You are clutching at straws. All of the uses of the Hebrew word carry the sense of 'the period during which one reigns'. The various uses do not 'prove your point' at all. There is simply nothing in the verse to suggest that it refers to anything other time than from when he started to rule, and there is no reason why any person from Daniel's time would understand it as ruling relative to Nebuchadnezzar.
Posts by Jeffro
-
129Many many books from library on 586/87
by ithinkisee ini have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
-
-
-
18
Hophra and the Watchtower Society
by Jeffro inone of the pharoahs that is mentioned in the bible is hophra (aka apries, aka ha'a'ibra wahibra).. jeremiah 44:30 says: "this is what jehovah has said: here i am giving phar aoh hoph ra, the king of egypt, into the hand of his enemies and into the hand of those seeking for his soul, just as i have given zedeki ah the king of judah into the hand of nebuchadrez zar the king of babylon, his enemy and the one seeking for his soul.").
the closest the watchtower society gets to attempting to assign any years to hophra is in a questions from readers article in the 1 october 1970, watchtower (incidentally on page 607 of the bound volume).
it states: "egypt made one last attempt to remain a power in asia.
-
-
Jeffro
Celebrated WT
Well at least the word 'scholars' is missing this time. Still lame though.
have long cautioned that Egyptian is in a state of flux so there is disagreement amongst scolars as to the reigns of the Pharaohs. In the case of Hophra a ruler of the 26th Dynasty had a reign of some 19 years. Most scholars give the duration from 589-570, others from 588-569 BCE.
(You state here that he had a reign of 19 years. I already stated that, in addition to giving the explanation for Herodotus indicating a longer reign.)
Well... a diffence of a whole year? Maybe he didn't exist at all then. You are using a difference of a single year in the understanding of some scholars to try to justify the 20-year variance that the Society has with every other source. You can't just sweep the issue of the complete agreement between the history of Babylon and Egypt under the rug simply because some scholars disagree over the matter of a single year. Your reasoning is flawed.
These dates are based on secular chronology but using reliable Bible chronology then his reign can easily be brought into the context of the Fall in 607 BCE as he was comtemporaneous with those momentous events.
The "reliable Bible chronology" is entirely contingent upon the astronomical diary that places Cambyses II seventh year in 523BC. There is simply not enough "flux" in the Egyptian history in this period to account for the supposed additional 20 years between Hophra and Cambyses II.
You cannot actually state the years for which the Society alleges that Hophra reigned, because they cannot fit him properly into their flawed chronology. The best they can do is to say that it is "believed" that he was around in 607. Nor can the Society safely state regnal years for Hophra's successor Amasis.
The fact is that Amasis had to be old enough to set himself up as a rival Pharoah to Hophra and at that time also had to be old enough to be a General, and his reign had to continue to until six months before Cambyses ruled Egypt circa 525BC (between Amasis and Cambyses was the six-month rule of his son Psammetichus III). Not only would this take him considerably beyond the age expectancy for his time, but there is also the magical 20-year gap which no records exist.
Even if there were no other evidence, Hophra makes the 607 doctrine impossible.
-
18
Hophra and the Watchtower Society
by Jeffro inone of the pharoahs that is mentioned in the bible is hophra (aka apries, aka ha'a'ibra wahibra).. jeremiah 44:30 says: "this is what jehovah has said: here i am giving phar aoh hoph ra, the king of egypt, into the hand of his enemies and into the hand of those seeking for his soul, just as i have given zedeki ah the king of judah into the hand of nebuchadrez zar the king of babylon, his enemy and the one seeking for his soul.").
the closest the watchtower society gets to attempting to assign any years to hophra is in a questions from readers article in the 1 october 1970, watchtower (incidentally on page 607 of the bound volume).
it states: "egypt made one last attempt to remain a power in asia.
-
-
Jeffro
One of the Pharoahs that is mentioned in the Bible is Hophra (aka Apries, aka Ha'a'ibra Wahibra).
