@castthefirststone:
I see you like to attach the propagandist label of apostate onto me.
Ok, I'm going to have to take this up a notch.
I'm assumed until now that you were a man. If, by way of reply to this message, you should inform me that you are not a man, I'll have to revise what I'm about to say to you now, for even now I make the assumption that you are a man. In cyberspace, here on JWN or on any internet website, I do come on a bit stronger than I would in real life since you are who you say you are here, and I really cannot judge whether you are a man or a woman, or whether you are lying to me or telling me the truth. We are all (most of us!) anonymous, and so, for this reason, I feel you should man-up and take responsibility for what you are, because your words have betrayed you so that anyone that is not a moron would know that you are an apostate. If in your opinion, your being called out as such is a "propagandist label," then it is what it is. I don't want to get suckered, any more than I have already here, into helping you digress from this thread because you might want me to know how much I've hurt your feelings by calling a spade a spade.
I really don't care what you call me.
No, you do care what I call you, which is why this digression occurred in the first place. If you decide you want to withdraw from this thread, don't reply; just withdraw from it by not posting anything more to it. It's ok; I'm pretty sure that there is no here that has read any of your posts to this thread that actually believes that you don't care that I have called you an apostate, because when you forgot yourself and thought you were in a position to direct me to read -- what was it? -- Proverbs 3:32, I was reminded of what Satan did in quoting Psalm 91:11, 12 (at Matthew 4:5, 6), for he, too, abandoned true worship by rebelling against divine sovereignty of Jehovah God, but I believe it was you that wrote the following:
(@castthefirststone:)
"I suppose you are correct, I am an apostate, an apostate against falseness and lies that you keep spewing.
I suppose you must have also forgotten having wrote this, but if you man-up, anyone that should throw a "propagandist label" at you won't set you off or make you want to bawl your eyes out over it.
You see apostasy is in the eye of the beholder and one person's apostate is another's reformer.
What I behold is that you are an apostate and since you had both admitted and already supposed that I am correct in believing you to be such, are you now telling me that you are a reformer?
To illustrate: Stephen was stoned to death for apostasy and to the Pharisees: Jesus was the greatest apostate who ever lived.
Did either Stephen or Jesus ever abandon true worship? Yes or no?
Back to your theories, let's get this straight, you say that Josephus is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Jerusalem by doing the following:
1. Rounding up 50 years to 70 years.
2. Rounding up 3 months to 12 months.
3. Rounding up Eiromos' 14th year to 15 years.
4. Then taking all the other numbers literal including the 13 years siege of Tyre.
5. Taking the "In the reign of king Ithobalos" as literally meaning "During the reign of king Ithobalos".
6. Ignoring the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
7. No way of reconciling the rest of the 54 years and 3 months.
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. What I said about Josephus is that what he wrote about the "54 years, with 3 months in addition" makes clear to me that neither Nebuchadnezzar nor his son, Evil-Merodach were alive by the time Baal had begun his reign as king of Tyre in 577 BC if Nebuchadnezzar didn't survive the end of Ithobalos' reign, whose reign ended the year that Baal's reign began. Josephus stated, in pertinent part, that "in the seventh year of the reign of Naboukodrosoros ... he began to besiege Tyre," and that "[i]n the reign of king Ithobalos, Naboukodrosoros besieged Tyre for 13 years. After him Baal reigned for 10 years."
(I don't focus on Josephus' mention of Nebuchadnezzar's "seventh year" because it's irrelevant to the point I'm making, whereas the fact that Josephus indicates that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years is relevant to the point I'm making. I also don't comprehend what you mean by my "rounding up 50 years to 70 years"; I don't recall doing that in anything I wrote. Perhaps you think you have a point, so maybe you'll clarify the point you wish to make by posting where in this entire thread I did this.)
Anyway, what this means is that "in the reign of Ithobalos," Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre, but after Ithobalos, "Baal reigned for 10 years," so since Tyre survived the siege, then Nebuchadnezzar must had died since there was no siege during Baal's reign. Don't you recall making a big deal over my having determined, based on what Josephus wrote, that Baal's reign began in 577 BC? Here's one of the things you wrote regarding the year 577 BC, which I had estimated as being the year when Baal began his reign:
(@castthefirststone:)
2. You try to confuse the issue with regnal year of Cyrus. Josephus mentions Cyrus from the Chaldeans perspective and contrasts it to the Phoenicians history. Cyrus took over the kingdom from the Chaldeans in 539 BC, which you are in agreement with. I don't see how the regnal year allows you to add another year to Eiromos' reign. If you use the regnal year of Cyrus, it takes you [further] away from your precious 577 BC that you cling to.
