Scholar & JCanon on the same thread!
All we need for Armageddon to break out is for OBVES to post here too.
Gentile Times reconsidered
by confused and lost 50 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
a Christian
JCanon Wrote: Now COJ refuses to enter into any debate with me. He claims it is because I'm unreasonable. COJ "claims" this because he knows JCanon is only interested in debating ancient history and Bible prophecy for the purpose of promoting his own wacky understandings of both. JCanon tells us that his own understandings of history and scripture prove that he is Jesus Christ returned in the flesh, his flesh, a transformation which he tells us took place several years ago while he was spending the night in a dumpster. "Now COJ refuses to enter into any debate" with him. This might be because COJ has no formal training as a psychiatrist.
-
veradico
With regard to Josephus and the 50-year desolation, cf. Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1.21.
-
JCanon
JCanon Wrote: Now COJ refuses to enter into any debate with me. He claims it is because I'm unreasonable. COJ "claims" this because he knows JCanon is only interested in debating ancient history and Bible prophecy for the purpose of promoting his own wacky understandings of both. JCanon tells us that his own understandings of history and scripture prove that he is Jesus Christ returned in the flesh, his flesh, a transformation which he tells us took place several years ago while he was spending the night in a dumpster. "Now COJ refuses to enter into any debate" with him. This might be because COJ has no formal training as a psychiatrist.
I may be crazy but I can still count up to 607. If you publish something or promote an idea, you have an obligation to field issues and defend your position. When you avoid that, for whatever reason, you lose credibility. Which he has. JCanon
-
JCanon
Veradico: With regard to Josephus and the 50-year desolation, cf. Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1.21.
Stuff like this totally amazes me! How is it, Veradico, that you know about Contra Apionem 1:21 where Josephus mentions a 50-year period in connection with the desolation of Jerusalem and you don't mention his reference just two paragraphs earlier to the 70-year period of desolation in the same work?
Here is 1:19 " nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia." Here is 1:21 " So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom." Veradico, just out of my own curiosity, did you know about 1:19? If not, this demonstrates why those who write books and make arguments need to answer to cross examination. Against Apion (Contra Apionem) is Josephus' final work. The 1:21 reference is often used to claim Josephus changed his mind about the seventy years he mentions elsewhere for the period from the people going off their land and the 1st of Cyrus. But if he actually did change his mind, he did it between paragraph 19 and 21 and wanted everybody in on his epiphany since he didn't bother changing it at the time of publication. At any rate, this is a clear contradiction OR Josephus is playing a subtle game with numbers, and both references are true. The latter is more likely. How so? Because if you Biblical chronology, which Josephus was expert at, you'd know that the Bible purposefully takes advantage of the concept of "became king" to keep the Bible's chronology confounding to outside readers and difficult to revise. That is, when a co-ruler was appointed he took on the title of "king" (vs "crown prince" or some other title). When the father-king died, another coronation took place and he "became king" a second time. Therefore, you can use the reference to "became king" for either event, making it difficult at first to tell precisely which event was in reference. Case in point, Jehoram of Israel "became king" in the second year of Jehoram of Judah who himself had become king in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel; meaning JOI became king in his own 6th year. Problem? No. By this we know that that Ahad died in the sixth year of JOI and he had been a co-ruler with Ahab prior to that for six years. Same thing with Ahaziah of Judah who has two "became king" dates, one in the 11th year of JOI and one in the 12th year of JOI. Yet he only ruled for one year? Is that possible? Of course. And of note, Jehoram of Judah died in the 12th year of JOI. So what does this mean? It simply means that late in the 11th year of JOI, while JOJ was quite ill, Ahaziah was appointed as king/co-ruler, then shortly after the 12th year of JOI began JOJ died at which time Ahaziah "became king" sole ruler early in the 12th year of JOI. But before he completed a full year he himself was killed. So what has this got to do with the 50-year reference by Josephus? 