research?

by free will 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hooberus

  What is most important is that you come to the true Jesus and be saved. Read the gospel of John.
• 

  donkey

  Jesus can blow me!!!

  Guess that's why I never get any...he doesn't exist!!!
• 

  Blueblades

  Jack,would you please show me how you arrived at that conclusion,"Jesus dosen't exist".You know from our past posts that I respect your opinions and conclusions.

  I'm still at an impasse about these matters God Jesus the Bible etc.

  Thanks Blueblades
• 

  donkey

  Blueblades

  The tooth fairy told me Jesus doesn't exist. You do believe in the tooth fairy right? Or does the tooth fairy not exist?

  Seriously...I was joking when I wrote the prior post in this thread, but its one of those things - like "until I see big foot myself I don't believe he exists"....its more a type of colloquial conclusion than an evidenciary one.

  Jack
• 

  Blueblades

  Doubting Thomas was not left doubting for too long,according to the book,Jesus gave him evidence by appearing to him,as per Thomas'request! Not so all those who also doubt and ask for evidence of his existence.

  Since Doubting Thomas was not condemned for his skepticism,I don't see how we can be.

  Also the Apostles didn't believe either,so,Jesus appeared to them all,up to 500 persons,why not us?Of cause this based on the book,The Bible.

  Blueblades
• 

  A Paduan

  Just read it.

  These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things
• 

  JCanon

  Reasearch is good but you have sometimes a lot against you in doing it because you run across different focus groups promoting their own agenda, thus you must examine everything. Also, apparently, a strong influence by major concerns, such as the Catholic Church can suppress evidence that might lead to opposing opinions, so results are not always forthcoming or apparent.

  For instance, Josephus in Antiquities 11.1.1 is a very recent discovery of mine where he just comes right out and dates the 70 years of "servitude" mentioned in the Bible to fulfill Jeremiah's prophecy beginning with the last deportation! This is a highly debated topic, the basis for the 607BCE dating and long arguments by X-JW Biblical chronology commentator Olof Jonsson in his comprehensive book, Gentile Times Reconsidered, 3rd Edition. Yet this critical reference is not there. Yet Jonsson promotes aggressively his own Biblical interpretation of the 70 years; that's okay, but he doesn't do it in the context of dismissing this rather direct reference to why the 70 years among the Jews, even reflecting folkloric or traditional history regarding the 70 years should be set aside in lieu of his own personal interpretation. Now either this reference was unknown and missed or avoided since it profoundly adds another strong side to the argument of how we date the 70 years.

  Another example, not to pick on Olof Jonsson in particular, is sometimes presumptive commentary. The first time I ever noted Olof Jonsson was his own commentary rebutting something I had written about the fradulent nature of the SK400 (Strm. Kambyses 400) astrotext. I noted as my primary argument a "year 9" reference in the text which otherwise dated events during the reign of Kambyses, who did not rule to year nine. Jonsson's main published argument against my claim was that I was mistaken because "there is no year 9 reference" in the document. This in spite of the fact that I actually published along with the article the line-by-line text!! Later Jonsson apologized claiming he didn't realize that reference was there; yet he was offering his opinion and authority in the matter. So you have to deal with a measure of "error" even among so-called experts who are biased in one way or the other or perhaps even dishonest.

  Finally another critical example is the transliteration/translation of the VAT4956. A very, very, very, very critical document used in the absolute dating of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Only with examination with astronomical programs was it discovered that in Line 18 a reference was made to "the moon" which was not correct since the moon was not in the position indicated on that date. AlanF himself noted that the reference was likely to Venus, instead. Problem is that reference rises questions with other references in the text translated or interprted by Sachs Hunger. But it appears obvious that this was deliberate since in other places the lunar positioning was compared to a chart and "error for the 8th" noted in Line 3. Thus one would presume that they would notice that if the Moon was erroneously noted in Line 18 that they would indicate a 10-day error for that reference, but none was noted. Furthermore, Venus was not mentioned and thus either missed or considered not to be the reference. So this is either incompetence or implies Sachs/Hunger didn't want to encourage investigation of this reference nor wanted to leave a blank in the text, two things that might guarantee a closer look, thus placing "the moon" there without noting the "10-day error" was the best way to cover this up.

  The point being, again, that "research" many times has to go beyond what the experts say in cases of particularly crticial bias and opinion. You must actually check out as much as possible the source material that is being presented and when you do you can get to the truth.