First of all, I didn't use Cyrus regnal year. His first regnal year began in Nisan 538 BC and ended in Nisan 537 BC, but what I took into consideration was the six months that began in Cyrus' accession year, Tishri 539 BC, and ended in Nisan 538 BC. I don't know how exact Josephus was in his reckoning of the length of Eiromos' reign, 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 wonder how Cyrus' regnal year allows me to add an addition year to Eiromos' reign, but Eiromos reigned for 20 years, and I'm not comfortable counting back from his 14th year, because I don't know how Eiromos' regnal year ran. Tishri 539 BC could have been toward the beginning of Eiromos' 14th regnal year or toward the end of Eiromos' 14th regnal year, so when I add six months that remained in Cyrus accession year, I decided to round up and count 15 years.
Consequently, for Eiromos' reign, I had been subtracting 20 years from "54 years, with 3 months in addition," which from Nisan 538 BC would bring us to 556 BC "with 3 months in addition," so I decided to round up and reckon this additional three months as an additional year and count 16 years. Since Josephus had encapsulated the reigns of the Tyrian kings, I am more comfortable taking, not 14 years, but 16 years of Eiromos' 20-year reign, and adding 4 years to Merbalos, 1 year to Balatoros, 6 years to Myttynos and Gerastartos, 1 year to Ednibalos, Chelbes and Abbalos, and 10 years to Baal, or -539 + (-38), which brings me to the year 577 BC.
Note, please, that I have not so far even mentioned the year 587 BC or the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, have I? For me to have said this would have been as ditsy as your accusing me here of making such a statement, which I never did since my mention of Josephus in this context has nothing at all to do with 587 BC. Do you not also remember writing in a previous message the following:
(@castthefirststone:)
Fact1: Baal didn't start his reign in 577 BC as djeggnog stated, as this will contradict Josephus.
Fact2: Even if Baal somehow started his reign in 577 BC (if one uses flawed djeggnog logic), this still proves absolutely NOTHING!!!
You and others here believe that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year would have been 605 BC, that his first regnal year would have been 604 BC and his 18th regnal year would have been 586 BC, making Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd regnal year 561 BC, but these dates don't work when due consideration in given to the facts presented by Josephus to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre during Ithobalos' reign, and Ithobalos' reign ended when Baal's reign began in 577 BC.
The Bible teaches that it was during Nebuchadnezzar's "seventh year," after "three months and 10 days," that King Jehoiachin, his mother, as well as "court officials and the foremost men of the land," which would have included Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, were led away as exiled people to Babylon. (Jeremiah 52:28; 2 Chronicles 36:9; 2 Kings 24:15) Ten years later, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar so that he returned during his "eighteenth year," killed Zedekiah's sons as Zedekiah watched and then blinded him, as he was led off captive to Babylon where Jehoiachin had been living in exile for the entirety of Zedekiah's 10-year reign. (Jeremiah 52:29; 2 Kings 25:7) (BTW, in Jewish Antiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7), Josephus makes reference to "the fifth year after the sacking of Jerusalem, which was the twenty-third year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar," which is the what the Bible describes at Jeremiah 52:30, but this is auxiliary to the point of this message.)
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.
If Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 607 BC, then his 43rd year would have been 582 BC. We can know this by doing the math: Just subtract 25 years from 582 BC [-582 + (-25) = 607]. This means that Nebuchadnezzar died during Ithobalos' reign, some five years before Baal's reign began in 577 BC. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year couldn't have been 561 BC, since by 561 BC, he would have been dead for some 21 years (582 BC) and his son, Evil-Merodach, for some 18 years (579 BC).
If Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 607 BC, then his 43rd year would have been 582 BC, and Evil-Merodach, who succeeded his father, but died in 579 BC, had been dead for two years, and his father for five years, when Baal became the king of Tyre in 577 BC.
All these cognitive gymnastics and you conclude that the established fact of 587 BC is wrong.
What are you talking about now? You can believe what you want about the year 587 BC; I accept the fact that you and I disagree, but my dates that are based on Solomon's temple being destroyed in 607 BC works for me and 587 BC doesn't work for me.
Yes, readjust your hearing aid and click repeat on your text to speech software: 587 BC is an established fact, not a theory.
I don't wear a hearing aid just yet; maybe I should start giving some consideration to getting eyeglasses, but I don't use "text to speech software." I use speech recognition software to dictate most of what I post here to JWN. All of these shots you are taking at me make you come off as both an immature little girl and clueless, and you really should man-up. 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.
@djeggnog