Posts by AnnOMaly

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

It is understandable that those who opposed reconstruction might object to broader repairs on the city, since the argument about building a fortified city would be more compelling than building the temple. Reconstruction on parts of the city other than the temple also happened during the period prior to Darius' reign (compare Haggai 1:3, 9) so it's not as though only the city or the temple has any reconstruction done at any particular time.

And yet the walls and gates were still a shambles in Art's 20th year. Sure, there was other building going on before Darius but it looks as if it was centered on people's own homes and comforts.

So I still don't see good reason to assume that the chapter does not present events in chronological order. The plain reading of Ezra 4:21-24 is fairly straightforward that an order was sent to halt work, then people forced the Jews to stop work, and then work was halted until Darius' second year.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the plain reading is that Ahasuerus/Xerxes and Artaxerxes were meant and that Ezra (or later redactor of Ezra-Nehemiah) wanted to summarize all the opposition to both temple- and city-building, from Cyrus, through Darius through to Artaxerxes in that one slot.

If it were actually Artaxerxes I who caused construction work to be halted, it would be spectacularly poor writing to leave out such significant events out of the the narratives in Ezra chapters 7 & 8 and in Nehemiah.

Why mention it again? It was already mentioned in ch. 4 and that was all the information the writer/redactor was able to or chose to share. As the letter was undated, rather than omit it or place it somewhere else which could have been equally out of chronological sequence, he decided to include it in the 'history of opposition' section.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on the JW dogma. I like to think of it as the adults talking while the JW apologists play in the sandbox.

LOL.

25

Is this the start of a change of policy regarding individual JWs preparing internet pages.

by joe134cd in

jw
friends

this is a quote of a quote taken from anthoney mathenia:.

" for organizations like the watchtower, absolute control of their message is paramount.

it will not even allow its own adherents to spread their good news online.

AnnOMaly

Interesting. You'd think jw.org would be featured on there somewhere - at least on the pages with Org's kiddie videos or the online NWT (although the latter diverts to jw.org). Probably an oversight by the local BOE.

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 Jeffro,

What you're asserting is circular reasoning, based on the assumption that verses 6 to 23 are parenthetical.

And your assumption that Ezra attributed different names to Cambyses and Bardiya isn't circular?

If you're applying Ezra 4:12 to Artaxerxes I, then the arrival of Jews "from you to us" would best fit the timing of Ezra and others going to Jerusalem in the 7th year Artaxerxes I, which would require that the order to halt building would follow that. But that would plainly contradict the fact that Ezra had gone to Jerusalem after Artaxerxes I had given Ezra a letter specifically supporting them.

It would be odd for Ezra 4:12 to refer to Jews who arrived in Jerusalem over 70 years prior (from return of Jews in 538BCE until in or after the accession year of Artaxerxes I, 465 BCE), as would be the case if it is said to refer to some time prior to Ezra going to Jerusalem but during the reign of Artaxerxes.

Wait. Artaxerxes was supporting the Jews' worship and their God by donating precious metals, goods, the means to procure animals for sacrifice, etc., to the temple, as well as enabling them to govern the people based on their religious set-up. The Persians not only were tolerant of other religions but, by honoring other people's gods, they ensured divine favor for themselves:

(Ezra 7:23) . . .Let everything that is ordered by the God of the heavens be done with zeal for the house of the God of the heavens, so that there may be no wrath against the king’s realm and his sons.

The letters to and from Artaxerxes in Ezra 4 are undated, but there is no contradiction with it being after Art's 7th year. It's one thing to support the Jews' religious practices; it's another to tolerate the rebuilding of a fortified city which could be used to break away and become independent from Persia - especially with Jerusalem's history of attempted rebellions (see 4:13-16). So Art. stipulated that no more building should be done until he ordered it (4:21).

The book of Esther presents Xerxes I as favourable toward the Jews, with no indication that he was the 'Ahasuerus' who prevented construction in Jerusalem either.

Where does it suggest Ahasuerus/Xerxes prevented construction? All it says is that complaints were made to him early in his reign.

I think you are creating more complications than there are. Understanding v. 6-23 as parenthetical, as relating to the later oppositions to city-building, is the most logical conclusion when all factors are considered - at least to me (and also most of modern scholarship).

42

Scare tactics and manipulation in the Nov 2014 Watchtower . Low down dirty rotten charlatans

by Watchtower-Free in

scare tactics and manipulation in the nov 2014 watchtower .. low down dirty rotten charlatans.

AnnOMaly

*Sigh*

Although the beginning of the article did mention the 1st century gospel about repenting and accepting Jesus in order to be saved, after the picture of the people in the basement the end message is:

16 ... At that time, Gog will attack “a people regathered from the nations,” Jehovah’s people. (Ezek. 38:10-12) ... [blah, blah, we know how it goes]

17 When Gog begins the assault, Jehovah will tell his servants: “Go, my people, enter your inner rooms, and shut your doors behind you. Hide yourself for a brief moment until the wrath has passed by.” (Isa. 26:20) At that crucial time, Jehovah will give us lifesaving instructions, and the “inner rooms” might well be connected with our local congregations.

