Posts by djeggnog

103

What will you be doing on the evening of the 11th ?

by Phizzy in

mrs phizzy and myself will be eating out, sure in the knowledge we will not have jw's using the same restaurant.. i may have a cigar along with my brandy at the meal's end to celebrate my (our) freedom..

djeggnog

103

What will you be doing on the evening of the 11th ?

by Phizzy in

mrs phizzy and myself will be eating out, sure in the knowledge we will not have jw's using the same restaurant.. i may have a cigar along with my brandy at the meal's end to celebrate my (our) freedom..

djeggnog

deleted

103

What will you be doing on the evening of the 11th ?

by Phizzy in

mrs phizzy and myself will be eating out, sure in the knowledge we will not have jw's using the same restaurant.. i may have a cigar along with my brandy at the meal's end to celebrate my (our) freedom..

djeggnog

@David_Jay

While your calendar that you printed here is somewhat correct, Passover is observed on Nisan 15, not on the 14th. It is an 8 day festival, beginning with a Seder that begins at sundown on the 14/15th and merges with the 7-day Festival of Unleavened Bread on the 15th.

While we both seem to be in agreement that the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread begins "on the 15th," what you seem to be unclear on is the "when" of the seder was eaten, which you suggest "begins at sundown on the 14/15th" and then "merges" with this sabbath. I sought to construct in one of my previous posts the relevant portion of the Hebrew calendar for the two weeks in April over which this sabbath spanned. It is admittedly confusing that I shaded the 22nd day, which should have been left unshaded as were the 9th and 10th days of this month, since this historic "8 day festival" began on the 14th day and ended on a high day, the seventh day of the sabbath, which is the 21st day. I will repost this graphic with an unshaded Nisan 22.

Now if as you suggest the seder was eaten "at sundown on the 14/15th" of Nisan, wouldn't this not only have spanned seven days in view of the fact that an "8-day festival" that ended on Thursday/Friday Nisan 20/21 would have had to have begun eight days earlier at sundown on Thursday/Friday Nisan 13/14? I could ask you instead, if you were to count backward from the Thursday/Friday when the eight-day period ended, would you not then arrive at the Thursday/Friday of the previous week when this eight-day period began? Since Nisan 15 begins at sundown, Nisan 21 would be short a day, just SEVEN days, would it not? Would you not then be altogether OMITTING the very day on which the seder was really eaten back in 2248 AM on the Hebrew calendar (in 1513 BC on the Julian or Gregorian calendar), to wit, the fourteenth day of Nisan?

I've decided to get into the thick of this a bit since what I'm about to say may not be as beneficial to you as it would be to those here that do believe the Bible to be God's word.

Regarding the lamb or goat that was to be eaten during the month of Nisan as a part of the Passover meal, God commanded that "on the tenth day of this month they are to take for themselves each one a sheep for the ancestral house, a sheep to a house. The sheep should prove to be sound, a male, a year old, for you. You may pick from the young rams or from the goats. And it must continue under safeguard by you until the fourteenth day of this month, and the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel must slaughter it between the two evenings. And they must eat the flesh on this night. They should eat it roasted with fire and with unfermented cakes along with bitter greens." (Exo. 12:3, 5, 6, 8)

I am aware that Jewish tradition interprets "between the two evenings" at Exo. 12:6 to mean that the passover lamb was to be slaughtered from noon time until sundown, so that the passover meal itself would be eaten on Nisan 15, even as you have stated in your post, but the passover meal was not eaten on Nisan 15, for were this the case, then this would then suggest that Moses did not lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt until some six hours after Nisan 14 had already ended. However, the Bible indicates that it was not "at midnight" on Nisan 15 that "the destroyer" passed over the homes of those having the blood of a lamb or a goat splashed upon their doorposts and on the upper part of their doorways, but that it was "on this night"—that is, on Nisan 14—that the Hebrew people were instructed to eat the flesh "with unfermented cakes along with bitter greens," which historically, according to Scripture, they did, in fact, do! (Exo. 12:8, 29; Heb. 11:28)

Actually, the slaughtering of the lambs or goats "between the two evenings" means that the Hebrews killed these animals between sundown and dusk on "the fourteenth day of this month," that is, they did this when the afterglow of the sun gives way to darkness before the twilight that occurs after sunset. However, "between the two evenings" should not be confused with the sunset-to-sunset or evening-to-evening (12:00 am-12:00 am) reckoning of the 24-hour day, for as Deut. 16:6 makes clear, the passover victim that was slaughtered on Nisan 14 was sacrificed "between the two evenings," that is, "in the evening as soon as the sun sets, at the appointed time of your coming out of Egypt."

