by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible
THX, Londo... for the idea/ link... a very good series, arp7601 does a very nice job (only made it thru #1, so far) ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOjmHne4iyk&feature=c4-overview&playnext=1&list=TLbmeC6mEPIHU
I like that fact that the WT is onlyhung by their very.... own.... words...
cha ching
2+2=5 The WT 11/01/11 page23.. the "Note"... right above the picture (on the left) says:
"None of the secular experts quoted in this article hold that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E."
Regarding the Egibi business records? check out page 24, same WT, footnote at bottom of 2nd column.. written in oh so small letters:
I've just been adding early Babylonian rulers (i.e. prior to the Neo-Babylonian period) to my Bible-based chart of the Divided Monarchy. I had never previously bothered to check the reign of Marduki-apla-iddina II, aka Merodach-Baladan (Isaiah 39:1 & 2 Kings 20:12 [as Berodach-Baladan]), reported in the Bible as a Babylonian king who wrote to Hezekiah after got sick. The Bible says that Hezekiah got sick, but then had fifteen years added. In my chart, Hezekiah dies in 687 BCE, and fifteen years earlier is 702 BCE.
So, the big question is, would I have any problems fitting in this previously ignored king into my chart? Of course, for dishonest souces like the Watch Tower Society (and its cronies such as pseudo-scholar), they just make up years because they don't care about secular sources. But I neither need nor want such a 'luxury'.
Secular sources give two periods of reign to Marduki-apla-iddina II. The first is from 722 to 710 BCE (contemporary with Sargon) - too early for my chart. But the second period is a 9-month reign contemporary with Sennacherib spanning 703 and 702 BCE. No shoe-horning, no justifications, no special pleading. It just works.
The book, Israel and Babylon (page 33), as quoted in The Watchtower, 15 September 1964, page 570, confirms that Merodach-Baladan's letter to Hezekiah was indeed sent during the later reign contemporary with Sennacherib:
Sennacherib’s first task was to conquer that “prop of evil deeds,” “that worker of wickedness,” as he quaintly describes him. Babylon was captured but Merodach-baladan escaped and fled. It was at this period, rather than at the time of his earlier conflict with Sargon, that Merodach-baladan sought to enlist help from Hezekiah of Judah as recorded in 2 Kings 20:12-19.
The updated chart will be uploaded in the near future.
I wish this whole topic would end.
There is no issue. It is so simple.
Captivity ended in 537. Started 70 years prior in 607. 607 was not the destruction of Jerusalem. When the captivity started is when the gentile times started. Gentile times did not start at Zedekiah, but 20 years earlier at the first invasion. They ran from 607-1914.
Stop trying to battle the WTS on every issue as this 607 as the destruction was a Nelson Barbour creation. But the gentile times predated even him.
Rattigan350:
Captivity ended in 537.
Wrong. Jews returned in 538.
Started 70 years prior in 607.
Wrong. Babylon's 70 years began 609. Primary exile began in 597, with subsequent exiles in 587 and 582.
607 was not the destruction of Jerusalem.
Correct.
When the captivity started is when the gentile times started.
Wrong. 'Gentile times' couldn't start any earlier than 70 CE per the Greek grammar at Luke 21:24.
Gentile times did not start at Zedekiah
Correct.
but 20 years earlier at the first invasion.
Wrong.
They ran from 607-1914.
Wrong.
Thanks for playing.
2 out of 7. Better luck next time.
Neil,
Much of your post already been addressed by Jeffro (the benefit of you both being in a similar time zone, hey?), so I'll try and avoid repeating his points.
Steinmann does mention 537BCE as a credible date in the footnote on the first page of his article .
It's the second page of his article. He says the date is uncertain and scholars who propose it do so with reservation.
His article is the latest on the subject of the Return and he certainly does not support 538 BCE.
He doesn't discuss 538 BC and so offers no opinion on the date.
There is no room for dogma in chronology.
LOLOL! And yet you fight tooth and nail for the WT's dogmatism here!
Chronology has and always be a work in progress for it is not and exact science as far as I know but you may know better.
The Neo-Babylonian period is fixed by means of several dovetailing lines of evidence, including science (astronomy).
