Many many books from library on 586/87

by ithinkisee 129 Replies latest watchtower bible

Will Power

Excuse me for butting in, but isn't numerology frowned upon in the BIBLE?

I know the founder of the WT society was BIG & HEAVY into it, but that is

NO EXCUSE.

:-)
Jeffro

Scholar
It is arithmetic for you
Let's switch from arithmetic to probability for a minute... Have you considered the extreme improbability that the single act of removing the Society's spurious 20-year gap, by complete co-incidence, would align the entire period of the Divided Monarchy with secular history if it were arrived at by 'academic guessing'?
If the dates arrived at by 'worldly' chronologers are so flawed, why do secular and bible data then fit perfectly in my chronology, and completely by co-incidence? The Society continually needs to make up excuses for it's variances with historians. I don't have to do that at all.
Jeffro

Scholar,
Your claim that Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 refers to the same year lacks evidence because the history proves that these are two separate historical events occurring at different times.
I missed this part in my last post. Yes, they are discussing different events, though that does not mean they didn't happen in the same year. It is extremely likey that Jeremiah 25:1 discusses events before those of Daniel 1:1. I'm not sure to what history you're referring when you say they happened at different times - perhaps just Society 'history'??
Jeremiah indicates that Jerusalem would very soon feel the effects of Babylonian domination (though the 70 years of nations serving Babylon had already begun - Jeremiah 25:11,12,17-25) Jeremiah 25:3-7 indicates that by this time, it was too late for Jerusalem to plead repentence for their course. Daniel 1:1 indicates that Jerusalem did soon start to feel that effect when captives were taken.
scholar

Jeffro
I am glad that you agree that Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 refer to different events but you insist that these must coincide in the same year. You provide no proof and those two texts do not indicate that rather to the contrary because the data given refers to a third year of Jehoiakim's kingship not reign and a fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign with the first year of Neb. These texts omit the data for any coincidence. Yes, the prophecy of Jeremiah foretols the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and domination by Babylon but then you assume that the Babylonian domination had already begun but the text in Jeremiah 25:1 indicates tghat such domination by Babylon had not begun but wouls shortly at Neb's ist year of rule. There is absolutely no scriptural or historical evidence for the seventy yeras foretold by Jeremiah beginning prior to Neb's ist year and Jehoiakims fourth year. Your theory is kaput.
You venture issues of probability in order to overcome the twenty year gap by synchronizing the Divided Monarchy with secular history. Celebrated WT scholars have already done this as we have a Divided Monarchy chronology which fits well with secular history and evidence. The twenty gap remains only by way of comparison between sacred and profane chronology and that is your problem and not mine. Yes you have a chronology for the Divide Monarchy that is close to ours and you have harmonized the data accordingly. So, what you should do is write up ascholarly article so that the world communmity of schol,ars can be thus emlightened but we reject your dating because it cannot accommodate the seventy years of exile-desolation-servitude.
No, historians do not accept the event for 609 as you claim as there is no agreement. In regard to 607 we have not ignored Daniel, Josephus and Jeremiah but we have ignored the other sources as irrelevant. There is no guesswork as this date is calculated upon fixed data witha fixed beginning and end which is not the case with your chronology as you use a fuzzy beginning for the beginning of the seventy years.
Perhaps, your remarks about conceit should be directed also to the person of Alan F who I understand that both of you disagree with Zechariah;s seventy years. It is amusing to see apostates fighting amongst themselves.
scholar JW
Jeffro

I am glad that you agree that Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 refer to different events but you insist that these must coincide in the same year. You provide no proof and those two texts do not indicate that rather to the contrary because the data given refers to a third year of Jehoiakim's kingship not reign and a fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign with the first year of Neb. These texts omit the data for any coincidence.

