607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    cofty
    Did you follow the advice given on my website and go to the alt.bible ( a google group ) and locate my one post and then retrieve many other posts or even on this forum you can read and ponder asking God for guidance

    No

  • OBVES
    OBVES

    So you have yourself to blame . This may be very strenous work to follow all calculations and see connections between dates.

    Once we know we must count 2000 years since Jesus and 120 years as our times are to be in the likeness of Noah's days we can do some interesting calculations and get fascinating dates.

    7 BC + 2000 years = 1994 AD.

    2 BC + 2000 years = 1999 AD.

    4 AD + 2000 years = 2004 AD.

    11 AD + 2000 years = 2011 AD .

    29 AD + 2000 years = 2029 AD .

    33 AD + 2000 years = 2033 AD . And now we must have a period of 120 years preceding the end of 2000 years :

    1994 AD - 120 years = 1874 AD a good date linked to the International Bible Students who predicted the coming of Jesus at that time which could not take place unless 120 years are finished !But it was a good sign that they were on the road to find when Jesus may come back.

    1999 AD - 120 years = 1879 AD again it is in the favor of the International Bible Students who published the first original issue of the Watchtower : Zion's Watchtower or so .

    2004 AD - 120 years back = 1884 AD and again that was the great year for the International Bible Students

    2011 AD - 120 years back = 1891 AD . That year duplicated the age of Jesus at 12 and in this case I am not sure if the International Bible Students published a very important book that year .I would have to check . But I am personally relating that year 1891 AD to the birth of my father that would link me to the International Bible Students some way.

    If we take 2029 AD and go back 120 years we come to 1909 AD which was not so important year ; the same with 2033 AD - 120 years = 1913 AD .

    So,we look for some other way around to come up with the year 2034 AD.

    587 BC .... 537 BC .... 487 BC were a jubilee years . 587 BC = 1934 AD , 537 BC = 1984 AD ; so 487 BC = 2034 AD .

    The next jubilee year 437 BC gets into the timeline for the first coming of Jesus as these dates are used : 457 BC and 455 BC .

    We take 50 years and place them before 587 BC and then 50 years backwards from 1934 AD lead to the year 1884 AD.

    1884 AD + 120 years = 2004 AD . 1914 AD + 120 years = 2034 AD .

    1884 AD - 2034 AD = 150 years .

  • djeggnog
    djeggnog

    @djeggnog wrote:

    There is nothing evident in Scripture about anyone inhabiting the land of Judah during the period of time it lay desolate. Prove this.

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    It was proved. You agreed, remember? When jonathan dough said:

    "You are very much mistaken in this regard also, and Anne is absolutely correct. There were in fact inhabitants in all that land that the JWs argue was 100 percent uninhabited."

    You assented,

    "Ok." (post #401, p. 12)

    @djeggnog wrote:

    What is wrong with you? When I say "Ok," I'm not assenting to anything nor conceding any point that I might have been trying to make. "Ok" can mean "You and I will have to agree to disagree," or it can mean "I don't want to argue with you." Just because @Jonathan Dough wrongly concluded that I had conceded what his point was regarding where there were any inhabitants in Judah during the 70 years that Josephus attested the land of Judah lay desolate -- just as Jehovah decreed by Jeremiah it would be! -- doesn't mean that you have to jump to this same conclusion as he as to the meaning of "Ok" in that context or in this context. In the case of @Jonathan Dough, my "Ok" meant "I don't want to argue with you."

    @Jonathan Dough:

    Why are your raising this point again? As Ann pointed out, you already conceded this before.

    So I'm the one that arrived late to the proverbial party. This is a good thing to know since it was I that actually did address this issue in one of my previous posts, so is it me or you that is raising this point again? If you're interested, find it and read it. I recall asking for something called proof, and your alleging, as did @AnnOMaly, that my "Ok" constitutes "proof" is absurd. If I were to ask you to produce proof that you are 21 years of age or older before I sell you this bottle of booze, and you say "I'm 25; I was born in 1986," your statement doesn't trump a driver's license that bears both your image on it and a date of birth between January 1, 1986, and June 11, 1986, which might arguably be proof that you are over 21 years old. I didn't concede anything. I just don't like doing what you and @AnnOMaly enjoy doing: Arguing for the sake of it, arguing because you can, arguing without a cogent reason for doing so.

    You want us to prove it again? Don't you bother to read any of this material? Sure, we'll prove it one more time, and you can agree one more time.

    You are a cut-and-paster; you have nothing new to say. I've no interest in reading the same tripe, which is proffered as being "proof," when it doesn't prove your contention that anyone inhabited the land of Judah during the 70-year period that it lay desolate. Reading the tripe you wrote in response to "Setting the Record Straight," which you indicate to be your response to something written by someone that was one of Jehovah's Witnesses or some group of folks that were Jehovah's Witnesses, again would be a waste of my time, and the fact that you quote Leviticus 26:32, as did @AnnOMaly, as proof that Judah's enemies were inhabitants in the land of Judah during this 70-year period would be tantamount to your expecting me to sell alcoholic beverage to you based on your declaration alone that you are 26 years old, as if such constitutes proof that you are over 21 years old.

    While you evidently found "Setting the Record Straight" an interesting read, I haven't read it, and cannot blindly associate myself with any of the things "Setting the Record Straight" might say. Whoever it was that was responsible for writing "Setting the Record Straight," even if it should be your wish that I should stand in as a proxy for someone else, you are having this discussion with me, and you have yet to prove anything to me.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    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.

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    It's fascinating to see how bent out of shape your perception of reality is. You first quoted from Whiston's translation of Against Apion and you first commented on Nabopolassar's 29 years which, in fact, also came from Whiston's translation!

    No, you were quoting from Whiston's English translation of Against Apion, as I was pointing out to you that Josephus didn't write Against Apionin the English language. So you're telling you now that you've totally forgotten the following exchange in which you made the point to me that you were referring to Whiston's translation of Against Apion?

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    Tsk, tsk, eggie! You really are shameless. The writings of this Pharisee also attested that the temple was desolate for 50 years and this agreed with their Jewish histories.

    Against Apion, I, xxi: "These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius."

    @djeggnog wrote:

    Tsk, tsk, backacha! Either you suffer from a learning disability (also called "dyslexia"), or you thought you were being clever by quoting Against Apion I, xxi, which I did not cite, instead of Against Apion, I, xix, which I did cite.

