The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  The Fall of Babylon in 539 is attested biblically because the Bible not only foretells that event but also desribes the event in detail. This is the only pivotal date that is descriptive of an event which took place for other pivotal dates are not mentioned in the Bible but are simply based on secular records for a certain year for a certain king etc.

  As usual, 'scholar's' reasoning is flawed.

  The fact is that because the Society does not give credence to astronomical diaries, the Society - according to its own reasoning regarding secular authorities - has no basis to accept 539 for the overthrow of Babylon. Regardless of how specifically the bible describes the event, it simply provides no clue as to an absolute year. The Society indeed relies on the so-called 'profane' chronology based on astronomical diaries to get 539, but then proceeds to ignore the professionals for everything else, in preference of their outlandish reworking of history.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Hardly an example of flawed reasoning in advocating the Fall of Babylon in 539 as a pivotal date. Celebrated Wt in their genius and wisdom have explained why this event is chosen rather than the more popular astronomical dates advocated by scholars and apostates. This event is unique because it is derived from astronomical dates and as a pivotal date it is well attested by biblical and secular history. Also, this event is the closet in time to the other momentous events in biblical history namely the Return of the Exiles in 537 BCE and the rebuilding of the Temple. Further, it is a mere 68 years from the Fall of the Temple in 607 BCE.

  Apostates are jealous of God's people using this date and they realize that the choice of such an event provides indeed a firm foundation for WT chronology because everyone is in agreement that 539 represents the Fall of Babylon.

  scholar JW
• 

  SeymourButts

  and who will take the bait

  Hook, line, and sinker
• 

  onacruse

  Celebrated Wt in their genius and wisdom

  Now that, indeed, constitutes one of the best jokes that I've ever heard...in a very pathetic sense.

  Or, should I say, in an empathetic sense? Because, I was once very strongly where you are, "scholar"...

  How many centuries would have to pass before you finally admitted that the WTS is wrong? As you lay on your death-bed, breathing the last oxygen out of your lungs (which you will do, as have all living thinghs on this planet), would you have the final and simple honesty to admit that they, and you, were wrong? Will those plain words stick in your throat, with your last permanent and dying breath?

  You will face that day, whether you want to or not...and Jehovah will not be there to protect you.

  Enjoy.
• 

  City Fan

  This event is unique because it is derived from astronomical dates and as a pivotal date it is well attested by biblical and secular history

  eerrrr... what about 16th March 597 BC? Would that not qualify as a 'pivotal date' using the criteria you've specified? If not, why not?
• 

  Leolaia

  eerrrr... what about 16th March 597 BC? Would that not qualify as a 'pivotal date' using the criteria you've specified? If not, why not?

  In earlier threads I discussed how this is an even better date, and what's more this date can give you 587 BC without any conflict with scholar's preferred interpretation of the 70 years (i.e. it would screw up the Persian chronology but leave 587 intact), but no matter how many times I explained it to him he kept thinking I was talking about something else entirely...
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  The date you propose as a pivotal date is rejected by celebrated Wt scholars as the event, the first capture of Jerusalem and the deportation of Jehoiachin is too fuzzy. The proposed date of 597 for this event although claimed as one the most secure dates for the period by Dr. Campbell, is not accepted by WT scholars. The date 617 for this event cannot have the historical significance that an event which marked the end of a World Power, Babylon and is is not as well attested as 539.

  Interestingly, the Jonsson hypothesis does not give 597 the cedlebrated status that you and others assume. Jonsson prefers other alternatives or pivotal dates but the end result is confusion because by adopting a regnal based methodology, the date for the Fall of Jerusalem cannot be determined. Your 597 candidate simply is unworkable and so are the others as you cannot determine what year Jerusalem fell.

  scholar JW
• 

  The Chuckler

  IP: CLreFehVReD5TuRD
  
  'Scholars' IP address - look at the last 4 letters.
  
  Even his IP address has an opinion of 'Scholar'!
  
  :-))
• 

  ackack

  So, er, Scholar, how do you get around the business tablets? Do you a) figure its a gross mistranslation, b) collusion by merchants, c) there are simply missing tablets? Or does it just not bother you because you're picking the bible over secular records? I know that personally, thats how i rationalized away the problem before.. I just created a false dichotomy so that I didn't have to face up to the fact that the physical evidence flatly contradicted the society's interpretation.

  Just curious :)

  ackack
• 

  scholar

  ackack

  The business tablets that you refer to are of no great concern to celebrated WT scholars because these documents are still subject to interpretation. The Jonsson hypothesis makes the bold claim that these records cover every single year of the Neo- Babylonian period yet Jonsson complains that these remain subject to sribal errors. Additionally, there remains the problem as to Why these documents are silent on Nebuchadnezzer's missing seven years off the throne and the twenty year gap problem when such chronology is compared to biblical chronology.

  scholar JW