All one has to do in that organization to be a scholar is lie, they must not can think for their self or they could answer simple questions like, When was King Neb. 1st year to rule, How will you respond when society drops 1914, How can Daniel be taken in 618 and taken again in 617. They are only scholars because they say they are.
Need help disproving 607BCE
by 2pink 160 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
The Oracle
Newsflash: The society is contemplating how they can spin a change in their date of 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.
The pattern is clear. As soon as secular evidence becomes well established, you only need to count about 30 years in to the future and the "society" will quietly align its views with the secular authorities.
Evidence: Length of creative days. WT teachings were abandoned about 30 years after mainstream science had, for all intents and purposes, declared WT teachings on this matter as ridiculous.
Evidence: The water canopy. When was the last time the WT wrote an article about the ridiculously unscientif conept of the water canopy that "ruptured at both poles creating a deep freeze at the north and south poles" and that lead to the flood of Noah's day?
The Oracle
-
Alwayshere
Hope you right about 607 being changed.
-
garyneal
Well, according to Raymond Franz, the Society was at one time contemplating replacing 1914 with 1957 tying the events of Sputnik with scripture. If they had of went through with it, we would not even be having this discussion today.
-
garyneal
I think oracle is right in that the society will eventually accept the secular evidence and drop 607 B.C.E. eventually. However, I think this will not happen until after they downplay the significance of 1914 to the point to where it is all but forgotten.
-
scholar
Leolaia
Post 13769
I based my comment concerning Ezra's authorship of Chronicles because of the comments on the history of the Chronicler's History Hypothesis in the DOTHB, 2005,p. 157. In the Introduction to this discussion the history this theory when it first began in 1832. Dissenting voices to this theory first appeared in 1935 but it was not until 1968 that substatntial voices against the theory were raised so that the situation changed.
The literature on this subject is somewhat large emerging first from about the year 2000 and I have not yet caught up with everything published about this subject. What information that I have collected indicates much interest in Judah during the Late Judean period where the Myth of an Empty Land is now the subject of serious debate. I disagree with your opinion that the land was not empty during the Exile and that there is scholarly consensus on the subject. Such academic debate I believe is moving in a direction more in harmony with biblical history and the Society's presentation of matters.
scholar JW
-
The Oracle
hey garyneal: exactly.
That is the way they do it.
That is what makes it rather disgusting. It is obviously pre-meditated. It isn't a flash of light at all.
It is well calculated manipulation and mind control because they begin the process many months and often times many years in advance.
The generation maneuver is a classic example. It was pre-meditated. They stopped mentioning the generation teaching for many many months before they sprung the change on everyone. They often do this before they do an about face on a certain teaching.
The Oracle
-
OUTLAW
The literature on this subject is somewhat large emerging first from about the year 2000
and I have not yet caught up with everything published about this subject.....Scholar
Scholar..
Your having trouble catching up from the year 2,000..
I have Bad News for you..
In 55 days..
It will be..
2010..
...................... ...OUTLAW
-
Leolaia
I based my comment concerning Ezra's authorship of Chronicles because of the comments on the history of the Chronicler's History Hypothesis in the DOTHB, 2005,p. 157. In the Introduction to this discussion the history this theory when it first began in 1832. Dissenting voices to this theory first appeared in 1935 but it was not until 1968 that substatntial voices against the theory were raised so that the situation changed.
Dissenting voices to the theory that Ezra was the Chronicler did not first appear in 1935; I already referred you to an 1899 textbook that presented same view as the modern consensus (that the Chronicler lived in the late fourth century BC), and this book even referred to it as the majority view way back in the late 1800s.
Sorry I don't have a copy of the DOTHB.
I disagree with your opinion that the land was not empty during the Exile and that there is scholarly consensus on the subject. Such academic debate I believe is moving in a direction more in harmony with biblical history and the Society's presentation of matters.
Whether or not there is a consensus, there is decided movement towards a consensus that the land was not empty rather than in the direction towards your own beliefs. The contributors to Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (2003), ed. by Lipschits and Blenkinsopp, at least, are in general agreement that the land was not devoid of inhabitants. Even the contributor who most vocally defends the older archaeological view of the "Babylonian gap", Bustenay Oded, agrees that "all the lines of evidence converge to the conclusion that Judah was not an empty land, a tabula rasa, during the exilic period" (p. 71).