Obviously you have ignored my previous posts. Daniel, living in Babylon, uses the 'accession year' system of counting regnal years. What this means is that the kings 'first' year is not counted from actually taking the throne, but from the start of the next calendar year. Jeremiah did not use the 'accession year' system, so when he talks about the year of a reign, the number is one (1) higher. Let me know if you need it simplified any further.
Yes, the prophecy of Jeremiah foretols the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and domination by Babylon but then you assume that the Babylonian domination had already begun but the text in Jeremiah 25:1 indicates tghat such domination by Babylon had not begun but wouls shortly at Neb's ist year of rule.
It sounds like you need to review Jeremiah chapter 25 without your 'Society glasses' on. It does not say that the 70 years were of exile, and it does not say that they start from Jerusalem's destruction. Verses 8-11 talk about "nations" serving babylon; there is no mention of exile. Verse 9 indicates that Nebuchadrezzar would be sent against "all these nations", but it is not this event that marks the beginning of the seventy years. Verses 11 and 12 mention the 70 years in connection with, not Nebuchadnezzar, but "the king of Babylon". There is nothing to indicate that the 70 years of serving Babylon had not already begun prior to Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Also, verse 12 talks about the seventy years ending before the king of Babylon is judged so the seventy years could not start after 609. (Compare Jeremiah 25:26; 51:41, Daniel 5:26-31)
There is absolutely no scriptural or historical evidence for the seventy yeras foretold by Jeremiah beginning prior to Neb's ist year and Jehoiakims fourth year. Your theory is kaput.
There certainly is historical evidence that Babylon replaced Assyria as a World Power, and that is the event that Jeremiah chaper 25 describes as beginning the 70 years - specifically nations becoming subject to Babylon (verses 11,12). Jeremiah's announcement to the Jews came at the point where it was too late for them to repent and Nebuchadnezzar was going to bring conflict (verses 3-7). It does not preclude the period of nations serving Babylon from already having started. The nations became subject to Babylon's supremacy in 609, but it did not mean that conflict specifically started in that year.
You venture issues of probability in order to overcome the twenty year gap by synchronizing the Divided Monarchy with secular history. Celebrated WT scholars have already done this as we have a Divided Monarchy chronology which fits well with secular history and evidence. The twenty gap remains only by way of comparison between sacred and profane chronology and that is your problem and not mine. Yes you have a chronology for the Divide Monarchy that is close to ours and you have harmonized the data accordingly. So, what you should do is write up ascholarly article so that the world communmity of schol,ars can be thus emlightened but we reject your dating because it cannot accommodate the seventy years of exile-desolation-servitude.
There's that shortcut key again. LOL. Anyway... the Society's Divided Monarchy doesn't fit well at all. It is 20 years out. That certainly isn't my problem, and the Society has written quite a lot to try to justify it, so obviously it is their problem. But the issue of probability is a little more complex than that. If the Society is right, and therefore all the secular records are wrong, then it is extremely improbable that simply removing the Society's contested 20 years would make everything match up.
No, historians do not accept the event for 609 as you claim as there is no agreement. In regard to 607 we have not ignored Daniel, Josephus and Jeremiah but we have ignored the other sources as irrelevant. There is no guesswork as this date is calculated upon fixed data witha fixed beginning and end which is not the case with your chronology as you use a fuzzy beginning for the beginning of the seventy years.
Some consider the end of the Assyrian Empire to be in the year 612 when Nineveh was captured. However, it is agreed that 609 was the year in which the Babylonians captured the new Assyrian capital, Harran.
The only manner in which you have a 'fixed beginning' for the seventy years is you add 70 to 537, (ignoring Daniel's indication that the 70 years ended in October 539). There is absolutely no evidence at all for any relevant event occuring in 607, let alone a fuzzy one.
Perhaps, your remarks about conceit should be directed also to the person of Alan F who I understand that both of you disagree with Zechariah;s seventy years. It is amusing to see apostates fighting amongst themselves.
Firstly, your reference to me as an 'apostate' is slanderous and violates the forum guidelines (See Posting Guidelines 1 and 2). Yes, I disagree with AlanF on some points; but at least he presents logical arguments and provides valid references instead of rehashing Watchtower rhetoric. Also, it should be noted that in my dispute with AlanF, I clearly stated that I was not saying that his interpreation was wrong, but simply that another valid interpretation exists. It is not the same situation as that of the Watchtower Society's interpretation which is inconsistent both internally and with secular authorities.
Hellrider

Celebrated WT scholars

Hey, Scholar, just a couple of things:

