The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  Whilst reading Jonsson you should read Thiele, Anstey, Hughes, Finegan and Jones.

  The casual reader of the forum might infer from this statement that these sources agree with the Society's interpretations, but the rest of us know that not to be the case. This raises the question as to what, really, your motive is for saying it. Isn't the purpose of this statement simply to make it appear as though I am uninformed on the subject matter? Your condescension and veiled insults are ignored for the refuse that they are.

  Because there is some disagreement among (actual) scholars whether Jerusalem's fall was in 587 or 586, you seem to believe that this justifies the Society's bizarre shift of the event back 20 years to 607 (though none of the scholars support that year), simply to prop up the 1914 dogma, while ignoring all of the additional evidence that refutes 607, including the contemporary stone tablet documentation.
• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar wrote: I am not a textual scholar, nor am I familiar with those ancient languages as is Rolf Furuli so I can wait until his findings are published but I can familarize myself with whatever secular sources are available in English. However, such an enterprise as worthy as you claim must wait until I have the time necessary. I cannot work with the primary sources because I am not skilled in ancient languages and neither is Carl Jonsson so like Carl I can critique whatever is published in English. My impression of the Jonsson hypothesis' use of such secular evidence is rather ambiguous and does not inspire great confidence in using these materials as a corrective to the clear bibl,ical evidence. Regardless of what claims are made for these secular ,materials there remains a twenty year gap and the missing seven years of Nebuchadnezzer which must be reconciled for these materials to be given equal weight or authority. My scholarship only permits me to give precedence to the biblical evidence rather than the secular records in pursuit of history and chronology.

  Neil ---

  You could familiarize yourself with whatever secular sources are available in English, but you have chosen not to.
  You could critique whatever is published in English, but first you would have to read it.

  You pride yourself on being a "scholar," yet you deliberately refuse to read the material.

  If you restrict your "scholarship" to the biblical evidence in your pursuit of history and chronology, then you have no means of establishing dates. You cannot arrive at "539 BCE" without using secular records.

  claims --- There you go again <g>.

  Are you going to answer my post about NBC 4897? The article I cited is written in English. Actually, all of the scholars who have published on NBC 4897 have written in English. So, you could familiarize yourself with the material and critique it. Or you could continue to turn a blind eye.

  This is God's world. And, as a Christian, I believe the Bible is God's word. There is no conflict between real history and God's history. History is what really happened. The conflict is between your organization's manmade chronology which pits itself against the Bible and against the actual records.

  You like to think that it is the WTS against the "apostates" and the WTS against the "secular scholars" and the WTS against the "higher critics."

  It's really the WTS against the Bible and the WTS against true history, God's history.

  You think you are opposing men, but you are opposing God, Neil.

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 

  Blueblades

  N.H.KNORR said that he was not sure about 1914 and the Governing Body lost a two thirds vote on the decision to move the date to 1957.

  Blueblades
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  Yes I could read the relevant scholarship pertaining to the subject at hand as it is available in English but time is a factor and I simply do not have the time to do what you request. I am content to wait upon Rolf Furuli's Volume on Babylonian chronology to be published a s he is competent in dealing with the primary materials. In the meantime I am quite happy to deal with Carl Jonsson's consideration of this material and I am quite happy to utilize your considerable knowledge of this particular subject.

  No, I do not believe I am opposing God but we are opposing apostates, higher critics etc who have abandoned God's Word for secular chronology. I firmly believe that our chronology is the only chronology that has God';s blessings and is in harmony with the Bible. You have not yet responded to the twenty year gap between WT biblical chronology and the fact that the secular evidence omits no reference to Nebuchadnezzer's seven years. These two historical facts alone would falsify your chronology.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  You are not only an apostate but a blithering idiot to boot. The twenty year gap is not the figment of our imagination but exists in reality because there is in fact such a gap between our chronology and your pretend fluid chronology which cannot be agreed upon by current modern scholarship. No one on this forum has in anyway shape or form invalidated WT chronology because our c hronology is based upon secular and biblical evidence, elevating the significance of the seventy years as a historical and biblical fact. The only thing you offer is a compromise, a compromise of integrity wherein you forsake Scripture for the false stories of the apostates and higher critics.

