THE WEAKEST LINK---fatal flaws in Watchtower Chronology (page 4)

undercover

Somehow I posted before I was done...go figure, anyhoo...

Posters on this board only are critical of WTchronology because of the influence of the Jonsson hypothesis and his GTR, none of these poeople have contributed a single personal viewpoint as to exegesis, theology or on methodology.

I've never read Jonsson's work, including GTR so I can say that I'm not influenced by him. I have seen lots of others secular sources say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587. When most of the secular world can prove their dates against the lone unprovable WTS theory of 607, I am influenced by that.

You want my personal viewpoint on exegesis, theology and methodology? It's all bullshit. I've studied with the witnesses since the early sixties and I have realized that they are wrong on many things, not just the fall of Jerusalem. I don't care when Jerusalem was destroyed. I don't care how you figure when it was. I've come to realize that not only are the witnesses wrong, the bible is not the word of any god, particularly a god that chooses to hide and keep us guessing about everything from his name to his whereabouts. The difference between me and you is that I finally admitted that I was wrong to believe in all that shit. You are too full of yourself to ever admit that you were wrong.

WT chronology is based on sound secular and biblical evidence

Again, for the umpteenth time(so why am I wasting my time on this, I dunno) where is your secular evidence? Trot it on out for us to see. You keep saying it, but never showing it. You're a smart guy. You're a college grad, learn how to use cut and paste and put it here for us to see.

City Fan

Scholar,

Talking about Farkel's thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74549/1.ashx (587 BC for Total Dunderheads)

The last reply you gave to me was:

You have raised some interesting questions regarding the seventy years period and I will respond to these shortly

Well, you never did respond to me, but maybe by now you've had time to think of a reply to my comments?

And we're all still waiting for one piece of secular evidence for 607!!!!

CF.

Terry

Scholar

Your presentation is certainly pithy. But, you offer no details.

Assertions are not details.

What is your methodology?

Walk us through it so that we may observe your steps.

If they are persuasive I shall be convinced.

But, so far, I haven't seen anything at all.

The title of this TOPIC is The Weakest Link.

Show us your links. How do you string your argument together?

Show us the "why" in applying the steps.

That is all I'm asking for.

stichione

Scholar states:

The date of 607 for this event is baserd upon solid biblical and secular evidence and I suggest that you examine carefully the information contained in the Appendix in the publication concerning the Kingdom.

The only secular evidence Scholar is referring to is the assertions made in WTS publications when it tries to debunk historians and archeologists. The WTS DOES NOT provide any secular evidence pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem as being 607 BCE. Scholar makes no reference to REAL historians and archeologists who have REAL PhDs, who are unbiased and have no stake in what is the exact year of the destruction of Jerusalem.

He makes reference to the WTS which has invested heavily into the the year 607 BCE, a year in which if the WTS ever decided to correct itself by saying 607 is wrong, would lead to the total collapse of the superstructure on which this religion is based.

Maybe Scholar should work in getting a degree in archeology.

XQsThaiPoes

The fact this is numerology and not theology.

scholar

Terry

I assume that you have some understanding of WT chronology and have access to Wt publications on this subject. I have already presented a simple presentation of the matter which is in agreement with current scholarship. If you require more information then please do your own research in the publications by the Society because I do not intend at this time to publish on this board a treatise on this subject. The only area of difficulty is the vexed subject of the seventy years which has stretched the minds of scholars and I can only say that I am rather content with what the FDS has written on this subject. Perhaps in the future I will present an exegesis on this subject but that is simply a future project and in the meantime you need to do do your own research.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

undercover

Perhaps in the future I will present an exegesis on this subject but that is simply a future project and in the meantime you need to do do your own research.

Scholar,

You came onto this thread and made your claims, basically hi-jacking the thread. Then when put to task to prove your assertions you give us this non-answer. You started this. Now finish it by either producing your "proof" or admit that you're just trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass.

Terry

Scholar?

Scholarly is as scholarly does.

A pithy way of putting it: If the WT said it; it must be true.

First of all, you are not a scholar. I'm sorry, it isn't possible. If you are sympathetic to WT chronology you can't be a scholar because your education and access to the latest historical and archaelogical evidence would banish such a premise instantly.

Secondly, you cannot be a scholar and be a Jehovah's Witness. The Governing Body doesn't like the smell of higher education. If they catch a whiff of it on anybody's clothing the end is near for you!

Thirdly, a scholar would have the academic expertise to present a lucid argument. I can detect no argument on your behalf. I do detect a mental predisposition to flatter yourself. Methinks thou dost lay it on a bit thick with the pretense at credentials.

My guess is this. Scholar is a kid, probably no older than 25 who is a lurking JW upset at what he reads that threatens his orthodoxy. Possessing no data or skill at presenting it, scholar tries a bluff: "I am too important to explain myself."

Well, I've called the bluff. I asked you to lay out your argument and you ducked out the back door and ran down the alley into the back entrance to the Kingdom Hall.

Either make a clear exposition in the future or save us all some time diddling with you.

Kapish?

ballistic

To Terry and Scholar, you are both going to turn this into a flame war. It could be a perfectly reasonable conversation if we don't get personal.

THE WEAKEST LINK---fatal flaws in Watchtower Chronology

Share this