1) WHO are these "celebrated WT scholars" you keep referring to? What are their names and academic background? Because the word "scholar" in normal-talk (unlike JW-talk) means someone with an academic background! You know, a person that has studied at a university! It couldn`t be the same kind of "academic" background that the guys on the New World Translation-committe had, could it? Which is being "selftaught" in hebrew and greek? Yes, that`s right, this is the kind of "academic" background the WT has. The following is an example of what "Scholar" means by "WT-scholars": Of the 6 people on the NWT-commite (all GB-members, if memory serves me right), only 2 had any knowledge of the greek and hebrew languages. Fredrick Frantz was chairman of the committee and had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati without graduating (two years, but had only attended class 23 times), and was only self-taught in Hebrew. WHen asked, under oath in a court of law, to translate a passage of Genesis into hebrew, he was unable to do so. Also, the study of modern and classical greek doesn`t qualify anyone in Biblical translation anyway, because this is not the greek of the Bible. The other member was George Gangas, who was born greek, and thus spoke modern greek fluently. He had no knowledge of neither classical greek, hebrew, or the particular kind of greek of the Bible. The other four members had no training in the biblical languages whatsoever. THIS is the kind of "scholarship" they have at the WTBTS. It`s absolutely amasing that they couldn`t even find any people in their religion more qalified to do the translation-work, as they have 5 million members. But then again, the NWT isn`t really a translation, it`s just a tampering, a changing of certain verses, to make them fit in with JW-doctrine. Yup, these guys are some real "scholars".
2) You constantly refer to the "Jonsson hypothesis".First of all, there is no Jonsson hypothesis. There is a Jonsson, who keeps trying to get the message out there that the WTb&ts` view on 607 is NOT the view of 99.99 % of the academics of the world (the 0.01 % being Rolf Furuli, a member of the JWs). Jonsson has no hypothesis, he`s merely trying to educate people on this issue, so they won`t fall for WT-propaganda. What he`s doing is providing information from the academic world to anyone looking for this information. And the only ones who actually cares about such an obscure and (to the rest of the world) uninteresting issue, just happens to be ex-jws, apostates, and people that are in the process of breaking out of your cult, and are looking for information. That`s why you`re so upset!! There`s a reason why you keep referring to it as the "Jonsson hypothesis". By calling it a "hypothesis", you try to discredit it, making it sound (probably more in your own ears than in the rest of the worlds, as you deep down know how weak your position is) like just that, a hypothesis, a theory that is just one amongst many others, a theory that is "in the minority". By using this expression, you`re thinking that you might persuade some of the "doubters" that the 587-theory is just one of many theories, that this theory is something just a minority of academics believe. WRONG! The entire academic world (with the exception of the JW Rolf Furuli, who isn`t even a historian, but a linguist) agree on the 586/587-date.
By the way, you sure are an annoying piece of work. Why are you here anyway? Oh, I know: You`re here to spew your propaganda, trying to persuade doubters to get their butts back to KH,and not have anything to do with "apostates": You`re probably writing down your hours on this board as field service-time. Damn hypocrite.
scholar

Jeffro
Your theory about the calendrical method employed by Daniel and Jeremiah is simply just that and is simply inadequate in solving the problem of Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1. Scholars and commentators have already followed that line of thinking but others reject it because the matter of calendation is very problematical so this interpretation although plausible is rejected by celebrated WT scholars and others.
Jeremiah 25 says a lot of things which are nicely ignored by apostates. Themes of exile, servitude and desolation are most certainly stated and implied in that chapter and perhaps you should remove Jonsson hypothesis glasses and reread the chapter.
Nowwhere does the Bible indicate that the beginning of the seventy years is commensurate with the end of the Assyrian World Power and the rise of the Babylonian Empire. This is simply an interpretation devised by higher critics to get round the problematic seventy years.
Our list for the Divided Monarchy fits very well with our overall chronology as there is no gap of twenty years in our scheme. The gap manifests itself only when our sacred chronology is compared to that of the secular or profane. Too bad.
The year of 607 is determined precisely right to the very month and year. It is not fuzzy because the biblical data links it with the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzer and Zedekiah for the biblical and historical event of the Fall of Jerusalem. Your fuzzy chronology admits no such discrimination of the data because you cannot decide on the year whether it is 589, 588, 587, 586 so you get that right first before you challenge our momentous date of 607.
Are you an apostate? Have you been or are you now a Witness? If the latter answer is a negative then please accept my apologies and if the answer is positive then be like Alan F and take it on the chin for Alan is the master of insults and derogation.
scholar JW
Jeffro

