Scholar, You miss my point! Of course that would be your reply! However, They are quoting him to SUPPORT their date of 607! Brackets or not, it is entirely misleading! 99% of persons reading that quote, would not know that that date was a Society insertion just because it was in brackets! Besides, the whole reason for even using this expert to begin with is to give weight to their dates. Otherwise WHY quote from him at all?? If you were to look at this authors book, you would see in the preface, the date he believes fom the cuniforms the events took place. Which is totally CONTRARY to Watchtower reasoning, as I have shown from my previous chart!!! If you just read the Insight book, you would come away believing there was support from this expert, which was done deliberatly! Truth does not need decption to support the facts! Truth stands on its own!! To make my point even CLEARER, try looking at the Societys book,"Babylon the Great has Fallen God's Kingdom Rules!" on page 134 it says this: For this reason Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem the second time, to punish the rebel king. That was in 618 B.C.-See Harper's Bible Dictionary, by M.S. and J. L. Miller, edition of 1952, page 306, under " Jehoiakim." Can we at least agree that this statement WITHOUT brackets makes the claim that the date 618 is supported by Harpers Bible Dictionary?? OK, GOOD! Now, let me tell you what the actual book says, since I have the copy sitting right here on my desk. ( I am sure you can find this book in one of your many libraries as well.) It reads: Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled with the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar, whom Jehoiakim served three years, but against whom he at lengthed rebelled. The might of Chaldea, Syria, Moab, and Ammon pressed against the capital; the king died or was assassinated; and was given the unmourned, shameful burial of an ass. He was suceeded (596 B.C.) by his young son Jehoiachin, who in his father's stead was carried captive to Babylon (597 B.C.) while Zedekiah, brother to Jehoiakim, became Nebuchadnezzar's puppet ruler. Would you NOW agree that the Society was misleading the readers to believe the event happened some 20+ years earlier?? Explain this to me?? This is ANOTHER example of DELIBERATE deception!! OVER and OVER the Society does this!! And once again, Truth, if it is truely Truth stands on its own! And if the Society was really teaching Truth, they would not NEED to resort to DECEPTION!!!!!!! L.L.
607
by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Jeffro
Your interpretation of the seventy years akin the Jonsson hypothesis fails and is flawed because it denies the basic facts that this period was one of a period of desolation, one of servitude and one of exile all being concurrent. from 607 until 537 BCE.
You are confusing the concept of "facts" with what is merely the Society's flawed interpretation. Once you have resolved the many problems with your interpretation, then you can start making such grandiose claims. Whether any particular interpretation is correct or not, yours is definitely wrong, because it is internally inconsistent and conflicts with Jeremiah's original explanation of the 70 years. There is no leeway at all to allow for your flawed dogma.
-
Jeffro
All that the writers of the Insight volumes have done is to insert accurate biblical dating by means of parenthesis to alert the reader when the regnal dates occur in history. This appropriate academic practice as the brackets show that these dates were not in the quoted source.
It is clear from the biblical account that the 70 years could not end beyond 539, stipulated by Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31, which nullifies any accuracy on the part of the dishonest Watchtower Society. The Insight book does not at all indicate that years they quote of their own imagining, and do not consistently parenthesise years when citing sources. They certainly do imply that their years are agreed to by external sources.
-
scholar
Lady Liberty
No, that is not misleading at all because if Grayson has not presented modern calender dates with the regnal years then it quite appropriate to provide a conversion scheme relative to those regnal years according to one's methodology as long as the reader is advised of this. The reader is thus advised because of the use of parenthesis.
I think if you are going to make a case out of your alleged misuse of a quote fro Harper's Bible Dictionary then you provide a photocopy of the relevant page and then we can proceed from there.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Jeffro
It is you whot is bamboozled by facts. As I have repeatedly told you that chronology consists of a methodology and interpretation and that applies to all and any such scheme. The claims of celebrated WT scholars can hardly be grandiose as such are consistent with tradition and are Bible-based wheras yours are based upon a chronology that produces confusion and trivializezs the seventy years.. It is your dogma that is flawed not mine.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Jeffro
Wrong again! It is impossible for the seventy years to end in 539 BCE with the demise or Fall of Babylon for at least three sound reasons:
1. The Jews as exiles were still in Babylon after 539 BCE not returning home until 537 BCE.
2. The Jews as exiles in Babylon were still the King of Babylon after 539 BCE because a new Babylonian regime was installed with the Medes and Persians.
3. The land of Judah after 539 BCE was still enjoying its foretold sabbath resting as a desolated place until it was repopulated with the returned exiles in 537 BCE.
scholar JW
-
AlanF
But scholar pretendus! I've shown time and again that Josephus proves that the Jews returned in 538, not 537! Why do you keep ignoring this?
And why do you steadfastly refuse to provide any proof whatsoever of your claim that the Jews returned in 537?
Whassamatta? Cat got your brain?
