards to their own chronology or timeline, they will refuse to accept any archaeological evidence that contradicts that, but will grab and flaunt any archaeological evidence that might support their own timeline.
I'm noting this because I know the feeling! I was very guilty of this myself. I had discovered from the Bible that Ezra and Nehemiah were among those who had returned from Babylon in the 1st of Cyrus and that the 1st of Cyrus has to be dated to 455 BCE per the Bible. I had no problems with that nor dismissing any archaeological or historical references to the contrary. To me the Bible was correct, rgardless. I was raised as a witness and their position was that if the Bible ever contradicted secular references, then you have to side with the Bible. Others have this very strong position as well. Case in point is Martin Anstey who in his "Romance of Bible Chronology" written in 1913 also believed that the Bible dated the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE [sic] based on his interpretation of the "70 weeks" prophecy and the baptism of Christ. We thus belieed that any records out there to the contrary must have been erroneous or fabricated. This meant, though, that Anstey believed that the Persian Period was 82 years too long.
Even so, it was temping to look at the astronomical evidence for this period, especially since the WTS quoted from the SK400 (Strm. Kambyses 400) in order to confirm that 537 BCE is a confirmed date for the return from Babylon. The SK400 dates 523 BCE to "year 7" of Kambyses. Believing 455 BCE was the true date for the 1st of Cyrus, and thus as I had been taught by the WTS that the fall of Jerusalem occurred 70 years earlier, I dated the fall of Jerusalem to 525 BCE. I half expected to find a confirmation in the SK400 of this alternative dating. What I did discover, was that the two lunar eclipses in the text were a match to 541 BCE and not 523 BCE. I then tried to match 541 BCE in some way to some concept of "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar II. But I couldn't. 541 BCE was 4 years earlier than when year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar fell in 525 BCE as I was currently believed. But even though it was clear that the SK400 was dating "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar II to 541 BCE, I just couldn't accept it. I just put it off as a mystery since I believed 525 BCE must have been year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar II per the Bible. So I just dropped the issue temporarily. I was delighted to discover the text was a mismatch for 523 BCE for "year 7" of Kambyses, but year 7 of Neb2 in 541 BCE didn't support the Bible's chronology either. That is, until reading later I came across Jeremiah 52:30!! I had tried and tried to figure out how to deal with the 4-year discrepancy between my dating and the dating in the SK400.
Jeremiah 52:30 recorded the last deportation of the Jews in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II! The land could not be desolate until all the people were removed out of the land! Further, Jeremiah 44:14 and 28 showed that those who had ran down to Egypt and survived Nebuchadnezzar's sword were to return to Judea. The context of Jeremiah 52:29, 30 also suggests the 23rd year deportation was from Jerusalem!
Jeremiah 52:29 "In the eighteenth year of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar, from Jerusalem there were eight hundred and thirty-two souls.

30 In the twenty-third year of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar, Neb·u´zar·ad´an the chief of the bodyguard took Jews into exile, seven hundred and forty-five souls."
Of course, I later found Josephus' reference in Ant. 11.1.1 that confirms that the 70 years of servitude to the kings of Babylon was served by the "poor people" who were last deported out of their own land which occurred in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II!
Meaning?
Meaning, I was wrong! I was wrong to date the fall of Jerusalem in 525 BCE. I was just following what I had been taught by the WTS! Even so, I was willing to believe what the Bible was saying and reject the archaeological evidence to the contrary. But it turns out in this case, the archaeological evidence actually supported the Bible! The Bible dates the last deportation in 525 BCE and the 19th year 4 years earlier in 529 BCE! That means year 7 falls in 541 BCE, which is the basis of the SK400's reference to "year 7" matched by these two eclipses in 541 BCE!!!
So I felt delighted but also a little guilty because I didn't trust the archaeological evidence when it came to my interpretation or MISINTERPRETATION of what the Bible had said. But the Bible wasn't dating the 70 years from the fall of Jerusalem as the WTS had been teaching and had taught me all my life, but from the last deportation, a fact confirmed by Josephus!!