1:21 is about kingship dates and Cyrus. The Jews knew quite well that Jerusalem fell 74 years before the 1st of Cyrus, but that Cyrus ruled over Persia for 20 years before he became king in Babylon. The current dating is 559-539 BCE, a very well-known 20 years. But that also means that from the fall of Jerusalem to the 1st of Cyrus over just Persia is a 54-year interval. That 54-year reference is a clue, therefore, that Josephus is addressing (and excluding) that 54-year interval from the fall of Jerusalem up until the time Cyrus first becomes king over Persia. The next 20 years and all that talk about the siege of Tyre for 13 years from the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar is just a encryption for when Babylon fell. You see, a Jew knows that Hirom was from the time of Solomon and thus Josephus is playing a fast one here. Thus, of note, per the Bible, Zechariah 1 says that year 2 of Darius ended 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem. Zechariah 7 notes that 70 years after the mourning for Gedaliah in the 7th month ended in the 4th year of Darius. The Jews were still in exile at Babylon during this time wondering "when will Jehovah show mercy to the cities"; that is, when will the people be able to return to rebuild these cities and bring them back to life again? From this, we know that Darius the Mede ruled for 6 full years before Cyrus became king at Babylon, becoming king over both the Medes and the Persians. It was a new kingship and he began starting his rulership years with year 1 again. Thus it is at this time in year 1 of Cyrus, after the 6-year rule of Darius the Mede that the Jews were released. But this gives us information regarding when Babylon fell, since Darius the Mede began to rule immediately after Babylon fell. It means that Babylon fell 7 years prior to Cyrus becoming king at Babylon. That's where the 13-year siege of Tyre comes in. You see, Cyrus became king over Persia in the 6th year of Nabonidus. But if you start counting from year 7 of Nabonidus down 13 years, Tyre falls in the 19th year of Nabonidus. That is, 13 plus 6 is 19. Josephus then claims that Cyrus becomes king in the 14th year, the year afterward, which would be a cryptic reference to Darius the Mede becoming king one year after the fall of Babylon. Anyway, here's a chart to demonstrate what I'm talking about. The main point being that Josephus is playing on the 50-year vs 70-year period of desolation based upon the two different kingship dates of Cyrus, which are 20 years apart. That is, from the last deportation until when Cyrus became king at Babylon it is 70 years of desolation. From the last deportation until Cyrus first became king in Persia it is 50 years. So he's not revising anything, just being cryptic; the 54-year reference is a dead giveaway that this is about when Cyrus first became king in Persia, and he is simply using the seige of Tyre to explain the last 25 years of the NB Period in relation to Cyrus. Quite clever. Here's the chart: 19th of Nebuchadnezzar which pushes that siege into the 36th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It is well known that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt in his 37th year. Thus COJ uses this reference by Josephus to claim that Nebuchadnezzar never was absent from this throne for a period of 7 years like the Bible says. But this 13-year reference is only found in Josephus and Josephus is quite clear the 13-year siege began in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar. If this is also true, then Tyre fell in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar, right after the fall of Jerusalem. This matches the Bible's history which states that Jerusalem would be the first to drink of the bitter cup of Nebuchadnezzar who would come and desolate all the land of Israel and Judah including those cities round about including Tyre. So COJ uses the 13-year reference as part of his chronology but not as Josephus indicates. So he's dishonest. And now you know why he doesn't want to face these things and avoids discussions with me. If you refer to page 254 of his book, he has a chart showing the archaeological data support for the "Documented activity of Nebuchadnezzar's rule." He provides scriptures and ancient texts supporting the various years. When he notes "N. besieges Tyre for 13 years" he quotes from "Josephus Ant. X:xi,1;Ap. I:21). Here is the Ant quote, with no mention of the precise year of the 13-year siege: "for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia. Diocles also, in the second book of his Accounts of Persia, mentions this king; as does Philostrates in his Accounts both of India and of Phoenicia, say, that this king besieged Tyre thirteen years, while at the same time Ethbaal reigned at Tyre. These are all the histories that I have met with concerning this king." The "seventh year" reference is the specific detail of when this 13-year siege began, yet COJ misuses this reference to show the siege was from "19th-32nd years 586-573/72." What happened to the direct 7th year reference? But you see that spoils COJ's reference here. He wants to claim that there is historical text