Jeremiah 44:30 says: "This is what Jehovah has said: “Here I am giving Phar´aoh Hoph´ra, the king of Egypt, into the hand of his enemies and into the hand of those seeking for his soul, just as I have given Zed·e·ki´ah the king of Judah into the hand of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon, his enemy and the one seeking for his soul.”’”")
The closest the Watchtower Society gets to attempting to assign any years to Hophra is in a Questions from Readers article in the 1 October 1970, Watchtower (incidentally on page 607 of the bound volume). It states: "Egypt made one last attempt to remain a power in Asia. The ruling Pharaoh (believed to be Hophra) came to Canaan in answer to Judean King Zedekiah’s request for military support in his revolt against Babylon in 609-607 B.C.E."
To cast more doubt on the years of Hophra's rule, the Insight article about him says: "Hophra is believed to have reigned for 19 years. However, according to Herodotus (II, 161), he reigned for 25 years." They do not mention here however that for a time he continued to reign in rivalry to his successor Amasis (aka Chenibra Amose-si-Neith) for about 5 years, clearing up the supposed discrepancy with Herodotus. (This is despite the fact that in Insight [vol 1, page 450] under Chronology (Problems of Egyptian Chronology) they state: "perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time")
Contrast this with the fact that without any supporting documentary evidence the Society elsewhere states that in "(625 B.C.E.), Necho’s forces suffered defeat" at Carchemish (Insight vol2 p483) and "Pharaoh Necho ... killed [King Josiah] ... (c. 629 B.C.E.)" (Insight vol1 p418). Why is it that the Society willingly assigns years to Necho but appears less keen to do so for Hophra? Why do they not simply adjust Hophra's reign by the missing 20 years like they do for Necho?
According to secular history, Hophra (aka Apries, aka Ha'a'ibra Wahibra) ruled Egypt circa 589-570. This is in agreement with Jeremiah 44:30 which states that Egypt would be given into Babylon's hand after Zedekiah was imprisoned (circa 588BC). Because the length of Apries' successor's reign is known, and because it would be difficult to stretch Amasis' already 40-year reign to 60 years (required in order for 'Hophra to come to Canaan in 609-607 B.C.E.'), it is difficult for the Society to indicate exactly when Hophra is supposed to have reigned.
Why not then just adjust the dates for Amasis by 20 years as well? This cannot easily be done because of the connection between Egyptian and Babylonian rulers. The Society's acceptance for the pivotal year of 539BC is drawn from a "Babylonian clay tablet" (Insight, vol1,p453 [Chronology]) - actually an astronomical diary catalogued as 'Strm.Kambys.400' - which "establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E". This can not easily be separated from the fact that Cambyses ruled Egypt in 525BC, certainly not enough to create a 20-year gap.
Therefore, the Society is forced to admit either that it is wrong about 607, or that a mystery 20 years is also missing from Egyptian history at exactly the same time as Babylon's missing 20 years.
-
33
Scholar, I would like to know more about you.
by jwfacts inhi scholar, .
i asked you a couple of questions but received no reply.
i actually was asking out of sincerity as i would like to know the answer.
-
-
Jeffro
Scholar hates apostates because they are intellectually bankrupt, having found only darkness and ignorance with no God, religion, brotherhood or mission.
This is simply unfounded Watchtower rhetoric.
Scholar tries to humble, kind and loyal but he is imperfect and suffers many weaknesses.
Humble? For a start, you frequently refer to yourself in the third-person, which displays pride and is just a bit weird. Kind? It would take to long to make a summary of the instances where that is demonstrated to be a lie. You often resort to personal attacks when your theory comes under fire, and then wonder why people respond in a similar manner.
celebrated WT scholars
I tried warning scholar that people are just laughing at him when he uses these trite expressions, but he doesn't seem to get the point.
scholar does what scholar.
There's that third-person again? And just what does this sentence mean? Is it a question - if so it would better read 'scholar does which scholar?' If it is the statement 'scholar does what scholar wants' then as a loyal active Witness, you might want to review the Society's views on humility and submissive to the 'faithful' and 'discreet' 'slave'.
