The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ackack

  Jeffro & others:

  Why do you continue to feed the troll?

  ackack
• 

  Jeffro

  The twenty year gap arises because of a difference in methodology and interpretation between our chronology and yours.

  Yes it does; the Society's methodology conflicts with the Bible, and is therefore wrong regardless of the methodology employed by others. My chronology (which I came up with based solely on the bible, and happens to match exactly with many scholars) does not conflict with a single scripture, when taking into account the actual meanings of the words, which the Society misapplies to shift the focus of the seventy years.

  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,

  Daniel never had the throne of Babylon. I will assume you meant Nebuchadnezzar. The bible suggests that some kind of madness befell him. It does not say that anyone else took over the kingship. According to the Daniel's Propechy book,
  
  

  John E. Goldingay cites several parallels to Nebuchadnezzar’s madness and restoration. For instance, he states: “A fragmentary cuneiform text apparently refers to some mental disorder on Nebuchadnezzar’s part, and perhaps to his neglecting and leaving Babylon.”

  So it seems that Babylonian records do indeed document that Nebuchadnezzar went through some kind of condition. However, the throne was not passed to someone else during this time, most likely ruled by his administration for that period, so for documentary purposes, it was still during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, just as Nabonidus was still considered king when his role was chiefly perfunctory.

  The twenty year gap exists and falsifies traditional chronology and proves that the seventy years of servitude, exile and desolation fulfill the biblical evidence.

  I couldn't have put it better myself. The twenty year gap does indeed falsify ("make false by altering or adding to") the traditional chronology.
  
  

  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.

  It has previously been borne out on this forum that the Hebrew words shamem, chorbah, and za'am do not require complete depopulation. Your mishmash of a chronology fails to account for these facts, and ignores the clear synchronicity between Isaiah 45:1, Jeremiah 25:12,26, Daniel 5:26-31, as well as many other details. My chronology accounts for 70 years of Babylonian power, and it is consistent in recognizing that the full 70 years of Babylon need not apply to Jerusalem any more than they applied to Tyre. To quote the Isaiah's Prophecy book:
  
  

  True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.”

  In conflict with its other publications, the Society rightly states here that the 70 years "represents the period of Babylonia's greatest domination."

  Still waiting for your complete table of Neo-Babylonian kings.
• 

  Jeffro

  Jeffro & others:

  Why do you continue to feed the troll?

  Because the troll looks funny when he dances.
• 

  ackack

  You're never going to get a complete list of the neo-babylonian kings. You know why? Because the Organization has never bothered to provide a list.

  There is no tenable chronology, but in the face of it all, nuts will still attempt to make sense of it.

  Its all inherited anyways, and its just painful watching the society attempt to defend this inherited mess.

  But notice how Scholar has consistently always ducked out of showing the neo-babylonian kings. You can't blame him. He's no better than those that "sent" him.

  Just incidentally, my dad, an elder, privately admitted that 607 wasn't historically sustainable. But hey, 1914 or 1934 or whatever... it was all good to him. I just find it sad him comment about it: "You can't go around saying its wrong, because that would damage too many people's faith." A faith based on falsehoods. How sad.

  ackack
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  No, the Society's methodology is biblically based as it gives the biblical narrative precedence over secular records. For example:

  1. Fall of Babylon in 539

  2. Release of Jewish captives under Cyrus in 537

  3. Seventy years of exile-servitude-desolation

  4.Fall of Jerusalem in 607

  Each of these events are well attested biblically and lead to the only possible date of 607 for the beginning of the Gentile Times.

  Your chronology is based upon a prior loyalty to Babylonian records and does not provide you with a definite chronology for the seventy years and the Fall of Jerusalem which are both subject to much dispute by scholars.

  The seven years of madness for Nebuchadnezzer affected his kingship or reign but are not presented as such in any of the secular records despite their claimed accuracy. Therefore, one must conclude that such records are falsifiable by that seven years period.

  Indeed, the twenty year gap as determined bu celebrated WT scholars does indeed falsify the traditional secular chronology which is largely based upon Ptolemy's Canon.

  The Hebrew words in conjunction with the context of the specific prophecies make it quite clear that seventy years of complete desolation was absolutely required. It is only the higher critics and apostates that seek to reduce the period to fifty years if at all to sustain their meaningless chronology.

  In the matter of Tyre, it was prophesied by Jeremiah and Isaiah that Tyre would receive judgement from Jehovah and that proved to be a period of servitude to Babylon. Correct.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  ackack,

  You're never going to get a complete list of the neo-babylonian kings. You know why? Because the Organization has never bothered to provide a list.

  Yes, I know scholar can't actually provide a complete list of Neo-Babylonian kings, because the Society's model is simply wrong.

  However, on 23 July 2003, 'scholar' was asked (by 'rem') to provide such a list, and his response was a challenge to provide a chart of the Judean Divided Monarchy.

  Not long after joining this discussion board this year, I provided such a chart, available here. Scholar was forced to give credit to my work, and could not indicate anything that legitimately conflicts with the bible in my work, which accurately aligns the scriptures with secular history. (My tabulation of Judean kings was drawn manually and solely from the Bible, and only after they were completely tabulated did I source the secularly established reigns of Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian & Persian kings, which aligned remarkably well.)

