Posts by Larsinger58

33

Question about WT article about ancient city of Tyre

by EndofMysteries in

wt 59 page 312.

"true to the prophecy, not long after the fall of jerusalem, the king of babylon came against tyre.

but tyre was confident.

Larsinger58

But there is one more critical issue that complicates this reference. In Against Apion it mentions a period of 54 years and also 50 years, and a kingship in the 14th year!

Against Apion 21 21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times of their several kings: "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom.

Now besides the spurious 7-year reference for the siege of Tyre, the numbers given don't add up to 54 years. That is, from the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus is not 54 years. With so many apparent contradictions, one option is to step back and look at this as a cryptic reference to some other event. Thus the 54 years and 50 years are relevant to the period from the fall of Jerusalem year 19 to the 1st of Cyrus as king over Persia, or the time of desolation from year 23, the year of the last deportation of many nations out of the land including the Jews to serve 70 years. In this context, to cut to the chase, if you count 13 years from year 7 of Nabonidus, then you arrive at the date for the fall of Babylon, not the fall of Tyre, suggesting Josephus is here using Tyre to cryptically give us the timeline for the fall of Babylon during the 20-year rule of Cyrus.

See continuation 1A

33

Question about WT article about ancient city of Tyre

by EndofMysteries in

wt 59 page 312.

"true to the prophecy, not long after the fall of jerusalem, the king of babylon came against tyre.

but tyre was confident.

Larsinger58

It is clear that there is a conflict with this reference by Josephus. Some accept the 13 years as credible but dismiss the dating to year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar, and with reasonable basis. But there are other references to consider including Isaiah 23:15 which says,

"And it must occur in that day that Tyre will be forgotten 70 years."

This, of course, links the desolation of Tyre with the other nations that were to be desolated and serve for 70 years. Thus this reference would end the siege of Tyre in year 23, the final campaign year of Nebuchadnezzar when he also deported the Jews off their land, the last deportees also being stated to serve Babylon 70 years while the land was desolated.

Another factor consistent with the siege occurring after Jersualem was destroyed is Jeremiah 25:29 where is says after mentioning Tyre among other nations to drink the bitter cup of Nebuchadnezzar,

"For, look! It is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity..."

So the Bible would again confirm that Tyre's siege did not likely begin in year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar but after the fall of Jerusalem in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar. The specific edit in the 11th year of the exile of Jehoiachin was not year 17 of Nebuchadnezzar but year 19, the year Jerusalem fell. We must keep in mind that Jehoiachin was exiled on the very last day of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. So essentially his years of exile match the years of Zedekiah which is an 8-year difference in comparison to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar. That is, quite simply, year 11 of Zedekiah is equivalent to year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, not year 17.

With that in mind, and with the desolation and deportation at the same time many other nations to serve 70 years taking place in year 23, the siege of Tyre would not have been more than 3-4 years, as difficult as it was. After Nebuchadnezzar that completely emptied the land, including destroying Troy, he felt great and bragged about having conquered everything and so the next year God smote him with 7 years of madness, though his kingship was preserved for him. At the very earliest if this began in year 24 he could have been active on the throne again by year 31 BCE.

Egypt was not to be punished for 70 years but only 40, so when that time came up, we find Nebuchadnezzar going on another campaign in his year 37 down to Egypt. Those in exile from Tyre would not be released to return and rebuild until the 70 years of exile were over in the 1st of Cyrus. I know there are other theories about this, but other than this would contradict Scripture.

See part 2, cryptic reference to Babylon

28

The 607 / 587 / 586 B.C.E. Research

by garyneal in

for anyone who read through my previous thread concerning the conflict my wife and i had over my coming to this forum will recall that my wife agreed to go with me to the library to research 607 b.c.e.. well, unfornately my daughter and i got sick over the weekend so we could not make that trip.

however, my wife did do some research in her wt publications and on the internet!

frankly, i was surprised she even went to the internet but i told her that to 'stay away' from 'apostate' sites all she had to do was google 'babylonian captivity' and see what comes up.

Larsinger58

This is good. The more she knows about secular history and its dating and about how the WTS links the end of Zedekiah's rule with the "7 times" prophecy, the better.

She just has to make sure she doesn't consult any of the local brothers who will discourage her personal research.

It is impossible to stay clear of the "apostate" stuff since I believe I read on Wikipedia regarding the "70 years" the idea that it is linked to the years of domination by Babylon. That's definitely a desperate "apostate" view.

