djeggnog

Joined

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

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I don't see the relevance of knowing when the Persian revolt began, but I suppose there are many ways in which the year 539 BC might be established. [I] do know that it isn't possible to establish the year when Babylon was deposed by means of the Nabonidus Chronicle or Ptolemy's Canon, but Eusebius indicates (also Diodorus and Africanus) Cyrus' first regnal year beginning Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 BC), and ending Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 BC), and since cuneiform tablets indicate that Cyrus ruled over Babylon for nine years (the olympiad year ran from July 1 to June 30), then subtracting nine years from 530 BC, one arrives at 539 BC.

  @TD wrote:

  I think the only relevance would lie in the fact that the Nabonidus Chronicle mentions that event and links it with a [specific] year of Nabonidus' reign. The 6th year of Nabonidus needs to correspond to the year 550BC. --Else something is wrong somewhere.

  Well, @TD, here's that "king-list" based on Ptolemy's Canon:

  Nabopolassar, 627 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 606/605 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 562 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 560 BC for four years

  Nabonidus, from 556 BC for 17 years

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  Now here's the point I would make: According to Ptolemy's Canon, Nabonidus' reign began in the year 556 BC, so if Nabonidus' sixth regnal year would have begun in the spring on Nisan 1, 551 BC, and ended in the spring on Adar 29, 550 BC, but for the fact that this is just a hypothetical. IOW, I don't believe the regnal years assigned to the kings of the Babylonian Dynasty in Ptolemy's Canon to be correct. I believe Nabopolassar's reign began in a year earlier than in the year 627 BC; try 646 BC. I also believe that Nabonidus ascended to the throne of Babylon as king earlier than in the year 556 BC and that he reigned longer than just 17 years; try 574 BC with his accession year being 575 BC, and with his son, Belshazzar, who is not mentioned in Ptolemy's Canon, serving during his Nabonidus' third regnal year (572 BC) as coregent with his father as the king of Babylon.

  At any rate, you have presumably good reasons to conclude that the year 550 BC must "correspond" to Nabonidus' sixth regnal year. I get to 550 BC differently than you do, but, even so, we seem to both "get" there. This means that Nabonidus' reign has to have been longer than 17 years (which is my point!) and that it has to have extended an additional 18 years to the year when it fell to the Medes and Persians in 539 BC. While Ptolemy's Canon doesn't specifically list Belshazzar, based on what the Bible book of Daniel states, I believe Belshazzar was definitely the king of Babylon when it was deposed.

  Anyone at all that should believe otherwise is free to do so, but I'm fine with assigning 35 years to Nabonidus as king of Babylon and with assigning his son, the crown prince, Belshazzar, 33 years also Nabonidus' coregent and the second king of Babylon, which explains why Daniel refers to Belshazzar at Daniel 5:7-9 as "King Belshazzar," and why Belshazzar promised to make Daniel "the third one in the kingdom" since Belshazzar himself was the second one in the Nabonidus' kingdom, his father being the foremost one.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  Thats the trouble with the Watchtower, they always "assume" instead of proving what they say.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Here's your problem though: You're talking to someone that is one of Jehovah's Witnesses; you are not talking to the Watchtower that you seek to disparage at every chance you get. I am the one here providing proof of the things I have been saying here, with the inclusion of secular works that contain information that bears upon the Belshazzar's having been confirmed by archaeologists as king of Babylon, Nabonidus' son, and note that I've not quoted anything to you here from the Watchtower or from any of our publications. In fact, I've been primarily using the Bible here, but if you feel you must bash the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society or other Jehovah's Witnesses for the things I have been saying to you in this thread, then so be it.

  I didn't assume anything or ask you or anyone else here to assume anything. I've merely told you the truth, and if you should be at all interested in verifying the same evidence for yourself that I have uncovered instead of exhibiting your bias against Jehovah's Witnesses, then all you would have to do is do a little research for Professor Millard's "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," which was published back in 1985.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  The Insight Book vol.1 page 458 2nd paragraph says, you can count forward or backward from a pivotal point and goes on to say 539 is a pivotal point. So use 539 and count up with the years you used 17,35,4,2,43, and 21. How do you get 646?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Here you are [again] quoting something you read in one of the two volumes of the Insight book, when you don't believe anything [what] the Insight book has to say, so what difference could it possibly make to you what this book says about the year 539 BC?

  I think you are claiming a problem that really doesn't exist, except in your own mind, for you are the one using the number "17" used in [Ptolemy's] canon instead of the number "35." Just refer to the number of years in the king-list included in my response to @TD, that is, if you are truly interested in knowing how it is one arrives at 646 BC as being the beginning of Nabopolassar's reign.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  So when was King Neb. 1st year to rule?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year was 624 BC; his accession year was 625 BC.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  djeggnog, guess i had Nabopolassar on my mind 0n page 144. This indicates they mean King Neb.

  Again with the "they." You might wish you were exchanging messages with the "they," that is to say, the brothers at the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society that are responsible for publishing the Insight volumes, but you are instead exchanging messages with me, and now I'm going to tell you directly and frankly what it was I told you in my previous message, albeit indirectly through @TD.

  You are able to read the words you found in Volume 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, under the heading "Aramaic" in the second column, last paragraph ("It continued to be employed during the time Babylon was the World Power (625-539 B.C.E.)...," which words are referring to "Official Aramaic" that gradually came into use after the eighth century BC, but what you don't comprehend is the fact that "they" are not referring to King Nebuchadnezzar at all, but to the period 625 BC to 539 BC during which Babylon had become a World Power when Official Aramaic was used.

  I wrote that there is nothing in the sentence contained within the parentheses above that would indicate that it is referring to any aspect of Nabopolassar's rule, "let alone anything to the effect that Nabopolassar's rule began in 625 BC," and yet now you are saying, "This indicates they mean King Neb."? Wrong! There is nothing in the sentence contained within the parentheses above that would indicate that it is referring to any aspect of Nebuchadnezzar's rule either, "let alone anything to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar's rule began in 625 BC."

  The sentence that you are failing to comprehend -- "It continued to be employed during the time Babylon was the World Power (625-539 B.C.E.)..." -- contains the inference that Babylon had become a world power during the years 625 BC and 539 BC, and this inference is true, but this sentence is not saying that Babylon had become a world power in the year 625 BC. This would be a false inference. What this sentence is saying is that during the 86-year period when Babylon had become a world power, Official Aramaic was being employed or was actively being used by the Babylonians, but what this sentence doesn't indicate is the year during this 86-year period when it was that Babylon become a world power.

  Here's an analogy: If this statement had been, "The war in Iraq began to be waged during the period when George W. Bush was president of the United States (2001-2008)...," this would not necessarily mean that the Iraq War began in the year 2001, would it? No, for this would be a false inference to draw, the same as it would be a false inference to state that President Barack Obama began prosecuting the Iraq War in 2008 when he was elected president of the United States even though he didn't become president until President Bush's term of office ended in 2009, and there is nothing in this statement that indicates that it refers to the Obama presidency at all. Get the point?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I interpret the reference to "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 to mean that Babylon was recognized as being the Third World Power of Bible history during the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship in the year 607 BC, although the Babylonian Dynasty began with the reign of Nabopolassar in 646 BC and ended during the rule of Belshazzar when Babylon was deposed by the Medes and Persians in 539 BC.

  @Alwayshere wrote:

  djeggnog said "I interpret" Daniel 2:1 to mean that Babylon was recognized as being 3rd world power of the Bible History during the1st year of King Neb.Kingship in the year 607. You are quoting what is in the vol.1 of the Insight, page 576,left side under dreams.

  I've done what now?

  You are here making reference to the text in Volume 1 of the Insight Book on page 576, under the heading "Daniel" in the first column, last paragraph, that begins "Nebuchadnezzar's dreams" (not "vol. 1 of the Insight, page 576, left side under dreams"), that contains the phrases "Nebuchadnezzar's second year" and "607 B.C.E.," which reads as follows:

  "Nebuchadnezzar's dreams. In Nebuchadnezzar's second year (probably dating from Jerusalem's overthrow in 607 B.C.E.), he has a dream that 'agitates his spirit.' All the wise men being unable to reveal it, Daniel comes before the king and not only tells him the dream, by divine revelation, but interprets it, thereby saving himself and the other wise men from execution. This prompts Nebuchadnezzar to make Daniel 'ruler over all the jurisdictional district of Babylon and the chief prefect over all the wise men.' (Da 2:48) His three companions receive high positions outside the court, while Daniel serves in the court of the king."

  Please tell me where in the above-quoted paragraph did I quote from Volume 1 of the Insight Book on page 576, under the heading "Daniel" in the first column, last paragraph, that begins "Nebuchadnezzar's dreams"? Unless someone here on JWN (like you!) should make specific reference to something contained in our literature, I am hardly found quoting from our literature in my messages because I prefer using my own words to convey my thoughts. I didn't quote anything from anywhere; I merely recognized Babylon as being the Third World Power of Bible history during the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship in the year 607 BC," and if I had been quoting, I would have used quotation marks and written "607 B.C.E." instead of "607 BC," which proves I wasn't quoting from anything.

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

  Actually, no; you are plainly wrong here and have misinterpreted what the prophet Daniel is stating at Daniel 2:1. Where did you get the idea that Daniel was an exile in Babylon during "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar"? You believe you understand what you read at Daniel 2:1, but you really don't understand what this verse is saying at all even though I have made its meaning clear in an earlier message I posted to this thread. Sometimes it's possible to guess the correct meaning of a scripture, but it's better to know what other scriptures that provide guidance to understanding what one reads in the Bible correctly say so that we do not have to resort to guessing. I'm not guessing here, and by the use of logic and math with a little common sense, you won't feel any need to guess either. I don't care if you think you're right, because whatever it is that you might think, you're going to still be wrong unless you are willing to listen to me.

