Posts by djeggnog

posted

529
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.
djeggnog

[I was forced to use my iPad to make this post (I'm not sure that I like this font size, but…), because formatting from a section from an earlier portion of my post seemed to have cause that section to physically move from that section to the end of my post following my signoff ("@djeggnog"); this occurred twice in one message slot and once in a second slot. Using my iPad, attributes like bold, italics and text color (red), and indent formatting were preserved. I mention these things FYI for @Simon in the event he's interested in, and has been fielding complaints about, such malformatting errors from others.] @Jeffro wrote: Leviticus 25:8 provides the period of seven sabbaths of years, or 49 years, which ran from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BCE until the return of the Jews in 538BCE. The construction of the temple began the following year in 537BCE, which is also confirmed by Josephus, who states that the temple "lay in obscurity for fifty years." [¶] Babylonia was the world empire from 609BCE until 539BCE. The nations were subject to Babylon during that period. @AnnOMaly wrote: How does anything in your response prove your point about when you think the 70 years of servitude ended? @Ethos wrote: I'll simplify it for you. King of Babylon called into account (end of 70 years) when the temple utensils are returned. Temple utensils were not returned in 539, therefore the 70 years could not have ended. @AnnOMaly wrote: You're still not getting it. Why did God tell the '617 BCE' exiles (by far the largest deportation) they would be there "at Babylon" for 70 years when they would, in fact, be there 80 years? What "'617 BCE' exiles"? First, establish (conjecture is ok!) that there were "'617 BCE' exiles," @AnnOMaly; then ask your question, because no one should be asked a question that assumes facts not in evidence. Ok? @Ethos wrote: #1: But you said and I quote: "The sanctuary was desolate 70 years. 587 (Month V) - 515 (Month XII) = 71 years, 7 months." So which is it, 71 years and 7 months, or 70 years? The 609 chronology is exactly 70 years, but for some reason this one goes almost 2 years off track. Also you need to show us where Jeremiah said the temple would be desolated for 70 years, oh wait I mean 71 years and 7 months. And also show us in Daniel 9 where it says the sanctuary will be laid desolate for 70 years since Daniel was quoting Jeremiah. And you might need to tap Daniel on the shoulder and tell him his discernment of Jeremiah's prophecy was wrong: "in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years." The 609 chronology states that the city wasn't desolated during the 70 year period, and it definitely wasn't desolated from 587 to 515. So which is it? Was Jerusalem desolated for 70 years or was the temple prophesied to be desolated and if so who prophesied it? Forget the temple; it's a "red herring" here. Jeremiah's prophecy should by your focus, @Ethos; did the king of Babylon taken into account by Jehovah after the Jerusalem had lie desolate for 70 years? The temple utensils were returned to the Jews to take with them to Judah toward the end of the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy when Cyrus gave the order during his first regnal year, and how long after the order was it acted upon? What month? I think that's just an argument with no real answer. Within four months' time, the Jews that didn't leave Babylon stayed, but those that left Babylon left with the temple utensils and they arrived there by 537 AD. This is conjecture based on a drop dead date taken from the Nabonidus Chronicle of Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, the 14th day, in the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign. An inscription on the Nabonidus Chronicle reads: "Babylon fell VII/16/17," which indicates that Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 16, 539 BC. Ezra 1:1-3 indicates that it was "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia" -- Cyrus' first regnal year ran from Nisan 538 BC to Nisan 537 BC -- that Cyrus caused a decree to go out to the Jews to "rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel," which means that what the Nabonidus Chronicle tells us is that Cyrus' accession year occurred in 539 BC. Since Ezra 3:1 indicates that it was "after seventy years" in the "seventh month" of Tishri 537 BC -- the same month in which the land of Judah suffered desolation "without inhabitant" living in any of the cities of Judah as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah -- that the repatriated Jews had returned to their cities (Jeremiah 25:11, 12; 29:10; 33:10), and Ezra 3:6 states that "from the first day of the seventh month," that is to say, on Tishri 1, 3225 AM, September 4, 537 BC, Julian, August 29, 537 BC, Gregorian, the repatriated Jews began to offer sacrifices at God's altar in Jerusalem. This means that this 70-year period would have come to an end on Tishri 1, 537 BC, following the commencement of Cyrus' first regnal year. x = 537 BC x = x (+ -70) x = 607 BC Thus, by subtracting 70 years from 537 BC, we can deduce based on (1) the Bible, (2) Josephus and (3) the Nabonidus Chronicle that the land of Judah had been made to lie desolate by Babylon on or about Tishri 1, 3155 AM, September 27, 607 BC, Julian, September 20, 607 BC, Gregorian, which is when this 70-year period would have commenced. @Jeffro wrote: The first of the false 'problems' seems to be based on something AnnOMaly posted. In any case, the 70 years mentioned at Zechariah 1:12 ended after “the fourth year of Darius” (518 BCE), 70 years after 587 BCE, the year established in history that Jerusalem, with its temple, was destroyed. @AnnOMaly wrote:
(Ethos:)
So which is it, 71 years and 7 months, or 70 years? The 609 chronology is exactly 70 years, but for some reason this one goes almost 2 years off track.

We were talking about how long the temple remained desolated, remember? Don't conflate the period of the temple's ruin with the period of Babylonian domination. The two periods are not the same.
(@Ethos:)
The 609 chronology states that the city wasn't desolated during the 70 year period ...