    I noticed that you were quoting from Whiston's English translation of Against Apion, which is the reason I quoted chapters 19 through 21 in their entirety.

    Perhaps you will recall the following exchange between us:

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    I know it's 'pearls before swine' in your case but FWIW - a small point about Josephus, Berossus and Nabopolassar's "twenty-nine years" of reign. This happens to be a manuscript error which William Whiston translates as is.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    I never mentioned William Whiston. If you are relying upon his translation of Josephus' works, more power to you; I'm not. Just so you know, I'm just going to have to ignore the rest of this nonsense you've spouted here. I just cannot take any of what you said seriously.

    I realize that you had quoted from Whiston's translation of Against Apion, but I did not quote from, but was referencing at the time, Volume 10: Against Apion Translation and Commentary (2006), Barclay, John M. G., Brill Academic Publishers, BJP Brill Josephus Project. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, general ed. Steve Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2000-) [ISBN: 9004117911]. Here's the link to the book (which you can add to your library at the cost of between $300 and $400), although it may be possible for you to obtain a PDF copy of it:

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/9004117911

    This is what John Barclay's translation of Against Apion renders Josephus' words in Chapter 19 regarding the 70-year period when the land of Judah lie desolate (in 1.19):

    Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar] ... defeated them all and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma, 439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon, 440 with the the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus, the first king of the Persians. 441

    The following are Barclay's footnotes 439 through 441 (note that Greek characters are not represented here):

    439

    440

    441

    Reading prw/tou ("the first") with Münster (and Reinach), following Eusebius. This summary covers both the citations to follow (1.135-41, 146-53), but the biblical figure of 70 years (Jer 25:12; 29:10 [=LXX 36:10]; Dan 9:2; Zech 1:12; Ant. 10.112, 184; 11.1; 20.233) is not justified by the later calculations (1.154, 159), and is quietly forgotten. Its inclusion here suggests how much Josephus writes this introduction in biblical mode, while claiming to say no more than Berosus. For the utter desertion of the city (excusing the failure to rebuild the temple for two generations), cf. Ant. 10.184. Josephus highlights the Judean captives from among those Berosus will list in 1.137, and compresses the different phases of captivity (cf. Ant. 10.98, 101, 149) into a single event, to match Berosus’ account. The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference). Josephus attributes mention of the temple not only here, but also at 1.145 (cf. 1.154, 160). The addition is necessary not only because Josephus considers the destruction of the temple the most important event in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, but also because it is crucial for the chronological calculations which follow (1.154, 159). On Josephus’ reaction to the apparent humiliation of this event, see 2.129-32. The temple was destroyed in 587/6 BCE (Wiseman 1985: 36-39); see 2 Kings 25 with biblical parallels and Ant. 10.144-48 (indicating how central this event was to Josephus’ understanding of history).

    You were blissfully unaware of whose translation YOU were referencing until I pointed it out, providing some useful information about why this discrepancy existed.

    Ok.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    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.

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    Hm. We'll see. Even if you did, you'll grace us with your eminent presence again elsewhere, no doubt ;-)

    I said "this thread."

    @Witness My Fury:

    So lets just set this straight again then:

    Let's.

    607 is intrinsically linked to 1914 as the supposed start and end years of the 7 times of Daniel = 2520 years. So much so that when it was realised that there was no year 0 between BCE and AD years they shifted the previously published date for the fall of Jerusalem back from 606 to 607 so as to KEEP 1914!!. (duh)

    There's nothing "supposed" about any of this. The Bible doesn't mention either 1914 AD or 607 BC. Were you to do the date math yourself, you would wind up at the year 1914 were you to count 2,520 years from the year 607 BC. Providentially, I see no reason to change the year 1914 since the fact that there is no zero year between the "BC" years and the "AD" years has nothing at all to do with changing the year from 606 BC to 607 BC. You are making all of this noise about 1914 when there was no zero year involved in our having determined 607 BC as being the year when Nebuchadnezzar deposed Jerusalem; there is no zero year to consider since we're talking about 607 BC and 537 BC. Jehovah's Witnesses arrive at the year when Nebuchadnezzar deposed Jerusalem based on our adding 70 years to 537 BC, which year corresponds to AM 3255 on the Hebrew calendar, and after doing the date math, we arrive at the year 607 BC, or AM 3185. Understand? The difference between the years 607 BC and 537 BC, or to put it another way, the difference between the years AM 3255 and AM 3185, is 70 years. None of this has a thing to do with how Jehovah's Witnesses arrive at the year 1914.

    1914 is directly linked to the claims of authourity of the Governing Body as being chosen by Christ in 1918 / 1919 as his sole channel on earth.

    You don't have to agree with what things Jehovah's Witnesses teach as the significance of the year 1914 if you are of a different belief, @WMF; you have as much right as anyone else to accept or reject other people's religious beliefs. There are many religious groups that have been formed based on the belief systems they have that differ from the belief systems of other religious groups. You are the one that is bringing up 1914 here, and even go on to refer to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as to the significance of the year 1918, when some 3-1/2 years after the Lord's day began in 1914, Jehovah and his "messenger of the covenant," Jesus Christ, came to the spiritual temple, and thereupon appointed those it found actually carrying out the master's business as the "faithful and discreet slave," and the significance of the year 1919, when Babylon the Great had fallen and Jehovah's people were set free from all restraint as servants of God.

    How does the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is the central body of elders that have undertaken responsibility for oversight in connection with the preaching activity of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide and which didn't even exist formally until 1938, figure into this discussion? As was clearly seen in the case of Raymond Franz, these men can be deleted as elders the same as any of the local elders, for the nine members of the governing body are Jehovah's Witnesses, so why do you mention the governing body at all? I thought we were here discussing whether or not 607 BC was the wrong year when Nebuchadnezzar deposed Jerusalem, but now it becomes ever apparent, @WMF, that you want to bash the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that you wish to posit objections to other doctrinal beliefs that Jehovah's Witnesses have, beliefs which we have every right to believe and teach, even if you should disagree with us.

    Take this "fact" away and they have no authority and are in fact false prophets claiming false authority.

    Take what "fact" away? Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the governing body as the central body of elders having the responsibility of providing oversight to the preaching work in which Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide are doing. We don't consider the governing body to be "false prophets" any more so than the "rank and file" considers themselves to be "false prophets." Only Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to recognize the scriptural authority of the central body of elders and the body of local elders. People that are not Jehovah's Witnesses are not expected to recognize the authority of any of our elders in our elder arrangement, and this would include those that have been disfellowshipped from our ranks and those that have decided to disassociate themselves from us.