In fact, on the day after the passover, God commanded the Hebrews to observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread, where on the first day—Nisan 15—was to be a holy convention as well as the seventh day—Nisan 21—was to be a holy convention as well:

"'Seven days you are to eat unfermented cakes.... And on the first day there is to take place for you a holy convention, and on the seventh day a holy convention. 'And you must keep the festival of unfermented cakes, because on this very day I must bring your armies out from the land of Egypt.... In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening you are to eat unfermented cakes down till the twenty-first day of the month in the evening.'" (Exo. 12:15-18)

So the Hebrews were commanded to eat unfermented cakes "in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month" for eight consecutive days, from Nisan 14 to Nisan 21, from the evening of "the fourteenth day of the month [of Nisan] ... down till the twenty-first day of the month in the evening."

First, the Jehovah's Witnesses are following a lunar calendar that they made up, not the same used by the Jews which uses the astronomical New Moon (and not a visible one) to determine the beginning of a month. There is no Sanhedrin in Jerusalem to determine when a visible New Moon begins (which was an unreliable, impractical, and if it occurs during a cloudy night, imprecise manner to determine a month's start). The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has taken it upon themselves to act as the Jerusalem Sanhedrin and pretend they are watching Jerusalem's sky (which they are not). You cannot determine in advance when a New and Full Moon should be discerned from Jerusalem if it has not happened yet.

There's so much I could unpack here [how exactlydoes one 'make up' a lunar calendar?], but I'll just say that there was no Sanhedrin when the exodus occurred. Not just the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but all Jehovah's Witnesses recognize Nisan as being the first month on the sacred calendar, the seventh month on the secular calendar. Despite the supposed imprecision, the ancient method on which Nisan 1 was determined was based on when the new moon nearest the spring equinox could likely be observed at sunset in Jerusalem. This means that were you to count 14 days from this calendaring "event," you would land one on Nisan 14, which usually corresponds to the day of the full moon. I fail to see how "a cloudy night" could have any effect on the appearance of a celestial object, but I'll stop here.

Next, and most important, we are talking about the merging of two feasts. Literalist Christians, like the JWs, refuse to acknowledge both Jewish tradition and secular history that shows that Passover predated the Exodus. It merged with the 7 day festival in observance of the Exodus from Egypt to create the holiday you see today.

"Most Important"? It's not true that Jehovah's Witnesses "refuse to acknowledge both Jewish tradition and secular history." To the contrary, Jehovah's Witnesses reject any tradition or ahistorical conclusion that renders God's word invalid. (Matt. 15:6)

As I write this it is Nisan 14, the day of preparation. After sundown we (already) mark(ed) the day by searching for the last of the chometz (leaven) by candlelight. We then observe the Passover with a Seder the following evening on the 15th of Nisan.

This year the 10th of [April] after sundown marks Nisan 15. Tuesday, when the Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Memorial will be Nisan 16.

Actually, as shown in the calendar I posted, Monday, April 10, 2017, corresponds to Nisan 13, 3793 AM (33 AD Julian/Gregorian), and, in another calendar I'm posting, corresponds to Nisan 13, 2248 AM (1513 BC Julian/Gregorian). This would mean that Tuesday, April 11, 2017, would correspond to Nisan 14, 3793 AM, Nisan 14, 2248 AM. You would need to skip a couple of days to arrive at Nisan 16 as you imagine to be the date upon which the Memorial will be observed this year.

Jehovah's Witnesses know very little about what they are doing. Remember, this religion was started by white, Gentile men in America at a time when anti-Semitism was an earmark of Christianity. Jewish "notions" were once rejected by all Christians until the Holocaust, so JWs felt it was their Christian right and duty to "restore" the Jewish calendar as they saw fit.

