Marked
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows
by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Diest
Is there a good thread on the WTS use of terrible and misleading quotes. I still think of the Jeramiah books conflating Elizat Mizir's work with 607 when she had said 587.
-
MeanMrMustard
Woooow.... I honestly thought the WT was going to try a fade and rework of 1914 in light of sheer amount of work that's been done to bury it. Guess not.
I would watch http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/epage.htm (Carl Olof Jonsson's page) in the coming months. I bet he'll have an article on it, tearing it to shreds - not that it would be that hard, as this thread shows.
-
sd-7
The initial problem I noticed was that the Society throws a big red herring in saying that Jeremiah's prophecy in Jeremiah 25 had to do only with Jerusalem. They completely ignore the context of that chapter, which shows clearly that Jeremiah is referring to SEVERAL OTHER NATIONS as part of the 70-year prophecy. "All these nations" can't be referring only to Jerusalem. Jeremiah goes on to prophesy against several other nations which totally backs up what I just said--it's about more than just Jerusalem.
The other problem is the notion that there are only two sources of evidence supporting 587 B.C. As has been demonstrated in the earlier posts here, even with those two sources the Society was forced to quote scholars out of context to support their arguments.
Also, the notion that Daniel calculated the end of the 70 years is an assumption. The scripture does not say he determined when the 70 years would begin and end. It just says that he determined that the desolations upon Jerusalem would last 70 years by reading what Jeremiah wrote.
The logic of counting backwards to arrive at a date when you could easily just look at the historical evidence--which you have to do ANYWAY to arrive at a date to count BACKWARDS from to begin with, since the Bible says no dates at all--just shows that it's just something they want/need to believe.
But yeah, this is too deep for most JWs to process anyway. I sure had trouble when I was researching this subject myself, but I feel like the Bible's internal evidence makes 607 completely implausible anyway--since it's unlikely Daniel just happened to live to the age of 100 as the Society has claimed. It'd make more sense if he was around 80 by the end of his writings--how many 100-year-olds even of our time still have full mental capacity enough to write down detailed information?
But just Jeremiah alone creates problems for the WTS reasoning. They didn't bother to explain why the New World Translation says "at Babylon" instead of "for Babylon", because they know it's an unjustifiable alteration of the text to serve their interpretations.
Seriously. I find it hard to imagine why they would bring up something so dangerous to their constituency, save that they know it's over the heads of 90% of their members.
--sd-7
-
wannabefree
I find it hard to imagine why they would bring up something so dangerous to their constituency, save that they know it's over the heads of 90% of their members.
Perhaps they know this and it is all about sifting.
The 90% who are bobble heads will bobble heartily at the explanation, the ones who have questioned and are irritated by the shallow and flawed answer presented will rise to the top and be sifted out, once gone these rabbel rousers will be labeled as apostate and can not continue to infect the bobble heads, thereby cleansing God's Organization once again. Praise be to the Governing Body.
-
outsmartthesystem
Here's a gem for you all:
This article uses the cuneiform tablet BM 33066 to prove that Babylon fell in 539BC. Yet the Watchtower also says this in teh Feb 1, 1969 WT (p89-92)
"And what about the cuneiform tablets themselves? How accurate are they? Can they always be depended upon?"
Those questions were answered by bringing out that these tablets that have been found may have been copies made from earlier damaged texts.
Incredibly, the OCt 1, 2011 WT....in the very same box that touts the BM 33066 admits that it contains errors!
Don't you just love how for one argument they will tout a piece of evidence showing that history confirms their theories. Then for another argument that doesn’t fit their theories they will demonize that evidence….questioning its authenticity or accuracy?
Why was I so blind to this reasoning of theirs for so many years?
-
MeanMrMustard
@sd-7:
You wrote:
The initial problem I noticed was that the Society throws a big red herring in saying that Jeremiah's prophecy in Jeremiah 25 had to do only with Jerusalem. They completely ignore the context of that chapter, which shows clearly that Jeremiah is referring to SEVERAL OTHER NATIONS as part of the 70-year prophecy. "All these nations" can't be referring only to Jerusalem. Jeremiah goes on to prophesy against several other nations which totally backs up what I just said--it's about more than just Jerusalem.