-
129
Many many books from library on 586/87
by ithinkisee ini have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
-
-
Jeffro
The fact is that the Hebrew word in Daniel 1:1 refers to kingship and not reign even though these Hebrew words are similar in meaning having come from the same root form. Therefore any argument based on the fact that it is the third year of his reign is misleading and does not accord with Josephus and Jewish tradition.
You really are a pain. The word in question means 'dominion', 'kingdom', 'kingship', 'realm', 'reign', 'royal power'. The word used at Daniel 1:1 is not at all distinct in meaning from that, and your previous statement that the word implies a special event during the reign has absolutely no basis in fact. Your suggestion that "the Hebrew word in Daniel 1:1 refers to kingship and not reign" is simply a lie - it is the same word. The root form (Strong's 4427 - 'malak') of the word means 'to be (or become) king'.
The same Hebrew word that is translated as 'kingship' ('malkuth', Strong's 4338) at Daniel 1:1 (NWT) is found in the following NWT verses and is translated variously as follows:
"Becoming king"
Jeremiah 52:31"Kingdom"
Numbers 24:7, 2 Chronicles 36:22, Nehemiah 9:35, Esther 1:4, Esther 1:14, Daniel 8:23, Daniel 9:1, Daniel 11:2, Daniel 11:4 (twice), Daniel 11:9, Daniel 11:17, Daniel 11:20, Daniel 11:21 (twice)"Kingdoms"
Daniel 8:22"Kingship"
Esther 5:3, Esther 5:6, 1 Samuel 20:31, 1 Kings 2:12, 1 Chronicles 11:10, 1 Chronicles 12:23, 1 Chronicles 14:2, 1 Chronicles 17:11, 1 Chronicles 17:14, 1 Chronicles 22:10, 1 Chronicles 26:31, 1 Chronicles 28:5, 1 Chronicles 28:7, 1 Chronicles 29:30, 2 Chronicles 1:1, 2 Chronicles 2:1, 2 Chronicles 2:12, 2 Chronicles 7:18, 2 Chronicles 11:17, 2 Chronicles 12:1, 2 Chronicles 33:13, Esther 7:2, Nehemiah 12:22, Psalm 45:6, Psalm 103:19, Psalm 145:11, Psalm 145:12, Psalm 145:13 (twice), Ecclesiastes 4:14, Jeremiah 49:34, Daniel 1:1, Daniel 2:1, Daniel 8:1"Kingships"
Jeremiah 10:7"Realm"
Ezra 1:1, Esther 1:20, Esther 2:3, Esther 3:6, Esther 3:8, Esther 9:30"Reign"
"Reign" once, "Royal" once
2 Chronicles 3:2, 2 Chronicles 15:10, 2 Chronicles 15:19, 2 Chronicles 16:1, 2 Chronicles 16:12, 2 Chronicles 29:19, 2 Chronicles 35:19, Ezra 4:5, Ezra 4:6, Ezra 7:1, Ezra 8:1
Esther 2:16"Royal"
1 Chronicles 29:25, Esther 1:7, Esther 1:9, Esther 1:11, Esther 1:19, Esther 6:8 (twice), Esther 8:15, Esther 2:17"Royal" (twice) and "Royally"
Esther 5:1"Royalty"
2 Chronicles 36:20"Royal dignity"
Esther 4:14"Royal realm"
2 Chronicles 20:30, Daniel 1:20, Daniel 10:13"Royal throne"
Esther 1:2 -
21
Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1
by ithinkisee in.
is this really a big deal?
i mean ... it's only 1 year.. can 1 year really be that damaging to the society they have to make up a vassal kingship clause?.
-
-
Jeffro
As I said there is absolutely no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer took captives from Judah in his accession year according to the Bible and the chronicles and Josephus. Nor is their any evidence for such deportation in his first year of rule for the Babylonian Chronicle simply states that he took booty and tribute to Babylon nothing about captives from Judah.