After the Holocaust, Christianity in general recognized that its own shortsightedness and bigotry contributed indirectly and sometimes directly to the Nazi's genocide of the Jews. Thus afterwards Christian scholars accepted Jewish academia as authentic and authoritative.

This, however, never changed groups like the Witnesses. To this day they even claim themselves as the main target of the Holocaust. So while they observe their Memorial, claiming it is Nisan 14 like a bunch of April-fool idiots, it will actually be the second night of the Passover holiday, Nisan 16, on the Jewish calendar. We call the entire feast Pesach or Passover now.

You seem to have gone off-topic here in your remarks, for I have no idea why it is you would mention the Holocaust or the Nazis, or why it is you decided to include anti-semitism as having been at any time "an earmark of Christianity," when, to paraphrase the Lord Jesus Christ, 'mankind's salvation actually originated with the Jews' (John 4:22) [how on earth can Jesus' statement be arguably anti-semitic?], but while you are free to do so, I don't personally and neither do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize "Christianity in general" and their many "Christian scholars" to be genuine followers of Jesus Christ, and this is certainly the case for those to whom you refer to here as "Jewish academia."

Jehovah's Witnesses are neither anti-semites nor bigots; they are Christians, who are appreciative that their slates were wiped clean when Jesus gave his perfect human life in sacrifice as a ransom for our sake, who forever lost two days of his life as many of those for whom he died continued living until his resurrection on the third day. Now Jesus will never get those two days back, but many of those living today may never have to experience death at all! (John 11:26)

By the way, this means that Passover ends the evening of Tuesday, the 18th of April. I am not sure what your calendar is marking after that date.

Ok. 😊

@djeggnog

103

What will you be doing on the evening of the 11th ?

by Phizzy in

mrs phizzy and myself will be eating out, sure in the knowledge we will not have jw's using the same restaurant.. i may have a cigar along with my brandy at the meal's end to celebrate my (our) freedom..

djeggnog

103

What will you be doing on the evening of the 11th ?

by Phizzy in

mrs phizzy and myself will be eating out, sure in the knowledge we will not have jw's using the same restaurant.. i may have a cigar along with my brandy at the meal's end to celebrate my (our) freedom..

djeggnog

@David_Jay:

As that will be Nisan 16 on the Jewish Calendar, that will be the 2nd day of Passover for me and my family.

I noticed upon reading your post here how you referenced Nisan 16 on the Hebrew calendar as "the Jewish Calendar," but Nisan 16 this year—in 2017—which is also 5777 AM, corresponds to April 13, the day you also referred to here as "the 2nd day of Passover." Since the Bible indicates (at Exo. 12:6) that a day was reckoned as "between the two evenings," that is, beginning from the first evening to the next evening (at approximately 6:00 pm), Nisan 16 would have begun when Saturday ended and Sunday began, at sundown around 6:00 pm, the THIRD day.

Because Nisan 14 is always Passover, and in the year 33 AD on the Julian and Gregorian calendars, which year corresponds to 3793 AM, Passover began on Thursday evening and ended on Friday evening, when the first day of the seven-day Festival of Unfermented Cakes began, "the so-called Passover" (Luke 22:1 ["which is called the Passover" (KJV)]), and also called a "sabbath." Nisan 14, the day on which Jesus was put to death, was "the day before the sabbath" (Mark 15:42), while "the next day, which was after the Preparation" (Matt. 27:62 ["that followed the day of the preparation" (KJV)]) would be Nisan 15; this "Sabbath was a great one" (John 19:31 ["that sabbath day was an high day" (KJV)].

Jesus was resurrected on Nisan 16, the third day following Jesus' execution just as I stated earlier, the day after the Nisan 15 Sabbath, the second day. Nisan 14 corresponds this year to sundown, April 11, 2017, the first day, so this is to point out that you reckoning of the Hebrew calendar is very mistaken.

