Posts by Jeffro

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

Celebrated WT scholars appreciate the fact that Neo-Babylonian chronology has a certain appeal in that it deals with the regnal data mentioned in the Bible but using a regnal based methodology is fraught with danger because it cannot accolunt for a twenty year gap between secular and biblical chronology. For this very reason an event-based methodology is preferred because it avouds many of the problems in comparing secular chron ology with the biblical data.

I have previously demonstrated by a complete tabulation of the periods of the Neo-Babylonian kings and the Judean Divided Monarchy that the bible can be completely harmonised with secular chronology, and that was done by using only the bible for all information available therefrom, before adding in the information from secular sources which fell into place perfectly. Of course the Society's 20-year gap cannot be accounted for because it is fictitious.

The other vexing problem that your chronology and methodology cannot account for the seventy years unless it is either ignored or reduced to fifty years, classed as a round number or interpreted as a period of servitude only.

Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezra discuss a period of seventy years that ran from 609 to 539 for which Babylon was dominant, and during parts of which nations such as Judah and Tyre were dominated. Zechariah discusses a 70 year period for which the temple was in disrepair, which ran from 587 to 517. No ignoring, no rounding, no contradictions between the treatment of the 70 years between Judah and Tyre, no contradictions with Jeremiah's initial prophecy, and perfectly harmonious with the bulk of secular chronology.

WT chronology is simple, event based and teats the seventy years as a genuine historical period of exile-servitude-desolation harmonizing all of Scripture.

It is simple to say that the Earth is flat too. I could argue that the bible says the planet has "socket pedestals" and "four corners". But it would be rediculous and would contradict other scriptures. Even if the bible did intend that, it would still be untrue. And such is the Society's 607 interpretation. "Harmonizing all of Scripture"? Just how is the Society's interpretation consistent with Isaiah 45:1, Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31 which clearly indicate the significance of the event that would end the 70 years.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

Wt chronology has indeed served God's people well for decades inasmuch it has focussed on the fulfillment of modern day biblical prophecy.

"God's people" - that is simply a delusion. Of course advocates of the Society will say that the Society's interpretations have served the Society well, but it is a completely empty statement.

Celebrated WT scholars have indeed studies alternative opinions on chronology and keep well abreast of developments in modern biblical scholarship. Such dedication to Bible Truth and accuracy has caused some fine tuning in our understanding of chronology from the forties with the advent of the brilliant NWT.

They haven't 'studied' alternative opinions; they have selectively glossed over them, derided them, and pretended that they are not important. It is obvious from the Society's ignorance of Jeremiah 25:12 and other scriptures that they are not interested in truth.

The date 607 has served all Bible Students well as genuine Christians have a keen interest in End Time prophecies unlike the apostates and higher critics who prefer the darkness.

Small fringe-group religions have always been keenly interested in End-Time prophecies. None of them in the past were right, and neither are the Society's.

All chronology must have a methodology otherwise such a chronology cannot exist. There must be a method and a methodology or a philosophical approach that guides the scholar in the interpretation of the data.

There is a methodology, or system or methods and principles, involved in chronology overall, but it is a misuse of the word "methodology" to say that an individual scholar uses a particular methodology in a particular instance, where the word "method" should be used.

There are in fact many Bible Students who support 607 wjo are not associated with the Witnesses but even if it is only the Witnesses who teach 607 this merely demonstrates that truth is not the province of the majority but the minority so that all praise goes to Jehovah in making fools of the wordly wise and apostates.

There may be other minor religions that share the same Adventists roots as the Witnesses. Like the Witnesses, they are regarded as insignificant by legitimate scholars who, by and large, couldn't be bothered caring about such minor groups' bizarre theories.

The interpretation of the seventy years made possible by celebrated WT scholars and published by the Society is dead on correct because it works. Your fanciful theories or theories fail and are contradictory with no endorsement by scholarship. Your view is poor scholarship and is the product of the apostate and higher critic.

"dead" maybe, "dead on correct" no. The Society's interpretation doesn't "work" at all. It contradicts itself, the bible, and secular sources. I'm not sure what you mean by "fanciful theories or theories", but my chronology works perfectly, and co-incidentally falls into place with secular sources. The supposed higher critics you here denegrate are the scholars that you say my work contradicts, and my work concurs with those scholars whom you say offer no endorsement to my work. Your reasoning is not just flawed, it is rediculous.

There is secular evidence for 607 as you well know for it is based upon the Fall of Babylon and the Return, both these events have testimony from secular sources. the seventy years finds agreement with Josephus, a secular historian and the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 is confirmed biblically and again by Josephus. The foundation of 607 and its calculation is rock solid.

