Corrupting historical facts

by Hellrider 39 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  carla

  And all of this is a salvation issue, how?
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  You are talking rubbish and it is apparent that you too have a biased agenda against WT chronology. Furuli is more than competent in dealing with Babylonian chronology because he is able to deal with primary sources as scholar in Semitic languages. Furuli readily admits in his Introduction to his thesis that he is neither an historian or a archaeo-astronomer but his approach is that of a linguist. Further, he outlines his methodology and welcomes contributions by other competent scholars.

  scholar JW
• 

  ozziepost

  all of this is a salvation issue, how?

  Carla,

  For the dubs it's crucial. It goes something like this:

  • 607 is tied to 1914.
  • 1914 is tied to "the invisible presence"
  • "the invisible presence" is tied to the appointment of the WTS as the "faithful and discreet slave" which has authority over the Lord's belongings i.e. it rules.
  • "the F&DS" is tied to the selection of the 144,0000
  • The 144,0000 is tied to the "great Crowd" of 1935 origins
  • The "great Crowd" is tied to the doctrine of two hopes i.e. heaven for the 144,000 and a "new earthg" for the "Great Crowd"

  And so on, ad nauseum.

  So you see it is a salvation issue - for dubs - but certainly not for christians.

  Cheers, Ozzie (true freedom lovers class)
• 

  City Fan

  Hellrider,

  I've read his book and it isn't very good.

  Here's Jonsson's refutation of Furuli http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm

  Here is a link to a discussion of the biblical material in Furuli's book by a Danish linguist Kristen Jorgenson: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/seventy.htm

  Here is a thread where Furuli was previously discussed: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/71770/1.ashx

  A quick note on JCanon's post about VAT4956. The VAT 4956 diary has 30 astronomical references that have different cycles, e.g. the position of Saturn that repeats itself once every 29.5 years approximately. Another reference is the "lunar three" observations which repeat every Saros or 18 years 11 days approx. There are also conjunctions of Venus which repeat every 8 years and conjunctions of the Moon which repeat every 19 years.

  All these cycles only have one match, that is 568/567 BC.

  Now JCanon has an agenda which is to date this diary to 511 BC so as to prove his messiah-ness! So he ignores every observation in this diary as yet another conspiracy and sticks with the lunar conjunctions which repeat every 19 years. Unfortunately for him even to make a few of these references work he has to use a different measuring system than the Babylonians used (i.e. use altitude/azimuth and not ecliptic measurements) and also has to ignore the scientifically proven and observable rate of decline of the Earth's rotational speed. This means his "double dates" only work from Honolulu!

  CF.
• 

  JCanon

  City Fan: You obviously don't understand the concept of double-dating. Your statements regarding what's in the VAT4956 is misunderstood and inaccurate, but it should suffice to say, as I noted, that the "errors" in Lines 3 and 14 were found and confirmed by others. That means no matter what cycles there are, these two references specifically do not work for 568/567BCE as you say and the experts have already said as much. So your statements are misinformed and inaccurate.

  A quick note on JCanon's post about VAT4956. The VAT 4956 diary has 30 astronomical references that have different cycles, e.g. the position of Saturn that repeats itself once every 29.5 years approximately. Another reference is the "lunar three" observations which repeat every Saros or 18 years 11 days approx. There are also conjunctions of Venus which repeat every 8 years and conjunctions of the Moon which repeat every 19 years.

  As I said, the Line 3 reference for the 9th of Nisan and the Line 14 reference for the 5th of Sivan were noted by others not to match. They don't match. Period. This has nothing to do with any kind of series. These two references are called "scribal errors".

  All these cycles only have one match, that is 568/567 BC.

  As I noted before, you don't understand what double-dating represents. The above statement proves it. This is not about the over 100 references that are astronomical matches to 568/567BC. This is about the two errors City Fan. The errors. Those that don't match. Your statement is false.

  Now JCanon has an agenda which is to date this diary to 511 BC so as to prove his messiah-ness! So he ignores every observation in this diary as yet another conspiracy and sticks with the lunar conjunctions which repeat every 19 years.