documentation for every single year of the rule of Nebuchadnezzar, but he can't do that without the 13-year siege of Tyre reference provided by Josephus. That's because there are no records from Babylon surviving during that critical period from about year 12 through year 37. It's all missing. We have a record where Nebuchadnezzar invades Egypt in year 37, but nothing in between. COJ wants to fill in that gap with claiming Nebuchadnezzar was busy holding Tyre under siege for these 13 years from year 19-32 but that's totally contradicts Josephus who clearly says that 13-year siege began in year 7. Now I wonder why COJ missed this? In fact, he didn't. When I confronted him on this, he noted he dismisses the 7th year reference as spurious, yet considers the 13-year siege reference as correct. So he does exactly like the WTS does with the VAT4956 and the SK400, rejecting one text but accepting the other, when they both come from the same period. COJ uses the 13-year reference from Josephus, the only source of those 13 years, but rejects the 7th-year reference for when the siege begins. Which means what? It means COJ is just a JOKE! We can't accept this misquoting and misapplication. Now look at this from the Biblical perspective. God's wrath was to come down on the entire land and he was going to desolate the entire region including Northern Kingdom surrounding cities such as Tyre. But Jerusalem was to be the first to drink. Jer. 25:29 "For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity...." Thus Tyre was not to be completely desolated until after Jerusalem was completely desolated. Tyre was to be desolated/forgotten for "70 years."Isaiah 23: 15 And it must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king. At the end of seventy years it will happen to Tyre as in the song of a prostitute: 16 “Take a harp, go around the city, O forgotten prostitute. Do your best at playing on the strings; make your songs many, in order that you may be remembered.” 17 And it must occur at the end of seventy years that Jehovah will turn his attention to Tyre, and she must return to her hire and commit prostitution with all the kingdoms of the earth upon the surface of the ground. 18 And her profit and her hire must become something holy to Jehovah. It will not be stored up, nor be laid up, because her hire will come to be for those dwelling before Jehovah, for eating to satisfaction and for elegant covering."
Meaning? That the same 70 years of "desolation" for the entire land would be visited upon Tyre just as the Bible prophesied and these 70 years must coincide with the 70 years of desolation of all the other lands and Judah, and that 70 years begins in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, we can harmonize Josephus' statement that Tyre was under siege for 13 years beginning the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar and ended in the 19th-20th year of Nebuchadnezzar. But like the fall of Jerusalem, where some of the population was left behind, this could have occurred with Tyre as well, with the final last deportation being year 23 when Nebuchadnezzar led a campaign into the already very devastated land and went into Egypt and killed most of the Jews who had run down there and then brought Jeremiah and Baruch and a few others back through Judea and finally into Babylon in year 23.
So when Josephus' own statement about the 13-year siege begins in year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar, there is no contradiction with scripture. When COJ takes it upon himself to use the 13-year reference where he decides to, contradicting a direct reference, then it contradicts the scriptures themselves. Further, when misquoting Josephus, COJ can then claim there was never a time during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in which he was off his throne for 7 years of inactivity. But he can't make that claim without moving the 13-year siege of Tyre from year 19-32. If the siege ends in year 19 or 20, then there is plenty of time for the 7 years of absence from the throne anytime after say 24 or 25 which just brings us into year 31 or 32 of Nebuchadnezzar, of which there are no surviving records from his rule.
So you see? These are legitimate issues, legitimate questions regarding fraudulent misrepresentation of the evidence and COJ refuses to come clean and fess up to them. That's because he knows he got caught and can only suffer embarassment by discussing it publicly. Later on down the road when some professor with a degree brings out the misrepresentation, he'll claim he didn't know about it and it was a mistake, and had he known about it earlier he would have gladly corrected himself or something like that. It is a very effective means of disinformation. Make your attack, make your claims, and then refuse to be cross-examined using any excuses you want to from "I was too busy" or "that guy's a crackpot and crazy" -- any excuse will do. As a result, people continue to be deceived.