The foundation for 607 BCE is as firm as ever even the more so if one introduces Neo-Babylonian chronology into the picture. There is a gap of twenty years between Bible chronology and NB chronology. The intoduction of the seventy years which is omitted in NBC fine tunes or readjusts such chronology harmonizing it with biblical chronology. That means that scholar can fully utilize NB chronology as a support for the validity of 607 BCE all because of a unrecognized piesce of Jewish history-Jeremiah's seventy years. This Romance at its best!!
The best Romance is that you can utilize NB chronology to support 607 because of an unrecognized 70 years from Jewish history? Ah, I see. You're at the incoherent stage now.
I cannot be held responsible for the comment in the Wt article in which you have some difficulty. I suggest you write about it. I did not edit the article, I would have expressed the matter differently.
Apparently, you are the one having difficulty with it. Why don't you write them?
I raise the matter of COJ with Jeffro because Jeffro has simply rpeated or rehashed the Jonsson nonsense. He says that he has noit read COJ but how can he be trusted.? If you trust his word fine but for me the coincidence is too much. If Jeffro used scholarship as COJ has done then that would give some credibilkity to his independent research but Jeffro shows no interest in such therefore suspicsion remains.
As I said before, your fixation with COJ blinds you to the fact that there is no viable support, biblically or extra-biblically or among respected scholarship, for the WT chronology of that period. Jeffro has been using the same respected scholarship and consulted the same primary sources as COJ did and, naturally, has come to the same conclusion: 607 BCE as the date for Jerusalem's Fall is impossible.
There is no need of desperation because I have long held the view that WT chronology is supported by secular chronology with the adjustment of the seventy years.
For example if a watch is out of sync with some standard of time the watchmaker uses a screwdriver to adjust the watch so that it tells the corect time. The screwdriver in this case is the seventy years, the watch is the NB chronology and the universal standard is WT-Bible chronology. Don't you love this powerful illustration?
Nope. It's a dumb illustration. WT chronology doesn't adjust the established secular chronology for that period by 70 years but rather by 20 years. Your watch is even more out of sync than the WT's. Remind me never to ask you the time.
COJ submitted a review of the first WT article but did not supply a review of the second to my knowledge.
Then your knowledge is (again) deficient.
http://kristenfrihet.se/vtsvar/vtsvar2.pdf
Competence and agreement are not both sides of the same coin. At the very least I have the tools at hand!
Those tools are useless unless you know how to use them appropriately and skillfully. You have failed to do so thus far.
Scholar is largely reviled on this forum with the exception of the gentleness and sweetness of AnnOMaly who loves the rough and tumble of strong debate
'Gentleness and sweetness'? Well shucks, Neil, but you have a short memory!
The foundation of 607 BCE is now more solid because of recent research regarding the dating of the Neb's 37 th year as explained in the Nov 15 th Wt 2012 concerning Vat4956. This research now brings Neo-Babylonian chronology as a corrobative witness to the accuracy of Bible chronology.
Hey, Neil. Have you examined VAT 4956 for yourself yet? Have you compared Furuli's results with that of an astronomy program? You've had YEARS to put Furuli's (and latterly the WT's) claims to the test. I've asked you on more than one occasion to do so. I'll even help you if you want.
If you still have not done so and continue to be unwilling to look into it, you remain clueless and are better off not pontificating on matters you have no knowledge of.
Scholar, ya little dumb shithead! I see you're still eating, sleeping and dreaming about 607 BCE---the woman of your dreams, after all these years. And after all these years, your posts are still all BS. Hope you've saved something for your retirement beyond trying to be a puppet for Crooklyn. LOL.
scholiar:
Jeremiah's prophecy was mainly targeted to Judah as confirmed by reading the very first chapter.
Jeremiah 1:4, 5:
4 And the word of Jehovah began to occur to me, saying: 5 “Before I was forming you in the belly I knew you, and before you proceeded to come forth from the womb I sanctified you. Prophet to the nations I made you.”
Jeremiah 1:10:
10 See, I have commissioned you this day to be over the nations and over the kingdoms, in order to uproot and to pull down and to destroy and to tear down, to build and to plant.”
Keep at it Neil, many many more will leave the cult thanks to your efforts in trying to defend the WTS 607 bullshit.