Wrong. During the 70 years for Babylon or the nations' servitude to Babylon, Jerusalem was desolated. Why the misrepresentation of our position, Ethos? On what exactly is this 609 BC date based? @AnnOMaly wrote: I provided references that asserted 538 BCE. I'm asking for your reasoning behind your preferred date. To walk you through it: We know Ezra said that Cyrus' decree was in his first year. We also know that after the decree was made the Jews left and arrived in their homeland in the 7th month. Which was Cyrus' first year? How did Ezra count it? Does Cyrus' first year correspond to 539-8 BCE? Or 538-7 BCE? What is the reason for your choice? @Ethos wrote: I've been bored. You say I havent brought forth any evidence but the only basis you have for 538 is Josephus writings and pure speculation. @AnnOMaly wrote: Provide evidence that 537 BCE is the correct date for the exiles' return. Prove that your 537 BCE date is not speculation. Scholar after scholar, historian after historian, dictionary after dictionary, they have all shown that it was believed to be a 70 year exile. Haven't you read a single word of my previous post? Many of your quoted scholars are more in tune with OUR position rather than yours because you haven't noticed that they count the 70 years exile from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign when he took Daniel and his friends! @Ethos wrote: Ridiculous. Who cares about when they believe the 70 year exile began. The point is they associate the 70 year servitude with the 70 year exile, with the 70 year paying off of sabbaths, which the 70 year desolation of Jerusalem. I've shown that to you from various bible commentaries and translations of 2 Chronicles 36:21. They're all the same and you tenaciously attempt to separate each one of them with ridiculous eisegetical elucidations. Oh yeah....here's some real humor for you: AnnoMaly says: "Jerusalem was desolated from 609 to 539" (70 years) 2 Chronicles 36:21 "ALL the days of lying desolated it KEPT SABBATH." AnnoMaly and Jeffro say the land kept sabbath for only 49 years. This is getting [embarrassing]. @AnnOMaly wrote: AnnoMaly: Jerusalem was desolated from 609 to 539 Ethos, it is very telling that you resort to complete fabrications. Nobody has claimed any such thing. What "fabrications"? What do you believe you wrote, @AnnOMaly? Did Jehoiakim have to go to Babylon to serve Nebuchadnezzar? No; Jehoiakim had served Nebuchadnezzar as a vassal king for three years, in Judah and when he was alive. This is Page 23, but back on the previous page (Page 22) from where I copied your words quoted above, @Ethos' #126 makes this point when he clearly indicated that the nations "were vassals of Nebuchadnezzar," and while @Ethos cites Jer. 25:11, which states that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years," did they (that is, "these nations") have to go to Babylon to serve Nebuchadnezzar? I realize @Ethos answered this question with a "yes," so let me first set forth a portion of the exchange between @Ethos and @Jeffro: (@Jeffro:) A ll of the nations were not in Babylon for seventy years. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews. (@Ethos:) Actually they were. Ezekiel and Jeremiah refer to "many nations". Why? Because "all the nations round about" were vassals of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:10-12, 27:7, 28:10-11; cf. BM 21946), and the king composed his army of their military forces (cf. Jeremiah 35:11, 2 Kings 24:1). Yes, the nations conquered by Nebuchadnezzar had become vassal nations, servants of Nebuchadnezzar, even as Jehoiakim had become "his [Nebuchadnezzar's] servant for three years" after having ruled as king of Judah for eight years (2 Kings 24:1) @Jeffro is right; none of the nations were exiles in Babylon, let alone for 70 years, but as all of them were vassals, they became servants of Nebuchadnezzar; they didn't serve in Babylon any more so than did Jehoiakim as king of Judah, not in Babylon, but in Judah. And you're right, too, @AnnOMaly: Jehoiakim did NOT have to go to Babylon to serve Nebuchadnezzar, for being made a vessal king for Babylon, he was a servant of Nebuchadnezzar without his having to leave Judea. As a recall, the man was killed so he never became a Babylonian exile. Servitude to Babylon did not necessitate being in exile. The mass deportations that occurred in 597 BCE and 587 BCE were punishments for rebelling against that servitude. The message was: 'If you stop serving the king of Babylon here in your own land, you'll be ripped from it and have to serve him in his land.' I agree with you here, @AnnOMaly, for as I point out above, Jehoiakim served Babylon as a puppet-king for three years, but he was never numbered among the Jews that became exiles in Babylon (for he was killed). Judah's servitude to Babylon began with Jehoiakim and ended with the fall of the neo-Babylonian dynasty. So by this you are saying what, @AnnOMaly? If you are counting the span of years between Jehoiakim's servitude (as a vassal king) and the deposing of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC, how many years do you count? Back on May 5, 2011, in a thread where you and I engaged in much conjecturing when giving consideration to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews as to the proximate year when Jerusalem became desolate (following Gedaliah's assassination and the final deportation of the Jews to Babylon), it seems to me that you were of a very different opinion as to the year when Judah became desolate than what @Jeffro has expressed in this thread. (Now I don't know either the page or the post, so please don't ask me to jump through hoops as you did in this thread in many of your questions to @Ethos.) Now @Ethos made a mistake in referring to the date 537 BC when it should have been clear to both @Jeffro and @AnnOMaly the date he had intended to write: @Ethos wrote: Your Josephus revision argument has already been examined and it doesnt work and makes your own chronology fail, so your appeal to Josephus is fallacious. The 181.2 year argument is immaterial since I dont hold Josephus to be infallible. ALL dates in the Bible require conjecture since we must use secular data.... I've only argued 537 [BC] is a possible date, as all my sources show it is not something as definite as the fall of Babylon [which according to the inscription on the Nabonidus Chronicle reads: "Babylon fell VII/14/17," which means, "on the seventh Hebrew month (Tishri), the 14th day, during the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign," or Tishri 14, 539 BC]. I cannot believe I have to qualify this statement for people who have been debating chronology for years. [539 BC] is solid, but we are never given absolute dates in the Bible so therefore it requires assumption and conjecture to pinpoint what exact month and year some things happened. 537 [BC] is not all important to me, why would it be? You can continue all the strawmen you want. 538 BC has been shown to be in error. Context has made it [thoroughly] obvious what was implied by servitude. Something similar occurred earlier in this thread when @Jeffro had mistakenly referred to Jer. 25 when he had intended to write Jer. 29, which bought him this remark from @AnnOMaly: Ethos, you klutz, Jeffro was alluding to Jer. 29, not 25. He no doubt assumed you would know what he was referencing. @AnnOMaly wrote: Love it. Pure comedy gold. @Ethos wrote: Whats really hilarious is how its not even funny. Its so hilarious how all Biblical dates involve conjecture. And they say I'm not good at this LOL @Witness My Fury wrote: DJeggnog anyone? I'll have some, please, @WMF. I'm happy to see you and @AnnOMaly and @Jeffro going at it as if the things conjectured in what has become a 25-page thread (and maybe growing!) is somehow important for salvation. Repentance and faith that Jehovah God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9, 10), which is to show appreciation for the ransom sacrifice made by Jesus is what saves. All of these 607 BC threads on JWN are just a discussion that some (like me!) enjoy having, although, as you will recall, I rather liked discussing the Phoenician "king-list" as against the Neo-Babylonian "king-list" back in 2011, whereas some of the people here could care less about salvation, which is fine. So you missed me, huh, @WMF? Because they has to write in an extra 20 years of history to make 607 fit.... Then they have to fudge the length of the reigns of the kings in order to fit, like DJeggnog trying to bluff that it was 37 years instead of 17 for Nabonidus. Was it 37 years? Maybe it would be a good idea for you to check on this, @WMF. I believe it was 35 years, 17 years of which I had attributed to Belshazzar's rulership in that old 2011 thread. You are correct Ethos, we find you hilarious. [¶] I thought 539 was an agreed pivotal date, a given in the bible? Are you saying it's not [solid] now too? As I point out in editing a portion of @Ethos' post quoted above, he had intended to write 539 BC, not 537 BC where indicated in red, @WMF. @djeggnog
16
Does the WT have spies here?
by logical1 in
1. jw
2. friends
does bethel have spies here that are exempt from the "no looking at apostate material" in order to "protect" the org?

i.e.

their job is to view apostate material so they can find out who they can send copyright infringement claims to?.
djeggnog

@logical1:
Does bethel have spies here…?
No. Why? This website and whatever may be written to it isn't anyone's business, but the owner's and those to whom @Simon gjrants permission to post messages to it. Christianity promotes not just freedom, but free speech and the freedom to choose whatever ractivity it is one may wish to engage, whether that activity be sinful or harmful or beneficial. Your asking such a question auggests a bit of paranoia.
@00DAD:
Just read a current WT. They are obviously reading threads here and responding in their mags!
Which one? If anyone not a guest of Simon's should come to this website and read any of the threads started on JWN, this has nothing at all to do with the content that appears in our magazines and everything to do with what those people that may have come here and read one or more of the threads started in here has opined as to their experience. The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society doesn't spend its time going to social networking websites to learn things it has already learned from those who have actually been to such websites.
@Found Sheep:
My life is 100 times better after leaving that cult

Like how is your life "better"? Do you mean you have fewer things to do every week or that you have ao much more time to do things that you weren't able -- time-wise -- to do?
As I get older, I notice that more and more of the people I used to know in life are dying off from this or that. What kind of death I'm going to have is not something about which I can speculate since, so far, everything about my body seems to work just fine without any need on my part to see a physician about obtaining a pill for some ailment that I fully expect to sustain in the years to come, but I'm in the "cult," and my life isn't 100 times better than anyone else's life. I've not needed any medical treatment (I sustained a fracture to my ankle as a teenager, but I haven't since needed to see any medical professional, except for the dentist) so I would imagine that my life is arguably three times better than that of other folks, but I have ni idea what "100 time" would even mean, that is, if this expression you used here actually meant anything.
@supernerdboy:
Fuck non [violation] take downs. Or any take down for that matter. We are [supposed] to have free speach and freedom.

Do you mean as an American citizen under the US Constitution? If you are an American, you have this. If you mean here on JWN, @Simon is king here; you have no such rights, but the owner of this "government" determines what constitutes fairness on here, and if you do not wish to abide by the "laws" of @Simon's government, yiu get to self-deport! Nice, huh?
@djeggnog
20
I've entered the embarrassing stage of pregnancy - let's have a laugh :)
by freshstart in
1. jw
2. experiences
so as you get farther along in your pregnancy and you get bigger and bigger, certain bodily functions are hard to control.

the other day my husband, son and i went out for a nice lunch.

we were dressed up and really enjoying ourselves, when it happened.
djeggnog

@Farkel:
Forget the small shit and look at the overall miracle of it, which is the most amazing event in life.
What is this about a "miracle," Mr. "Father of 4"? For someone lacking in faith, this was,I thought, an odd thing for someone that doesn't believe in The supernatural to be saying, even in jest. Oh, well.
@djeggnog
199
I Want Proof Jesus Even Existed
by Farkel in
1. watchtower
2. bible
don't bother me with the josephus addendum.

i've already seen that debunked.. i am quite aware of the fact that the only evidence of jesus comes from his own followers who didn't even bother to write down his life for decades after jesus "died.