But, if she is going to be a loyal witness, she will have to follow their lead with 2 Chronicles 36 which clearly states there is to be seventy years of the land paying back its sabbaths. The WTS considers this a Biblical contradiction with secular history, in which case you always follow the Bible.

Ironically, both the popular secular dating in 587 BCE or the 607 BCE dating are both incorrect Biblically, which dates that event in 529 BCE. You can't get 587 BCE as a credible date unless you dismiss the history of Josephus which dates 70 years from the last deportation. So unless she is "very" smart and can figure out the Persians revised the NB timeline that has remained uncorrected, she'll be confused over 607 and 587 BCE, both wrong dates.

But there is still hope for 607 bCE. You see, Josephus and the Bible begin the 70 years on which 607 BCE is based in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, not the year Jerusalem falls, years 18/19. So that alone proves the WTS has miscalculated the date for the fall of Jerusalem, even though 537 BCE for the return date is also wrong. So it is still inaccurate with or without the correct timeline. It is internally wrong in relation to the last deportation vs the fall of Jerusalem.

LS

3

Putting some wick in Wikipedia

by Simon Morley in

i just want to posit to all why many on jwn don't take advantage of the wikipedia to establish counter arguments?

today many researching the net will first gravitate to wikipedia because it simply provides a reasonable unbiased viewpoint and when it is in contention, moderators will simply encourage more evidence to be submitted to support arguments.

as i support and add to many wikipedia sites - as long as there is evidenced based quotations (which is encouraged by wikipedia moderators) there are no questions.

Larsinger58

Wikipedia is great but when it comes to controversial topics, the same arguments are just transferred there. I suppose that's good too, but the fact is, some things simply are not definitive. Some people add their scholarly opinions as facts.

Still it is a very quick reference and does give alternative views. One of my favorite, though not that accurate quotes from wiki is this one about the all-important 763 BCE Assyrian eponym eclipse...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC

"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"

This is only "generally" true. Sometimes the Babylonians did date the year early based on the available records, but this was are, and apparently not in practice during the Assyrian Period at the time of this eclipse or the original eclipse in 709 BCE.

What is interesting is that comparing the original eclipse of 709 BCE and that of 763 BCE, the 709 BCE is more consistent with the customary practice of dating the year beginning with the first New Moon after the equinox rather than the first Full Moon as the Jews sometimes did.

709 BCE, of course, would be the correct eclipse, customarily dating the New Moon after the equinox when 455 BCE is dated to the 1st of Cyrus and 26 years are restored to the NB Period.

LS

9

Babylon The Great Has Fallen (1963)

by CharlieBrownsLovelyDaughter in

is this available as a pdf?.

Larsinger58

Interesting, this is one book I know of that the WTS has taken out of circulation.

It was heavily based on "The Two Babylons" which the WTS distributed at one time. Now they don't include that book on their WT Library CD. I guess they found something they can't deal with.

LS

33

Question about WT article about ancient city of Tyre

by EndofMysteries in

wt 59 page 312.

"true to the prophecy, not long after the fall of jerusalem, the king of babylon came against tyre.

but tyre was confident.

Larsinger58

There is only one reference about this and it has a slight shroud of mystery to it.

It is found in the writings of Josephus, Against Apion 1.21

21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times of their several kings: "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple; and the testimonies here produced are an indisputable and undeniable attestation to the antiquity of our nation. And I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as are not very contentious.

I have to accept this is possible though because the cryptic reference to 54 years works out that the 13-year siege of Tyre beginning year 7 represents the last 13 years of Babylon. For Babylon fell 13 years after the 7th of Nabonidus.

If we were to speculate, it's possible the siege of Tyre was only 3 years instead of 13, beginning in year 18 and ending in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar. That's still a long, hard siege. And unless the Tyrians had their own gardens, they would not last a 13-year siege. A 3-year siege is more likely.

By the way Carl Olof Jonsson in claiming that the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar is accounted for places the 13-year seige from year 23 through 36 though since Josephus' reference is the ONLY reference for this siege and he clearly begins it in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar, whether credible or not, no one has the authority to contradict this and move the 13-year siege elsewhere without stipulating why. So though COJ represents it that way, there is no historical reference for this 13-year siege of Tyre for any other time than from the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar. Though I question this, it does not contradict the Biblical record.

