607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)
If you should be more interested in being foolish and in taking shots at me than in discussing this topic further, then I'm going to have to withdraw from this thread.
Idiotnog - Please withdraw from this board - you are embarrassing us !!
GB of JW's
My chromosome composition is not relevant to this discussion at all. In one post (your previous post) you told me that I need to own up to be a man and also that I am a little girl. If it makes you feel better to call me a man or a little girl that's cool, I really don't care. For the purposes of this forum you can address me as hermaphrodite, seeing that you can't decide if I have Y chromosome or not and also to illustrate that I really don't care what label you slap onto me.
You also accuse me of digression but I only wrote 67 words on the matter where you on the other hand wrote 223+ words. You see numbers don't lie and these numbers show the true digresser. For the record you asked me a yes or a no question about Jesus and Stephen and the answer is: YES they both were against what was considered true worship from a Judaism perspective at the time and both of them were executed for this reason.
Perhaps you didn't say directly that your theories disprove 587 BC just yet, but please enlighten me why are we having a discussion about your theories of the interpretation of Josephus' writings? Is it not to assign a relative date to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and when he had the 13 year siege of Tyre? Will you not eventually use this relative date to disprove 587 BC or are we just having a trivial debate with no purpose? Please tell me what your theories prove or disprove because to me and everyone else that are not deluded it proves absolutely nothing.
You said you needed a memory refresh where you said 50 years must be rounded up to 70 years. In post 434 you wrote:
You see, @AnnOMaly totally misunderstood this quote from Against Apion, I, xxi, by claiming that when "this Pharisee" -- Josephus -- stated that "the temple was desolate for 50 years," that he meant that Solomon's temple had lay desolate for only 50 years.
So what are you trying to say with that statement, other than the 50 years are symbolic and must be rounded up to 70 years?
I see you are still going on about how to round up 13 years to 16 years. 14th year means 13, by the way, and if you take the regnal year into consideration it will mean 14, but never 15 as you assert. You stretch this even further to round up 3 months to mean another year and then say that is nothing out of the ordinary, it's a fact, it's 16 years.
I don't buy your arguments, they are devious and false and your comfort levels are not important here. So you can't just ignore numbers because you are not "comfortable" with them or you perceive them to be irrelevant.
The 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar is relevant because it is in the same statement that you use for your theory. With the information in front of you, you have to conclude that Josephus believed that the siege on Tyre started 11 years before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem or that the 7th year is incorrect but this brings all the other quoted years into question. If the siege started before the destruction of the temple then your theory falls flat on it's face and it doesn't matter that your theory states that Baal started his reign in 577 BC. Can you see the relevance now? Probably not because you are blinded by your ego and cognitive dissonance.
I see your super duper speech recognition dictating software is acting up again. You again assign the end of Eiromos' reign to 533 BC. Which is it 533 or 535? While you are at it, say the numbers 5 3 5 and 5 3 3 out load and hear how ridiculous your assertion is that it's a misquote or typo.
but I do know that Eiromos' 20-year reign would have come to an end in 533 BC if it was "in the fourteenth year of the reign of Eiromos" that Cyrus "seized power."
You wrote one true thing in you previous post and that is that we disagree. Unless you post some other evidence or proof for your theories you will not convince me and I doubt you will convince any other reasonable lurker. Reposting your old posts (even misquoting yourself) will not convince anyone.
When did I ever say that anything that Josephus wrote is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Post the message I posted to this thread, so I can read it. I don't recall saying or intimating this at all.
Yikes! Early onset Alzheimer's, eggie? You're real forgetful. Perhaps you ought to print the following out and stick it on your computer screen so you'll be reminded of what you've already written, thereby avoiding further humiliation. (Btw, bold emphasis mine.)
From eggieface post #451, p. 24:
[castthefirststone formerly] The issue really is: Can Josephus be used to disprove conventional chronology, when you have to rely on the same conventional chronology to get to the start of Cyrus' rule?
[djeggnog] Yes, and Josephus can also be used to provide another measurement to determine about when it was that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre
From eggieface posts #433, p. 22, and #434, p. 23:
[Ann formerly] End of Tyre's siege - 594 BC according to you. 594 - 577 = 17 YEARS LONGER THAN JOSEPHUS' CALCULATION! Therefore, you cannot use his Tyrian king list to support your argument, can you?
[djeggnog] Why shouldn't I? Because this happens to be a kinglist that doesn't fit your notion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BC? I don't have a problem relying upon the Tyrian kinglist provided in Josephus' Against Apion, I, xxi, and I do appreciate that Josephus poses a big problem for you and for all of you for whom 587/586 BC is so precious.
