djeggnog

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 660 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Witness My Fury wrote:

  Do the "seventy years" count from Jerusalems destruction or not?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Yes.

  @Witness My Fury wrote:

  What does the bible actually say...?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  The Bible clearly does speak of 70 years of servitude to King Nebuchadnezzar, but Jewish servitude didn't begin until Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year in 618 BC. (Jeremiah 25:11) More importantly though, it was during Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year in 607 BC when Jerusalem was destroyed and Zedekiah, who had fled Jerusalem, was overtaken at Jericho, blinded and then led captive to Babylon.

  The 587 BC advocates cannot reconcile 587 BC with 539 BC, because it isn't possible to find 70 years between 587 BC and 539 BC, for one would be 22 years shy of fulfilling those 70 years that God declared the land must lay desolate to pay off its sabbaths.

  While Jeremiah 25:11 does speak of "these nations" being forced to serve King Nebuchadnezzar for "seventy years," it was not until 607 BC that Judah began to lie desolate just as Jehovah had foretold would occur by His prophet Jeremiah, some 11 years after the servitude of "these nations" in the Syria-Palestine region had already begun in 618 BC. It was only then -- in 607 BC -- that "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon" by the Jews began, during which "the land [would pay] off its sabbaths ... to fulfill seventy years." (Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:21)

  @Jonathan Dough wrote:

  This is false. According to the JWs, the 70 years lasted exactly 70 years to the month, not from Jerusalem's destruction.

  No, actually the 70 years would begin counting from the desolation of Judah. Solomon's temple was destroyed some two months before the desolation of Judah began, since Gedaliah had been appointed as governor in Judah in the fifth lunar month of Ab, only be assassinated two months later by Judean military chiefs in the seventh lunar month of Tishri, which caused the inhabitants of Judah to flee to Egypt along with Jeremiah and his secretary. It is then in this year -- 607 BC -- that Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar's chief of the bodyguard, went on to destroy Jerusalem and its temple.

  Now earlier in this thread, I indicated how 2 Kings 25:8 states that it was after Gedaliah's assassination that Nebuchadnezzar's chief of the bodyguard Nebuzaradan destroys Jerusalem and his temple during Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year, when I had intended to say that this event occurred before his assassination. It was some two months after Zedekiah's first year in exile that Babylon began to exercise totalitarian control over the Promised Land that God had given to the nation of Israel back in 1473 BC as the dominant world power.

  The Watchtower Society in its publication Let Your Kingdom Come....

  I am not going to respond to statements that might have been published in older publications produced by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. As I stated in a previous message, this book you mention here was first published back in 1946 and then it was revised in 1952, and Jehovah's Witnesses do not recognize this book as containing information in it as reliable as the information found in our 21st century publications.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  The Bible actually says there were inhabitants living in Jerusalem's ruins after that time (Ezek. 33:21-24).

  @djeggnog wrote:

  No, it doesn't. You seem to be arguing just to be arguing with me, for none of the arguments you make here have any merit. Here's what the Bible does say about the desolated state of Jerusalem and the land of Judah:

  Jeremiah 33:10:

  "'This is what Jehovah has said, ‘In this place that you people will be saying is waste without man and without domestic animal, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem that are desolated without man and without inhabitant and without domestic animal....''

  2 Chronicles 36:20, 21:

  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; 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.

  @Jonathan Dough:

  You are very much mistaken in this regard also, and Anne is absolutely correct. There were in fact inhabitants in all that land that the JWs argue was 100 percent uninhabited.

  Ok.

  The reference to the land paying off its sabbaths is a direct reference to Leviticus 26:32-35 which also should have been brought to the readers' attention.

  Why? Well, not the reference I made in this thread to "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon" by the Jews during which "the land [would pay] off its sabbaths ... to fulfill seventy years" didn't come from Leviticus 26:32-35, but to Jeremiah 29:10 and 2 Chronicles 36:21.

  Third, in the book of the exiled prophet Ezekiel he reiterated Jehovah’s word which stated that the devastated places were inhabited.

  23 And the word of Jehovah began to occur to me, saying: 24 "Son of man, the inhabitants of these devastated places are saying even concerning the soil of Israel, ‘Abraham happened to be just one and yet he took possession of the land. And we are many; to us the land has been given as something to possess.’

  You are here quoting something from Ezekiel 33:23, 24, and you believe you understood what you were reading when you really do not. Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed when Ezekiel was given a prophecy from Jehovah as if what eventually did happen had already happened. Nebuchadnezzar had besieged Jerusalem for some 18 months before it finally fell to the Babylonians. You didn't quote Ezekiel 33:22, which states:

  "Now the very hand of Jehovah had come to be upon me in the evening before the coming of the escaped one, and He proceeded to open my mouth prior to that one’s coming to me in the morning, and my mouth was opened and I proved to be speechless no longer."

  This prophecy wasn't fulfilled until Ezekiel had received confirmation from the "escaped one" from Judah that Solomon's temple had been destroyed. Even so, despite the destruction of the temple, those "left over" (Ezekiel 34:18) as survivors in the land of Judah continued to eat unbled meat, still engaged in idolatry, still committed adultery, so they had no right to be in possession of the Land that God had given to Abraham and to his seed in which to live, which was the real point that you seemed to miss! (Ezekiel 33:25, 26) This is why the land of Judah was to become desolate with neither man nor animal living there for 70 years to pay off its sabbaths.

  Since these escaped ones were being hunted down and chased by the sword it is highly unlikely they waited to return seventy years later at the advanced age of 80 or 90 after Cyrus issued his famous decree allowing the Jews to return home. So, even though devastated, a ruin, a waste etc., Judah was inhabited after its destruction.

  Actually, I believe the Bible when it indicates that the land of Judah wasn't inhabited.

  There is no sound scriptural reason for implying that the devastated place of Jeremiah 25:11 was without inhabitant.

  What makes you say this? Is the Sovereign Lord Jehovah told his prophet Jeremiah that the land of Judah "must become a desolated place, an object of astonishment," and that nations like Egypt, Tyre, Moab and the Medes listed at Jeremiah 25:17-26, would have to drink from Jehovah's "cup" and "serve the king of Babylon seventy years," just as it states at Jeremiah 25:11, then I would consider this to be a very "sound scriptural reason" to conclude that the land of Judah became "a desolated place, an object of astonishment."

  Sixth, given the foregoing scriptural certainty, the phrase "a desolate waste, without inhabitant" or similar variant, was never meant to be taken literally.

  Is that how you see it? You may have your reasons to take Jeremiah's prophecy as being a figure of speech, but I take his prophecy to be literal. You can believe what you want to believe.

  @PSacramento wrote:

  607 has been beaten to death.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  It has? Ok.

  @PSacramento wrote:

  It has been shown over and over and over to be wrong.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Ok.

  @PSacramento wrote:

  It has been shown via the bible, via history, via astronomy, via archeology.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I may have referred to cuneiform tablets, but I have primarily referred to the Bible in making the case that the land of Judah began to pay off its sabbaths to fulfill 70 years in the year 607 BC.

  @Jonathan Dough wrote:

  You are actually weakening your case when you rely on Leviticus to prove that the land of Judah began to pay off its sabbaths to fulfill 70 years, and had you quoted the entire relevant verses instead of select portions you would clearly see that your theory actually disproves 70 years, an exact number to the month according to the WTBS, because it ended while the Jews were in Babylon, not when they supposedly returned. You fall one or two years short. This is a common trick used by the Jws with these verses.

  What "common trick"? When did I make a case here about something contained in the Bible book of Leviticus? About what exactly was this "case" of mine?

  I recall @AnnOMaly's making a reference to something in Leviticus, but I think you might be conflating my comments here with something you may have read in Setting the Record Straight, which you have characterized as being a recitation of de facto doctrines believed by Jehovah's Witnesses. I have told you and Im telling you again that "just because someone claims to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses does not mean that what that individual says accords with our viewpoint."

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Alwayshere:

  djeggnog, still has never provided a scripture from the Bible where it says, Jerusalem was desolated in King Neb. 18th year. And that's because he can't.

  Even if were to provide such a scripture, you would still not believe Jerusalem was destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year. I believe you would refuse to understand that one can reckon the reign of Nebuchadnezzar by the inclusion of his accession year, which is the reason Jeremiah makes reference to Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year at 2 Kings 25:8 and at Jeremiah 52:12, but, in a previous message, I did provide a scripture where the same prophet -- Jeremiah -- makes reference to Nebuchadnezzar's (Nebuchadrezzar's) eighteenth year:

  I should point out to you that the date of Jerusalem's destruction would only be Nebuchadnezzar's "nineteenth" year if counting from his accession year as Jeremiah does at Jeremiah 52:12 (2 Kings 25:8), but it would be his "eighteenth" regnal year, which is the reckoning that Jeremiah uses at Jeremiah 52:29.

  Open up your copy of the Bible and hopefully you won't be found here arguing still that there is no mention in the Bible that refers to Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth regnal year.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  The following is the balance of my Post 398:

  @Jonathan Dough wrote:

  A cursory reading of the phrase "In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon …" might suggest that the seventy years entailed the entire nation being exiled at Babylon seventy years which could only happen if the period began at Jerusalem’s destruction. Under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, "at Babylon" is more properly rendered "for Babylon." The difference is significant.... [¶] This is a serious point of contention. The question is whether Jeremiah 29:10 may properly read "In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon?"

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I found this comment of yours rejecting the word "at" in translating Jeremiah 29:10 in favor of the word "for" is ridiculous.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  Hardly. The rendering 'for' is borne out by the context. The discrepancy in the WTS time-line cannot be satisfactorily resolved if the preposition 'at' is used here.