  You really need to read more and self educate yourself about chronology. Remember, it is about methodology and interpretation. Write these two words on your forehead as thes are cardinal chronological maxims according to the great scholar.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Scholar,

  No, I do not believe I am opposing God but we are opposing apostates, higher critics etc who have abandoned God's Word for secular chronology.

  There you go again using terms such as 'apostates' and 'higher critics' in a disparaging way, as if this somehow makes the Society right. 'Abandoned God's Word'? Hardly! The tabulated chronology of the Divided Monarchy and the Neo-Babylonian period I provided to you very specifically fits the bible, and does not conflict with a single scripture. (Still yet to see your tabulation of the Neo-Babylonian period consistent with your interpretation of the scriptures.) Many posters on this board have indicated quite clearly that the bible disproves the 607 myth.

  I firmly believe that our chronology is the only chronology that has God';s blessings and is in harmony with the Bible. You have not yet responded to the twenty year gap between WT biblical chronology and the fact that the secular evidence omits no reference to Nebuchadnezzer's seven years. These two historical facts alone would falsify your chronology.

  Which two historical facts? No one took over the throne in Nebuchadnezzar's place during the 7 years, so why should the chronology indicate otherwise? Not sure what the other "historical fact" is that you have referred to. Perhaps you are suggesting that the Society's missing 20 years is a "historical fact"? Hysterical, maybe. There is nothing to 'respond to' - the 20 years are an error based on a flawed interpretation of the scriptures.
• 

  Jeffro

  You are not only an apostate but a blithering idiot to boot.

  "Blithering idiot"? Once again you violate the forum guidelines. I await your retraction.

  The twenty year gap is not the figment of our imagination but exists in reality because there is in fact such a gap between our chronology and your pretend fluid chronology which cannot be agreed upon by current modern scholarship. No one on this forum has in anyway shape or form invalidated WT chronology because our c hronology is based upon secular and biblical evidence, elevating the significance of the seventy years as a historical and biblical fact. The only thing you offer is a compromise, a compromise of integrity wherein you forsake Scripture for the false stories of the apostates and higher critics.

  Once again, you indicate your flawed reasoning. You suggest that because scholars don't agree completely on 587/6, and that the Society agrees with itself on 607, the Society must be right. To illustrate your reasoning, if five people say I look 30, another five people say I look 31, and one person says I look 50, then I must be 50 because the other ten people can't agree. That variance exists among (actual) scholars' findings, and yet they all point to about the same period, works against, not for, your argument.

  You really need to read more and self educate yourself about chronology. Remember, it is about methodology and interpretation. Write these two words on your forehead as thes are cardinal chronological maxims according to the great scholar.

  I think you should start with lessons in grammar before honing your chronology skills. Not sure why writing on my forehead would be a good idea either. My reasoning is already consistent with the body of scholarly thought. Why do you feel the need to make it seem as though I need to "self educate myself"?
• 

  Jeffro

  The twenty year gap is not the figment of our imagination but exists in reality because there is in fact such a gap between our chronology and your pretend fluid chronology which cannot be agreed upon by current modern scholarship.

  Yes, there is a 20-year gap between the Society's interpretations and reality, but the cause of the 20-year gap indeed lies in the minds of the Society's leaders, and therefore is rightly a figment of their imaginations.
• 

  toreador

  Jeffro, you are to be commended for keeping your cool in spite of the oppositions failing to do so. Something I am not so sure I could have done.

  Tor
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  The twenty year gap arises because of a difference in methodology and interpretation between our chronology and yours. The book of Daniel discloses the fact that Daniel was absent from the throne for seven years and yet the Babylonian records fail to account for this historical fact,

  The twenty year gap exists and falsifies traditional chronology and proves that the seventy years of servitude, exile and desolation fulfill the biblical evidence. Your presentation of the Divided Monarchy faisl to account for the seventy years as years of desolation. Higher critics and apostates are seduced by false stories and those who disbelieve the Bible, many such critics are critics of the book of Daniel itself demonstrated in disbelieving its propheticsm.

  scholar JW