You can't just say there is specific secular evidence for 607 simply because you can add 70 to 537. In Against Apion, Josephus indicates that the temple was only destroyed for 50 years, and it has been demonstrated in depth on this forum that complete depopulation is not referred to, just as the 70 years did not need to completely apply to Tyre.

The Jonsson hypothesis is written by a non-scholar who cannot work with the primary sources so his conclusions are simply an interpretation of the secular evidence whic once again can only produce ambiguous results.

This supposed "Jonsson hypothesis" is basically a collation of information produced by the secular community. All of the material you claim I gleaned from Jonsson, I found from other sources, so your claim is irrelevant.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

Celebrated WT scholars have investigated chronology since the time of the early Bible Students and have produced a chronology for both the OT and NT that has erved the Lord's people well for decades.

It has only [s]erved them well in that they have been able to keep most members from studying external sources and finding out the truth of the matter. 607 is simply a flawed basis for a typical end-time prophecy. Fringe-dwelling religious groups need end-time prophecies to scare people in, so I guess 607 has served them well after all.

The calculation of 607 has a simple methodology based strictly on God;s Word and cannot be overturned because the Bible is faithful and true.

NO, scholar, a calculation cannot have a "methodology". You are using "methodology" instead of method perhaps because you think it makes you look superior, but it just illustrates your poor use of the English language. The broad field of chronology has a methodology. A calucalation does not.

"Strictly"? Isaiah 45:1 Jeremiah 25:12 Daniel 5:26-31.

Secular chronology prompted by apostates is confusing, complex and unfruitful because it provides no coherent chronology. Such advocates cannot agree on the theinterpretation of the seventy years and the a date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

Secular chronology isn't prompted by apostates. By your definition, these apostates are ex JWs, who by and large have had very little to do with the actual work of the chronologers who made available the information that disproves the Society's interpretations. Cannot agree? You can't find anyone at all who agrees with the Society about 607, so what is your point?

The biblical 607 date is based upon solid secular evidence otherwise such a date would not be possible and it is also based on a solid pivotal date. The Jonsson hypothesis is just a criticism with its onject to invalidate our superior chronology and contains too many assumptions to be of any scholarly value which is understandable as its author is not a scholar.

Irrespective of interpretations, 607 is not a "biblical" date. The time and event used by the Society for the end of the 70 years is wrong. The significance given to the 70 years is wrong. There is no secular evidence at all that points to 607. There you go with that "Jonsson hypothesis" stuff again. Are you suggesting that Jonsson translated the tablets found at the British museum and wrote all of the other sources that state that Jerusalem fell in 587? No, you're just trying to use a label to imply deride the facts.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

Celebrated WT scholars have provided sufficient information to dispel any concerns raised by the Jonsson hypothesis in the book Gentile Times Reconsidered.

"Celebrated WT scholars" LOL. It is patently obvious that the Society indeed has NOT provided sufficient information to dispel any concerns. (There's that "Jonsson hypothesis" catchphrase again, as if this nullifies the fact that the problems exist.) Even those who didn't know of the "Jonsson hypothesis" at all when they started investigating the 607 issue (such as myself) have concerns with the Society's explanations.

Most of their publications don't even dare attempt approaching many of the issues, though in a couple they quickly gloss over some details to minimize their significance.

The claculation of 607 is based on biblical and secular evidence and its simplicity is well presented in the publications in recent years.

Scholar, on specifically which secular evidence is the "claculation of 607" based?

The calculation of 607 is not at all based on any secular evidence, as there simply is NO secular evidence to support it.

Apostate thinking poses no threat to our chronology as its methodology and interpretation demonstrates a loyalty to God's inspired Word.

(Incorrect use of word "methodology".) The Society's interpretation is internally inconsistent and contradicts several scriptures. That does not demonstrate "loyalty to God's inspired Word."

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Jeffro

There is no flawed reasoning in the selection of 539 rather than other proposed dates, it comes down to methodology and choice.

(As a side point, "methodology" refers to the principles and methods involved in a particular field; it does not refer to a particular method employed by a particular organization.) Choosing to ignore facts that refute a particular claim is simply intellectual dishonesty.

Ther e is nothing unreliable about the selection of 539 as a pivotal date as it is derived from astronomical dates and the event of the Fall of Babylon is well attested biblically and in the secular records.

Yes, the astronomically dated 539 is reliable, just as is 597 for the siege on Jerusalem. But it is the Society that inconsistently and hypocritically attempts to invalidate the reliability of such dating methods.

The date of 539 cannot serve as the end of the seventy yeras as the texts clearly state that the end of the seventy years is when the land was repopulated at the Return in 537.

Where?

