Posts by AnnOMaly

26

October 2014 Kingdom Ministry (KM - 10/2014 PDF)

by WatchTower87 in

our kingdom ministry october 2014 .

instruction: press the 'skip ad' button top right, you should then see the download screen more easily.

no virus ;-).

AnnOMaly

Thanks WT87!

So they are going to spend a whole Service Meeting discussing the beliefs about 1914! They are going to use the 'Conversation With A Neighbor' two-parter and a chart from the soon-to-be-published Nov. WT to help.

Oh boy.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

AnnOMaly

Hi Bart,

In the absence of a king's name, it is still an assumption to believe a far later king's time (i.e. Darius) was meant. He's first mentioned in chapter 4. Yes, it is hard to untangle the timeline with all the parentheses added to the book, but it is more natural to think the writer, having not specified a new king's name, was still referring to the time of Cyrus.

I find Dr. Constable's online commentary helpful here (noting the table on p. 10).

Regarding Hag. 2:15. Maybe he's using prophetic hyperbole - after all, Haggai 1:12-15 indicates that the people had listened and had already started work on the temple a few weeks earlier than his statement at 2:15, so surely some stones had already been placed on other stones. Yes, 2:18 is phrased awkwardly and must be seen in the light of Ezra and Haggai's earlier statements.

As regards chapter 4 the chronology is a mess due to very poor redaction, and I do not know how this viewed in WT land.

The WT has a very outdated view on this.

*** w06 1/15 p. 18 Highlights From the Book of Ezra ***

PERSIAN KINGS FROM 537 TO 467 B.C.E.

Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1) died in 530 B.C.E.

Cambyses, or Ahasuerus (Ezra 4:6) 530-22 B.C.E.

Artaxerxes—Bardiya (Ezra 4:7) 522 B.C.E. (Assassinated after
or Gaumata reigning only seven months)

Darius I (Ezra 4:24) 522-486 B.C.E.

Xerxes, or Ahasuerus 486-75 B.C.E. (Ruled as
coregent with Darius I from
496-86 B.C.E.)

Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra 7:1) 475-24 B.C.E.

[Footnote]Xerxes is not mentioned in the book of Ezra. He is referred to as Ahasuerus in the Bible book of Esther.

Instead of renaming kings (without any support from history) and squashing them in in chronological order before Darius, it makes more sense to understand that the writer of Ezra began a giant parenthesis at 4:6 - as if he's saying, 'While we're on the subject of opposition to our temple rebuilding, I might as well mention what happened later in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reigns about our city rebuilding.' Then at 4:24 the writer resumes the narrative about the temple rebuilding.

As Sheshbazzar was made governer by Cyrus Ezra 5:14, why do the adversaries of 4:1-2 speak to Zerubbabel and not Sheshbazzar, this does make perfect sense though if this happens when Zerubbabel is governer as sated at Haggai 2:21.

There are different ideas about this, including one that the two names refer to the same person, but 1 Esdras 6:18 and 1 Chron. 3:17-19 suggest otherwise. Sheshbazzar (var. Shenazzar) appears to have been Zerubbabel's uncle so they both could have been the 'go to' guys, or for some reason Zerubbabel took over responsibility.

10

Question about Ezekiel's chronology

by opusdei1972 in

i am writing an article in spanish about the failed prophecies of ezekiel .

however, i have found a problem when researching.

for instance, in chapter 26 ezekiel says that yahweh gave him the prophecy against tyre in the eleventh year.

AnnOMaly

Hi opus,

Indeed, I have noted that Ezekiel's chronology is a mess. For instance, in the first chapter Ezekiel says that the thirtieth year is the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin . So, I see that Ezekiel's starting point is not the same in all his chapters.

I think Young (and others) offers a solution to that anomaly by saying the 30th year is in relation to Jubilee cycles and corresponds to Jehoiachin's 5th year.

