Scholar, Can you please explain to us why you accept the secularly established date of 539 BC for the fall of Babylon and not the date 568/67 BC as being the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Astronomical data contained in VAT 4956 clearly identifies 568/67 as being "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar." Why do you choose to establish the date of Jerusalem's fall by starting with the date 539 BC for the fall of Babylon, and then count forward a questionable 2 years to arrive at 537 for the Jews' return, and then count backwards a questionable 70 years to arrive at 607, rather than starting with the date 568/67 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and then simply counting backwards 19 years to establish that his 18th year of reign, at which time the Bible indicates Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, took place in 587/86? Do you use the secularly determined date of Babylon's fall to establish the date of Jerusalem's destruction, rather than using the secularly determined date for Nebuchadnezzar's "37th year" because you believe the 539 BC date for Babylon's fall has been more firmly established by secular historians than the date 568/67 BC has been for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? If so, will you please tell us why you believe this is the case? Why do you reject the astronomical data contained in Vat 4956 establishing 568/67 BC as "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar" and accept similar astronomical data found elsewhere which has been used by historians to establish the date 539 BC for Babylon's conquest by Cyrus? If you believe that the Bible demands that Judah was absolutely desolate for 70 years, why not accept the date 568/67 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and 587/6 BC for his 18th year, and then maintain that the Jews must have returned home in 517 BC? To do so would require you to say that the secular evidence establishing 539 BC as the date for Babylon's fall is in error, rather than saying, as you now must, that the secular evidence establishing 568/67 BC as the date for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is in error. So again I ask, do you choose to date the fall of Jerusalem by starting with the date 539 BC for Babylon's fall because you believe this date has been more firmly established than the date 568/67 BC has been for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year? If so, will you please explain why you believe this is the case? I thank you in advance for honest answers to these questions. Mike
a Christian
JoinedPosts by a Christian
-
128
listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem
by M.J. insorry if this has been posted before.
i came across it and thought it was worth pointing out: http://members.tripod.com/sosoutreach/wts/607.html.
(edited) the annoying popup caused me to cut and paste the table from the page, rather than embed it: the narrative before and after is good too so you might want to check it out the original page.
-
-
-
18
*** Channel C forum closing ***
by truthseeker injust checked out channelc.org, and it looks like it will close.. posted by ccadmin on thu - jul 21 - 6:40pm: .
.. dear all: .
i've thought about this a lot today, while i was away at work.
-
-
a Christian
Though Ros announced the "Closing" of Channel C several months ago, she never did actually close it. It is still up and running. http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index.cgi Well, sort of. What Ros actually did was change it from an exclusive board to a very exclusive board. She did so by expelling many posters who she did not like for one reason or another (like disagreeing with her about something) and then treating several others there so rudely that they left saying they would never again participate on any discussion board run by her. What is now left of Channel C is very, very small discussion board for Ros and a few high profile ex-JWs, who if they knew how nasty Ros has treated many Christian and non-Christian ex-JWs they would probably also not want to participate any longer on her board.
-
240
Desolation of Jerusalem
by Alwayshere inusing the wts's dates in the january 1.1965 page 29 : nabonidus= 17 years.
add 17 to 539=556, neriglissar==4 years, add 4 to 556=560, evil-marduk=2 years, add 2 to560=562, nebuchadnezzar=43 years, add 43 to 562 =605.
the bible at 2 kings 25: 8 and 9 says "in the 19th year of king nebuchadnezzar the servant of the king came to jerusallem and burned the house of jehovah.
-
-
a Christian
Alan,
Thanks for your fine work firmly establishing 538 as the year of the Jews' return. I've printed it out for future reference.
Mike
-
240
Desolation of Jerusalem
by Alwayshere inusing the wts's dates in the january 1.1965 page 29 : nabonidus= 17 years.
add 17 to 539=556, neriglissar==4 years, add 4 to 556=560, evil-marduk=2 years, add 2 to560=562, nebuchadnezzar=43 years, add 43 to 562 =605.
the bible at 2 kings 25: 8 and 9 says "in the 19th year of king nebuchadnezzar the servant of the king came to jerusallem and burned the house of jehovah.
-
-
a Christian
Antiquities of the Jews - Book X
CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO YEARS AND A HALF.