@djeggnog

17

Type / Antitype article discredits many JW teachings

by Sanchy in

i was going over the type / antitype articles that were released in last year's watchtower articles and i've just realized how ironic it is those very articles can serve to demolish some of the most fundamental jw teachings.. take for instance the "questions from readers" section of the march 15, 2015 magazine.

after mentioning some "far-fetched" interpretations that others have applied to bible events, they go on to say:.

if such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma.

djeggnog

@DesirousOfChange wrote:

Elijah and Elisha represented Rutherford and Knorr. (wt 1965 pg 494-495 par 11-12)

I will quote here a sentence from the article, "Turning to Jehovah” (at ¶11):

That prophetically pictured the end of the work by the Elijah class and the continuation of the same work, only intensified, by the Elisha class.

Whether in this quote or anywhere within ¶¶11 or 12 you formed a conclusion as to antitypes that is unwarranted. You are, of course, entitled to form any conclusion you wish, but my point here is that absent a specific reference to Rutherford and Knorr as antitypes for Elijah and Elisha, respectively, your conclusion is ridiculous. Nowhere in this w65 8/15 article is there a reference to antitypes at all! You may have an ax to grind, and that's fine, but unless you can point to Bible characters that foreshadow or prophetically picture someone else (like how in the w76 1/15 article, Hezekiah and Sennacherib are depicted as being "types" of Jesus Christ and Satan the Devil, respectively, their "antitypes"), you sound rather silly.

I want to explain to you (briefly) that a "type" is an image or representatin of something that will come to pass at some fiture time. An "antitype" is the reality of the thing which the type represents. When Paul says that the quenching of Israel's thirst by the water that issued forth out of the rock, this "water" was a type or pattern of the "living water" that issues forth out of our great Rock, Jesus Christ, the antitype. (1 Cor. 10:1-4) I realize you may not care that which you said here was absurd, but my hope is that if I'm right (that you don't care), someone else reading my post will take my point here in the apirit with which I give it.

@djeggnog

48

Posters do you know of any cases where a devout JW was DF'd for Lesbianism?

by booker-t in

i think this is a hush hush topic among jws but i remember years ago at an assembly i saw two sisters(i am only assuming they were jws they could have been studies or relatives of jws) walking arm and arm like a married couple.

some of the jws looked at them like they had horns.

some of the jws moms were covering their small children's eyes and those two women were stared at like they had the plague.

djeggnog

@booker-t:

I think this is a hush hush topic among JWs….

Why? When it is well-known that the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages, despite there being 31 states that prohibit, and 19 states and DC permit such, your post suggests JWs living in the US have discovered a way to blackout all media. Your description of JWs suggests a belief on your part that you could tell them that in addition to repealing Obamacare, President Romney managed to convince Congress to pass legislation to force the undocumented not born here and all same-sex couples born here to self-deport by December 31, 2014. Maybe some JWs are naive, but what you describe here about lesbianism would make them stupid, too.

Do JWs condemn homosexuality? As one of JWs, I don't; I'm not a king. I have no authority over anyone's body, to dictate the kinds of things to which folks can give or withhold their consent. If a man is reportedly having or has had sexual relations with his first cousin, you might condemn this sexual union as incest; I don't. If this first cousin were a 20-year-old male, you might condemn this sexual union as homosexuality; I don't. If this man were a woman and the first cousin a 20-year-old female, I suppose you might condemn such a union as lesbianism; I don't.

When two consenting adults engage in sexual relations, whether they be married to one another, or one or both to someone else, or an unmarried couple, no matter their sexual orientation, is this not fornication? If this first cousin were a minor, say, a 16- or 17-years-old child, I do condemn such sexual unions as child abuse, but otherwise I condemn such sexual unions as fornication, because God condemns fornication.

I remember years ago at an assembly I saw two sisters … walking arm and arm like a married couple.

I read this and wondered what it was about these two sisters that led you to conclude that their "walking arm in arm" was as if they were "a married couple." I mean, did one of these women grope the right cheek or the left cheek of the other's buttocks with their free hand?

