Posts by Jeffro

129

Many many books from library on 586/87

by ithinkisee in

i 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

All that you are doing with the figuresis manipulatiing the data to support false chronology.

Only once you have a complete chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period do you have the right to accuse me of that.

We simply do not what methods were used at the time and this is a bone of contention amongst scholars.

Assuming that that was meant to say "we simply do not know what methods...", than that admission certainly takes away from the Society's extremely tenuous interpretation that Daniel referred to some point other than from the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign if the Society has no basis for saying that such a method would be used. (And no-one reading the verse without bias would assume that it refers to anything other than the beginning of his ~~reign~~ kingship.)

Whatever the case your method is unhistorical so the manipulation of figure ignore the plain stated facts of scripture that it was only in Jehoiakim's fourth year coinciding with Neb's first which is believed to be his accession year. So the event of Daniel 1:1 does not synchronize with Jeremiah 25:1Neb's first year is said to be his accession year which means Jehoiakim's third year of Daniel must precede Neb's events in Jeremiah 25:1. Your tabulation of the data is well known to me but it looks on paper but it is an illusion, a conjurer's trick.

"A conjurer's trick."?? I suppose that to troglodytes, electric lighting might look like a conjuror's trick too. It is only a 'trick' in that it is inconsistent with the Society's views. I can't dumb the math down any more for you I'm afraid. If you don't understand that Daniel's use of the accession-year system takes one year off both Nebuchadnezzar (from 1st to accession) and Jehoiakim (from 4th to 3rd) then you really aren't much of a scholar.

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

If the dream was shortly after Daniel had been presented to him, there is no problem here.

At Daniel 2:26, Nebuchadnezzar does not say that he doesn't know Daniel, but he asks whether he is "competent enough" to reveal the dream, so it is possible that Nebuchadnezzar had already met Daniel but did not quite know the extext of his talents.

Given that the 2nd year (accession-year system) of Nebuchadnezzar was Daniel's third year in Babylon, it is quite possible that Daniel 1:20 and Daniel 2:26 refer to the same event.

It is unlikely that Daniel explained the dream before the events of Daniel 1:20 because otherwise Nebuchadnezzar would already have known that Daniel's skills were greater than those of the other magic-practicers.

18

Hophra and the Watchtower Society

by Jeffro in

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 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

So now the ball is in your court. What you have to do is
1. Show a 36-year rule for Darius I instead of just six years as the Bible gives him, which you can't.

What DID he do during all those years? Did he invade anything? Conquer anything, build anything else? After such a great start?

OR...does the hard archaeology (I'm not talking about faked business tablets from 36 years of his rule which would have been frabricated automatically if his rule was extended) is lacking.

Darius had campaigns through Europe and Africa which indicate that his reign was longer than 6 years. Where in the bible does it say that he only reigned 6 years? It is unlikely that 36 years of 'faked business tablets' were produced, and the motive for doing so is also unclear. (I may have misinterpreted you becuase your sentence without the parenthetical statement becomes "does the hard archaeology is lacking".)

2. Prove that Artaxerxes and Xerxes were not the same king as the Bible says, which you can't.

Trust the Bible first and if you keep digging the science and archaeology as it becomes more expert will come into agreement with scripture. That's because the Bible is the truth.

These statements are contradictory. The bible says they are different people. Why not go with that?

3. And prove that the original NB chronology was as short as it is based upon original records, which you can't.

Along with a lot of other evidence, contemporary records of the period support the existing chronology very well. It suggests bias to say that these contemporary records are missing and 36 years of records were faked for another period simply to make the records fit an interpretation of the bible.

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

However, we know that by the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar when he had his first dream, Daniel and his three companions had not yet been before Nebuchadnezzar and they were presented to him after three years when they became well-known to him. The edit to destroy the wise men of Babylon which included the not-yet-seen Daniel was something Daniel heard about. After they were presented they were the most prominent of all the wise men and so would have been asked to interpret the dream right up front. This means, however, that Daniel was already present at Babylon by the second year of Nebuchadnezzar.

Using the accession-year system, taking children in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (although technically they were taken before his actual accession on his return to Babylon) until a point toward the end of his 2nd year (third year including accession) would be three years. If the dream was shortly after Daniel had been presented to him, there is no problem here.

Of course the NWT says "kingship" at Daniel 2:1 rather than "reign", so if 'scholar' is right, maybe it was his kingship relative to some important event; perhaps his niece went up a dress-size or something.

18

Hophra and the Watchtower Society

by Jeffro in

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 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

JCanon,

Interesting, but it's all a bit 'conspiracy theory'.

