I'm going back to the JW's

by Honesty 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Calliope

  i don't know about you Honesty,
  but i'm still not going back to the JWs.
  
  cal.
• 

  Big Tex

  I am not a smart man. I lack the intelligence to speak clearly to your issues Honesty. However, in all honesty () I ask you read a couple of essays by Alan Fuerbacher. He is intelligent and can shine the light on the Society's lies:

  http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html

  http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/change-of-606-to-607-bc-as-start-of.html

  http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/history-of-change-of-606-to-607-bc-in.html

  And finally, if you can bear with me, read this essay about the Society's justification for being Jehovah's prophet:

  http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-4-wts-says-it-is-prophet-and.html

  Whatever you decide, go in peace and God be with you.

  Chris
• 

  Kaput

  But of course that is of no importance for chronology because exact or precise dates are unimportant.

  Great. Now we can finally move on from this 607 thingy.
• 

  moomanchu

  scholar:

  You forgot your hook line celebrated watchtower scholars.
• 

  Jeffro

  Your arithmetic is breathtaking and your argument is really sound so now we have it firmly established that Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BCE but we still do not know the precise year. But of course that is of no importance for chronology because exact or precise dates are unimportant. By the way what year were you born? Was it this or was it that or was it somewhere between.

  'scholar's' question about a year of one's birth is of note. If a person says they are, say, 30 years old right now, were they born in 1976? Or 1975? Of course it could be either. There is doubt because there is not enough information supplied. A similar situation exists with 587/586. (587 is the more likely year, 586 being preferred by many religious scholars as a result of vagueness in the scriptures.) Of course, when there is no dogma to defend, honest individuals can admit doubt if they cannot pinpoint an exact date, rather than just making up a date that they've derived from their own numerological speculations.

  Your methodology based upon the pagan Babylonians is torpedoed by a much simpler biblical calculation . The year 537 was the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon where they were exiled for 70 years. Therefore adding 537 +70=607 BCE for the beginning of the exile with the fall of Jeusalem. This calculation is simpler than yours and foolproof. Irrefutable!

  Of course your date of 537 for the return of the Jews is completely speculative (not to mention incompatible with Ezra and Josephus), so your 'simple' calculation is automatically invalidated. Back when the Society didn't realise there was no year zero (duh), as recently as the 1940s, they claimed that the return of the Jews was in 536 to make their date of 606 work for 1914. The history of the matter testifies to the fact that the supposed dates have been preconceived to suit the Society's doctrines.
• 

  Honesty

  Your methodology based upon the pagan Babylonians is torpedoed by a much simpler biblical calculation . The year 537 was the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon where they were exiled for 70 years. Therefore adding 537 +70=607 BCE for the beginning of the exile with the fall of Jeusalem. This calculation is simpler than yours and foolproof. Irrefutable!

  scholar JW

  Do the elders know you are disagreeing with the Society's publications?
• 

  Honesty

  By the way what year were you born? Was it this or was it that or was it somewhere between.

  My JW ex-wife was born in another country in December or January. The record-keeping was not exactly accurate in eastern Europe during the Soviet occupation. Therefore, she may be 48 or 49. She's not sure and neither are her siblings.

  2600 years ago, the same problems existed in the world of occupied lands.

  At the most, we're talking 5-6 month's difference in the reigns of 5 kings.

  Oh well, some JW's will be faithful to the Watchtower no matter what.

  Good Luck, scholar.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Your reasoning is unsound and rather churlish. It is not scholars that make a big deal out of the problematic 586 or 587 date for the Fall although the problem has caused considerable discussion in the literature. Rather, it is apostates who attack 607 BCE because of its prophetism and they do not wish ascibe any form of truth to any teachings of their former allegiance. Regardless of its implication for so-called prophetic speculation it is the date that celebrated WT scholars have determined from the Scriptures and is in full harmony with secular evidence because it is derived from such evidence.

  Regarding 537 for the date of the Return, it is a established date based upon Ezra and Josephus confirms that the temple foundation was laid in 536 which is the second year of Cyrus. Authorities do not quibble over 537 for the Return and apostates share this silence to wit, Jonsson.

  scholar JW
• 

  uk humanist

  Sorry, I'm new to this forum, and I've never been a Jehovah's Witness.
  I have to ask:
  Is this scholar guy for real?
  If so, his comments seem a testament to the statement "never underestimate the power of denial".
  Even forgetting the starting point of the 1914 calculation, the rest seems to be pure conjecture too, it's a house of cards.
  It interests me how every end-of-world sect believes the end of the world will be 'in their lifetime', and massages the numbers (in an obvious and ridiculous manner in this case) to provide evidence for it. It doesn't ever seems to be anything like 'in the year 5010...'.
• 

  KW13

  Scholar buddy, look at that right there.

  The kings years, add them together...605. THERE IS no way around that. Yours is easier to do? So that makes yours right?

  Face the facts mate.