    Examples: His mention of the fact that Ann needed Whistons English translation of Josephus seems to give the impression he is reading direct from the Hebrew.

    Was Whiston translating from "the Hebrew" or from the Greek language? I mentioned Whiston's translation of Against Apion considering the fact [email protected] quoted in her post directed to me from Chapter 21 of Book I. I'm not going to spar with you here, @WMF. You just want the pleasure of arguing with one of Jehovah's Witnesses over non-issues or over issues that do not concern you if you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which seems rather odd to me quite frankly. It's like you were here arguing that the Girl Scouts of America ought to permit 10-, 11- or 12-year-old kids to go door to door selling cookies without adult supervision as long as they go to people's doors in twos when you have no connection whatsoever to the Girl Scouts of America nor have any children of your own or any nieces that are members of the girl scouts. What right would you have to speak against the policies of Girl Scouts of America?

    Do you think you have the right to dictate to me what to believe or what not to believe? Do you feel you have the right to voice dissent over what things Jehovah's Witnesses believe and what things Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe? IMO, the kind of people that do this kind of thing are sociopaths, people that suffer from some form of antisocial personality disorder. I don't expect you to agree with me, but this is my opinion of people that voice the kinds of things that you have voiced in your post when you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Tell me: When someone gets fired from their job or quits their job, do you think that they still have a vote on whether your former employer should reimburse daily or weekly the cost of parking your car when you no longer work there? Just asking.

    @djeggnog

    Below I'm going to quote John Barclay's translation of Josephus' Against Apion, Book I, Chapters 19-21, even though some of what Josephus says contradicts the Bible, but, before doing this, I'm going to first quote Barclay's footnotes 452 and 520:

    E Codex Eliensis (15th century)

    L Codex Laurentianus 69, 22 (11th century)

    S Codex Schleusingensis (15th /16th century)

    452

    520

    The statement is an attempt to relate the Tyrian reference to the siege of Tyre (1.156) to the Judean reference to the destruction of the temple (1.154), by comparison of their relative placing in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. (Misunderstanding this clause to explain the previous statement, Latin suggests that this is the seventh year of the reign of Ithobalos; see Labow 2005: 147, n.125 and Katzenstein 1973: 328.) Taking a little support from L (which has e)pi/ where one would expect e)/tei, "year"), Gutschmid (552-55) emends the text to read "in the seventeeth year." On the basis of this and the following clause, the Tyrian record would imply a time interval of 50 years and 3 months between the destruction of the temple and the second year of Cyrus, thus matching 1.154 (see previous note). If the text is read as "seventh," the figure is reduced to 40 years and 3 months. We have noted a similar slipperiness with numbers at 1.103, though here it represents Josephus’ inability to make the figures match. L E S read 29, but all other witnesses agree on 21, which is confirmed as historically accurate by a fragment of a chronicle (British Museum 21946), which also gives the precise day of his death (8th day of the month of Ab = 15/16th August, 605 BCE). For the Babylonian account of this battle see Wiseman 1956: 67-69.

    Below is the text from Against Apion, Book I, Chapters 19-21, JohnBarclay's translation:

    (1.19) 128 I shall now straightaway describe what is recorded and reported concerning us among the Chaldeans; 426 there is considerable agreement on this as on other points between these sources and our writings. 427 129 As witness to this stands Berosus, 428 a Chaldean by descent, 429 but well-known to those engaged in learning, since he published for the Greeks works on astronomy and on the subjects of philosophical inquiry among the Chaldeans. 430 130 Now this Berosus, following the most ancient records, 431 gave an account, like Moses, of the flood and the destruction in it of humankind, 432 and of the ark in which Noah, the founder of our race, 433 was saved when it was carried onto the peaks of the Armenian mountains. 131 Then, listing Noah’s descendants and adding their dates, 434 he comes to Naboupolassaros, 435 the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans, 436 132 and while relating his exploits he describes how he sent his own son Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar] 437 with a large army against Egypt and against our land, when he learned that they had rebelled; 438 he defeated them all and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma, 439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon, 440 with the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus, the first king of the Persians. 441 133 He says that the Babylonian 442 conquered Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, and Arabia, surpassing in his exploits all who had previously ruled over the Chaldeans and Babylonians. 443 134 444 I shall present Berosus’ own words, which go like this: 445 135 When his father Naboupolassaros 446 heard that the satrap appointed over Egypt and the regions of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia had rebelled, 447 since he was no longer able to endure the hardships himself, he appointed his son Naboukodrosoros, who was still in his prime, 448 over some parts of his army, and sent him out against him. 449 136 Naboukodrosoros engaged the rebel, overpowered him in a pitched battle, 450 and brought the district again under their rule. 451 And it happened that at this time his father, Naboupolassaros, fell ill in the city of the Babylonians and died, having reigned for twenty-one years. 452 137 When, not long after, Naboukodrosoros heard of his father’s death, after he had settled affairs in Egypt and the rest of the district, 453 and appointed some of the Friends 454 to take charge of the captives—Judeans, 455 Phoenicians, Syrians, peoples bordering Egypt 456 —and to convey them to Babylon, together with the heavily-armed troops 457 and the rest of the spoils, he himself rushed ahead with a small escort and got to Babylon across the desert. 138 Finding affairs being administered by Chaldeans, and the kingdom being preserved by their noblest figure, 458 he gained mastery of his father’s empire, intact. He ordered that the captives, on arrival, be assigned settlements in the most suitable locations in Babylonia, 459 139 and he himself lavishly decorated the temple of Bel and the other temples from the spoils of the war, 460 and, having examined both the existing, original city and another, to be joined to it, outside its bounds, 461 to ensure that besiegers should not again be able to turn back the river 462 and swoop down on the city, 463 he surrounded the inner city with three walls, and the outer city with three, the former made of baked brick and bitumen, the latter of plain brick. 464 140 When he had walled the city in this remarkable way and decorated the gateways in a fashion suited to their sanctity, 465 he built in addition to his father’s palace another palace adjoining it, 466 whose height 467 and general opulence it would perhaps take too long to describe 468 —except to say that, despite its extraordinary size and splendor, it was completed in fifteen days. 469 141 In this palace he built high stone terraces 470 and gave them a scenery closely resembling mountains, planting them with all sorts of trees, thus constructing and landscaping the so-called "hanging garden," 471 because his wife, who had been raised in the region of Media, hankered after the mountain environment. 472