" don't know about you, but if i saw all that shit, i would have gone home and written three books about it that same day!.
djeggnog

@Farkel:
If I had such proof, I would rather chew nails than give it to someone that I knew would continue talking such nonsense as I read in your message, but, alas, I don't have the proof you want; no one does. My evidence is based on faith and it's evident from all you said in your post that you are without faith. It must be sad being you, too.
@NewChapter:
I think you must have lost some of your perspective on Jesus, relevance, and perhaps this might also be said of @Farkel, except he just enumerated too many details to have lost perspective to doubt whether or not Jesus ever existed. Or, maybe you're just trolling @Farkel, encouraging him to think what things he said in his message resonated with you. I hope that you and he don't meet your end as non-human, atomic particles and such.
@djeggnog
33
Why did Lazarus Pay for his sins twice?
by criticalwitness in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
according to j dub doc the wages sins pays is death meaning to them death covers your debt of sin when lazarus died did he not pay his debt?

so when jesus resctd him why did he die again?

when jesus brought him back did he creat or recreat an imperfect being on the sinful road to destruction?
djeggnog

@criticalwitness:
according to j dub doc the wages sins pays is death meaning to them death covers your debt of sin
No, this is inaccurate. What "doc"? I suspect you didn't understand what it was you read, but I need to know what the "doc" it was you read said, because what you say here makes no sense to me.
You clearly do not understand that the statement, "the wages sin pays is death" does not mean that "death covers your debt" any more so than "a painting job pays $15/hour" means that "$15/hour covers what you owe." When ever does a worker owe money to his or her boss for the work he or she does for the boss? At Romans 6:23, sin is being personified; sin isn't a real person and it cannot literally pay anyone any wages as if it were a real person. Having read the other messages posted to this thread, it is clear that you are not alone in not understanding what this verse is really saying.
Let's say you were contracted by your union as an employee of the City of Miami, you are entitled to payment for the painting work you do for your employer, the City of Miami.
Painting is a work, and typically the payment one receives for such work is money, so ...
the wages the painting pays is money.
As you can see, painting is not a debt and you do not owe anything for it, but you are owed "wages" (payment) for all of the painting work you do.
So money is the payment for the painting work you do.
Likewise, you were sold to sin and became a slave of sin, you are entitled to payment for the work you do for your master, sin.
Similarly, sin is a work, and the payment you receive for such work is death, so ...
the wages sin pays is death.
Hopefully, you can see, sin is not a debt and you do not owe anything for sin, but you are owed "wages" (payment) for all of the sinful work you do.
So death is the payment for the sinful work you do.
when lazarus died did he not pay his debt?
No, he didn't. What "debt" would Lazarus need to pay? In this sense, sin would be the debtor here, not Lazarus. Sin isn't owned by Lazarus and it wasn't sold to Lazarus; Lazarus was sold into sin, which means sin owned Lazarus.
so when jesus resctd him why did he die again?
Because he was a sinner, the offspring of Adam, which doesn't change because he died. He was still Lazarus, a descendant of Adam and the brother of Martha and Mary.
and of what?
Guess?
when jesus brought him back did he creat or recreat an imperfect being on the sinful road to destruction?
Yes; Jesus never promised anyone that dies would be resurrected to life again here on earth in a perfect body or that he or she would not continue to be a descendant of Adam, even though Lazarus was recognized by his sisters after his resurrection as their brother. Neither did Jesus promise that any human being upon his or her being resurrected would put on immortality.
It isn't even possible for a human being to be given immortality, for our bodies are mortal, and are designed to be sustained by breathing and to be energized by the food we eat, period. I'd recommend that you do more than a little research at a public library on the composition of the human body so that you won't ever say such a thing again.
However, new human bodies will need to be recreated/reconstructed for the majority of those resurrected during Christ's Millennial Reign though since these folks will have been dead for much longer than four days. The promise of eternal life to obedient mankind doesn't mean that anyone will be granted immortality.
Furthermore, had Jesus recreated Lazarus as a perfect man, this would not have been in a position to die and receive a spiritual body as the rest of Jesus' disciples that had been baptized in holy spirit will have received and not only would Lazarus still be a human being today, but he would have been be only perfect human being on earth during the 1,000-year Judgment Day, and way before the final test after the 1,000 years had ended.
did he put sin back into him?
No; Lazarus inherited sin from Adam so Jesus merely resurrected the man in the same sinful condition in which he had been since birth and before his death.
@djeggnog
102
Explain in a FEW word's why the 607 date is incorrect.
by XPeterX in
1. jw
2. friends
"if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it wel enough" albert einstein.
djeggnog

