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

Hi Jeffro,

It is more realistic that Cyrus and Darius gave permission to rebuild Jerusalem in general, including but not limited to the temple.

And yet Ezra does not say that. You (and the compiler of 1 Esdras) assume it.

Those verses only indicated that they were rebuilding the temple, not that it was completed at that time. The context of the rest of the chapter indicates quite clearly that construction of the temple was ongoing.

Sure, but Josephus understands from this that the temple (naos) was completed. Josephus apparently misunderstood 1 Esdras.

Likewise, 1 Esdras didn't name Cambyses, but Josephus assumed that the first Artaxerxes it mentioned was Cambyses.

The 'two years' in 5:73 is correctly understood to mean Darius' second year of reign (i.e. two years after his accession), not that there were only two years between Cyrus and Darius.

But it said "they were kept from building for two years, until the reign of Darius." 'We' have to reinterpret or correct it.

The claim made in the list above that 1 Esdras chapter 2 isn't in chronological order is going back to the same circular argument as before. 1 Esdras chapter 2 specifically identifies the temple foundations, so without deferring to speculation that the name assigned to Persia's king must refer to a later king with the same (throne) name, the plain reading of 1 Esdras indicates two sections, both in chronological order

Hm, look, you either have to believe that Cambyses and/or Bardiya were also known as Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus (circularly arguing on nothing more than speculation or assumption), or you have to believe that 1 Esdras wrote out of sequence or else confused the order of Persian kings (which undermines 1 Esdras' chronological usefulness in any argument about the timeframe of Ezra 4:6-23). What's your pleasure?

19

weird: passing around literature fragments in prison

by Magnum in

i dont have any specific references, but over the years i remember reading in the mags and hearing in talks stories of imprisoned jws who would somehow get a piece of a page of a jw magazine or an article or something like that and pass it around and get spiritually nourished by it as if it almost had a magical or supernatural nature.

does anybody else remember such?.

i always thought it just didnt make sense.

AnnOMaly

I don't think it's weird. The fragments being smuggled in would only contain what was deemed faith-strengthening or doctrinally important. The act of taking great risks to smuggle in this stuff gives the message:

- Jehovah/the Org. has not forgotten you;

- Keep your resolve to serve Jehovah/the Org;

- We're sticking it to the 'man' who bans us and our preaching and even locking us up won't stop us, so nyah!

'Dissident' groups of all flavors have done similarly when being oppressed and imprisoned.

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

(Jeffro) And even if 1 Esdras came after, it was obviously understood then that the 'foundations' at Ezra 4:12 referred to the foundations of the temple. It's never specified as the foundations of anything other than the temple.

Ezra makes no suggestion in 4:12 that the foundations relate to the temple. We can infer from Ezra that the foundations of the city or walls are meant.

In contrast with Ezra, 1 Esdras adds that Darius granted permission for the city to be rebuilt (4:47-57). Ezra indicates Darius only supported the construction of the temple.

1 Esdras comments that in the 2nd year after they returned, "the builders built the temple of the Lord" (5:56-58). Josephus apparently understood it thus:

"... and the temple, by the great diligence of those that had the care of it, was finished sooner than any one would have expected. And when the temple was finished [the priests and Levites celebrated/mourned the loss of the previous temple] ..." (Ant. XI.4.2)

But the temple wasn't finished then, and Josephus later resumes the narrative about how it came to be rebuilt in Darius' time. There's a contradiction here.

1 Esdras has the period between the end of Cyrus' reign and Darius' reign as 2 years (5:73). Josephus has it as 9 years (Ant. XI.2.2)

FWIW, The New Bible Commentary (1970, 3rd ed.) remarks on p. 395:

"It [Esdras A/1 Esdras] probably reflects a better Hebrew text than the Massoretic text but the translation is very free and its historical and chronological details are unreliable, and so the biblical Ezra is to be preferred. The Jewish historian Josephus bases his work upon 1 Esdras."

.

(Jeffro) Actually, Josephus took Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' to be Cambyses ...

Oops. Yes, you're right. Ezra makes reference to Ahasuerus but 1 Esdras does not. Interestingly, 1 Esdras isn't in chronological order anyway.

Cyrus - 2:1-16
Artaxerxes - 2:16-30
Darius - 2:30-5:6
Cyrus - 5:7-73
Darius - 6:1-7:15
Artaxerxes - 8:1-end

So all-in-all, it doesn't make sense to me to use 1 Esdras (even via Josephus) to argue that Ezra 4 keeps strict chronological sequence and that v. 6-23 referred to the years between Cyrus and Darius.

... which is indeed probably in error, but still in the correct period, prior to Darius. Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' - the recipient of the letter - would more likely refer to Bardiya, after complaints were sent to Ezra's 'Ahasuerus', who would more logically refer to Cambyses.

Well, I've already discussed why I find those identifications unsatisfactory.

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,

True, 1 Esd. 2:18 adds "of the temple" when talking about the foundations, but Ezra 4:12 is the earlier version upon which the later Greek Esdras was based. Josephus' beliefs may well have relied on those later traditions. As you said earlier:

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 .

So, while it's interesting that Josephus took Ezra's 'Ahasuerus' to be Cambyses, it doesn't mean Josephus was correct.

Antiquities is a mix of history he gets right (and approximately right) and history he gets jumbled. If what he says can be corroborated elsewhere - especially independently - then we're on to a winner. Otherwise I'm a little more cautious.

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

I missed this one:

Correct. It's not circular reasoning to suggest that a textual narrative probably means largely what it says.

Nice dodge. You have no basis for asserting Ezra really meant Cambyses and Bardiya when he actually wrote Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes.

On the other hand, suggesting that part of an uninterrupted passage 'must' refer to a later period of time merely because it has some characters with the same names (which aren't even the persons' names) as in a later period is assuming a great deal.

As I say, we'll agree to disagree. We've both made our case for each viewpoint.

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.