  This makes no sense, City Fan. As I said, the "errors" are confirmed by everyone. They don't match 568BCE. Do I need to post the quote? I never said that over 70 references in the text (originally over 100) didn't match 568/567BCE, I'm only concerned about the two "errors" that appear in Line 3 and 14, which though not matching 568/567 BCE do belong to the same lunar cycle and do match 511BCE. There's nothing you can do about it. The errors are there, I didn't invent them. The question is are they really "errors" and if not WHY are they there.

  Unfortunately for him even to make a few of these references work he has to use a different measuring system than the Babylonians

  This is not true. I use the Babylonian system of measuring. Why are you so desperate to misrepresent the VAT4956 issue. If it's wrong then put forth your discussion. Why say things that are not true?

  used (i.e. use altitude/azimuth and not ecliptic measurements) and also has to ignore the scientifically proven and observable rate of decline of the Earth's rotational speed. This means his "double dates" only work from Honolulu!

  What a joke! Do you know that the oldest observations of astronomy related to the length of the year is from ancient Egypt? Rameses II built a pyramid that was situated so that a beam of light would light up a certain part of the tomb exactly on his birthday. It is still working even now! Thus we know in the 14th Century BCE the length of the year was exactly the same length as it is now. You talk about the "observable rate of decline"? Well what about now? Is the Earth still declining in speed? Now that we have atomic clocks that should be easy to determine. Well, guess what? The earth rotational speed doesn't vary even within a fraction of a second right now. So the question is, if this decline was so steady and predictable, why did it sunddly stop and why is the Earth's speed so constant right now? And why is the Egyptian year the exact same length as our own if the Earth was traveling much faster back then? meaning there would be more days in their year?

  The only way we can know if the Earth's rotation has changed is by ancient records, which depends on their reliability. Per the Egyptians it has not changed. Per our own rate of observation now from year to year, it is so accurate it splits the second! But from the records from the Seleucid Period, which is where the Earth's Rotatinoal slow down theory comes from, there is up to 12 hours difference. The amount of time of decline back then was close to 3 minutes every five years, not a fraction of a second.

  Conclusion: Everyone doesn't understand revisionism and the effect of it when they see it.

  Believe what you want. Dismiss my claims if you want. But please don't try to over-sensationalize my position by distorting the truth to do so. Your comments suggest that you never really understood why the VAT4956 can be used to agree with the Bible's chronology which dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE, which is the TRUE date. That's why those 511BCE dates are in the text because they were secretly hidden there to save some record of the original chronology that was revised, even in astronomical texts. When they revised the astronomical texts, though, it inadvertenly added 12 hours to the Earth's Rotational Speed which was then further adjusted by the addition of the delta-T. That's why it seems the Earth is moving a lot fasting at the time of Babylon and Persia based upon those records, but is going the same speed based upon Egyptian records.

  The year is just as long now as it was in ancient Egypt, and the Earth is not slowing down any faster now than it did back then, which can't be measured even within a fraction of a second. What's even funnier is that phenomenal events, like the earthquake and recent tsunami have the effect of speeding up the Earth, theoretically, not slowing it down.

  City Fan, it's interesting you have to distort the facts in order to dismiss my position. But it really doesn't matter. Martin Anstey's interpretation of Scripture would have dated the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE and he specifically dismisses 82 years of Persian history as being revised. So it's not my argument. All the VAT4956 does is add support to the revision since it also requires an 82-year reduction of the Persian Period.

  JC
• 

  Hellrider

  Hellrider
  

  You are talking rubbish and it is apparent that you too have a biased agenda against WT chronology.

  The question is: WHY would a linguist, a person with no professional experience or education as a historian, engage in such a complex and wast issue as Babylonian chronology and history? And WHY this specific subject? And why is his whole research done with a goal in sight? (the 607-date) And why is he the only scholar (not a historian, though) in the entire world that insists on the 607-date? Ahh, then it becomes clear: He is a JEHOVAHS WITNESS! ...and by all academic standards and ideals, his "research" should be dismissed allready then. No person with a personal agenda or interest in reaching a certain conclusion, should be allowed to study the subject in question (this goes for all subjects. You wouldn`t put a neo-nazi in charge of doing revisionist work on the Holocaust, would you??!! - I think we all would know what his conclusions would be..)
• 

  Klaus Vollmer

  I guess we dont need scholars, any astronomers and so on.

