Another problem for JW apologists (page 5)

bohm

Have we come closer to the identity of the celebrated wt scholars?

humbled

Ignorance has no place in chronology and no place for would be amateurs. ---Scholar

How much a problem is that statement for JW apologists? Taking in knowledge, taking in knowledge, taking in knowledge--- We had to believe that translation to sell out to the brilliant head-benders.

No problem?

Gimme some more numbers, baby, and I will see God.

Splash

Just posted this recent WT quote on a different thread, but it fits perfectly here too.

Oh the WT irony!!!

w2013 15/10 p.7 par. 3 Creation Reveals the Living God
"They [Christian fundamentalists] reject credible scientific evidence that contradicts their view."

Splash

scholar

Ann O Maly

Post 3770

Perhaps you can enlighten me as it was some years ago and I do not have a perfect memory.

scholar JW

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4196

I do not that you developed your own chronology on your own hence independently but it is not original because it simply replicates most other current schemes. You have in some way been influenced by others either directly or indirectly as it is impossible for any person to simply construct a chronology out of thin air. Consistency does not mean accuracy.

I do not cite an abandoned revision for all WTS publications have validity.

There is no spurious period for the early reign of Hoshea but simply the clear statement of 2Kings15:30, which is also recognised by other chronologists.

Yes indeed secular chronologies prove a difference of twenty years but when the corrective is applied then all of the data is easily harmonised and this is what the celebrated ones have done. This means that our Bible chronology is consistent with other secular chronologies.

Our chronology is truly Bible based as any person can see and this supported by the fact of a consistent rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 in both editions of the NWT.

Your interpretation of the ending of the seventy years is simply nonsense and conflicts with the clear statement of Jer.29:10 ,it's immediate context, the book of Jeremiah and all of the other seventy years text iyet the OT.

scholarJW

Jeffro

'scholar':

I do not that you developed your own chronology on your own hence independently but it is not original because it simply replicates most other current schemes. You have in some way been influenced by others either directly or indirectly as it is impossible for any person to simply construct a chronology out of thin air. Consistency does not mean accuracy.

I assume you missed the word "doubt"? That best fits the context - but I know context isn't really your specialty. 1) Your assumption that I 'must' have been 'influenced' is just stupid, and your claim that it's not original after you acknowledge that it was developed independently is bizarre. 2) It's incredibly hypocritical coming from someone who blindly follows Watch Tower corporation.

"thin air"?? You do realise the information is found in the Bible don't you?? As I have told you previously, I charted all the biblical information from the Bible, and then added secular information from encyclopedias. The information for the reigns of Israel and Judah was not visible when initially charting the secular information (and vice versa). Subsequent decision-table analysis was used for refining biblical reigns (which in several cases confirms mathematically that various co-regencies are required if the biblical data is to be trusted at all), again without considering the secular information during that process.

I do not cite an abandoned revision for all WTS publications have validity.

Even the ones that contradict each other? Idiot. I suppose you take all that 'valid' advice from back-issues of The Golden Age too. Not to mention the 'valid' WTS publications that said Armageddon would happen in 1914.

be p. 38 par. 2 How to Do Research: Realize, too, that some points in older publications of ours may have been updated, so consider what has most recently been published on the topic.

For the reigns of Judah alone, JW chronology prior to 1966 gave different years for the reigns of Asa*, Jehoshaphat*, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoash, Amaziah, (abandoned 10-year interregnum before Uzziah), Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah*. (Difference for reigns with asterisk is within a year and can therefore be explained by rounding.)

There is no spurious period for the early reign of Hoshea but simply the clear statement of 2Kings15:30, which is also recognised by other chronologists.

Liar. 'Other chronologists' do not 'recognise' the spurious period (758-748BCE, or any corresponding period) in the reign of Hoshea prior to his actual reign at all.

Yes indeed secular chronologies prove a difference of twenty years but when the corrective is applied then all of the data is easily harmonised and this is what the celebrated ones have done. This means that our Bible chronology is consistent with other secular chronologies.

Now you're claiming that a fundamental difference means Watch Tower Society chronology is consistent. Is English your first language? I have already demonstrated in this and other threads that WTS is not consistent, even with itself. However, the biblical records for the period in question are indeed consistent with secular history.

Our chronology is truly Bible based as any person can see and this supported by the fact of a consistent rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 in both editions of the NWT.
Your interpretation of the ending of the seventy years is simply nonsense and conflicts with the clear statement of Jer.29:10 ,it's immediate context, the book of Jeremiah and all of the other seventy years text iyet the OT.

I can only assume from this that either English is not your first language, or you have sustained a brain injury that has severely impacted your comprehension skills (I suppose Watch Tower propaganda can count as a brain injury). I have already clearly indicated how the NWT's rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 is entirely illogical, and that the context makes the WTS chronology entirely impossible.

problemaddict

I really need to study bible Chronology as it relates to 607 and 1914. It just seems like such a long winding road to go down once I get started.

I think JW;s are wrong about blood, which in turn makes them bloodguilty for their actions. Its a big deal. So after that, anything they happen to be "right" about just seems like the booby prize.

I probably need to get deeper into some of the the other facets of the doctrine I once vehemently defended.

Any starting points suggested by Jeffo or Scholar or Ann or all three?

I would like to research all angles.

Another problem for JW apologists

bohm

humbled

Splash

scholar

scholar

Jeffro

problemaddict

problemaddict

Comatose

Comatose

Share this