@castthefirststone:
You said you needed a memory refresh where you said 50 years must be rounded up to 70 years. In post 434 you wrote:
djeggnog wrote:
You see, @AnnOMaly totally misunderstood this quote from Against Apion, I, xxi, by claiming that when "this Pharisee" -- Josephus -- stated that "the temple was desolate for 50 years," that he meant that Solomon's temple had lay desolate for only 50 years.
So what are you trying to say with that statement, other than the 50 years are symbolic and must be rounded up to 70 years?
I didn't say I needed any "memory refresh." This is what I had written you in my previous message:
"When did I ever say that anything that Josephus wrote is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Post the message I posted to this thread, so I can read it. I don't recall saying or intimating this at all."
You didn't read the entire post, for had you done so, then you would have realized that I was telling @AnnOMaly that she had wrongly understood Josephus' reference to "50 years" as if what he said in Against Apion contradicted what he said about the temple Antiquities of the Jews, X, ix, about Judah and Jerusalem having been "a desert for seventy years" and in Against Apion, I, xix, about there having been an "interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus."
The fact that you understood me to have asserted "that Josephus is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Jerusalem" means that you suffer from the same reading comprehension disability problem as does @AnnOMaly when Josephus' mention of the Phoenician histories had absolutely nothing at all to do with your assertion about 587 BC and, quite frankly, was a zany conclusion for you to have reached.
The 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar is relevant because it is in the same statement that you use for your theory.
I don't think it is. Did you get to read @AnnOMaly's message in which she includes a quote from a footnote in John Barclay's translation of Against Apion suggesting that Josephus was referring to "the seventh year of the reign of Ithobalos"? At any rate, whatever it was Josephus meant is irrelevant to the point that I was making and you don't get to tell me what is relevant to me.
Can you see the relevance now? Probably not because you are blinded by your ego and cognitive dissonance.
No, I don't. One thing I know for a certainty: You suffer from a reading comprehension disability. You read the same thing in Against Apion that @AnnOMaly read and came away from it thinking that Josephus had said that Solomon's temple had lay desolate for only "50 years." You read "seventh year of the reign of Naboukodrosoros" and have the temerity to tell me that it's somehow relevant to the point that I was making as to the 13-year siege on Tyre that occurred "[i]n the reign of king Ithobalos," but before the reign of Baal, according to Josephus. I don't suffer from "cognitive dissonance," and you should really not use phrases that you don't understand; my "suffering" comes from expecting an apostate to be reasonable. My bad.
djeggnog wrote:
[Cyrus'] first regnal year began in Nisan 538 BC and ended in Nisan 537 BC, but what I took into consideration was the six months that began in Cyrus' accession year, Tishri 539 BC, and ended in Nisan 538 BC. I don't know how exact Josephus was in his reckoning of the length of Eiromos' reign, but I do know that Eiromos' 20-year reign would have come to an end in 533 BC if it was "in the fourteenth year of the reign of Eiromos" that Cyrus "seized power."
You wonder how Cyrus' regnal year allows me to add an [additional] year to Eiromos' reign, but Eiromos reigned for 20 years, and I'm not comfortable counting back from his 14th year, because I don't know how Eiromos' regnal year ran. Tishri 539 BC could have been toward the beginning of Eiromos' 14th regnal year or toward the end of Eiromos' 14th regnal year, so when I add six months that remained in Cyrus accession year, I decided to round up and count 15 years.
Consequently, for Eiromos' reign, I had been subtracting 20 years from "54 years, with 3 months in addition," which from Nisan 538 BC would bring us to 556 BC "with 3 months in addition," so I decided to round up and reckon this additional three months as an additional year and count 16 years. Since Josephus had encapsulated the reigns of the Tyrian kings, I am more comfortable taking, not 14 years, but 16 years of Eiromos' 20-year reign, and adding 4 years to Merbalos, 1 year to Balatoros, 6 years to Myttynos and Gerastartos, 1 year to Ednibalos, Chelbes and Abbalos, and 10 years to Baal, or -539 + (-38), which brings me to the year 577 BC.
@castthefirststone wrote:
I see your super duper speech recognition dictating software is acting up again. You again assign the end of Eiromos' reign to 533 BC. Which is it 533 or 535? While you are at it, say the numbers 5 3 5 and 5 3 3 out load and hear how ridiculous your assertion is that it's a misquote or typo.
What's "acting up again"? Your reading comprehension disability is really what is at work here, for notice that a hypothetical is being expressed by the words in red:
"I don't know how exact Josephus was in his reckoning of the length of Eiromos' reign, but I do know that Eiromos' 20-year reign would have come to an end in 533 BC if it was 'in the fourteenth year of the reign of Eiromos' that Cyrus 'seized power.'"