  I indicated that I had interpreted the reference to "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 to mean that it is evident that Babylon was recognized as being the Third World Power of Bible history during Nebuchadnezzar's first year of kingship in the year 607 BC, because Daniel cannot be referring to Nebuchadnezzar's second regnal year since 2 Kings 25:1-11 indicates that it was during "the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon" -- in the year 607 BC -- that Jerusalem came under siege by Babylon so that Jerusalem's wall was successfully breached and its temple destroyed through Nebuchadnezzar's chief of the bodyguard, Nebuzaradan. This passage also states that Zedekiah's sons were all slaughtered as Zedekiah watched, after which Zedekiah himself was blinded, bound and led prisoner to Babylon.

  The significance of the words "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 does not mean that Nebuchadnezzar had begun to dream dreams during Nebuchadnezzar's second year, which, counting from his accession year, would have been the year 624 BC, because his first regnal year would have been the year 625 BC. How do we know this? Because 2 Kings 24:12 states that when Jehoiachin's vassalage to Babylon ended, he became an exile in Babylon along with his wives, his mother, his court officials and other "foremost men," were taken captive to Babylon, and Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, whose names Nebuchadnezzar changed to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego "in the eighth year" of Nebuchadnezzar's being king.

  Do you see now? This means that it isn't possible that Daniel's reference to "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 could have been referring to Nebuchadnezzar's second year as king of Babylon since Daniel didn't become an exile in Babylon until Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year as king of Babylon. Furthermore, 2 Kings 24:17, 18, indicates that Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, reigned as king of Judah "for eleven years," which means that it wasn't until Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year that Zedekiah's reign ended and when Babylon destroyed Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

  Now do the math, @Alwayshere: If Nebuchadnezzar's first year, counting from his accession year, would be the year 625 BC, then Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year would be the year 607 BC ((625-607) + 1 = 19). You may not be willing to believe Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year is the year 607 BC, and that's ok, but the only point I'm making here, regardless of the year you prefer, is this: If Daniel wasn't in exile during Nebuchadnezzar's second year as king of Babylon, then it should be obvious that Daniel must have been referring to Nebuchadnezzar's kingship using a different perspective at Daniel 2:1, namely, he was referring to the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship, with the typical kingdom of God now deposed, as the dominant world power.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @TD:

  I don't have a real strong opinion on this subject so this is observation, not argument.

  Here on JWN, one only need have an opinion, let alone bring 'a really strong one,' because things like literacy aren't a prerequisite for folks to post messages here. I am accustomed to folks pretending to have read what I have written to the thread here, only to discover after reading their responses that they really didn't comprehend what they had read at all. For example, the OP asserted I had claimed "that Ptolemys Canon 'says' 35 and not 17," presumably with reference to Nabonidus, but I found this statement to which I allegedly made without being aware of it to be vague, so it anybody's guess to whom I had indicated a reign of 35 in Ptolemy's Canon.

  And then I should happen upon the statement: "Lots of fluff and filler but no substance." Can you imagine being the only scholar in the room and one of your kids (students) thinks himself/herself to be qualified to judge my statements as being incompetent? I don't have to use my imagination here on JWN. If my posts should truly be fluff and filler, perhaps I should start a blog where I can bloviate which is what most bloggers tend to do. Whatever. So why do I tell you these things? You mentioned folks here on JWN having 'real strong opinions on this subject,' so I thought I'd share with you some of the dim ones I've read in this thread that I felt someone needed to address tactfully. Please forgive me for all the "fluff and filler" in this reply, and don't worry: I'll eventually get to the point I wanted to make in a moment, but my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek here and I guess I'm not yet through with this lousy attempt at being tactful. (I really don't like conveying to others the feeling that I'm talking down to them, but when you're sitting up here where I am -- well, it's one day and a time.)

  I raised this as an example of illiteracy because, as it happens, when I responded to your previous message in which you provided the "king-list" along with the length of each king's reign from one of my previous messages, which message indicated Belshazzar to have been coregent with his father, Nabonidus, for 35 years, with a separate line to indicate that Belshazzar had to have ruled for at least 17 years as king of Babylon, you will recall that the first thing I stated in my response was this:

  (1) I provided the "king-list" from Ptolemy's Canon along with the length of each king's reign, which list assigns 17 years for Nabonidus' reign, but doesn't mention Belshazzar at all.

  (2) Then, in that same response, I went on to provide my own "king-list" along with the length of each king's reign for a 33-year rule by Belshazzar since I totally reject a 17-year reign for either Belshazzar or Nabonidus.

  Another example of the sort of illiteracy here on JWN is when I get a message from @Alwayshere indicating that "Vol. 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, the right side, last paragraph, says [Nabopolassar's] rule [began] in 625 [BC]," and I go to this reference only to discover an apparent reading comprehension problem since, under in Volume 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, under the heading "Aramaic" in the second column, last paragraph (not "Vol. 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, the right side, last paragraph"), the statement I read with reference to the use of "Official Aramaic" that gradually came into use after the eighth century BC is quite different: "It continued to be employed during the time Babylon was the World Power (625-539 B.C.E.)...." Nothing in this just quoted sentence indicates that it refers to any aspect of Nabopolassar's rule, let alone that his rule began in 625 BC.

  BTW, this is not to say that this sentence accurately states the case as to when Babylon was recognized as a world power from the Bible's standpoint; I've only quoting here what the Insight book states "on page 144, under the heading 'Aramaic' in the second column, last paragraph." I interpret the reference to "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 to mean that Babylon was recognized as being the Third World Power of Bible history during the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship in the year 607 BC, although the Babylonian Dynasty began with the reign of Nabopolassar in 646 BC and ended during the rule of Belshazzar when Babylon was deposed by the Medes and Persians in 539 BC.

  Since both 587BC and 539BC come to us from the same sources, it seems like it would be important that one does not [inadvertently] reject the evidence for 539 in the process of defending 607. Damaging the case for 539 would be analogous to sawing off a tree limb that we're sitting on, so the question of exactly how the 539BC date is established is important.

  There is no one that doesn't recognize 539 BC as the drop dead year creditting Cyrus as being responsible for bringing the Babylonian Dynasty to an end as a world power, with Medo-Persia emerging as the Fourth World Power of Bible history. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly do not reject the evidence establishing 539 BC as being the year when Babylonian Empire fell to the Medo-Persian Empire, and we feel no need to defend 607 BC; we accept that the kingdom of Judah was deposed during Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year, in which year Babylon became the dominant world power.

  Therefore the mathematical basis for 539BC is directly connected to the reign of Cyrus. The Persian revolt began in 553/552 and Cyrus finally overthrew Astyages, his grandfather and united Persia and Media in the year 550/549. The Nabonidus Chronicle records that event and dates it to the 6th year of Nabonidus. This was the basis for my question.

  I don't see the relevance of knowing when the Persian revolt began, but I suppose there are many ways in which the year 539 BC might be established. It do know that it isn't possible to establish the year when Babylon was deposed by means of the Nabonidus Chronicle or Ptolemy's Canon, but Eusebius indicates (also Diodorus and Africanus) Cyrus' first regnal year beginning Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 BC), and ending Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 BC), and since cuneiform tablets indicate that Cyrus ruled over Babylon for nine years (the olympiad year ran from July 1 to June 30), then subtracting nine years from 530 BC, one arrives at 539 BC.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Alwayshere:

  djeggnog, you say Nabopolassar begin to rule as King of Babylon in 646 but the Vol. 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, the right side, last paragraph, says his rule begin in 625.

  Does it? Please provide the name of the article you were reading in the Insight book; I primarily use the Bible, but I'll read the article if you provide the name of the article. I checked the articles on "Babylon," "Chronology" and "Nineveh, but I gave up looking for the article to which you are referring here.

  Vol. 2 of the Insight, page 332, 2nd paragraph, they quote Jer.25:11-12, then in the 4th paragraph, they say God is wrong, Babylon fell BEFORE the 70 years of the exile.

  While this is the conclusion that you have reached upon reading the Insight article "Exiles Return from Babylon," but nowhere in this article does it say that God is wrong. God's prophecy as recorded at Jeremiah 25:11, 12, states that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." You are reading something more into Jeremiah's words at Jeremiah 25:11, 12, than they actually say, for it had been foretold that God's people would have to become exiles in Babylon to fulfill seventy years "until the land had paid off its sabbaths." (2 Chronicles 36:21)

  As to the words, "these nations," used at Jeremiah 25:11, "these nations" would include Egypt, Tyre, Moab and the Medes (Jeremiah 25:17-26), for after God's theocracy in Jerusalem was deposed, Babylon had become the dominant world power and all of "these nations" drank from Jehovah's "cup" for at least 70 years. Recall that before Egypt was deposed by crown prince Nebuchadnezzar in 625 BC, Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar, was the reigning king of Babylon, who in 632 BC had deposed Assyria and Nineveh during his 14th year as king of Babylon, and Nabopolassar's rule began in 646 BC. (Zephaniah 2:13) That means that until it was deposed by the Medes and the Persians in 539 BC, Babylon had been the dominant world power over God's people from 607 BC for 68 years, and the Babylonian Dynasty lasted for 107 years!

  It's all who you want to believe, God or man. 646-539=107 625-539=86. I don't believe Babylon had world power 107years or 86 years.

  Babylon didn't become the dominant world power until it deposed the theocratic kingdom of God in Jerusalem in 607 BC, but you're absolutely right: It's who or what you want to believe. Jehovah's Witnesses read the Bible and assign dates to the many recorded events that are described it, just as do other organizations that study the Bible. Although are many theologians once rejected Belshazzar as being the king of Babylon about whom Daniel wrote, Jehovah's Witnesses believed what Daniel wrote about "Belshazzar the king of Babylon" in Daniel chapters 5, 7 and 8 without reservation. (Daniel 7:1)

  You remind me of many active Jehovah's Witnesses that are tied to our publications in such a way that without them, they would have to rely upon their memory of things that they really had not learned. Not once in this thread do I quote from the Insight book; not once. As a Bible scholar, I do from time to time need to conduct research using various publications, including those publications that were produced by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, but I use such publications in the same way those of us that have obtained a college education or that attended high school would use them: To validate statements of opinion proffered as fact.

