thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars: Let's discuss the Hillah Stele

by AuldSoul 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  thirdwitness

  You should take note that all my answers come from the Bible. You do not see me quoting WT's to prove my points but you see me quoting the Bible.
• 

  hillary_step

  Thirdwitness,

  To the contrary its pretty clear that most here are not interested in truth.

  Which truth were you describing here? New truth? Past truth? Present truth? Please define this more carefully. You know full well that when the WTS changes its doctrine regarding the 607BCE first fall of Jerusalem, as it will, your 'truth' will change simultaneously.

  Rather than disprove the points that I have brought up there has only been insults and name calling.

  Yes, you have undergone name-calling, and I note that in this regard you have given as good as you have taken. By posting to this board you must understand that there are many people here who have been emotionally damaged by the WTS and might vent beyond what is comfortable for an active JW. Try to put yourself in their position. Of course we have *all* been in *your* position.

  You must also realize that when you refuse to answer uncomfortable questions, and this repeatedly, this will not endear you with those asking these questions.

  I hope the JW lurkers have taken note.

  I am sure they have Thirdwitness, but not for the reason that you hope. You have put up a very courageous attempt to bolster the WTS version of history, which as you know is not backed by any other scholarly authority on the planet. I admire your resiliance in being willing to take on so many critics on your own. The problem is that you are arguing a flawed argument, from a flawed source and thus will never have success. Even arguing from the Biblical viewpoint, your points have been dealt with point-by-point. This is what JW lurkers have noted. If otherwise, perhaps you might post to the board any comments from 'lurkers' that you might receive.

  Perhaps it is time to take my leave at least for now since this does not seem to be a place for serious and honest discussions.

  You must realize that given the enormous amount of work that has been posted to this board in refutation of your hypothesis, most of it scholarly and serious, this sounds like an admission of defeat, apart of course from being disengenous. This is a WTS trick which assumes that all opposing arguments have no merit to begin with, and subsequently anybody who defends an opposing argument is not interested in 'serious and honest' discussions. You must understand that you are dealing with people who have used this trick in the past, but will not give way to such intellectual dishonesty now that we have removed ourselves from cultic thinking.

  For myself, I hope that you stay here as long as you wish I believe you are doing JW lurkers a great kindness, and by default you are teaching many that the Bible is an unreliable book from the historically and chronological vantage.

  HS
• 

  AuldSoul

  Lurkers, please take note:

  First off the Adad Guppi does not say the temple was ruined. It says the people and city. Also the Adad guppi is probably based on the BM Chronicle and the writer assumes, as you have, that the temple was destroyed. But the BM chronicle in no way says the temple was destroyed but only that 'vast booty was taken from the temple and city." So even if the Adad guppi said that the temple itself was ruined (which it doesn't) that would really prove nothing. Does everything Jehovah inspires prophets to speak come about exactly as prophesied, yes or no?Yes, unless stipulations are made or Jehovah has reason to change it and in that case we are told about the reasons for the change as in the case of Nineveh. But please bring forth your point. I assume you are going to show us that what he prophecies does not always come true exactly as prophecied. And then you are going to connect that to the 40 year desolation of Egypt.
  If the Watchtower Society changed it doctrine regarding the destruction of Solomon's Temple, stating that it occurred in 647 BC, would you also change your arguments accordingly, yes or no?
  I would have to see the reason why the change was being made.
  If the Governing Body had gone along with the proposal to move the invisible return of Christ to 1934 AD (the second such move for this event), and correspondingly moved the date for the fall of Solomon's Temple to 587 BC, would you also change your arguments accordingly, yes or no?
  I would again have to see the reason why the change was being made.

  The answer to each question can be summed up with two words, "It depends." BTW, how many Scriptures did thirdwitness use in his answers?

  thirdwitness: You should take note that all my answers come from the Bible. You do not see me quoting WT's to prove my points but you see me quoting the Bible.

  How can these be reconciled?

  If there is not an unqualified affirmative response to the first question, then thirdwitness' appeal to the Scriptures as an authority is automatically suspect. If he does not believe 100% of Jehovah's prophecies are fulfilled exactly as prophesied, then he admits he picks and chooses (on whatever basis he deems appropriate) which prophecies MUST be fulfilled to the letter and which do not require such strict fulfillment.

  It is no accident that his basis for interpreting which prophecies are which is identical to the basis used by the Watchtower Society. Does anyone know by what name we call the practice of using someone else's reasoning without crediting them? Can someone help me out with that word?