Booty can and usually did include taking human captives. Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary states that 'booty' means "captives or cattle or objects of value taken in war". Numbers 31:11 (NWT) says "And they went taking all the spoil and all the booty (Strong's 04455) in the way of humans and domestic animals." The same word is translated "those already taken" at Isaiah 49:24,25, referring to exiles taken to Babylon. Therefore it is completely valid that the booty taken in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year included human captives.
Thank you for raising this important point that indicates that the Babylonian Chronicle agrees that captives were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Sometimes it's hard to tell which side you're actually on.
-
129
Many many books from library on 586/87
by ithinkisee ini have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
-
-
Jeffro
Your attempt to harmonize the different chronological data in Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 is a joke. You already have admitted that tthese statements are not of the same historical event but you believe that these occurred in the same year because of th accession and non-accession year system used by Jeremiah and Daniel. However there is a big problem with this argument which remains such even to this very day. Although in principle Bible writers used this system for chronological purposes its application today is not fully understood and universaly applied.
There is no big problem. Daniel lived in Babylon. Daniel was taught in the ways of Babylon. Babylon used the accession-year system. Therefore the most logical answer is that Daniel used the accession-year system.
Scholars such as Edwin Thiele certainly recognized the principle or method but scholars like Thiele disagree as to the method of application. For example, there is no consistency of its use during the Divided Monarchy with the kings but it varied for the kings of Judah and Israel and varied at different times during the overall period. The apparent lack of uniformity in its application renders its use in the modern day setting extremely vexatious. For this reason celebrated WT scholars have chosen rather than a reganl based approach but rather the more practical-event based methodology for this removes to some extent the varaibility of the accession and non-paccession principle.
Regardless of the variant use in Israel during the period of the DM, there is very strong reason to suggest that Daniel used the accession-year system. To suggest doubt about which system was used during other periods of the DM is a red herring.
Point number two is that Daniel did not use the word reign but kingship as properly translated so the interpretation of the third year is shifted from a regnal year to an historic event in the course of his reign of which was in fact a kingship as a vassal to Necho and Nebuchadnezzer.
Daniel didn't speak English. He didn't say 'reign' or 'kingship'. There is no distinction in the Hebrew word used. The two English words mean the same thing.
1. Different history
Only different in the warped minds of the Society law-makers
2. Inconsistent methodology
No inconsistency has been identified.
3. Diferent Hebrew term as kingship rather than reign
Both words mean the same thing. It is the same original Hebrew term. The Society does not always translate the term as 'kingship'.
-
129
Many many books from library on 586/87
by ithinkisee ini have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
-
-
Jeffro
Your theory about the calendrical method employed by Daniel and Jeremiah is simply just that and is simply inadequate in solving the problem of Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1. Scholars and commentators have already followed that line of thinking but others reject it because the matter of calendation is very problematical so this interpretation although plausible is rejected by celebrated WT scholars and others.
You really do make me laugh. Firstly, there is NO problem with Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1. It is well attested that the accession-year system was used in Babylon. Daniel wrote in Babylon after being taught in the ways of Babylon. It is not much of a stretch of the imagination that he used the accession-year system. There is nothing problematic in the slightest of the 'calculation', and is in full agreement with Jeremiah stating the time of reign being one year more.
Jeremiah 25 says a lot of things which are nicely ignored by apostates. Themes of exile, servitude and desolation are most certainly stated and implied in that chapter and perhaps you should remove Jonsson hypothesis glasses and reread the chapter.
If others ignore things, that is their business. I have properly indicated that 'chorbah', 'shamem' and 'za'am' do not mean uninhabited. I have also posted information on every single verse relevant to the issue. As usual you make a generalisation that ignores the facts.
Nowwhere does the Bible indicate that the beginning of the seventy years is commensurate with the end of the Assyrian World Power and the rise of the Babylonian Empire. This is simply an interpretation devised by higher critics to get round the problematic seventy years.