What about a competition where two men or two women or a man and a woman, each carrying a 16 oz. cup of water, must traverse 30 meters (approx. 98 feet or the length of a 95-foot basketball court!) to fill a 1/2 gal. jar, which can be done in two round trips, but typically requires three round trips to do so; the couple that is able to fill their jar with the most water, but at least past the 64 oz. mark without releasing their hands, wins?

Would the pictures of two sisters, even of two elders holding hands during the competition constitute all of the evidence you would need to condemn these "same-gender couples" of behaving "like a married couple"? Would you be convinced by the picture of the man and the woman paired together, who are not married to each other, that they were guilty of fornication?

You may find it surprising to learn that women have been holding other women's hands since they were little girls, so I suspect you are a guy that suffers from homophobia, which is fine because I suppose I could also be accused of being homophobic since when my wife had accidentally left in her car without her purse (and driver's license!), I brought it to her in a paper bag, but I'd never be seen carrying a woman's purse (I just don't like the optics of that).

Now would I teach my son against carrying his mother's purse, when he is to be in subjection to her, too? Plus, his mother is my wife, not one of my parents, and even if she were one of my parents incestually, I'm no longer a child!

You have your own standards–we all do–but Jesus said we shouldn't be judging others by our own standards, did he not? Perhaps you've read Matt. 7:1-5 at some point in the past; perhaps not, I don't know. Can you imagine a "devout" JW (I have no idea what this means!) not slipping a scripture or two into a discussion? (Either one is a JW or isn't!)

Some of the JWs moms were covering their small children's eyes and those two women were stared at like they had the plague. I remember one elderly sister just kept shaking her head in disgust looking at the women when we were all seated.

Are you known as a busybody? Are you the kind of person that likes to get involved in the affairs of other people, especially affairs of the salacious, sexual variety? That's cool; you be you. But whatever the reasons were for that elderly sister's "shaking her head in disgust" or those JW moms' "covering their small children's eyes" as if the two sisters that walked "arm and arm like a married couple … had the plague," were they known to be fornicators?

How do you know these two women were spiritual sisters? What if one or both of them were invited to attend the assembly, and they were legally married in the state to each other? Did Jesus not die "for the sins of the whole world"? (1 John 2:2, KJ) Isn't it true that all mankind was given a clean slate upon Jesus' payment of the ransom? (Acts 17:30-31)

Acts 17:30 says God has now "overlooked" (NW, AS), "winked at" (KJ) man's sinfulness. In addressing Christians, Paul said "some of you were" what at 1 Cor. 6:9-11? "Fornicators," "adulterers," even "men who lie with men" (NW#2), "men who practice homosexuality" (NW#1), "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJ)

Is there any sinner living today that the gospel, the good news of the kingdom of God, excluded? Is there any sinner living today whose Adamic sins were not covered by Jesus' sacrificial blood?

What if one or both of these two women you called "sisters" had been invited to attend the assembly, and they were legally married in the state to each other? If they should have heard something at the assembly or elsewhere that convinced them of the need on their part to repent in appreciation for the provision God made for everlasting life here in the earthly realm of God's kingdom through faith in Jesus' ransom would their former sins NOT be forgiven?

I have no authority to judge those "outside" (NW; "without," KJ); only those "inside” (NW; "within," KJ). Fornicators aren't limited to different-sex couples, who have yet to marry each other with one or more children; some are same-sex couples and some of these are married to each other.

God's word says: "You must not pervert judgment. You must not be partial or accept a bribe." ”Stop judging by the outward appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (Deut. 16:18-19; John 7:24)

I condemn fornication; I condemn child abuse. What I do not condemn is homosexuality, because I have not been given authority to condemn such and many in our ranks–"gay" and "straight"–were formerly fornicators until they decided to repent and became JWs. God condemns fornication and so do JWs.

Do you know of any JW women DF'd for Lesbianism? We always hear of brothers getting DF'd for Homosexuality but I never hear the flip side.

I understand what you mean, but there is no "flip side," except for religious bigots; there's only one side that matters. Jesus said: "He that is not on my side is against me." (Matt. 12:30)

@djeggnog

18

Christianity (including Jehovahs Witnesses) is the rejection of Christ

by exWTslave in

christianity (including jehovahs witnesses) is the rejection of christ.

take one of the most important teachings of jesus:.