My apologies for the many bold and underlining errors in my previous post.
@jgnat:
The best evidence is always contemporary accounts. If it is further [corroborated] by other sources, all the better. The Babylonian Chronicles of the succession of Kings is our closest evidence..... I find the Chronology as worked out using the Babylonian [Chronicles] to be closest to the truth.
That would be 586/587.
I believe Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BC, but what I appreciate about your comment is how honest it was for you to candidly point out what others on here (like @Witness My Fury, like @AnnOMaly, like @Londo111) have also pointed out, but keep glossing over, in this and in other threads, namely, that pinpointing the year when Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem occurred cannot be established using only the Bible. You believe reckoning Jerusalem's destruction as having occurred in 587/586 BC would be "closest to the truth," and I believe Jerusalem's destruction occurred in 607 BC.
As you know, I believe based on the inscription written on the Nabonidus Chronicle that read, "Babylon fell VII/16/17," indicating that the date of Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 14, 539 BC ("VII": Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, "14": 14th day; and "17": 17th year of Nabonidus' reign), which year would have become Cyrus' accession year that regnal year, that it would have been during Cyrus' first regnal year, which ran from Nisan 538 BC to Nisan 537 BC, that he issued a decree that permitted the Jews to leave Babylon and "go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah" to commence the rebuilding of the temple, so that in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, the Jews would have returned to Jerusalem at the end of "seventy years" in 537 BC. (Ezra 1:1-3; 2 Chronicles 36:21)
In his Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chap. 9, par. 7, Flavius Josephus agrees with Jeremiah in stating that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year, after Gedaliah's assassination, when "all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years," so since Ezra 3:6 states that it was "from the first day of the seventh month," that is to say, on Tishri 1, 3225 AM, September 4, 537 BC, Julian, August 29, 537 BC, Gregorian, that the repatriated Jews began to offer sacrifices at God's altar in Jerusalem, and this would be when the 70-year period would have ended, then it would logically mean that by our subtracting 70 years from 537 BC, we will have deduced based on (1) the Bible, (2) Josephus and (3) the Nabonidus Chronicle that the land of Judah had been made to lie desolate by Babylon on or about Tishri 1, 3155 AM, September 27, 607 BC, Julian, September 20, 607 BC, Gregorian, which is when this 70-year period would have begun.
@Londo111 wrote:
What about Adad-guppi stele? It is the obituary of Nabonidus's mother, dating the lengths of every Neo-Babylonian king.
@djeggnog wrote:
Nabonidus' mother is [irrelevant]. Why do you mention this woman?
@Witness My Fury wrote:
Have you actually read that info?
I'll assume you have as you have absolutely no reason not to look at it once presented with it.
Yes, I have read the "Harran" piece, and yours is a fair assumption, for had I not read it before, I would have no business commenting on it.
[1]
"It appears from inscriptions that sometime around the sixth century under Nabonidus, vise-a-vie Cyrus, the Babylonians gained control. Under the neo-Babylonians it recovered some of its’ former glory. It served as the center for worship of the moon god Sin for many centuries. According to Adad-Guppi’s biography, Harran lay desolate (in the possession of the Medes) for fifty-four years (610-556) until, at the beginning of Nabonidus’ reign (555-539) a vision informed him that Marduk was to raise up his young servant Cyrus to scatter the Medes."
This is obviously someone's conclusion, for it is conspicuous that Nabonidus' reign is said to have spanned the years 555 BC through 539 BC, but while @AnnOMaly had anticipated that I would humor her by providing more context to my comment in a previous message about her data being "inaccurate," what I had planned to do when I found the time to do so was to humor you, by asking you three (3) questions based on the following excerpts:
Out of obedience to the divine order Nabonidus rebuilt the temple and committed it to Sin. (CR. Isaiah 44:28-45:1). He further built centers of worship for Sin in Ur and in Teiba, Arabia. The work in Arabia moved Babylonian militia to Yatribe (Median). This was an ominous venture by the king. This act was later viewed as self-imposed exiling of the king and an act madness. In Daniel this journey is said to have been a seven year prolongation by the king Nebakadnezar (Nabonidus’ predecessor).
FIRST QUESTION
Who would you say is this "Nebakadnezar," described here as "king Nebakadnezar (Nabonidus' predecessor)"?
[2]
"NABONIDUS HI, B
"Col. I
1. I (am) the lady Adda-guppi’, mother
2. of Nabium-na’id, king of Babylon,
.
.
.
29. From the 2oth year of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, that I was born (in)
30. until the 42nd year of Assurbanipal, the 3rd year of Asur-etillu-ili,
31 .his son, the 2 I St year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar,
32. the 2nd year of Awel-Marduk, the 4th year of Neriglissar,
33. in 95 years of the god Sin, king of the gods of heaven and earth...."
When I read this portion of the quote regarding Nabium-na’id, the son of lady Adda-guppi’, the woman that you and the author of this piece refer to as "Adad-Guppi," I thought of a parallel construction based on the 20-year period that the following five (5) men served as president of the US from 1961-1981: John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969), Richard Nixon (1969-1974), Gerald Ford (1974-1977) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) that I could use to set up my question. This 20-year period might be reckoned in the following manner:
When I take the difference between the 1st year of JFK (1961) and the 3rd year of JFK (1963), I come up with a difference of 2 years; then when I add, to these 2 years, the 6 years between the 3rd year of JFK (1963) and the 4th year of LBJ (1969), I arrive at 8 years; then what I add, to these 8 years, the 5 years between the 6th year of LBJ (1969) and the fifth year of RN (1974), I arrive at 13 years; then when I add, to these 13 years, the 3 years between the fifth year of RN (1974) and the third year of GF (1977), I arrive at 16 years; then when I add, to these 16 years, the difference between the 3rd year of GF (1977) and the fourth year of JC (1981), I arrive at 20 years.
Having said all of this, here is my next question:
SECOND QUESTION
When I take the difference between the 20th year and the 42nd year, I come up with a difference of 22 years; then when I add, to these 22 years, the 2 years between the 42nd year and the 3rd year, I arrive at 24 years; then when I add, to these 24 years, the 20 years between the 3rd year and the 21st year, I arrive at 44 years; then when I add, to these 44 years, the 42 years between the 21st year and the 43rd year, I arrive at 86 years; then when I add, to these 86 years, the 1 year between the 43rd year and the 2nd year, I arrive at 87 years; then when I add, to these 87 years, the 3 years between the 2nd year and the 4th year, I arrive at 90 years. Do you understand Lady Adad-Guppi's reference to "95 years" to have been the result of her having been bad with math become of her age, or do you think that she made an honest mistake in coming up with "95 years"?
[3]
Col. III.
(Translation of lines1-19 is supplemented from the duplicate inscription, as rendered by B. Landsberger, loc. cit.)
.
.
.
5. (Now) in the 9th year of Nabu-na’id,
6. king of Babylon, the fate
7. of herself carried her off, and
8. Nabu-na’id, king of Babylon,
9. (her) son, issue of her womb, . . . . . . . . . . .
10. her corpse entombed, and [robes]
11. splendid, a bright mantle. . . . . . . . . . .
12. gold, bright. . . . . . . . . . .
13. beautiful stones, [precious] stones,
14. costly stones. . . . . . . . . . .
15. sweet oil her corpse he [anointed]
16. they laid it in a secret place.
THIRD QUESTION
If Lady Adad-Guppi's corpse had already been entombed, then who was it that inscribed all of this on this stele? One of her educated attendants? Her son, Nabonius? Her grandson, Belshazzar?
So what is it? A satanic conspiracy to mislead? The ramblings of an old demented woman? A fake?
I would be speculating were I to say that these writings were the "ramblings of an old demented woman," although they might have been, so I'll just say, I don't know. Lady Adad-Guppi isn't relevant.
@AnnOMaly:
How is it unreliable? If any of the data is incorrect, you must tell me and then I can correct it.
Must I? No, I don't think I must. You just want to argue with me about your data, when your data is totally insignificant to me as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
@djeggnog wrote:
Well, the data is unreliable. I made some notes and tucked them somewhere on my computer or on my iPad, and I suppose I should have posted something to the thread that would jog my memory, but I didn't, so it seems that you and I won't be turning this thread into something that only a few of us on JWN can even understand, that is, beyond that which is on the surface.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
JWN posters are pretty sharp on the whole and anyway, we do not have to turn this thread into anything complex.
No, they're not; I disagree with this assessment you make here about JWN posters. Many of them have had very little education and most of them cannot articulate their own points of view so they most of them will quite often resort to cut-and-pasting their comments because they can only dream they had the academic wherewithal and mental acuity to be able to articulate the things that want to say, but cannot say themselves. I don't make a big deal about this because no one is perfect, so whenever someone should confront me on here that doesn't know how to construct a sentence or how to put two of them together to make a coherent point, I will often try to help them in the way I respond to their statements.
