by Skeptical78 122 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Welcome Skeptical78, Have you visited the following webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_doctrine? Otherwise, I would DITTO other member's comments to visit www.jwfacts.com.
The bottom line is blindly obey the WTBTS (i.e., GB) no matter what you feel.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Skeptical78:
I recently became aware of the new light. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
Both the old and current understandings of JWs regarding 1914 are and always have been wrong. Their fundamental beliefs about 1914 are based on an entirely false premise. See here for more information.
Pretty much.
Welcome by the way.
People sure love to disprove the WT with their Past books, magazines, public talks, as if WT is the only religion that agrees with that chronology. What makes the works of any other religion any better or tangible if it’s not convincing to people just because someone else explained it better and somehow more credible? Then it really doesn’t matter what you believe. History is especially interesting. Not even the people whose ancestors lived in those lands are as much ignorant on their own history as the story teller. If you people want to be credible with your criticism, you need to first learn to be a theologian, archeologist, and historian put together, then maybe you’ll see the chronology of Nebuchadnezzar is very confusing because of what was going on at that time, Whether Nebuchadnezzar was a General when sacking Jerusalem or King when destroying it. How many battle fronts were accruing at the same time, who used what calendar, and best of all how Muslim nations even today hide evidence that directly support bible chronology especially the inference between 606/607 or 586/587 Former Witness
To solve a case like this, it helps if we compare apples with apples.
First of all the exact date is 607 BC according to Bishop Ussher , not 606 BC. This was indeed the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar if we just count as the Bible counts. And the first year of Jehoiakim starts in 610 BC. As our years don't fit nicely into the reigns of the kings (different starting month), the third year is 607 BC .
Now to the supposed bad history. The author of the SAB quotes here Farrell Till as saying that the first invasion was at 597 BC, which would be the last year of Jehoiakim. Farrell Till concludes this from Babylonian records. And Farrell Till makes a second claim, namely that Nebuchadnezzar became king in 605 BC, two years after the Bible says he besieged Jerusalem. All these dates can be a bit confusing, so let me give a time line below (all dates in BC), and according to Ussher's chronology:
610: Jehoiakim is made king by Pharaoh Nechoh, see 2 Kg. 23:34 .
608: Nebuchadnezzar is made viceroy.
607: battle of Carchemish , where Egypt was defeated (fourth year of Jehoiakim), see Jer. 46:2 .
607: first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; Daniel and his friends taken and brought to Babylon, start of the 70 years of captivity.
605: death of Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar.
604: Jehoiakim rebels (2 Kg. 24:1), it takes Nebuchadnezzar a few years to be able to respond.
600: Nebuchadnezzar invades Judah, see 2 Kg. 24:2 .
599: second siege of Jerusalem; Jehoiakim's son Jeconiah, also Jehoiachin, was taken to Babylon (Jer. 27:20), see also 2 Kg. 24:12 .
589: last siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
588: destruction of the first temple.
Note that secular history gives 586 BC as the date that Solomon's temple was destroyed. And note that Bishop Ussher's starts the reign of Nebuchadnezzar two years earlier than secular history.
We know the relationship between the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim, and this allows us to match their reigns. According to Jer. 25:1 the fourth year of Jehoiakim falls within the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. From this verse we know that Nebuchadnezzar's reign began during the third year of Jehoiakim.
So this allows us to solve the second “contradiction” claimed by Mr. Till: he compares Ussher's chronology as used in many Bible dictionaries with dates used by secular historians, and so obtains his contradiction that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even king. In secular history, Jehoiakim begins his reign in 609 , and Nebuchadnezzar begins his reign at 605 . But secular dates are simply wrong, as the Bible does not contradict itself and internally aligns the reigns of these two kings perfectly and consistently. It's only when we start using dates obtained by some method outside the Bible that we can obtain a contradiction.
It is correct that Nebuchadnezzar's father died in 605 BC. When that happened Nebuchadnezzar became sole ruler. But from the Bible we know that as viceroy he reigned already 2 years before that. It is the normal procedure in the Bible to count the reign of a king from the first year that he became a viceroy.
This also explains why he was in Jerusalem in his first year. If he had become king, he probably would not have ventured too far outside his realm in the first year, but would be establishing his power base in his home country and close at home. But because his father still reigned, he was able to make fame for himself by venturing abroad to obtain glory and loot.
There is one issue that might seem contradictory: from Jer. 46:2 we know that the battle of
Carchemish was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, while this verse seems to say that in the third year of Jehoiakim we find Nebuchadnezzar before Jerusalem, which happened after the battle of Carchemish. But it we read this verse correctly, it says that Nebuchadnezzar came in the third year, that is, he left with his army at the end of the third year of Jehoiakim. From Jer. 46:2 we know when he arrived: in the beginning of the fourth year of Jehoiakim.
A different resolution is offered by Mark S. Haughwout, who claims :
This apparent discrepancy with Daniel’s account above is actually a cultural difference of dating systems. Jeremiah, living in the land of Israel, naturally uses the Israeli dating system, which would place Jehoiakim's fourth year in 604 BC. Daniel, using the Babylonian system, places Jehoiakim's third year in 604 BC. The Babylonians considered a king’s first year to start on the first New Years day in his reign.