10

Question about Ezekiel's chronology

by opusdei1972 in

i am writing an article in spanish about the failed prophecies of ezekiel .

however, i have found a problem when researching.

for instance, in chapter 26 ezekiel says that yahweh gave him the prophecy against tyre in the eleventh year.

AnnOMaly

Hi Phizzy,

The WTS say 4th month/Tammuz/June-July for the breach of Jerusalem's walls and the 5th month/Ab/July-Aug. for Jerusalem's destruction. This is the dating in the Bible. However, they start the '70 years' clock from when Gedaliah was assassinated in the 7th month/Tishri/Sept.-October, when they believe the land became 'desolate, without an inhabitant.'

*** Scripture Inspired (1990), p. 285 par. 6 Study Number 3—Measuring Events in the Stream of Time ***

The “seventy years” that ended in the autumn of the year 537 B.C.E. must have begun, then, in the autumn of 607 B.C.E. The facts bear this out. Jeremiah chapter 52 describes the momentous events of the siege of Jerusalem, the Babylonian breakthrough, and the capture of King Zedekiah in 607 B.C.E. Then, as verse 12 states, “in the fifth month, on the tenth day,” that is, the tenth day of Ab (corresponding to parts of July and August), the Babylonians burned the temple and the city. However, this was not yet the starting point of the “seventy years.” Some vestige of Jewish sovereignty still remained in the person of Gedaliah, whom the king of Babylon had appointed as governor of the remaining Jewish settlements. “In the seventh month,” Gedaliah and some others were assassinated, so that the remaining Jews fled in fear to Egypt. Then only, from about October 1, 607 B.C.E., was the land in the complete sense “lying desolated . . . to fulfill seventy years.”—2 Ki. 25:22-26; 2 Chron. 36:20, 21.

74

Robin Williams passes

by designs in

don't know quite what to say.

just stunned at the news.

comic genius and actor.. share your favorite robin williams moments.. .

AnnOMaly

A brilliant entertainer - both when playing serious roles and when exhaustingly zany. I knew he'd long battled with depression. Terribly sad - especially for those closest to him. Peace now, Robin.

10

Question about Ezekiel's chronology

by opusdei1972 in

i am writing an article in spanish about the failed prophecies of ezekiel .

however, i have found a problem when researching.

for instance, in chapter 26 ezekiel says that yahweh gave him the prophecy against tyre in the eleventh year.

AnnOMaly

opusdei1972, regarding Josephus' statement about Nebuchadnezzar besieging Tyre in his 7th year - this may prove useful:

H. Jacob Katzenstein's History of Tyre (1997 edition) on p. 328 says,

"Josephus's statement that 'it was in the seventh year of his reign that Nabuchodonosor began the siege of Tyre' (C.Ap. I, 159) has always puzzled scholars, and much ink has been spilled over the phrase 'in the seventh year of his reign'. A Latin version quoted by Niese may provide a clue to the real meaning of this sentence. Here we read: 'septimo siquidem anno regni sui (i.e. Ithobali!) Nabuchodonoser coepit ...'. We have, therefore, to read our text as follows: 'It was in the seventh year of his (=Ethobaal's) reign' - and now comes a completion: that is in the twentieth year of his (=Nebuchadnezzar's) reign - 'that Nabuchodonosor began the siege of Tyre'. We must, consequently, assume that in a very early stage a haplography caused the text to come down to us in its present form. Our assumption is also in agreement with the information regarding the beginning of the siege and with the total sum of the different reigns of the kings and judges given by Josephus, as we have already mentioned above. Thus the long siege started in the twentieth year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. in 585 B.C.E. and came to an end ca. 572 B.C.E. (=Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-third year)."

A sidebar on Ezekiel's way of counting. The difficulties with marrying up Ezekiel's way of counting years with other biblical and secular dates is well-known. You have to figure out if he was counting inclusively (1,2,3) or not (0,1,2) and whether he was counting Nisan to Nisan or Tishri to Tishri. I recommend Rodger C. Young's 2004 article, 'When Did Jerusalem Fall?'- particularly the subheading on p. 25, 'III. The Chronology of Ezekiel.'