    (1.20) 142 This is how he tells the history of the above-named king, 473 with much additional material, in the third book of the Chaldaica, 474 in which he censures Greek historians for wrongly thinking that Babylon was founded by the Assyrian Semiramis, and for falsely recording that the wonders constructed within it were due to her. 475 143 On these matters the Chaldeans’ record must be considered trustworthy. 476 Besides, what is recounted in the Phoenicians’ archives 477 concerning the king of the Babylonians agrees with what is said by Berosus, that he subdued Syria and the whole of Phoenicia. 478 144 Indeed, Philostratus, also, agrees on these matters when he mentions in his history the siege of Tyre, 479 as does Megasthenes in the fourth book of his Indica, 480 in which he tries to prove that the above-named king of the Babylonians surpassed Heracles in bravery and the scale of his exploits; for he says that he subdued most of Libya and Iberia. 481 145 What was said above concerning the sanctuary in Hierosolyma—that it was burned down by the Babylonians when they invaded, 482 but began to be rebuilt when Cyrus succeeded to the kingdom of Asia 483 —will be clearly demonstrated by the statements of Berosus here presented. 484 146 For this is what he says in his third book: After starting the wall mentioned above, 485 Naboukodrosoros fell ill and died, having reigned for 43 years; 486 his son, Eueilmaradouchos, 487 became master of the kingdom. 147 His regime was lawless and debauched, 488 and when a plot was laid by his sister’s husband, Neriglisaros, 489 he was assassinated, having reigned for 2 years. 490 After his assassination, Neriglisaros, who plotted against him, succeeded to the throne and reigned for 4 years. 491 148 His son, Laborosoardochos, 492 ruled the kingdom, though only a child, for 9 months; 493 but, since he displayed in many ways an evil character, a plot was forged and he was beaten to death by the Friends. 494 149 At his death those who had plotted against him gathered and jointly conferred the kingdom on a certain Nabonnedos, 495 who was from Babylon and one of their conspiracy. During his reign the walls of the Babylonians’ city alongside the river were embellished with baked brick and bitumen. 496 150 When his reign was in its seventeenth year, Cyrus emerged from Persia with a large army 497 and, when he had subdued all the rest of Asia, 498 advanced on Babylonia. 151 When he learned of his approach, Nabonnedos went to meet him with the army and faced him, but was defeated in battle, fled with a small escort, and was shut up in the city of the Borsippians. 499 152 Cyrus captured Babylon 500 and gave orders that the outer walls of the city should be razed to the ground because the city seemed to him formidable and difficult to capture; 501 he then set off for Borsippa to besiege Nabonnedos. 153 As Nabonnedus did not wait for the siege but gave himself up in advance, Cyrus treated him generously, gave him Carmania as his residence, and expelled him from Babylonia. 502 Nabonnedus spent the rest of his days in that land and ended his life there. 503

    (1.21) 154 These words contain the truth in agreement with our books; 504 for it is written there that Naboukodrosoros devastated our sanctuary in the eighteenth year of his reign 505 and it was left without trace for 50 years, 506 and in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid, 507 and, again, in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed. 508 155 I shall add the Phoenician records as well 509 —for one must not pass over the abundance of proofs. 510 The calculation of dates goes like this. 511 156 In the reign of king Ithobalos, 512 Naboukodrosoros besieged Tyre for 13 years. 513 After him Baal reigned for 10 years. 514 157 Thereafter judges were appointed: Ednibalos, son of Baslechos, was judge for 2 months, Chelbes, son of Abdaeos, for 10 months, Abbalos, the high-priest, for 3 months; Myttynos and Gerastartos, son of Abdelimos, were judges for 6 years, 515 after whom Balatoros was king for 1 year. 516 158 When he died they sent for Merbalos and summoned him from Babylon, and he reigned for 4 years; when he died they summoned his brother Eiromos, who reigned for 20 years. 517 It was during his reign that Cyrus became ruler of the Persians. 518 159 So the whole period is 54 years, with 3 months in addition; 519 for it was in the seventh year of the reign of Naboukodrosoros that he began to besiege Tyre, 520 and in the fourteenth year 521 of the reign of Eiromos that Cyrus the Persian seized power. 522 160 The Chaldean and Tyrian materials are in agreement with our writings on the subject of the sanctuary, 523 and my evidence from these statements for the antiquity of our people is consistent and incontestable. 524 Thus I think that what I have now said is sufficient for any who are not excessively contentious. 525

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    I thought you had finished with this thread idiothead. Go and prepare your Watchtower or do some personal "study" stop coming here you stupid little person!

  • djeggnog
    djeggnog

    This is a repost of my previous post, which resulted in several omissions due to my use of superscripts in it, which omissions change my original post.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    There is nothing evident in Scripture about anyone inhabiting the land of Judah during the period of time it lay desolate. Prove this.

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    It was proved. You agreed, remember? When jonathan dough said:

    "You are very much mistaken in this regard also, and Anne is absolutely correct. There were in fact inhabitants in all that land that the JWs argue was 100 percent uninhabited."

    You assented,

    "Ok." (post #401, p. 12)

    @djeggnog wrote:

    What is wrong with you? When I say "Ok," I'm not assenting to anything nor conceding any point that I might have been trying to make. "Ok" can mean "You and I will have to agree to disagree," or it can mean "I don't want to argue with you." Just because @Jonathan Dough wrongly concluded that I had conceded what his point was regarding where there were any inhabitants in Judah during the 70 years that Josephus attested the land of Judah lay desolate -- just as Jehovah decreed by Jeremiah it would be! -- doesn't mean that you have to jump to this same conclusion as he as to the meaning of "Ok" in that context or in this context. In the case of @Jonathan Dough, my "Ok" meant "I don't want to argue with you."

    @Jonathan Dough:

    Why are your raising this point again? As Ann pointed out, you already conceded this before.

    So I'm the one that arrived late to the proverbial party. This is a good thing to know since it was I that actually did address this issue in one of my previous posts, so is it me or you that is raising this point again? If you're interested, find it and read it. I recall asking for something called proof, and your alleging, as did @AnnOMaly, that my "Ok" constitutes "proof" is absurd. If I were to ask you to produce proof that you are 21 years of age or older before I sell you this bottle of booze, and you say "I'm 25; I was born in 1986," your statement doesn't trump a driver's license that bears both your image on it and a date of birth between January 1, 1986, and June 11, 1986, which might arguably be proof that you are over 21 years old. I didn't concede anything. I just don't like doing what you and @AnnOMaly enjoy doing: Arguing for the sake of it, arguing because you can, arguing without a cogent reason for doing so.

