Another problem for JW apologists (page 6)

Jeffro

problemaddict:

Any starting points suggested by Jeff[r]o or Scholar or Ann or all three?

Have you been here?

Jeffro

In post 4200, I said:

As I have told you previously, I charted all the biblical information from the Bible, and then added secular information from encyclopedias.

Just to clarify, the secular information added separately to the biblical data was for the reigns of Tyre, Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. The reigns of Israel and Judah were taken from the Bible only, subject to decision-table analysis.

problemaddict

I have not. Would it be beneficial in your perceptions to study the current WT understanding in parallel or before looking further into the above links.

Laika

607v587.com is a good site for looking at both views as it provides the Watchtower answers to the critics questions.

Jeffro

problemaddict:

I have not. Would it be beneficial in your perceptions to study the current WT understanding in parallel or before looking further into the above links.

I have analysed a JW apologist site in detail here. There are links to the original article so you can compare side-by-side.

Where the apologist site occasionally deviates from official WT teaching is also included in my review.

problemaddict

Thanks I will check it out. whatever happened to third witness? In fact, I started a thread asking what happened to the "celebrated WT scholars" that could actually put together a defence of their beliefs and did so via the web......nobody seemed to know.

Jeffro

problemaddict:

whatever happened to third witness?

'thirdwitness' is purportedly the author of the JW apologist site refuted at the link above. His site does not appear to have been modified for some time.

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4200

Missed 'doubt' as I had to post from my ipad whilst my computer was undergoing online maintenance with Microsoft Support. Anyway back to business. Nothing bizarre at all but simply I affirm that the scheme that you have developed is your own and your did it on your own but that does not mean that it is original because it basically is just the same as most other chronologies. The difference is that it is colourful, pretty and more user-friendly therefor it is not from 'air' and I acknowledge that you use biblical data. However, your methodology or method and interpretion differs from our biblical chronology. I have cautioned you about the use of 'Decision Table Analysis' as it can get you into all sorts of trouble.

The WT publications that I have used are not contradictory but simply revise and clarify preceeding views thus serve as valuable aids in doing Bible chronology. I am comfortable with such sources and really it is my business not yours.

Some chronologists do recognize the interregnum or earlier kingship of Hoshea the only differenc ethat their dates are not identical with ours. James Ussher in his The Annals of the World was the first to do so.

Yes our WT chronology is consistent or in in agreement with secular chronology if a corrective is applied thus a harmonization of both chronologies is achieved.

Regarding Jeremiah 29:10 you have simply given your interpretation of this text, we have an entirely different interpretation of this verse which I endlessly propounded on this forum.

scholar JW

Jeffro

Missed 'doubt' as I had to post from my ipad whilst my computer was undergoing online maintenance with Microsoft Support.

If the 'online maintenance' was a result of a phone call you didn't initiate from a company claiming to be Microsoft that 'detected' a problem on your system, you have likely become the victim of a scam. (The modus operandi is to convince the 'customer' that there is a virus on the computer by looking up mundane errors in the event log, and then gaining remote control of the system to 'remove' the 'virus', or getting credit card details to purchase the 'fix'.)

Anyway back to business. Nothing bizarre at all but simply I affirm that the scheme that you have developed is your own and your did it on your own but that does not mean that it is original because it basically is just the same as most other chronologies.

If I add 2 and 2 and arrive at 4, I suppose that isn't 'original' in the same manner either, because others have also arrived at the correct answer.

The difference is that it is colourful, pretty and more user-friendly therefor it is not from 'air' and I acknowledge that you use biblical data. However, your methodology or method and interpretion differs from our biblical chronology. I have cautioned you about the use of 'Decision Table Analysis' as it can get you into all sorts of trouble.

Yes, my method certainly differs from that of your idol—I am honest, and I don't have any preconceived numerology to prop up. You keep saying "our", but you are merely a pawn asserting (quite poorly) the chronology arrived at by the Watch Tower Society, in support of their superstitious numerology. Your 'caution' has no merit whatsoever, as you lack credibility.

The WT publications that I have used are not contradictory but simply revise and clarify preceeding views thus serve as valuable aids in doing Bible chronology. I am comfortable with such sources and really it is my business not yours.

It's all well and good to 'revise and clarify', but if you cite an old revision that is different to their new revision and assert that it is compatible, then you are just wrong (irrespective of whether the old or new information is correct, though both are in fact wrong).

Some chronologists do recognize the interregnum or earlier kingship of Hoshea the only differenc ethat their dates are not identical with ours. James Ussher in his The Annals of the World was the first to do so.

Circular argument. You haven't provided any source that agrees with the Watch Tower Society's view on that aspect other than Ussher, which is the source of the JW's modified (traditional) Protestant chronology. Provide evidence of any modern chronology (or indeed any secular chronology) that supports the spurious period for Hoshea.

Yes our WT chronology is consistent or in in agreement with secular chronology if a corrective is applied thus a harmonization of both chronologies is achieved.

No. That's not true, no matter how times you say it. What you are calling a 'corrective' is merely really saying 'we agree with secular chronology apart from the parts where we are wrong' (and the '20-year gap' is far from the only problem anyway). I have already shown how and why the JW chronology differs from the correct chronology. (And it's nothing to do with 'biblical accuracy'.)

Regarding Jeremiah 29:10 you have simply given your interpretation of this text, we have an entirely different interpretation of this verse which I endlessly propounded on this forum.

Feel free to 'explain' how you twist the verse in such a way that attention is given to the return of the Jews following a period that is supposedly ended once the Jews have already returned. Your convoluted 'logic' amuses me.

Finkelstein

The real problem with JW apologists is that they haven't and honestly wont accept the fact that the leaders running and operating

the Watchtower Publishing house were not and never were well train bible theologians, the first one was a clothing salesman and the

one to follow him was a lawyer, quite distant and different fields of professionalism.

These men dug up improbable dates of specific occurrence (1914) because they knew they could be useful in proliferating the literature

which they themselves published, simple and quite to the point.

Amateurish bible theologians who just simply had something to sell, logically and truthfully identified as nothing more

than religious Charlatans.

Another problem for JW apologists

Share this