So the XJW cult ends up being mirror of the JW cult. People loving the darkness and embaracing whatever tickles their ears to make their own fantasies more real, with no true interest in examining all the arguments or facts. "Always taking in knowledge, but never coming to an accurate knowledge of the truth" often applies just as much to active JWs under the mind-controlling tactics of the WTS as with XJWs who embrace anti-Biblical authors like COJ who likewise run and hide when the cross-examination gets too heated, when someone actually takes time to check up behind their facts.
So be impressed all you wish. COJ proudly takes on the great WTS, but he runs and hides at the very mention of my name. But like I said: Smart man, very smart man.
JCanon
-
Honesty
confused and lost
You certainly will be confused if you accept the Jonsson hypothesis published as Gentile Times Reconsidered for it contains at least major historical blunderin connection with modern history and is very fuzzy regarding the biblical ;seventy years'.
A scholarly rebuttal of Jonsson's research by Rolf Firuli is now available in two volumes dealing with secular chronologies of the ancient world and a linguistic analysis of the seventy years. Further, this recent scholarly research demonstrates the reality of a twenty-year gap between biblical chronology as endorsed by 'celebrated' WT scholars and the secular chronology proposed by Jonsson and higher critics.
scholar JW
For some reason, I knew that this thread would bring you out of the woodwork.
-
JCanon
You certainly will be confused if you accept the Jonsson hypothesis published as Gentile Times Reconsidered for it contains at least major historical blunderin connection with modern history and is very fuzzy regarding the biblical ;seventy years'.
A scholarly rebuttal of Jonsson's research by Rolf Firuli is now available in two volumes dealing with secular chronologies of the ancient world and a linguistic analysis of the seventy years. Further, this recent scholarly research demonstrates the reality of a twenty-year gap between biblical chronology as endorsed by 'celebrated' WT scholars and the secular chronology proposed by Jonsson and higher critics.
scholar JW
Hi Scholar. The "20 years" issue is an old joke. Josephus counts the 70 years from the last deportation in year 23. JWs begin the 70 years at the time of Jerusalem's fall. The 20 years is only relevant when you compare 607BCE (the wrong date anyway) with 587 BCE. it is wrong x 2:
1) Jerusalem falls in year 19 not 18.
2) The 70 years begins in year 23 not year 19 or 18.
Just remember that the 607 BCE date uses 539BCE for the "pivotal date" for the fall of Babylon and the VAT4956 now contradicts that. It dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE which dates year 23 to 525 BCE, which dates the 1st of Cyrus 70 years later to 455 BCE. Even the WTS agrees that 455 BCE has to begin the 70 weeks prophecy, the time whent he word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem.
Nehemiah's rebulding of the walls, which took only 52 days is rejected because it doesn't occur in the fall. Jesus must arrive in the fall in order to fulfill a mid-70th-week death specifically in the spring. The building work in the 1st of Cyrus began specifically on the first day of the 7th month. Secondly, the new walls had already been completed even before the temple was built (Ezra 4:11). JWs want us to believe the Jews built a new temple in the middle of a wide open city with walls still in ruins from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and then all of a sudden this "invisible wall of protection" wasn't good enough so Nehemiah runs to Jerusalem and has a double wall around Jerusalem constructed in just 52 days? Hardly.
Debating over two false ideas does not make Biblical truth come forward.
As far as Furuli goes, he's a nice man too, but definitely not a heavy hitter as far as the Bible is concerned. He's out to prove the WTS chronology true but can't deal with the 70 years not beginning until the last deportation, even though Josephus says so. So another lost cause, I'm afraid.
JCanon
-
rassillon
Awesome!, Let the nutjobs fight each other!!!!
Oh and JCannon, it is count down to 607 not up to.....:) -
JCanon
Rassilon: Awesome!, Let the nutjobs fight each other!!!!
Oh and JCannon, it is count down to 607 not up to.....:)I just don't get it. Josephus himself says that there were 70 years of "servitude" of the poor people who were taken off the land finally in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. It's a direct quote. It directly contradicts the chronology from the NB Period, all the primary records (i.e. Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus Cylindar) dated to the late Persian Period, and I'm supposed to be crazy because I challenge these "copies" as frauds? Who is the nutcase here?