AlanF
-
Jeffro
1. The Jews as exiles were still in Babylon after 539 BCE not returning home until 537 BCE.
You continue to deliberately ignore the context of the 70 years as defined by Jeremiah.
2. The Jews as exiles in Babylon were still the King of Babylon after 539 BCE because a new Babylonian regime was installed with the Medes and Persians.
The Medes and Persians were explicitly identified by Daniel as bringing the foretold judgement on Babylon's king after Babylon's days had been numbered, and its king called to account.
3. The land of Judah after 539 BCE was still enjoying its foretold sabbath resting as a desolated place until it was repopulated with the returned exiles in 537 BCE.
The Jews returned in 538, not 537. Any other conclusion contradicts Josephus and Ezra.
-
KW13
Jeremiah 25:12 - the 70 years will end when the Babylonian king was brought to account.
That being done by the persians. = End of 70 years in 539.
The Jews as exiles in Babylon were still the King of Babylon after 539 BCE because a new Babylonian regime was installed with the Medes and Persians.
so who was brought to account? -
Lady Liberty
Scholar,
I DISAGREE!! Anyone NOT familiar with the Societys "brackets", which MOST JWs are NOT, would not have a clue! Realizing this is the Societies way of inserting their own thoughts would anger most JWs! Why do the facts need to be tampered with, unless you have alterior motives. Besides, if you take OUT their date with THEIR brackets, you have nothing! There would be no point in using the statement from the Author at all. It only becomes useful as a credential to the Societies teaching when they INSERT their own date. And then suddenly it APPEARS to support the said material. That in reality has NO support!! It would be interesting to see what the Author would think of such "brackets"!! Hellrider gave a most excellent example:
The reknown holocaust historian, Gordon Mcfee, writes in his essay "Are the jews central to the Holocaust": "Modern research has begun to deal more extensively with the suffering of other victims of the Nazi genocide. For example, homosexuals, Gypsies, prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses and others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust continued (the vast majority were non-jews). By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been killed (mostly non-jews)". So even this reknown historian acknowledges that the jews were far from being the only people persecuted by some of the overly-eagerly nazi-leader...
If a neo-nazi website/book/newspaper had written this, they would have been completely deceitful and misrepresenting the text. Everything in a text can be changed by quoting out of context and adding some brackets. Everything! The quote actually reads:
Modern research has begun to deal more extensively with the suffering of other victims of the Nazi genocide. For example, homosexuals, Gypsies, prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses and others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust continued. By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.
Read the "tampered with" quote one more time. You will see that nothing in that quote is actually a lie. More non-jews were killed than jews, but by using such an expression as "the vast majority", I made the reader believe that perhaps something like...90% ? ...of the murdered were non-jews. And that deeply undermines the concept of a jewish holocaust (which is what I would be aiming for here, if I was a neo-nazi). But per definition,technically I am not actually lying in the quote that I tampered with. I just added some brackets, and I cut the text short. And by doing that, I changed the entire meaning of the text to mean the completely opposite of what the author intended. And there you have it, this is the key to all serious academic research: What the author intended! This is to be the leading principle in all academic work, when quoting an author. Only deceitful and lying people are violating this leading principle.
It`s not difficult to change the meaning of a text, anyone can do it.
And here is another excellent example for you to think about from Rockhound:
Boy!! Am I glad that we've got the bracket thing worked out. Let me get this straight. The Watchtower Society produced the Insight book, they compiled all the information in it, and they can say whatever they want, about anything they want, in whatever way they want, and the only people that will probably read their masterpiece would be those that don't think it really matters anyway. Evidently it's OK for the society to put in a bogus date in another man's quotation, as long as it is done with the proper punctuation. Why doesn't this suprise me? After all, back in the 1920's the Society was telling the whole world that Christ's second coming took place in 1874, and that this was no man's opinion , but God's dates . And when Christ, "The Master" came to his temple, the date 1874 was approved, and then along came 1943 and God's date of 1874 was changed by the Faithful? Slave to 1914. I don't recall that when God's date was changed to 1914, that brackets were used to indicate that the year 1914 was just a clarification of God's original date. To be consistent, it should be [1914] bracket this and [1914] bracket that. Opps!!! another bogus date. If the Faithful Slave can be so cavalier with God's date of 1874, should we be suprised when this bastille of truth and integrity does a little side slip in their math. All these changing dates are really hard to keep track of. We not only have to keep track of all the actual dates when events took place, but we also have to try to keep track of all the old light, new light, maybe light, the possible light, the impossible light, and not to exclude northern lights all laced with dates that mostly by now have all gone to where all Watchtower dates finally end up, in old discarded books cluttering the book shelves at the "Good Will" store. And NOW, I've got to try and figure out where all those brackets should go. Woe is me!!!
You said,
I think if you are going to make a case out of your alleged misuse of a quote fro Harper's Bible Dictionary then you provide a photocopy of the relevant page and then we can proceed from there.
I will be happy to provide you with that for ALL to see!