You left the land where lurkers live to join live debate on JWN, but it was a mistake for you to think that you could come out of the shadows and take me on, knowing before any of us here did that you suffer from this reading comprehension disability that has now been exposed, and now you're out here on your own lobbing stupid insults thinking that they will help you win arguments. It's now likely that I will start ignoring your messages because I'm afraid I'm going to discover that this disability is not really your fault, but due to the fact that you are mentally ill or really stupid.
@djeggnog wrote:
When did I ever say that anything that Josephus wrote is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Post the message I posted to this thread, so I can read it. I don't recall saying or intimating this at all.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
Yikes! Early onset Alzheimer's, eggie? You're real forgetful. Perhaps you ought to print the following out and stick it on your computer screen so you'll be reminded of what you've already written, thereby avoiding further humiliation. (Btw, bold emphasis mine.)
From eggieface post #451, p. 24:
[castthefirststone formerly] The issue really is: Can Josephus be used to disprove conventional chronology, when you have to rely on the same conventional chronology to get to the start of Cyrus' rule?
[djeggnog] Yes, and Josephus can also be used to provide another measurement to determine about when it was that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre
Where in this clip do I suggest that something that Josephus wrote was proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? I don't see it; enlighten me.
From eggieface posts #433, p. 22, and #434, p. 23:
[Ann formerly] End of Tyre's siege - 594 BC according to you. 594 - 577 = 17 YEARS LONGER THAN JOSEPHUS' CALCULATION! Therefore, you cannot use his Tyrian king list to support your argument, can you?
[djeggnog] Why shouldn't I? Because this happens to be a kinglist that doesn't fit your notion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BC? I don't have a problem relying upon the Tyrian kinglist provided in Josephus' Against Apion, I, xxi, and I do appreciate that Josephus poses a big problem for you and for all of you for whom 587/586 BC is so precious.
Where in this clip do I suggest that something that Josephus wrote was proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? What I say here is that it is "your notion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BC."
From eggieface post #430, p. 21:
[CTFS formerly] Now if you are really as well intentioned as you profess to be, please provide a summary with verifiable proof of how you get to 607 BCE. Not paragraph after paragraph of this nonsense.
[djeggnog] The only "verifiable proof" I will provide in response to the request you make for a summary of how I arrive at the year 607 BC is citations from the Bible and a quote from Josephus' Against Apion. ... with indicates that it was during the reign of Ithobalos that Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege against Tyre took place. If Baal's reign as king of Tyre began in 577 BC after the reign of Ithobalos ended, then Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege ended during Baal's reign, which cannot be the case for such a conclusion would be in conflict with Josephus' recitation of Phoenician secular history (as quoted above).
... But if Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC as secular history asserts, then when the siege on Tyre ended in 574 BC, some 13 years after it began in 587 BC, Baal's ten-year reign would had begun, which contradicts the Phoenician timeline
Where in this clip do I suggest that something that Josephus wrote was proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Here I point out to you hypothetically that "if Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC as secular history asserts, then when the siege on Tyre ended in 574 BC, some 13 years after it began in 587 BC, Baal's ten-year reign would had begun, which contradicts the Phoenician timeline with indicates that it was during the reign of Ithobalos that Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege against Tyre took place." Josephus doesn't write anything specific with reference to 587 BC, but I merely point out here that what you believe about 587 BC doesn't fit the Phoenician timeline.
From eggieface post #407 way back on p. 14: (gotta love the grammar on this one LOL)
What things Josephus wrote regarding this 70-year period of Jewish exile is at odds with your anti-God viewpoint
, so it isn't because you cannot believe what Jehovah's Witnesses have concluded as to destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar's armies occurring in 607 BC, and it isn't because you care one wit about history. It's just that you don't want to believe what Jehovah's Witnesses have concluded based on the prophesies of Jeremiah and Daniel, which conclusions find support in some of what things Josephus wrote.Where in this clip do I suggest that something that Josephus wrote is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Please enlighten me. (I do love the grammar on this one.) You included four (4) clips from previous posts, and yet not one of them prove that I had either suggested or intimated that something written by Josephus was proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, so why did you do this, @AnnOMaly? Do you even know why? Only members of your cult that are morons would applaud your efforts here in including these four clips that do not prove what only they could be persuaded by you -- their hero, their champion -- they prove. This was a silly stunt on your part, @AnnOMaly, and you get no respect from me for this attempt at deflection.
@djeggnog
