BroMac

Joined

• started 45 topics
• posted 723 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by BroMac

• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  Roman Empire. the conqured nations served Rome. paid the taxes etc. they were not IN Rome, still lived their own lives in their own Countries and Cities, anyone who thought about not paying the tax soon found out who there masters were.

  Same goes for all Empires inc Babylonian

  King Neb conquered Jerusalem in 597 they paid their taxes they stayed there peacefully, they also got protection if required, but they were not independant, they served the King of Babylon, who God called 'my servant' so he took 3023 Posh Jews back to Babylon.

  The problem was Zedekiah didn't listen to God's Word. If they would have sat it out till 539 when God 'called to account against the King of Babylon' they would have been home free.

  'like a biryed'
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  Jerusalem, The Temple, Zedekiah and the normal people of Jerusalem would all have remained untouched after Daniels group were exiled by the Babylonian armies if Zedekiah had listened to Jeremiah speak God's word:

  (Jeremiah 38:17, 18) 17 Jeremiah now said to Zed·e·ki′ah: “This is what Jehovah, the God of armies, the God of Israel, has said, ‘If you will without fail go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, your soul will also certainly keep living and this city itself will not be burned with fire, and you yourself and your household will certainly keep living. 18 But if you will not go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, this city must also be given into the hand of the Chal·de′ans, and they will actually burn it with fire, and you yourself will not escape out of their hand.’”

  By not submitting to the King of Babylon by continuing to pay the heavy tribute/tax Zedekiah rebelled against King Neb. He rebelled against God too as Jeremiah had told him nothing bad would come upon Jerusalem, instead Zedekiah was frightened of the people who wanted independance from foreign Nations, previously they were under the Assyrian 'yoke'. So because he didn't "go out to the princes of the King of Babylon" the city was "given into the hand of the Chaldeans" and burned with fire. Zedekiah did not escape, he saw his sons killed and then he was blinded.

  Jeremiah said it would be Zedekiah's fault

  (Jeremiah 38:19-23) 19 Then King Zed·e·ki′ah said to Jeremiah: “I am in fright of the Jews that have fallen away to the Chal·de′ans, for fear that they might give me into their hand and they might actually deal abusively with me.” 20 But Jeremiah said: “They will do no such giving. Obey, please, the voice of Jehovah in what I am speaking to you, and it will go well with you, and your soul will continue to live. 21 But if you are refusing to go out, this is the thing that Jehovah has caused me to see: 22 And, look! all the women that have been left remaining in the house of the king of Judah are being brought out to the princes of the king of Babylon, and they are saying, ‘The men at peace with you have allured you and prevailed over you. They have caused your foot to sink down into the very ooze; they have retreated in the opposite direction.’ 23 And all your wives and your sons they are bringing out to the Chal·de′ans, and you yourself will not escape out of their hand, but by the hand of the king of Babylon you will be seized, and because of you this city will be burned with fire.”

  Ethos, what would happen to the 70yrs or the 'Sabbaths' if Zedekiah had actually listened to Gods Word through Jeremiah?
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  Ethos:

  But AlanF, Jeffro, AnnoMaly and others will not accept this. In fact, they all maintain that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE. Now make a mental note that Cyrus first regnal year is from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537. (Mar/April) Count 70 years from the destruction of Jerusalem and this will bring you to 517 BCE. Does not work.

  again you will only ever consider 70yrs from the destruction of Jerusalem. Fundamentally flawed
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  all this thread needs is JCanon / Larsinger58 to tell us about the 'revised' timeline by the Persian Artaxerxes/Xerxes
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  is the Adda Guppi Stele and Adda Guppi Stele correct or incorrect when it lists the lengths of Kings reigns?

  Edit: added the one referenced by Witness My Fury, much more detailed
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  Ethos your statements that you have used from Jeffro and AnnOMaly are not in disagreement. Its widely accepted and easily read in Scripture, yes the Bible that 70yrs was NOT just for Jerusalem but Other Nations too.

  thats is your fundamental error.

  70yrs was the lenghth of the Babylonian domination of the ANE 609-539BCE = 70yrs
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  start at the begining - the basics.

  (Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·rez′zar took into exile:

  in the seventh year, three thousand and twenty-three Jews.

  29 In the eighteenth year of Neb·u·chad·rez′zar, from Jerusalem there were eight hundred and thirty-two souls.

  30 In the twenty-third year of Neb·u·chad·rez′zar, Neb·u′zar·ad′an the chief of the bodyguard took Jews into exile, seven hundred and forty-five souls. All the souls were four thousand and six hundred.

  Every Encyclopedia tells me that Nebuchadnezzar succeded his father Nabopallasar in 605BCE a few months after the Battle of Carchemish. (early 605)

  Every Encyclopedia also tells me that he reigned till 562BCE. - 43yrs. 605-562 BCE

  seventh year = 598

  eighteenth year = 587

  twenty-third year = 582

  why should I not believe that? is everything else in the encyclopedia dated wrong?
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  Jeffro AnnOMaly you've done awesome. Ethos doesn't, cant, wont, musn't, accept any possibility or any slight chance that 607 could in any way be inaccurate.

  that is all we have seen here.

  Ethos if the evidence presented by any scholars was sound and pointed to 607 as Jerusalems destruction by Nebuchadnezzer in his 18th Regnal year or 19th Accession year, do you think it would be accepted on this forum? I do, if the evidence points in that direction no one here would argue like you have for a date that the evidence just does not support.

  so why then do you do this? nobody, no one, who does not 'need' to support any preconceived date can take the evidence, which is voluminous and contemporary and see their are no missing kings in the neo-babylonian lists, between Nabopolassar - Nabonidus. None. (except Labashi -Marduk who lasted just 2mths into his accession year, WT state 9mths.)

  here in the UK we had a popular TV and Radio presenter called Jimmy Saville, you may have heard of him, he was Knighted by the Queen as Sir Jimmy, thousands lined the streets for his funeral, a very well liked character. Ran the London Marathon regularly in his 70's for charity, you get the picture. It came out after he had died that he had sexually abused young vunerable boys and girls for years. Some people just wouldn't believe this about Jimmy, but as the evidence came forward, just the sheer volume of it all and with his victims own statements it became clear to ALL that it was true. Jimmy Saville was a paedo!

  when the Evidence Is there and we dont want to believe it, then we look foolish.

  More foolish when JW's are alone in the world believing, as you have shown, DOGMAtically, that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607. No matter what the evidence shows otherwise.

  why does it matter so much for you?
• 
  124

  thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars: Let's discuss the Hillah Stele

  by AuldSoul in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars, .

  firstly, i offer this disclaimer: i am not a scholar.

  but i can add and subtract.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  you just never see thirdwitness Recovery Ethos in the same room together
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

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

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  So are you saying that the exiles who were already in exile in Babylon before 607 were in fact not in exile until the year 607 ? I think if you can say that, then there's really no point in continuing the debate. That sentence would destroy any computer in 'Star Trek' instantly. Just say 'yes' or 'no' to that, and go from there.

  SD-7 - i'm having that one