    You want us to prove it again? Don't you bother to read any of this material? Sure, we'll prove it one more time, and you can agree one more time.

    You are a cut-and-paster; you have nothing new to say. I've no interest in reading the same tripe, which is proffered as being "proof," when it doesn't prove your contention that anyone inhabited the land of Judah during the 70-year period that it lay desolate. Reading the tripe you wrote in response to "Setting the Record Straight," which you indicate to be your response to something written by someone that was one of Jehovah's Witnesses or some group of folks that were Jehovah's Witnesses, again would be a waste of my time, and the fact that you quote Leviticus 26:32, as did @AnnOMaly, as proof that Judah's enemies were inhabitants in the land of Judah during this 70-year period would be tantamount to your expecting me to sell alcoholic beverage to you based on your declaration alone that you are 26 years old, as if such constitutes proof that you are over 21 years old.

    While you evidently found "Setting the Record Straight" an interesting read, I haven't read it, and cannot blindly associate myself with any of the things "Setting the Record Straight" might say. Whoever it was that was responsible for writing "Setting the Record Straight," even if it should be your wish that I should stand in as a proxy for someone else, you are having this discussion with me, and you have yet to prove anything to me.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    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.

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    It's fascinating to see how bent out of shape your perception of reality is. You first quoted from Whiston's translation of Against Apion and you first commented on Nabopolassar's 29 years which, in fact, also came from Whiston's translation!

    No, you were quoting from Whiston's English translation of Against Apion, as I was pointing out to you that Josephus didn't write Against Apionin the English language. So you're telling you now that you've totally forgotten the following exchange in which you made the point to me that you were referring to Whiston's translation of Against Apion?

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    Tsk, tsk, eggie! You really are shameless. The writings of this Pharisee also attested that the temple was desolate for 50 years and this agreed with their Jewish histories.

    Against Apion, I, xxi: "These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius."

    @djeggnog wrote:

    Tsk, tsk, backacha! Either you suffer from a learning disability (also called "dyslexia"), or you thought you were being clever by quoting Against Apion I, xxi, which I did not cite, instead of Against Apion, I, xix, which I did cite.

    I noticed that you were quoting from Whiston's English translation of Against Apion, which is the reason I quoted chapters 19 through 21 in their entirety.

    Perhaps you will recall the following exchange between us:

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    I know it's 'pearls before swine' in your case but FWIW - a small point about Josephus, Berossus and Nabopolassar's "twenty-nine years" of reign. This happens to be a manuscript error which William Whiston translates as is.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    I never mentioned William Whiston. If you are relying upon his translation of Josephus' works, more power to you; I'm not. Just so you know, I'm just going to have to ignore the rest of this nonsense you've spouted here. I just cannot take any of what you said seriously.

    I realize that you had quoted from Whiston's translation of Against Apion, but I did not quote from, but was referencing at the time, Volume 10: Against Apion Translation and Commentary (2006), Barclay, John M. G., Brill Academic Publishers, BJP Brill Josephus Project. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, general ed. Steve Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2000-) [ISBN: 9004117911]. Here's the link to the book (which you can add to your library at the cost of between $300 and $400), although it may be possible for you to obtain a PDF copy of it:

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/9004117911

    This is what John Barclay's translation of Against Apion renders Josephus' words in Chapter 19 regarding the 70-year period when the land of Judah lie desolate (in 1.19):

    Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar] ... defeated them all and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma, 439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon, 440 with the the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus, the first king of the Persians. 441

    The following are Barclay's footnotes 439 through 441 (note that Greek characters are not represented here):

    [439] The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference). Josephus attributes mention of the temple not only here, but also at 1.145 (cf. 1.154, 160). The addition is necessary not only because Josephus considers the destruction of the temple the most important event in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, but also because it is crucial for the chronological calculations which follow (1.154, 159). On Josephus’ reaction to the apparent humiliation of this event, see 2.129-32. The temple was destroyed in 587/6 BCE (Wiseman 1985: 36-39); see 2 Kings 25 with biblical parallels and Ant. 10.144-48 (indicating how central this event was to Josephus’ understanding of history).

    [440] Josephus highlights the Judean captives from among those Berosus will list in 1.137, and compresses the different phases of captivity (cf. Ant. 10.98, 101, 149) into a single event, to match Berosus’ account.

    [441] Reading prw/tou ("the first") with Münster (and Reinach), following Eusebius. This summary covers both the citations to follow (1.135-41, 146-53), but the biblical figure of 70 years (Jer 25:12; 29:10 [=LXX 36:10]; Dan 9:2; Zech 1:12; Ant. 10.112, 184; 11.1; 20.233) is not justified by the later calculations (1.154, 159), and is quietly forgotten. Its inclusion here suggests how much Josephus writes this introduction in biblical mode, while claiming to say no more than Berosus. For the utter desertion of the city (excusing the failure to rebuild the temple for two generations), cf. Ant. 10.184.

    You were blissfully unaware of whose translation YOU were referencing until I pointed it out, providing some useful information about why this discrepancy existed.

    Ok.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    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.

    @AnnOMaly wrote:

    Hm. We'll see. Even if you did, you'll grace us with your eminent presence again elsewhere, no doubt ;-)

    I said "this thread."

    @Witness My Fury:

    So lets just set this straight again then:

    Let's.

    607 is intrinsically linked to 1914 as the supposed start and end years of the 7 times of Daniel = 2520 years. So much so that when it was realised that there was no year 0 between BCE and AD years they shifted the previously published date for the fall of Jerusalem back from 606 to 607 so as to KEEP 1914!!. (duh)

    There's nothing "supposed" about any of this. The Bible doesn't mention either 1914 AD or 607 BC. Were you to do the date math yourself, you would wind up at the year 1914 were you to count 2,520 years from the year 607 BC. Providentially, I see no reason to change the year 1914 since the fact that there is no zero year between the "BC" years and the "AD" years has nothing at all to do with changing the year from 606 BC to 607 BC. You are making all of this noise about 1914 when there was no zero year involved in our having determined 607 BC as being the year when Nebuchadnezzar deposed Jerusalem; there is no zero year to consider since we're talking about 607 BC and 537 BC. Jehovah's Witnesses arrive at the year when Nebuchadnezzar deposed Jerusalem based on our adding 70 years to 537 BC, which year corresponds to AM 3255 on the Hebrew calendar, and after doing the date math, we arrive at the year 607 BC, or AM 3185. Understand? The difference between the years 607 BC and 537 BC, or to put it another way, the difference between the years AM 3255 and AM 3185, is 70 years. None of this has a thing to do with how Jehovah's Witnesses arrive at the year 1914.