  I don't use any "WTS time-line," @AnnOMaly. The Bible's timeline happens to agree with what you are referring to as a "WTS time-line," but I have not used here, and do not now use, anyone else's timeline, but the Bible's own. If you feel you must reject my timeline because some deviation exists between it and your timeline, I'm ok with that since, unlike you, I accept the Bible's timeline on faith, and would never think to substitute Ptolemy's Canon, for example, for God's word, which I believe to be true.

  As I see it, the fact that you are here making a federal case out as to the word "at" being used instead of "for," just as @Jonathan Dough had done, suggests a resentment on your part as to my attacking your agenda, for your rather weak case and @Jonathan Dough's) isn't made any stronger based on this insistence on the use (or non-use, actually) of a preposition. Whatever.

  Further to your follow-up Post 1821:

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  Nabonidus was thought to have come from a different dynasty and thus, as son-in-law, would not have been blood related to Nebuchadnezzar. 'In-laws' are very often not blood related to each other - did you know that?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  But it's clear that although I do admit writing that "I do not agree with the view of the author of Setting the Record Straight as to Nabonidus not being a "blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar," there is no legitimate excuse for your making the argument, "'In-laws' are very often not blood related to each other - did you know that?" to me.

  @AnnOMaly:

  You are blustering about one easily resolvable thing (Nabonidus was not blood related to Nebucahdnezzar - you made a(nother) mistake and agree after all), and go on and on and on and on and on and on and on ... and on ... but you are completely ignoring the 'weightier matters' of the discussion YET AGAIN!

  How so? It isn't relevant that Nabonidus wasn't a blood relative of Nebuchadnezzar. When I wrote that "I do not agree with the view ... as to Nabonidus not being a 'blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar,'" I had intended to write that I don't believe it accurate for the author of Setting the Record Straight to have said that "the captive Jews also served other kings of Babylon, including Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus, none of whom bore any blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar." I shouldn't have singled out Nabondius at all, for the point I wished to make (but missed!) was that I don't agree that none of these "other kings of Babylon, including Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus," bore any blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar, for Belshazzar, being the offspring of Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law, Nabonidus, his eldest son by Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, Nitocris, would have made Belshazzar a "blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar."

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Jonathan Dough wrote:

  This is not an all-encompassing list of the kings of Babylon which the nations served seventy years. Even 607- defenders in Setting the Record Straight are of the same view:

  In fulfillment of Jeremiah 27:7, the exiled Jews did in fact literally serve Nebuchadnezzar’s son (Evilmerodach) and Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson (co-regent Belshazzer, whose mother was reportedly Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, Nitocris). However, the captive Jews also served other kings of Babylon, including Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus, none of whom bore any blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, the words at Jeremiah 27:7, though indisputably true, were obviously not meant to be an all-encompassing list of rulers whom the Jews would serve during the seventy years.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I do not agree with the view of the author of Setting the Record Straight as to Nabonidus not being a "blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar." I believe Nebuchadnezzar reigned as king of Babylon from 625/624 BC for 43 years, and was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach (Amil-Marduk), as king of Babylon from 581 BC for two years. Evil-Merodach was assassinated by Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer), his brother-in-law, who succeeded him as king of Babylon from 579 BC for four years, and when he died, his son Labashi-Marduk succeeded him as king of Babylon in 575 BC for three months when he was assassinated.

  Nabonidus, who, like Neriglissar, was one of Nebuchadnezzar's sons-in-law, became the king of Babylon after Labashi-Marduk's assassination in 575/574 for 35 years along with his son and crown prince, Belshazzar, for at least 17 years (I believe Belshazzar became coregent of Babylon with Nabonidus during the third year of his father's reign in 572 BC), who, where he lived in Babylon, was considered the king of Babylon, whereas Nabonidus lived primarily in Arabia, until 539 BC when the Medes and Persians under Cyrus deposed Babylon, bringing the Babylonian Dynasty to an end.

  Evil-Merodach was, in fact, a blood relative of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, and since Nabonidus was Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law, this means that his eldest son, Belshazzar, was also a blood relative of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar's grandson. In fact, this is exactly what Jeremiah 27:7 prophesied as to "him" (Nebuchadnezzar), "his son" (Evil-Merodach) and "his grandson" (Belshazzar).

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  Nabonidus was thought to have come from a different dynasty and thus, as son-in-law, would not have been blood related to Nebuchadnezzar. 'In-laws' are very often not blood related to each other - did you know that?

  This is not the first time I've told you that I find you to be petty and also someone that relishes the ability you've no doubt perfected in the art of faultfinding. It was a typo, actually a misstatement on my part, to have not more clearly indicated to @Jonathan Dough to what it was I disagreed in Setting the Record Straight, which @Jonathan Dough regards as stating what are the de facto doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses, when, as I pointed out to him, it cannot be such considering the number of erroneous statements I've discovered from @Jonathan Dough's piece on his website, statements with which I cannot agree as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Before I try to make the point I feel I need to make, not so much for you, @AnnOMaly, but for the lurkers that I believe are reading my posts with interest, I'm going to digress here just to make the point to @Jonathan Dough that he may be accustomed to discussing or debating Bible-related topics with others based on statements published in Bible-study aids published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (WTS) or by Jehovah's Witnesses that do so independently of the WTS, but my remarks here are typically not cut-and-pasted from WTS publications since over time many of the statements found in our publications become faulty and require adjustments from what they indicate was our viewpoint in the month and year of publication.

  I am not like the many Jehovah's Witnesses that cannot defend their faith without making a trip to the home library they maintain of older WTS publications which might go back some 50, 60 years (or more!), which library serves as a crutch for them, or, nowadays, the Watchtower Library cdrom on which books in retirement like Let God Be True first published in 1946 and then revised in 1952 aren't included, and are no longer needed due to what our progressive understanding of the Bible is today, and which is likewise a crutch.

  Personally, I use WTS publications to find articles on select topics that I believe will be of benefit to those seeking answers that I do not have the time to give them, just as I do offer many of our publications to folks in my field ministry that express interest in certain Bible topics, but who, because of their busy schedules, aren't able to discuss such topics at length with me in person during the day when I make myself available (although I do speak to many of these folks on the phone or via email until I can arrange for someone to visit them at their homes or business in person).

  While I would have no problem reporting an hour per month for Bible-related discussions had with disfellowshipped persons using one of our publications, there is currently no arrangement in effect for reporting the time one might spend on websites like this one with folks that may or may not be disfellowshipped or the time spent in having such discussions via email (although any time spent on the telephone may be reported), so there is no real "upside" to my having Bible-related discussions here on JWN, except to the lurkers that read these threads.

  The material contained in such libraries can be a very good resource when conducting research, but if one does not learn anything from whatever it is they are reading, including the significance of what was learned through such research to the scriptural passage that prompted the research in the first place, then he or she is really a cripple tied to the resource itself, as are many Jehovah's Witnesses today that become like the cripples that taught them. When I teach, I primarily use the Bible, so anyone "perfectly instructed" by me will not become a cripple. (Luke 6:40)

  But there are those among us (or who were once among us!) that will cut-and-paste here on JWN from something they read in a volume of Studies in the Scriptures or read in the Vindication book or in a Watchtower from, say, 1978, in order to prove a point that they do not know is no longer a viewpoint held by Jehovah's Witnesses!

  Now this is not unlike quoting on May 21, 2011, something that was printed in WTS publications after February 18, 1930, and before August 23, 2006, that refers to Pluto as if it were still a planet! It is hard for me to take seriously someone that would posit a faulty argument of any kind without realizing the foolhardiness of their hiring a taxi for a 20-minute trip to the airport at 7:15 pm in order to catch a flight scheduled to leave at 7:30 pm that actually departed the gate on time at 7:30 pm when one hasn't even purchased a ticket for the flight.

  While the ability to think and reason on the Scriptures isn't a prerequisite for baptism, many of those that become Jehovah's Witnesses do not know how to do either of these things well, and many leave our ranks thinking they understand the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, but the very fact that they leave us for this reason or for that reason is proof that they really do not know the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as they ought to know them. This is one of the main reasons why I do not always respond to your posts, @AnnOMaly, because you often sound clueless to me since you do not really know what the Bible teaches, and it seems that you are totally unaware that when you are attacking the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses that you are really prosecuting a war against the Almighty since the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible!

  Because I typically dictate to my PC what things I post here, I have no use for cutting-and-pasting anything contained in WTS publications, so if I should post something from one of our publications, I will do so only when my doing so serves as a correction to some statement in one of them that may have been taken out of context, and so when I am quoting from one of our publications, I will so state! But I will, for the most part, just use the Bible here on JWN, and I have studied the Bible long enough to be able to respond to any Bible-related question, including the unfounded statements that @Jonathan Dough has been making in his attempt to use the Bible book of Ezekiel to do so, to whose messages I intend to respond, but later in another message due to time constraints that prevented me from completing it at this time. (End of digression.)

  I have said that I have found you to be a petty individual, and I said this not to be unkind, but because were you to have actually read what I wrote in context, I believe, despite the imperfect statement I made in disputing something contained in Setting the Record Straight as to these "other kings of Babylon, including Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus, none of whom bore any blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar" to whom the Jews became subject during their years as exiles in Babylon, I believe you knew, or should have known, that my intent wasn't to suggest that Nabonidus was a "blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar," since I had made the point that Nabonidus and Neriglissar were "Nebuchadnezzar's sons-in-law," did I not?

  Your pettiness, @AnnOMaly, served to prevent you from reasoning on how any of what I had stated was consistent with my statement about Nabonidus not being a "blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar." Once you came upon the words, "Nabonidus, who, like Neriglissar, was one of Nebuchadnezzar's sons-in-law..., then my error should have been apparent to you for unless we're talking about incest, a son-in-law will never be anyone's "blood relation," would it? Anyway, in the very next paragraph, where I refer to Nabonidus' "eldest son, Belshazzar," as being "a blood relative of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar's grandson.