  Despite some of the boneheaded statements that one might have read in any of our publications in the past -- and there have many of them since the inauguration of the Watchtower, Golden Age and Awake! magazines, like the opinion that was once floated about how reading the Watchtower could actually replace someone reading the Bible! -- our literature is more carefully scrutinized than ever before by our governing body, which ensures that unscriptural flourishes of the pen do not make it to the presses. Every one of Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to read our literature and report any apparent errors or misstatements either by writing a letter to Brooklyn, New York, or by reporting such to one of the elders in the local congregation so that the error or misstatement should not be repeated. There is nothing at all that is the equal of the Bible and to believe such is nonsense, even when one Jehovah's Witnesses says so.

  Our literature is essentially an aid to studying the Bible, but you may have noticed that I will typically not quote anything from any of our literature here on JWN, except from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, since anyone that quotes something that may have appeared 100 years ago, 60 years ago, even five years ago in our literature -- as you did in your message -- betrays that they may be nursing the totally false notion that everything that one reads in them are representative of the current beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, when the truth is that our beliefs are progressive as the light of truth becomes lighter and for this reason are subject to change.

  For example, when the book, Reasoning From the Scriptures, was first released in 1985, many thought it could be used to win arguments with the householder in our field ministry, and although the Reasoning book clearly states that "this book is only an aid" and that "a quick glance" at some of the thoughts under the subheadings that appear under a main heading "may be all that you need," many attempted to use it as if it were a field service manual, instead of as a handbook designed to help Jehovah's Witnesses "to cultivate the ability to reason from the Scriptures and to use them effectively in helping others" in our field ministry.

  Anyone that is qualified to teach others ought to know how to locate the appropriate scriptures in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Haggai and Zechariah to explain scripturally how God's prophetic word affected God's people in 607 BC and how God's prophecy came to be fulfilled when the Persians deposed Babylon in 539 BC, thus releasing the Jews from exile so that they could return to Judah at the end of 70 years in 537 BC, but until they should become more proficient in the use of the Bible, many Jehovah's Witnesses will use "crib notes" that they keep in their Bibles.

  A little help regarding the subject we're here discussing is provided in the Reasoning book under the headings "Bible" and "Dates," but only by undertaking a study of the Scriptures themselves can one become proficient in using them, for not everyone is comfortable with the fact that dates in the "BC" sequence are counted in reverse of the way one reckons dates in the "AD" sequence and so having a knowledge of when a king of Judah reigned in relation to Nebuchadnezzar's reign is key to demonstrating the reliability of Bible prophecy.

  Research typically requires one to authenticate what are really the opinions of many scholarly types in order to form one's own conclusions as to the topic being researched. But if one takes copious notes when conducting research, there should never arise a need to so the same research again, something that many Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty of doing as if for the very first time. Once you have learned, for example, that the overthrow of Babylon, which occurred in the year 539 BC, to be a historical fact, there should be no need for you to do a Google search, no need for you to visit a local public library, no need for you to open up one of our publications or use the Watchtower Library cdrom to re-learn what you have already learned.

  Now those that must research the same things a second, a third or even a tenth time are memorizing and are not really learning anything. If someone can articulate the ages of their parents, each of their maternal and paternal grandparents, the ages of their parents' siblings (your aunts and uncles) and of their own siblings, as well as the ages of their own children as well as that of their nieces and nephews, this is the same kind of detail-oriented learning that research entails

  If you should believe Jehovah's Witnesses -- and that is really what the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society are, Jehovah's Witnesses -- are perfect, so that you have made the stretch to also believe that what things we publish are as infallible as the Bible itself is infallible, then frankly, whoever you are, are just plain stupid. Now when I say this, @Alwayshere, I don't mean you personally, but I am referring to those that have decided that what things we have published in one of the many publications that have been produced over the years in order to help people to (1) obtain an understanding of what things they read in the Bible and (2) let them know where we perceive we are in the stream of time serve to represent much more than what we as a body of Christians may have concluded to be true at that time, as if the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses must be as static as those of Christendom's denominations.

  Jehovah's organization is a progressive organization that is led by holy spirit, which simply means that our beliefs are not static, so that we both acknowledge and accept that various doctrinal matters will become progressively understood as we also give prayerful consideration to God's words while also taking into consideration the things currently taking place in the world that in hindsight help us to obtain a better grasp on Bible truth. Jehovah's Witnesses pay attention to history and news accounts that either contradict what beliefs we may have had to abandon or that confirm our beliefs as true.

  For example, prior to August 23, 2006, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society has included many references to Pluto as being a planet, whereas our awareness of the International Astronomical Union vote that reclassified Pluto as being no longer a planet, but a "dwarf planet," which astronomer Percival Lowell had prior to February 18, 1930, called "Planet X," which another astronomer, Clyde Tombaugh, later declared to be a planet. There may have been other things contained in science books published before August 24, 2006, that are just as current today, but until those books were replaced in classroom, teachers would have had to explain to their students that the information regarding Pluto being one of nine planets was no longer accurate.

  Just as school teachers cannot be held responsible for what they believed to be true as to Pluto's being the ninth planet in our solar system between February 18, 1930, and August 23, 2006, neither can Jehovah's Witnesses be held responsible for what we believed to be true and printed in our literature as to Pluto's designation as a planet during this 76-year period, but since August 23, 2006, Jehovah's Witnesses have discontinued referring to Pluto as if it were a planet in any of our literature as it is our endeavor to embrace the truth and to abandon falsehood.

  Another example I can cite here as to how Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to embrace the truth and abandon falsehood is how it was from 1929 to 1962 we had understood the "superior authorities" to which Romans 13:1 refers to be Jehovah God and Christ Jesus to whom absolute subjection is due, but we, being guided by holy spirit, made a careful reanalysis of this matter, so that we came to understand through the pages of the Watchtower dated November 1, 1962, November 15, 1962, and December 1, 1962, that the "superior authorities" are the secular rulers, the political rulers of this world, who "stand placed in their relative positions by God" to whom only relative subjection is due.

  As a progressive organization, Jehovah's Witnesses have had to shed unchristian habits such as to the appeal by some to creature worship due to the charisma possessed by certain circuit and district overseers or members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, so starting in 1942, neither the names or the initials of any contributor to the Watchtower or to any of our literature is credited to anyone, and all material contributed by Jehovah's Witnesses in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the islands of the sea is provided to all of the congregations in the world under the supervision of our governing body. This is why it is laughable when some of the folks here on JWN indicate their belief to the effect that Jehovah's Witnesses get their "marching orders" from just "a few old men in Brooklyn."

  In this thread, reference has been made to the Nabonidus Chronicle and to Ptolemy's Canon, and while neither of these reckon Belshazzar to have been a king of Babylon, again Jehovah's Witnesses pay attention to news accounts about things that have surfaced which have shed light on things that were previously historical unknowns.

  The Skeptical Review has an online article entitled "Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B.C. Events Part Two" by Everette Hatcher III --

  http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/012dan.html

  -- which article makes reference to archaeologist Alan Millard's piece, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," published 26 years ago back in 1985, provides six (6) pieces of archaeological evidence reasons that support the view that Daniel was an eyewitness to sixth century BC events that no one writing about them during the second century BC could have known, which has forced critics to abandon the position that they had formerly held about Daniel being some fictitious character and Belshazzar "a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination":

  [1] Belshazzar was ruling during the last few years of the Babylonian Empire.

  [2] The Babylonians executed individuals by casting them into fire, but the Persians threw the condemned to the lions.

  [3] The practice in the 6th Century was to mention first the Medes, then the Persians.

  [4] Laws made by Persian kings could not be revoked.

  [5] In the sixth century B.C., Susa was in the province of Elam (Dan. 8:2).

  [6] Nebuchadnezzar had a pride problem (Dan. 4:30) and often boasted about his great building projects.

  Commenting in "Discoveries from Bible Times" on the four-inch-long clay cylinders covered in cuneiform script that dating back to the sixth century that were discovered in 1854 by a British consul in Iraq, Professor Millard wrote that "[w]hen the consul took his finds to Baghdad, his senior colleague was able to read the inscriptions, for, fortunately, he was Sir Henry Rawlinson, one of those who had deciphered the Babylonian cuneiform script, and Rawlinson stated:

  'The inscriptions had been written at the command of Nabonidus, king of Babylon 555–539 B.C.... The words they carried proved that the ruined tower was the temple of the city of Ur. The words were a prayer for the long life and good health of Nabonidus--and for his eldest son. The name of that son, clearly written, was Belshazzar.'"

  Regarding Belshazzar's kingship in Babylon, Alan Millard wrote in the Biblical Archaeology Review: "It may have been considered quite in order for such unofficial records as the Book of Daniel to call Belshazzar 'king.' He acted as king, his father’s agent, although he may not have been legally king. The precise distinction would have been irrelevant and confusing in the story as related in Daniel." The fulfillment of God's prophetic word with respect to the coming of the Messiah was wholly dependent upon the seed of God's promise to Abraham being born in the line of Judah through David, and what happened in 607 BC didn't derail the Abrahamic promise in the least, but gave proof that Jehovah is the God of prophecy, and that what he foretells will occur in the future does, indeed, come to pass.

  The question arises why should Jehovah's Witnesses care so much about the salvation of other people that they would spend time studying Bible prophecy and sharing what things they have learned with others? Notwithstanding that it is God's will that "all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth," Jehovah’s Witnesses view fellow humans as potential members of the Christian congregation. Some here on JWN have wondered how Jehovah's Witnesses hoping to survive Armageddon expect to obtain suitable clothing, transportation and gasoline for our vehicles if the infrastructure that exists in this world should no longer exist, but what they failed to realize is that not only are Jehovah's Witnesses involved in manufacturing, engineering, etc., today, but many of the "unrighteous" that will be resurrected in the new earth will then be in a position to use their former expertise as scientists, engineers, whatever, to benefit survivors and resurrectees alike as they, too, become members of the Christian congregation, or whatever it is we will be called under Christ's Millennial Kingdom.