Additionally, pushing the rule of Cyrus and the Fall of Babylon forward by 82 years with Cyrus ruling in 455 is very awkward if not impossible, because it conflicts with known continuous Persian, Macedonian and Roman chronology through to Jesus' time.

3

work mate loves bible, help pleezzz

by kilroy2 in

jw
friends

i have a woman that i work with, she heard me and another person talking about how the bible was demeaning to women, she whipped out here handy dandy pocket bible and wanted to argue,that women are in subjection to men but not demeaned in the bible.

can some of you who know where the scrip is to back me up send me some of the women are scum scriptures?

thanks you can email me at [email protected] thanks for the help

Jeffro

Judges 19:22-24:

22 While they were making their hearts feel good, look! the men of the city, mere good-for-nothing men, surrounded the house, shoving one another against the door; and they kept saying to the old man, the owner of the house: "Bring out the man that came into your house, that we may have intercourse with him." 23 At that the owner of the house went on out to them and said to them: "No, my brothers, do not do anything wrong, please, since this man has come into my house. Do not commit this disgraceful folly. 24 Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out, please, and YOU rape them and do to them what is good in YOUR eyes. But to this man YOU must not do this disgraceful, foolish thing."

129

Many many books from library on 586/87

by ithinkisee in

i 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

Impossible, because in the third regnal year of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzer was not king of Babylon but merely the Crown Prince so his accession year had not yet begun because his father Nabopolassar had then not yet died.

Your statement is simply and demonstrably wrong. Daniel used the accession-year system. Using the accession-year system, Nebuchadnezzar's accession (zeroth) year is equal to Jehoiakim's third year, because Jehoiakim's accession year would not have been counted by Daniel. This agrees with Jeremiah stating that Nebuchadnezzar's first year is Jehoiakim's fourth year.

Jehoiakim Nebuchadnezzar

Daniel: accession
year 1st 2nd 3rd
accession year
|----------|----------|----------|
Jeremiah: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1st

For a scholar, you don't seem to follow the accession-year system very well.

18

Hophra and the Watchtower Society

by Jeffro in

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 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

JCanon

When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government... (Ant. X)

You quote Antiquities of the Jews to make up 16 of the missing 20 years. This is misleading; the quote from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews continues:

When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life;

If Josephus' assignment of 18 years to Evil-Merodach is to be accepted, it would also have to be accepted that Niglissar's reign was 40 years, extending the Neo-Babylonian Empire by not 16, but 52 years, pushing the fall of Babylon back to 639BC.

Maybe there was some kind of co-regency involved (unlikely for Neriglissar unless Nebuchadnezzar lived more than 80 years). Maybe he meant 'months' instead of 'years' for these two rulers. Maybe he was on drugs. Maybe he was just wrong. Whatever the case, it does not help the Society's case whether Josephus is right here or not. Given that records exist for all of the known years, and none for the missing years it is not likely that Josephus is correct in his assignment of these reigns.

18

Hophra and the Watchtower Society

by Jeffro in

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 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

There is some confusion amongst scholars about the precise dates for the beginning and end of Hophra's reign and the fact that historians cannot determine the length of his reign renders the sinificance of Hophra to chronology whether secular or biblical entirely useless. The Jonsson hypothesis in its futile attempt in synchronizing Egyptian chronology with the Babylonians also fails because it uses a constructed chronology based on assumptions to disprove 607. I could just as easily construct a chronology to achieve a similar aim and still come out with 607.

There is nothing of merit to reply to in this paragraph, but this is here so you don't think I'm conceding to your point.

Celebrated WT scholars have in their wisdom refrained from speculation with regard to Hophra due to insufficient evidence.

There it is again: "Celebrated WT scholars"... Don't you realise people are laughing at you? They've only 'refrained from speculation' because Hophra is damning to their doctrine.

All that we can be certain is that he lived ande reigned at the same time as that momentous event in biblical and Jewish history, the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

Actually, they only say it's believed to be Hophra in 607 because secular chronologers place Hophra contermporaneous with the period of Jerusalem's destruction in 587 and their seem to figure that their awkward chronology may look stronger with some kind of secular agreement. The only reference in the Bible to Hophra is that he would be given into Babylon's hand at some point after Zedekiah was. There is no reference to Hophra reigning during the Fall.

129

Many many books from library on 586/87

by ithinkisee in

i 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 very fact that Daniel does not synchronize a year of Nebuchadnezzer with that of Jehoiakim's 'third year' as did Jeremiah did with 25:1 is pause for thought and great concern.

Daniel would not give a year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign if he was in his accession year. Daniel is in complete agreement with Jeremiah 25:1.