Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date! (page 18)

Alleymom

The primary documents conflict with part of the information provided by Josephus but coincide with the part where Josephus actually quotes (and endorses) his historical source (Berossus) and conflict with biblical history as expounded exclusively by the WTBTS Inc. -- but coincide with biblical history as understood by the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars.

for Narkissos!

Incidentally, I know Scholar's not interested in reading any of the scholarship on the reigns of the neo-Babylonian kings, but for those who are, Dr. Ronald Sack has surveyed the secondary sources (the classical, medieval, and Hebrew authors) in his writings. His book on Amel-Marduk is hard to get --- I had to order it through interlibrary loan -- but his more recent Images of Nebuchadnezzar covers the same material and is more readily available. I purchased it when it came out about a year ago, and IIRC I got it through amazon rather than from one of the specialty dealers.

Marjorie

sf

Over on USENET altjw religion:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.jehovahs-witn/browse_thread/thread/415f8b2a623da15a/a35cae2ea991e9d6?lnk=st&q=watchtower+scholars&rnum=1#a35cae2ea991e9d6

Walter Martin on Watchtower scholars [ Aug. 8, 2005 ]

Feb. 26, 1983

Walter R. Martin

One is well aware that charges have been made against the New World
Translation Committee. These charges have never been proven and cannot
be, since they are false or a matter of opinion only. The New World
Translation Committee does not know nor never has known such
uncorroborated allegations to be true!

We nay not have a vast number of Greek and Hebrew scholars in our ranks,
but we do have enough with qualifications to produce a fine translation.

As one author has written: “the Watchtower Translation committee,
comparatively speaking, had but a handful of “scholars” who hold degrees
of New Testament Greek Exegesis, or Hebrew for that matter:.

Does that seem familiar to you?

Do you know who wrote that:

YOU DID! --- Kingdom of the Cults (sic) edition of 1965, page 64; and
Jehovah of the Watchtower, edition of 1981, pages 130 and 131.

_______

Do you know who the NWT committee is?
_______

They were a group of men with no education beyond HS. None of them
had any knowledge of Greek or Hebrew as was proven when taken to
court. They simply rewrote the Bible to suit their own beliefs.
See below... they considered themselves as some kind of SAINTS no
less.
--
Nite Owl....
More stupidity and bigotry from the WT:
"If heaven were made the receptacle of the
heathen, savages, barbarians, the idiotic, simple, insane and
INFANTS, it
would cease to be heaven to a considerable extent, and become a
pandemonium.. billions of ignorant, imbecile and degraded .. never
formed
characters [not] fit companions for saints" {WT Aug 15 1896 p245}

Hellrider

sf:

Does that seem familiar to you?

Do you know who wrote that:
YOU DID! ; --- Kingdom of the Cults (sic) edition of 1965, page 64; and

Jehovah of the Watchtower, edition of 1981, pages 130 and 131.

? Do you know who "scholar JW" is? Is it this Walter Martin-guy?

If heaven were made the receptacle of the

heathen, savages, barbarians, the idiotic, simple, insane and

INFANTS, it

would cease to be heaven to a considerable extent, and become a

pandemonium.. billions of ignorant, imbecile and degraded .. never

formed

characters [not] fit companions for saints"

Holy crap! What a bunch of megalomaniac, ignorant a$$holes! However, the "heathen, savages, barbarians, the idiotic, simple, insane " - part would be a good description of any KH.

sf

Well, no. Not for sure. If he would simply answer my question I've asked him twice now in this thread, it would confirm, to me if he is Joel Elliott, or not.

Google: Joel Elliott, then, Joel Elliott Watchtower and tell me what you would conclude as to whom it is.

Incidently, who the hell is Neil?

sKally

Kaput

Dr. Walter Martin, author of the book The Kingdom of the Cults, passed away in 1989.

Cygnus

I was watching The History Channel with my kids...and out of the blue...they mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BCE (yes..they said BCE)...

I just now clicked on page 7 of this thread because I had nothing better to do and this caught my eye. I read in a review once where the Christian reviewer of some book got upset that the author would use BCE/CE and not BC/AD because the former was secular (Before/(during the) Common Era) and the latter was more Christian (Before Christ/Anno Domini). I found that funny because the 'Tower always insisted on BCE and CE.

Indeed, this web page http://confessingevangelical.blogspot.com/2005/03/i-kissed-secular-dating-goodbye.html entitled the "Confessing Evangelical" states:

Sounds trivial, and I suppose it is trivial in some ways, but the Sydney Anglican magazine The Briefing came out with quite a persuasive argument a few years ago for using "AD" as often as possible. The article in question has now been reprinted on The Briefing's blog, Couldn't Help Noticing. In it, Kel Richards argues that:

Since "AD" stands for Anno Domini ("in the year of Our Lord") every time you use AD you are saying that Jesus Christ is the Lord of history. It’s a small, simple way of confessing to the Lordship of Jesus.

Richards goes on to say that "This may not strike you as important, but the enemies of Jesus know exactly how important it is", as evidenced by attempts to replace BC and AD with BCE and CE ("Before Common Era" and "Common Era").

By using "AD" wherever possible - "on your letters, emails, cheques, in your diary - anywhere and everywhere you use a date that includes the year" - Richards argues that we have an opportunity:

to advertise the fact that we confess Jesus to be the Lord of history, the Lord of time, and (indeed) the Lord of all.

Narkissos

Incidently, who the hell is Neil?

Neil is scholar.

Cygnus

If Daniel witnessed all these events, and the WT chronology is right, then Daniel lived to be a really, really old man.

But phooey on that anyway, the book of Daniel was written only a couple of hundred years give or take a decade or two before Josephus was born.

scholar

Alleymom

Marjorie

That was rather a silly comment to make about me that I was not interested in reading any of the scholarship on the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings. Let me assure you that I am interested in any scholarship pertaining to the subject of chronology and I state for your information that Sack's Images of Nebuchadnezzer is referred to in Jonsson's GTR, 1998, p.91, ftn3. Jonsson admits in agreement with that of celebrated WT scholars that the ancient historians are guilty of making contradictory statements.

scholar JW

Hellrider

Scholar:

Jonsson admits in agreement with that of celebrated WT scholars that the ancient historians are guilty of making contradictory statements.
scholar JW

What a hypocrite you are. You have no problem in admitting this when it serves your case, or when they are in disagreement with the "celebrated WT scholars". But in the "Josephus claims 18 years for Evilmerodach", you have no problem in accepting his claims on Merodach, although you know perfectly well that Josephus` chronology is totally screwed up, exemplified best by his "40 years for Neriglissar" - claim. And you have still not showed us where Josephus explicitly says that there was 7 years between the destruction of the Temple, and the return of the exiles. And I allready said that if you don`t provide quote, book, chapter and page, I`ll consider you a liar.

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

Share this