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!
Leolaia, I especially think 'scholar' needs to review point 7 from that page:
A scholar exhibits humility. Those that I have personally met that are “scholars” were all remarkably humble about their own work and accomplishments. They are cautious in their affirmations and conclusions, and try not to overstate themselves. In addition, they always cite their sources.
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!
Daniel 1:1 omits any reference to the year for Nebuchadnezzer but only refers to Jehoiakim's third year of kingship so it cannot be synchronized with JeremiaH 25:1 because Jeremiah refers to Jehoiakim's fourth regnal year and Nebuchadnezzer's first regnal year or his accession year. Nowhere does the Bible state that Nebuchadnezzer took captives in his acc year or his first year but only in the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship.
It makes perfect sense that Daniel would omit the year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign if he was in his accession year. That would have been, by Daniel's reckoning, Jehoiakim's third year. And that is exactly when Daniel said that it was.
You correctly indicate that Jeremiah's reference to Nebuchadnezzar's first year is his accession year, and then you ignore the fact that Daniel would have referred to the first years of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim as their accession years, which would not be counted by Daniel, hence he omits Nebuchadnezzar's year of reign and refers to Jehoiakim's 'third' year rather than describing them as 'first' and 'fourth' years.
There is no complexity, no guesswork of the reader to establish what Jehoiakim's kingship might be relative to. It is the simple, honest interpretation of the scripture which does not require twisting and contorting to fit a doctrine.
Anyone who has been following this thread can see that you are simply too stubborn to accept anything the Society hasn't told you.
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!
Once again you misread what the Bible actually says for Daniel was taken In Jehoiakim's third year of kingship which is equivalent to Nebuchadnezzer's seventh regnal year.
What did I misread? Where does it say that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year?
Daniel does not state that he was taken in Neb's acc or first year for this only corresponds to the fourth year of Jehoiakim.
Daniel refers to Jehoiakim's 3rd year because he does not include Jehoiakim's accession year. Daniel's reference to his 3rd year is the same as Jeremiah's reference to his 4th.
There is absolutely no biblical evidence for Nebuchadnezzer taking captives from Judah in either his acc.or first year. Your chart simply amounts to harnmonize an interpretation which clahes with the evidence.
Daniel said he was taken in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim. That is biblical evidence. This is agreed by historians who note that booty (which frequently included people) was taken back to Babylon in that year (605). You have never actually identified any 'evidence' with which I have clashed.
(And when you argue that Nebuchadnezzar was not king but Crown Prince, you might like to think of the title used for Belshazzar when his father was still actually king.)
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!
Scholar,
You have frequently told others on this board that if they don't accept the Society's 607 date (without any valid reasons to do so), that they "have to" give an alternative exact date.
So I am sure you will be eager to provide a superior model of the Neo-Babylonian kings showing exact dates for the missing kings.
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!
The history is wrong you dummy
How very scholarly of you.
because in Jehoiakim's 'third' regnal year according to your understanding of Daniel 1:1, Nebuchadnezzer was then the King of Babylon but a Crown Prince.
You indicate your obvious lack of understanding. Daniel was taken in the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession, although when he was actually taken, Nebuchadnezzar was not actually king. An accession year inherently indicates that a person is only king for part of that year. Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel and his companions on his return to Babylon in 605BC, so yes, at that point he was still Crown Prince. When he got back to Babylon, he took over the kingship. That year was his accession year, though he was only king for part of that year.
It was not until Jehoiakim's fourth year than Nebuchadnezzer became king according to Jeremiah 25:1. Remember, accurate history makes accurate chronology!
To Daniel - using the accession year system - Jehoiakim's third year is what Jeremiah calls his fourth year. Do you need another diagram? Still waiting on your "chart of Babylonian king and their reigns with their respective dates"
who made up the words "the truth" .
if this was an invention, they would be millionaires.
being called the truth really sets the statement apart from lets say.....the lies.
The expression "the truth" as used by the Witnesses gives them a lot of emotional leverage for when someone leaves. Afterall, they're in "the truth" so the person who left is automatically the bad guy - no need to know why they left. The person has 'left' or 'rejected' "the truth" and is therefore in the wrong. So it bolsters them evermore to stay in "the truth".
It really is pathetic.
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!
