607 chronology debunked

by JanH 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  gsx1138

  I was wondering how long it would take the great numerologist to come around this post. I think JanH's intention is not only to expose the idiocy of the JW but also anyone who attempts to try piece together some type of numerical elixer that will somehow convince them that they contain some type of unknown knowledge. The Bible is vague on prophecy and numbers for a reason. It follows the same pattern as Notrodamus and others who try to make predictions of the future. You need only make a generally vague prediction with enough passion to make it sound convincing. You want me to make a biblical type of prophesy?

  Here goes: The sun will rise on the day of a great battle between good and evil. Fire will reign from the heavens and great calamaties will fall on those who are in its path. The King of the east and the King of the West will wage war until none are left to fight.

  That should be nice and general enough. Now in two thousand years they can start a cult in my name. Mwahahaha.
• 

  JanH

  I can't be bothered to deal with Larsguy. All his "arguments" have been debunked dozens of times, and he just keeps repeating the same nonsensical claims totally uneffected by contrary arguments.

  Just in case anyone else wonders about Josephus' statements about the length of the Babylonian exile, especially since the WTS brings this up in the same dishonest fashion as Larsguy here, in the pathetic defence we find in the appendix to Let Your Kingdom Come, I will add the following:

  It is important to remember that Josephus lived about 600 years after the events took place. He is an important source to events in his own time, but to events long preceding it, he is no better than his sources. So even if he did contradict the established chronology of the neo-babylonian era, it would just be a matter of him being wrong. He was simply not in a good position to know about details related to events so far back in time.

  That said, Josephus did have access to sources, and they obviously made him realize the mistake he had made in Antiquities X.

  The WTS (like Larsguy) is clearly dishonest in using Josephus' earlier remarks and failing to point out that he corrected himself in a later work. It was not unusual for Josephus to do this when he became aware of errors in earlier work. In Against Apion I, 21, Josephus says:

  "These accounts agree with the true history in our books [the Old Testament]; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the nineteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid and it was finished again in the second year of Darius." (bold added)

  So, we see Josephus himself supporting the chronology we know through Ptolemy and Berossus, and that is so clearly established through contemporary records of the Neo-Babylonian and so many lines of evidence.

  - Jan
• 

  Larsguy

  Thanks, Jan.

  I just wanted to know from you directly that we were supposed to ignore Josephus.

  By the way, Josephus speaks about the 70 years in Against Apion, his last work in AP 1.19 even though he does seem to change his mind two paragraphs later in AP 1.21 as you note with a reference to 50 years.

  Since it's the same work, I was just wondering why he contradicts himself apparently in just 2 paragraphs. Or if he did change his mind why didn't he correct that in AP 1:19?

  Of course, it all seems suspicious but it had been noted by someone that Josephus could have been referring to when Cyrus became king in Persia in reference to the 50 years since there is a 20-year gap between when Cyrus became king in Persia (559BCE) and when he conquered Babylon (539BCE). Is Josephus' reference, then truly a contradiction of himself in the previous paragraph and a change of heart about the 50 vs 70 years, or is he just making a reference to the interval of 50 years up to Cyrus becoming king in Perisa in paragraph 1:21 and to when he became king in Babylon in 1:19?

  Do you think that's possible? Or is he just contradicting himself here in the same work?

  Any comments?

  Thanks, Josephus...um, I mean Jan! (oops!)

  L.G.

  P.S. I found this photo of Nehemiah with Xerxes and Darius I thought you might like to download for your files. Why did you give up your webpage?

  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/XERX5.HTM
• 

  Larsguy

  Hi Jan,

  Sorry, I meant to put this in my previous post. But since you did post this information about the VAT4956 and it seems to be such a key text, I was just wondering since you wrote this before AlanF found an error by the translators Sachs/Hunger in Line 18, do you think that affects the overall credibility or dating of the text?

  AlanF discovered that Sachs/Hunger lied about the Moon being present on the 15th of Sivan in 568BCE when, in fact, according to AlanF it should have been "Venus"; the moon was 10 days away from Virgo at the time, kinda hard to miss or presume it was an accidental "error". Anyway, AlanF checked this out with his own astronomical program and thus exposed this misrepresentation by the original translators. You know how brilliant AlanF is (he taught me a lot about astronomy, as you know in the good old days back at H20--I didn't know East from West or Right from Left!) So do you think there are other errors in the transliteration that might affect the credibility (or dating, heaven forbid!) of this document?

  The British Museum was contacted and admitted that it indeed was an "error" by Sachs/Hunger, obviously, but didn't seem like they wanted to do anything else about it or correct it with the Venus reference. Basically they said: "He who writes no books make no mistakes" or something like that. Plus I haven't heard of an official correction by Hunger (Sachs is deceased).

  So would this new, recent discovery by AlanF about this error and his belief Line 18 should be a reference to Venus, perhaps affect the dating found in the text in any way? or is it still reliable for dating the 37th year in 568BCE, do you think?

  Thanks, Jan

  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/XERX5.HTM
• 

  Fredhall

  Larsguy,

  You make me laugh. LOL.....
• 

  Larsguy

  Hi Fred:

  Larsguy,

  You make me laugh. LOL.....

  I do my best! What have you been up to lately but giving these designer apostates around here a hard time? I love it!! You've make me laugh a lot too! Keep up the good work!

  (You're the same Fred Hall that believes Jerusalem fell in 529BCE, right?) --just kidding!

  L.G.
• 

  onacruse

  Let's try this:

  1914 CE minus 607 BCE plus 539 BCE divided by 70 years multiplied by 1879 CE raised to the power of 5 WTS presidents integrated between the lower limit of Awake and the upper limit of Watchtower, this entire expression then as a declining base e logarthimic function around the point 1925 CE, factoring in the hyperbolic regression instability of 1918 CE and considered as an orthogonal polynomial function commencing with 1975 CE, and finally adjusting for the singularity distortion of the new "generation" WE FINALLY ARRIVE AT THE INESCAPABLE AND MATHEMATICALLY CERTAIN CONCLUSION THAT...(uh, where were we?)

  Jan, good work!
• 

  hawkaw

  Excellent post.

  hawk
• 

  Hmmm

  Jan,

  Thanks for reposting this. I remember reading similar information in excerpts from COJ's book years ago and being horrified by it, wondering "how am I going to refute this if anyone brings it up in the ministry?"

  Hmmm
• 

  RunningMan

  Thanks for posting this. I remember seeing it a while back.

  It is without a doubt the most comprehensive refutation of the Society's 607 date that I have ever seen.

  As JW's, we have been conditioned to believe goofy doctrines that no one else holds. Since they are unique to us, there are no outside scholars for us to draw from. This document provides the logic and evidence we need to crack the tower.

  I am archiving it for my future use.