1) he says one can even love his enemies and do good to them, and can tolerate anything (luke 6:27-32).

djeggnog

@exWTslave:

Christianity (including Jehovah’s Witnesses) is the rejection of Christ

I don't visit JWN very often (actually it's been awhile), but your topic caught my attention. You listed five points and describe them as reflecting "Jesus’s view of sin and sainthood," which they don't do at all. You and I may not be able to agree on what it means to reject Christ, but with this statement I cannot agree.

Take one of the most important teachings of Jesus:…

I note that you began your post by referring to "one" of Jesus' teachings that you describe as being "most important," and then go on to list five points, which you say "reflect Jesus’s view of sin and sainthood."

Jesus in no way links sin to Adam, Eve and Satan.

Jesus says Satan was a murderer "from the beginning" because Satan lied. Now this links back to Eden, to Adam and to what Satan said to his wife, Eve, which lie is what led to the united rebellion by the three of them against God in the beginning.

He clearly shows that one can CHOOSE to be a sinner or a saint.

Jesus healed a man that had suffered from a crippling disease (palsy) and he was healed after Jesus told him his sins were forgiven. This point I wish to make here may be a tad difficult for you to grasp, but what Jesus said on this occasion linked this man's former physical disability with sin, and he didn't choose to be a sinner, but he was likely born with this physical defect due to the sin he carried (inherited) from his parents.

What proves us to be sinners is that every doer of sin is a slave of sin (just as anyone that must have a glass of wine in the evening has an alcohol problem, which desire could be a precursor to alcoholism). For example: Were we to fail to keep our promise and forget to pick up our spouse's clothes from the cleaners, or we are observed driving in excess of the speed limit and are cited for violating the speed law, such things are transgressions (sins) because we didn't keep our word. We can choose not to go the cleaners, we can choose not to obey the speed laws, but often we forget or become inattentive and end up disappointing ourselves and others by not keeping our word (sinning).

But the Christianity (including Jehovah’s Witnesses) as we know today rejected this simple truth, and brought in the confusing theory of “one man sinned, hence all became sinners” and concealed the simple way Jesus presented as a way to holiness.

There may be in your mind a simple way to holiness, but Christianity is not unlike the field of medicine in this world with so many sick people in it. Lots of religious groups today besides Jehovah's Witnesses are engaged in the practice of espousing Biblical doctrines to others, but the five points you listed in your post only have meaning in the proper context:

Adam sinned and this brought condemnation upon Adam and his children; a ransom to God has been paid that pardons all of Adam's offspring from the law of sin and death under which all of his children had been born as a consequence of Adam's sin, which ransom brought mankind under the law of the spirit of the life in Christ Jesus.

That all mankind has been set free from the law of sin and death is the good news that Jesus' apostles preached, but the fact that we have obtained a pardon from any culpability with regard to Adam's sins didn't make anyone a saint. We became sinners through no fault of our own, but we're still "convicts," as it were, being thoroughly convicted of our sins, so until we are healed of our sinful condition, we will all need to demonstrate a willingness to obey the law of Christ as we seek God's forgiveness of our sins with a view to our becoming reconciled to God.

You may recall Jesus saying that Satan was a murderer from the beginning because it was in the beginning that Satan lied. Now this links back to Eden, to Adam and to what Satan said to Adam's wife, Eve, which lie is what led to the united rebellion by the three of them against God in Eden.

Jesus preached as good news how we can all become reconciled to God and by relating what his role would be in the healing of mankind; he even demonstrated through several miracles the power he would have over the sins that were a part of the human condition. If we are to become reconciled to God, we do need to demonstrate a willingness to obey the law of Christ and adhere to the terms of the conditional pardon we received through Christ.

There is really no simple way to holiness; a sinner cannot choose not to stop sinning. However, it is only by how we live our lives that we can honor Christ Jesus as God's appointed judge and be viewed by God as pursuing holiness. Sainthood is reserved for those called by God to be such and anyone that attains sainthood would be someone that God alone would choose, and so you're mistaken: Whether we are saints wouldn't be up to us. Sainthood isn't necessary for salvation or even a choice within our power to make, but repentance and obedience to the law of Christ is necessary and a choice that is within our own power to make.