I understand perfectly your presentation of the non accession with the accession method in synchronizing Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 but this interpretation is useless because the history is wrong
You have not explained "how the history is wrong" at all, you have only stated how it is not consistent with the Society's teachings.
as I have already explained because the events ar not similar.
LOL. Are you suggesting that only one event can happen in a year?
Also, the methodology uses is also flawed because some scholars argue that the first year of Neb is identical to Neb's acc year so your tabulation simply fails, it is simply not a matter of arithmetic but a fudging of the figures.
You are saying I am wrong because some scholars disagree. None agree with the Society. I'll let people draw their own conclusion on this one.
But because of all of the other factors involved, you are wrong whether I am right or not.
Still waiting on your "chart of Babylonian king and their reigns with their respective dates"
take this test to see if your mind can be read.
follow the instructions and don't scroll down too fast.. .
test 1. .
I also initially chose three. Because the first question asks you to square the number, and you know other mathematical operations will be involved, you automatically don't want to choose too high a number. (Four takes you into double-digits straight away.) Because two seems just too simple, the most common choice would be 3.
This one's not complicated either. Must have been all of the those math competitions I did in high school. LOL. n^2+n divided by n leaves you with n+1. The supposedly arbitrary 17 is added to 1 to make 18 and the original n is subtracted. 18/6 equals 3 no matter what the value of n.
But thanks for trying :)
It's funny how people can take a two-second look at the website, see gun-toting people in army greens in connection with the word 'ministry' and get the complete wrong idea.
It's about ministry work for military personnel, not forcing people to become Christian. It may appear to be 'hard-hitting' because it better reaches it's intended audience (military personnel). (edit): Members of the group are military personnel. In addition to providing their services to the military, they also evangilize to others. Their view point is summarized on their site:
In this era of Gen-X extremism, it's proving harder and harder to capture the attention of the world's youth. If it doesn't go over 100 miles per hour, make a lot noise, put a hole in your lip, or turn your hair a different color, it probably won't get a second glace. This no doubt, makes evangelism challenging for many of today's ministries.
Enter Force Skydiving. Imagine a group of today's youth standing around with their skateboards and piercing's, when all of a sudden, one of them looks up and sees an aircraft at 12,000 feet, with a smoke trail. What appear to be 5 human beings have exited the airplane, all of them trailing a stream of smoke. Nearly a minute later, brightly colored parachute with the single word, "FORCE" boldly visible, begin to open. All witnessing these daring stunts are curious to see if these guys can pull off a landing and live to tell about it. They quickly make their way to the 'drop zone' where they notice a thousand other kids watching the beautiful parachute formations and spectacular landings.
Immediately following the jump the jumpers quickly make their way to a stage were they began to speak a truth never before heard by many in the audience and soon a life changing realization comes over the newcomers.
8 die in separate accidents
by edwin nyirongo, 17 august 2005 - 06:33:25
four jehovahs witnesses died and 19 others are fighting for their lives at nkhata bay district hospital after the lorry they were travelling in crushed into a bridge at liuzi river near tukombo on monday.. the members were coming from dwangwa where they went to attend a church service and were heading to nkhata bay.. in ntcheu four people died while one is admitted at balaka district hospital after being involved in an accident at kabwazi in the district.. northern region police spokesperson john namalenga and nkhata bay hospital confirmed the tukombo incident.
The Society's response to this kind of thing is (Awake 8 February 2002):
God Does According To His Own Will
Should Christians expect God to rescue them miraculously in every case of impending disaster? The Bible record does not support such an expectation.
Of course, Jehovah God could choose to intervene directly in behalf of any of his servants. And if anyone believes that he has escaped harm by divine intervention, he should not be criticized. But when Jehovah chooses not to intervene, it should never be taken as a sign of his displeasure.
This kind of response adds insult to injury. If in a disaster one Witness survives and another doesn't, the survivor "should not be criticized" for 'believing they escaped harm by divine intervention'?? I'm sure the friends and relatives of the person that died would feel terrific hearing that. I doubt they would be placated by hearing that it was more important for God's will that only one survived. Maybe the survivor was more likely to bring people into the 'truth', and the other had below-average hours.
Should a non-Witness also "not be criticized" for thinking they have experienced divine intervention?