  The point that I had been attempting to make is that in fulfillment of Jeremiah 27:7, Evil-Merodach was "Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son" and Belshazzar was "Nebuchadnezzar's grandson," for since Nabonidus (Labynetus), Belshazzar's father, was Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law (see Nabonidus and Belshazzar (1929) by Dougherty, Raymond P., at p. 63), this would mean that he would have become related to Nebuchadnezzar by marriage to one of Nebuchadnezzar's daughters. It was through his marriage to Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, Nitocris, that Nabonidus became Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law, and the son born to this marital union was Belshazzar, Nabonidus' firstborn, and also Nebuchadnezzar's blood relative, his grandson. I even ended by stating:

  In fact, this is exactly what Jeremiah 27:7 prophesied as to "him" (Nebuchadnezzar), "his son" (Evil-Merodach) and "his grandson" (Belshazzar).

  But it's clear that although I do admit writing that "I do not agree with the view of the author of Setting the Record Straight as to Nabonidus not being a "blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar," there is no legitimate excuse for your making the argument, "'In-laws' are very often not blood related to each other - did you know that?" to me. I cannot take anyone seriously that would make such a bogus argument and I don't take you seriously, @AnnOMaly. I may make yet more typos and mistakes in the future, but I'm honest about them, but the argument you made here is dishonest, and the reason I responded to this comment of yours is because I felt you were entitled to a response (even though I would rather have ignored your post altogether!), and to make the point I had sought to make (but totally missed!) as to the relationship of Belshazzar to Nebuchadnezzar clear to the lurkers here on JWN.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Jonathan Dough:

  The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. Mainstream Christian theologians, archeologists and historians take the position that it was destroyed in 587 or 586 B.C.E., a view supported by the overwhelming weight of archeological and historical evidence, and an objective reading of the Bible.

  While it is true that Jehovah's Witnesses have concluded that it was in the year 607 BC that Babylon destroyed Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, which led to the desolation of the land of Judah and the exile of the Jews at Babylon during a 70-year period, our view is supported by an objective reading of the Bible, whereas the viewpoint of some as to Jerusalem's destruction having occurred in the year 587/586 BC is based on archeological evidence and secular history as to dates assumed in "king-lists" having to do with the reigns of the Babylonian Dynasty, king-lists derived from documents like Ptolemy's Canon, dates which do not and cannot be reconciled with any objective reading of the Bible since the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings contained in such king-lists do not span the years of Babylonian exile during this 70-year period and the dates assigned to the reign of these kings all fail to consider either the deposing of Babylon and the release of the Jews by Cyrus after 68 years of exile at Babylon, and the repatriation of Judah by the Jews at the end of 70 years as set forth in the Bible.

  The Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this archeological and historical evidence because it does not harmonize with their religious beliefs. Instead, they essentially confine their evidence to their interpretation of Scripture.

  Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept evidence that amounts to the best-guesses of astronomers and historians as to the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings during the 70-year period of the Jews' exile in Babylon that are in conflict with the Bible on which our interpretation of Scripture is based.

  Accordingly, this paper confines itself primarily to scriptural interpretation, and logic, and proves that Jerusalem was not, and could not have been, destroyed in 607 B.C.E., but was destroyed in either 587 or 586 B.C.E., a view which harmonizes with substantial and persuasive archeological and historical facts.

  I read this paper in its entirety and while I cannot claim to understand that I understood what it was you meant by "primarily" here (and I don't make such a claim!), it does not prove either scripturally or logically that Jerusalem was destroyed in either 587 BC or 586 BC, or that Jerusalem wasn't destroyed by Babylon in 607 BC.

  The year 607 B.C.E. plays a crucial role in the religious tenets of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In accordance with their interpretation of Scripture, 607 B.C.E. is fundamental, a watershed which serves as a foundation for their faith and philosophy. Based upon mathematical calculations derived primarily from the book of Daniel, the Jehovah’s Witnesses count forward 2,520 years from the fall of 607 B.C.E. to arrive at the fall of A.D. 1914 - the onslaught of World War I and the year in which they believe the End Times commenced. 1914 is also believed to be the year Jesus Christ was enthroned in heaven as ruling king of the Kingdom of God, which is yet another false teaching addressed in detail in the accompanying article found here. This author is primarily concerned with whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E.

  Whatever it is Jehovah's Witnesses believe as to when the end times began is totally irrelevant in this thread, and mention of what our view is as to any 2,520-year period has nothing at all to do with your proving whether or not Jerusalem suffered destruction by the Babylonians in 607 BC. I wish to point out that the very fact that you again use the word "primarily" here twice suggests that this paper serves some secondary agenda having nothing at all to do with this thread.

  The Jehovah's Witnesses insist they are God's only true prophet, writing: "So does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?...This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses...Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it," (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197). (See Deut. 18:21.)

  Again, your comment here as to whether it is appropriate for Jehovah's Witnesses to describe themselves as prophets of God according to our interpretation of Scripture is a matter of your theological opinion, but if you are of the opinion that true prophets of God would be prognosticators as well as those bearing messages from God, we believe ourselves to be both of these, even if you should be of the opinion that there are no true prophets of God associated with any Christian denomination today. Moreover, whatever it is you might opine in this regard has no relevance to what we believe ourselves to be. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

  With respect to 1914, the Jehovah’s Witnesses regard this year, and the method by which they arrive there, as prophecy. If, however, Jerusalem did not fall in 607 B.C.E. and if it fell in 587/6 B.C.E. their prophetic date is off by twenty years, and false, and would cause other critical dates in their belief structure to fail.

  I will incorporate here my comments above as to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as to the significance of the year 1914, for whatever our beliefs might be in this regard has absolutely nothing at all with whether or not Jerusalem's destruction occurred in 607 BC or if this event occurred in 587/586 BC, the subject of this thread.

  The Jehovah's Witnesses regard this enthronement of Christ to be the long-awaited Second Coming of Christ, whereas mainstream Christians believe the Second Coming and His parousia (presence) are in the future as heralded at Matthew 24:30,31 and Mark 13:24-32. The fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Second Coming and parousia have already occurred is cause for serious reflection and concern.

  Again, I will incorporate here my comments above as to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as to our interpretation of when Jesus' second coming began, for whatever our beliefs might be in this regard has absolutely nothing at all with whether or not Jerusalem's destruction occurred in 607 BC or if this event occurred in 587/586 BC, the subject of this thread.

  (What follows is quoted from the link:)

  An abbreviated form of this seventy-year prophecy, unfortunately taken out of context, and reproduced in the article Setting the Record Straight - a fierce and very comprehensive defense of the Jehovah’s Witnesses' pro-607 stance - provides:

  The word that occurred to Jeremiah . . . concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . . all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. —Jeremiah 25:1a, 2, 11.

  I took the time to read your piece regarding what you indicated was going to be a scriptural consideration of this topic to which a link embedded in your message took me, but what I read turned out to be a refutation by you of some article called "Setting the Record Straight" that was written by someone else whose comments I do not associate myself since Setting the Record Straight doesn't accurately reflect what the Bible says as to the desolation of Judah as to the meaning of Jeremiah's words at 2 Chronicles 36:21 regarding the land of Judah's being made to lay desolate "until the land had paid off its sabbaths ... to fulfill seventy years," or as to the meaning of Jeremiah words at Jeremiah 25:11.

  It should be pointed out that should either prong of this composite two-prong approach fail, the entire prophecy, or their version of it, fails.

  Frankly, I don't care if either prong of the "two-prong approach" taken by whoever should be the author of Setting the Record Straight should fail, for even if the author should he or she profess to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, if his or her comments should be in conflict with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, I would consider them to be irrelevant to this discussion.

  As such, we are essentially dealing with two primary areas of interest related to a) when Judah’s devastation began and ended, and the extent of that devastation, and b) when servitude to the king of Babylon began and ended, what servitude meant, and to whom it applied. [Setting] the Record Straight frames the Jehovah’s Witnesses' position as follows:

  While some critics argue that Jeremiah 25:11 only refers to seventy years of servitude, Daniel 9:2 confirms that the prophecy also entailed seventy years of devastation for the land of Judah. Second Chronicles 36:20, 21 further shows that it was the composite effect of exiling the remaining ones who "came to be servants to [Nebuchadnezzar]" and the resulting devastation and desolation of the land of Judah that began to fulfill the prophecy concerning the seventy years.

  No, we aren't. You might want to address these two "primary areas of interest," but what you quoted here from Setting the Record Straight is not consistent with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  This paper begins with an analysis of the underlying issues presented by the phrase a) "and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years" (servitude), followed by a discussion of issues pertaining to the phrase b) "all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment" (devastation).

  Well, I have no comment since whatever it is you might say with reference to either or both of the two "prongs" advanced by the author of Setting the Record Straight, even if you should believe them to be relevant to this discussion as to the meaning of 2 Chronicles 36:21 regarding Judah's desolation "until the land had paid off its sabbaths ... to fulfill seventy years," and as to the meaning of Jeremiah 25:11 as to the nations themselves, including Egypt, Tyre, Moab and the Medes listed at Jeremiah 25:17-26, having to drink from Jehovah's "cup" during this period and "serve the king of Babylon seventy years" when Babylon had become the dominant world power.

  This is not an all-encompassing list of the kings of Babylon which the nations served seventy years. Even 607- defenders in Setting the Record Straight are of the same view:

  In fulfillment of Jeremiah 27:7, the exiled Jews did in fact literally serve Nebuchadnezzar’s son (Evilmerodach) and Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson (co-regent Belshazzer, whose mother was reportedly Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, Nitocris). However, the captive Jews also served other kings of Babylon, including Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus, none of whom bore any blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, the words at Jeremiah 27:7, though indisputably true, were obviously not meant to be an all-encompassing list of rulers whom the Jews would serve during the seventy years.