And you aren't being honest when you suggest that this thread doesn't have to necessarily be turned "into anything complex," when asking me to attack correct your data in some other thread would make this a complex thread, and I've decided that I don't have any interest in doing this. Like I told you:
(djeggnog:)
@AnnOMaly, you don't use the Bible to support your arguments; you use it only when the Bible supports your arguments.
You called this "a real cockamamy sentence," and even if it is, I believe it accuracy states the case about you, @AnnOMaly.
Also, if you are arguing for a particular theological stance, you HAVE to use your primary source - the Bible - in the argument. Don't pretend otherwise.
Believe me, I don't intend to discard my "primary source." Why, were it not for the Bible, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion! For me to claim that I didn't need to use the Bible would be a bit pretentious, but as to whether I would argue "for a particular theological stance," may I remind you that I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and if you don't know what this means, what this means is that I don't care about theology. I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm only interested in championing Bible truth, but if Christian theology should be your thing, then more power to you: This would, in fact, be your thing, @AnnOMaly, and not mine.
Talking about that other 607 thread, you were supposed to be using the Bible alone.
In a discussion as to the veracity of whether, in fact, Babylon destructed Jerusalem in 607 BC, I don't see how it is even possible to discuss the matter using the Bible alone. There are no dates embedded in the Bible as to the various events recorded in the Bible, from Adam to Noah to Moses to Solomon to Jesus, so the only reason we are even able to discuss whether it was 587 or 607 BC when Babylon deposed Jerusalem is because of the secular resources on which we rely to provide some chronological context to it all.
Anyone to claim to be able to use only the Bible to prove that 607 BC is wrong or to prove that 587 BC is wrong isn't capable of using common sense. @Witness My Fury actually started a thread, entitled "607 wrong using ONLY the bible and some common sense," and despite the provocatively strange title, it turned out to be a very informative thread. I especially liked what I contributed to it as to what Josephus wrote regarding the Phoenician kings (that is to say, the kings of Tyre).
You couldn't stick to that and appealed to Josephus' Tyrian king list which you then dishonestly manipulated and artificially extended to fit with the WTS's time-line. You were called on it and rightly got your butt kicked.
I don't recall getting my butt kicked by anyone in that thread, but if it is your recollection that you did "kick my butt," then maybe I'm wrong and I need to review the thread, since I thought I had merely shared my opinions with you and others in that thread, not debated you as to how right I thought myself to be and how wrong I thought you to be. What I conjectured about the Tyrian king list was just that, conjecture, and I thought what I suggested to have been plausible, even if you didn't agree with me. You see, @AnnOMaly, I had written what I thought to have been plausible in that thread, not what you thought to have been plausible in that thread. Do you see how this works? I share with you what I think, not share with you what you think?
Lesson to be learned: If you lie and make false allegations, you're going to get a thorough hammering.
Ok.
Now with that in mind, be a doll, gather those notes and clearly and concisely lay out where the astronomical data in my table is unreliable.
No, @AnnOMaly, but let me propose something for your consideration regarding 587 BC. You and others on here have opined that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon's army in 587 BC, so this would mean that by counting forward 2,520 years, starting from 587 BC, we would arrive at the year 1932 AD, correct?
Thus, using the year 587 BC, we would have 587 BC to 1 BC=586 years; 1 BC to 1 AD=1 year; 1 AD to 1932 AD=1,933 years, and when added together (586 +1+1933=2520), this would mean that Jesus had begun actively ruling in heaven as king in 1932 AD for the appointed times of the nations would have ended in 1932. This would also mean that whereas Jehovah's Witnesses have been preaching that Jesus had begun to rule some 18 years earlier than he had actually been ruling, and this would mean that it has only been 80 years since the generation of the sign of Christ's presence began.
As I see it, no matter whether one should prefer 607 BC or 587 BC as the year when Solomon's temple and Jerusalem's was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, no matter whether there are 70 years that separated Jerusalem's destruction from the release of the Jewish exiles by Cyrus or only 50 years that separate these two events, God's kingdom as expressed through the rulership of Christ Jesus now holds sway over "the kingdom of the world" (Revelation 11:15), either since 1914 or, at the latest, since 1932, which means that Satan has been hurled down from heaven to the earth and there is only "a short period of time" remaining before the rider on the white horse, Jesus Christ, completes his conquest and brings to ruin those ruining the earth. (Revelation 6:2; 11:18; 12:10-12)
Should the calculations of Jehovah's Witnesses be off by some 18 years, it seems to me that this would mean that the end of this system of things will likely come even sooner than we had realized and at least we have been warning folks for an additional 18 years that the end is imminent whereas no other Christian denomination seems to be aware of how close we are to the end of this system of things.
If 587 BC is the correct year and the year when "the Lord's day" at Revelation 1:10 actually began was 1932, how does this 18-year difference change things for you? Does it make you want to join us in preaching the good news about the established kingdom of God through Christ or what? Do you know what I think, @AnnOMaly? I think that you could care less whether it is 607 BC or 587 BC, or whether it is 1914 or 1932. I think you like arguing this issue as if it were important to mankind's salvation when you don't care about anyone's salvation, do you? You're just having fun on JWN, distinguishing yourself as a theologian and a historian that knows a thing or two about eclipses and full moons that in the grand scheme of things Jesus never indicated that knowing these things would lead anyone to life, am I right? Have fun, @AnnOMaly. Enjoy the rest of your life.
@Londo111:
[I]n reading your responses, I'm not sure whether or not you are perhaps toying with people here.
So you think I'm just joking around here?
If you are, it would be an unwise use of time for me to formulate a lengthy reply.
A lengthy reply would be lost on me when there are too many words on a page, it makes it hard to get through long messages because this sometimes means that I'm going to have to look up the definitions of the words I don't understand, like "unwise" and "formulate," so thank you for not doing so.
@AnnOMaly:
Bttt for eggie.
There was no need for you to have bumped this thread on my account. I didn't forget it was here, but I was busy.
His notes must need a lot of collating. I cannot imagine him wanting to pass over a golden opportunity to show me up if he believed there was any substance to his claims.
I cannot imagine thinking it necessary for me to try to prove anything to you. I post here for the benefit of the lurkers that read these threads, although I did think that you knew this about me, @AnnOMaly.
@Dagney:
@Ann: He's probably not back from service yet.
Was that supposed to be a joke at my expense? Do you know me? If not, then why would you be here fathoming a guess as to what it is I might be doing at any given time? I don't serve Jehovah based on the time of day, like maybe starting a job at 1:00 pm and knocking off at 2:00 pm. I am rendering to Jehovah sacred service both "day and night" in his spiritual temple, but babes in Christ, even fleshly Christians, tend to view their service to God as they do a job, as a chore, a drudgery, and their service, while commendable, is as of a Christian in training. They don't do it out of love for God and neighbor; they do it out of a sense of duty.
I'm never "back from service," @Dagney; this has no meaning to me. I'm always found serving my God, Jehovah, day and night, in his spiritual temple. You cannot see my white robe, but I always have it on; I hardly remove it. I'm wearing it day and night.
You may not be aware of this, but right now, as I compose this post, I'm rendering direct service to God in his Great Spiritual Temple as do all dedicated servants of Jehovah, just like when I study the Bible at home with the family, that is direct service to God, sacred service. Whenever I should attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall, that would constitute sacred service to God. If I should raise my hand to participate during any of the meetings held there, this would direct service to God, sacred service.
Those today who are in Jehovah's great Spiritual House are maintaining themselves a clean people, wearing their "white robes" such that they are clean physically, clean mentally, clean morally, clean emotionally, clean spiritually, and doing so in every way so that we are privileged to serve our God in his temple, "day and night." Our basic responsibility in Jehovah's spiritual temple is to maintain the purity of our white robes, maintain our clean standing before God, and those of us that appreciate the privileges we are assigned in his spiritual house are doing their best to carry out those responsibilities.
What's interesting is that the apostle John doesn't see everyone standing before God's throne; only those arrayed in white robes are the ones he sees. It is these white robe wearers that John sees 'coming out of the great tribulation,' and these are the ones who are 'observing the commandments of God,' following the example set by Christ's anointed followers, who have "the work of bearing witness to Jesus."
@djeggnog
102
Explain in a FEW word's why the 607 date is incorrect.
by XPeterX in
1. jw
2. friends
"if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it wel enough" albert einstein.
djeggnog