Having established the date of the siege, let us have a look at the claim that the first siege of Jerusalem was only in 597. This is unlikely. If we look at the Biblical record, we see that Pharaoh Nechoh was expanding his kingdom to the North and East, something the Babylonian Chronicles also record . On his way back from Harran , Pharaoh Nechoh disposed the king in Jerusalem and installed Jehoiakim, 2 Kg. 23:34 . Farrell Till would make us believe that it took more then 10 years for Nebuchadnezzar to respond to this act of Pharaoh Nechoh. But this act of Pharaoh Nechoh is actually the reason we see Nebuchadnezzar before Jerusalem! In his first year as viceroy, he begins with his campaign to defeat Pharaoh, which he did convincingly at Carchemish. Afterwards he marches south to attack Pharaoh's allies and dispose his vassals. And that is why we find him before Jerusalem at this time and Daniel and his friends were taken to Babylon. His venture south ends with the full retreat of Pharaoh, see 2 Kg. 24:7 .
So the first siege was in 607, the second siege was in 599 (not 597 as secular history has it), and the third and last in 589 BC
Welcome!
Please remember -- the GB never publishes wrong doctrine....
They just adjust their understanding from time to time.
Most JWs are so grateful for the new light that they forget that the WT ever taught anything different...
billythekid46:
First of all the exact date is 607 BC according to Bishop Ussher , not 606 BC. This was indeed the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar if we just count as the Bible counts.
Your claim (and Ussher's claim) about 607 here is wrong. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the accession-year system and the differing calendations of Judah and Babylon. As a result most of the rest of your post is also wrong, including all of the years suggested (except for the year in which Nabopolassar died). The correct years for the period you've indicated are as follows:
*The historicity of Daniel is disputed, but the story can be correctly contextualised.
This timeline can be confirmed by comparing 2 Kings, Daniel, Jeremiah, Josephus and the Babylonian chronicle BM 21946.
Thats my point *Jeffro* we can go on and on, with me tilling you, your dates and events are also WRONG, and I should trust your theory because which historian explained it to you better than who or because this persons research is more credible than who? You either believe it or you don't. the choice is for whomever receives it, but to say that any one religion is false because they don't agree with your interpretation is wrong, So once again, if that’s the case, which religion is better, which historian.
billythekid46:
Thats my point *Jeffro* we can go on and on, with me tilling you, your dates and events are also WRONG,
You could. However the timeline you offered is not supported by the actual source material, and is based on fundamental errors relating to dating systems. Whilst anyone can suggest any old absolute years, your timeline does not correctly represent the relative time periods either.
which historian explained it to you better than who or because this persons research is more credible than who?
I have considered the material from scratch, relying on the source materials (the Bible, the works of Josephus, Babylonian chronicles, etc) rather than interpretations of later historians. (However, I have also considered later sources and found them to agree.)
If the information in the Bible is reliable, the timeline I have provided is correct. If the information in the Bible is not reliable, it doesn't matter anyway.
So the first siege was in 607, the second siege was in 599 (not 597 as secular history has it), and the third and last in 589 BC
This is merely an attempt to 'make' '70 years' 'fit' from '607' until '537'. Except 537 is wrong anyway, because comparison of Ezra and Josephus indicates 538 to be the year in which Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Additionally, it's a misrepresentation of what the '70 years' were about, which was a period of Babylonian dominance over all the nations, and not a period of exile or dominance over Jews. (Also, comparison of LXX and later manuscripts indicates that the specific period of '70 years' was written in later rather than being 'prophetic'.)
My point again Jeffro. I had this discussion with my brother about 10 years ago. I researched not just the works you speak of but others in connection with biblical events. You reference biblical accounts as an abstract. It’s a matter of interpretation. However your assertion that your research is better than mine would be absurd. My research was as you put it done from scratch with countless years of research and I didn’t reply on anyone’s interpretation, and I also don’t expect anyone to agree with my interpretation on historical events unless you’re claiming to have been there, then that’s another matter in which case I would take you at your word. But to say once again that some ones religion is FALSE because you don’t agree with their interpretation of bibical accounts is wrong, just as you or I don’t see eye to eye in this matter. So then we have come full circle and we are at an impasse. Your truth is your truth, and mine is mine.
The watchtower has a 100 percent failure rate when it comes to date predictions. It may be a lot to take in but I have spent thousands of hours looking into this religion. You could write a book thousands of pages long on their false predictions. Here are a few dates that needed new light remember this is just a few. 606, 1799, 1874' 1878,1914,1915,1918,1925, a few things that they also have changed belief in pyramids, Moses would be ressurected and preach with them, vacinations were banned, organ transplants, alternate military service, generation teaching, faithful and discreet slave is their fourth change to this doctrine, cross, rapture, king of the north, Zionism, disfellowshipping was once taught as a pagan pratice, membership as an NGO with the United Nations and on and on. With research you can find all these things and many many more. If you felt I have not been truthful in any way please let me know and I can get the the year date and page from the watchtowers. May you be blessed on your journey to the truth about the truth.