@djeggnog

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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

@Londo111:

Welcome back, Djeggnog! It's been a while!

Yes, it has. Good to see you.

@Jeffro wrote:

djeggnog doesn't appear to know his subject very well. AnnOMaly here refers to the largest deportation of exiles according to the JW chronology. These are the exiles who were actually taken in 597BCE.

I suppose you could be right, but I don’t believe this to be the case. You are certainly entitled to believe differently than I do, @Jeffro.

I made no such 'mistake'. I quite deliberately explained how the context of Jeremiah 29 confirms that the seventy years at Jeremiah 25 could not refer to 70 years of exile. It's not my fault that Ethos couldn't figure out how the accounts relate.

Well, the "consensus" between @AnnOMaly and I is that you did make such a mistake. Look, @Jeffro: Nobody died; it could have been a worse mistake.

djeggnog attributes the following words to me:

All 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.

That is from something Ethos claimed I said, but my actual statement was:

The 70 years was a period during which all the nations served Babylon. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.

@djeggnog wrote:

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 BC. This is conjecture based on a drop dead date taken from the Nabonidus Chronicle of Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, the 16th 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 or about Tishri 16, 3223 AM, October 11, 539 BC, Julian, October 5, 539 BC, Gregorian. 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 or about 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.

@AnnOMaly wrote:

Tishri 537 BC began in October.

Is that right, @AnnOMaly? In 537 BC, yes, but in 539 BC? You might want to consult a calendar:

</iframe>

EDIT: @Simon, on some websites, the above code isn't stripped from the post, but it would appear (I don't know) that you allow YouTube videos to be embedded into posts, but not web pages generally. Is this is not correct, could you please post a response to this thread when you can (no PMs since I've always experienced difficulty opening PMs) indicating how I would embed a web page from an external website here? Thanks.

Just scroll to "Hebrew calendar" section, and enter "1 Tishri 3225" and click "Convert"; you should get pretty much the same dates that I did, @AnnOMaly. The embedded calendar is my gift to JWN. If this web calendar isn’t embedded, just click this link to open it in another page. But "537 BC" and the 16th day" were inadvertent typos (as usual).

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 [you meant BC, of course!]. This is conjecture based on a drop dead date taken from the Nabonidus Chronicle of Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, the 14th [you meant the 16th] day, in the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign.

Your date of Tishri 1, 537 BC is based on pure conjecture. You recognize that. We've been through this already in the earlier discussion with you and in this thread with Ethos. AlanF's research was presented, which included references to (1) the Bible and (2) Josephus, and showed 538 BC is on firmer ground than 537.

Yes, the date of Tishri 1, 537 BC is conjecture. In fact, every date we might fix to any Bible-related event is conjectured based on the drop dead date of Tishri 16, 3223 AM, October 11, 539 BC, Julian, October 5, 539 BC, Gregorian. I don’t have a problem with this since salvation isn’t based on getting any of these dates correct. For you this is fun; but for those of us for whom Bible prophecy strengthens our faith, this is all just water-cooler talk pretty much, @AnnOMaly. Other elders tend to think of this stuff as absolute, but I understand, just as you do, that this is all "pure conjecture."

@Jeffro wrote:

djeggnog attributes the following words to me:

All 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.

That is from something Ethos claimed I said, but my actual statement was:

The 70 years was a period during which all the nations served Babylon. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.

I’m not sure what happened here, but you’re right. I suppose that when I keyboarded this portion of my post instead of dictating it to my PC (I had to use my iPad to complete that post), I misquoted this portion of Post 3025, which says (on Page 20):

(@Ethos:)

Simple question: Where does Jehovah say he will make the Jews serve their enemies? In a land they have not known. Therefore, the servitude cannot begin in 609 BCE, while all the Jews remain comfortably abided in Judea.

Again, there is no mention of the 70 years at Jeremiah 17:4. The 70 years was a period during which all the nations served Babylon. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.

(@Jeffro:)

@djeggnog

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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