  I do not agree with the view of the author of Setting the Record Straight as to Nabonidus not being a "blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar." I believe Nebuchadnezzar reigned as king of Babylon from 625/624 BC for 43 years, and was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach (Amil-Marduk), as king of Babylon from 581 BC for two years. Evil-Merodach was assassinated by Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer), his brother-in-law, who succeeded him as king of Babylon from 579 BC for four years, and when he died, his son Labashi-Marduk succeeded him as king of Babylon in 575 BC for three months when he was assassinated.

  Nabonidus, who, like Neriglissar, was one of Nebuchadnezzar's sons-in-law, became the king of Babylon after Labashi-Marduk's assassination in 575/574 for 35 years along with his son and crown prince, Belshazzar, for at least 17 years (I believe Belshazzar became coregent of Babylon with Nabonidus during the third year of his father's reign in 572 BC), who, where he lived in Babylon, was considered the king of Babylon, whereas Nabonidus lived primarily in Arabia, until 539 BC when the Medes and Persians under Cyrus deposed Babylon, bringing the Babylonian Dynasty to an end.

  Evil-Merodach was, in fact, a blood relative of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, and since Nabonidus was Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law, this means that his eldest son, Belshazzar, was also a blood relative of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar's grandson. In fact, this is exactly what Jeremiah 27:7 prophesied as to "him" (Nebuchadnezzar), "his son" (Evil-Merodach) and "his grandson" (Belshazzar).

  A cursory reading of the phrase "In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon …" might suggest that the seventy years entailed the entire nation being exiled at Babylon seventy years which could only happen if the period began at Jerusalem’s destruction. Under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, "at Babylon" is more properly rendered "for Babylon." The difference is significant.... [¶] This is a serious point of contention. The question is whether Jeremiah 29:10 may properly read "In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon?"

  I found this comment of yours rejecting the word "at" in translating Jeremiah 29:10 in favor of the word "for" is ridiculous.

  As will be demonstrated in the following sections, "at Babylon" is not a proper translation and more importantly it cannot logically be used because it fails numerous tests. The question of what the correct interpretation is will be revisited later because employing the correct interpretation requires drawing a conclusion; it is a judgment call derived after a process of scriptural analysis and the application of common sense.

  Yes, this is, as you say, "a judgment call" on your part, and scriptural analysis nor common sense have anything to do with a literal rendering of this verse. You do not agree with the way in which Jeremiah 29:10 is rendered and that's what this is about; "at" is disfavored because it doesn't fit your interpretation of this verse. I have no problem with your interpreting this verse in a way that differs from the way in which Jehovah's Witnesses interpret it though. I suppose it might be said that we, too, made a "judgment call."

  [If] the seventy-year period ended in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell and the Persians and Medes began to reign while the exiles were still in Babylon, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Return theory fails in three significant ways: a) the seventy years obviously did not end upon their return in 537 B.C.E., b) their seventy-year period amounts to only 68 years from 607 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E., and c) from the fall of Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. to the exiles’ return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. there was no king of Babylon to serve. So when exactly did the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 end, whereby "these nations" would stop serving the king of Babylon seventy years? It ended in October, 539 B.C.E., not upon their return in 537 B.C.E.

  The land of Judah lay desolate for seventy years

  Jeremiah foretold that the land of Judah's would be made to lay desolate "until the land had paid off its sabbaths ... to fulfill seventy years" (2 Chronicles 36:21). The fact that during this 70-year period, the Jews were exiles in Babylon for at least 68 of these 70 years. Actually Daniel had been an exile in Babylon for 11 years longer than 68 years, for he, along with his wives, his mother, his court officials and other "foremost men," became exiles at Babylon "in the eighth year" of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship when Jehoiachin's vassalage to Babylon ended. (2 Kings 24:12) This was when Daniel's name was changed to "Belteshazzar."

  We know that Daniel's reference to "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 could not have been referring to Nebuchadnezzar's second year as king of Babylon since not only did Daniel not become an exile in Babylon until the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but 2 Kings 24:17, 18, indicates that Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, reigned as king of Judah "for eleven years," which means that it wasn't until Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year that Zedekiah's reign ended. Daniel had already been an exile in Babylon for 11 years when Solomon's temple was destroyed in Jerusalem, so the first year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar with Babylon as the dominant world power was Daniel's 11th year as a Babylonian exile, and the "second year" of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship would have been Daniel's 12th year. Thus, when reckoning 607 BC as Daniel's 11th year in Babylon, then some 68 years later when Cyrus deposed Babylon in 539 BC, this would mean that Daniel had been an Babylonian exile for 79 years (11 + 68).

  The seventy years ended when Babylon fell, not two years later when the exiles stepped foot back on the soil of Judah.

  This would be your opinion, but you cannot prove that the 70 years ended with Babylon's fall, can you?

  Jeremiah 29:10 likewise concludes the end of the seventy-year period of servitude while the Jews were in Babylon, not after they returned.

  No, it doesn't; this would be your opinion, your interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10. I don't regard strong assertions as being the same as proof.

  The Jehovah’s Witnesses at page 24 contradict themselves because they also claim that Ezra wrote that the seventy years ran until the first year of Cyrus which they submit was his first regnal year, which would actually be his second year of having power.

  If your reference to "page 24" should refer to Setting the Record Straight, even if you should find there to be contradictions in what you read on this page, Setting the Record Straightdoesn't provide the official viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses, so I have no comment. Just because someone claims to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses does not mean that what that individual says accords with our viewpoint, as clearly many of the folks here on JWN profess to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but they know even as I know that they are not what they claim to be as betrayed by many of the things they have stated in this and in other JWN threads.

  As I stated at the outset, and despite your many countervailing viewpoints with regard to this topic, this paper of yours doesn't do what you said it would do -- it doesn't prove either scripturally or logically that Jerusalem was destroyed in either 587 BC or 586 BC, or that Jerusalem wasn't destroyed by Babylon in 607 BC.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @beenthere26yr:

  I proclaim nothing except that Jesus is the son of God and that he was sent to save us by being the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. That he was crucified, dead and buried. He was [resurrected] and sits with our father to judge us. Jesus will judge me and whatever the outcome of his judgement I accept.

  What does any of what you say here have to do with this topic? You are like that Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke at John 4:6-26, who, as a Samaritan that had obtained some knowledge about Jehovah God from the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and knew much of the same things having to do with Moses as had the Jews, and knew that God's name is Jehovah, was a total stranger to God's sacred pronouncements, the prophetic word, prophecies like Jeremiah's and Daniel's, which is what we've been discussing here in this thread, a woman that was unfamiliar with what God had revealed about himself in the additional 34 books that had become the Bible at that time, a person that as Jesus said at John 4:22, "You worship what you do not know."

  With her limited knowledge derived from the Torah, Jesus told this Samaritan woman that she didn't know God at all, for, as Paul pointed out at Romans 3:2, it was to the Jews that God "entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God." The Jews knew Jehovah; this Samaritan woman with her limited understanding, did not know a thing about what Jeremiah said, what Daniel said, what Ezra wrote, none of it.

  During the first century AD, after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, starting with when Jesus poured out holy spirit upon the 120 men and women that had been gathered in that upper room there in Jerusalem, the resurrection of Jesus Christ first began to be preached. Yes, God did send his son, Jesus Christ, to give his human life "as a ransom in exchange for many," in order that through his sacrificial death, he might lay the foundation for men to become reconciled to his father, Jehovah God. (Matthew 20:28)

  Now if this should be your testimony, if this is what you are proclaiming today, that God sent his son to save "us," that's not quite accurate since, according to the Bible, perhaps you will become a beneficiary of this ransom provision, but this is hardly the case for everyone on JWN, for it isn't true that God sent his son "to save us by being the ultimate sacrifice for our sins." Jesus had already been given by God as the ultimate sacrifice that "takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29), but he was sent to save those pursuing 'God's righteousness through their faith in Jesus Christ.' (Romans 3:22)

  If today you are proclaiming "that Jesus is the son of God and that he was sent to save us by being the ultimate sacrifice for our sins," that's not the right message; this is not the "good news" that Jesus and his apostles declared, for Jesus was exhorting folks to "have faith in the good news," way before he became "the ultimate sacrifice for our sins." (Mark 1:15) In fact, Jesus shed light on the good news merely advanced the good news that had first been declared to Abraham, when God informed him that Actually, "the good news of the kingdom of God" that Jesus declared had been declared to Abraham first, when God told Abraham that "by means of you all the nations will be blessed." (Luke 4:43; Galatians 3:8) One of the sacred pronouncements that God declared to Abraham was that 'kings would come out of him." (Genesis 17:6) God had then begun to enlarge upon what had been a sacred secret since Adam's expulsion from Eden: God's prophecy at Genesis 3:15 regarding the "seed" of God's "woman."

  Jesus is the manifestation of God's undeserved kindness toward those that came to have the prospect of endless life in heaven and immortality as kings in God's kingdom as well as to "the things on the earth," those who now, according to the sacred secret of God's will, have the prospect of becoming subjects of God's kingdom, mortal, but enjoying endless life right here on earth. (2 Timothy 1:10; Ephesians 1:9, 10)

  Another of God's sacred pronouncements was when he declared to Abraham (Abram) that his seed would become alien residents "in a land not theirs," and that would be afflicted "for four hundred years," and when Abraham's grandson, Israel (Jacob), came to the realization that Shiloh, the seed of promise, would be born in the tribe of Judah, as the fulfillment of 400 years of oppressive rulership ended when Moses was called upon by God to lead Abraham's descendants, who became the nation of Israel, out of Egypt. (Genesis 49:10) It was after this that God gave to Israel the Law Covenant in order to prepare them in heart and mind for the coming of God's Messiah, with its many sacrifices that served not only to make their sinfulness manifest, but which emphasized their need for a savior. (Galatians 3:19, 22-24, 29)

  It was by means of God's prophets that God warned Israel, even when it had split into a northern kingdom and a southern kingdom, that they would be disciplined as a nation for their failure to live up to the Law Covenant, but in keeping with the promise that he had made to Abraham, Jehovah kept sending his prophets to the unfaithful nation with one dire pronouncement after another to warn them about the calamity that would soon affect the nation, and in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, the theocratic government that had existed over the land of Judah, as well as Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, were destroyed by the Babylonians "until the land had paid off its sabbaths ... to fulfill seventy years," which it did! (2 Chronicles 36:21)

  Many here question God's prophecy regarding the years of Judah's desolation, believing that this sacred pronouncement -- a very important pronouncement that served to strengthen the Jewish nation while they were exiles in Babylon and give them renewed hope in the reliability of God's promises -- wasn't fulfilled after 70 years' time. Yet these same people -- and you may be one of them, I don't know -- will readily tell you how much they believe Jesus came to "save us," the same people are the ones here that argue that one of God's prophecies -- this prophecy regarding the Jews and "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon" (Jeremiah 29:10) wasn't actually fulfilled.