-
Doug Mason
SCHOLAR: The seventy years of Zechariah these clearly ended in 537 BCE.
DOUG: You know that the WTS is incapable of knowing which BCE year the Jews returned.
SCHOLAR: The seventy years as a finite period of desolation-exile-servitude which could only have ended at the time of the Jews returning home.
DOUG: While the WTS starts their Seventy Years with a supposed removal of every human from the land, they DO NOT end it when the Jews returned but they wait until the Returnees had settled in their respective towns and then met few months later at the temple site.
SCHOLAR: 539 BCE is astronomically fixed as well explained in Insight On The Scriptures, 1988, Vol.1.p.353.
DOUG: Well, that was a wild goose chase. It reminded me of the false statements made in the “Aid” book in chronology. I found statements at pages 447-467 of the said Insight volume. Let’s just pause a moment and consider the relevant parts.
After ridiculing historians such as Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, et al, and the Babylonian tablets, the famed WT writer then turns around and relies on them to support the date for the Fall of Babylon. The Insight author writes:
“ Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus , Africanus , Eusebius , and Ptolemy , as well as the Babylonian tablets.)”
Insight does refer (selectively, I suggest) to the eclipse records of Cambyses, relying on the calculations of Oppolzer. They ignore what else Oppolzer wrote. Then to get to 539 BCE for the date of Babylon’s Fall, the author relies on the secular chronology of the period (which it does not support), citing sources such as Parker and Dubberstein, who in turn state they rely on the Babylonian tablets, aided by Ptolemy’s Canon.
It is worth citing just one piece from the article in the article from Insight
“It is very probable that [Cyrus’] decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would permit the Jews time to make necessary preparations, effect the four-month journey to Jerusalem, and still arrive there by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E.”.
This looks more like hope than fact. If this famed WT Scholar can’t prove the BCE year that Jews returned, what hope does someone else have? Further, the author ignores what the “Babylon” book said about Darius having a “First Year” by himself before Cyrus came to the throne of Babylon.
SCHOLAR: Tensions between the city and country folk are just a small part of the tapestry of Late Judean history and have no bearing on the theology, history and chronology of that period.
DOUG: These tensions played the dominant role in the antagonism between the priests who wanted their Yahwist religion to be centred at Jerusalem and the country folk who worshiped several deities at various “high places” around the country. And these opponents of the Yahwists were determined to continue their practices after Jerusalem and towns had been destroyed (Jer. 44:1-23). The writers of Scripture defined whether a monarch was good or evil on the basis of their allegiance to the priests at Jerusalem and their prophets. This tension was no small byplay.
SCHOLAR: It is best to get your house in order before you attack another’s.
DOUG: I’ll let that statement go through to the keeper (backstop).
SCHOLAR: Jeremiah did not assign a precise date or event for the beginning of the seventy years but he gave a formula.
DOUG: He gave a formula for telling when the Seventy Years would come to an end – Babylon’s Fall, because the period related to Babylon’s regional dominance and the consequential servitude by all its vassal states.
SCHOLAR: Archaeology is in a state of flux and since the year 2000 scholarship is slowly moving more towards and acknowledgement of 'An Empty Land'.
DOUG: The opposite of being in “a state of flux” is to have one's head set in concrete, unable to learn and to adjust accordingly. At least archaeologists are prepared to learn.
I suggest that the flux – the trend – demonstrated by archaeology is moving in the direction opposite to that of the inflexible WTS writers. I have recently read several books which acknowledge that archaeology consistently shows the land was never totally devoid of humans. All agree that the land remained inhabited to some degree.
As an example from Scripture, when the Returnees set up at the temple site they were surrounded by those antagonistic people who had remained behind while these Exiles were in Babylon. This tension continued, as is illustrated by Ezra’s bizarre behaviour and his demand for ritual purity, since the “People of the Land” who had remained behind did not fit his fundamentalist vision.
Finally, I suggest that one either accepts historiography, as ably described in DOTHB, or not. It is not possible selectively accept historiography only when it is convenient. We must approach Scripture through the culture of the times it was written and edited, not through the eyes of today’s culture.
Once more, should anyone wish to see part of the article from DOTHB, I have made it available at:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Historiography.pdf
This is just part of an article that covers 8 pages. DOTHB (Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books) is one in a series of Dictionaries published by IVP. These books are an invaluable resource for the serious student.
Doug
