PLEASE HELP! Assist in 1914 Rebuttal...

by Jared 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  undercover

  Here is why 1914 is wrong even if (I say IF) 607 is right:

  The WTS uses the "day for a year" rule to come up with the 2520 years from 607 to 1914 (Remembering there is no zero year, an embarrasing oops for the WTS in the early days, that's why they used to say 606). But they don't use 365 day years, they use 360 day years. So the "seven times" equals seven years of 360 days or 2520. 2520 at a day for a year takes you from 607 to 1914, or does it? It's already been established that a "time" or year is 360 days. 2,520 years of 365 days from 607 equals 1914 but 2,520 years of 360 days equals 12,600 days less or 35 years less, making the conclusion of the formula some time in the late 1870s.

  So even if you accept 607 as the correct date of the fall of Jerusalem, the formula used to figure the gentile times ending is flawed. You can argue all day long about 586 or 607, it doesn't matter. The math doesn't add up to 1914.
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  It's already been established that a "time" or year is 360 days. 2,520 years of 365 days from 607 equals 1914 but 2,520 years of 360 days equals 12,600 days less or 35 years less, making the conclusion of the formula some time in the late 1870s.

  LOL that means we were closer the first time with 1884. Maybe they change it back so it will have fuzzy error bars between 607 and 587.

  I still think nobody effectively awnser IWs question. Considerinop;g nothing important happend in 1914 (excluding world war) how does disproving 1914 solve anything? Since it was already a flop it does not take much to discredit it. People want too much truth in religion its most holy lies made to trick people into being good awyway. It seem all legitimate schoolars have nothing wrong the religious docterines of the WTS they just disagree that a civilized religion shoulld be so seedy and totalitarian. Hey the world has been seedy a totalitarian longer than it has been sublime and free.
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  I did not quote Jonsson in saying that 587 must be the date for the fall of Jerusalem so there is no need for a page number but chooses this date for his own reasons. It seems that according to you there is no certainty about any calender year for this event. For this reason it comes down to methodology and by following the revealed wisdom the Society has given priority to the biblical data combined with relevant secular evidence to calculate 607. By following such a method, the many calendrical problems raised by Jonsson are solved as one sees the relevance of biblical chronology fulfilled in prophecy namely the Gentile Times ending in 1914. This is hardly wild prophectic speculation as this prophecy has attracted the attention of Bible Students for centuries.

  scholar
• 

  hillary_step

  For this reason it comes down to methodology and by following the revealed wisdom the Society has given priority to the biblical data combined with relevant secular evidence to calculate 607. By following such a method, the many calendrical problems raised by Jonsson are solved as one sees the relevance of biblical chronology fulfilled in prophecy namely the Gentile Times ending in 1914

  Surely you see the great wisdom in this methodology. It is rather like trying to describe an Elephant when all you have is its droppings....

  HS
• 

  ellderwho

  Scholar,

  combined with relevant secular evidence to calculate 607.

  Where is it?
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  So if you're now saying that Jonsson prefers the date 587 but also shows evidence for the possibility that it could be 586 then that's fine by me. As I said previously, there is uncertainty as to which year Jerusalem fell, but it definitely fell in either 586 or 587. The calendrical problems discussed by Jonsson have been raised by most other scholars in this field.

  I also see no contradiction between the bible and 586/587. Look at any other translation of Jeremiah 29:10 other than the King James version. This is the Contemporary English Version: "After Babylonia has been the strongest nation for seventy years, I will be kind and bring you back to Jerusalem, just as I have promised.". Now if Assyria was finally destroyed in 609 BC with the fall of Harran, and Babylon became the biggest power in the region, then that verse makes sense.

  Now if there is uncertainty about the exact year of the destruction of the temple, there is absolute certainty about the first capture of Jerusalem. According to the Babylonian Chronicles it was in his seventh year that Nebuchadrezzar called out his army, marched to Khatti and besieged the city of Judah. ?On the second day of Adar he captured the city and seized its king.? He then appointed Mattaniah (Zedekiah) as regent instead of the captured Jehoiachin.The 2nd of Adar (Addaru) in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year was 16th March 597 BC.

  You can date Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year as 25 March 598 BC - 11 April 597 BC either by using the known lengths of the Neo-Babylonian kings and counting backwards from 539BC (a date confirmed by secular sources as you said), or by using astronomical texts. As an example of a secular source or astronomical text that confirms Nebuchadnezzar's years of reign I'll use tablet BM 38462. Cuneiform tablet BM 38462 (=LBAT 1420) reports lunar eclipses for almost every year from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar II (604/603 BC) to his 29th year (576/575 BC).

  The following information on lines 16-18 of the first side of the tablet gives eclipse data for year 17 of Nebuchadnezzar: Lunar Eclipse, Obv. II, 16-18: BC 587 Jan 08 (mag. = 1.80) [Obv. II, 16?-18?; trans Huber p15]

  [Nebuchadnezzar II, year] 17, month IV (eclipse) passed. [Month X] 13, morning watch(?) 1 beru 5 U[S] (= 35 deg) [before sunrise?] it set totally [eclipsed].