FROM THE CAPTIVITY OF THE TEN TRIBES TO THE FIRST YEAR OF CYRUS.
Jeffro,
Yes, it is pretty amazing how "Scholar" and his "Celebrated Watch Tower Scholars" have the gall to say that Josephus supports their understanding of Bible history and Bible chronology. This is one more case proving just the opposite.
Historians tell us that Samaria, the capital of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel, fell to Assyria in 721 BC. But because the Watchtower Society dates the fall of Jerusalem 20 years too early, and then sets all other dates in Old Testament history by counting backwards in time from that incorrect date, they have also incorrectly added about 20 years to the date for the fall of Samaria. (I believe they date it's capture to 740 BC.)
The historically correct date for this event ( 721 BC ) was of course 182 years before "the first year of Cyrus" ( 539 BC ) - just as Josephus.told us it was.
How you have mustered the patience to respond to so much of Scholar's foolishness I have no idea. I suppose you have done so just in case someone else here may actually think the WT's teachings on this subject matter may have some credibility. But, as you and "Scholar" have here clearly demonstrated many times, they have absolutely none at all.
Mike
-
21
Revelation 12:1
by Honesty inwho is this woman?.
rev 12:1-5 a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and a crown of 12 stars on her head.
she was pregnant and cried out in labor and agony to give birth.
-
-
a Christian
It seems quite clear to me that the woman in Rev. 12 is the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant and the New Covenant are both spoken of in Galatians 4:21-31. In verse 26 the New Covenant is called "Jerusalem above" and Paul tells Christians, "She is our mother."
But how could the New Covenant also be the mother of Christ, as the woman in Revelation is portrayed as giving birth to Christ? To understand the answer to this question we have to first understand what the New Covenant is. A covenant is an agreement entered into by two parties.
The New Covenant includes a set of promises God has from the time of Christ made to all people who do their best to serve Him faithfully, a set of promises which God first made to Jesus Christ Himself. This set of promises has always included the promise to provide His servants with a resurrection from the dead, and a promise to allow them to then live forever with Him, and a promise to allow them to rule with Him as a King.
Since Jesus Christ was the first one God entered into this New Covenant with, and since Jesus Christ was the first one God kept His promises in this regard to, as "the firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5) Jesus Christ is quite properly portrayed in Revelation 12 as the firstborn child of the New Covenant.
Mike -
9
Could JWD be part of bible prophecy?
by JH ini was just wondering if there is a verse in the bible that points out what jwd is doing as far as exposing the watchtower false prophet?
-
-
a Christian
That could be.
Concerning events which would take place at "the time of the end" in Daniel 12 an angel predicted the following:
3 "Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the time of the end; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."
The Internet has certainly 'increased the knowlege' of many and, by exposing the lies of the Watchtower, helped "lead many to righteousness."
-
84
WTBS article prove 587/586 BC fall of Babylon
by crazies inlabashi-marduk: (9 months) succeeded by nabonidus
(insight volume 1 p.453 chronology; watchtower 1965 january 1 p.29)
evil-merodach: 560 bce562 bce (2 years)
-
-
a Christian
Spectrum,
You wrote: They can say "OK fair dues we weren't chosen in 1914 but 1934". Why is that so calamitous as you suggest?
To do so would be admitting that they have been teaching falsely on what has been their primary doctrine for nearly a century. Their only claim to fame all these years was that they were acting as true prophets in the years before 1914 by preaching, "Watch out for 1914!"
To do so would be admitting that they have misunderstood both Bible history and Bible prophecy for nearly a century. To do so would raise the question, "If we have been wrong all this time about this, what else might we be wrong about?" To do so would raise the question, "Since we might be wrong about anything, is it right to disfellowship people who disagree with us about anything?" To do so would raise the question, "Can we really be trusted now on anything at all?" "What about the blood issue?" "What about celebrating Holidays?" "What about the preaching work?" "Why go door to door telling other people what to believe, when what we tell them might be wrong?"
To do so would be to admit that the "apostates" - many of whom have been disfellowshipped over this issue - have been right all along.
No, the GB will never admit that 607 and 1914 are wrong. That's a "can of worms" they will never dare to open.