  IMO, they do this, not because they necessarily want to call Jehovah a liar, but out of envy due to their hatred for Jehovah's Witnesses and/or the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who they do not believe to be the ones appointed by Jesus to take the lead representing his faithful and discreet slave so that through them Jesus is with us during "the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 28:20)

  While Raymond Franz is now deceased, for many here, he is the leader of the cult to which many former Jehovah's Witnesses here on JWN now belong -- I'm going to start referring to them as "the Franzites" -- and like Mormons that adhere to faith in the holy books of the LDS founder, Joseph Smith, like the Book of Mormon and Pearls of Great Price, over the Bible, the Franzites adhere to faith in the holy books of their founder, Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom, as if once one has left "The Way," and, like their leader, they have marginalized Jehovah by not using his name, as if there were some other way that they can come to the Father. (John 14:6; 6:68, 69)

  All of God's prophecies serve but one purpose: To give hope to those paying attention to the prophetic word "as to a lamp shining in a dark place" in a world that is very dark indeed. (2 Peter 1:19) As Jehovah's greatest prophet, he provided many sacred pronouncements through his son Jesus, who explained: "So now I have told you before it occurs, in order that, when it does occur, you may believe." (John 14:29) What is being proclaimed today is not Jesus impaled or even Jesus resurrected, but that Jesus is now ruling in the kingdom of God as king, and that the foretold end of this system of things is nearer now than it was yesterday. In fact, all of the prophecies that we find in the Bible "were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

  With one thing you say here I do agree: Jesus will judge all of us, he being the one that is "destined to judge the living and the dead" (2 Timothy 4:1), but I have said all of this to say, you're off-topic.

  Enough said. I'm going to read 2nd Timothy 2:14 again

  Why? You're doing the very thing that the apostle Paul counsels against here at 2 Timothy 2:14. Paul says in this verse, "keep reminding them of these things." What things? That "Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead and was of David's seed, according to the good news...., that if we deny, he also will deny us; if we are unfaithful, he remains faithful." (2 Timothy 2:8, 12, 13) Your reading 2 Timothy 2:14 or any other scripture -- and I'm speaking primarily to the lurkers reading this message -- will not save anyone; the Bible is not some lucky charm or amulet by the mere possession of which (and knowledge of a few choice scripture texts) one will be saved. (John 5:39) It it only by our exercising faith in Christ Jesus -- and I'm referring to real faith and not just some profession of it -- can anyone be saved.

  Jesus is now recognized by Jehovah's Witnesses as the reigning king, who, since the year 1914, has been ruling 'in the midst of his enemies.' (Psalm 110:2) It is this sacred pronouncement about the "good news of the kingdom" that Jehovah's Witnesses are now preaching "in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations"; this prophecy is undergoing fulfillment in our day. (Matthew 24:14) Really, @beenthere26y, if you want to proclaim something, why not proclaim the king and his kingdom?

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  This is a repost of my previous post, which contained a few typos in it, which are corrected in this repost.

  @Farkel:

  Here is the only exposition on this subject that blathering dunderheads cannot dispute because it is a rock-solid argument for the defeat of the 607 BCE idiocy.... I'm waiting for a legitimate challenge.

  I just read your thread in its entirety, and nowhere in it did I come upon any "rock-solid argument" from you or from any of the "characters" that contributed to it that I'm sure made it an entertaining read for some. There was nothing of substance in the "scholarship" brought to the five-page thread, but I am here going to focus on just a few of your posts, starting with your initial message.

  In your Post 6497, you wrote:

  Remember, the WTS's claim of 607 B.C. is a full TWENTY years earlier than the accepted date of 586/87 B.C....

  You refer to "586/87 B.C." as being some "accepted date," but the year when Cyrus deposed Babylon is 539 BC, a difference of 48 years, assuming it is to the year 587 BC (and not to the year 586 BC) that you refer, which means that the year 607 BC would be, not 20 years, but 22 years shy of 70 years. Your remark about 607 BC being "a full TWENTY years earlier than the accepted date of 586/87 B.C." I have understood as being the position that you have taken, the opinion that you have taken, which is fine, based upon your acceptance of the regnal years of the Babylonian monarchs listed in Ptolemy's Canon, which I do not accept:

  Nabopolassar, 627 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 606/605 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 562 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 560 BC for four years

  Nabonidus, from 556 BC for 17 years

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  What is not clear to me though is why you are willing to accept "that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of 'Chad's' reign," a detail that originates with what you read in the Bible at 2 Kings 25:8-10, when secular sources do not provide this particular detail. The same Bible from which you extracted this factoid also provides two other factoids at Jeremiah 29:10 and at 2 Chronicles 36:21, which indicate that "in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon," it was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah that the Jews would become exiles in Babylon "until the land had paid off its sabbaths," and yet in your associating the year 587 BC with the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, these other two factoids you do not consider as being relevant in forming your opinion. I assume you know that the books of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles were all penned by the same prophet that wrote Jeremiah, and Jeremiah was consistent in all three of these Bible books.

  [1] Other than that on which you might have read in the Bible, on what basis are you able to conclude the year 587 BC to have been Nebuchadnezzar's 19th regnal year?

  [2] Other than that on which you might have read in the Bible, on what basis are you able to conclude the year 587 BC to have been the year when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar?

  Another tricky part to remember is that people were very primitive in those years before Christ....

  This is a joke, right?

  "Fallen Baby" tells us that Nabonidus ("Nabby") was King when Babylon fell in 539 B.C. The WTS book "Aid to Bible Understanding" tells that "Nabby" ruled seventeen years from 556 to 539 B.C.

  You indicated that you were paraphrasing some paragraph on page 184 of the Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules! book, but there is no paragraph contained in the Aid to Bible Understanding book that indicates that Nabonidus "ruled seventeen years from 556 to 539 B.C."

  More importantly, what possible difference does it make if there is secular evidence upon which you rely to dispute what the Aid book or what the Bible itself states as to the year when Jerusalem fell to Babylonian forces. You seem to be cherry-picking what things you may have read in the Aid book in arguing here that Jerusalem was deposed in the year 607 BC, but what you read in the Aid book is just one opinion -- Opinion #1 would be the opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses -- and your opinion -- Opinion #2 would be whatever it is you should publish here on this board -- would be a separate opinion. I know what the basis of Opinion #1 is, but I'd like to know the basis of Opinion #2. Note that I've assumed here that your opinion is not based on Opinion #1, but I realize it could be, so I'm asking: On what is Opinion #2 based?

  Aid to Bible Understanding on Nabonidus - P 1195:

  "Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire...On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have rule some seventeen years (556-539 B.C.E.)."

  This quote you provided in your post 6497 was taken out of context, for the very next sentence read:

  "(However, see Chronology.)"

  I don't know if it is normally your practice to ignore such literacy devices when you should find them embedded in the text of any of the articles you might be reading, but this parenthetical note regarding the cuneiform texts upon which Nabonidus' 17-year rule is reckoned is expounded upon in the article "Chronology," where on page 327 in the Aid book, under the heading "Ptolemy's canon," we read the following in the left column in the first paragraph thereunder:

  "Claudius Ptolemy lived in Egypt during the second century C.E., or over 600 years after the close of the Neo-Babylonian period. His canon assigns 21 years to the rule of Nabopolassar, 43 years to Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years to Evil-merodach, 4 years to Neriglissar, and 17 years to Nabonidus, or a total of 86 years. Counting back from Nisan of 538 B.C.E., historians therefore date Nabopolassar's first year as beginning in 625 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604, and the destruction of Jerusalem in placed by some in 586, by others in 587. These dates are some 20 years later than those presented in the chart accompanying this article (that is, 624 for Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year and 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem). This is because we accept the Biblical information, particularly as regards the seventy-year desolation of Judah (running from 607 to 537 B.C.E.), as accurate and as superior in reliability to the ancient secular records."

  In your Post 6499, you wrote:

  If one can find the year Nebuchadnezzer started his reign, one can find when Jerusalem fell.

  Virtually everyone agrees that 539 B.C. is the date Babylon fell to the Medes. There are 67 years from the start of Nebuchadnezzer's reign to the fall of Babylon. This brings us back to 605/606 B.C. The Bible clearly states that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Neb's reign. This brings us forward to 586/587 B.C.

  How's that for simple?

  I admit it is rather "simple" to take the difference between the two dates and do the math that enabled you to arrive at "605/606 B.C." However, even if it were true that "virtually everyone agrees that 539 B.C. is the date Babylon fell to the Medes," this does nothing at all to establish the year when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon. I assume by my bringing this up here, you now can see this. You say that "the Bible clearly states that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Neb's reign," but this doesn't have anything at all to do with what you say here about the significance of 539 B.C. that "virtually everyone agrees" to have been "the date Babylon fell to the Medes." No matter what the Bible says, what you do not do is explain the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as you see it or what it has to do with 539 BC. What you do not do is explain the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year or what it has to do with 587/586 BC.