Same thing happened with me with the VAT4956! I was very much suppotive of the WTS' position on the VAT4956 which was that it was created during the Seleucid Period and was a "copy"of original astronomical texts from 568 BCE. The astronomy was correct for 568 BCE, but the "historical" reference to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II had been distorted or revised. So even though the VAT4956 dated year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 568 BCE it could easily be dismissed as fraudulent because it was not a contemporary Babylonian text. It clearly was a conspiracy text being used to re-date the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II in line with the revised timeline.
But by now, computerized astronomical programs were available for home use and it was just fun to see how the astronomy recorded in this ancient text matched the ancient skies! Thus one becomes fascinated by the precision of the solar system. But then an incredible chance event occurred. I was going through and charting each reference in the VAT4956 and looking at those references with my astronomy program, which I noted, was quite fascinating! When I got to line 8, though, I was forced to adjust the lunar position based on the text rather than the location of observation from Babylon. When the location of the program was aligned witih Babylon (Bagdad), it showed the moon was about 1 cubit below beta-Gemini instead of 4 cubits below at the time of sunset. When there is a clear discrepancy between what the text says and the astronomy program, I adjust the location to match the text as best as I could. The astro program maintains that location until you change it. I had already determined that year 47 fell in 511 BCE, so I was checking for any matches in the VAT4956 and up til I changed the observation location based on Line 8, I had found no matches. But when I incidentally was checking back for day 9 of Nisan in 511 BCE, suddenly the moon was precisely 1 cubit in front of sigma-Leonis! I was astronished. When the program was aligned to Bagdad, the moon was not in that location. I had become familiar enough with the VAT4956 to know that this was a precise match for Line 3! But I was also frightened! I knew the other error in the text, that is, Line 14 where the moon was 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis was a non-match for 568 BCE, but also a non-match for 511 BCE as I had hoped. I knew, though, if Line 14 turned out to be a match for 511 BCE as well, then like the SK400, the VAT4956, which was also a diary, was also a text that had dating back to the original timeline.
So I looked at day 5 of Sivan for 511 BCE and sure enough, the moon was precisely in that location, 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis! But, of course, NOW I no longer dismissed the VAT4956 as a phony document. Now all of a sudden I was embracing the document and flaunting how it had dating back to the original timeline, just as the SK400 does!
But, again, we can see what's happening here. I'm no different than the WTS! When the VAT4956 wasn't working for them, they dismissed it. But when they saw it could help their timeline, they suddenly published the match in Line 3 (even though we know now it is to the wrong star). Same with me. I was dismissing the VAT4956 as well, which I could since it is a "copy", but as soon as I found that Lines 3 and 14 matched 511 BCE, suddenly the VAT4956 is the document I promote to support the original Biblical timeline which dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE when 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus.
Of course, when 511 BCE dates year 37 per the VAT4956, it matches 541 BCE for year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II. So now there are two "diaries" that can be used to support the 455 BCE chronology, as long as you date the 70 years beginning at the time of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II, thus in 525 BCE! So now I claim (in my own mind--) perfect harmony between some archaeological evidence and the Bible. I also use the archaeological confirmation of a co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius I to insert a 4-year co-rulership. When we follow Greek records that Artaxerxes I died in the 8th year of the Peloponnesian War and that war is redated to 403 BCE, then year 8 falls in 396 BCE. Thus the 41-year rule of Artaxerxes would have begun in 437BCE. Since Artaxerxes and Xerxes were the same king and Artaxerxes was 18 when he began to rule, the year his "father" became king, it means that Xerxes was born in 455 BCE (397 + 18 = 455 BCE). That is the year Cyrus became king who was the grandfather of Xerxes. Even so, per the Bible, the 6-year rule of Darius I would have been from 439-433 BCE. That would mean there was a 4-year overlap between the rule of Xerxes-Artaxerxes from 437-433 BCE. But no problem because you can confirm the co-rulership from the bas-reliefs at Persepolis, something I learned from the WTS!
