FASCINATING CORROBORATION OF ALL BIBLE PROPHECY

a) The text of Jeremiah 52:12-13 is clear enough. It is also the reference given by your source. If you think that the plain reading is wrong and some other approach that gives a meaning more to your liking is correct you will have to justify such a claim.
As it stands Jeremiah 52:12-13 states that Nebuzaradan arrived on the 10th Av and that it is he who burnt the Temple. Obviously he could not burn the Temple before he arrived. The only reference givan by your source contradicts the claim.b) Of course I used a Hebrew calendar, although at this late date I don't remember the site where I found it. Let us note however that the mobilisation of Russia (unsurprisingly) preceded the Declaration of War by 3 days. There is no way that both could have occurred on 9th Av as your source claims.I also repeat my observation that in both cases there are other dates that could be declared significant.

TO: Paulk re: Solomon'sAgainst the protest of some on this board I gave the professed skeptics a chance to due their due diligence in order to do high quality Biblical exegesis and/or commentary regarding my initial post. Given your above response it seems as if you did little historical research and thus did poor Biblical exegesis to see if anything very significant occured on the Ninth day of Av in regards to the destruction of Solomon's temple. Since you seem somewhat obstinate I will provide a hint to you. Please look at what the Jerusalem Talmud says about this matter. A reference to this is in Mr. Grants book.I also say that you did not examine the Biblical text itself very carefully and I saw two significant matters you never addressed. Please use a cross reference Bible. Also, please look at the Hebrew. You mistakes in regards to the Biblical text itself are glaring. But I will give you time to redeem yourself in this matter too.re: WWI and Ninth day of AVLastly, I provided multiple sources regarding the Ninth Day of Av and WWI starting from multiple sources many of whom could reasonable be expected to competently understand the Jewish calendar. You merely have the assertion that somewhere on the internet there is a source which agrees with you. I suspect there are not many evcforum readers who are searching for that website! LOLTO: ALL Hopefully, Paulk will improve upon his Bible exegesis. I will certainly give him a chance to redeem himself should he wish to take my offer. If he does not when sufficient time allows I will provide some Bible exegesis for readers.

TO: JarYou wrote:

quote:

---

Sorry, no real evidence. You can find similar coincidences for almost any date. Just a quick look at July the 4th for the US turned up the following.

​

July 4.
Declaration of Independence.

​

John Adams Dies.

​

Thomas Jefferson Dies.

​

Pathfinder lands on Mars.

​

Richard Petty wins 200th .

​

Vicksburg surrenders.

​

Leaves of Grass published.

​

CIA informed of Vietnam Coup Plot.

​

It may well be an interesting book to some but it is certainly not corroboration of anything.

​

Thanks for posting it though. Too bad there is nothing there.

---

Jar, here are some questions:Was the pathfinder landing Mars a earth shattering event for the USA?Was Richard Petty wining a race a earth shattering event for the USA?Was the Leaves of Grass being published a earth shattering event for the USA?Was John Adams Dying a earth shattering event for the USA?Was Thomas Jefferson dying a earth shattering event for the USA?Was Vicksburg surrendering a major event for the USA or would Gettysburg be a better example?Was the CIA being informed of Vietnam Coup Plot a super significant event or would the Tet offensive in this war much more significant? Also, would WWI or WWII perhaps be more significant wars for America?In summary, I see the events on the Jewish major holy days and the very major events that occured on them as being far more significant than what you provided above.

You may think so but I certainly do not.Once again, sorry, no real evidence. You can find similar coincidences for almost any date.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You wrote:

quote:

---

You can find similar coincidences for almost any date.

---

My reply:Then do it!

You wrote:

quote:

---

You can find similar coincidences for almost any date.

---

My reply:Then demonstrate this! You have not!