  [1] Please explain the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to the year 539 BC.

  [2] Please explain the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to the year 587/586 BC.

  In your Post 6510, you wrote:

  The hard problem you are forever unwilling to face is that you cannot tie Jesus' statement about the times of the gentiles to Daniel's prophecy.

  There is no nexus between the topic you were discussing in your other thread regarding the year 587 BC as the year when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon or 607 BC as the year when Jerusalem was destroyed and this point you raised as to Jesus' statement at Luke 21:24 regarding the appointed times of the nations and Daniel's prophecy regarding the "seven times" at Daniel 4:25. In the instant thread, however, this topic centers around why it is Jehovah's Witnesses put their faith in what the Bible indicates as to when it was Jerusalem had to have been destroyed by Babylon, even if secular sources should all contradict our belief and believe that instead of 607 BC, Jerusalem was deposed in the year 587 BC. The introduction of anything into this thread that falls outside of these parameters would be just as off-topic as when you introduced this same topic in your thread.

  I don't know that what things I have said here in this response would be viewed by you as being a "legitimate challenge" to the arguments you made in this other thread, but I trust you will regard my arguments here as having legitimacy.

  My agenda was to show what the Bible and the WTS publications said about the subject.

  Actually, like I told @AnnOMaly once, your agenda is to use God's word to win arguments. Your desire is to turn away as many folks as you can away from Christ. You hope that your arguments will be considered by some as sufficient to prove the Bible to be flawed, to prove it is not inerrant, and that it provides no hope to the millions of those that have read it as to the glorious future that God has promised to fulfill by means of Millennial kingdom for which kingdom many God-fearing persons have prayed.

  Your agenda, in fact, is to convince folks to turn away from God and to have them marginalize Jehovah while magnifying his son, the Lord Jesus Christ, so that they do not turn to Jehovah. Many of you know quite well that Jesus himself stated at John 14:6 that "no one comes to the Father except through Jesus," which means it is necessary to come to the Father, that coming to Jesus isn't enough. There's no getting around this fact no matter what you might wish to be the case.

  Those of you here on JWN that are feigning ignorance while deliberately driving this discussion do so knowing that it isn't possible to prove scripturally that Jerusalem was destroyed either in the year 607 BC or in the year 587 BC apart from drawing inferences and logically deducing from the scriptures the year when the land of Judah began to lay desolate for seventy years as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah "until the land had paid off its sabbaths." (Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:21)

  Let's be honest: Your agenda is primarily directed at undermining respect for God's word and destroying faith in God's word by those among God's people that should come to JWN seeking answers to difficult Bible-related questions and comfort from those that may have gone through the similar experiences in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses that may have led to disfellowshipping actions or unsettling outcomes that do not set well with them. Jehovah's name is regularly blasphemed here as one contemptuous insult after another is routinely lobbed at Jehovah, as if God were a man that had the capacity to lie to us instead of the Universal Sovereign that made all things.

  None of the "lovebombing" that occurs here on JWN is any different than what is received by those attending the local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses for the first time, even when the attendee should be unbaptized, except those doing the welcoming and commiserating are typically bitter folks, holding grudges against the elders in their former local congregation or against members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, which certainly isn't the genuine love that Jesus indicated would identify those who are his followers today. (John 13:35)

  If anyone wishes to discuss this topic with me honestly, if anyone is able to have a honest discussion with me, I'm willing to do that, but my wish is that all of the nonsense, strawmen, flawed or meaningless arguments that have no bearing on this topic cease, and all of the cut-and-pasting from articles written by someone else or from Watchtower publications where one needs to guess at the purpose of someone doing so isn't helpful.

  @Farkel:

  My argument is rock solid and all your bullshit cannot refute it. I have counted backwards and forwards the chronologies of the Kings of Israel during that period and my argument is rock solid.

  I know you said that, but what you didn't do was prove that your argument is rock solid; it isn't. As long as you keep referring to Nebuchadnezzar's 19th regnal year using the Bible, as long as you cannot explain the significance of his 19th regnal to either the year 539 BC or the year 587/586, your argument is mush. Prove your argument without appealing to the Bible for support using only secular evidence and only then will you have made a rock solid argument since those of us that put our faith in God's word do not make appeal to secular evidence to support our viewpoint.

  Moreover, Christians only use secular evidence as to the deposing of Babylon by Cyrus to establish the probable date for when this event occurred. Even if this event should not have occurred in 539 BC, Christians believe the Bible when it states that the land of Judah lay desolate for seventy years as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah "until the land had paid off its sabbaths." (Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:21)

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Farkel:

  Here is the only exposition on this subject that blathering dunderheads cannot dispute because it is a rock-solid argument for the defeat of the 607 BCE idiocy.... I'm waiting for a legitimate challenge.

  I just read your thread in its entirety, and nowhere in it did I come upon any "rock-solid argument" from you or from any of the "characters" that contributed to it that I'm sure made it an entertaining read for some. There was nothing of substance in the "scholarship" brought to the five-page thread, but I am here going to focus on just a few of your posts, starting with your initial message.

  In your Post 6497, you wrote:

  Remember, the WTS's claim of 607 B.C. is a full TWENTY years earlier than the accepted date of 586/87 B.C....

  You refer to "586/87 B.C." as being some "accepted date," but the year when Cyrus deposed Babylon is 539 BC, a difference of 48 years, assuming it is to the year 587 BC (and not to the year 586 BC) that you refer, which means that the year 607 BC would be, not 20 years, but 22 years shy of 70 years. Your remark about 607 BC being "a full TWENTY years earlier than the accepted date of 586/87 B.C." I have understood as being the position that you have taken, the opinion that you have taken, which is fine, based upon your acceptance of the regnal years of the Babylonian monarchs listed in Ptolemy's Canon, which I do not accept:

  Nabopolassar, 627 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 606/605 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 562 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 560 BC for four years

  Nabonidus, from 556 BC for 17 years

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  What is not clear to me though is why you are willing to accept "that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of 'Chad's' reign," a detail that originates with what you read in the Bible at 2 Kings 25:8-10, when secular sources do not provide this particular detail. The same Bible from which you extracted this factoid also provides two other factoids at Jeremiah 29:10 and at 2 Chronicles 36:21, which indicate that "in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon," it was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah that the Jews would become exiles in Babylon "until the land had paid off its sabbaths," and yet in your associating the year 587 BC with the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, these other two factoids you do not consider as being relevant in forming your opinion. I assume you know that the books of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles were all penned by the same prophet that wrote Jeremiah, and Jeremiah was consistent in all three of these Bible books.

  [1] Other than that on which you might have read in the Bible, on what basis are you able to conclude the year 587 BC to have been Nebuchadnezzar's 19th regnal year?

  [2] Other than that on which you might have read in the Bible, on what basis are you able to conclude the year 587 BC to have been the year when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar?

  Another tricky part to remember is that people were very primitive in those years before Christ....

  This is a joke, right?

  "Fallen Baby" tells us that Nabonidus ("Nabby") was King when Babylon fell in 539 B.C. The WTS book "Aid to Bible Understanding" tells that "Nabby" ruled seventeen years from 556 to 539 B.C.

  You indicated that you were paraphrasing some paragraph on page 184 of the Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules! book, but there is no paragraph contained in the Aid to Bible Understanding book that indicates that Nabonidus "ruled seventeen years from 556 to 539 B.C."

  More importantly, what possible difference does it make if there is secular evidence upon which you rely to dispute what the Aid book or what the Bible itself states as to the year when Jerusalem fell to Babylonian forces. You seem to be cherry-picking what things you may have read in the Aid book in arguing here that Jerusalem was deposed in the year 607 BC, but what you read in the Aid book is just one opinion -- Opinion #1 would be the opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses -- and your opinion -- Opinion #2 would be whatever it is you should publish here on this board -- would be a separate opinion. I know what the basis of Opinion #1 is, but I'd like to know the basis of Opinion #2. Note that I've assumed here that your opinion is not based on Opinion #1, but I realize it could be, so I'm asking: On what is Opinion #2 based?

  Aid to Bible Understanding on Nabonidus - P 1195:

  "Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire...On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have rule some seventeen years (556-539 B.C.E.)."

  This quote you provided in your post 6497 was taken out of context, for the very next sentence read:

  "(However, see Chronology.)"

  I don't know if it is normally your practice to ignore such literacy devices when you should find them embedded in the text of any of the articles you might be reading, but this parenthetical note regarding these cuneiform texts upon which Nabonidus' 17-year rule is reckoned is expounded upon in the article "Chronology," where on page 327 in the Aid book, under the heading "Ptolemy's canon," we read the following in the left column in the first paragraph thereunder:

  "Claudius Ptolemy lived in Egypt during the second century C.E., or over 600 years after the close of the Neo-Babylonian period. His canon assigns 21 years to the rule of Nabopolassar, 43 years to Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years to Evil-merodach, 4 years to Neriglissar, and 17 years to Nabonidus, or a total of 86 years. Counting back from Nisan of 538 B.C.E., historians therefore date Nabopolassar's first year as beginning in 625 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604, and the destruction of Jerusalem in placed by some in 586, by others in 587. These dates are some 20 years later than those presented in the chart accompanying this article (that is, 624 for Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year and 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem). This is because we accept the Biblical information, particularly as regards the seventy-year desolation of Judah (running from 607 to 537 B.C.E.), as accurate and as superior in reliability to the ancient secular records."

  In your Post 6499, you wrote:

  If one can find the year Nebuchadnezzer started his reign, one can find when Jerusalem fell.

  Virtually everyone agrees that 539 B.C. is the date Babylon fell to the Medes. There are 67 years from the start of Nebuchadnezzer's reign to the fall of Babylon. This brings us back to 605/606 B.C. The Bible clearly states that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Neb's reign. This brings us forward to 586/587 B.C.

  How's that for simple?

