here we go again!
Another 20 pager?
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AlanF
Oy vay! Scholar pretendus returns, after having been thoroughly whipped after his last round of nonsensical postings last summer.
For the benefit of thinking readers, the passage in 2 Chronicles that Jeffro quotes, clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar "carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign." Now, Cyrus the Persian began to reign over Babylon shortly after his armies conquered it in October, 539 B.C.E. Even the Watchtower Society acknowledges that Cyrus' 1st regnal year began shortly after that, in the spring (Nisan) of 538 B.C.E. Therefore, the Society also admits that Cyrus' accession year encompassed 539 B.C.E. Therefore, "the royalty of Persia began to reign" in 539 B.C.E. Therefore, the Jews whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried off to Babylon were no longer "servants to him and his sons" after 539 B.C.E. -- just as common sense tells us. Therefore, the 70 years of servitude of the Jews to Babylon mentioned in Jeremiah 25:11, 12 ended in 539 B.C.E. -- not in 537, as the Watchtower Society and scholar pretendus pretend.
Of course, you'll never see these scholastically dishonest people admitting that the Bible and secular history actually agree here. This point has been brought up ad nauseum to scholar pretendus, and he simply ignores it. The same goes for those "celebrated WT scholars" he loves to laud.
Another simple point that scholar pretendus has proved thoroughly dishonest about by failing to admit, is that Josephus and the book of Ezra prove that the Jews returned to Jerusalem in 538 B.C.E. -- not in 537 B.C.E. as the Watchtower Society claims. This means that "the 70 years of Jeremiah" did not end in 537 and could not have begun in 607, trashing the Society's entire claim about "the Gentile times" and 1914. The Society has never even attempted to argue this point, but simply makes a bald claim that the Jews returned in 537. I proved all of this in my post http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/118291/1.ashx , which scholar pretendus ultimately ran away from, again proving his scholastic dishonesty.
You'll never see Watchtower apologists like scholar pretendus following through and completely dealing with all the issues. Rather, they use hit and run tactics, always failing to deal with the crucial issues that they know they have no arguments to refute.
AlanF
-
slimboyfat
scholar and AlanF return on the same say!
Certainly fuel to the fire for the conspiracy theorists among us.
Slim (of the "calm down, I'm only yanking yer chain" class)
-
stillajwexelder
SPGB returns - not posted since August 26th and I might have guessed it - on the old 607 BCE chestnut. Well I give you credit for persistence.
By the way, may I ask what you think of the 1935 news - I mean you think the WTS has flawless chronolgy and although I dont want to get off topic I am curious about what you think of the ""adjustment"" in 1935 thinking. Do you think the old 607/1914 might be ""adjusted""" also
-
scholar
Jeffro
Post 1543
Your accusation that the NWT's rendering of 2 Chronicles 36:21is badly punctuated andnot honestly presented is plainly false. The rendering of the NWT is in agreement with RSV which reads similarly. Your statement that the sentence attributed to Jeremiah is shown parenthetically in the NIV is not shown in my NIV Study Bible, 1995 nor is it presented in parenthgesis in the NIV edition cited by Ross Winkle in his journal article on the seventy years published in 1987. So, what NIV edition are you using in order to support your accusation?
Commentators agree that the Jeremiah sentence is a citation of Jeremiah 25:11; 29:10 conjoined with Lev 26:34 so the rendering as it appears is valid unless you can demonstrate that the Chronicler was mistaken on this matter.Therefore there is no need of any parenthesis in this text as you demand because the only Bible that I am aware that has such parenthesis is a Swedish translation published 1917.
scholar JW
-
ozziepost
Welcome back, scholar!!!!
Life was so dull here without you.
-
scholar
Jeffro
1544
The brilliance of the NWT is shown by its careful rtendering of Jeremiah 29:10 recognizing the simple fact that the simple Hebrew preposition has a wide semantic range and can properly be rendered as 'at' rather than 'for' which is in harmony with the context of Chapter 29 but also the whole book of Jeremiah. The context is clearly addressed to those exiles living in Babylon during the seventy years already commenced.
You say the Bible never mentions a period of seventy years of exile my response to this nonsense is that the Bible never mentions a period of seventy years of servitude or that the seventy years refers to a period of Babylonian supremacy or that the seventy years when the Babylonian king and his nation were punished that is in 539 BCE or that the seventy years of servitude began many years before the destruction of Jerusalem, All of these conclusions are simply interpretations. Wiley poztates have there own views so do the celebrated WT scholars and so does scholarship.
No, I did not lie about a tabulation of the Neo-Babylonian kings being made by my goodself for I could construct any number of models because the date is not consistent thus making any proposed tabulation problematic so why would one bother. The twenty year gap exists because of the seventy year for the Babylonian scribes did not account for it whereas the Jweish scribes faithfully recorded such a fixed historic period.