COJ claims the VAT4956 is "the most important" of all astronomical texts. It has over 70 references matched to 568 BCE. Yet we find out Sachs/Hunger translators lying about what is in the text in line 18, Lines 3 and 14. Lines 3 and 14 had long ago been acknowledged to have a non-matching lunar position where the moon's position better matched a location the previous day. Two separate scholars examining the text indicated that; Sachs/Hunger and PV Neugebauer. But with the advent of modern astronomy programs, when the two "errors" were tested, turns out they belong to the same lunar cycle. COJ claims, to rebut the idea of revisionism that the copyists faithfully copied these texts, noting when the text was broken off. But you can't have it both ways. If they simply noted where the text was broken then they wouldn't bother guessing lunar locations in other places where the text was missing. So why the "scribal error" in both places for the lunar location to the same specific year? The most logical explanation is that those positions were copied off of texts from the same lunar year, purposely placed into this document. But WHY? All is explained when you locate the year these texts originally belonged to, which is 511 BCE. Why? Because that was the original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar anyway. How do we know that? Because the 1st of Cyrus actually occurred in 455 BCE, that's why, and 70 years earlier was year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar which was 525 BCE, in which case year 37 would fall in 511 BCE. So are two 511 BCE references in the VAT4956 a mistake? A coincidence? NO. Those references were "hidden" in a politically correct diary and copied several times in hopes of preserving in a safe place some references to the original chronology that was being revised during the Seleucid Period. It's not that complicated. What are the chances that both these cryptic references AND the Bible are giving us the same dating for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II? There are five surviving copies or fragments of the SK400 text, proving these specialized diaries were copied multiple times. But WHY? Because like the VAT4956, the SK400 also has cryptic astronomy back to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. The lunar interval between two eclipses mentioned in the SK400 match 541 BCE and is a mismatch for 523 BCE. The WTS uses the SK400 to try to prove 537 BCE is the right date for the return of the Jews from Babylon. You can adjust the first eclipse all you want to make it work, but the second eclipse has to be 2:46 minutes later, no matter what. In 523 BCE the interval is 4:46. But in 541 BCE it is exactly 2:46. Coincidence? Again? Is this a cryptic reference for "year 7" of some Babylonian king in 541 BCE? It would be if 541 BCE matched year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar since from the VAT4956 we know the original year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar fell in 511 BCE. OKay. LET'S COMPARE!! Is year 7 in 541 BC the same timeline for Neb2 for year 37 in 511 BCE? YUP! So at this point it's a matter of HDKUGQ all the way (HowDumKanUGetQuestionmark).
But fortunately, it's not about how many followers of Satan will keep their eyes closed and pretend not to see, hear or say anything, it's about the Bible believers who now have some secular and scientific basis for the 455 BCE chronology to return fire to the Bible bashers. But like COJ, they run and hide when they see a lost debate ahead.
It's amazing. There has to be a certain intellectual level to follow some of this though. I can tell someone, "Hey, Artaxerxes and Xerxes were the same king" and I get this blank stare and silence. They don't get it. It's as if Satan's world has brainwashed their independent thinking part of the brain.
Oh well.... I'm glad I got all my answers, all the answers I've ever wanted. I'm like Lazarus in the bosom position of the Father with all the answers and knowledge I ever dreamed of, whereas the evil slave WTS is in torment with all their outdated knowledge. So many in the WTS don't believe anything is really "true" unless it appears in the Watchtower first, even though they see it in the Bible. What is on the altar has become more sacred than the altar itself. There is a severe penalty for making that mistake, unfortunately.
Being a "nutcase" has it's advantages!
JCanon
-
Doug Mason
The “GB of the WTS”, “JCanon”, and “JW Scholar” share the same mistake regarding the “70 Years”.
Not one of them understands what the Hebrews at that time understood by “desolation”.
There is no point saying what the word means to us today, any more than guess what the expression might mean in another 2500 years time.
Since I believe there would be no value in providing parts of the facts, which would only result
in a “tennis match”, I will sit down and prepare a formal Study.
This will take me just a little while, and it will be a worthwhile exercise.
Doug