  Like I said above, you're absolutely right it being who or what you want to believe, but Jehovah's Witnesses choose to believe Jehovah God and his word, we choose to believe in the principles that His son and our King, Jesus Christ taught, and we are exercising faith in his ransom sacrifice. Some refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as "prophets of doom," but we are ministers of God, ambassadors and envoys of the kingdom of God substituting for Christ, as God makes entreaty through us that those to whom we speak might enter his rest and "become reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:20)

  We choose not to believe man, who must live in hope that God's word is bogus, because they know that if they are wrong and it isn't bogus, then they will forever be foreclosed on being one of the survivors of Armageddon. There's no reason that you should believe Babylon to have been a world power; none. However, it is my hope is that you will have a change of mind before it's too late and that you will put your faith in Christ Jesus, for "there is no salvation in anyone else." (Acts 4:12) Jehovah's Witnesses are prophets though in the sense that we today, as did Jesus Christ, during his ministry, speak what are in reality the works of Jehovah in fulfillment of prophecy. (John 14:10; Matthew 24:14)

  @TD:

  [T]ying a specific year of Cyrus' reign to a specific year of Nabonidus' reign is important inasmuch as 539BC would be either confirmed or falsified by that correlation.

  Actually, the year when Babylon was deposed by Cyrus is not an issue in dispute today. What many dispute despite the existence of archaeological evidence to the contrary is the fact that during his third year of his reign Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, had appointed his son and crown prince, Belshazzar, as coregent, who after Nabonidus was the second ruler of Babylon, and who was considered by the Jewish exiles in Babylon (like Daniel) as the king of Babylon. (Daniel 7:1; 8:1)

  For example, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus defeated Astyages of Media and Ecbatana fell just prior to the 7th year of Nabonidus. (Presumably the 6th) In the [king-list] below, what year would that be?

  Nabopolassar, 646 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years

  Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months

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

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

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  Nabonidus' accession year would have begun in the year 575 BC, so his first regnal year would have been 574 BC. He appointed his son, Belshazzar as coregent of Babylon during his third regnal year, which would have been 572 BC. Accordingly, Nabonidus' seventh regnal year would have been 569 BC. (I have no idea what "Presumably the 6th" means, @TD, so regarding this I have no comment.) The reason Belshazzar is listed here as ruling for 17 years is not because he only ruled for 17 years, but just to make the point that he had ruled for at least 17 years, this 17-year period of which Ptolemy's Canon assigns to his father, Nabonidus, alone:

  Nabopolassar, 627 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 606/605 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 562 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 560 BC for four years

  Nabonidus, from 556 BC for 17 years

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  BTW, my "king-list" would be as follows:

  Nabopolassar, 646 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years

  Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months

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

  [Belshazzar (572 BC) for 33 years]

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  @Alwayshere:

  Thats the trouble with the Watchtower, they always "assume" instead of proving what they say.

  Here's your problem though: You're talking to someone that is one of Jehovah's Witnesses; you are not talking to the Watchtower that you seek to disparage at every chance you get. I am the one here providing proof of the things I have been saying here, with the inclusion of secular works that contain information that bears upon the Belshazzar's having been confirmed by archaeologists as king of Babylon, Nabonidus' son, and note that I've not quoted anything to you here from the Watchtower or from any of our publications. In fact, I've been primarily using the Bible here, but if you feel you must bash the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society or other Jehovah's Witnesses for the things I have been saying to you in this thread, then so be it.

  I didn't assume anything or ask you or anyone else here to assume anything. I've merely told you the truth, and if you should be at all interested in verifying the same evidence for yourself that I have uncovered instead of exhibiting your bias against Jehovah's Witnesses, then all you would have to do is do a little research for Professor Millard's "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," which was published back in 1985.

  The Insight Book vol.1 page 458 2nd paragraph says, you can count forward or backward from a pivotal point and goes on to say 539 is a pivotal point. So use 539 and count up with the years you used 17,35,4,2,43, and 21. How do you get 646?

  Here you are against quoting something you read in one of the two volumes of the Insight book, when you don't believe anything that the Insight book has to say, so what difference could it possibly make to you what this book says about the year 539 BC?

  I think you are claiming a problem that really doesn't exist, except in your own mind, for you are the one using the number "17" used in Ptolomy's canon instead of the number "35." Just refer to the number of years in the king-list included in my response to @TD, that is, if you are truly interested in knowing how it is one arrives at 646 BC as being the beginning of Nabopolassar's reign.

  So when was King Neb. 1st year to rule?

  Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year was 624 BC; his accession year was 625 BC.

  @Witness My Fury:

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

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

  You may want to cross reference Egyption history against the bible accounts as well when it mentions the various pharoahs... not by just adding 20 years to ALL the worlds history like the WTS likes to do either!

  I am a Bible scholar and I have primarily been here in this thread quoting from the Bible, although I did mention that there is a problem with Ptolomy's Canon in attributing only 17 years to Nabonidus' reign, the man that succeeded Neriglissar, who like Nabonidus was also one of Nebuchadnezzar's sons-in-law (after the short reign of Neriglissar's son, Labashi-Marduk), and appointed his eldest son, Belshazzar during his third regnal year as coregent in Babylon.

  I don't suppose Johsson's book explains any of this, but what I have been saying here regarding Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, has nothing at all to do with anything to which you might be referring that has been published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, and I don't see why you are even mentioning the WTS since we are discussing what the Bible has to say regarding the events that I have said occurred in the year 607 BC, which events others here say occurred in the year 587 BC, right?

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Alwayshere:

  djeggnog said "Nabopolassar begin to rule as King of Babylon in 646, died in 625, which year became his son's (Neb.) accession year, so the following year(624) would be his 1st year.

  Correct.

  History says 6o6 was Neb. accession so that would make 605 his 1st year. The Bible at 2Kings 25:8 "the 19th year of King Neb. was when Jerusalem was desolated."

  This is not correct.

  624-18=606. 605-18=587.

  Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but it is Nebuchadnezzar's "nineteenth" year if counting from his accession year as Jeremiah does at Jeremiah 52:12 (2 Kings 25:8), but it would be his "eighteenth" regnal year, which is the reckoning that Jeremiah uses at Jeremiah 52:29. Consequently, you believe Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC and I believe it was destroyed in 607 BC.

  @Alwayshere:

  606-18=587 BC

  @djeggnog:

  625-18=607 BC

  According to 2 Kings 24:10-12, it was "in the eighth year" of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship that Babylon lay siege to Jerusalem, which ended Jehoiachin's vassalage after "three months and ten days" and begins his first year of exile at Babylon. After Jehoiachin's having been taken into exile -- and keep in mind that 2 Kings 25:27 indicates that Evil-Merodach succeeds his father, Nebuchadnezzar, as king of Babylon during the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile at Babylon, thus ending Nebuchadnezzar's 43-year reign -- it is then that Nebuchadnezzar decided to make Jehoiachin's uncle Mattaniah his vassal king, changing his name to Zedekiah. During the ninth year of Zedekiah's reign, Zedekiah rebelled against Babylon and attempted to ally Judah with Egypt against Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar was about to besiege Judah at that time, but withdrew over the report regarding Egypt. (Jeremiah 37:5, 6).

  Two years later, however, during Zedekiah's 11th year, "the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon," Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, or his eighteenth regnal year, Jerusalem came under siege by Babylon so that Jerusalem's wall was successfully breached and its temple destroyed through Nebuchadnezzar's chief of the bodyguard, Nebuzaradan. Zedekiah's sons were all slaughtered as Zedekiah watched, after which he himself was blinded, bound and led prisoner to Babylon where he died. (2 Kings 25:1-11)

  Let's see how your 587 BC date squares algebraically.

  FACT 1:

  2 Kings 25:8 indicates that it was after Gedaliah's assassination that Nebuchadnezzar's chief of the bodyguard Nebuzaradan destroys Jerusalem and his temple during Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year, two months after Zedekiah's first year in exile began, giving Babylon totalitarian control over the Promised Land that God had given to the nation of Israel back in 1473 BC.

  FACT 2:

  Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that the drop dead date of Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 16, 539 BC, for 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." (Ezra 1:3)

  First, let's assign 587 BC to x:

  x = 587 BC

  Second, 2 Kings 24:12 indicates that Jehoiachin's first year in exile occurred during Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year.

  y = x - (19 - 8) [y = 598 BC]

  Third, 2 Kings 25:27 indicates that Evil-Merodach is the king of Babylon during the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile, after Nebuchadnezzar's 43-year reign.

  z = y + (37-1) [z = 562 BC]

  Ptolemy’s Canon assigns a total of 87 years to the Babylonian dynasty beginning with Nabopolassar and ending with Nabonidus at the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. Accordingly, this canon lists five kings that ruled during the Babylonian Dynasty as follows:

  Nabopolassar, 627 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 606/605 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 562 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 560 BC for four years

  Nabonidus, from 556 BC for 17 years

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  First, let's now assign 607 BC to x:

  x = 607 BC

  Second, 2 Kings 24:12 indicates that Jehoiachin's first year in exile occurred during Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year.

  y = x - (19 - 8) [y = 618 BC]

  Third, 2 Kings 25:27 indicates that Evil-Merodach is the king of Babylon during the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile, after Nebuchadnezzar's 43-year reign.

  z = y + (37-1) [z = 582 BC]

  Actually, the seven kings that ruled during the Babylonian Dynasty are as follows:

  Nabopolassar, 646 BC for 21 years

  Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years

  Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months

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

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

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  Cyrus decreed the release of the exiled Jews and they were able to return to the land of Judah by 537 BC, bringing to an end the period of during which the land of Judah lay desolate for 70 years. But you have Evil-Merodach succeeding to Nebuchadnezzar's throne in 562 BC, when his father died some 19 years earlier in 581 BC, which suggests that his father's death had somehow been concealed from him. Really?? 2 Kings 25:27 indicates that Evil-Merodach succeeds his father, Nebuchadnezzar, as king of Babylon during the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile at Babylon. What happened to those 19 years? Did they get lost somehow? Jehoiachin's first year of exile was 617 BC and so his 37th year as an exile would have been 581 BC, the year when Nebuchadnezzar died.

  If theocratic sovereignty of the Promised Land were to have ended in 587 BC, then where are Cyrus the king of Persia and Darius the Mede in all of this? Where have they gone? They haven't disappeared, have they? Should we regard these men as if they never existed, and, if so, to whom (other than to Jehovah God, who makes sure that his prophesies always come true) ought we to credit for freeing the Jews from Babylonian captivity? Who? What?

