Jeff - excellent point comparing the Darwin/missing fossils argument to the WT/missing 20 years issue.
The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets
by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
PaulJ
I think they would survive. A few excuses of 'being exited' about being so close, because 'we are so close, still' followed by a 'thief in the night' and 'only Jehovah knows' then an admonishment for even thinking about a date in the first place and all will be fine in dubdom.
-
AlmostAtheist
The real fun will be when the "celebrated watchtower scholars" decide to drop it, and the "scholar"-types -- that know the current doctrine inside and out, complete with secular references -- have to change their thinking overnight or be disfellowshipped for apostasy.
Dave
-
Jeffro
The real fun will be when the "celebrated watchtower scholars" decide to drop it, and the "scholar"-types -- that know the current doctrine inside and out, complete with secular references -- have to change their thinking overnight or be disfellowshipped for apostasy.
But that naughty 'scholar' should be disfellowshipped anyway for flagrantly disregarding, for the last 4 years, the Society's counsel to avoid 'apostate' websites.
-
Smiles
The WT "scholars" can preach whatever the hell they want to preach because the JW flock is not going to travel the world studying the facts or educate themselves in the most current discoveries of historical research.
The millions of common JWs believe because they trust the "spirit directed" FDS and have "faith" in Jehovah making the light of their spiritual truth "get brighter".
-
M.J.
celebrated WT scholars have wisely cautioned that such secular material is still subject to interpretation and a methodology relevant to chronological purposes. The secular evidence is indeed falsified by the twenty year gap when compared with biblical chronology so the jury is still out respecting the value of such documents.
"secular material" -- a label to discredit real life, hard evidence. In a court of law, is forensic evidence ever rejected on the basis of being "secular material"?
"subject to interpretation" -- yeah like certain Adventists' arbitrary stance that the 70 years began when the temple was destroyed, which has since become a mandatory stance for the WTS.
"a methodology relevant to chronological purposes." -- not sure what this means, but it sounds good!
"The secular evidence is indeed falsified by the twenty year gap" -- meaning: the WTS says there's a twenty year gap, and the hundreds of thousands of individual pieces of evidence disagree, so all the evidence is simply false.
"the jury is still out respecting the value of such documents." -- but wait, you just said they were all garbage...
-
Hellrider
"The secular evidence is indeed falsified by the twenty year gap" -- meaning: the WTS says there's a twenty year gap, and the hundreds of thousands of individual pieces of evidence disagree, so all the evidence is simply false.
Ha ha! Yeah, this is the really funny part! First they create a doctrine, which they didn`t have to create in the first place! If they had only said "the 70 years refer to the period of Babylons reign over Judeah" - which began in around 607 bc (actually 609, I think, but a couple of years is no big deal), in the first place, they could have easily calculated from that year, 607 bc, and get to 1914. But noooo, they had to link the "3 1/2 times X 2" to the destruction of the temple! And so, they have to say that the entire chronology (of which they accept parts of, the parts that suits them just fine, like the return of the exiles in around 537bc) is false! In other words, Nebuchadnezzar hadn`t even taken over the reign in the year 607, which the JWs claim that he destroyed the temple! He only came to power in 605 bc, and reigned until 562 bc! So obviously, the WTS has a policy of making (unecessary) problems for themselves. Then, when the problems become common knowledge, they just lie, and say that they`re right and the rest of the world is wrong. The 607-claim is indeed the most embarassing part of JW-doctrine.
-
Alleymom
Scholar wrote: The present array of Babylonian business documents does indeed seem impressive but celebrated WT scholars have wisely cautioned that such secular material is still subject to interpretation and a methodology relevant to chronological purposes. The secular evidence is indeed falsified by the twenty year gap when compared with biblical chronology so the jury is still out respecting the value of such documents.
Neil ---
Thank you for responding, but what I was asking about was this statement you made:
First of all let us have a competent translation of these documents and see how they relate to current chronology of the Neo- Babylonian period which in any event is subjec to considerable interpretation,
In the first statement, you were calling for a competent translation of the documents, implying that you did not believe the current translations are accurate. Now you are talking about interpretation and methodology.
In the past you have always been very dismissive of the cuneiform tablets and have not shown any familiarity with the actual texts. So I was asking you why you thought the current translations are not competent. You are not actually acquainted with the texts or the translators, are you?
Now you seem to be modifying your initial statement. Are you withdrawing what you said about the translations?
The translations are accurate --- they have been collated by many Assyriologists over the past 120 years. If a document is dated to day 5, month 4, of the 18th year of king so-and-so and if the cuneiform signs have been read and verified by numerous scholars who are thoroughly competent in Akkadian, then the date of that document is an established fact.
This has nothing to do with "interpretation" or "methodology." It has to do with bare facts.
Regards,
Marjorie -
M.J.
"The secular evidence is indeed falsified by the twenty year gap"
How about "The twenty year gap is indeed falsified by
the secularALL THE evidence"? -
scholar
Alleymom
Marjorie
Firstly, I forgot to mention that Rolf Furuli has sourced the research by C. Wunsch on the Egibi documents as part of Furuli's thesis on Oslo Chronology.
My concern for the translation of these documents is well justified and I continue to urge you to carefully evaluate the fact that chronology is based upon methodology and interpretation. Carl Jonsson the principal advocate of the Jonsson hypothesis highlights a similar concern with these materials for in his GTR, 3rd edn, pp.321-332 there is considerable confusion in the interpretation of these documents even though Jonsson claims that these documents provide regnal years for the complete Neo-Babylonian period. It is far wiser to accept the biblical period which proves a twenty year gap with the Babylonian data.
scholar JW