Jeremiah clearly states that the judgement against Babylon commenced after 539 with its Fall and in 537 when it no longer had the captives in servitude.

Where?

The judgement in Jeremiah 25:12 proves that this would be a ongoing progress over time until Babylon was no more.

Regardless of whether it was ongoing, it clearly stated that it would begin once the 70 years were completed. Additionally, there is no logic in suggesting that Cyrus was judged as Babylon's king in 537.

40

Did God ever grant what you asked for in prayer?

by JH in

i was an active witness, and i didn't feel as if god granted anything i asked for in prayers.

i didn't ask anything out of the ordinary.

since the witnesses say that they are god's followers and that he blesses them, i wonder in what way he blesses individuals when they pray?.

Jeffro

If you pray about something, and it doesn't happen, it's because "God may not answer our prayers in the way we expect", or because we "lack faith" or because it's "not in harmony with God's will" or because "God is helping us learn endurance and long-suffering".

If you pray about something, and it does happen, it's because you "asked in faith", "God is blessing you", and it was "in accord with God's will".

If you don't pray about something but it happens anyway, it's because "God knows our needs before we even ask him."

If you don't pray about something and it doesn't happen, it's because "you lack faith" and you haven't "relied on God."

And if all else fails, you can play the "time and unforeseen occurrence" wildcard.

It is superstitious smoke and mirrors.

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Jeffro

Hardly an example of flawed reasoning in advocating the Fall of Babylon in 539 as a pivotal date.

You state that it is not flawed reasoning, and then go on to clarify just how flawed its reasoning is. Very amusing. Thank you.

Celebrated Wt in their genius and wisdom have explained why this event is chosen rather than the more popular astronomical dates advocated by scholars and apostates. This event is unique because it is derived from astronomical dates and as a pivotal date it is well attested by biblical and secular history.

That the event is derived from astronomical dates is certainly not "unique". It is indeed well attested, but it is derived using methods that the Society pointedly states are unreliable because the same methods are used to indicate dates of other events that categorically show the Society's interpretations to be flawed. It is dishonest in the extreme to suggest that this date is valid, but that all other dates arrived at by the same methods and by the same scholars, are all wrong.

Also, this event is the closet in time to the other momentous events in biblical history namely the Return of the Exiles in 537 BCE and the rebuilding of the Temple. Further, it is a mere 68 years from the Fall of the Temple in 607 BCE.

You suggest that 539 cannot be the end of the 70 years because it is only 68 years after the alleged fall in 607. (Incidentally, 68 out of 70 is more than 97 percent, so it hardly qualifies as 'mere'.) This is blatantly illogical circular reasoning to the point of being amusing, as the only basis for the claim that the fall was in 607 is the belief that the 70 years ended in 537 (which contradicts the bible quite definitely anyway). The simple fact is that the Babylonian Empire and its king was called to account at the end of 70 years, as clearly identified by Jeremiah, which clearly occurred in 539.

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Jeffro

The Fall of Babylon in 539 is attested biblically because the Bible not only foretells that event but also desribes the event in detail. This is the only pivotal date that is descriptive of an event which took place for other pivotal dates are not mentioned in the Bible but are simply based on secular records for a certain year for a certain king etc.

As usual, 'scholar's' reasoning is flawed.

The fact is that because the Society does not give credence to astronomical diaries, the Society - according to its own reasoning regarding secular authorities - has no basis to accept 539 for the overthrow of Babylon. Regardless of how specifically the bible describes the event, it simply provides no clue as to an absolute year. The Society indeed relies on the so-called 'profane' chronology based on astronomical diaries to get 539, but then proceeds to ignore the professionals for everything else, in preference of their outlandish reworking of history.

16

Can any one figure this out?

by startingover in

jw
friends

.

http://trunks.secondfoundation.org/files/psychic.swf

Jeffro

OldSoul,

If you choose 9, you will have to subtract 9. That will give you 0. It is possible to get less than 9.

The instructions specify that you select a two-digit number. You therefore are not allowed to choose 9, and therefore cannot validly get a result less than 9.

love11,

I don't know what to tell ya'. I've tried four times already and it still hasn't guessed mine.

Seeing as it doesn't 'guess' anything, there must be a problem with your ability to add, subtract and/or find an item in a table.

18

YOUNG PEOPLE ASK - HOW SHOULD I DEAL WITH MY DOUBTS 01/04/2002

by diamondblue1974 in

young people ask - how should i deal with my doubts?

awake: april 2002. .

we live in a world of many philosophies and many world views and young christians might be tempted to have doubts about the loving guidance set out by the faithful and discreet slave.

Jeffro

i remember that article...and i actually believed it.

You remember an article they never printed? LOL