-
84
WTBS article prove 587/586 BC fall of Babylon
by crazies inlabashi-marduk: (9 months) succeeded by nabonidus
(insight volume 1 p.453 chronology; watchtower 1965 january 1 p.29)
evil-merodach: 560 bce562 bce (2 years)
-
-
a Christian
Spectrum, You ask: The question is why doesn't the GB drop the 607 date? You seem to forget that if the GB admits that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in either 587 or 586 BC, as all historians assure us that it was, and not in 607 BC as the GB has long erroneously maintained, then the GB will lose its claim to any God-given authority. For the WTB&TS has long maintained that not only did Christ return invisibly in 1914 but that He then conducted a three and a half year long inspection of all then existing Christian religious organizations, and shortly after doing so declared the leaders of the WTB&TS to be His "faithful and discreet slave" and appointed them "over all his belongings" in 1919. They do this based on their interpretation of Daniel 4, which says that 2,520 years ("7 Times") passed from the time of Jerusalem's destruction until Christ's return. Counting 2,520 years from 607 BC brings us to 1914 AD. So, if Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BC then Christ did not return in 1914, and if Christ did not return in 1914 then He did not appoint the WTB&TS "over all his belongings" in 1919. And if He did not the WTB&TS has no right to tell anybody how to understand the Bible or how to live their lives. Now I suppose the GB could say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 or in 586 and that Christ returned in 1934 or 1935 and then appointed them "over all his belongings" a few years later. Or they could say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 or 586 but still count their 2,520 years from 607, claiming 607 to be the date when the reign of Judah's kings ended "in God's eyes" since it was about that time that they fell under the control of Egypt and Babylon. But I think the GB knows that any admission of past error on this topic will cost them much credibility and possibly many supporters, maybe even "Scholar." So I'm quite sure "607" will remain the GB's date for Jerusalem's destruction for as long as the WTB&TS exists. For without it there is no GB.
-
36
The Man of Lawlessness
by Desino inhave anyone thought who is matching best to this description of the man of lawlessness?
the slave class, is one i can think of since they made many additional rules, that not has a solid scripturally ground, about what is right or wrong for a christian.
did jesus told his disciples how to cut their hair or how they should practise sex within marriage?
-
-
a Christian
As I understand things, "the man of lawlessness" which the apostle Paul predicted would come to power after the deaths of the apostles was the collective leadership of what would become a largely apostate Christian church, a church which would later come to be called "catholic." These apostate church leaders, by wielding their self-created, self-serving, false doctrine of "apostolic succession" (by which they claimed to have inherited all the authority which Christ gave His apostles, as well as the right to pass that authority down to their successors) have been able to successfully command the obedience and devotion of billions of Christians for nearly 1900 years. Ironically, though these apostate Christian leaders have managed to gain such religious devotion for themselves by claiming to have "succeeded" the apostles, the apostles themselves never commanded any such reverence. For they knew that such obedience and devotion has always been reserved for God alone.
-
9
COJ responds to "Scholar"
by a Christian inon another discussion board ("channel c") carl olof jonsson - the author of "the gentile times reconsidered" - just responded to a post by "scholar jw" concerning scholar's support of the watchtower's unique interpretation of jeremiah's "70 years" prophecies.
here are coj's comments to scholar: .
neill: .
-
-
a Christian
Hi Dan.
You wrote: How are things going? Haven't heard from you for awhile.
Yeah, it has been a couple years, hasn't it? I spend very little time on line these days. Making a living keeps me pretty busy. Too busy, unfortunately. Not much has changed in my life since I talked to you last. I hear you got out of the furniture business. (I heard a radio ad to that effect anyway.) Are you now retired? Maybe one of these years when I retire I'll find the time to finish one of the writing projects I've started.
I was very sorry to hear about your friend Lark passing away. I hope your health is good.
I also hope you don't think I was too tough on your friend Ros. As I said, for some reason which I still can't understand she again banned me from her site. (She did so once before for some other nutty reason. And then was pretty nasty to me in some personal E Mails. Enough so that her behavior completely turned me off to the idea of attending any of her "Bible conferences.") This was after she allowed me and a few others back to her board after she did a house cleaning of "Catholic trouble makers" recently. About the same time she got rid of me again she also treated Jim Whitney ("Amazing") so badly that he told me that he would never post on her board again. I'd say more but I guess I've said too much publicly already. Just blowing off some steam.
I hope you and the Mrs. have a wonderful Christmas.
Mike