More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society

by Jeffro 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  There are expositors who also think the Darius referred to at Neh. 12:22 is Darius II (Nothus). I wouldn't solely lay this identification at the WTS's door nor be hasty to say they are mistaken this time.

  See http://biblecommenter.com/nehemiah/12-22.htm

  The NIV Bible Commentary (1994) I have simply says:

  "Darius the Persian" was either Darius II (423-404 B.C.) or, less probably, Darius III (335-331 B.C.), the king whose empire Alexander the Great conquered.

  The New Jerusalem Study Bible also tags him as Darius II.

  Some think Josephus' account was unreliable here. One of the Elephantine Papyrii indicates that a 'Bagoses' lived in Darius II's time. I haven't examined it in detail, but there's enough to show there's more to this question than meets the eye.

  And there are different interpretations on how to count the 'weeks of years' to Jesus the Messiah, or who gave the 'word' to rebuild Jerusalem and when.

  Just to add: The WTS is provably wrong in dating Artaxerxes I's 20th year to 455 BCE, and is confused on the kings mentioned in Ezra 4-6.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Lars, m'fave muppet you're doing it again. Repeating yourself - at length. We've heard it a zillion times before. We reject your revised chronology for reasons we have given you a zillion times before. Knowing that posting and discussion history, try, just please TRY, to make your points brief and directly pertinent to the subject at hand. Pretty please?

  Nevertheless, in your long, repetitive post you have made Jeffro's point. You show that history is unreliable in only the places you say it is and for flimsy, fantastical reasons eminating from your head.
• 

  Emery

  Lars, everytime I see your long convoluted posts on chronology I immediately skip them...seriously. So please like AnnOMaly said, keep it short, sweet, and simple.
• 

  Terry

  "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." H. L. Mencken said that. He should know, he was at the Scopes Monkey Trial.

  It equally applies to the intelligence of Jehovah's Witness rank and file members who are kept so busy they have little time to fret about chronology correctitude.

  When in doubt--you rely on TRUST. And who do we trust if we are a JW? Mother!

  Like a good criminal defense lawyer, the Watchtower leadership only has to create plausible reasonable DOUBT that secular authorities are wrong.
• 

  Jeffro

  Emery:

  Lars, everytime I see your long convoluted posts on chronology I immediately skip them...seriously. So please like AnnOMaly said, keep it short, sweet, and simple.

  Yep. I'm not reading them at all this time either. Hopefully Simon can just delete his posts.
• 

  The Quiet One

  Why Lars hasn't been banned for spamming nonsense, I don't know. Entertainment value?
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  There are expositors who also think the Darius referred to at Neh. 12:22 is Darius II (Nothus). I wouldn't solely lay this identification at the WTS's door nor be hasty to say they are mistaken this time. ... The New Jerusalem Study Bible also tags him as Darius II.

  I completely agree that this error isn't just 'a JW thing'. As I said in an earlier post, various Christian groups incorrectly posit Daniel chapter 9 as a 'Messianic prophecy' pointing to 'Jesus'. Similarly, as with many of their basic dotrines, the JW view about the reference to Darius at Nehemiah 12:22 is not original, but is borrowed from earlier groups.
• 

  Simon

  Larsinger58: I think you're done.
• 

  Fencing

  How much faith can really be put in Josephus' writings about history, in general? I know his more contemporary subjects are considered very valuable insights into first-century Judaism and Christianity, but he was also writing about things that happened several centuries distant to his lifetime. I can see the value as a sort of window into what first-century Jews thought about their own history, but how accurate has it really been found?
• 

  Jeffro

  Fencing:

  I can see the value as a sort of window into what first-century Jews thought about their own history, but how accurate has it really been found?

  There are definitely errors in Josephus' works. But when his works correspond with (or do not contradict) other sources, I see little reason to doubt them.