  The bible itsself explains the correct date. Please read the posting from Honesty again.

  It is the matter, that thsi fact, Zechariah chapter 7, cannot be thrown from the desk.

  WE read there about the 70 years in regard to the assassination of Gedaliah, demonstrated by fastening.

  So we recognize: The bible itsself gives us clear information. For what should we use any studied head - in regard to the latest district convention is high education nothing for us in the high time of the end.

  So my invitation: dont make such people a desk where they sell their books to get their earnings.

  SWave the money or give Simon a donation that he keeps this site alive.

  Thank you Simon, for the possibility to share information here on a high level.

  Klaus
• 

  Hellrider

  Ok, it really wasn`t my intentions to make this into another 607/587-thread (there are plenty of thos allready), I just wanted to make sure everyone knoew Furuli was a JW. But now that we`re allready discussing this, there is only one more thing I`m unsure of, about the 607/587-thing, and some of you, like City Fan or Honesty should be able to clear this up (it`s just a small thing): I understand that the Babylonian chronology says that:

  Nabonidus reigned for 17 years (539 is a pivotal point, I assume, the one JWs and secular historians agree upon, right?)

  Labashi-Marduk reigned for 9 months

  Neriglissar reigned for 4 years

  Evil-Merodach reigned for 2 years

  Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years

  What I`m wondering about, is: To what extent does the Bible confirm the lengths of these kings reigns? Some of their reigns (the short ones in the middle) are mentioned, but in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, I only found a reference to his 23rd year (in Jeremiah) (I am also confused when reading the bible, because there are so many other characters/kings/statesmen being mentioned, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah etc). Now, if the BIBLE itself gives the entire chronology of the lenght of the 5 kings reignal years, then the WT-doctrine is screwed once and for all. Because, trying to "add a couple of years" to each kings reign, would mean claiming that the Bible lies, and the WT cannot possibly go that far.
• 

  City Fan

  Hellrider,

  The simple answer is it doesn't. The bible only mentions 2 of the kings, Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach. No lengths of reign are given.

  The bible calls Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar even though he was the son of Nabonidus. It's not the only time that Daniel confuses Nabonidus with Nebuchadnezzar. The story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness is adapted from a similar account about Nabonidus in which he is ill for seven years. The author of Daniel has swapped the identity of Nabonidus in the story with that of the more famous Nebuchadnezzar. The dead sea scroll 4 Q The Prayer of Nabonidus tells the original story and is probably based on factual events, Nabonidus having spent around 10 years away from Babylon in Teima during his reign.

  The bible is the only source that gives the date of the destruction of the temple, but again is vague about it. It doesn't say which calendar should be used to date this event, the Jewish or Babylonian, so depending which one you use you get 587 or 586 BC. You'd think if salvation depended on this date that god would have made sure that the bible was more specific about it.

  CF.
• 

  Hellrider

  Ok, thanks. Well, then I guess there`s no logical reason why it shouldn`t be the case that the Babylonian chronology could be wrong, but it would mean that each and every one of the five kings would have to reign a LOT longer than what the chronology says. Or, if Nebuchadnessar lived to be really old, and had his reign last for 63 years instead of 43, then his 18th year, when he threw out the jews, could perhaps be 607, but It is so extremely unlikely that it`s almost ridicolous. But then, hey, they believe man has only existed for 6000 years, and that the dinosaurs were put on earth only to "salt the earth", so what the heck. However, it`s very hypocritical of the WT to accept the part of the chronology that suits their claims (the date of return, because they had to return in 537 if the 607-date is supposed to be 70 years earlier), but dismiss the part they don`t like. Also, it might be logically incompatible to use a chronology to set one date, but then change it to reach another date in the chronology. But thanks for clearing up that question for me. It`s to bad it`s not possible to set a firm and clear chronology solely based on the Bible and one pivotal year (because this can`t be done JCanon, although you seem to hint at this on several occasions), because that would have put it all to rest once and for all.