Excuse me? That is exactly what I did using July 4th. Is there some other date that you'd prefer?How about January 14th? Or May the 2nd?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't need to iumprove on my exegesis. One reference was given, I followed it and reported what I found. I need do no more.If there are references that prove Jeremiah wrong then those should have been produced instead. If the Jerusalem Talmud is the REAL source of the claim that should have been referenced instead of Jeremiah. And at this stage to suppport your claim you have to prove Jeremiah wrong.If your source provides a reference - and it contradicts what they say then *I* don't need to do any more research. I don't need to go looking for other sources that MIGHT support them. If you want to do that then that's up to you - but it is no fault on my part.As for your "offer" to stop lying about me if I'll lie about the Bible for you, I reject it with the contempt it deserves.

to: PaulkYou Bible exegesis not only missed the obvious but lacked historical research.Here is an excerpt from a website where some of the threads participants did real research (I am not talking about myself but to some of the people I responded to). [quote] 2 Kings 25:8-9 claims that the First Temple was destroyed on the 7th of Av:"In the fifth month [Av], on the 7th day of the month ... Nebuzaradan, the captain of the bodyguard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned the house of Yhwh ... "Jer. 52:12-14 claims that the First Temple was destroyed on the 10th of Av:"In the fifth month [Av], on the 10th day of the month ... Nebuzaradan, the captain of the bodyguard who served the king of Babylon, entered Jerusalem. He burned the house of Yhwh ... "MY REPLYAgain I do not have my personal copy of Strong's with me. However, this time I highlighted the key word above.If memory serves, and it may not, the word translated "came" can mean "left for" also. So it could be that he left on the 7th and arrived on the 10th. I would also have the issue of whether there are variants and how many for the "7th" and "1Oth" and your "month" issue.Last, I would appreciate any scholarly sources you could give me regarding the commentary position you are taking. I would be especially interested in rabbinical commentaries since they would be more familar with the Jerusalem Talmud which says some soldiers started a fire on the 9th according to Grant. Grant speculates a fire started on the 9th and on the 10th the official decided to let it keep burning.I have seen some artist renditions of the Temple and some of them make it appear like it was a huge complex. I do not know how viable some of those artist renditions are. The Bible if I am not mistaken makes it appear as if Solomon's temple took over 7 years to complete. So perhaps a fire was started in one part of the complex and the official decided to accelerate the process by starting multiple fires. Another possibility is that a fire was started on the 9th by some drunken soldiers and it burned itself out. Then on the 10th the official started the fire again. I am not a ancient Jewish fire marshall and have no idea how combustible the temple complex would have been.TO: ALLI will write about this further since Paulk seems obstinate in terms of doing additional research or careful Bible exegesis.

to: ALLA variant refers to how many of the copies disagree with each other. By the way, to my knowledge their is no large ancient work with has less textual corruption than the Old Testament. The New Testament is absolutely remarkable.I cite:

quote:

---

OLD TESTAMENT DOCUMENT PREPARATION: HEBREW COPIES

​

The Massorites were absolutely devoted about keeping the Old Testament free of variants in the text (they had rigorous methodologies for keeping the text as free as variants as humanly possible). Here is a brief overview of the Massorites and the text they produced from another website:

​

"The MASORETES (Hebrew Masorah, meaning "to deliver something
in to the hands of another") safeguarded the text from about A.D.
500 to A.D. 916. These dedicated scholars based in Tiberias
produced the Masoretic texts used today; they are the basis for
our English OT of 1611. "The Masorah is called 'a fence to the
scriptures' because it locked all words and letters in their
places. It records the number of times the several letters occur
in the Bible; the number of words and the middle word; the number
of verses and the middle verse, etc., for the set purpose of
preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word"
(Bullinger, Companion Bible, Appendix 30).

​

Designating the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the
middle letter and verse of each book as well as the entire OT was
not enough for these technicians. Phrases were counted,
enumerated, distinguished. "House of Israel" was computed
separately from "sons of Israel" and the number of times each
occurred was well noted. The expression "sins of Jeroboam" is
noted separately from "the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat."
thus the Jewish zeal for God was turned to good use (Romans
10:2)."

​

(taken from: http://www.keithhunt.com/Bible6.html )

---

Another website provides the following information:

quote:

---

"Let JOSEPHUS, a Jewish historian of the first century, answer:

​

' From Artaxerxes (Malachi's time) until our time everything
has been recorded but has not been deemed worthy of like credit
with what has preceded, because the exact succession of prophets
ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is
evident by our conduct; FOR though so long a time has now passed,
NO ONE HAS DARED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THEM, OR ALTER ANYTHING IN
THEM' (Contra Apion, Whiston's Josephus, p.609).