LS

42

VERY DEEP QUESTIONS for elect/annointed/those with insight/holy spirit/etc

by EndofMysteries in

only need answer if you have already researched, come to an understanding, or have seen this and currently figuring it out.

if you have no idea what i'm talking about, then question doesn't apply to you as i feel it's information that is only understood at the right time and to those allowed to get understanding of it.. ***if you would like to give me some answers, but feel the information can't be posted publically or your restricted in whom to give it to, feel free to message me directly.

that's also why i am asking these questions in a way in which only you would understand, but i do not know how to find you otherwise.. .

Larsinger58

Again, for some inside "anointed" stuff, knowing the GB is reading this and they had me followed.

Luke 16v26 "And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you pepole, so that those wanting to go over from here to you people cannot, neither may people cross over from there to us."

Now this addresses the messiah being part of the secret banquet. In the parable of the prodigal son, who is the messiah and has the banquet, the older brother does not enter. So there are two groups of anointed, those in the banquet and those outside the banquet. Let's just generally say these are the secret vs the public anointed ones.

In Revelation, the secret ones are hidden in the wilderness, represented by the woman, but Satan does war with the "remaining ones of her seed" which apparently he has access to, that is, the "older brother" public anointed.

The the technical way in which one cannot cross over to the other, again, has to do with what is required to be a secret member and the JIOR. So Jehovah lets them break laws and moral codes to carry out what they need to. So it's hard for one of them, say who is undercover and living in common law marriage with some celebrator of Christmas to say, "Here! The Lord has come, join me!" Because they can't.

Now while under no law, sure they can commit fornication or adultery or homosexuality or any of those personal sins and God ignores it, but God also sometimes requires just so it is clear that they are 100% dependent upon Jehovah's judgment and not any deeds. So any personal ideas of self-righteousness are removed.

But think of the conceptual side effect of this. If all the elect say are required to commit fornication once to prove their dependence on Jehovah, it also means they can't condemn any of their fellow brothers of being sinful. So in a way, it removes the imperfect concept of self righteousness, which we all develop.

But it also means you have to keep your mouth shut about being in the kingdom. You want to preach about it and help people, but once they find out you are leading a sinful life and celebrating Christmas or any number of things, then how can you recommend the truth? You can't!

You know?

The Rich Man wants Lazarus to take over and be the messiah and run the WTS. But God has prevented it, even if he wants to. He can't take over and say, "Oh, yeah, I did have sex with a man last night but God ordered me to." It doesn't work. So they just have to let this situation play out as God has arranged. In the meantime, though, there is no temptation since even if they did get tempted it's not a sin, because they are not under law.

Now this is the ADVANCED spiritual side of things. The reality. Something most will never be able to deal with, thus the "chasm" between the spiritual and the fleshly, the public vs the private organization. And ths is for the GB who by now, clearly know who the messiah is.

LS

42

VERY DEEP QUESTIONS for elect/annointed/those with insight/holy spirit/etc

by EndofMysteries in

only need answer if you have already researched, come to an understanding, or have seen this and currently figuring it out.

if you have no idea what i'm talking about, then question doesn't apply to you as i feel it's information that is only understood at the right time and to those allowed to get understanding of it.. ***if you would like to give me some answers, but feel the information can't be posted publically or your restricted in whom to give it to, feel free to message me directly.

that's also why i am asking these questions in a way in which only you would understand, but i do not know how to find you otherwise.. .

Larsinger58

Hi Mrs.Jones. I tried the kalua and eggnog and it is GREAT! Also fattening! Thanks.

oh boy. There are deep thinkers here (a few come to mind) but I haven't seen anyone who admitted to being anointed in the way you suggest. We do have a drag queen messiah tho'.

Well, since you're so irreverant, MrsJ, let me tell you what is nice about being of the anointed. For one, you know in advanced that you are going to get eternal life and go to heaven. It's a guaranteed deal.

What about future sins? you ask?

Good question. Satan would like to snatch some of the elect away, of course, by tempting them with immorality as usual. But Jehovah has made it so that is a moot point. You see, he makes them JIOR, "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness", meaning God decides about their righteousness, regardless of what happens after they become of the elect. That is, he removes the LAW and moral code from them.

Meaning? Meaning that in order to stay underground and hidden, some of them have to do sinful things. Like pretend to be a Christian who celebrates Christmas. Some end up in immoral situations, using drugs or committing adultery or fornication. But they are excused. It's like an undercover drug agent who buys, sells and uses drugs as a front to get a drug bust. He has technically broken the law but the courts don't charge him.

So that's kind of a slap in Satan's face, that he's condemned for sin but after the elect are sealed, they can't sin any more because God doesn't apply the law to them.

