For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • jayhawk1

    Right about what? Oh, that symbolic thing agian... Yes Tyre does not exist today. Keep believing that! It's served you well.

  • thirdwitness

    Hellrider said about the 40 year desolation: Except for the fact that history shows us that this never happened.

    Actually the BM chronicle mentioned above does provide historic information about the attack of Neb upon Egypt. What a coincidence that the attack fits in perfectly with Ezekiel's prophecy. And if Neb didn't win then why was Babylon still the world power until 539. I submit that he attacked Egypt and yes he did win the battle. I think the evidence for that is pretty clear. Too bad we can't read the whole thing. As you know we do not have not near all the writings of Babylon from this time period. If we did we would no doubt have the evidence. But we don't at this point. Maybe someday. Meanwhile, I know it is a stretch for some but we will just have to take Ezekiel's word for it. Oh, and the bm chronicle mentioned.

    So you are in error that no secular evidence exist.

  • toreador

    Leo and AlanF have painstakingly answered everyone of our question Tirdwitness. Why dont you do the same courtesy and answer theirs? Is it because you can't?


  • AlanF

    scholar pretendus stupidus maximus wrote:

    : Your tabulation of the months for the ist Year of Cyrus from Nisan 538 to Adar 537 is incorrect and does not agree with my tabulation.

    LOL! Of course not. You've already stated that the year before 537 was 537, which shows you can't manage kindergarten arithmetic.

    : Both our tabulations agree up to the seventh month Tishr, September/October which you show as a continuation of the 538 year.

    That's because it IS a continuation of the year 538 in the Julian calendar, you twit. Let me attempt to educate you, although I'm certain that the attempt will fail. Readers will understand that I do this mainly for the benefit of the many JW lurkers reading this thread.

    The Julian calendar is the calendar that almost all modern historians -- including those used as references by the Watchtower Society -- use for dating events prior to the year 1582 A.D., such as the fall of Babylon (cf. Insight, Vol. 1, "Julian and Gregorian Calendars", p. 392; All Scripture Is Inspired of God, pp. 281-2). Thus, Insight (Vol. 1, "Belshazzar", p. 284) uses the both the Julian and Gregorian calendars to date the fall of Babylon:

    On the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E. (Gregorian calendar, or October 11, Julian calendar), Belshazzar celebrated a great feast . . . Belshazzar did not live out the night, being killed as the city fell during the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E.

    Also see Insight, Vol. 2, p. 459, and All Scripture Is Inspired of God, p. 283. In its discussion of "Lunar Eclipses" Insight (Vol. 1, p. 455) uses the Julian calendar to date eclipses related to Jesus' birth date. Insight also uses the Julian calendar to date Jesus' death (Vol. 2, p. 268).

    Bottom line: A year such a 538 B.C. by definition in both the Julian and Gregorian calendars, began on January 1, 538 and ended on December 31, 538.

    Corrollary: Jewish years do not line up with the Julian calendar, either month by month, or on the first date of the New Year. Therefore, Jewish dates given in scholarly references in terms of Julian calendar dates necessarily do not line up with Julian years. The same goes for Babylonian dates.

    So that you know what this means in simple terms, scholar pretendus stupidus maximus, Cyrus' first regnal year ran from Nisan of 538 through Adar of 537 B.C. (cf. Insight, Vol. 1, p. 568). More specifically, Cyrus' first year began on Nisan 1 (March 24, Julian calendar) of 538, and ended on the last day of Adar (March 11, Julian calendar) of 537 B.C. (cf. Parker & Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. -- A.D. 75, p. 29)

    In view of the above facts, your next comments are unbelievably stupid, and complete gibberish:

    : However, this is incorrect because the year runs not from January to December as per our modern calendation but from Nisan- April May through to Adar- February/March. This means that at Tishri in the 538-537 cycle as the first year of Cyrus, as the seventh month was the beginning of 537 which continued as such until the following Adar which introduced the second year of Cyrus from Nisan 536 to Adar 535.

    : Your error is that of calendation in that tou mistakenly are substituting the calenders, the old with the new, the Babylonian with the Gregorian. The correct procedure is to follow the Babylonian/ Jewish Calender converting the months into our calender.

    So that you can follow the above discussion and apply it in concrete terms, I'm giving you a revised tabulation of the years relevant to our discussion. Note that, compared to my earlier tabulations, I've made a slight correction, and added Julian months that correspond (cf. New World Translation, 1984 edition, Appendix 8B, p. 1587) to the Jewish months.

    Again I challenge you to find fault with the tabulation. If you find fault, then post your own tabulation, along with source references justifying it. Of course, all readers already know that you'll never do this.