Martin Anstey undestood the Persian Period contradicted the Bible by 82 years, but never figured out where or how to remove those extra 82 years. No problem now. Just remove 30 years from Darius I and Artaxerxes II, and remove the 21-year rule of Xerxes by combining it with the 41-year rule of Artaxerxes I since they were the same king. That removes 81 years quite easily off the bat. The odd last 1 year is removed by making year 1 of Kambyses a co-rulership year with his father, Cyrus.
I believe what the Bible says, no matter what. I'm just happy I've found a lot of secular references that support the 455 BCE chronology dating the 1st of Cyrus that year. But at the same time, I dismiss right and left anything presented that contradicts that! But the people pushing 587BCE for year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar II are doing the same thing. They have their favorite proofs and use them to contradict the Bible. So that's the way it goes. If you believe 587 BCE is the year of Jerusalem's fall, then likely nothing anyone presents either from the Bible or secular records will change your mind.
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.
Larsinger58

Josephus' 70 years and the "7 times" prophecy. Wonderfully, both Jeffro and TJC comment on the "7 times" prophecy.
Per Josephus, as I noted above, assigns the 70 years of exile to the last deportees in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Part of the "7 times" prophecy addresses a literal 7-year period of Nebuchadnezzar II being absent from his throne. Once you correct the misquoting of Josephus that the 13-year siege of Tyre begins in year 20 and ends in year 33 of Nebuchadnezzar II, then there is no contradiction to Nebuchadnezzar II being off his throne and inactive beteen year 24 to 34 of his reign. He is struck with madness a year after he bragged about being so great. This would have reflected his conquering all the land in the entire region of the Nothern and Southern kingdoms, including major coastal ports such as Tyre and Ashkelon. Ifr we make that assumption then he would have been struck with madness in year 24 or 25 of his reign. The 7 years off the throne would have took him into his 31st or 32nd years. This is plenty of time for him to become active again in Babylon, leading up to his invasion of Egypt in year 37.
If the 13-year siege of Tyre is begun in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar II, as both TJC and Jeffro are representing, then there simply is no time for Nebuchadnezzar II to be absent from the throne for 7 years. Now as I noted earlier, the 13-year reference comes from Josephus and he dates those 13 years from year 7 to year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar.
So this is where DISHONESTY comes from in the case of what one might consider someone who is well read on this topic. The WTS gladly quotes Josephus when it comes to the 70 years of desolation of the land, but they ignore him as far as who was deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Josephus clearly assigns those deported in year to those from Egypt, so the WTS is dishonest in this regard. The WTS also quotes from Josephus regarding the 13-year siege but for some reason begins this siege a year after Jerusalem falls. This not only misrepresents what Josephus is saying regarding this 13-year siege but also causes problems for themselves when determining when Nebuchadnezzar II was off his throne. Jeffro follows along as well and does not correct this misrepresentation.
Now both have their own views and interpretations of the Bible and secular references. But it is one thing to have your own interpretation of a reference and another to misrepresent and distort that reference. So again, per Josephus, the 13-year siege of Tyre ends in the 20th of Nebuchadnezzar II. This should be reflected in these discussions even if it is to be contradicted. There is no basis for representing that Josephus is dating the siege of Tyre during any period after year 20 of Nebudhadnezzar II. Also, Josephus identifies those from Egypt as those deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II and it is they that would serve the kings of Babylon for 70 years ending the 1st of Cyrus. So that needs to be reflected in these discussions, even if Josephus is to be contradicted or corrected.
So let's get it together, buddies! This is a great discussion. Let's clear up the dishonesties or mistakes!! If Josephus and the Bible and secular don't agree, then fine. Let them not agree. But let's not misquote and misrepresent what is in the Bible or what the sources say.
87
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.