@jgnat:
The best evidence is always contemporary accounts. If it is further [corroborated] by other sources, all the better. The Babylonian Chronicles of the succession of Kings is our closest evidence..... I find the Chronology as worked out using the Babylonian [Chronicles] to be closest to the truth.
That would be 586/587.
I believe Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BC, but what I appreciate about your comment is how honest it was for you to candidly point out what others on here (like @Witness My Fury, like @AnnOMaly, like @Londo111) have also pointed out, but keep glossing over, in this and in other threads, namely, that pinpointing the year when Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem occurred cannot be established using only the Bible. You believe reckoning Jerusalem's destruction as having occurred in 587/586 BC would be "closest to the truth," and I believe Jerusalem's destruction occurred in 607 BC.
As you know, I believe based on the inscription written on the Nabonidus Chronicle that read, "Babylon fell VII/16/17," indicating that the date of Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 14, 539 BC ("VII": Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, "14": 14th day; and "17": 17th year of Nabonidus' reign), which year would have become Cyrus' accession year that regnal year, that it would have been during Cyrus' first regnal year, which ran from Nisan 538 BC to Nisan 537 BC, that he issued a decree that permitted the Jews to leave Babylon and "go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah" to commence the rebuilding of the temple, so that in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, the Jews would have returned to Jerusalem at the end of "seventy years" in 537 BC. (Ezra 1:1-3; 2 Chronicles 36:21)
In his Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chap. 9, par. 7, Flavius Josephus agrees with Jeremiah in stating that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year, after Gedaliah's assassination, when "all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years," so since Ezra 3:6 states that it was "from the first day of the seventh month," that is to say, on Tishri 1, 3225 AM, September 4, 537 BC, Julian, August 29, 537 BC, Gregorian, that the repatriated Jews began to offer sacrifices at God's altar in Jerusalem, and this would be when the 70-year period would have ended, then it would logically mean that by our subtracting 70 years from 537 BC, we will have deduced based on (1) the Bible, (2) Josephus and (3) the Nabonidus Chronicle that the land of Judah had been made to lie desolate by Babylon on or about Tishri 1, 3155 AM, September 27, 607 BC, Julian, September 20, 607 BC, Gregorian, which is when this 70-year period would have begun.
@Londo111 wrote:
What about Adad-guppi stele? It is the obituary of Nabonidus's mother, dating the lengths of every Neo-Babylonian king.
@djeggnog wrote:
Nabonidus' mother is [irrelevant]. Why do you mention this woman?
@Witness My Fury wrote:
Have you actually read that info?
I'll assume you have as you have absolutely no reason not to look at it once presented with it.
Yes, I have read the "Harran" piece, and yours is a fair assumption, for had I not read it before, I would have no business commenting on it.
[1]
"It appears from inscriptions that sometime around the sixth century under Nabonidus, vise-a-vie Cyrus, the Babylonians gained control. Under the neo-Babylonians it recovered some of its’ former glory. It served as the center for worship of the moon god Sin for many centuries. According to Adad-Guppi’s biography, Harran lay desolate (in the possession of the Medes) for fifty-four years (610-556) until, at the beginning of Nabonidus’ reign (555-539) a vision informed him that Marduk was to raise up his young servant Cyrus to scatter the Medes."
This is obviously someone's conclusion, for it is conspicuous that Nabonidus' reign is said to have spanned the years 555 BC through 539 BC, but while @AnnOMaly had anticipated that I would humor her by providing more context to my comment in a previous message about her data being "inaccurate," what I had planned to do when I found the time to do so was to humor you, by asking you three (3) questions based on the following excerpts:
Out of obedience to the divine order Nabonidus rebuilt the temple and committed it to Sin. (CR. Isaiah 44:28-45:1). He further built centers of worship for Sin in Ur and in Teiba, Arabia. The work in Arabia moved Babylonian militia to Yatribe (Median). This was an ominous venture by the king. This act was later viewed as self-imposed exiling of the king and an act madness. In Daniel this journey is said to have been a seven year prolongation by the king Nebakadnezar (Nabonidus’ predecessor).
FIRST QUESTION
Who would you say is this "Nebakadnezar," described here as "king Nebakadnezar (Nabonidus' predecessor)"?
[2]
"NABONIDUS HI, B
"Col. I
1. I (am) the lady Adda-guppi’, mother
2. of Nabium-na’id, king of Babylon,
.
.
.
29. From the 2oth year of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, that I was born (in)
30. until the 42nd year of Assurbanipal, the 3rd year of Asur-etillu-ili,
31 .his son, the 2 I St year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar,
32. the 2nd year of Awel-Marduk, the 4th year of Neriglissar,
33. in 95 years of the god Sin, king of the gods of heaven and earth...."
When I read this portion of the quote regarding Nabium-na’id, the son of lady Adda-guppi’, the woman that you and the author of this piece refer to as "Adad-Guppi," I thought of a parallel construction based on the 20-year period that the following five (5) men served as president of the US from 1961-1981: John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969), Richard Nixon (1969-1974), Gerald Ford (1974-1977) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) that I could use to set up my question. This 20-year period might be reckoned in the following manner:
When I take the difference between the 1st year of JFK (1961) and the 3rd year of JFK (1963), I come up with a difference of 2 years; then when I add, to these 2 years, the 6 years between the 3rd year of JFK (1963) and the 4th year of LBJ (1969), I arrive at 8 years; then what I add, to these 8 years, the 5 years between the 6th year of LBJ (1969) and the fifth year of RN (1974), I arrive at 13 years; then when I add, to these 13 years, the 3 years between the fifth year of RN (1974) and the third year of GF (1977), I arrive at 16 years; then when I add, to these 16 years, the difference between the 3rd year of GF (1977) and the fourth year of JC (1981), I arrive at 20 years.
Having said all of this, here is my next question:
SECOND QUESTION:
When I take the difference between the 20th year and the 42nd year, I come up with a difference of 22 years; then when I add, to these 22 years, the 2 years between the 42nd year and the 3rd year, I arrive at 24 years; then when I add, to these 24 years, the 20 years between the 3rd year and the 21st year, I arrive at 44 years; then when I add, to these 44 years, the 42 years between the 21st year and the 43rd year, I arrive at 86 years; then when I add, to these 86 years, the 1 year between the 43rd year and the 2nd year, I arrive at 87 years; then when I add, to these 87 years, the 3 years between the 2nd year and the 4th year, I arrive at 90 years. Do you understand Lady Adad-Guppi's reference to "95 years" to have been the result of her having been bad with math become of her age, or do you think that she made an honest mistake in coming up with "95 years"?
[3]
Col. III.
(Translation of lines1-19 is supplemented from the duplicate inscription, as rendered by B. Landsberger, loc. cit.)
.
.
.
5. (Now) in the 9th year of Nabu-na’id,
6. king of Babylon, the fate
7. of herself carried her off, and
8. Nabu-na’id, king of Babylon,
9. (her) son, issue of her womb, . . . . . . . . . . .
10. her corpse entombed, and [robes]
11. splendid, a bright mantle. . . . . . . . . . .
12. gold, bright. . . . . . . . . . .
13. beautiful stones, [precious] stones,
14. costly stones. . . . . . . . . . .
15. sweet oil her corpse he [anointed]
16. they laid it in a secret place.
THIRD QUESTION
If Lady Adad-Guppi's corpse had already been entombed, then who was it that inscribed all of this on this stele? One of her educated attendants? Her son, Nabonius? Her grandson, Belshazzar?
So what is it? A satanic conspiracy to mislead? The ramblings of an old demented woman? A fake?
:
I would be speculating were I to say that these writings were the "ramblings of an old demented woman," although they might have been, so I'll just say, I don't know. Lady Adad-Guppi isn't relevant.
@AnnOMaly:
How is it unreliable? If any of the data is incorrect, you must tell me and then I can correct it.
Must I? No, I don't think I must. You just want to argue with me about your data, when your data is totally insignificant to me as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
@djeggnog wrote:
Well, the data is unreliable. I made some notes and tucked them somewhere on my computer or on my iPad, and I suppose I should have posted something to the thread that would jog my memory, but I didn't, so it seems that you and I won't be turning this thread into something that only a few of us on JWN can even understand, that is, beyond that which is on the surface.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
JWN posters are pretty sharp on the whole and anyway, we do not have to turn this thread into anything complex.
No, they're not; I disagree with this assessment you make here about JWN posters. Many of them have had very little education and most of them cannot articulate their own points of view so they most of them will quite often resort to cut-and-pasting their comments because they can only dream they had the academic wherewithal and mental acuity to be able to articulate the things that want to say, but cannot say themselves. I don't make a big deal about this because no one is perfect, so whenever someone should confront me on here that doesn't know how to construct a sentence or how to put two of them together to make a coherent point, I will often try to help them in the way I respond to their statements.
And you aren't being honest when you suggest that this thread doesn't have to necessarily be turned "into anything complex," when asking me to attack correct your data in some other thread would make this a complex thread, and I've decided that I don't have any interest in doing this. Like I told you:
(djeggnog:)
@AnnOMaly, you don't use the Bible to support your arguments; you use it only when the Bible supports your arguments.
You called this "a real cockamamy sentence," and even if it is, I believe it accuracy states the case about you, @AnnOMaly.
Also, if you are arguing for a particular theological stance, you HAVE to use your primary source - the Bible - in the argument. Don't pretend otherwise.
Believe me, I don't intend to discard my "primary source." Why, were it not for the Bible, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion! For me to claim that I didn't need to use the Bible would be a bit pretentious, but as to whether I would argue "for a particular theological stance," may I remind you that I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and if you don't know what this means, what this means is that I don't care about theology. I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm only interested in championing Bible truth, but if Christian theology should be your thing, then more power to you: This would, in fact, be your thing, @AnnOMaly, and not mine.
Talking about that other 607 thread, you were supposed to be using the Bible alone.
In a discussion as to the veracity of whether, in fact, Babylon destructed Jerusalem in 607 BC, I don't see how it is even possible to discuss the matter using the Bible alone. There are no dates embedded in the Bible as to the various events recorded in the Bible, from Adam to Noah to Moses to Solomon to Jesus, so the only reason we are even able to discuss whether it was 587 or 607 BC when Babylon deposed Jerusalem is because of the secular resources on which we rely to provide some chronological context to it all.
Anyone to claim to be able to use only the Bible to prove that 607 BC is wrong or to prove that 587 BC is wrong isn't capable of using common sense. @Witness My Fury actually started a thread, entitled "607 wrong using ONLY the bible and some common sense," and despite the provocatively strange title, it turned out to be a very informative thread. I especially liked what I contributed to it as to what Josephus wrote regarding the Phoenician kings (that is to say, the kings of Tyre).
You couldn't stick to that and appealed to Josephus' Tyrian king list which you then dishonestly manipulated and artificially extended to fit with the WTS's time-line. You were called on it and rightly got your butt kicked.
I don't recall getting my butt kicked by anyone in that thread, but if it is your recollection that you did "kick my butt," then maybe I'm wrong and I need to review the thread, since I thought I had merely shared my opinions with you and others in that thread, not debated you as to how right I thought myself to be and how wrong I thought you to be. What I conjectured about the Tyrian king list was just that, conjecture, and I thought what I suggested to have been plausible, even if you didn't agree with me. You see, @AnnOMaly, I had written what I thought to have been plausible in that thread, not what you thought to have been plausible in that thread. Do you see how this works? I share with you what I think, not share with you what you think?
Lesson to be learned: If you lie and make false allegations, you're going to get a thorough hammering.
Ok.
Now with that in mind, be a doll, gather those notes and clearly and concisely lay out where the astronomical data in my table is unreliable.
No, @AnnOMaly, but let me propose something for your consideration regarding 587 BC. You and others on here have opined that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon's army in 587 BC, so this would mean that by counting forward 2,520 years, starting from 587 BC, we would arrive at the year 1932 AD, correct?
Thus, using the year 587 BC, we would have 587 BC to 1 BC=586 years; 1 BC to 1 AD=1 year; 1 AD to 1932 AD=1,933 years, and when added together (586 +1+1933=2520), this would mean that Jesus had begun actively ruling in heaven as king in 1932 AD for the appointed times of the nations would have ended in 1932. This would also mean that whereas Jehovah's Witnesses have been preaching that Jesus had begun to rule some 18 years earlier than he had actually been ruling, and this would mean that it has only been 80 years since the generation of the sign of Christ's presence began.
As I see it, no matter whether one should prefer 607 BC or 587 BC as the year when Solomon's temple and Jerusalem's was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, no matter whether there are 70 years that separated Jerusalem's destruction from the release of the Jewish exiles by Cyrus or only 50 years that separate these two events, God's kingdom as expressed through the rulership of Christ Jesus now holds sway over "the kingdom of the world" (Revelation 11:15), either since 1914 or, at the latest, since 1932, which means that Satan has been hurled down from heaven to the earth and there is only "a short period of time" remaining before the rider on the white horse, Jesus Christ, completes his conquest and brings to ruin those ruining the earth. (Revelation 6:2; 11:18; 12:10-12)
Should the calculations of Jehovah's Witnesses be off by some 18 years, it seems to me that this would mean that the end of this system of things will likely come even sooner than we had realized and at least we have been warning folks for an additional 18 years that the end is imminent whereas no other Christian denomination seems to be aware of how close we are to the end of this system of things.
If 587 BC is the correct year and the year when "the Lord's day" at Revelation 1:10 actually began was 1932, how does this 18-year difference change things for you? Does it make you want to join us in preaching the good news about the established kingdom of God through Christ or what? Do you know what I think, @AnnOMaly? I think that you could care less whether it is 607 BC or 587 BC, or whether it is 1914 or 1932. I think you like arguing this issue as if it were important to mankind's salvation when you don't care about anyone's salvation, do you? You're just having fun on JWN, distinguishing yourself as a theologian and a historian that knows a thing or two about eclipses and full moons that in the grand scheme of things Jesus never indicated that knowing these things would lead anyone to life, am I right? Have fun, @AnnOMaly. Enjoy the rest of your life.
@Londo111:
[I]n reading your responses, I'm not sure whether or not you are perhaps toying with people here.
So you think I'm just joking around here?
If you are, it would be an unwise use of time for me to formulate a lengthy reply.
A lengthy reply would be lost on me when there are too many words on a page, it makes it hard to get through long messages because this sometimes means that I'm going to have to look up the definitions of the words I don't understand, like "unwise" and "formulate," so thank you for not doing so.
@AnnOMaly:
Bttt for eggie.
There was no need for you to have bumped this thread on my account. I didn't forget it was here, but I was busy.
His notes must need a lot of collating. I cannot imagine him wanting to pass over a golden opportunity to show me up if he believed there was any substance to his claims.
I cannot imagine thinking it necessary for me to try to prove anything to you. I post here for the benefit of the lurkers that read these threads, although I did think that you knew this about me, @AnnOMaly.
@Dagney:
@Ann: He's probably not back from service yet.
Was that supposed to be a joke at my expense? Do you know me? If not, then why would you be here fathoming a guess as to what it is I might be doing at any given time? I don't serve Jehovah based on the time of day, like maybe starting a job at 1:00 pm and knocking off at 2:00 pm. I am rendering to Jehovah sacred service both "day and night" in his spiritual temple, but babes in Christ, even fleshly Christians, tend to view their service to God as they do a job, as a chore, a drudgery, and their service, while commendable, is as of a Christian in training. They don't do it out of love for God and neighbor; they do it out of a sense of duty.
I'm never "back from service," @Dagney; this has no meaning to me. I'm always found serving my God, Jehovah, day and night, in his spiritual temple. You cannot see my white robe, but I always have it on; I hardly remove it. I'm wearing it day and night.
You may not be aware of this, but right now, as I compose this post, I'm rendering direct service to God in his Great Spiritual Temple as do all dedicated servants of Jehovah, just like when I study the Bible at home with the family, that is direct service to God, sacred service. Whenever I should attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall, that would constitute sacred service to God. If I should raise my hand to participate during any of the meetings held there, this would direct service to God, sacred service.
Those today who are in Jehovah's great Spiritual House are maintaining themselves a clean people, wearing their "white robes" such that they are clean physically, clean mentally, clean morally, clean emotionally, clean spiritually, and doing so in every way so that we are privileged to serve our God in his temple, "day and night." Our basic responsibility in Jehovah's spiritual temple is to maintain the purity of our white robes, maintain our clean standing before God, and those of us that appreciate the privileges we are assigned in his spiritual house are doing their best to carry out those responsibilities.
What's interesting is that the apostle John doesn't see everyone standing before God's throne; only those arrayed in white robes are the ones he sees. It is these white robe wearers that John sees 'coming out of the great tribulation,' and these are the ones who are 'observing the commandments of God,' following the example set by Christ's anointed followers, who have "the work of bearing witness to Jesus."
@djeggnog
63
Can You Answer These 16 Bible Questions Honestly?
by The Searcher in
1. watchtower
2. bible
what does the bible really teach?