'Nowwhere'? Anyway... Jeremiah 25:11: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."’. (The Contemporary English bible renders it as “After Babylonia has been the strongest nation for seventy years”) Isaiah's Prophecy - Light for all Mankind says, immediately after citing Jeremiah 25:8-17: "Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination."
Our list for the Divided Monarchy fits very well with our overall chronology as there is no gap of twenty years in our scheme. The gap manifests itself only when our sacred chronology is compared to that of the secular or profane. Too bad.
Of course it fits well with itself - that's a pretty silly defense. Insight tries to avoid acknowledging the twenty-year gap, but states in its Chronology article: "The difference between the [dates used in Insight] and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to ... 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time." The single reason for this 20-year difference is the 20-year gap created by the Society's flawed interpretation. Trying to blame that on 'profane' chronology is simply a biased and foundationless cop-out.
The year of 607 is determined precisely right to the very month and year. It is not fuzzy because the biblical data links it with the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzer and Zedekiah for the biblical and historical event of the Fall of Jerusalem. Your fuzzy chronology admits no such discrimination of the data because you cannot decide on the year whether it is 589, 588, 587, 586 so you get that right first before you challenge our momentous date of 607.
If someone adds a number to another number, of course they can say that the number they arrived at is 'determined precisely', but it doesn't actually mean that anything happened in that year, and there is no actual evidence whatsoever that anything relevant did happen. In contrast, it is known that a relevant occurred in 609. It is known that Daniel indicated Babylon's judgement in 539. And it is known that Jeremiah said that Babylon would exercise authority for 70 years. Additionally the Society's view is only 'exact' if the people of Jerusalem took no additional travelling time going to and from Babylon.
Are you an apostate? Have you been or are you now a Witness? If the latter answer is a negative then please accept my apologies and if the answer is positive then be like Alan F and take it on the chin for Alan is the master of insults and derogation.
The term 'apostate' is used by the Watchtower Society simply as 'character assassination'. My baptism is annulled specifically because the second baptism question is contingent upon the lie that the Watchtower Society is 'God's spirit-anointed organization'. That statement is demonstrably untrue, and even in the absence of disproof, it is inherently unprovable. Therefore the implied verbal contract is invalid and void. On that basis, I regard myself in the same manner as any person who has not been baptised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Additionally, there is no biblical basis for calling someone an 'apostate' for identifying errors in Watchtower Society beliefs. Neither your opinion or that of the Society is relevant in this matter. Since the term 'apostate' is used by the Watchtower Society in an intentionally insulting and denegrating manner, addressing an individual using that term directly or by implication is slanderous and is also against the forum posting guidelines.
-
-
-
Jeffro
Sorry guys, Santa died a terrible, terrible death.
santa is not crushed! ; your own logic is crushed by your own presuppositions!!Sorry, my mistake. Maybe you could apply Occam's Razor to establish his existence.
-
129
Many many books from library on 586/87
by ithinkisee ini have listed all the books i found at the library that mention 586/87 as the fall of jerusalem.
i was also able to link to all of them (except the first one listed) on amazon.com!
many are out of print or unavailable as new books but you can buy almost all of them used on amazon.com ... some are only $10-12 each!
-
-
Jeffro
I am glad that you agree that Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 refer to different events but you insist that these must coincide in the same year. You provide no proof and those two texts do not indicate that rather to the contrary because the data given refers to a third year of Jehoiakim's kingship not reign and a fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign with the first year of Neb. These texts omit the data for any coincidence.
Obviously you have ignored my previous posts. Daniel, living in Babylon, uses the 'accession year' system of counting regnal years. What this means is that the kings 'first' year is not counted from actually taking the throne, but from the start of the next calendar year. Jeremiah did not use the 'accession year' system, so when he talks about the year of a reign, the number is one (1) higher. Let me know if you need it simplified any further.Yes, the prophecy of Jeremiah foretols the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and domination by Babylon but then you assume that the Babylonian domination had already begun but the text in Jeremiah 25:1 indicates tghat such domination by Babylon had not begun but wouls shortly at Neb's ist year of rule.