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

AnnOMaly

Bart,

I'm not sure why you think the second year in which the temple foundation was laid was Darius I's rather than Cyrus'. Ezra does not indicate that this was Darius' Year 2. Ezra 3:8f. says work began on the foundation "in the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem" which links with Ezra 3:1, 6.

Jeffro has done a nice chart. http://jeffro77.wordpress.com/607-for-dummies/#exileend

Work on the temple then got interrupted and came to a halt for about 18 years until Darius' Year 2 when Haggai was commissioned to give the Jews a kick up the behind. Cf. Ezra 4:3-5, 24.

I think your discussion on Isa. 61 is too convoluted to be easily digested (let alone accepted) by your target audience IMHO.

13

VAT4956 Flip-Flop

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

major flip-flop on vat4956:.

in the 1970's it was demonized:.

*** g72 5/8 p. 28 when did babylon desolate jerusalem?

AnnOMaly

IloveTTATT, LOL yes, it's funny that the tablet was waved away as all wrong because it didn't agree with WTS chronology and then nearly 40 years later brought in as a corroborative witness to (allegedly) support the WTS chronology. Glad you pointed out this 180° about-turn.

(Thanks Phizzy, but I'm no expert - just an interested amateur.)

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

AnnOMaly

It looks like his mind is shut. It could well be that, to him, seeing as he is the older and wiser one, your father, he sees you as some arrogant, know-it-all upstart. That's why knowing when to back off or yield, allowing him to think he's teaching you and asking him pertinent, insightful questions may be the best approach with him.

Bizzarely he claimed that the worlds most famous athiest accepts the existence of god (he didn't say who) which is a bit weird.

That would be the late Antony Flew.

he then said that no one has ever been able to tell him what the evidence for evolution is and asked me to explain, in my own words. what the proof is that life started without intelligent design.

It sounds like he's making the common mistake of conflating evolution (the explanation of why life on earth is so diverse) with abiogenesis (where/how life originated). Click on this link.

should I bite?

Only if you really know your stuff and can simplify it sufficiently so that one or two key points stick. Perhaps explore how JWs accept microevolution which involves the same processes as macroevolution but in a far reduced timescale? Just an idea.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

AnnOMaly

Bart,

The Darius mentioned in Haggai is Darius I (522-486 BCE). WTS and conventional chronologies coincide here.

*** Insight Vol. 1, p. 583 Darius ***

It is particularly with regard to the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem that Darius Hystaspis figures in the Bible record. The temple foundation was laid in 536 B.C.E., but rebuilding work came under ban in 522 B.C.E. and “continued stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius” (520 B.C.E.). (Ezr 4:4, 5, 24) During this year the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred up the Jews to renew the construction, and the work got under way again. (Ezr 5:1, 2; Hag 1:1, 14, 15; Zec 1:1)

*** Insight Vol. 1, p. 1019 Haggai, Book of ***

Date and Circumstances. The four messages recorded by Haggai were delivered at Jerusalem within about a four-month period in the second year of Persian King Darius Hystaspis (520 B.C.E.), the book apparently being completed in 520 B.C.E. (Hag 1:1; 2:1, 10, 20) Zechariah was prophesying for the same purpose during Haggai’s prophetic activity.—Ezr 5:1, 2; 6:14.

*** Insight Vol 2, p. 613 Persia, Persians ***

The temple work then lay idle “until the second year of the reign of Darius the king of Persia.”—Ezr 4:24.

Darius I (called Darius Hystaspis or Darius the Great) evidently engineered or instigated the slaying of the one occupying the Persian throne and gained the throne for himself. During his rule the temple work at Jerusalem was renewed with royal approval, and the temple was completed during his sixth year of rule (early in 515 B.C.E.). (Ezr 6:1-15)

Not sure where you're going with Isa. 61.