using only the bible, can you prove - 1. who the 'other sheep' are?

2. the context of john 10:16?
djeggnog

@The Searcher:
So, do you - and should all other witnesses, believe that all our teachings and publications are Spirit-directed? Simply put, are they inspired of God or men? (1 John 4:1)
The evidence is clear that God's organization is spirit-directed due to our faith in God's inspired word of truth and our heartfelt desire to demonstrate love among ourselves, and it is by means of God's spirit that we are being sanctified and are ever perfecting holiness in God's fear and keeping ourselves separate from the world, its politics, its strife and its conflicts. (John 17:16; 2 Corinthians 7:1) Our love for God and our neighbor in being manifested daily as we continually preach and declare the good news about the established kingdom of God without letup, and with regularity teach others what the holy spirit says to the congregation through God's word, the Bible, both at our Kingdom Halls and in our house to house work as we give honor and praise to God's name and show the utmost respect for his word of truth (Matthew 24:14; Luke 11:2; John 17:17; Acts 5:42).
Many Jehovah's Witnesses understand that our being led as an organization by holy spirit means that we are a spirit-led, spirit-driven or spirit directed organization, since it is our endeavor as an organization of God's people, to accept guidance from and to obey what God says to us as an organization through his word. Being spirit-directed means that when we read one of the above-cited scriptures (John 17:16, 17, 2 Corinthians 7:1, Luke 11:2, Acts 5:42 or Matthew 24:14), we are obedient to what the holy spirit is saying to us, because it is through the Bible that God speaks to us, through his spirit.
That you would be asking me here whether Jehovah's Witnesses are "inspired of God or men" is a curiosity to me, for this would suggest that you, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses or as having been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for a time do not know that what things we teach in our publications are not inspired by God at all or that the governing body that represents the faithful and discreet slave are not inspired men at all, and that we do not receive direct instructions from God at all. Learn what this means: "We are walking by faith." (2 Corinthians 5:7)
Except for the scriptures cited and quoted in our literature for teaching purposes, there is nothing in any of the things that you may have read in the Society's publications that is inspired of God, and whoever it is that thinks our publications to be a substitute for God's word is ignorant and they need to evaluate whether they are slaves of God and "subordinates of Christ" or, rather, are really "slaves of men." (1 Corinthians 4:1; 7:23) Only the Bible "is inspired of God." (2 Timothy 3:16)
@djeggnog
63
Can You Answer These 16 Bible Questions Honestly?
by The Searcher in
1. watchtower
2. bible
what does the bible really teach?

using only the bible, can you prove - 1. who the 'other sheep' are?