  AuldSoul
• 

  AlanF

  AuldSoul said:

  : Does anyone know by what name we call the practice of using someone else's reasoning without crediting them? Can someone help me out with that word?

  In the case of Watchtower drones, how about "suckup"?

  AlanF
• 

  jayhawk1

  It is no accident that his basis for interpreting which prophecies are which is identical to the basis used by the Watchtower Society. Does anyone know by what name we call the practice of using someone else's reasoning without crediting them? Can someone help me out with that word?

  Merriam-Webster Dictionary

  plagiarize Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&- Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing Etymology: plagiary transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source - pla·gia·riz·er noun
• 

  Pricilla

  Why does this board (http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/read.php?t=2371&reply=9#msg9) carry on discussions from JWD? What gives?
• 

  Fisherman

  Thirdwitness, what makes you say that? In my opinion, you have successfully shown that the HS does not disprove the year 607 as Jerusalem's fall. However, since wts predictions have failed so far, there seems to be something wrong with the dates or patterns.
• 

  AlanF

  Fisherman said:

  : In my opinion, you have successfully shown that the HS does not disprove the year 607 as Jerusalem's fall.

  How can you possible say that, in view of the fact that ALL of thirdwitness' arguments have been shown to be nothing but red herrings and "what ifs"?

  For your opinion to be worth anything, you should be able to concisely list exactly what you think shows that the Hillah stele does not disprove the 607 date.

  AlanF
• 

  AuldSoul

  Fisherman,

  In my opinion, you have successfully shown that the HS does not disprove the year 607 as Jerusalem's fall.

  Just because thirdwitness can conjecture that Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year is the 16th year referred to doesn't mean that his conjecture has merit. In order to establish that possibility he must demonstrate how it is that the business transactions of the Neo-Babylonian empire ceased completely for some 20 years between Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year and Nabonidus' first year. We can actually narrow down the timing of this missing 20 years quite a lot further.

  From the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (or 7th according to Neo-Babylonian reckoning, if Jeremiah counted the accession year in non-Babylonian fashion) until the accession year of Evil-Merodach is at least 36 years and no more than 37 years. (Jeremiah 52:31-34) If you count the accession year Nebuchadnezzar should have 44 years less 8 years of reign remaining after Jehoiachin's exile. If you don't count the accession year it Nebuchadnezzar would have 43 years less 7 years remaining. Either way, Nebuchadnezzar had 36 years of reign remaining after Jehoiachin's exile. Jeremiah states that it was during the accession year of Evil-Merodach that Jehoiachin was released from the prison house. Which confirms secular chronology for the length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

  The Watchtower Society is completely confident that the Hillah Stele was created in 555 BC and they are equally confident that the secularly determined length of Nabonidus' reign is correct (because otherwise, Babylon did not fall in 539 BC). Thirdwitness is completely confident of these facts, as well.

  Therefore, the missing twenty years MUST fall between the accession year of Evil-Merodach and the accession year of Nabonidus (554 BC). For ANY of thirdwitness' arguments to have merit he MUST account for the complete absence of 20 years worth of business transactions of any kind between the accession year of Evil-Merodach and the accession year of Nabonidus. Until he (or someone) has done so, it remains a fact that 607 BC cannot possibly be the correct year for the destruction of Solomon's Temple.

  It is one thing to raise questions, it is quite another to assert facts and leave them open for challenge. I am going to do something you don't see often from thirdwitness et.al. I am going to assert a fact. Because of the overwhelming volume of dated business contracts and transactions available for every year of reign for each Neo-Babylonian king except Labashi-Marduk (who did not have any regnal years) I can assert with an extremely high degree of confidence that there would be business transaction for the missing 20 years if the missing twenty years ever existed.

  The "gap" is not in secular chronology, the "gap" is in the evidence presented by those forcing a fulfillment of prophecy into history where it doesn't belong. It is a gaping chasm that will never be filled by the Watchtower Society or its supporters.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Fisherman

  Alan:

  All of 3w arguments have not been shown to be red herrings and what ifs. For my opinion to be worth anything, I don't have to be able to list concisely exactly what I think shows that the hs does not disprove the 607 date.

  AS:

  Great post in my opinion. I never heard about th HS before, thanks. I read both sides of the discussion, yours and 3w. In my opinion, 3w won. At first, I thought that you had a strong case, but after listening objectively to 3w, I became convinced of his conclusion. I do not think that ad hominin helps your argument. You have not been able to discredit his argument and his conclusion. After reading all of your information and 3w, I am convinced, again as I have previously stated, that the HS does not disprove the 607 date.