    539___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 7____Babylon falls

    539___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 8

    539___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 9

    539/8_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 10

    538___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 11

    538___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 12

    538___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 1____Cyrus issues his famous decree

    538___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 2

    538___Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 3

    538___Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 4

    538___Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 5

    538___Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 6

    538___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 7

    538___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 8

    538___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 9

    538/7_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 10

    537___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 11

    537___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 12

    537___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 1

    537___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 2

    537___Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 3

    537___Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 4

    537___Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 5

    537___Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 6

    537___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 7

    537___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 8

    537___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 9

    537/6_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 10

    536___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 11

    536___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 12

    536___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 1

    536___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 2


  • AlanF

    I'm still waiting for answers from you, thirdwitless, to a number of challenging questions crucial to the topic you brought up.

    JW lurkers, take note.


  • stevenyc
    Meanwhile we await an answer:

    Other than the conclusions of historians based on their interpretation of the secular evidence do you have any scriptural reason whatsoever for arbitrarily deciding that the 40 year desolation never literally happened?

    All the 40s mentioned from the Bible above were literally 40 years or 40 days . I saw no symbolism. But even so you must connect the 40 year desolation of Egypt with another part of the bible to show it to be symbolic

    Before I answer this, I need to know from you if you believe that the prophecies in Ezekiel are literal. Word for word. steve

  • jayhawk1


    Good luck getting an answer from thirdwitness. I am still waiting on him to tell me how I can know which prophecies are literal and which are figurative. It would be nice to know how I can tell the difference when I read the Bible. Still waiting...

  • thirdwitness


    Sorry, Auldsoul, I do not have time to be your spiritual guru to God's word. All of Ezekiel is not literal of course. All Jehovah's prophecies come true. At times he may add a stipulation to it happening. I don't have time to go thru Genesis to Rev and show you what is literal and figurative. I wish I did but I don't. And I do not know everything. All the information is at my fingertips but I have to look it up. It is not stored away in my brain. This takes time. The WT publications are amazing indeed in explaining the Bible but I do not know everything written in them or the Bible.

    All the beating around the bush that you do changes nothing about the 40 year desolation. Finding figurative places in the Bible changes nothing about the 40 year desolation. Read Ezekiel 29-32 and then honestly tell me that it is figurative and Egypt was not desolated literally. You can't.

  • jayhawk1

    It seems you can't tell us it literally happened. Other than the Bible, you don't offer any proof.

  • AlanF

    scholar pretendus stupidus maximus wrote:

    : You have certainly given me the coordinates for the modern city of Tyre which is the middle of the sandbar and that is most helpful but is this to be taken the eact site of the ancient city?

    Of course not, you twit. The island city resided to the west of the sandbar coordinates and the mainland city to the east.

    : If not then supply the precise coordinates for that ancient Phoenecian city of Tyre "never to be rebuilt".

    The geographic coordinates of the approximate center of the part of modern Tyre located on the ruins of the ancient island city are 33.16.20 N by 35.11.40 E.

    The geographic coordinates of the approximate center of the part of modern Tyre located on the ruins of the ancient mainland city are 33.16.18 N by 35.13.06 E.

    : If you can do this then I can supply such enlightenment with a leading archaeological society indicating the source, Alan Feuerbacher that this is really the case.

    You have your information. Now fulfill your commitment.

    But again, we all know you'll do nothing of the kind, nor will you use the information I've supplied in any intelligent way.

    : Because if your claim is valid that ancient Tyre is now rebuilt then it now must exist can can now be properly identified.

    Of course. And if you'd get off your lazy ass and try excercising the brain that the Society has so severely damaged, you'd compare the coordinates I gave with the Google Earth satellite image that's so easy to get hold of, and with the overlaid map that Leolaia supplied in her post 7775 on page 23 of this thread.

    : You say that the present island city as it stands today inhabited with numerous dwellings is in fact ancient Tyre

    No. I say that it's a rebuilt Tyre. It's a rebuilt Tyre in the same sense that today's Jerusalem is a rebuilt Jerusalem, and that the Jerusalem of Jesus' day was a rebuilt Jerusalem, and that the Temple of Jesus' day was a rebuilt temple. Obviously, once a thing has been destroyed, it cannot be recreated (think about destroying the painting The Mona Lisa), but by all sensible notions things like cities and temples can be rebuilt. The fact that they can is shown by the Bible itself. But of course, we all know how strongly you disagree with the Bible.

    : but id I went there there today and as I stand on that piece of land with an archaeologist at hand, could it then be said that now I am standing on ancient Tyre because it is now rebuilt?

    Of course not, you twit. You'd be standing in the rebuilt, modern city of Tyre which had been rebuilt on the ancient site. Just as much as if you were standing in front of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem you'd be standing in a modern, rebuilt Jerusalem on the ancient site.

    How you can manage to utter such complete foolishness is, well, diagnostic of the severe brain damage that the Watchtower cult can induce.

    : Your account of matters does not square with what is presented in archaeological reports because it is common knowledge that the remnants of the ancient city are submerged.

    Wrong. Leolaia has presented scholarly references proving that only part of the ancient site is submerged, and that today's Tyre is built on part of the ancient island city.


Share this