​

Often overlooked is that the law, prophets, and writings,
which were accepted by Jesus (Luke 24:44), formed the BASIS FOR
THE LEGAL PRACTICES of the Jewish nation. These religious
writings had NATIONAL IMPACT equal to Britain's Magna Carta...or
America's Plymouth Rock Covenant and Declaration of
Independence....Animosity was, paradoxically, a powerful force in
PRESERVING the unimpeachability of Scripture. The appeal to the
text was the common arbiter in theological debate (Matt.19:7).
The Scriptures were known at the grass-roots level as well (Luke
4:16-20). UNOFFICIAL DELETIONS, INSERTIONS OR CORRUPTIONS would
have triggered an OUTCRY among the faithful in a nation ZEALOUS
FOR THE LAW (Acts 22:3).

​

TAMPER with the OFFICIAL Hebrew text? One may as well
consider EDITING the Declaration of Independence, DELETING a
sentence in a NEW copy of the Gettysburg Address......VITAL
literary production of NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE are too WELL KNOWN
to be PRIVATELY tampered with among the faithful. There were, of
course, enemies who tried to do so - and still do!

​

Today thousands of people have committed the TEN
COMMANDMENTS TO MEMORY. Imagine the PROTEST if a NEW Bible
translation INSERTED AN EXTRA commandment!.......

​

The Thread of Conveyance

​

Scripture itself speaks of a systematic, ORGANIZED
PRESERVATION of the law, prophets and writings.

​

Moses entrusted the law to the Levites guarding the ark,
center-piece of Israel's religion (Deut.31:24-26). Joshua 1:8
comments upon "this book of the law" that Moses' successor read
to the entire nation (Josh.8:32-35).

​

Literate, proficient scholars functioned even through the
chaotic Judges period (Judg.5:14, 1 Sam.1:3,9). Under Samuel
and David and Solomon, during Israel's Golden Age, inspired
writers laid the basis for the historical narratives in Samuel,
Kings and Chronicles. David revered the sacred writings
(Ps.119:97), and he and Solomon contributed and collected many
psalms and proverbs."

​

(see this page for details: http://www.keithhunt.com/Bible6.html )

---

Another website states:Another website states the following:

quote:

---

"Of the passages in which textual variants occur, the vast majority involve minor differences in spelling or grammar which leave the meaning of the texts unaffected. Those passages in which potentially significant variations do occur are usually listed in footnotes in the better English translations and editions of the Bible, so any reader can know exactly where they appear. And it is fair to conclude that no point of Christian doctrine relies solely on disputed textual variants."

​

see this webpage for details: Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions

---

THE FOLLOWING SOURCE PROVIDES INFORMATION REGARDING NEW TESTAMENT TEXThttp://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/historical.htmSUMMARYCopyist errors are rare but they do happen. I would need to look into the Solomon Bible verses further.

Actually, there are even varying versions of the four Gospels. For example, there is Mark and the Secret Mark, two very different works. There is the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch, and literally dozens of different Gospels that are not included in all Cannon, yet are included in some canon.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

to: jarWere there good reasons for some books being left out? Please open a new string. This is off topic.

Didn't Christopher Colombus set sail at or about 11:30 am, the 9th of Av? Did this have anything to do with Colombus' family who is thought to have been Conversos? Or did it have to do with his Jewish navigator was expelled from Spain due to Isabella and Ferdinand's fiat regarding the expulsion of all Jews?

I read one of Grant Jeffreys books once, where he "proved" that the world would end in the Fall of 2003.

I already addressed that Mr. Grant produced poor material.I believe you are implying a logical fallacy which is:

quote:

---

Description of Composition

​

The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).

​

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

​

Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.

​

It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion. For example, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealth than an individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a whole than does the class of poor people. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and the fallacy of Composition would not be committed.

​

The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:

​

The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.
That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.

​

It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes that the whole structure is made of brick.

---

In short, just because one or more of Grant's books is bad does not mean they are all bad.For example, I could take your worst words and via these worse words I can say anthing you say is pointless. This of course, would not be fair.