  I admit it is rather "simple" to take the difference between the two dates and do the math that enabled you to arrive at "605/606 B.C." However, even if it were true that "virtually everyone agrees that 539 B.C. is the date Babylon fell to the Medes," this does nothing at all to establish the year when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon. I assume by my bringing this up here, you now can see this. You say that "the Bible clearly states that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Neb's reign," but this doesn't have anything at all to do with what you say here about the significance of 539 B.C. that "virtually everyone agrees" to have been "the date Babylon fell to the Medes." No matter what the Bible says, what you do not do is explain the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as you see it or what it has to do with 539 BC. What you do not do is explain the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year or what it has to do with 587/586 BC.

  [1] Please explain the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to the year 539 BC.

  [2] Please explain the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to the year 587/586 BC.

  In your Post 6510, you wrote:

  The hard problem you are forever unwilling to face is that you cannot tie Jesus' statement about the times of the gentiles to Daniel's prophecy.

  There is no nexus between the topic you were discussing in your thread regarding the year 587 BC as the year when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon or 607 BC as the year when Jerusalem was destroyed and this point you raised as to Jesus' statement at Luke 21:24 regarding the appointed times of the nations and Daniel's prophecy regarding the "seven times" at Daniel 4:25. In the instant thread, however, this topic centers around why it is Jehovah's Witnesses put their faith in what the Bible indicates as to when it was Jerusalem had to have been destroyed by Babylon, even if secular sources should all contradict our belief and believe that instead of 607 BC, they should hold that Jerusalem was deposed in the year 587 BC. The introduction of anything into this thread outside of these parameters would be just as off-topic as when you introduced this same topic in your thread.

  I don't know that what things I have said here in this response would be viewed by you as being a "legitimate challenge" to the arguments you made in this other thread, but I trust you will regard my arguments here as having legitimacy.

  Actually, like I told @AnnOMaly once, your agenda is to use God's word to win arguments. Your desire is to turn away as many folks as you can away from Christ. You hope that your arguments will be considered by some as sufficient to prove the Bible to be flawed, to prove it is not inerrant, and that it provides no hope to the millions of those that have read it as to the glorious future that God has promised to fulfill by means of Millennial kingdom for which kingdom many God-fearing persons have prayed. Your agenda is to convince folks to turn away from God and not to turn to him. The reasoning that you and others here that know it isn't possible to prove scripturally that Jerusalem was destroyed in either the year 607 BC or the year 587 BC has been employed for the purpose of undermining respect for God's word and to destroy faith in God's word.

  @djeggnog

  My agenda was to show what the Bible and the WTS publications said about the subject.
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Alwayshere:

  Some Bible scholar, Can't even give a scripture from the Bible.

  I provided many scriptures in my posts, but you failed to comprehend them. Consequently, you are forced to ask me stupid questions that I choose not to answer for a third time. This problem of yours isn't my fault, is it? I mean, why should I feel responsible for your apparent disabilities? (I don't.) I obtained an education; you clearly did not, but this is a problem that you can remedy by taking a remedial course in reading comprehension. You cannot pretend to be have an education; either to have one or you don't.

  You're fooling no one but yourself when you pretend to have understood what things I wrote in response to your questions the first and second times. I have no idea why you would take the position that your failure to understand those scriptures that I provided to you, those scriptures that your disabilities prevented you from comprehending, made it my fault because you couldn't bother to ask someone smarter than yourself what those scriptures that I had cited meant. Maybe you should consider asking someone now what they meant, but I'm done with you.

  @AnnOMaly:

  Where did you initially get 557 B.C. as the beginning of Belshazzar's 17 year rule?

  I don't believe 557 BC to be the beginning of Belshazzar's rule, nor do I believe Belshazzar's reign lasted for only 17 years. Did you notice that whenever I attributed only 17 years to Belshazzar's reign, I would include this reference within a left and right bracket?

  Nabopolassar, 646 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years

  Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months

  Nabonidus and Belshazzar, coregents, from 575/574 BC for 35 years

  [Belshazzar (557/556 BC) for 17 years]

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  The reason I would do this was as a kind of concession that Belshazzar was the king of Babylon for at least 17 years, as I indicated in my message to @TD, but it isn't possible for me to concede Belshazzar rulership over Babylon since I maintain that his father's reign, Nabonidus' reign, began in the year 575 BC and not 556 BC, which is year indicated in Ptolemy's Canon:

  Nabopolassar, 627 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 606/605 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 562 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 560 BC for four years

  Nabonidus, from 556 BC for 17 years

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  In the same message that was directed to @TD, I told him that the following is my "king-list":

  Nabopolassar, 646 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years

  Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months

  Nabonidus and Belshazzar, coregents, from 575/574 BC for 35 years

  [Belshazzar (572 BC) for 33 years]

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  Did you notice that again, when referring to Belshazzar's reign, that it appears within a left and right bracket? I am intentionally underscoring what I believe to be true as to Belshazzar's reign, namely, that in his father's third regnal year -- in 572 BC -- Nabonidus appointed the crown prince, his eldest son, coregent with respect to his rulership over Babylon, and based on Daniel's references to Belshazzar as the king of Babylon, I am satisfied that Belshazzar was recognized as the king of Babylon.

  Once you realized that Belshazzar was appointed kingship over Babylon in Nabonidus' 3rd year, you alter your start date for his reign to 572 B.C. so that Belshazzar ruled 33 years. How do you know he reigned that length of time? Where is your evidence?

  In this thread, I made reference to Professor Millard's work, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," published back in 1985. If you are really looking for evidence regarding Belshazzar's rule, you should maybe read it. Also, the "Verse Account of Nabonidus" indicates that it was during the "third year" of his rule that Nabonidus "entrusted the kingship" to his "oldest," Belshazzar. IOW, as to limiting Belshazzar's rule to only 17 years, there is archaeological evidence to the contrary; I don't believe 17 years to be accurate, but, then again, you want to make this 70-year prophecy a unfulfilled prophecy and you want the well-researched date of 607 BC to not be true, which is the year that the faithful and discreet slave has published for decades as being the beginning of the Gentile Times.

  The Nabonidus Chronicle has Nabonidus' rule ending at his year 17. We all agree that his rule ended when Babylon fell in 539 B.C. It only takes basic math to figure that his 1st year would have been 555 B.C. Nabonidus' 3rd year, therefore, would be 553 B.C. So again, where do you get your alternative dates from?

  We do not all of us agree -- meaning you and I don't agree -- that Nabonidus' rule ended during his 17th year; I believe his reign lasted for 35 years, beginning in 575/574 BC. I've provided above the source of my "alternative dates," but I expect you to ignore them, which is fine with me, @AnnOMaly.

  @Witness My Fury wrote:

  I highly recommend the book. Eggnog if you havent read it then I suggest you do and like me probably more than once to get the full sense of it.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Enjoy reading [Jonsson's] book, @Witness My Fury. He is entitled to his opinion the same as you, but he ignores archaeological evidence that I have found to be illuminating.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  It's quite obvious you haven't even read his book ("I don't suppose Johsson's [sic] book explain's any of this ... ") so you have no real idea whether or not he ignores anything. But please explain anyway, what archaeological evidence do you imagine Jonsson has ignored?

  Who are you? Do you mean that because I misspelled the last name of the author of the book, Gentile Times Reconsidered, by Carl Olof Jonsson, the full title of it being "The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Chronology and Christ's Return," that this meant that I had read the man's book? Are you stupid? I never make statements out of a vacuum, and believe me when I tell you that the reason I have difficulty exchanging barbs with you -- which, tbh, that is exactly what we're doing, exchanging barbs with one another -- is because I really don't know if you're stupid. You could be, but the jury is still out on you. I'm hoping that you are suffering from a mental disability that makes it difficult for you to hear my words as one of Jehovah's Witnesses without regarding them -- that is, my words -- as coming from Jehovah's Witnesses or the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, which people you hate because Jesus promised that he would be with his anointed congregation "all the days until the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 28:20)

  But I'm the one that is exchanging messages with you here, not the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm thinking that you think me to be stupid or foolish, but I can assure you that I am neither. Jonsson's book, on page 62, references Raymond Franz' book, Crisis of Conscience, and on page 176 of Franz' book, he references Jonsson's book in connection with his (Franz') statement as to how "607 B.C.E. ... was contradicted by all known historical evidence." IMO, Franz was quite foolish to have thought there to have been any real merit to Jonsson's conclusions, for had he actually read Jonsson's book and understood what Jonsson had actually wrote, he would certainly have discovered that his proofs that contradicted God's organization involved (1) a dream, (2) an eclipse and (3) a 54-year period that marks Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year, something that scholars like Jonsson are typically and profoundly guilty of doing:

  First, he makes reference (on page 109) to a cylinder inscription (Nabon. No. 8) that "clearly establishes the total length of the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings up to Nabonidus, and enables us to know both the beginning of year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the crucial year in which he desolated Jerusalem." He refers (on page 111) to the same "Nabon. No. 8 as consisting of "'a report on the accession year and the beginning of the first regnal year of Nabonidus' and may be shown ... to have been written toward the end of his first regnal year (in the autumn of 555 B.C.E.)," which Jonsson says "helps us to establish the total length of the period from Nabopolassar to the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus." He then associates (on page 111) the inscription on Nabon. No. 8 and 24 (among others) with a dream that Nabonidus allegedly had "in his accession year," btw, the emphasis in italics on the words "accession year" are Jonsson's.

  BTW, Jonsson makes reference (on page 109) to another cylinder inscription (Nabon No. 24) that "provides the length of the reign of each Neo-Babylonian king from the first ruler, Nabopolassar, onward and down to the ninth year of the last ruler, Nabonidus (Belshazzar was evidently a coregent with his father Nabonidus at the time of Babylon's fall)." Jonsson's mention of Belshazzar as "coregent with his father" destroys his Babylonian chronology that he attributes solely to Nabonidus. But forget about this for now; it's a funny fact to me, which is why I mention it now.