From eggieface post #430, p. 21:
[CTFS formerly] Now if you are really as well intentioned as you profess to be, please provide a summary with verifiable proof of how you get to 607 BCE. Not paragraph after paragraph of this nonsense.
[djeggnog] The only "verifiable proof" I will provide in response to the request you make for a summary of how I arrive at the year 607 BC is citations from the Bible and a quote from Josephus' Against Apion. ...
... But if Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC as secular history asserts, then when the siege on Tyre ended in 574 BC, some 13 years after it began in 587 BC, Baal's ten-year reign would had begun, which contradicts the Phoenician timeline with indicates that it was during the reign of Ithobalos that Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege against Tyre took place. If Baal's reign as king of Tyre began in 577 BC after the reign of Ithobalos ended, then Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege ended during Baal's reign, which cannot be the case for such a conclusion would be in conflict with Josephus' recitation of Phoenician secular history (as quoted above).
From eggieface post #407 way back on p. 14: (gotta love the grammar on this one LOL)
What things Josephus wrote regarding this 70-year period of Jewish exile is at odds with your anti-God viewpoint, so it isn't because you cannot believe what Jehovah's Witnesses have concluded as to destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar's armies occurring in 607 BC, and it isn't because you care one wit about history. It's just that you don't want to believe what Jehovah's Witnesses have concluded based on the prophesies of Jeremiah and Daniel, which conclusions find support in some of what things Josephus wrote.
The reason I know that Nebuchadnezzar died before Baal's reign began is because 2 Kings 25:27 states that it was during Jehoiachin's 37th year as an exile in Babylon that Evil-Merodach "in the year of his becoming king, released Jehoiachin "out of the house of detention," and if Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile occurred when Evil-Merodach was "the king of Babylon," this means that Nebuchadnezzar was no longer living at this time. I should mention that Josephus believes Evil-Merodach reigned for some 18 years, but for reasons I don't give here, I don't agree with Josephus' statement.
castthefirststone - info on the '7th year of Nebuchadnezzar' especially for you :-)
djeggnog's quote (post #415, p. 16) from John Barclay's translation of Against Apion:
... for it was in the seventh year of the reign of Naboukodrosoros that he began to besiege Tyre, 520
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.
The Katzenstein History of Tyre reference (in Barclay's note 520 ) on p. 328 says,
"Josephus's statement that 'it was in the seventh year of his reign that Nabuchodonosor began the siege of Tyre' (C.Ap. I, 159) has always puzzled scholars, and much ink has been spilled over the phrase 'in the seventh year of his reign'. A Latin version quoted by Niese may provide a clue to the real meaning of this sentence. Here we read: 'septimo siquidem anno regni sui (i.e. Ithobali!) Nabuchodonoser coepit ...'. We have, therefore, to read our text as follows: 'It was in the seventh year of his (=Ethobaal's) reign' - and now comes a completion: that is in the twentieth year of his (=Nebuchadnezzar's) reign - 'that Nabuchodonosor began the siege of Tyre'. We must, consequently, assume that in a very early stage a haplography caused the text to come down to us in its present form. Our assumption is also in agreement with the information regarding the beginning of the siege and with the total sum of the different reigns of the kings and judges given by Josephus, as we have already mentioned above. Thus the long siege started in the twentieth year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. in 585 B.C.E. and came to an end ca. 572 B.C.E. (=Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-third year)."
Didnt the Witchtower say 606 for decades as a fixed date? (They got that from a non WT source)
They only changed to 607 to fit with their newly revised interpretations sometime after WW1.
So it is safe to say that 607 is highly suspect.
Yeah, it was 606 for a while. Then they realized there was no zero year. A giant face-palm occured among the GB. To maintain 1914, the date was moved from 606 to 607....
606 = 607. Things that make you go Hmmmmm.
Why not 1914 = 1915 instead?
Oh that's right WTS had already hung its' whole prophetic framework and biblical timelines on 1914 and Russell has already said that "to change the chronology even one year would destroy all this harmony (the timeline harmony of the Divine Plan of the Ages chart)". So they HAD to keep 1914 so as not to lose face and move 606 back to 607 with a quieter less embarrassing outcome at the time.
1915 would have been the HONEST thing to do, or better yet just put their hands up and say we don't know WTF we are talking about and we make this shit up as we go along and we are now going to stop this nonsense. Grrrr.