    1914 is directly linked to the claims of authourity of the Governing Body as being chosen by Christ in 1918 / 1919 as his sole channel on earth.

    You don't have to agree with what things Jehovah's Witnesses teach as the significance of the year 1914 if you are of a different belief, @WMF; you have as much right as anyone else to accept or reject other people's religious beliefs. There are many religious groups that have been formed based on the belief systems they have that differ from the belief systems of other religious groups. You are the one that is bringing up 1914 here, and even go on to refer to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as to the significance of the year 1918, when some 3-1/2 years after the Lord's day began in 1914, Jehovah and his "messenger of the covenant," Jesus Christ, came to the spiritual temple, and thereupon appointed those it found actually carrying out the master's business as the "faithful and discreet slave," and the significance of the year 1919, when Babylon the Great had fallen and Jehovah's people were set free from all restraint as servants of God.

    How does the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is the central body of elders that have undertaken responsibility for oversight in connection with the preaching activity of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide and which didn't even exist formally until 1938, figure into this discussion? As was clearly seen in the case of Raymond Franz, these men can be deleted as elders the same as any of the local elders, for the nine members of the governing body are Jehovah's Witnesses, so why do you mention the governing body at all? I thought we were here discussing whether or not 607 BC was the wrong year when Nebuchadnezzar deposed Jerusalem, but now it becomes ever apparent, @WMF, that you want to bash the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that you wish to posit objections to other doctrinal beliefs that Jehovah's Witnesses have, beliefs which we have every right to believe and teach, even if you should disagree with us.

    Take this "fact" away and they have no authority and are in fact false prophets claiming false authority.

    Take what "fact" away? Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the governing body as the central body of elders having the responsibility of providing oversight to the preaching work in which Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide are doing. We don't consider the governing body to be "false prophets" any more so than the "rank and file" considers themselves to be "false prophets." Only Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to recognize the scriptural authority of the central body of elders and the body of local elders. People that are not Jehovah's Witnesses are not expected to recognize the authority of any of our elders in our elder arrangement, and this would include those that have been disfellowshipped from our ranks and those that have decided to disassociate themselves from us.

    Examples: His mention of the fact that Ann needed Whistons English translation of Josephus seems to give the impression he is reading direct from the Hebrew.

    Was Whiston translating from "the Hebrew" or from the Greek language? I mentioned Whiston's translation of Against Apion considering the fact [email protected] quoted in her post directed to me from Chapter 21 of Book I. I'm not going to spar with you here, @WMF. You just want the pleasure of arguing with one of Jehovah's Witnesses over non-issues or over issues that do not concern you if you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which seems rather odd to me quite frankly. It's like you were here arguing that the Girl Scouts of America ought to permit 10-, 11- or 12-year-old kids to go door to door selling cookies without adult supervision as long as they go to people's doors in twos when you have no connection whatsoever to the Girl Scouts of America nor have any children of your own or any nieces that are members of the girl scouts. What right would you have to speak against the policies of Girl Scouts of America?

    Do you think you have the right to dictate to me what to believe or what not to believe? Do you feel you have the right to voice dissent over what things Jehovah's Witnesses believe and what things Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe? IMO, the kind of people that do this kind of thing are sociopaths, people that suffer from some form of antisocial personality disorder. I don't expect you to agree with me, but this is my opinion of people that voice the kinds of things that you have voiced in your post when you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Tell me: When someone gets fired from their job or quits their job, do you think that they still have a vote on whether your former employer should reimburse daily or weekly the cost of parking your car when you no longer work there? Just asking.

    @djeggnog

    Below I'm going to quote John Barclay's translation of Josephus' Against Apion, Book I, Chapters 19-21, even though some of what Josephus says contradicts the Bible, but, before doing this, I'm going to first quote Barclay's footnotes 452 and 520:

    E Codex Eliensis (15th century)

    L Codex Laurentianus 69, 22 (11th century)

    S Codex Schleusingensis (15th /16th century)

    [452] L E S read 29, but all other witnesses agree on 21, which is confirmed as historically accurate by a fragment of a chronicle (British Museum 21946), which also gives the precise day of his death (8th day of the month of Ab = 15/16th August, 605 BCE). For the Babylonian account of this battle see Wiseman 1956: 67-69.

    [520] The statement is an attempt to relate the Tyrian reference to the siege of Tyre (1.156) to the Judean reference to the destruction of the temple (1.154), by comparison of their relative placing in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. (Misunderstanding this clause to explain the previous statement, Latin suggests that this is the seventh year of the reign of Ithobalos; see Labow 2005: 147, n.125 and Katzenstein 1973: 328.) Taking a little support from L (which has e)pi/ where one would expect e)/tei, "year"), Gutschmid (552-55) emends the text to read "in the seventeeth year." On the basis of this and the following clause, the Tyrian record would imply a time interval of 50 years and 3 months between the destruction of the temple and the second year of Cyrus, thus matching 1.154 (see previous note). If the text is read as "seventh," the figure is reduced to 40 years and 3 months. We have noted a similar slipperiness with numbers at 1.103, though here it represents Josephus’ inability to make the figures match.

