It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A.(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
B.(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by SuperiorEd
In order to accept the bible as evidence of anything, one first needs to agree that the book is the actual word of the actual "God" described in the book. If we, however, do not believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, then your argument really has no legs. It's funny, in order to accept this "proof" of God's existence, one must already believe in the existence of the God who authored said proof.
Originally posted by GoldenRuled
You obviously went to a lot of work on this. Those choosing not to listen can try closing their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears to see on Judgement day if that helps. I don't know how you got your figures nor am I interested in verifying. But the end result is still the same.edit on 4-12-2011 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GoldenRuled
You obviously went to a lot of work on this. Those choosing not to listen can try closing their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears to see on Judgement day if that helps. I don't know how you got your figures nor am I interested in verifying. But the end result is still the same.edit on 4-12-2011 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by rogerstigers
Originally posted by GoldenRuled
You obviously went to a lot of work on this. Those choosing not to listen can try closing their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears to see on Judgement day if that helps. I don't know how you got your figures nor am I interested in verifying. But the end result is still the same.edit on 4-12-2011 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)
They didn't do any work on this. A brief search on google show this as being part of the evangelical toolkit.
I can only find the date of 606 BC as the date of Babylon taking over Judah on web sites referring to this math. Other sites, even Christian and bible study sites reference anything from 609 to 597. In addition, you have to make the 70 years of control by Babylon count twice (why subtract the 70 years of rule by Babylon if you are going to start the 7X punishment at the same time the 70 years starts?)
The second key is to understand that in Jewish reckoning any part of a year can count as a full year. By this reckoning, then, the year beginning in the fall of the year we designate as 606 B.C. on our calendar system would be counted as the first year of the captivity even though the Jews were captive only a short period of the year because Daniel was taken before that year had ended on the Jewish calendar in September of 605 B.C.
In this light, the 70th, or ending year, began 69 years later in the fall of the year we now designate as 537 B.C., during the first year of the reign of Cyrus. The ending point for the 70 years seems to be at the Feast of Tabernacles (see Ezra 3:4), which was celebrated in Jerusalem in the fall only two weeks after the year had begun. That two-week period, however, was enough to extend the captivity into its 70th year, which would end for the Jews in the fall of the year we now designate as 536 B.C.
Counting a small part of the year as a year, then, is the way the Jews would have reckoned the captivity from 605 B.C. to 537 B.C. as 70 years.
Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by SuperiorEd
Thank you for proving my point. The only people that I was able to find that claim 606 BC as the fall of Judah are those that reference this math bit that you have illustrated. (BTW, the wiki timeline you posted mentions nothing about babylon and judah in 606)
To add to this:
The second key is to understand that in Jewish reckoning any part of a year can count as a full year. By this reckoning, then, the year beginning in the fall of the year we designate as 606 B.C. on our calendar system would be counted as the first year of the captivity even though the Jews were captive only a short period of the year because Daniel was taken before that year had ended on the Jewish calendar in September of 605 B.C.
In this light, the 70th, or ending year, began 69 years later in the fall of the year we now designate as 537 B.C., during the first year of the reign of Cyrus. The ending point for the 70 years seems to be at the Feast of Tabernacles (see Ezra 3:4), which was celebrated in Jerusalem in the fall only two weeks after the year had begun. That two-week period, however, was enough to extend the captivity into its 70th year, which would end for the Jews in the fall of the year we now designate as 536 B.C.
Counting a small part of the year as a year, then, is the way the Jews would have reckoned the captivity from 605 B.C. to 537 B.C. as 70 years.
www.johnpratt.com...
Which means that counting full years (365.25) in your math is erroneous.edit on 12-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)
Believers, including myself, often point out that the book of Daniel states that there was an earlier taking of captives from Judah to Babylon, in either 605 BC or 606 BC, depending on which source of information is used. And, the believers often point out that although Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, he didn't release the Jews until the following year, in 538 BC or even 537 BC. And some believers have assigned the actual year in which the Jews of Babylon did begin to return to Judah was 537 BC or 536 BC. Using the two extremes as the starting and ending points, one could arrive at a 70-year span. But, in my opinion, none of this is even necessary because Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years.
Originally posted by Prezbo369
Sigh..............'Superior' band teacher please show why anyone should take the bible as truth, for anything, then you can c+p your customary bible passages as proof of your particular god and collect your nobel peace prize
Originally posted by yourboycal2
Originally posted by GmoS719
Originally posted by yourboycal2
lol you can't be using a bible as proof there are too many errors ,
besides i would never subscribe to a bible that has this in it .
luke 19:27
This was a parable. Nothing more.
Its the beauty of the bible , you can cheery pick what you like , toss it as literal , or a metaphor , or parables .
No holds bar with the bible anything goes you can paint your own rosey picture of it . 1000's of interpertations lol
Thanks god for making it so confusing and being able to cherry pick our own conclusions
God if your up there , why don't you come down and show me what the truth is instead of going through such pains to hide your self.
Why give me a brain if you do not expect me to use it ? lol
WHy not make me intelligent of that as the animals? easier to follow blindly
God if your up there , why don't you come down and show me what the truth is instead of going through such pains to hide your self.
Why give me a brain if you do not expect me to use it ? lol
show me what the truth is
Why give me a brain if you do not expect me to use it ? lol