Larsinger58

TO TJ CURIOSO and JEFFRO: First of all, I'm amazed at the focus on detail that both of you address the chronology from this period. But I know it must be a bit annoying to Jeffro that this has shown up as a discussion point here. Of course, I have my own interpretation of both the Bible and secular records. But just from an academic point of view, I wanted to share a few things with both of you, as far as what others of us familiar with this topic would like for either of you to address or realize is out there:
1) Tyre's 13-year siege. The only reference of the 13-year siege comes from Josephus. In this case, both Jeffro and TJ Curioso are in basic agreement that the 13-year siege begins a year after the fall of Jerusalem and ends 3 years before Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year campaign against Egypt. The WTS specifically notes no secular references in this regard beside Josephus' reference to these 13 years plus the Bible's reference to the difficulty of this siege and Egypt being a repayment for that extra hard work. However, please note this sole reference specifically begins that 13-year siege in year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II, which means it would have ended in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar, a year after the fall of Jerusalem in year 19. This means both of you are misrepresenting and falsifying Josephus' reference. Here is his reference from "Against Apion 1.21"
Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; ...for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre."
So both of you need to fix this misrepresentation about the 13-year siege.
On the other hand, other researchers like myself compare this reference to what the Bible says. This reference would not be a contradiction to the Bible's reference regarding the destruction of Tyre since the Bible, as you both know, indicate that the bitter cup of Nebuchadnezzar II's wrath would first come against Jerusalem and then all the other cities. So the fact that Josephus is dating the fall destruction of Tyre in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar is consistent with the fall of Tyre after the fall of Jerusalem, which occurs in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
2) "Tyre forgotten 70 years." Now both of you are familiar with this reference and discuss it. Josephus dates the 70-year exile from the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II to the 1st of Cyrus. Thus note Antiquities 11.1.1:
1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.
These "poor people" Josephus is referring to are those who were not deported but left in the land to tend crops. This group fled down to Egypt after the death of Gedaliah, but a small remnant who escaped the scrowd of Nebuchadnezzar returned from Egypt back of Judea as prophesied by the Bible at Jeremiah 44:14,28
14 And there will come to be no escapee or survivor for the remnant of Judah who are entering in to reside there as aliens, in the land of Egypt, even to return to the land of Judah to which they are lifting up their soul[ful desire] to return in order to dwell; for they will not return, except some escaped ones.’”
28 And as for the ones escaping from the sword, they will return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah, few in number; and all those of the remnant of Judah, who are coming into the land of Egypt to reside there as aliens, will certainly know whose word comes true, that from me or that from them.”’”
These two passages thus agree with Josephus. That is, those of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar are made up of the small remnant that were from Egypt who were deported from Egypt in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Only the Bible conrfirms that they stopped back in Judea before their deportation that same year.
Thus, there is a 4-year period after the fall of Jerusalem for Tyre to fall, then to have any remaining citizens deported out in year 23. So the "seventy years" Tyre would be forgotten you correspond to Josephus' 70 years of exile for those deported out of Egypt. Thus if Tyre wasn't already completely desolate of people afrter its destruction in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar II, then any remaining persons would have been deported during this last major campaign into the region by Nebuchadnezzar II in year 23. Thus it is possible to include Tyre with the "nations" that woudl serve Babylon for 70 years, since not only the remnant of Jews from Egypt were mentioned in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year campaign. So Tyre might have been like Jerusalem, destroyed, but with a small remnant population left behind who were then deported in year 23, so that the 70 years of service to Babylon by the nations included the same 70 years of servitude of the Jews of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
Finally, also a note to both of you. The desolation of the land for 70 years to pay back its sabbaths was not just for the land of Judea. Note that Tyre is a coastal city of the Northern kingdom. So it was Jehovah's intent to desolate the entire original promised land and leave it desolate for 70 years, and that included both the Northern and Southern kingdom areas. So it was not until everybody from the entire region, including other nations, some of whom like Tyre and Ashkelon which had never been conquered by the Israelites, would be removed off the land so the land could rest for 70 years from year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II to the 1st of Cyrus.