So in other words, if I wanted to, I could go out and have all the sex I wanted to and it wouldn't matter one bit. I'm righteous and holy and I'll always be. So will all the other elect.

Otherwise, as long as Satan is let loose and as long as the world is ruled by mankind, especially with Satan focussing on the elect to destroy them, how could someone elect remain elect with all the temptations out there? They are still human and fragile.

So I'm not under "law" any more. But the non-elect are!

So I can have like all the kalua and egg nog I want. YOU, can only have one sip per week! You're still under "law", I'm not.

I can even go in drag if I want to! I might have to as a disguise one day, who knows?

rofl

NOTE. I'm not hijacking this thread, because the nature of the JIOR, the secret woman whom God hides in the wilderness, is pertinent to the kingdom. The Lazarus class is said to have a chasm separating him from the Rich Man. This "chasm" is spiritual. Thus the elect cannot cross over to those non-elect and visa versa. God prevents it. One of the ways this is done is by the different standards of law applied.

LS

42

VERY DEEP QUESTIONS for elect/annointed/those with insight/holy spirit/etc

by EndofMysteries in

only need answer if you have already researched, come to an understanding, or have seen this and currently figuring it out.

if you have no idea what i'm talking about, then question doesn't apply to you as i feel it's information that is only understood at the right time and to those allowed to get understanding of it.. ***if you would like to give me some answers, but feel the information can't be posted publically or your restricted in whom to give it to, feel free to message me directly.

that's also why i am asking these questions in a way in which only you would understand, but i do not know how to find you otherwise.. .

Larsinger58

3. "Get out of her my people if you do not want to share in her sins" - "I am sending you as sheep amidst wolves, to be cautious as servants yet innocent as doves" - how do you take the two statements to relate, have you solved this paradox, currently working on it, or have no idea what I'm talking about?

This addresses two things. "Get out of her, MY people" is a reference to getting out of Babylon the Great, specifically the WTS who becomes part of BTG when it becomes apostate. Thus association with the WTS during the "temple" period is acceptable. But that period ended in 1996. Now Jesus and Jehovah have abandoned the WTS and they are considered to be part of "Babylon the Great" now and thus the command to "get out of her."

This, however, has nothing to do with the specifics of the dangers and nature of the preaching work. They would have to go out and preach and thus are warned to be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves, as they as sheep being sent among wolves. I don't think the "wolves" in particular have to do with the Christian congregation, but to those in Christendom they would be preaching to and the world, in general. So this has to do with preaching to others and not the congregation.

Hope this was a help.

LS

42

VERY DEEP QUESTIONS for elect/annointed/those with insight/holy spirit/etc

by EndofMysteries in

only need answer if you have already researched, come to an understanding, or have seen this and currently figuring it out.

if you have no idea what i'm talking about, then question doesn't apply to you as i feel it's information that is only understood at the right time and to those allowed to get understanding of it.. ***if you would like to give me some answers, but feel the information can't be posted publically or your restricted in whom to give it to, feel free to message me directly.

that's also why i am asking these questions in a way in which only you would understand, but i do not know how to find you otherwise.. .

Larsinger58

2. Have you come upon the paradox of knowledge vs faith, in which more knowledge could mean condemnation vs ignorance. Is knowledge only for elect and non elect are better off without it or is full knowledge to be broadcast to all.

On a technical level, yes. Those who have more, more will be requested. Thus clearly the Jews who knew the Law would be judged on a higher standard. But aggressively seeking to avoid knowledge is considered laziness and that would not excuse one. This is clear from the parable of the 10 virgins, where the 5 foolish virgins were too lazy or disinterested to carry the extra oil. So if you are ignorant because you can't help it, you're in the middle of the Amazon and never saw a Bible, that's one thing. But if you have a Bible and just don't feel like reading it, that's not an excuse.

Attitude is everything. Remember, even the five wise virgins "nodded" and their lamps grew dim at the same time as the 5 foolish virgins. So some knowledge would not be available until the right time. But when that time came, the wise virgins had the enthusiasm for the new knowledge, they had the right attitude and then their lamps burned brightly. Some people don't like chronology or parables or think there is anything complex about these. They are content with just the basics. That is a critical error when it comes to the kingdom. Those who get into the kingdom must "exert yourself vigorously" -- no lazy virgins who figure ignorance will be an excuse when the opportunity to know is there. Closing your eyes to the Bible is not the same as having no Bible to open.

LS