18 If, therefore, we wish to benefit from Jehovah’s protection during the great tribulation, we must recognize that Jehovah has a people on earth, organized into congregations. We must continue to take our stand with them and remain closely associated with our local congregation. With all our hearts, may we join the psalmist in proclaiming: “Salvation belongs to Jehovah. Your blessing is upon your people.”—Ps. 3:8.

- P. 27.

So, as usual, the 1st century message about 'salvation in Jesus' gets switched to 'salvation in the Org.'

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

Sorry - badly worded.

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

It was then that the work came to a halt? In the reign of Darius?

It didn't say that. As you said, v. 6-23 is the parenthesis. Thus:

(Ezra 4:3-5, 24) ... “You have no share with us in building a house to our God , for we alone will build it to Jehovah the God of Israel, just as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.” Then the people of the land were continually discouraging the people of Judah and disheartening them from building. They hired advisers against them to frustrate their plans all the days of King Cyrus of Persia until the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia.

. . .It was then that the work on the house of God, which was in Jerusalem, came to a halt; and it remained at a standstill until the second year of the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia.

It was then, from the days of Cyrus up to Darius' Yr. 2, that the work on the temple came to a halt because of all the hassle from the neighbors.

Ezra says Artaxerxes supported the opposition to rebuilding the city and said it could only resume on his say-so. The letter is undated. Was it early in his reign? All we know is that, apparently, because of Nehemiah's good standing at court (and God's intervention), in his 20th year Art. has a change of heart. It doesn't mean all the neighbors were happy about it, though.

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

Continued ...

The fact that other sources don't call Cambyses or Bardiya by the 'biblical' names does not conclusively mean that Ezra did not use those names.

It is highly improbable that he would use unrecognized names for kings. He got Cyrus' and Darius' names right. Why invent new names for Cambyses and Bardiya who, btw, had barely warmed the seat of the throne before Darius had him killed.

Josephus incorrectly refers to Artaxerxes I as Xerxes in Antiquities of the Jews Book XI, so it's evident that there may have been some confusion about the sequence of these throne names .

At least 'Xerxes' is part of 'Artaxerxes.' There is some relationship between the names.

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 Jeffro. The letter to Artaxerxes involves objections to rebuilding the city:

(Ezra 4:11-16) . . .“To King Ar·ta·xerx′es from your servants, the men of the region Beyond the River: ... They are rebuilding the rebellious and wicked city, and they are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations.  Now let it be known to the king that if this city should be rebuilt and its walls finished, they will not give tax, tribute, or toll, and it will result in a loss to the treasuries of the kings. ...  We are making known to the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are finished, you will have no control of the region Beyond the River.”

(Ezra 4:17-23) . . .Greetings! And now the official document that you sent us has been clearly read before me. ...  Now issue an order for these men to stop work, so that the city may not be rebuilt until I issue an order . . . [Cp. Neh. 1:3; 2:3, 5, 17.]

... Now after the copy of the official document of King Ar·ta·xerx′es had been read before Re′hum and Shim′shai the scribe and their colleagues, they quickly went to Jerusalem to the Jews and used force to stop them.

On the other hand, objections and schemes to halt the rebuilding of the temple were occurring between Cyrus' and Darius' reigns:

(Ezra 4:3-5) . . .“You have no share with us in building a house to our God, for we alone will build it to Jehovah the God of Israel, just as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.” Then the people of the land were continually discouraging the people of Judah and disheartening them from building. They hired advisers against them to frustrate their plans all the days of King Cyrus of Persia until the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia.

(Ezra 4:24) . . .It was then that the work on the house of God, which was in Jerusalem, came to a halt; and it remained at a standstill until the second year of the reign of King Da·ri′us of Persia.

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

if I ask AnnOmally she will tell me 586.

Actually, I would tell you 587.

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 Jeffro,

Ezra 4:1-7 explicitly states that temple work began during the reign of Cyrus , and then was halted during Cyrus' reign, remained on hold throughout the the reigns of 'Ahasuerus' ( Cambyses II ) and 'Artaxerxes' ( Bardiya ), and then resumed in Darius ' second year.

As explained above, equating Ahasuerus with Cambyses and Artaxerxes with Bardiya is an outdated view. It mainly comes from older commentaries where they had less archaeological data to go on. There is no indication from history that Cambyses was ever given the name Ahasuerus or that Bardiya was also named Artaxerxes. So 'Ahasuerus' is Xerxes (the Gk. form of the name) and Artaxerxes naturally refers to Artaxerxes I. Ezra talks about the opposition to rebuilding the temple and then digresses to the later opposition, in Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reigns, concerning the rebuilding of the city walls, before returning to the subject of the temple.

Hi Bart,

AnnO - Silly me, I forgot than in la la land when history does not agree the the NWT and WT truth, then just make it up, oh the intellect they show!!!

In this instance, it's unfair to say they made up those identifications - they are just relying on older scholarship. If they changed their minds on it, I don't think it would affect the bigger chronological picture as far as they are concerned.