  So 'scholar' owes me a complete chart of Neo-Babylonian kings consistent with the Society's interpretations.
• 

  Jeffro

  No, the Society's methodology is biblically based as it gives the biblical narrative precedence over secular records. For example:
  
  1. Fall of Babylon in 539

  Fact: The Society accepts 539 based on an astronomical diary, though it rejects the testimony of such sources everywhere else, and in general says they are not reliable for absolute dating. (See Insight, vol1, p454)

  2. Release of Jewish captives under Cyrus in 537

  Fact: Jeremiah 25:12 indicates that Babylon would be judged after 70 years. Isaiah 45:1 prophesied the judgement of Babylon. Daniel 5:26-31 indicates the judgement of Babylon. The only valid end-point for 70 years is 539.

  3. Seventy years of exile-servitude-desolation

  Fact: The Hebrew words used do not require 70 years of complete depopulation. Jewish exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 23 year, and it is only conjecture that these were Jews who had fleed to Egypt. The initial prophecy by Jeremiah regarding the 70 years is clear that it refers to 70 years of Babylonian power.

  4.Fall of Jerusalem in 607

  Fact: 539 + 70 = 609. Co-incidentally, secular authorities indicate that the Assyrian empire came to an end in 609BC.

  Each of these events are well attested biblically and lead to the only possible date of 607 for the beginning of the Gentile Times.

  Fact: At Luke 21:24, the original text employs the Greek word 'esomai', meaning 'will', referring to a future event where it indicates the beginning of the Gentile Times, which therefore cannot refer to a period that started prior to 70AD. (Literally, "and they will [esomai] fall to mouth of sword and they will [esomai] be led captive into the nations all, and Jerualem will [esomai] be being trampled by nations, until what should be fulfilled and will [esomai] be appointed times of nations.")

  Your chronology is based upon a prior loyalty to Babylonian records and does not provide you with a definite chronology for the seventy years and the Fall of Jerusalem which are both subject to much dispute by scholars.

  Fact: The chronology I have arrived at is based solely on the bible.

  The seven years of madness for Nebuchadnezzer affected his kingship or reign but are not presented as such in any of the secular records despite their claimed accuracy. Therefore, one must conclude that such records are falsifiable by that seven years period.

  Fact: There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's rule was given to another king during the seven years, so he still would have had that title even if not present, just as was Nabonidus still king during his own absence from Babylon.

  Indeed, the twenty year gap as determined bu celebrated WT scholars does indeed falsify the traditional secular chronology which is largely based upon Ptolemy's Canon.

  Fact: There is no evidence for the imagined additional 20 years in the Society's chronology.
  Fact: No-one celebrates the anonymous WT scholars.
  Fact: It is grammatically poor to use 'indeed' twice in the same sentence.

  The Hebrew words in conjunction with the context of the specific prophecies make it quite clear that seventy years of complete desolation was absolutely required. It is only the higher critics and apostates that seek to reduce the period to fifty years if at all to sustain their meaningless chronology.

  Fact: Jeremiah's initial prophecy indicates the significance of the 70-year period as of Babylonian power that would end with it's fall.
  Fact: The Society agrees that the similar words directed at Tyre ("that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years") do not indicate the full 70-year period applying to Tyre.

  In the matter of Tyre, it was prophesied by Jeremiah and Isaiah that Tyre would receive judgement from Jehovah and that proved to be a period of servitude to Babylon. Correct.

  Fact: Society publications contradict each other regarding the significance and end-point of the 70 years.
• 

  SeymourButts

  Alrighty then.....Since scholar doesn't want to post the societys chronology, I have taken it upon myself to give him a helping hand. Here is the official list, scanned from the June 15, 1960 Watchtower. All we need is for you to add the dates.
• 

  SeymourButts

  
  a little closer
• 

  OldSoul

  1914 is proved correct by the fact that since that momentous year we are living in the last days as prophesied by our Lord.

  
  

  
  How can something be used to prove itself? If that is too complex a thought, I'll try to break it down. According to this bit of sophistry (intentional or accidental) you are trying to lay a foundation for 1914 as being the year when the last days began by stating that since that time we have been living in the last days.

  You are using your conclusion as proof. There are no assumptions and no premise. There is no argument in favor of this stated claim.

  What would it take, in your world of professed intellectual integrity, to remove your confidence? If they later state that 1914 was off by a number of years, like they did with 1874, will they be false prophets then?

  If you state that your confidence cannot be removed, you state that you are intellectually dishonest. Anyone who decides ahead of time that no argument can be presented that will sway his view is obviously going to have to be intellectually dishonest.

  So, what would it take?

  OldSoul P.S. To all who are wondering why we feed the troll, Scholar may be a troll. But what is wrong with that as long as he continues to badly present the scripted views of Jehovah's Witnesses. Even if he is really an earnest JW, unintentional black propaganda is very helpful for letting others see what this organization does to people.