2. the context of john 10:16?
djeggnog

@etna:
from the bible, show how you came to 1914 Jesus came to rule. The date 1914 from the BIBLE?????
At Ezekiel 21:27, God used the prophet Ezekiel to inform King Zedekiah that he would lose his crown as king, so that God's typical theocracy, as was represented through the kings in the Davidic royal line, would become no one else's until the coming of the one having legal right to sit on God's throne again, after the trampling of his kingdom, as represented by Jerusalem, has ended.
At Daniel 4:25, in connection with a dream about a "tree" that represented the rulership of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, God told Daniel to inform Nebuchadnezzar that this "tree" would be chopped down and its rootstock left in the earth until "seven times" had passed over this "tree," after which he would then have come to know that it is only by God's permission that he was able to rule as king.
A year later, in fulfillment of this "tree" dream, Nebuchadnezzar became insane, so that for seven years' time he had lost the ability to function as a man, let alone rule as king, as his madness had driven him to eat vegetation as if he were a bull. During this seven-year period, Nebuchadnezzar's body was always wet, his hair grew quite long and his fingernails had become as long as a bird's claw, and at the end of the seven years, he regained his sanity and was restored to his kingdom, as he then came to realize that God is the one that permitted him to rule. (Daniel 4:31-37)
Now this "tree" in Nebuchadnezzar's dream actually symbolized Jehovah's sovereign rulership as had been expressed through the kings at Jerusalem that sat on the throne in God's typical kingdom on earth, and the "seven times" of Nebuchadnezzar's madness during which his kingship had, in effect, been trampled upon by God in that Nebuchadnezzar's rulership had been interrupted turned out to be seven lunar years of 360 days each, or 7 x 360, which means that Nebuchadnezzar's rulership had been trampled upon for 2,520 days.
In view of the fact that the "tree" in Nebuchadnezzar's dream symbolized Jehovah's sovereignty as expressed through the rulership of the kings that represented God's rulership, the cutting down of the tree for "seven times" indicated what occurred when Zedekiah had been deposed by Nebuchadnezzar, and according to the same Bible rule of "a day for a year" that had been applied to the Israelites when God punished them for their unfaithful conduct toward him in murmuring against the duly constituted authority of Moses, in which God had given them one year for each of the 40 days for their murmuring, and forced them to wander in the wilderness of Sinai for 40 years, likewise God had given one year for each of the 2,520 days due to their unfaithfulness to God, so that God's rulership would be interrupted for 2,520 years. (Numbers 14:29-34; Ezekiel 4:6)
At Luke 21:24, Jesus had indicated that Jerusalem, which city represented the typical kingdom of God through its theocratic rulership on earth, would be "trampled on" by the Gentile nations "until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled," thus indicating that the "seven times" contained in Daniel's "tree" dream, as applied to the interruption of Zedekiah's rulership, were still in effect on Nisan 11, 33 AD, when Jesus stated that the "appointed times" were then running their course, and had not yet been fulfilled. If the "seven times" began to be counted in the year when Zedekiah was removed from his throne, then these "seven times" would be fulfilled some 2,520 years later.
Correlation of these "seven times" being equal to 2,520 days can be found at Revelation 12:6, 14, where "a time and times and half a time" -- that is to say, 1 time + 2 times + 1/2 time, or 3-1/2 times -- is said to be equal to 1,260 days, which would mean when 1,260 is divided by 3-1/2 that each "time" would be equal to 360 days. This is how one could use the Bible to determine the meaning of the "seven times," and the length of each time. Alternatively, you could multiply 3-1/2 times by 2 and the 1,260 days by 2, which would give us 7 times and 2,520 days, respectively, and then by dividing 2,520 by 7, we would then have verified that each "time" is equal to 360 days. Afterward, one only need apply date math to determine when it was that Jesus has begun to rule as king.
Now some here would opine that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon's army in 587 BC, so this would mean that by our counting forward 2,520 years, starting from 587 BC, we would arrive at the year 1932 AD, which would mean that Jesus Christ would have begun to actively rule in 1932 AD. Thus, using the year 587 BC, we would have 587 BC to 1 BC=586 years; 1 BC to 1 AD=1 year; 1 AD to 1932 AD=1,933 years, and when added together (586 +1+1933=2520), this would mean that Jesus had begun ruling as king in 1932 AD when the appointed times of the nations would have run their course.
There are also some here (like myself) that would opine that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon's army some 20 years earlier in 607 BC, so this would mean that by our counting forward 2,520 years, starting from 607 BC, we would arrive at the year 1914 AD, which would mean that Jesus Christ would have begun to actively rule in 1914 AD. Thus, in this case, using the year 607 BC, we would have 607 BC to 1 BC=606 years; 1 BC to 1 AD=1 year; 1 AD to 1914 AD=1,913 years, and when added together (606+1+1913=2520), this would mean that Jesus had begun ruling as king some 20 years earlier in 1914 AD when I believe the appointed times of the nations would have come to an end.
One point that I did wish to make here is that no matter whether one should prefer 607 BC or 587 BC as the year when Solomon's temple and Jerusalem's was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, no matter whether there are 70 years that separated Jerusalem's destruction from the release of the Jewish exiles by Cyrus or only 50 years that separate these two events, God's kingdom as expressed through the rulership of Christ Jesus now holds sway over "the kingdom of the world" (Revelation 11:15), since 1914 or, at the latest, since 1932, which means that Satan has been hurled down from heaven to the earth and there is only "a short period of time" remaining before the rider on the white horse, Jesus Christ, completes his conquest and brings to ruin those ruining the earth. (Revelation 6:2; 11:18; 12:10-12)
Should the calculations of Jehovah's Witnesses be off by 20 years, that would mean that the end of this system of thing will likely even sooner than we had realized and at least we are warning folks that the end is imminent whereas no other Christian denomination seems to be aware how close we are to the end of this system of things.
@djeggnog
63
Can You Answer These 16 Bible Questions Honestly?
by The Searcher in
1. watchtower
2. bible
what does the bible really teach?

using only the bible, can you prove - 1. who the 'other sheep' are?

2. the context of john 10:16?
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
The interpretations we teach today are based on the conclusions we've reached over many years of studying the Bible and what things we teach include many things on which we can only speculate, which things help us to formulate predictions as to what things the future holds for mankind. Since we are not infallible, if we should come to realize that one of our interpretations or conclusions should contradict the Bible, we abandon what things we know to be false and take immediate steps to embrace what things we know to be true. It is because we do not receive our conclusions through divine inspiration that we have at times been mistaken in our viewpoint, but when we come to realize we are mistaken in our view, we have always taken steps to make whatever adjustments are necessary to ensure that what things we teach others [are] in harmony with the Bible.
@Listener wrote:
Usually any person making predictions claims they are able to do so by some higher power or authority.
Yes, and this is the case with Jehovah's Witnesses, who are only able to make prophetic forecasts -- predictions -- about the future because of a higher power and authority, the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, the true God.
Here, I understand you to say that the authority for predictions made by JWs is based on their speculation after careful study of God's word.
Actually, no, this is not exactly what it was I said, for I said nothing about the authority for the predictions we make. What I did say is that the interpretations that Jehovah's Witnesses teach today are based on the conclusions that we have reached over our many years of studying the Bible as a group intent on understanding the things written in God's word and this would include things on which we can only speculate since our conclusions may be based on incomplete information. Perhaps what I say to you here with help you to appreciate that the apostle Paul was referring to the progressive nature of our learning the meaning of the things written in God's word when we wrote at 1 Corinthians 13:9, 10 "For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with."
As to whom the authority for the predictions we make today belong, it belongs to the one to whom God gave it at the conclusion of "the appointed times" when "the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ" in 1914, for from 33 AD until 1914, Jesus had only been given authority over those of the "little flock," but since Jesus began reigning as king in 1914, Jesus now has authority over "the kingdom of the world," which includes those of the "other sheep," but the authority for the predictions we espouse that come from the Bible is Jehovah God.
Until 1945, for example, all Jehovah's Witnesses could do was speculate as to proper interpretation of Revelation 17:3, 8, with regard to the symbolic "scarlet-colored wild beast," about which the Bible had predicted would emerge on the world scene during "the Lord's day" (Revelation 1:10), which began in 1914, as we did in 1930 when we speculated in Light, Book 2, this "beast" to be "[t]he World Court and the League of Nations are one and the same organization." (Pages 94-95)
However, "that which is partial ... [was] done away with," for at a three-day convention in 1942, the talk, "Peace-Can It Last?" Nathan H. Knorr helped us all to appreciate that this "beast" that had first, in 1918, been the League of Nations, would rise from the symbolic abyss of inactivity, which it did, in 1945, as the United Nations, forever doing away with any further need on our part to speculate any longer as to what the scarlet-colored wild beast meant, since it was at this point in time that a "complete" understanding of Revelation 17:3, 8, had arrived.
The point I wish to make, @Listener, is that the interpretations that Jehovah's Witnesses teach today are based on the conclusions we've reached over many years of studying the Bible, and what things we teach may include many things on which we can only speculate, but it is the things we learn from our study of the Bible that are the basis for predictions we share with others as to what things are in store for the future of mankind. In my opinion, @The Searcher is not unlike that Samaritan woman to whom Jesus said at John 4:22, "You worship what you do not know," because he doesn't really know Jehovah; his knowledge of Jehovah is as incomplete as was that Samaritan whose knowledge of Jehovah was limited to the Torah, five books, when Jehovah, the God that she had claimed to worship, had made himself known to his people, the Jews, in some 34 additional books (as we count them today), so that, as Jesus said, she worshipped a god that she did not know.
This woman knew that God's name was Jehovah, but she didn't really know Jehovah as did the Jews, because her knowledge of Jehovah was incomplete even as @The Searcher's knowledge of Jehovah is incomplete. He is worshipping a god that he doesn't know, because to worship Jehovah, one must worship with spirit and with truth, and he needs to immediately stop speaking falsehoods, such as this one about "Sodom & Gomorrah's resurrection hopes," and calling me immature as he advises me to "try to reconcile what the G.B. thinks, with what the Bible really teaches."
If anyone that sits on the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses should depart from teaching what things the Bible teaches, he will immediately be removed, just as Ray Franz was removed, since it has never been about what anyone on the governing body thinks, but what the Bible teaches, and what it more, we must all learn to worship Jehovah "with spirit and truth." (John 4:24)
There is no scripture in the Bible to which we can point that says, "the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah will not be recipients of a resurrection during Judgment Day," but now that we understand what Jude 7 means, we no longer have any need to speculate. Having now interpreted what Jude 7 means, we can predict that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will not receive a resurrection.
@djeggnog