It sounds like you need to review Jeremiah chapter 25 without your 'Society glasses' on. It does not say that the 70 years were of exile, and it does not say that they start from Jerusalem's destruction. Verses 8-11 talk about "nations" serving babylon; there is no mention of exile. Verse 9 indicates that Nebuchadrezzar would be sent against "all these nations", but it is not this event that marks the beginning of the seventy years. Verses 11 and 12 mention the 70 years in connection with, not Nebuchadnezzar, but "the king of Babylon". There is nothing to indicate that the 70 years of serving Babylon had not already begun prior to Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Also, verse 12 talks about the seventy years ending before the king of Babylon is judged so the seventy years could not start after 609. (Compare Jeremiah 25:26; 51:41, Daniel 5:26-31)
There is absolutely no scriptural or historical evidence for the seventy yeras foretold by Jeremiah beginning prior to Neb's ist year and Jehoiakims fourth year. Your theory is kaput.
There certainly is historical evidence that Babylon replaced Assyria as a World Power, and that is the event that Jeremiah chaper 25 describes as beginning the 70 years - specifically nations becoming subject to Babylon (verses 11,12). Jeremiah's announcement to the Jews came at the point where it was too late for them to repent and Nebuchadnezzar was going to bring conflict (verses 3-7). It does not preclude the period of nations serving Babylon from already having started. The nations became subject to Babylon's supremacy in 609, but it did not mean that conflict specifically started in that year.
You venture issues of probability in order to overcome the twenty year gap by synchronizing the Divided Monarchy with secular history. Celebrated WT scholars have already done this as we have a Divided Monarchy chronology which fits well with secular history and evidence. The twenty gap remains only by way of comparison between sacred and profane chronology and that is your problem and not mine. Yes you have a chronology for the Divide Monarchy that is close to ours and you have harmonized the data accordingly. So, what you should do is write up ascholarly article so that the world communmity of schol,ars can be thus emlightened but we reject your dating because it cannot accommodate the seventy years of exile-desolation-servitude.
There's that shortcut key again. LOL. Anyway... the Society's Divided Monarchy doesn't fit well at all. It is 20 years out. That certainly isn't my problem, and the Society has written quite a lot to try to justify it, so obviously it is their problem. But the issue of probability is a little more complex than that. If the Society is right, and therefore all the secular records are wrong, then it is extremely improbable that simply removing the Society's contested 20 years would make everything match up.
No, historians do not accept the event for 609 as you claim as there is no agreement. In regard to 607 we have not ignored Daniel, Josephus and Jeremiah but we have ignored the other sources as irrelevant. There is no guesswork as this date is calculated upon fixed data witha fixed beginning and end which is not the case with your chronology as you use a fuzzy beginning for the beginning of the seventy years.
Some consider the end of the Assyrian Empire to be in the year 612 when Nineveh was captured. However, it is agreed that 609 was the year in which the Babylonians captured the new Assyrian capital, Harran.
The only manner in which you have a 'fixed beginning' for the seventy years is you add 70 to 537, (ignoring Daniel's indication that the 70 years ended in October 539). There is absolutely no evidence at all for any relevant event occuring in 607, let alone a fuzzy one.
Perhaps, your remarks about conceit should be directed also to the person of Alan F who I understand that both of you disagree with Zechariah;s seventy years. It is amusing to see apostates fighting amongst themselves.
Firstly, your reference to me as an 'apostate' is slanderous and violates the forum guidelines (See Posting Guidelines 1 and 2). Yes, I disagree with AlanF on some points; but at least he presents logical arguments and provides valid references instead of rehashing Watchtower rhetoric. Also, it should be noted that in my dispute with AlanF, I clearly stated that I was not saying that his interpreation was wrong, but simply that another valid interpretation exists. It is not the same situation as that of the Watchtower Society's interpretation which is inconsistent both internally and with secular authorities.