I repeat you have one bigggggggggg pwoblem.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Alan F
4942
Your response to my posts proves the resurrection as you have similar retreated over last several months. You only appear on this board when I post so you pay me the greatest of compliments. The truth of the matter is that I have simply moved house and that is very unsettling and a nuisance. Now down to business.
Your exegesis of 2 Chronicles 36:20 is absurd for the next has nothing to say about Babylon, its last ruler or 539 for that matter. Ezra defines quite clearly in verses 22-23 that it was the first year of Cyrus was when the royalty of Persia began to reign and no other circumstance is possible. Further, the exiles were still captive in Babylon and were still serving a new king of Babylon on and after 539. Also, the land of Judah remained a desolate place in 539 as the exiles had then not yet returned. So, the biblical evidence destroys your specious theory. Josephus on numerous occasions states that the seventy years ran from the Fall to the Return under Cyrus so this supports the Bible and the view of the celebrated WT scholars.
Your special theory that the Jews returned home in 538 BCE is based upon your specific model whereas we have selected a model that gives 537 BCE for the Return so it is simply a matter of modelling based upon how one uses the availkable biblical and secular evidence. The question that you choose to ignore is that if it is the case that the Society is demonstrably wrong regarding 537 BCE for the Return then why is it the case that Jonsson has not throughly exposed such a blatant error? Jonsson is rather cautious in this matter relying on slight evidence from two minor sources by way of a footnote. I put it to you that the 537.BCE model is reasonable and there can be no room for dogmatism. Why is it also the case that amongst many reference works that there is no definite date for the Return of the Exiles? If you are so confident about your model and proposed date of 538 BCE then please alert the world of biblical scholarship to this new light and have it published. Your bald claim of 538 BCE for the Return amounts to intellectual dishonesty.
Perhaps you should alert Doug Mason to your new light as he posted research on this matter but if my memory serves me correctly I do recall that he proposes an alternative. Must go and check.
You will never see wiley poztates tackle the difficult issues or follow through with thorough research by publishing anything of value to scholarship for all they do is be critical of the ground-breaking research provided by the celebrated WT scholars and the FDS.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
I'll let AlanF reply to the points that 'scholar' addresses to him, but I couldn't resist laughing at a few of the most pathetic points...
...Josephus on numerous occasions states that the seventy years ran from the Fall to the Return under Cyrus so this supports the Bible and the view of the celebrated WT scholars.
'scholar' still hasn't even attempted to explain why Josephus' comment regarding the 182.5 years aligns precisely with my reckoning completely by co-incidence and highlights the Society's erroneous 20 year gap. Of course, there simply is nothing he can say to validly counteract it.
Your special theory that the Jews returned home in 538 BCE is based upon your specific model whereas we have selected a model that gives 537 BCE for the Return so it is simply a matter of modelling based upon how one uses the availkable biblical and secular evidence. The question that you choose to ignore is that if it is the case that the Society is demonstrably wrong regarding 537 BCE for the Return then why is it the case that Jonsson has not throughly exposed such a blatant error? Jonsson is rather cautious in this matter relying on slight evidence from two minor sources by way of a footnote. I put it to you that the 537.BCE model is reasonable and there can be no room for dogmatism. Why is it also the case that amongst many reference works that there is no definite date for the Return of the Exiles? If you are so confident about your model and proposed date of 538 BCE then please alert the world of biblical scholarship to this new light and have it published. Your bald claim of 538 BCE for the Return amounts to intellectual dishonesty.
It isn't that 'scholar' uses merely a different model - his 'model' has been completely disproved by the facts of Josephus and Ezra. Even more laughably, 'scholar' makes an attack on AlanF for not relying on Jonsson, as if Jonsson is some 'holy grail' on this subject, though 'scholar' usually asserts that anything against the watchtower hypothesis is Jonsson's work. I didn't need to use Jonsson as a source for my research, and I have debunked every point 'scholar' ever raised.
You will never see wiley poztates tackle the difficult issues or follow through with thorough research by publishing anything of value to scholarship for all they do is be critical of the ground-breaking research provided by the celebrated WT scholars and the FDS.
'scholar' is yet to raise any element of this issue that I have not only "tackled", but also for which he has not been able to provide any valid rebuttal.
-
penny2
Is WTS chronology flawed?
I go to my WTS reference book. Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God. Page 35 - the last page of a chart of "significant dates".
1975 ..... End of 6th 1,000-year day of man's existence (in early autumn)
2975 ..... End of 7th 1,000-year day of man's existence (in early autumn).
WTS chronology was flawed in 1966 when this was written. It wasn't "the truth". It was a lie. Everything since then has been a patch up of a lie.
penny2