New 607 info? (page 3)

stillajwexelder

Only apersonal opinion but I think the WTBTS are gearing up for changes and they will "as early as such and such aWT we said --- " watch this space - I see scholar is still not very scholarly

boa

stillajwexelder....that also sounds interesting....any more you can relate on this?

boa...

stillajwexelder

not yet - but there will be changes -things are just adding up - the way they did in the 70s and 80s to change

PMFJI. According to WT teaching, the "second year" of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:1 is really his "twentieth" year. So by their way of looking at things, there is no contradiction in the two statements you posted.

You might be interested in a thread from the summer of 2003 which covered this (and some other points of chronology) in some depth. Starting around the middle of page 7, the discussion continues for many pages.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/54983/7.ashx

You will see that Scholar was arguing that "kingship" and "reign" have different meanings. I posted lists of verses where the NWT uses "kingship" and "reign" to translate the same Hebrew word, "malkhuth".

Earnest had a very good explanation of WT teaching on the subject of Daniel 2:1.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/54983/825912/post.ashx#825912

Regards,

Marjorie

startingover

Marjorie,

Thanks for those threads. I don't know how I missed them. One of the favorites is still your KISS thread.

Now I have some more reading to do.

RunningMan

Actually, I think the Society has a little wiggle room. When they said:

In the second year of his kingship as world ruler, 606-605 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar is agitated

they could say that they have meant that he became king of Babylon in 624 BC, but did not become WORLD ruler until he polished off the mighty Israelites, thereby becoming world ruler in 607 BC.

Arguing against the Society is much like arguing against Scholar. There just is no point. They will change the definitions, or perform some other slight of hand in mid argument. My personal favorite is when they say that something happened "in the sense that".....

Whenever you see the phrase "in the sense that...." you just know something goofy is going to be forthcoming.

Haereticus

they could say that they have meant that he became king of Babylon in 624 BC, but did not become WORLD ruler until he polished off the mighty Israelites, thereby becoming world ruler in 607 BC.

"You may survive Armageddon into God's New world" (1955) page 127 describes seven world powers of which (2) Assyria and (3) Babylon. On page 128 the third head of the wild beast, Babylon, overthrew Assyria by capturing its capital city Niniveh in 632 B.C.

To me this all seems like WTBTS is re-re-re-rewriting whatever they call history.

startingover

This board is invaluable to me. I am fascinated by 607, and now after I start this thread I find out through Alleymom's post that I missed a great thread because I went on vacation. The "friends" section just moves way too fast.

Interesting info Haereticus.

Haereticus

Interesting info Haereticus.

Unfortunately that was just a part of what I actuallay had in mind, but here is the rest. I have been through these books from my early years and "Yuor will be done on earth" (1958) page 109 says:

"Of this impressive fact Jehovah God notified the king of Babylon in the second year of his reign as world ruler, or in 606-605 B.C."

This is the same what 1963 edition si page 139 says, 1963 si was translated and published in finnish 1978 and translation has this 1963 si phrasing.

Mark

City Fan

Another problem with relying on biblical chronology, apart from it's internal inconsistencies, are the number of textual variants.

Now take Daniel 2:1. The Old Greek translation (Papyrus 967) reads twelfth, not second. So which was original?

New 607 info?

Share this