  Finally, sometimes the truth is right in front of you but because nobody else has commented on it, you figure it is not significant. So part of "research" is using your own common sense and drawing your own theories for comparison based upon the raw material. Case in point is Persepolis. If you study the actual bas-reliefs at Persepolis it should be apparent to you that Xerxes and Darius I were co-rulers at one time and that Darius died shortly after he began building in the city forcing his son to finish what had been started. But I've found no real commentary on this, a striking paucity of discussion about Persepolis!! Turns out, you can use Persepolis to prove that Xerxes and Artaxerxes must have been the same king, plus you can see Nehemiah, the eunuch Jewish cupbearer, there when Darius I was king! That throws a chronology wrench in the current chronology for this period. Again, (and I don't mean to pick on Jonsson in particular) Jonsson when discussing this promoted that these two kings were not critically identified and could be Xerxes and Artaxerxes or even Artaxerxes and Darius I, ideas some had promoted when noting that them being Darius and Artaxerxes did challenge the current chronology. But on further research I discovered indeed exactly who these two kings were is known through positive identification in the bas reliefs. Now whether everybody commenting on the bas reliefs knew about this or not, it not known, but that's another problem. You'll find contradictions even among the experts with some not well informed. Then again, when something as controversial like this is on the table, it's hard to get the "colleagues" of these "experts" to go against them. Thus when I discovered this sham in Persepolis commentary and contacted the one of the chief institutions focusing on Persepolis, which is the Chicago Oriental Institute, all they did was refer me to the controversial book written on the topic. Same with the British Museum when I confronted them about the Line 18 "misrepresentation" by Sachs/Hunger in the VAT4956. They acknowledged the error but didn't do anything about it, proceeded to minimize it, and instead of going after Sachs/Hunger regarding the error told me "he who writes no books make no errors", suggesting this was a simple oversight of no significance, which indicates they are lacking expertise in the case or themselves are biased and don't want to open up a can of worms.

  So another precaution in doing some critical research is understanding that the BIAS is in and the academic concerns are the most biased of all, why else would they even have their commentary so prominent.

  Finally, amazingly, I've found lots of references to certain ancient quotes by others but have never been able to find the original text in any library, and I've researched at several university libraries. That shouldn't happen with the library exchange that you can do as well. Thus, case in point, I used to be able to go to any of several libraries in Los Angeles and look up things in Josephus early during my research, 1992-2000, but when I recently tried to find a copy there was not a single copy in the entire library system. Now mind you, this is a huge library system that borrows from each other and there were once copies several of the branches and now there are NONE!

  So if you're looking for something that might throw the argument and it's been decided by the people who control all information to the public, you're not going to find it. Or it will be very difficult to find.

  What I therefore suggest to you, is get used to haunting some of the larger used book stores which often have some very, very interesting out-of-print stuff on your topic. Also for any topic, if you can get the OLDEST references on the topic, you will find more honesty and spontaneous opinion. And READ EVERYTHING on each topic available. If there are five commentaries on a Bible Book, be sure to read every single one since little snippets of truth can be found in the most surprising places!

  Best wishes on your research! But it's not easy to find the truth, in my opinion, on controversial Biblical issues because the hardcore promoters of their own beliefs are out there in force with all of them having very good sounding arguments, from the witnesses to Jonsson, and if you're aggressive, you'll end up taking their word as the final word on something that is no more than their own opinion.

  But, finally, there is one way out of it. You can simply focus on the Bible, accept/presume that it is true, and go at it that way, reading it for yourself and developing your own sense of what the Bible is trying to say. Sometimes that works and sometimes not, but it's a good habit to be in. Sometimes the answer is right there in front of you. And sometimes opposing concerns have one part of the same story right and the other wrong, so no one may have the complete truth and you have to piece it together yourself.

  Don't forget, Satan controls the world and all the false knowledge there is and suppresses TRUTH. "Keep seeking the truth, and the TRUTH shall set you free."

  But you must seek TRUTH...and not just the person with the best argument or the nicest cover on their books.

  Canon
• 

  peacefulpete

  Rather than worry about "Satan", learn to think critically and appreciate that few do it perfectly. When encountering opposing views ask what positive evidence exists to support this postion and why do others disagree? What evidence do they purport to have? This discipline has rewards in all areas of life not just in this debate. Please JC do not respond to this comment.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Perhaps my dead thread entitled, "methodologies" is of some help to wade thru the field of Bible research.
• 

  Gerard

  Think of God and follow you heart, not someone else's.