  Jonsson then goes on to elaborate (on page 109) to another cylinder inscription (Nabon. No. 18) "from an unnamed year of Nabonidus" in which he says explains that a lunar eclipse had occurred on September 26, 554 BC, coincided with the dedication of Nabonidus' daughter "as priestess" when the moon had "set while eclipsed," which eclipse, according to a footnote, was reckoned based on astrologers "who regularly based their interpretations on astronomical events" (this is exactly what Jonsson writes in footnote 42 on page 110!) had only "occurred some "fifty-four years earlier, on August 24, 608 B.C.E." (this is in footnote 45 on page 111). Jonsson connects this dream (mentioned above) to a 54-year period (on page 112) in which he claims Nabonidus was commanded by the gods of Babylon (Marduk and Sin) to rebuild a Babylonian temple that had been devastated by the Medes to the "'sixteenth year' of Nabopolassar." Were you able to follow any of this? There's more!

  He then says (on page 112) how "it is obvious that Nabonidus reckons the 'fifty-four years' from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar to the beginning of his own reign when the gods commanded him to rebuild the temple." And then (in footnote 51 on page 112) he says "all scholars agree that Nabonidus reckons the fifty-four years from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar until his own accession-year when .... Nabonidus was commanded to rebuilt the temple." What Jonsson is really saying in this footnote is that he agrees with himself as well as with these scholars about the 54 years, but he doesn't explain to us the significance of Nabopolassar's 16th year. He cracks the case wide open! He then references Ptolemy's Canon ("the Royal Canon") and explains (on page 113) that summing up the last five years of Nabopolassar's 21-year reign, Nebuchadnezzar's 43 years, Evil-Merodach's two years, and Neriglissar's four years, ignoring Labashi-Marduk's three-month reign, "(5+43+2+4) we get fifty-four years-exactly as Nabonidus states on his stele," and the emphasis in italics on the words "fifty-four years-exactly" are Jonsson's.

  I do know that Franz is the now-deceased leader of the cult following that exists here on JWN, with many JWN members here clearly having memorized at least some of the text that they found through reading either one or both of Franz' books, as well as having learned much about the truth from having either been born-in or having studied with one of Jehovah's Witnesses. You seem to have read a portion of Jonsson's book, but I only covered here pages 109-113 of Gentile Times Reconsidered and I can absolutely guarantee that if you happened upon these five pages that you didn't get it, (why?) because the man said nothing scholarly. Reading such books can make those whose faith is weak fall victim to the stupidity of the author. Perhaps this is what happened to you, for the Bible warns that "by smooth talk and complimentary speech" such folks are able to "seduce the hearts of guileless ones." (Romans 16:18)

  You want to be a disciple of Franz and I'm fine with that, but I would have disfellowshipped the man, too, for teaching what things that are contained in his books, things that those among God's people who were weak in faith would, upon reading them, likely be persuaded to a different opinion due to their inability to discern that they were being deceived by an apostate. It is for their sake that the faithful and discreet slave as represented by our governing body warns against reading apostate literature or visiting apostate websites. BTW, JWN isn't an apostate website, for clearly as long as I'm here and @Simon doesn't declare it to be otherwise, it isn't, and IMO it's dangerous for those whose faith is weak to be reading the vast majority of the threads that are available here. I use your posts to speak to the lurkers here on JWN, because I really don't have anything to say to a disciple of a dead guy. (Jesus, on the other hand, is very much alive, and I believe we ought to be his disciples!) I might see your messages, but when I have nothing to say, I will just skip them.

  Anyone here that should have concluded, as Franz did, that he was somehow shafted by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, treated unfairly by our governing body for buying into Jonsson's nonsense -- and I quoted exactly without editorializing what Jonsson writes in Gentile Times Reconsidered -- is as misguided as was Franz and Jonsson, both of whom had formerly been Jehovah's Witnesses, but who chose to become apostates that seemed to delight in undermining the things that they learned the Bible teaches.

  Yes, @AnnOMaly, I'm guilty of making not a few typos in my posts, like, for instance, when I spelled Jonsson's last name incorrectly, and I think you might make a fine proofreader, except that, in the bigger picture, my typos aren't all that important. There may even be at least one typo in this message, but thanks for all you do. But I am also guilty of ignoring those here that tend to post cut-and-pasted remarks with which they associate themselves, remarks that were originated by others, which remarks they do not understand and are indefensible (as per the recent messages posted by @thetrueone) because I'd rather exchange posts with the author of such remarks than their lackeys that merely glom onto or gravitate to folks they think to be smarter than they.

  I hardly ever quote from our publications; my quotes primarily come from the Bible because I've studied the Bible and have made it my own, so that my faith needs no "crutch" on which to stand. I am standing based solely on my faith and if I'm smarter than you, then why not listen to me? why not imitate me even as I am an imitator of Christ? why not imitate my faith? (1 Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 3:17; Hebrews 13:7) One can always do their own research to see if the things I have said here are truly the case, but you have to hear what I said before you can verify what things I've said here.

  I'm sure you know well that Jehovah's Witnesses have their own language, their own words, as it were, which is why it is that you are able to understand what I am saying here even though you no longer claim to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is unfortunate. But you weren't distressed, in fact, no one here on JWN that has ever studied with or been one of Jehovah's Witnesses in the past felt any distress over the prediction which has already begun to fail as in New Zealand, as of the time when I'm posting this message, it is already a few minutes past 6:00 pm on Saturday, May 21, 2011, because you have been enlightened as to the fact that Armageddon will be preceded by the outbreak of the great tribulation, which is a sobering thought for many of you here. I only wish you and others here would return to Jehovah before it becomes too late to do so.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  The Bible at Daniel 2 : 1 says very plain "And in the 2nd year of the Kingship of King Neb." So if you believe Neb. 1st year of Kingship is 624, his second year of Kingship is 623. Of course neither one is right. Neb. first year is 605 and 2nd year is 604.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Actually, no; you are plainly wrong here and have misinterpreted what the prophet Daniel is stating at Daniel 2:1. Where did you get the idea that Daniel was an exile in Babylon during "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar"?

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  When did Assyria fall?

  What difference does it make when it was Assyria fell to the Babylonians? This thread is about when it was Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. You didn't answer my question about this idea of yours regarding the reference in Daniel 2:1 to Nebuchadnezzar's second year. Did you understand the things I spelled out for you in my last message?

  Where in the Bible does it say, "the kingdom of Judah was deposed during Neb. 18th year?

  Why do you ask me this question when you've more than aptly demonstrated that when it comes to discussing these questions, you are an illiterate because of an inability to comprehend certain concepts that are necessary if one is going to be able to analyze the answers given to perplexing questions like this one as well as the related ones that have been raised in this thread? Like I stated in my last message, you are someone that believes that you understand what you read in the Bible, such as what you read at Daniel 2:1, but because you currently lack the degree of humility necessary to be able to understand the things I've told you here, you resort to guessing and your guesses are all wrong.

  Like I also stated, I don't care if you think you're right, because whatever it is that you might think to be right, you're still going to be wrong unless you are willing to listen to me. You still may not agree with me, but at least were you to hear me, were you to listen to what things I have said to you here, you would at least be in a position to know what it is you would need to verify to see whether or not the things I have said to you here are so, to see whether or not I have spoken the truth.

  At Matthew 18:3, Jesus said that we must "turnaround and become as young children," which means you must be teachable: Listen to what I say and then verify what things I have said to you because no one can do the second unless they have first listened. Letting yourself be teachable as are little children that aren't haughty, they don't think too highly of themselves, that have a humble spirit, that are willing to listen, this is what humility means. Be teachable.

  If you are here seeking answers to questions about the fall of Jerusalem because you think by your doing so you will gain eternal life, then you're wasting your time in this endeavor (John 5:39); Jesus stated that if you do not have the love of God in you, your having all of the answers to such questions will not lead to eternal life. (John 5:42) Since knowledge can 'puff one up,' and those having the love of God in them doesn't allow themselves to become puffed up with it since love "does not get puffed up," while 'love builds us up.' (1 Corinthians 8:1; 13:4) Be teachable.

  Even if you should think the person from whom you have requested directions to get back to your hotel when you become a bit disoriented or lost in a strange town may dispense bad advice to you because of one of your biases that make it hard for you to trust people -- because he's a homeless person, because he's a black guy or a Hispanic guy, because he's a white guy sporting lots of tattoos that make you think he could be a member of a gang, or because he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses -- be humble enough to at least listen to the directions he gives you; you don't have to put faith in those directions, mind you, but at least you heard them. This will then put you in the position to go ask someone else for directions to your hotel with the hope that by obtaining verification of the advice you were initially given, you will not be led astray, and you will indeed be joyful because, by so doing, you were able to make it back to your hotel. Be teachable.

  I may have a vast knowledge of the truth, but I also realize that 'I don't yet know the truth as I ought to know it'; this is my attitude. (1 Corinthians 8:2) All of the things I have said here, even if the way I may have articulated some of them should have sounded rather harsh to you, I have said for your upbuilding, not to tear you down, but to help you gain knowledge of things I have discerned that you, and well as others here, clearly do not know, in order that you might be able to conduct the kind of satisfying research that leads to joy because you did it, because you verified for yourself the things that you heard me say here, and because you will have 'proved to yourself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.' (Romans 12:2)

  You really should not want to be like some of those here on JWN that are "puffed up with pride, not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." (1Timothy 6:4) They will throw out all sorts of arguments for consideration, not out of love for God and neighbor, but to (hopefully) win the arguments that they advance for no good purpose. If you are content to posit one useless arguments after another, that's ok, but hopefully those lurking this thread will have heard the points I've made here and will 'carefully examine the Scriptures themselves to verify for themselves whether what things I have said here are really so.' (Acts 17:11)

  @djeggnog