Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 239 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks Marjorie,

  What I did not find is how to save a Word file as a picture...
• 

  Pole

  Narkissos,
  
  :What I did not find is how to save a Word file as a picture...
  
  The easiest way I can think of is: increase the font and do "print screen" (there should be a special key for it on your Frenchy keyboard). Then, open up Paint, press control+v.
  This should paste in the image of the entire screen, so you'll need to cut out the part of the picture which contains the hebrew text. Open a new paint image and paste in the piece that you've just cut out.
  
  Finally, save the image as jpg or gif you you want to post it on the web.
  
  Alternatively you can use a more sophisticated image editor to "crop" the image.
  
  Pole
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  The fact of then matter is that when WT chronology is compared to other chronologies, a gap of twenty years is evident. WT chronology has a valid methodology and interpretation and parallels many other competing chronologies so the gap problem cannot be lightly dismisseddas some sort of cultish aberration as you would claim. Rather, such a gap falsifies such chronologies because these are not biblical in the strict sense of the word but lean more in the direction of higher critics.

  The fact that Daniel as a competent historian of Babylonian history states that Nedbuchadnezzer's kingship would be in abeyance for seven years and such a fact is not considered by so- called infallible seculazr historians and scribes would in my view diminish their credibility and honesty as being incompetent and unreliable.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  You continue to raise the matter as to my opinion of the Neo- Babylonian dynasty and I repeat that the regnal years and the list of kings can only be considered as presently tenable. The current presentation of matters is simply unsatisfactory as it does not account for Neb's missing seven years of kingship and the twenty year gap problem when compared with authentic biblical chronology. So, my view like that of celebrated WT scholars is that such regnal lists can only be considered as provisional at this point of time.

  scholar JW
• 

  Hellrider

  Scholar: She asked you a simple question. You are avoiding to answer the question. Answer the question, if you are able. Otherwise, you have no business here.
• 

  Jeffro

  You continue to raise the matter as to my opinion of the Neo- Babylonian dynasty and I repeat that the regnal years and the list of kings can only be considered as presently tenable. The current presentation of matters is simply unsatisfactory as it does not account for Neb's missing seven years of kingship and the twenty year gap problem when compared with authentic biblical chronology. So, my view like that of celebrated WT scholars is that such regnal lists can only be considered as provisional at this point of time.

  Scholar, is English your first language? Yes, the years for the Neo-Babylonian dynasty are tenable. But I think you mean tenuous?

  And while we're on definitions "biblical chronology" does not mean the same as "Watchtower Society chronology".
• 

  Jeffro

  The fact of then matter is that when WT chronology is compared to other chronologies, a gap of twenty years is evident.

  Yes, that is a fact. WT chronology does indeed introduce a 20-year gap, which is shown to be invalid because of the various contemporary independent Babylonian and Egyptian records.

  WT chronology has a valid methodology and interpretation and parallels many other competing chronologies so the gap problem cannot be lightly dismisseddas some sort of cultish aberration as you would claim. Rather, such a gap falsifies such chronologies because these are not biblical in the strict sense of the word but lean more in the direction of higher critics.

  It only "parallels many other competing chronologies" in that the Society's interpretation exists, but the invalid interpretation of the minor Adventist religious group is hardly 'competition' in the true sense. I cannot vouch for the work of all sources, but the chronology I have produced is based entirely on the bible, using accurate interpretations of the scriptures involved, without the dishonest of the Society.

  The fact that Daniel as a competent historian of Babylonian history states that Nedbuchadnezzer's kingship would be in abeyance for seven years and such a fact is not considered by so- called infallible seculazr historians and scribes would in my view diminish their credibility and honesty as being incompetent and unreliable.

  Are you suggesting that someone else held the throne for that period? Nabonidus was still listed as king when he was absent from the throne too. Your reasoning is empty. Instead of trying to minimize the "credibility and honesty" of professionals, why don't you actually demonstrate some kind of competence of your own. When can we be expecting your own superior Neo-Babylonian chronology?
• 

  OldSoul

  scholar,

  The only way to arrive at a 20 year gap is to insist on an understanding of the "70 years" of desolation for Jerusalem that disagrees with the view of 99%+ of scholars and academics in the world, including the understanding held by the Jews who were the subject of that 70 years. In other words, the CCoJW (Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses) creates the 20 year gap by their unsupported interpretation of the 70 years. This gap is not present in chronologies outside of cult-land.

  That said, I no longer believe you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe you are a troll. I notice how you have latched onto the term "celebrated scholars", which even you know to be a misnomer, and you have used it repeatedly just to get a rise. Earlier you have posted that the view of the Watchtower is largely dismissed by scholars and academia, which means the only ones who possibly could be celebrating the Watchtower scholars are those who adhere to the teachings of the Watchtower.

  ---

  Forum,

  I think we should completely overlook scholar's references to "celebrated scholars," as it muddies the water for lurkers who are still JWs when we go off on challenging tangential nonsense. No one could read a thread scholar posts to and come away with a good impression of JW scholarship. In future, I intend to respond only to factual errors in his posts. If only scholar celebrates the JW scholars, then the JW scholars are celebrated, yes? If you can frame the frustrating statements in a logical construct that yields a true result, I suggest skipping that side point and sticking to the points that come up false in any framework.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  Leolaia

  Jeffro....I hope he continues to keep referring to "celebrated WT scholars". I need a little levity to brighten my day.
• 

  Reefton Jack

  In a way, 607/ 537 B.C. is like the New World Translation's rendering of John 1:1 - i.e. no matter how controversial (or utterly ridiculous!) the idea; you can usually find somebody to agree with you:

  - even perhaps someone with pretentions to scholarship.

  HOWEVER ....... it is a long way from finding some scholar who will agree with your controversial theory, to being able to state with justification that " Secular and Bible Chronology agree on this (cardinal) date, as the WTS does about 607/ 537 B.C.

  In the book "Crisis of Concsience", Raymond Franz stated that he, when preparing the WTS "Aid to Bible Understanding", had to go out of his way to stretch the facts to "support" the claim that both Biblical (read WTS) and Secular history agreeing to particularly the date 537 B.C.

  That is WTS "Scholarship" at its finest - come up with an idea; then twist the facts to "support" it.

  I was an avid reader of the results of WTS pseudo-scholarship for over 30 years, beginning during my formative years. I now understand why I have been so F###ed up for much of my life!

  Jack.