I agree. Things have changed a great deal since the time of Freddy Franz. At least then they were consistent. They were still dead wrong, but Freddy kept everything consistent. When the Jeremiah book came out in 2010, I was looking forward to a verse-by-verse discussion of it, similar to what they did with Isaiah. I wanted to see how they handled the clear grammar of Jeremiah 25. But they bailed for a "lets-just-look-at-the-principles-in Jeremiah" view. Nevertheless, on pp. 162, they wrote:
16 Jehovah proclaimed through Jeremiah that the Jews would serve the Babylonians for 70 years. Then God would bring his people back to their land. (Read Jeremiah 25:8-11; 29:10.) Daniel had full confidence in this prophecy, and he used it to determine when "the devastations of Jerusalem" would end. (Dan. 9:2) "That Jehovah's word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," stated Ezra, "Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia," who had conquered Babylon, to restore the Jews to their land. (Ezra 1:1-4) The returnees could thereafter exult in the peace of their homeland and restore pure worship there, as Jeremiah had foretold. - Jer. 30:8-10; 31:3, 11 , 12; 32:37.
I find this paragraph interesting for several reasons: 1) the writer clearly recognized that the verb "serve" was attached to the 70 years, not desolation. 2) the event order was correct - namely that when the 70 years ended, God would bring his people back to their land, which means the 70 years ended before they went back to their land, not after. 3) They admit the meaning of Daniel 9:2 is not that the devastations would last 70 years, but that once the 70 years ended, the end of the devastations would then follow. However, the writer still missed that Jeremiah 25 was speaking of many nations (plural).
Also, the notion that Daniel calculated the end of the 70 years is an assumption. The scripture does not say he determined when the 70 years would begin and end. It just says that he determined that the desolations upon Jerusalem would last 70 years by reading what Jeremiah wrote.
You get that sort of idea from the NIV, which says the devastations would last 70 years. But even in the NWT or the NASB, you don't have to get that idea. It can be read that Daniel decerned from Jeremiah that the seventy years would fulfill the devastations on Jerusalem - or that once the 70 years ended, the devastations could be fulfilled - which does agree with Jeremiah.
The logic of counting backwards to arrive at a date when you could easily just look at the historical evidence--which you have to do ANYWAY to arrive at a date to count BACKWARDS from to begin with, since the Bible says no dates at all--just shows that it's just something they want/need to believe.
But yeah, this is too deep for most JWs to process anyway. I sure had trouble when I was researching this subject myself, but I feel like the Bible's internal evidence makes 607 completely implausible anyway--since it's unlikely Daniel just happened to live to the age of 100 as the Society has claimed. It'd make more sense if he was around 80 by the end of his writings--how many 100-year-olds even of our time still have full mental capacity enough to write down detailed information?
But just Jeremiah alone creates problems for the WTS reasoning. They didn't bother to explain why the New World Translation says "at Babylon" instead of "for Babylon", because they know it's an unjustifiable alteration of the text to serve their interpretations.
I completely agree. I find it very odd (but somewhat expected) that they make it seem like the only evidence for 587 is Berosus and Ptolemy, and that's the entire body of evidence non-607-believers depend on.
MeanMrMustard
-
diamondiiz
Most witnesses have no clue about the date controversy. WTS putting this deceptive piece of crap in the public version will be overlooked by majority of witnesses as many DO NOT read cover to cover magazines but only quickly prepare for the "service" day. This article IMO is only for few witnesses who were told about 607 problem from others and while they still are under WTS control will eat this shit up. This article will not affect any witness with an open mind who studied the topic nor will it affect anyone who is smart enough to investigate the date, meaning anyone who isn't 100% loyal to GB. We make a big deal about this article as we know why WTS came out with it but really I don't think it will be a big deal for the general r&f.
The whole article is propaganda written in a typical way where they put doubt in the reader's mind when it comes to trusting outside sources while elevate their stupid theory. They use words like "generally accepted" as if there is a division in the scholarly circles as to the 587BC date. It would not surprise me if they used some of Furuli's work or ideas in their part 2 to support 607. They point out or misrepresent past mistakes of others while ignoring the facts about their own shortcomings and their own out of context quotes. This article has no value other than showing that Babylon fell in 539BC which no one argues this point, other than that it just pure nonsense.
-
garyneal
Bottom line, what do the secular scholars have to lose if 586/7 is wrong?
What does the Watchtower Society have to lose if 607 is wrong?
If 607 is correct, why did their older publications say 606?
If 606 is their best date back in the early days of the Watchtower, how did they justify it?
Why did the Watchtower Society change it to 607 later on?
I wonder if any Jehovah's Witness can provide any material to answer these questions.
-
Magwitch
Around the early 80's I was visiting relatives in Chicago who were "Apostates". My uncle started arguing with my father over the 607 date. I just thought "who cares about Jerusalem and a date, the truth is the truth and we will soon be in the paradise."
I am sure this is the general thinking of most Jdubs when they hear about a date controversy. They just do not care.