Of note to TJC, this would be another critical reason why 607 BCE doesn't work from a Biblical point of view. That's because the 70 years of total desolation could not begin until the Northern kingdom was emptied as well as the Southern kingdom. So when the WTS confirms that those of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II came from the surrounding areas around Judea while maintaining that Judea itself was alrady desolated, they confirm the 70 years had not begun yet. That's because the Northern kingdom had to be desolated as well, including non-Israelite cities such as Tyre. But this also would force you to date year 23 in 607 BCE rather than year 18. So even if you use 537 BCE to end the 70 years, they would still begin in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II; year 19 would fall 4 years earlier in 611 and year 18 in 612 BCE. So 607 BCE for the beginning of the 70 years is never, ever, ever, ever going to work! It is not a credible date even if you use the chronology that dates the return of the Jews in 537 BCE.
3) Egypt desolated for 40 years. Finally, there's the issue of Egypt being desolated for 40 years. If you introduce 70 years from year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II to the 1st of Cyrus ans both the Bible and Josephus do, then there is time for the desolation of Egypt for 40 years. This is not possible when applied to the current popular secular timeline. The popular secular timeline dates the rule of Amasis II from 570 - 526 BCE. That is, from year 35 of Nebuchadnezzar II to year 4 of Kambyses, a rule of 44 years. In the popular secular chronology, when year 18 falls in 587 BCE, then year 23 falls in 582 BCE. From 582 BCE to the 1st of Cyrus in 538 BCE is a period of 44 years, a period that is 70 years according to the Bible and Josephus. Subtract 44 years from 70 and you get a discrepancy of 26 years. When we apply this to life and rule of Amasis II, he would have ruled for an additional 26 years and thus a total of 70 years. If he was in his 20's when he began to rule, then he would have been in his 90's when he died. He died just before Cambyses was about to kill him.
Currently, both of you show Amasis II active in year 9 of Nabonidus which both of you date c. 547 BCE. Our first inquiry comparison thus would be whether or not a 40-year desolation from year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II would have ended by year 9 of Nabonidus? Per the current secular timeline this is a period from 568 BCE to 547 BCE, a period of 21 years. If the timeline is expanded for this period by 20 years, then the 40 years would end just a year before Egypt joined Babylon against the Medes and the Persians. The alliance between the Medes and the Persians would have occurred when Cyrus conquered Astyages in the 6th year of Nabonidus.
The expansion of this period by 20 years has two references:
a) Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 45 years per the Bible rather than only 43 years. The Bible ends the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II in the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin's exile began on the very last day of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, after which Zedekiah began his rule. Thus Zedekiah would have begun his rule at the very beginning of the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. This meant an 8-year difference. This is confirmed in relation to the fall of Jerusalem in year 11 of Zedekiah which was year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar II, the same 8-year difference. If the exile of Jehoiachin was counted from the time he left Jerusalem then his exile would parallel the reign of Zedekiah. Thus 37 of his exile would also represent an 8-year difference in reference to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. Add 8 years to 37 and you get 45 years. Thus Nebuchadnezzar II per the Bible ruled 45 years rather than 43 years. This adds 2 years to this period.
b) Evil-Merodach ruled for 18 years rather than only 2 years, per Josephus. Ant. 10.11.2 says: "When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government.." In the secular timeline, only 2 years are accorded to Evil Merodach. So this expands this period by 16 years.
Nabonidus was not actively involved in rulership at Babylon after his 3rd year at which time Belshazzar became the primary ruler at Babylon. In historical records such as Heodotus, Nabonidus (Labynetus) and Belshazzar became exchangeable. In the expanded chronology of the Bible, the rule of Darius the Mede is 6 years and the rule of Nabonidus 19 years rather than just 17. Thus if Amasis joined with "Nabonidus-Belshazzar" in his 9th year, that would be equivalent to the 11th year of Nabonidus. In that case, the alliance between Egypt and the Babylonians in year 9 of Belshazzar occurs 1 year after the 40-year period ends.
That is. From year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to the end of his 45-year rule is 8 years. Add an 18-year rule for Evil-Merodach, a 4-year rule of Niglassar and then a 2-year sole rule for Nabonidus and a 9-year co-rule for Belshazzar(also called "Nabonidus"), and you come out with 41 years.