    Below is the text from Against Apion, Book I, Chapters 19-21, JohnBarclay's translation:

    (1.19) 128 I shall now straightaway describe what is recorded and reported concerning us among the Chaldeans; 426 there is considerable agreement on this as on other points between these sources and our writings. 427 129 As witness to this stands Berosus, 428 a Chaldean by descent, 429 but well-known to those engaged in learning, since he published for the Greeks works on astronomy and on the subjects of philosophical inquiry among the Chaldeans. 430 130 Now this Berosus, following the most ancient records, 431 gave an account, like Moses, of the flood and the destruction in it of humankind, 432 and of the ark in which Noah, the founder of our race, 433 was saved when it was carried onto the peaks of the Armenian mountains. 131 Then, listing Noah’s descendants and adding their dates, 434 he comes to Naboupolassaros, 435 the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans, 436 132 and while relating his exploits he describes how he sent his own son Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar] 437 with a large army against Egypt and against our land, when he learned that they had rebelled; 438 he defeated them all and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma, 439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon, 440 with the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus, the first king of the Persians. 441 133 He says that the Babylonian 442 conquered Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, and Arabia, surpassing in his exploits all who had previously ruled over the Chaldeans and Babylonians. 443 134 444 I shall present Berosus’ own words, which go like this: 445 135 When his father Naboupolassaros 446 heard that the satrap appointed over Egypt and the regions of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia had rebelled, 447 since he was no longer able to endure the hardships himself, he appointed his son Naboukodrosoros, who was still in his prime, 448 over some parts of his army, and sent him out against him. 449 136 Naboukodrosoros engaged the rebel, overpowered him in a pitched battle, 450 and brought the district again under their rule. 451 And it happened that at this time his father, Naboupolassaros, fell ill in the city of the Babylonians and died, having reigned for twenty-one years. 452 137 When, not long after, Naboukodrosoros heard of his father’s death, after he had settled affairs in Egypt and the rest of the district, 453 and appointed some of the Friends 454 to take charge of the captives—Judeans, 455 Phoenicians, Syrians, peoples bordering Egypt 456 —and to convey them to Babylon, together with the heavily-armed troops 457 and the rest of the spoils, he himself rushed ahead with a small escort and got to Babylon across the desert. 138 Finding affairs being administered by Chaldeans, and the kingdom being preserved by their noblest figure, 458 he gained mastery of his father’s empire, intact. He ordered that the captives, on arrival, be assigned settlements in the most suitable locations in Babylonia, 459 139 and he himself lavishly decorated the temple of Bel and the other temples from the spoils of the war, 460 and, having examined both the existing, original city and another, to be joined to it, outside its bounds, 461 to ensure that besiegers should not again be able to turn back the river 462 and swoop down on the city, 463 he surrounded the inner city with three walls, and the outer city with three, the former made of baked brick and bitumen, the latter of plain brick. 464 140 When he had walled the city in this remarkable way and decorated the gateways in a fashion suited to their sanctity, 465 he built in addition to his father’s palace another palace adjoining it, 466 whose height 467 and general opulence it would perhaps take too long to describe 468 —except to say that, despite its extraordinary size and splendor, it was completed in fifteen days. 469 141 In this palace he built high stone terraces 470 and gave them a scenery closely resembling mountains, planting them with all sorts of trees, thus constructing and landscaping the so-called "hanging garden," 471 because his wife, who had been raised in the region of Media, hankered after the mountain environment. 472

    (1.20) 142 This is how he tells the history of the above-named king, 473 with much additional material, in the third book of the Chaldaica, 474 in which he censures Greek historians for wrongly thinking that Babylon was founded by the Assyrian Semiramis, and for falsely recording that the wonders constructed within it were due to her. 475 143 On these matters the Chaldeans’ record must be considered trustworthy. 476 Besides, what is recounted in the Phoenicians’ archives 477 concerning the king of the Babylonians agrees with what is said by Berosus, that he subdued Syria and the whole of Phoenicia. 478 144 Indeed, Philostratus, also, agrees on these matters when he mentions in his history the siege of Tyre, 479 as does Megasthenes in the fourth book of his Indica, 480 in which he tries to prove that the above-named king of the Babylonians surpassed Heracles in bravery and the scale of his exploits; for he says that he subdued most of Libya and Iberia. 481 145 What was said above concerning the sanctuary in Hierosolyma—that it was burned down by the Babylonians when they invaded, 482 but began to be rebuilt when Cyrus succeeded to the kingdom of Asia 483 —will be clearly demonstrated by the statements of Berosus here presented. 484 146 For this is what he says in his third book: After starting the wall mentioned above, 485 Naboukodrosoros fell ill and died, having reigned for 43 years; 486 his son, Eueilmaradouchos, 487 became master of the kingdom. 147 His regime was lawless and debauched, 488 and when a plot was laid by his sister’s husband, Neriglisaros, 489 he was assassinated, having reigned for 2 years. 490 After his assassination, Neriglisaros, who plotted against him, succeeded to the throne and reigned for 4 years. 491 148 His son, Laborosoardochos, 492 ruled the kingdom, though only a child, for 9 months; 493 but, since he displayed in many ways an evil character, a plot was forged and he was beaten to death by the Friends. 494 149 At his death those who had plotted against him gathered and jointly conferred the kingdom on a certain Nabonnedos, 495 who was from Babylon and one of their conspiracy. During his reign the walls of the Babylonians’ city alongside the river were embellished with baked brick and bitumen. 496 150 When his reign was in its seventeenth year, Cyrus emerged from Persia with a large army 497 and, when he had subdued all the rest of Asia, 498 advanced on Babylonia. 151 When he learned of his approach, Nabonnedos went to meet him with the army and faced him, but was defeated in battle, fled with a small escort, and was shut up in the city of the Borsippians. 499 152 Cyrus captured Babylon 500 and gave orders that the outer walls of the city should be razed to the ground because the city seemed to him formidable and difficult to capture; 501 he then set off for Borsippa to besiege Nabonnedos. 153 As Nabonnedus did not wait for the siege but gave himself up in advance, Cyrus treated him generously, gave him Carmania as his residence, and expelled him from Babylonia. 502 Nabonnedus spent the rest of his days in that land and ended his life there. 503

    (1.21) 154 These words contain the truth in agreement with our books; 504 for it is written there that Naboukodrosoros devastated our sanctuary in the eighteenth year of his reign 505 and it was left without trace for 50 years, 506 and in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid, 507 and, again, in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed. 508 155 I shall add the Phoenician records as well 509 —for one must not pass over the abundance of proofs. 510 The calculation of dates goes like this. 511 156 In the reign of king Ithobalos, 512 Naboukodrosoros besieged Tyre for 13 years. 513 After him Baal reigned for 10 years. 514 157 Thereafter judges were appointed: Ednibalos, son of Baslechos, was judge for 2 months, Chelbes, son of Abdaeos, for 10 months, Abbalos, the high-priest, for 3 months; Myttynos and Gerastartos, son of Abdelimos, were judges for 6 years, 515 after whom Balatoros was king for 1 year. 516 158 When he died they sent for Merbalos and summoned him from Babylon, and he reigned for 4 years; when he died they summoned his brother Eiromos, who reigned for 20 years. 517 It was during his reign that Cyrus became ruler of the Persians. 518 159 So the whole period is 54 years, with 3 months in addition; 519 for it was in the seventh year of the reign of Naboukodrosoros that he began to besiege Tyre, 520 and in the fourteenth year 521 of the reign of Eiromos that Cyrus the Persian seized power. 522 160 The Chaldean and Tyrian materials are in agreement with our writings on the subject of the sanctuary, 523 and my evidence from these statements for the antiquity of our people is consistent and incontestable. 524 Thus I think that what I have now said is sufficient for any who are not excessively contentious. 525

  • djeggnog
    djeggnog

    @Witness My Fury:

    Examples: His mention of the fact that Ann needed Whistons English translation of Josephus seems to give the impression he is reading direct from the Hebrew.