  Secular history has established Tishri 16, 539 BC as a drop dead date for when Babylon was deposed by Cyrus the King of Persia, which your chronology erases from history altogether.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @AnnOMaly:

  Regarding the 2 Ki. 24:1 question I asked: "Do you agree that 2 Ki. 24:1 does not tell us in which year Jehoiakim became vassal to Nebuchadnezzar? A simple yes or no will suffice this time." Shall I assume your refusal to answer means you agree that it's a 'yes'?

  You may assume whatever you wish; you have my permission. You are stuck on stupid, a "channel" that I generally skip when I can, except there are occasions when I have to admit tuning into it at times, doing so with the hope of making lemonade from lemons for the lurkers here, with so many rotten ones making it such a chore finding the best ones for lemonade. You want to use God's word to win arguments; I want to use God's word so that others 'might win when they are being judged by Christ.' (Romans 3:4) You wish to turn away as many folks as you can away from Christ; I have no wish to do that. Maybe by folks listening to your objections and my responses to your objections, they will be convinced to turn to God and not from him.

  The importance of this discussion that the OP began in this thread really is to help those put to rest whatever doubt they might have as to the efficacy of Bible prophecies, whether they are reliable, for it follow that if they are reliable, then they give proof to Jehovah's being a God of prophecy as well as a God of truth. All of such divine revelations from God help us not only to come to know that the will of the true God, but by examining them we have convincing evidence on which to believe that he will surely deliver on the promises that he had made for the future, for not only has Jehovah caused his prophecies and their fulfillment to be preserved in a book, but in this book he has provided eyewitness testimony as well from those that were affected in some way by their fulfillment.

  For example, without God's having had recorded in the Bible details as to the credentials of the Messiah, as well as eyewitness testimony from those that were living at his first coming, none of us today would have a real basis to put faith in what God purposes for the future, namely, a life free of suffering, sorrow and death, a world where no one lives in dread of catching some loathsome disease that impacts our quality of life, or in fearful expectation of ourselves or a family member being assaulted or murdered by someone or in anxious suspense over whether we will be able to eat or have a decent place to live.

  In this thread we have been discussing a God that disciplined his people so that the land he gave them might pay off the sabbaths as well as to teach them that true worship requires obedience to his laws. By means of the prophetic word, as recorded in the Bible by the hand of some 40 men, we today now know things about the future that many do not; we have hope that many others do not have. From our consideration of this prophecy in particular, we know the folly of trying to prove our own righteousness by our own selfish works since only by repentance from dead works and pursuing godly works of faith can we can help others as well as ourselves enter into God's rest day.

  But based on the fulfillment of some of Jehovah God's prophecies already and the things that his son, the Lord Jesus Christ, has taught us in enlarging upon God's will for mankind, and in his becoming sin for us to redeem and ransom those of the human family having faith, we now have even more convincing evidence that all of God's promises -- good and bad -- will come true.

  What this means is that very soon now -- maybe in our own lifetime -- we will finally see the end of the present system of things and the ushering in of a new heavens and new earth that God has had in store for mankind since the founding of the world when, through Jesus, God brings to nothing the one having the means to cause death and restores life to the billions of folks that have died over the past six millenniums, people whose lives were cut short because of the effects of inherited sin.

  And I personally thank God today that I have the privilege of being able to share the good news with others, including here on JWN, as to the grand hope of their being a part of what will be the nucleus of the new earth when Jesus is actively ruling here in the earthly realm of the Millennial kingdom.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Witness My Fury:

  Yes I know this has been done to death, but there's lots of newbies here lately and I doubt many will trawl thru all the old threads on it so it's worth rehashing every now and again I think. Plus I happen to think this is the most fundamental point in disproving any authority the WTS claim once and for all.

  I think it not a bad idea to write your posts in such as way as to inform the newbies, but I write my posts primarily to benefit the lurkers, who might be seeking a definitive answer to the question raised in controversy both here on JWM and elsewhere as to whether it is true that Jerusalem fell to Babylonian forces in the year 607 BC or, as some assert, in the year 587 BC. By our 'always being ready to make a defense of our hope,' in this way, we are 'sanctifying the Christ as Lord in our hearts.' (1 Peter 3:15)

  Yes the NWT has several "adjustments" in translation to make it appear 607 is correct, in my own research into this I've noted them....and showing JWs "other" bibles is never a good way to show them anything as we are conditioned to believe the NWT is SUPERIOR.

  Do you have any examples that you can provide to show where any of these "adjustments" to which you refer that have been made in the New World Translations of the Holy Scriptures has resulted in support for the doctrinal beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses that are not otherwise supported when using non-NWT Bible translations? I'd like to join such a thread, if you are willing to start it, @Witness My Fury, in which thread I trust that you will provide evidence of these "adjustments" that it has been alleged here would tend to affect one's comprehension of these prophecies one way or the other that we have been discussing in this thread, such as Jeremiah's, Daniel's and Zedekiah's prophecies.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Witness My Fury:

  Eggnog, care to "explain" Daniel 2:1 then? Also where do you get 35 years for Nabonidus and belshazzar from exactly?

  After Jehoiachin's rather short vassalage to Babylon ended, both he, along with his wives, his mother, his court officials and other "foremost men," were taken captive to Babylon, and Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, whose names Nebuchadnezzar changed to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, respectively, who more likely than not were teenagers at the time, became Babylonian captives as well. (2 Kings 24:15; Daniel 1:7) Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father, began to rule as king of Babylon in 646 BC, died in 625 BC, which year became his son's accession year.

  In previous posts, I pointed out that when Jehoiakim's three-year vassalage for Babylon ended in 617 BC, this occurred during his 11th year as king of Judah, after which he was succeeded by his son, Jehoiachin, as vassal king for Babylon, but also in 617 BC, after "three months and ten days" (2 Chronicles 36:9), Jehoiachin's vassalage ended "in the eighth year" of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship, so Jehoiachin was taken into exile at Babylon. (2 Kings 24:12).

  Nebuchadnezzar then made Jehoichin's uncle Mattaniah his vassal king, changing his name to Zedekiah. During the ninth year of Zedekiah's reign in 609 BC, Nebuchadnezzar's 16th regnal year, Zedekiah rebelled against Babylon and attempted to ally Judah with Egypt against Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar was about to besiege Judah at that time, but withdrew over the report regarding Egypt. (Jeremiah 37:5). Two years later, however, in 607 BC, during Zedekiah's 11th year, Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year, Jerusalem was besieged by Babylon for the third time, Jerusalem's wall was successfully breached, and Zedekiah's sons were all slaughtered as Zedekiah watched, after which he himself was blinded, bound and led prisoner to Babylon where he died. (2 Kings 25:1, 2, 8-10)

  Following Zedekiah's being taken into exile at Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar went on to appoint Gedaliah as governor in Judah in the fifth lunar month of Ab, who was assassinated two months later by Judean military chiefs in the seventh lunar month of Tishri, causing the inhabitants of Judah to flee to Egypt along with Jeremiah and his secretary. It is then in this year -- 607 BC -- that Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar's chief of the bodyguard, went on to destroy Jerusalem and its temple.

  While this occurred during the eighteenth year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar over Babylon, this was the first year of his exercise of world domination as a world power without interference from the kingdom of God, I feel it important to note here, @Witness My Fury, that dating the events mentioned in the Bible is only possible based on extant writings that reveal the drop dead dates when certain events occurred (e.g., 70 AD as the year when Jerusalem and its temple was destroyed has been well-documented).

  Now Daniel 2:1 states that it was "in the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar," that is, in 606 BC, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th regnal year, the second year after Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BC, that Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about a huge image of gold, silver, copper and iron mixed with clay that was pulverized by a stone, that perplexed him so much that he had been unable to sleep. Daniel's interpretation of this dream gave Nebuchadnezzar to understand that what it foretold was the march of world powers until they were overtaken by an indefinitely lasting kingdom set up by the God of heaven that would crush all of these kingdoms.

  It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that Daniel didn't know that Nebuchadnezzar had been king of Babylon when he was a boy and he had to have known that Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father, had been king of Babylon before Daniel was born. It would be just as unreasonable for anyone to think that when he wrote at Daniel 2:1 that it was "in the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" that the king had a dream, that he had forgotten that Nebuchadnezzar had been king of Babylon for most of Daniel's life. So it is reasonable to conclude that Daniel had to have written as to the "second year" of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship from a certain perspective.

  At Daniel 7:1, Daniel refers to another dream had in 556 BC "in the first year of Belshazzar the king of Babylon," who came to rule in Babylon along with his father Nabonidus, who had ruled as king in Babylon in 574 BC until appointing his son as coregent, and, at Daniel 8:1, he refers to yet another dream had by Belshazzar in 554 BC "in the third year of the kingship of Belshazzar the king."

  What's important to understand is that Daniel recorded events from a different perspective as is the case when he makes reference to Nebuchadnezzar's "second year of kingship," viewing Nebuchadnezzar's kingship not from the standpoint of his rulership alongside the typical kingdom of God, but from the standpoint of his having become a world power in 607 BC with no king sitting representatively on God's throne in Jerusalem. An inscription contained in the Nabonidus Chronicle reads: "Babylon fell VII/16/17," indicating that the date of Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 16, 539 BC. ("VII/14/17" meaning : Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, the 14th day, in the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign, wherein Belshazzar, as coregent, had ruled in Babylon since 556 BC.)

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years

  Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months

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

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

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  @AnnOMaly:

  Really? I would LOVE to see how you've established that length of reign. Can you show me?

  No.

  Sure. I don't get how you can redefine '3rd year of kingship' to '11th year of kingship' or '3rd year of vassalage.

  What concern of this is to me? I cannot concern myself with what things you cannot do. One thing I definitely see you have a problem with is being wrong, for you simply cannot accept it when you have been proven wrong. I cannot leap over tall buildings in a single bound and pigs cannot fly. You're neither a pig nor a dog, but I doubt that you are able to bound or fly either.

  It's totally absurd to then extract the conclusion that 'actually Daniel counted Jehoiakim as being king of Judah ONLY from when he became vassal to Babylon'!

  And who are you now? I'm the only one in this thread that speaks authoritatively about the Babylonian Dynasty, while you using conjecture, speculation and gobbledygook, the latter being a word that has gotten much use in this thread, have sought to confound through obfuscation that which can be explained using the Bible, with a bit of math and some common sense (e.g., giving due consideration to things, like the Nabonidus Chronicle, to shore up dates that would otherwise be unreliable).

  You are the kind of person, @AnnOMaly, that would read Jeremiah 25:1 ("the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah, that is, the first year of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon") and Daniel 1:1 ("the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah") and declare "Contradiction!" even though these two scriptures are not referring to the same time period at all, and then when it is shown to you that there is no contradiction, the desire on your part to be right drives you to soil yourself, so to speak, by declaring the explanation that you neither accept nor comprehend to be "Absurd."

  I would have to watch my typos because you are both a faultfinder and petty, but as I'm quite comfortable in my skin with all of my shortcomings, should you find a typo in this post, I don't care. Not only have I found you to be disingenuous, @AnnOMaly, but I've found you to be dishonest, too. That comment you made in this thread regarding Nebuchadnezzar's not having any "nasty, bloody battle" with Egypt during his "4th year" that would correspond to Jehoiakim's "7th year after his 3 years of servitude," is an example of the kind of dishonesty of which you're capable for you didn't mind applying spin in this thread to prove or confuse @Witness My Fury, which I found to be reprehensible.

  What you attempted to do here to @Witness My Fury in this thread is analogous to someone that agrees to breakdown a $100 bill (US) using 3-$20s, 1-$10, 1-$5 and 24-$1s for a stranger hoping the fact that you kept $1 would escape his notice. I'm looking forward to living in a world where the only real mistakes would be someone feasting on three or four sweet-tasting prunes and thinking that they're good to go for a three-hour trip only 20 minutes into the trip being forced by nature to make a pit stop, a world where some form of currency is in use, asking someone I'm meeting for the very first time at an amusement park in the new earth to breakdown a bill doesn't mean my having to count what is given in exchange before leaving the window.

  Was J'kim's vassalage to Babylon the result of a friendly social visit on the part of Neb? ... Come on, eggie. Dazzle me with your spirit-guided insights.

  I'm reminded of something that Jesus said to his detractors at Luke 16:31: If you aren't yet bedazzled by my "insights," neither will you be bedazzled were I to take the time to respond to this question either.

  @Witness My Fury:

  Yes I know this has been done to death, but there's lots of newbies here lately and I doubt many will trawl thru all the old threads on it so it's worth rehashing every now and again I think. Plus I happen to think this is the most fundamental point in disproving any authority the WTS claim once and for all.

  I think it not a bad idea to write your posts in such as way as to inform the newbies, but I write my posts primarily to benefit the lurkers, who might be seeking a definitive answer to the question raised in controversy both here on JWM and elsewhere as to whether it is true that Jerusalem fell to Babylonian forces in the year 607 BC or, as some assert, in the year 587 BC.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @saltyoldlady:

  The Darius Alwayshere was referring to is the same Darius as talked about on Page 584 of your very own Insight Volume 1 under Darius and the correct WTS dates given for the reconstruction of the Temple are 520 to 515 BCE

  We are not here discussing anything that might be contained in the Insight volumes. We are here discussing the Bible. I don't use Watchtower publications as a crutch as many of Jehovah's Witnesses tend to do; if you or @Alwayshere should feel a need to reference the Insight volumes in anything you might say to me, I'm ok with that, but I have no need to know this. My interest in this thread in what the Bible says on this particular topic.

  For once WTS had the dates right - he was not talking about Darius the Mede - get a grip man - quit speed skimming the material and thinking you have all the answers.

  My reason for distinguishing Darius the Mede from Darius the king is to establish the dates when each man lived to show that it is an impossibility that Darius the king was king when Nebuchadnezzar "burned the Temple" in Jerusalem and went on to appoint Gedaliah as governor in Judah, which occurred in 607 BC and not in 587 BC, for Darius the Mede became king 70 years later in 539 BC. And while @Alwayshere suggested that the Jews "were weeping because King Neb. had burned the Temple and killed the man, King Neb. made Governor," I pointed out that the thrust of Zechariah's question had to do with the reason the Jews were wailing during their previous 70 years of captivity in Babylon, that their fasting wasn't for Jehovah at all, but for themselves.

  More importantly, there aren't 70 years between 587 BC and 539 BC, so @Alwayshere decided that because there are 70 years between 587 BC and 518 BC that the year in which the 70 years came to an end was 518 BC. I realize that you didn't understand that what I was really doing is establishing the timeline for this 70-year period, did you? Please read on.

  According to 2 Kings 25:27, the reign of Evil-Merodach as king of Babylon began during the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin, "in the year of his becoming king," which means that if Jehoichin's exile began in 617 BC, then the 37th year of his exile would have been 581 BC, the same year when Nebuchadnezzar died. However, if the 70-year period started six years earlier in 587 BC, as @Alwayshere stated, then to count 70 years from 587 BC means that we would have to totally erase Cyrus the king of Persia, who died in 530 BC, and Darius the Mede, who Daniel 5:31 indicates was "about sixty-two years old" when he "received the kingdom," from history!

  Humility goes a long long ways - WTS removes it from their people - they have become stiff-necked just like the old Israelites because they think they have a "exclusive" on the Great God of the Universe, Jehovah.

  In the future, if you do not understand anything contained in any of my posts, you can just post a message and ask me what I'm saying, because you clearly read my post without understanding what I had stated in it. You want to attack the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society for the things I am saying to you, but I didn't write the Insight volumes, so you should save such attacks for those that did write these volumes instead of throwing darts at me because of your pathological hatred for Jehovah's Witnesses and the Society.

  For whatever reason, you referred to the Insight volumes, but I made no reference to them at all, only referring to the Bible. I'm mildly interested in seeing if you can take your own advice and demonstrate your humility by apologizing to me for suggesting that I was actually discussing Darius the Mede instead of Darius the king, when what I was really doing was establishing the timelines for the 70 year period for when Darius the Mede was alive and when Darius the king was alive pursuant to recorded history.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Alwayshere:

  The best way to prove to a JW they are wrong on 607 is to use Zechariah chapter 7, verses 1-5. It plainly says in the Fourth year of King Darius (518) some were wanting to know if they should continue weeping in the 5th and 7th [months] and ask how many years they had been doing this and the answer was 70 years. Their own Bible shows they were weeping because King Neb. had burned the Temple and killed the man, King Neb. made Governor. Now if you start with when they say Jerusalem was desolated, 607as 1 year down to 518 =90 years. now use 587 as 1 year and down to 518 =70 years. JUST LIKE THE [BIBLE] SAYS.

  I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses so I'm going to need you to prove me wrong since what you posted is not what the Bible says at all. In your reading of Zechariah 7:1-5, it is evident to me that you have confused "Darius the king" with "Darius the Mede," who had joined "Cyrus the Persian" (Daniel 6:28) in overthrowing Babylon back in the year 539 BC. An inscription contained in the Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that the date of Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 16, 539 BC.

  We learn from reading Ezra 1:1-3, 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 in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, "Cyrus the king of Persia" caused a decree to go out to the Jews, to build to Jehovah "a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah," which decreed permitted "all his people" to "go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah," to "rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel." Furthermore, as Daniel 6:8 makes clear about the statutes of the Medes and Persians, Cyrus' order was no different than any other decree of the Medes and Persians in that it could not be altered, that it was "not to be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which is not annulled."

  According to the Bible, "Darius the Mede" was 62 years old when he received the kingdom of Babylon. (Daniel 5:30, 31) The prophet Daniel describes Darius as being "the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes," and states that it was in the "first year" of his being made king over "the Chaldeans," that is to say, king over Babylon, that Daniel had begun to discern from what Jeremiah had foretold that the number of years "for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem" would be 70 years. (Daniel 9:1, 2)

  According to Ezra 3:1, when the seventh month arrived," which "seventh month" would be Tishri 537 BC, "the sons of Israel" were back "in their cities," having gathered "themselves as one man to Jerusalem." Eventually, Cyrus alone became the ruler of the Persian Empire after the capture of Astyages, who died leaving no legal heir. It was in "the third year of Cyrus the king of Persia," which would have been 535 BC, that Daniel received a vision as to what things would befall his people. (Daniel 10:1, 14)

  Cyrus died in 530 BC, but it was in 522 BC, after the death of his successors, Cambyses II and his brother Bardiya (or a usuper named Gaumata) called "Artaxerxes," that Darius the Persian, also known as Darius Hystaspis, became the ruler of the Persian Empire. It is Darius Hystaspis to whom the Bible refers as "Darius the king." At this time all work related to the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem had been halted by a ban imposed by the Persian emperor, Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7, 21), that had been caused by adversaries of the Jews that were upset that they weren't allowed to help with the rebuilding work, and so "all the days of Cyrus the king of Persia down till the reign of Darius the king of Persia they had frustrated the efforts of the Jews to rebuilt the temple, and all work had "stopped; and it continued stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius the king of Persia." (Ezra 4:3-5, 5, 24)

  Note the thrust of the question that Zechariah was to ask the Jews at Zechariah 7:5: "When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?" Zechariah is referring to the 70 years of fasting that the Jews had done while they were exiles in Babylon, and pointing out to them that their fasting was for themselves and had nothing at all to do with God, who had allowed the Jews to become captives in Babylon for 70 years "until the land had paid off its sabbaths ... to fulfill seventy years." (2 Chronicles 36:21)

  You are suggesting that the Jews "were weeping because King Neb. had burned the Temple and killed the man, King Neb. made Governor." Then you go on to say "now use 587 as 1 year and down to 518 =70 years." However, Nebuchadnezzar died after ruling for 43 years, so that his son, Evil-Merodach came to succeed Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 BC. When his father (Nebuchadnezzar) had besieged Jerusalem for a second time in 617 BC, he thereupon took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon.

  Ten years later, in 607 BC, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem for a third time and dethroned Zedekiah, at which time Nebuchadnezzar went on to appoint Gedaliah as governor in Judah in the fifth lunar month of Ab, who was assassinated two months later by Judean military chiefs in the seventh lunar month of Tishri, causing the inhabitants of Judah to flee to Egypt along with Jeremiah and his secretary. It is then in this year -- 607 BC -- that Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar's chief of the bodyguard, went on to destroy Jerusalem and its temple, all of which occurred.

  Now if Jehoiachin's exile began in 617 BC, then when we read at 2 Kings 25:27 that "it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that E´vil-mer´o·dach the king of Babylon, in the year of his becoming king, raised up the head of Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah out of the house of detention," this would mean that the 37th year of Jehoichin's exile in Babylon would have been 581 BC.

  Both Zechariah and Haggai were raised up as prophets of God in 520 BC during "the second year of Darius the king," which means that where we read at Zechariah 7:1 that if the word of Jehovah occurred to Zechariah in "the fourth year of Darius the king," this would have been in 518 BC. All of this controversy that Zechariah and Haggai were sent to address and to what Zechariah 7:1-5 refers has to do with the stoppage of the work on rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem after the Jews had been released by Cyrus from exile in Babylon.

  @Dutch-scientist:

  [Because] of forbidding high education as JW you will always have this topic.

  Are you suggesting that the reason the OP (@Witness My Fury), @Alwayshere and @AnnOMaly are having difficulty comprehending this topic is due to their having had an inadequate education? Really?? If I should be someone that has had a college education and earned a degree, does this mean in your opinion that someone whose education was limited to high school makes them for this reason inadequate to discuss this topic? I'm going to assume here that you have yourself obtained a college education so that it poses no difficulty for you to discuss this topic with me.

  It occurs to me that Jesus' apostles, Peter and John, who are described at Acts 4:13 as being "men unlettered and ordinary," understood the contents of the scrolls of Ezra, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, Zechariah and Haggai that we discussing among us here. I don't believe Jesus had a college education either, but do you think these men didn't have an understanding of things that related to the Babylonian exile and the rebuilding of the temple after they had been released from captivity, Zerubbabel's temple? Personally, I don't agree with you; I don't believe a college education is necessary to understand any of these things.

  For those who want to study this material need to know as basic; which empires where involved and the ruling kings, when they started and ended. try to understand the downfall of an empire. who where the allies in a battle.

  If you would, please provide a list of the kings that ruled from the time that Nebuchadnezzar became king of Babylon in 625 BC until it was overthrown by Cyrus in 539 BC. If you don't like these years, change them, but I'd like to see your list. Here's mine:

  Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years

  Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years

  Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years

  Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months

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

  End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC

  How we come with the date 539BC? Or which conditions need to be set to achief that the kingdom of Babylon was ended in 539BC?

  I have no idea what you intended to say in this last question -- "to achieve that the kingdom of Babylon ended in 539 BC" -- but what you wrote isn't even broken English. @AnnOMaly pointed out to me in this very thread when I was guilty of posting something in broken English, too, she called it "gobbledygook" (although she spelled it "gobble-de-gook"), so, please, tell me exactly what it was you intended to say here?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Either read what I wrote in response to one of your posts, and even emphasized again, or don't read what I wrote at all; your choice. You have isolated a fragment of what I posted to you from a previous post to make it say something I wasn't really saying at all, in view of the fact that I emphasized and even underlined in my previous post the fact that the defeat of the Pharaoh by Nebuchadnezzar occurred in 625 BC say at all. The year 625 BC is the year when the king of Egypt was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, but Jehoiakim's vassalage for the king of Babylon occurred in 620 BC; the year 620 BC was Jehoiakim's eighth year.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  I didn't 'make it' do anything. If you didn't really mean it the way it was written, try writing more precisely. Given your past blunders and mix-ups in more of the knee-jerk responses you gave, I had to double-check.

  You're right. My "blunders" were of the "knee-jerk" variety, and you should double check whatever it is I say here. Good for you!

  You left this hanging, unanswered:

  (AnnOMaly:)

  Please pay attention. There is no mention made in 2 Kings 24:1 of what year in Jehoiakim's reign Nebuchadnezzar made him his vassal. 2 Kings 24:1 does not support your claim that it was his 8th year. Do you understand?

  Do

  you understand? Do you agree?

  No, I don't agree that I left anything hanging. Not your real question, I know, but I'm going to need you to go back and read what it was I had written precisely twice in response to this very question you are here asking me for a third time, as well as this:

  Pharaoh Necho made Eliakim king over Judah in place of his brother, and changed Eliakim's name to Jehoiakim "and for eleven years he reigned in Jerusalem." (2 Chronicles 36:3-5) This was in the year 628 BC. However, Jeremiah 46:2 indicates that "it was during the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign that the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, was victorious over the king of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho; this was in the year 625 BC. The following year -- 624 BC -- was Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year when he officially ascended to the throne following his father's death, and in Nebuchadnezzar's fifth regnal year as king, Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal king.

  This means that four years later in 620 BC, which would be the eighth year of Jehoiakim's reign, Jehoiakim became a vassal king for Babylon just as he had been for Egypt before the Pharaoh capitulation to Nebuchadnezzar. (2 Kings 24:1) When Jehoiakim revolted against Nebuchadnezzar in 618 BC, his reign over Judah ended, to which vassalage his son, Jehoiachin, succeeded him as king over Judah.

  Incidentally, have you checked the cross-references to 2 Chron. 36:21 yet and seen where Leviticus fits in?

  No.

  You've researched this at least, yes?

  No. When I research something, I learn it; I sometimes will make notes about the matter I've researched, but when I learn something I don't need to do more research, for that would suggest that I did not do the first time what I claimed to have done. The only people that research the same things over and over again are those that are slow to comprehend what thing they read or forgetful. I'm neither, @AnnOMaly.

  Repeating what has already been rebutted won't make your statements any truer, you know. I've already shown you that there is no biblical support for your premise.

  No, you haven't shown me any such thing.

  Daniel mentions 'kingship' and you read 'vassalage.'

  Yes, I am able to comprehend with reference to Nebuchadnezzar the words, "Jehoiakim became his servant for three years," as referring to a vassalage, since Jehoiakim had not been deposed as the king of Judah, but 2 Kings 24:1 clearly refers to Nebuchadnezzar as "the king of Babylon" and at Daniel 1:1, Jehoiakim is said to be "in the third year" of his kingship as "the king of Judah," and I do realize now, with my having pointed this out to you already, that the meaning of these words may be a little bit above your pay grade, @AnnOMaly (this is meant as a joke and not as an ad hominem), because you just don't get it.

  Look: Think of Herod Antipas who made fun of Jesus after Pilate sent Jesus to him for a preliminary hearing to see if he could determine whether Jesus had committed a crime, who was (Luke 23:8-11) Herod Antipas was made king (tetrarch) by Augustus, so that he became the district ruler of Galilee and Perea, but the real king of Rome and all of its provinces, including Judah, was Caesar, so that Herod Antipas' kingship was, in reality, a vassalage, just as Jehoiakim's kingship was, in reality, a vassalage, for Nebuchadnezzar was the real king of Babylon.

  Daniel says 'third year' and you interpret that as '11th year of kingship' or '3rd year of vassalage.' Can't you see how you are distorting the text? There is no basis for it - there really isn't.

  Well, there really is a "basis" for what it is I have said here. You do not have to accept what I say; I'm sure you won't. But what you have to accept is that there may be folks in the world that are smarter about this stuff that you thought yourself to be. Get yourself a cube of ice and bite hard into it. It's good for your teeth and maybe you'll feel better, but whatever you do, please don't do any more research unless it's in a dictionary. I fear it'll just be a waste of your time since you've not been able to learn anything useful from whatever research you may have done in the past that will ever get you on the same page with me.

  In 625 BC, Nebuchadnezzar became king of Babylon, but in 624 BC was Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year, for Jeremiah stated at Jeremiah 46:2 that it was during the "fourth year" of Jehoiakim's reign that Nebuchadrezzar had defeated "Pharaoh Necho the king of Egypt." It was in 625 BC that Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebopolassar, dies, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, so four years after 624 BC, or 620 BC, would have been Jehoiakim's eighth year. By 617 BC, after three years of vassalage for Babylon, Jehoiakim has served eleven years as king of Judah, and is replaced by his son, Jehoiachin, as vassal king for Babylon.

  Frankly, @AnnOMaly, you've been beaten, so your asserting that there is no basis for what things I have said here will not make what you have said any truer. Not only did I interpret Daniel 1:1, but I also did the math after reading other scriptures (8+3=11); plus I have no interest in distorting the Bible text at all. I am fluent in English, it being my first language, and I will use as many of the words that are contained in the US English lexicon as I feel I need to use in order to make my point, whatever that point might be, which tends to explain the length of my posts and my utter contempt for brevity.

  When you lose, you should just set up the pieces for another game and hope that the next time you don't fall victim to the trap that you don't see, or just retire for another day. Get a dictionary and look up the word "serfdom." Perhaps taking the time to learn the meanings of words that you do not typically use can help you here, for 2 Kings 24:1 refers to Jehoiakim as Nebuchadnezzar's "servant," for a serf or a vassal is a slave and not a real king.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  To understand Daniel 1:1, one must interpret the verse as I have done here. You choose to read Daniel 1:1 literally, and that's fine, but were you guided by holy spirit, it wouldn't permit you to read this verse literally.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  ROFL! You have to be kidding me! This isn't prophecy where there are symbols and codes and metaphors to decipher. It's a straight, easy-to-understand narrative. And you'd do well not to attribute your twisted reasonings to the holy spirit! (Lord have mercy!)

  I kid you not, @AnnOMaly! Why the need for symbols and codes and metaphors anyway? Here's a prophecy that was uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ by way of illustration (parable) at Matthew 13:31, 32; also at Matthew 4:30-32. This prophecy is undergoing fulfillment today. Who are the "birds"?

  Whenever it is that I make reference to God's word, I am guided by holy spirit, even if you should think otherwise. To be honest, it doesn't matter to me what it is you might think. What matters to me is that whatever it is I have said is consistent with the Bible if I should say that what I have said is based on the Bible.