But that also becomes quite an interesting detail. Not just because this is so close to the end of the 40-year desolation of Egypt, but because it suggests that if Babylon had desolated Egypt and Amasis had gone into exile in Greece for that 40-year Period, then the new threat of the Medes and the Persians to Babylon might have been a key reason for allowing Amasis back into Egypt.
In the meantine, Amasis is known for his close connections with the Greeks, particularly his friendship with Polycrates. He is also known to have been active in Cypres and even contributing to the building work of the temple at Delphi. Later on he is known to have allowed the Greeks to have their own key port city in Egypt at Naucratis. He even married a Greek princess. This is significant from the standpoint of the Bible which would have required Amasis to be in exile from Egypt for those 40 years down to the 11th year of Nabonidus, because this tells us where he and the other Egyptians were during this period: in Greece and Cyprus.
Here's a brief excerpt on him:
Although Amasis thus appears first as champion of the disparaged native, he had the good sense to cultivate the friendship of the Greek world, and brought Egypt into closer touch with it than ever before. Herodotus relates that under his prudent administration, Egypt reached a new level of wealth; Amasis adorned the temples of Lower Egypt especially with splendid monolithic shrines and other monuments (his activity here is proved by existing remains). Amasis assigned the commercial colony of Naucratis on the Canopic branch of the Nile to the Greeks, and when the temple of Delphi was burnt, he contributed 1,000 talents to the rebuilding. He also married a Greek princess named Ladice daughter of King Battus III and made alliances with Polycrates of Samos and Croesus of Lydia.
IN SUMMARY: The Bible and Josephus both date a 70-year period of exile for the last deportees deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II and ending the 1st of Cyrus. This allows for a 40-year period of desolation of Egypt during the reign of Amasis II who becomes active by the 9th year of "Nabonidus" which is likely a reference to Belshazzar since Belshazzar was ruling over Babylon and not his father Nabonidus. This suggests that the threat of the Medes and Pesians to the Babylonians was a key reason for allowing Amasis to return and rebuild Egypt. In the meantime, Amasis has clear ties in Greece. Per the Bible, Tyre was to be destroyed after Jerusalem. Per Josephus, a 13-year siege of Tyre begins in year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II and thus ends in year 20. Since the desolation of the land for 70 years coincides with the last deportation in year 23, the 70 years of forgetting Tyre could easily coincide with the 70-year exile of the last remaining Jews who were deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. In the meantime, using the reference by Josephus of the 13-year siege and beginning that siege in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar II rather than ending it is either an error or a dishonesty and it should be corrected. In the meantime, 607 BC does not work under any circumstances for JWs since they require total desolation of the land and the land of Judah was not desolated until year 23 since those who fled down to Egypt returned to Judea in year 23. Further, it was not just the land of Judea that had to be desolated but the entire land of both the Northern and Southern kingdoms, which is why Tyre on the coasts of the Northern kingdom was destroyed and the people taken into exile. The claim by JWs that the 70 years began in year 18 or 19 is false and contradicts Josephus' reference to the 70 years, even though the WTS quotes from Josephus to establish a literal 70 years occurring after the fall of Jerusalem.
So both Jeffro and TJC need to correct their misinterpretations and misquotes and then come back with new excuses supporting their anti-Biblical arguments. Thanks, fellas!
47
2013 Drama: "Show Yourself Attentive"
by breakfast of champions in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this is the first of three "dramas" this dc, and i have to say, it was one of the weirdest dramas ever.

i won't go through all the details.

maybe someone else wants to throw in their 2c.. it starts out with two men standing on the "beach" talking, but it took me awhile to figure out what in the hell was going on.
Larsinger58

Oh, Please! The WTS does not want any witnesses to be "attentive" -- that is, not to the Bible, anyways. They talk about "staying awake!" and they do everything in their power to put you to sleep, dull the mind and steer you away from "independent thinking."