In your opinion, do the dates I give here make sense?
You want my opinion??? I was under the impression you couldn't give a rat's behind what I thought LOL.
I don't want to make the truth any harder on you than it needs to be, @AnnOMaly. If you do not wish to respond with your opinion, then dodge; I can see you're good at it. It's clear to me that truth is not your forté, but, still, I want you to approximate, just as I did, when it was you believe according to Josephus the reign of Tyre's king Ithobal ended in view of the fact that Josephus indicates that it was "in the days of Ithobal" that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre. I want your opinion as to the veracity of the dates in the following paragraph, which I am quoting yet again from my previous message:
"Merbalus' brother, Hirom, reigned for 20 years (559 BC - 539 BC); Merbalus reigned for four years (563 BC - 559 BC); Balatorus reigned for one year (564 BC - 563 BC); Mitgonus and Gerastratus ruled as judges in Tyre for six years (570 BC - 564 BC); Abbar ruled as a judge for three months and Chelbes ruled as a judge for ten months (571 BC - 570 BC); Ecnibalus ruled for two months as a judge and Baal reigned as king for 10 years (581 BC - 571 BC). This means that if Nebuchadnezzar had "besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal," that Ithobal's reign began before Nebuchadnezzar's siege on Tyre began in 607 BC and that Ithobal continued to be king 13 years later in 594 BC. We are able to deduce that Baal ascended to the throne of Tyre in 581 BC, which is about the same time when Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended, and when Nebuchadnezzar's son, Evil-Merodach, ascended to the throne of Babylon in 581 BC. If by 581 BC Nebuchadnezzar's reigned totalled 43 years, then this means that his first regnal year was 624 BC, and in 625 BC when his father, Nabopolassar, died, this would have been Nebuchadnezzar's accession year."
What do you think? I'm asking you what you think, which I'll regard as being your opinion. Do these dates make any sense to you?
I stayed within the parameters you set down - that I should approximate the time Ithobaal's reign ended "according to Josephus." On the other hand, you used BC dates, which naturally Josephus did not use, and because you're using the wrong dates, it means you have to extend Ithobaal's reign beyond the end of the 13 year siege so that he reigns an extra 13 years, which Josephus didn't mention or factor in with his calculation. The siege ended, according to you in 594 BC, but Ithobaal's successor, Baal, ascended the throne in 581 BC --> 594 - 581 = 13.
I wanted to parse what you said in this sentence, but instead decided, after I had reposted, as I do here, what it was I had asked you, that I would just mention just two (2) things: (1) Not only is it more likely than not that Josephus used the Hebrew calendar, he being Jewish and all, but it's also more likely than not that he didn't write what he does in Against Apion in English, which is why I suppose you rely upon Whiston's English translation of it. You didn't have to say this, but you want to come off as smart about this stuff, so I'm going to let you. (2) I asked you about the dates of the reigns of the Phoenician kings that I calculated in my post, asking you specifically to give me your honest opinion as to what you thought about them as far as what I wrote included the 13-year siege of Nebuchadnezzar on Tyre which occurred "in the days of Ithobal," as you know I did, but seeing how you sidestepped my question to make your focus these 13 years makes clear that you may want to be smart about this stuff, but what you don't want is to have an honest discussion with me:
NEITHER THE BC DATES NOR THE LENGTH OF ITHOBAAL'S REIGN NOR AN EXTRA 13 YEARS ADDED ON AFTER THE SIEGE ENDED CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED FROM JOSEPHUS.
Ergo, your dates do not make sense in view of the above reasons. Got it now?
Yes, I do. Thanks.
You don't really know me, but based on this exchange between us, I feel I've come to know a little about you, @AnnOMaly: Whenever you do not wish to answer one of my questions, you will take shots at me, magnify my typos or clear misstatements, and not for my sake, but in order that others reading your posts (to me) might regard you as their champion over another one of Jehovah's Witnesses. All of that is fine for you do, for evasion and dodging isn't something I do or would feel comfortable doing.
I believe Jehovah is the true God and I believe he sent his son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners, of which I am definitely one of them. I have faith that we are living in the last days of this system of things and that, unless I should meet with some horrible car accident or contract some fatal disease just short of the outbreak of the great tribulation, that I will likely be one of those that the apostle John saw in a vision 'coming out of the great tribulation' wearing white robes and waving palm branches in acknowledgment of the salvation that I will then realize, which resulted from the ransom sacrifice made by earth's new king, Jesus Christ. (Revelation 7:9, 10, 13-15) I believe all of these things are true and so this is my faith.
Now you can believe what you want about what things you have read in the Bible and I don't fault you for any of your conclusions. I don't pretend that I can be the master of anyone else's faith, and I don't pretend to be the master of your faith, @AnnOMaly. I've been here in this thread sharing with you what things I believe from my read and study of the Bible, and why I believe all of these things to be the truth is all, and I don't judge you for having come to a different opinion than I about them. We must all of us prove to ourselves that what the Bible says about these 70 years is true, and even if my date calculations should be totally wrong, I believe that the land of Judah lay desolate for 70 years to which Josephus attests in Against Apion. I brought up Josephus because he was a non-Christian Jew that had no motive to make things up about the 70-year exile of the Jews. Josephus wasn't arguing the specific years of the exile in what he wrote, but he was merely pointing out that how Chaldean and Phoenician histories written by others support the fact of the 70-year exile.
You know well that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that this 70-year period began during Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year (19th if we include his accession year) because the Bible so indicates, but many of us go further than this in calculating that this period had to have begun in the year 607 BC, which is actually the source of this controversy between you and I in this thread. If we are wrong about 607 BC and it turns out that it was in 608 BC or 609 BC, we can live with being wrong, but we do know that Cyrus deposed Babylon in 539 BC, and if this 70-year period should end in 539 BC, and not in 537 BC, we would end up at 609 BC, but our faith -- my faith -- isn't based on whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 609 BC, 608 BC or 607 BC, but in the truth of God's prophetic word, that what he foretold did, in fact, come true just as he said it would. (Isaiah 55:10, 11)
As I said, I am someone that believes that what the Bible says is true, but you seem to be of the belief that if there are things that Jehovah's Witnesses believe with which you do not and cannot agree that we should care that your opinion differs from ours, but why can't we disagree? You might believe something occurred in 587 BC and we might believe this same thing occurred in 607 BC, but we could both we wrong about the year, and so what? Just because I believe something that you don't or won't doesn't prevent you in any way from believing what it is you wish to believe, right? Why do you feel the need to attack my character just because I have a different opinion than yours?
Anyway, I'm going to probably be withdrawing from this thread since it has become unprofitable to the lurkers, which is my real reason for joining it in the first place. You and others like @WMF, @Farkel and @cantleave, to name a few, will no doubt continue to lob insults at me in many other threads on here, because this is what "you guys" do, but anyone reading this particular thread can tell that this thread can become a launching pad for attacks against Jehovah's Witnesses.