Your theory about the calendrical method employed by Daniel and Jeremiah is simply just that and is simply inadequate in solving the problem of Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1. Scholars and commentators have already followed that line of thinking but others reject it because the matter of calendation is very problematical so this interpretation although plausible is rejected by celebrated WT scholars and others.

You really do make me laugh. Firstly, there is NO problem with Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1. It is well attested that the accession-year system was used in Babylon. Daniel wrote in Babylon after being taught in the ways of Babylon. It is not much of a stretch of the imagination that he used the accession-year system. There is nothing problematic in the slightest of the 'calculation', and is in full agreement with Jeremiah stating the time of reign being one year more.
Jeremiah 25 says a lot of things which are nicely ignored by apostates. Themes of exile, servitude and desolation are most certainly stated and implied in that chapter and perhaps you should remove Jonsson hypothesis glasses and reread the chapter.
If others ignore things, that is their business. I have properly indicated that 'chorbah', 'shamem' and 'za'am' do not mean uninhabited. I have also posted information on every single verse relevant to the issue. As usual you make a generalisation that ignores the facts.
Nowwhere does the Bible indicate that the beginning of the seventy years is commensurate with the end of the Assyrian World Power and the rise of the Babylonian Empire. This is simply an interpretation devised by higher critics to get round the problematic seventy years.
'Nowwhere'? Anyway... Jeremiah 25:11: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."’. (The Contemporary English bible renders it as “After Babylonia has been the strongest nation for seventy years”) Isaiah's Prophecy - Light for all Mankind says, immediately after citing Jeremiah 25:8-17: "Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination."
Our list for the Divided Monarchy fits very well with our overall chronology as there is no gap of twenty years in our scheme. The gap manifests itself only when our sacred chronology is compared to that of the secular or profane. Too bad.
Of course it fits well with itself - that's a pretty silly defense. Insight tries to avoid acknowledging the twenty-year gap, but states in its Chronology article: "The difference between the [dates used in Insight] and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to ... 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time." The single reason for this 20-year difference is the 20-year gap created by the Society's flawed interpretation. Trying to blame that on 'profane' chronology is simply a biased and foundationless cop-out.
The year of 607 is determined precisely right to the very month and year. It is not fuzzy because the biblical data links it with the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzer and Zedekiah for the biblical and historical event of the Fall of Jerusalem. Your fuzzy chronology admits no such discrimination of the data because you cannot decide on the year whether it is 589, 588, 587, 586 so you get that right first before you challenge our momentous date of 607.
If someone adds a number to another number, of course they can say that the number they arrived at is 'determined precisely', but it doesn't actually mean that anything happened in that year, and there is no actual evidence whatsoever that anything relevant did happen. In contrast, it is known that a relevant occurred in 609. It is known that Daniel indicated Babylon's judgement in 539. And it is known that Jeremiah said that Babylon would exercise authority for 70 years. Additionally the Society's view is only 'exact' if the people of Jerusalem took no additional travelling time going to and from Babylon.
Are you an apostate? Have you been or are you now a Witness? If the latter answer is a negative then please accept my apologies and if the answer is positive then be like Alan F and take it on the chin for Alan is the master of insults and derogation.
The term 'apostate' is used by the Watchtower Society simply as 'character assassination'. My baptism is annulled specifically because the second baptism question is contingent upon the lie that the Watchtower Society is 'God's spirit-anointed organization'. That statement is demonstrably untrue, and even in the absence of disproof, it is inherently unprovable. Therefore the implied verbal contract is invalid and void. On that basis, I regard myself in the same manner as any person who has not been baptised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Additionally, there is no biblical basis for calling someone an 'apostate' for identifying errors in Watchtower Society beliefs. Neither your opinion or that of the Society is relevant in this matter. Since the term 'apostate' is used by the Watchtower Society in an intentionally insulting and denegrating manner, addressing an individual using that term directly or by implication is slanderous and is also against the forum posting guidelines.
Hellrider