    Was Whiston translating from "the Hebrew" or from the Greek language? I mentioned Whiston's translation of Against Apion considering the fact [email protected] quoted [Whiston] in her post directed to me from Chapter 21 of Book I. I'm not going to spar with you here, @WMF. You just want the pleasure of arguing with one of Jehovah's Witnesses over non-issues or over issues that do not concern you if you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which seems rather odd to me quite frankly. It's like you were here arguing that the Girl Scouts of America ought to permit 10-, 11- or 12-year-old kids to go door to door selling cookies without adult supervision as long as they go to people's doors in twos when you have no connection whatsoever to the Girl Scouts of America nor have any children of your own or any nieces that are members of the girl scouts. What right would you have to speak against the policies of Girl Scouts of America?

    Do you think you have the right to dictate to me what to believe or what not to believe? Do you feel you have the right to voice dissent over what things Jehovah's Witnesses believe and what things Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe? IMO, the kind of people that do this kind of thing are sociopaths, people that suffer from some form of antisocial personality disorder. I don't expect you to agree with me, but this is my opinion of people that voice the kinds of things that you have voiced in your post when you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Tell me: When someone gets fired from their job or quits their job, do you think that they still have a vote on whether your former employer should reimburse daily or weekly the cost of parking your car when you no longer work there? Just asking.

    @djeggnog

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury
    Do you think you have the right to dictate to me what to believe or what not to believe? Do you feel you have the right to voice dissent over what things Jehovah's Witnesses believe and what things Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe?

    Do you feel you have the right to overrule the GBs authority over you eggnog? .....Do you feel you are BETTER than them? Do you?

    You clearly DO. Because otherwise why are YOU HERE in direct opposition to their wishes? Hypocrite, first extract the rafter from your own eye...

    So then Mr Uber HYPOCRITE Eggnog, get the fuck off this site like you are repeatedly told to do so by your mind control masters.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    djeggnog:

    You say you didn't rely on Whiston's translation? Then why bring up Nabopolassar's 29 years? If John Barclay's translation was your text of choice, then Nabopolassar's length of reign would not have been an issue for you.

    From your latest post:

    Below is the text from Against Apion, Book I, Chapters 19-21, JohnBarclay's translation:

    ... 136 Naboukodrosoros engaged the rebel, overpowered him in a pitched battle, 450 and brought the district again under their rule. 451 And it happened that at this time his father, Naboupolassaros, fell ill in the city of the Babylonians and died, having reigned for twenty-one years. 452

    You hope that by flooding us with your river of nonsense, nobody will notice your fibs and deceptions. Well, you've been called out on this one too.

    I haven't time to read the rest of your twaddle - that will have to wait till later.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    djeggnog:

    I have looked through the rest of your twaddle now - and it is indeed twaddle, and for some mysterious reason you repost it; one section is posted 3 times! Anyway, there's nothing relevant in your latest post(s) to further the discussion which requires an answer from me. I did read this comment more closely, however:

    I realize that you had quoted from Whiston's translation of Against Apion, but I did not quote from, but was referencing at the time, Volume 10: Against Apion Translation and Commentary (2006), Barclay, John M. G., Brill Academic Publishers, BJP Brill Josephus Project. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, general ed. Steve Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2000-) [ISBN: 9004117911].

    LOL. I don't know how you think you can get away with such bare-faced lies! In your post #409, you quote, at length, Whiston's translation! I agree with the others - there HAS to be something mentally wrong with you.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    Good Lord he's dumber than a bag of hammers. Here's that footnote he quoted again for you:

    This is what John Barclay's translation of Against Apion renders Josephus' words in Chapter 19 regarding the 70-year period when the land of Judah lie desolate (in 1.19):
    Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar] ... defeated them all and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma,439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon,440 with the the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus, the first king of the Persians.441
    The following are Barclay's footnotes 439 through 441 (note that Greek characters are not represented here):
    439
    440
    441
    Reading prw/tou ("the first") with Münster (and Reinach), following Eusebius. This summary covers both the citations to follow (1.135-41, 146-53), but the biblical figure of 70 years (Jer 25:12; 29:10 [=LXX 36:10]; Dan 9:2; Zech 1:12; Ant. 10.112, 184; 11.1; 20.233) is not justified by the later calculations (1.154, 159), and is quietly forgotten. Its inclusion here suggests how much Josephus writes this introduction in biblical mode, while claiming to say no more than Berosus. For the utter desertion of the city (excusing the failure to rebuild the temple for two generations), cf. Ant. 10.184.Josephus highlights the Judean captives from among those Berosus will list in 1.137, and compresses the different phases of captivity (cf. Ant. 10.98, 101, 149) into a single event, to match Berosus' account.The subject is presumably Nebuchadnezzar, but the change is not clear in the Greek, as Josephus compresses the narrative severely. At the same time, there is a strategic expansion, to include reference to the Jerusalem temple, which was apparently never mentioned by Berosus himself (if it had been, Josephus would surely have cited the reference). Josephus attributes mention of the temple not only here, but also at 1.145 (cf. 1.154, 160). The addition is necessary not only because Josephus considers the destruction of the temple the most important event in Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but also because it is crucial for the chronological calculations which follow (1.154, 159). On Josephus' reaction to the apparent humiliation of this event, see 2.129-32. The temple was destroyed in 587/6 BCE (Wiseman 1985: 36-39); see 2 Kings 25 with biblical parallels and Ant. 10.144-48 (indicating how central this event was to Josephus' understanding of history).

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit