Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals (page 36)

Jeffro

Ethos:

Jeffro will continue to say I have provided no evidence

Indeed I will. Because you haven't provided any.

Yesterday, AnnOMaly said to you (on page 14):

That's not evidence, you klutz. That's quoting assertions from other sources who likewise do not explain how they arrived at the date. I provided references that asserted 538 BCE. I'm asking for your reasoning behind your preferred date. To walk you through it:

We know Ezra said that Cyrus' decree was in his first year. We also know that after the decree was made the Jews left and arrived in their homeland in the 7th month.

Which was Cyrus' first year? How did Ezra count it? Does Cyrus' first year correspond to 539-8 BCE? Or 538-7 BCE? What is the reason for your choice?

In which month or time of year did Cyrus issue his decree? What is the reason for your answer?

Now do you see what we mean by 'provide evidence'?

Nabonidus is not Neb's actual son, neither is Belshazzar. This is the same thing Jeremiah said: "they will have to serve him and his son and his grandson." The usage of son in reference to a descendant of the throne is well documented in this time period. They continued to be servants to everyone who inherited the Babylonian throne UNTIL Cyrus began reigning and fulfilled the word of Jeremiah by letting the Jews return. In any case, the scripture makes it clear that they were servants until AT LEAST 538 BCE (Cyrus first year) and therefore the servitude couldnt have ended in 539. Your interpretations have been shown to be in error time and time again and you refuse to acknowledge it.

AnnoMaly's questions have been answered many times over yet they both continue to act as if I've established nothing, not even remotely from all the quotes and translations to support my position. Absurd. I am content with waiting until I can post again since this is the best they can come up with: YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Scholars, historians, commentaries, bible translations, secular Jewish websites, encyclopedias, bible dictionaries, and a plain exegesis of abad DOES not count.

EDIT: Jeffro: the Jews were no longer servants when Nabonidus died

Bible: they came to be servants to him and his sons (throne descendants as Jeffro admitted) UNTIL Cyrus began to reign (which he admits is 538 BCE

HILARIOUS.

I guess all the scholars just came out of nowhere and decided that there was a 70 year exile that correlated to the servitude and paying off of sabbaths. Maybe the writers were on drugs and they said look herr, lets just make something up for no reason and have something not proven repeated in encyclopedias and bible comentaries the world over.

Excuse me while I go laugh.

Jeffro

Nabonidus is not Neb's actual son, neither is Belshazzar. This is the same thing Jeremiah said: "they will have to serve him and his son and his grandson." The usage of son in reference to a descendant of the throne is well documented in this time period. They continued to be servants to everyone who inherited the Babylonian throne UNTIL Cyrus began reigning and fulfilled the word of Jeremiah by letting the Jews return. In any case, the scripture makes it clear that they were servants until AT LEAST 538 BCE (Cyrus first year) and therefore the servitude couldnt have ended in 539. Your interpretations have been shown to be in error time and time again and you refuse to acknowledge it.

You're just wrong. I already explicitly stated that this was in the sense of "descendants" in my earlier post. Though some sources do say that Nebuchadnezzar was a blood relative (maternal grandfather) of Belshazzar (largely based on what the Bible says), that is not necessarily the case. In any case, they were all Chaldean rulers. Though the Jews were still in Babylon (galah) until 538BCE (though many Jews stayed in Babylon anyway), they were no longer servants (abad) of the Babylonian dynasty (because Belshazzar was dead). Keep reading 2 Chronicles 36:20 until you understand this. Further, there is no reason for Cyrus to be called to account as 'the king of Babylon'. And nothing happened to him in 537 anyway.

AnnoMaly's questions have been answered many times over yet they both continue to act as if I've established nothing, not even remotely from all the quotes and translations to support my position.

You clearly still do not understand the difference between an assertion and evidence.

And I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that I plagiarised AlanF or Jonsson. Do you know what libel is?

Witness My Fury

Excuse me while I go laugh

My thoughts exactly, .... Here's how I imagine you at this moment Recovery / Ethos:

AnnOMaly

Yesterday, I also tried to give Ethos some further guidance about what we mean by 'provide evidence' by pointing to AlanF's reproduced post as an example of how to do it! The fellow still doesn't get it. Clueless.

Witness My Fury

I apologise but I have to do this:

Just to add to the questions already outstanding for you Ethos here's another one:

Please explain Daniel 1:1,2.

What years are we talking about and how long was Daniel in exile for? Think before answering please.

Jeffro

Witness My Fury:

Please explain Daniel 1:1,2.

Now you're just being mean. To me.

I'm already picturing the tedious semantic somersaults he'll try to pull when he replies to my reply to his reply.

I guess we'll get to gauge his knowledge of accession and non-accession dating systems though. Sigh.

jgnat

Ethos, consider that the core principles of source criticism give more weight to contemporary accounts regarding the time in question than modern scholars.

Hence, the weight given to the Egibi tablets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_evaluation

Londo111

Page 18 seems to be "stuck" unless I look at it on my phone.

never a jw

Ethos,

Save time. Stop trying to interpret a book that was written thousands of years ago and likely has been subject to modifications, translations error, and interpretation errors. The Bible is ambiguous and contains many lacunas, especially in the neo-Babylonian period. Use unbias judges, use Mathematics and Astronomy to solve the problem of the year 607/587 BCE. I just received my telescope from Costco.com. (Nextstar 102 GT) Much to my surprise it came with a program that easily allows me to find the position of the moon and the Sun at any time anywhere in the world. I decided to corroborate the conclusions of many scholars regarding the year 568/567 BCE being the 37th year of Nabuchdnezzar. When I use years 568/567 BCE as the 37th year of Nabuchadnezzar, as indicated in VAT 4956, I have been able to match seven lunar threes observations recoded in the tablet. The matches are great (4 excellent, one very good, one good, one acceptable) . When you use the years 588/587 BCE as the 37th year of Nabuchadnezzar it is an utter failure (two are impossible, two are very bad, one good and two acceptable. Things get worse if you use the calendar suggested by Furulli (two "matches" are bad and five very bad)

If 568/567 was the 37th year of Nabu, then 587/586 was his 18th year. According to Jeremiah 32:1-2 that was the year when Jerusalem was taken and destroyed by the Babylonians.

Criteria: "Excellent" is under three minute difference between software and recorded observation in VAT4956, "Very good" is under six, "good" is under nine, "acceptable" is under 12 minutes, "bad" is between 12 and 20 min, "very bad" is over 20 minutes.

Ethos: Buy your telescope, stick the CD program (The Sky / First light edition) in your computer and enjoy the light of truth. It will cost you about $200.00 but it will liberate you from a life of slavery to a master who has lied to you and used you to provide free labor.

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

Share this