  @Mary:

  The truth of the matter is, there is no historical, biblical or archaeological evidence that Jerusalem first fell in 607 BCE. This is an invention of the WTS and they foolishly put all their eggs in one basket on this one. By tying the entire structure of their belief system to this erroneous date, they have been responsible for all the false date setting and false prophecies that have come out of this religion since its' inception 130 years ago.

  Evidently you are in agreement with what things @AnnOMaly has said here, but she hasn't proven that what I have been saying is incorrect. I don't have any interest in hearing you bashing the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society over your unwillingness to agree with what things I have said here, because when speaking about these things, I've been quoting the Bible, so it isn't the WTS that is speaking here, but the holy spirit that is speaking here. Try overturning what I have said here instead of seizing another opportunity to bash Jehovah's Witnesses or to bash the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.

  @Witness My Fury wrote:

  Eggnog, the prophesy says they would serve neb his son and his grandson.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  No, it doesn't. Jeremiah 25:11 says:

  "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

  There were more than just Nebuchadnezzar, his son, Evil-Merodach, and his grandson, Belshazzar, that ruled as kings in Babylon. The prophecy says "shall serve the king of Babylon." What's your point?

  @Witness My Fury wrote:

  Care to explain Jeremiah 27:7 then? . . .And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.'

  These "nations" that Jeremiah prophesied would serve the king, his son (Evil-Merodach) and his grandson (Nabonidus) included the nations of Assyria, Egypt and Tyre.

  That scrip in Zechariah 7 is a peach isnt it.

  @Alwayshere aksi referred to this chapter. Do you also not understand what Zechariah 7:1-5 is saying?

  @AnnOMaly:

  That's the Bible bit.

  I believe this is what @Witness My Fury requested, "the Bible bit."

  The Babylonian Chronicle pads out some details.

  So, and ...?

  We learn that when Egypt was defeated at Carchemish,

  Yes, this was in the year 625 BC.

  Neb swept through the 'Hatti land' or Syria-Palestine very quickly. In his accession year (the Carchemish year), soon after securing the throne in the Summer, he spent that Winter collecting heavy tribute from the area. This would mean he'd snaffle up former vassals to Egypt and squash any resisters. He did similarly in his 1st, 2nd and 3rd years. In his 1st year (J'kim's 4th year), the Chronicle says Neb received tribute from ALL the kings of the Hatti-land. That surely would include J'kim and would be indicative that he was already vassal.

  Yes, I indicated earlier in this thread that Jehoiakim had been a vassal king for Egypt until he became a vassal king for Babylon in his eighth year as king of Judah. There is nothing new here.

  The following details are also interesting. In Neb's 4th year, in late Fall/early Winter, he marches to Egypt and has a nasty, bloody battle with their army, resulting in heavy losses on both sides and with no one gaining the upper hand. This, if you remember, would correspond to J'kim's 7th year after his 3 years of servitude.

  No one but you remembers this. You're twisting the fact that 624 BC was Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year -- not his fourth regnal year -- corresponded to Jehoiakim's "fourth year" as king of Judah (Jeremiah 46:2). Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho the year before (his accession year) in 625 BC. Nebuchadnezzar didn't have any "nasty, bloody battle" with Egypt during "4th year" that would correspond to Jehoiakim's "7th year after his 3 years of servitude," as you slyly thought you could inject into this thread with anyone noticing. I don't know if @Wit ness My Fury caught this, but I caught you, @AnnOMaly!

  Jehoiakim's didn't become Babylon's vassal king until Nebuchadnezzar's fifth regnal year in 620 BC, and this year -- 620 BC -- was Jehoiakim's eighth year as king of Judah. This was the first of three times when Jerusalem was besieged by Babylon. After having serving three years of vassalage for this king of Babylon, Jehoaikim rebelled, which resulted in Jerusalem being besieged a second time by Babylon in 617 BC, and this year -- 617 BC -- was Jehoiakim's eleventh (and last) year as king of Judah at which time Jehoaikim's son, Jehoiachin, succeeded his father as vassal king for Babylon. For the record, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem for the third time when he dethroned and blinded the last king of Judah, Zedekiah, in 607 BC, and went on to appoint Gedaliah as governor of Judah in his stead.

  Does this help answer your question?

  Straightforward responses are much more helpful than attempting to twist the facts to fit your own ideas in such a way that it escapes the notice of the unwary.

  @Witness My Fury:

  Thanks for that. It does.

  How does it? You didn't actually buy@AnnOMaly's spin, did you? Wow!

  I was going along with the WTS reasoning on Daniel 1 that the 3rd year stated there of Jehoiakim may have (only may have in my mind) referred to the 3rd year of his vassal kingship being his final 11th year. This was based on the maths given above which kind of lends itself to that conclusion.

  Not only is it true that Jehoiakim's 11th year as king of Judah in 617 BC brought to an end Jehoiakim's third year of vassalage for Babylon, but this is what Daniel 1:1 is really saying when it states there that it was "the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah" when Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem and laid siege to it. Jehoiakim had become a vassal king for Babylon in 620 BC during Jehoiakim's eighth year as king of Judah, so, as 2 Chronicles 36:5 states about Jehoiakim's kingship, "for eleven years he reigned in Jerusalem." (2 Chronicles 36:3-5).

  Plus with me doing all the mental gymnastics this 607 debunking involves it's easy to just take the 1st reasonable position one comes across and to go with that.

  You have a reasonable position unless you're telling me that you've abandoned it for @AnnOMaly's spin. Hey, @Witness My Fury, it's your thread, your funeral. There's no reason for you to trust someone that has only been telling you the truth here.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

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

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @AnnOMaly:

  And yet still nothing that could lead us to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal in Jehoiakim's 8th year.

  (@djeggnog:)

  Why do you say this? Jehoiakim had been a vassal of Egypt before the king of Egypt was defeated in 625 BC. This would have been the eighth year of Jehoiakim's rulership and would also have been the beginning of Jehoiakim's three-year vassalage for Babylon.

  625 [BC] is now Jehoiakim's 8th year of rulership??? Make your mind up.

  Either read what I wrote in response to one of your posts, and even emphasized again, or don't read what I wrote at all; your choice. You have isolated a fragment of what I posted to you from a previous post to make it say something I wasn't really saying at all, in view of the fact that I emphasized and even underlined in my previous post the fact that the defeat of the Pharaoh by Nebuchadnezzar occurred in 625 BC say at all. The year 625 BC is the year when the king of Egypt was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, but Jehoiakim's vassalage for the king of Babylon occurred in 620 BC; the year 620 BC was Jehoiakim's eighth year. For your convenience, what follows is the exchange to which I refer that you evidently ignored:

  (@AnnOMaly:)

  Where in the Bible do you get that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year?

  (@djeggnog:)

  My answer is based on 2 Kings 24:1, which I did not quote in my previous response:

  "In his days Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon came up, and so Je·hoi´a·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him."

  I would ask that you not ignore this time this portion of my response to your question as to 'where in the Bible do I learn that Jehoiakim became Babylon's vassal in his 8th year.'

  Just as I had written in my previous message in response to your question, we learn upon reading Jeremiah 46:2 that "it was during the fourth year of the reign of King Jehoiakim's reign that the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadrezzar), was victorious over the king of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho; this was in the year 625 BC.

  "The next year, in 624 BC, Nebuchadnezzar officially ascended to the throne following his father's death, Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year, which was his second accession year, and in his fifth regnal year as king, Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his vassal king; this was during Jehoiakim's eighth year in 620 BC. (2 Kings 24:1) However, Jehoiakim's rebellion some three years later -- that would be the years 620 BC, 619 BC and 618 BC -- resulted in both Jerusalem being besieged by Babylon and in Jehoiakim's death in 618 BC, so that his son, Jehoiachin, then became Babylon's vassal king during Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year until Jehoiachin's vassalage ended after about three months in 617 BC. (2 Kings 24:11, 12)"

  @AnnOMaly:

  Please pay attention. There is no mention made in 2 Kings 24:1 of what year in Jehoiakim's reign Nebuchadnezzar made him his vassal. 2 Kings 24:1 does not support your claim that it was his 8th year. Do you understand?

  (@djeggnog:)

  ... as to Jehoiakim's vassalage to Babylon, I made the following statement in this thread --Now the first time that Nebuchadnezzar had besieged Jerusalem was in 620 BC during Jehoiakim's third year of his vassal kingship to Babylon over Judah. (Daniel 1:1)

  -- and note that in my statement I cite Daniel 1:1 as support for my statement, which states:

  "In the third year of the kingship of Je·hoi'a·kim the king of Judah, Neb·u·chad·nez'zar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it."

  This does not support your statement that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's 3rd year of vassalage - this is a classic example of you not believing the Bible's testimony. It states, very plainly, that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's 3rd year of kingship. Using WTS time, this would date the siege to 625/624.

  Why not? If Jehoiakim was in his eighth year of rulership as king of Judah in 620 BC when he began his three-year vassalage for Babylon, and Jehoiakim was dead after having served some three years of vassalage for Babylon in 618 BC (620 BC - 618 BC is three years) in which year Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, then "the third year" of Jehoiakim's kingship to which reference is made at Daniel 1:1 would be Jehoiakim's eleventh year (8 years + 3 years), and it was in this "third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim" that "the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it." Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin's three-month vassalage for Babylon began "in the third year" of his father, Jehoiakim's vassalage to Babylon, and Jehoiachin's vassalage ended in 617 BC.

  You've mentioned three things in your post -- "red herrings, misinformation and ad hominem" -- and while I've not guilty of dispensing any of these, I believe you would actually understand what it is I have been saying to you here were you to stop reading more into what I've written here than I have written. I'm telling you here that when you read Daniel 1:1 and come away from reading it thinking that reference to "the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim" refers to anything other than Jehoiakim's vassalage to Babylon, then you do not understand what Daniel is saying in this verse. Daniel 1:1 refers to Jehoiakim's vassalage to Babylon, but Jehoiakim ruled as king over Judah for some eleven years, not just for three years.

  To understand Daniel 1:1, one must interpret the verse as I have done here. You choose to read Daniel 1:1 literally, and that's fine, but were you guided by holy spirit, it wouldn't permit you to read this verse literally.

  @djeggnog