  Notes: Although the interval to which the measurement of 35 deg refers is broken away, it can confidently be restored as ?before sunrise?. The characteristic style of BM 38462 is to cite the time interval measured after sunset or before sunrise near the start of a record. Since the moon set eclipsed, it is clear that the 35 deg cannot have been measured after sunset. It was a total eclipse.

  The eclipse referenced earlier in the record as occurring in month IV, Duzu, would have been the lunar eclipse of July 15, 588BC.

  To see if any other year matches this record we need to find an eclipse in month IV, Duzu, followed by a total lunar eclipse in month IX or X, which sets totally eclipsed. (Lunar eclipses follow 5 or 6 months after a previous one)

  There are, in fact, no total lunar eclipses that set eclipsed in months IX or X in the years 625 BC to 500 BC. There are two in month XI, Shabatu, that set eclipsed, February 19, 580BC and February 10, 533BC, both of which follow an eclipse in month V. These obviously do not match the record.

  The only match to BM 38462 Obv II, 16-18 is the total lunar eclipse of 08 January 587BC. The computed first contact interval is 32.25° before sunrise (compare to 35° before sunrise in BM 38462. (Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers, John. M. Steele).

  Therefore 13 Tebetu, year 17 Nebuchadnezzar = 07/08 January 587 BC.

  Nebuchadnezzar year 17 = 588 BC ? 587 BC, and so his 7th year would be 598 BC - 597 BC. There are also more than a dozen other observations and even more predictions on this tablet that can only refer to one specific year. This is the kind of secular evidence used to date the first capture of Jerusalem as 16th March 597 BC and the destruction as 586/587 BC.

  CF.
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  It amazes me that you admit to the uncertainty as which calender year Jerusalem fell and yet you would hope to convince me that it definitely fell in an unknown or undetermined date. Then you seek to impress me all of the astronomical data which allegedly confirms early calendrical years for Nebs reign. I do not need this information as Jonsson in his writings boasts about so called 14 lines of evidence confirming an unknown and unknowable date. Please give me a break and do not insult my intelligence by presenting such stupid reasoning. Scholars cannot agree even on an Absolute Date for any event for the Old Testament. Jonsson prefers the date for the 37th year of Neb where Thiele prefers a much older date so even on fundamentals there is no consensus. Your chronological speculation is railroaded by the seventy years ending with return of the exiles under Cyrus and its beginning soon after the Fall of Jerusalem. Any other methodology that circumvents the seventy years is doomed to fail and for this reason alone the Society's understanding can only be correct. Scholars including Jonsson are guilty of intelle ctual fraud in trying to promote a failed and unsustainable chronolgy which is confusing, complex, lacking agreement and deviod of any prophetic implication. If you want such a discredited chronology then that is your choice but I place my faith on a certain, sustainable biblical chronology that has prophetic implications as in the spirit of Daniel.

  scholar
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar:

  Your chronological speculation is railroaded by the seventy years ending with return of the exiles under Cyrus and its beginning soon after the Fall of Jerusalem.

  And remind us again scholar, how do we know that Babylon fell in 539 BC? Here's a clue, it's nothing to do with the Nabonidus Chronicle.
• 

  TD

  By following such a method, the many calendrical problems raised by Jonsson are solved as one sees the relevance of biblical chronology fulfilled in prophecy namely the Gentile Times ending in 1914. This is hardly wild prophectic speculation as this prophecy has attracted the attention of Bible Students for centuries.

  In other words, despite the fact that the Gentile nations are still very much in power nearly a century later, their lease of power was invisibly cancelled by the invisible King, Christ Jesus who unbeknownst to anyone at the time, began ruling invisibly from the heavens in 1914.

  This in turn establishes the validity of the selective combination of elements of Nebuchadnezzer's tree dream with John's vision of the woman, manchild and dragon to transform 7 times into a figure of 2520 lunar years.

  Subsequently counting back 2520 solar years from 1914 to a point temporally anterior to the tree dream itself then establishes the validity of 607 BC.

  As a natural corollary, the establishment of the validity of 607 BC vinidcates the approach of Jehovah's Witnesses to ancient calendaring and so the inherent difficulties therein become irrelevant.

  Anyone acknowledging those difficulties can then be dismissed out of hand.

  No, this doesn't sound like wild prophetic speculation to me......
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  So what1 I am fully aware about the secular evidence for the Nabonidus Chronicle for it used to determine the calender year for the fall of Babylon in 539. This does not mean that a chronologist is bound to accept all other secular evidence as you and Jomsson imply. An independent scholar or chronologist upon surveying all evidence secular and biblical will choose a methodology in accordance with his worldview. The Society has determined that as the Bible already in itself the sole source for the history of Israel should be given priority and primacy in matters of chronology and history particularly where there are discrpanies between the secular and the profane. Already there is a twenty year gap that it is impossible to bridge concerning that latter period of Judean history so such secular records need careful attention.

  scholar