Jeffro, there is no point in trying to explain him this stuff, he`s got a thick JW-skull. His "celebrated WT-scholars" have determined the chronology from this very minute back to the day Adam walked around buttnaked in Paradise. Oh well, there is of course the "we don`t know how long Adam was alone in Paradise"-apology, but never mind that, like the WTs of 1975 said "it could only be a matter of weeks, months at the highest"...cause naming a few thousand species couldn`t take very long, of course.
Hey, "celebrated WT-Scholar":
Your theory about the calendrical method employed by Daniel and Jeremiah is simply just that and is simply inadequate in solving the problem of Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1.
Look, there is no problem, neither in Jeremiah and Daniel (concerning chronology) or in the "70 years of desolation"!! There is a problem with the "70 years of desolation" for JW-doctrine, because you have based your entire religion, for the last 75 years or so, on the 1914-doctrine. Because of 1914, it is essential for you that 607 must be the date of the destruction of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the desolation of the land. Because the destruction of the temple would mean that "ancient Israel" had been destroyed, which would, in your insane mythology, be followed by restoration of the True Faith/ "the new Israel" and the , and the "beginning of the end times" after 3 1/2 x 2 Daniel-times, 2520 years. This is why it is so important for you, and your religious doctrine to set the date for the destruction to 607. Therefore it is essential for you to engage in "solving the problem of the 70 years". To the rest of the world, this is not problematic at all!
... Jeremiah 25:11: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
Jeremiah says nothing about total destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple, it claims that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years".
Are you an apostate? Have you been or are you now a Witness? If the latter answer is a negative then please accept my apologies and if the answer is positive then be like Alan F and take it on the chin for Alan is the master of insults and derogation
This must be the most insulting, repulsive comment I have heard in many months. This is JW-talk, and here is the translation into normal people-talk: "Have you ever been, or are you nowa witness? If no, then it`s ok for us to discuss these things. If you are an apostate, then you are a renegade, a deserter, and you are fair game for persecution, insults and shunning, because the holy and mighty WTb&ts has sentenced you to death in the name of almighty Jehovah (well, Jehovah and WTS is esentially the same anyway). You are nothing, the dirt beneath my shoes, a walking dead man God will kill in Armageddon".
Well, guess what, "celebrated JW-Scholar": 98% of the people on this forum are apostates! If you don`t like talking to us, cause we`re such trash, then do me a favor and sod off! Go invent the missing 20 years in your "momentous date of 607" somewhere else!
"Momentous date of 607". "Celebrated JW-scholars". Ha ha, give me a break! You know, term-dropping just seems so much more retarded when used by someone who clearly hasn`t got a clue as to what he`s talking about. Or where his own ass is placed, for that matter.
scholar

Jeffro.
Your attempt to harmonize the different chronological data in Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 is a joke. You already have admitted that tthese statements are not of the same historical event but you believe that these occurred in the same year because of th accession and non-accession year system used by Jeremiah and Daniel. However there is a big problem with this argument which remains such even to this very day. Although in principle Bible writers used this system for chronological purposes its application today is not fully understood and universaly applied.
Scholars such as Edwin Thiele certainly recognized the principle or method but scholars like Thiele disagree as to the method of application. For example, there is no consistency of its use during the Divided Monarchy with the kings but it varied for the kings of Judah and Israel and varied at different times during the overall period. The apparent lack of uniformity in its application renders its use in the modern day setting extremely vexatious. For this reason celebrated WT scholars have chosen rather than a reganl based approach but rather the more practical-event based methodology for this removes to some extent the varaibility of the accession and non-paccession principle.
Point number two is that Daniel did not use the word reign but kingship as properly translated so the interpretation of the third year is shifted from a regnal year to an historic event in the course of his reign of which was in fact a kingship as a vassal to Necho and Nebuchadnezzer.
so, scholar has given you three firm reasons which prove that the traditional interpretation of these verses is false.
1. Different history
2. Inconsistent methodology
3. Diferent Hebrew term as kingship rather than reign
scholar JW

Many many books from library on 586/87

Share this