Emery:
The majority of believeing Jws could care less
No they couldn't. But that's kind of the point.
pages 1744 thru 1746 feature a chart of the kings of the southern kingdom, ending with zedekiah in 607.. praise the new bible and all of the teaching aids .... draw attention to kings list and how convenient that is ... but, strangely, i decided to look up information in an encyclopedia about the different kings, and the dates are not the same ... so i checked a couple of sources and they are all different than the chart in the bible .... why would that be?.
Emery:
The majority of believeing Jws could care less
No they couldn't. But that's kind of the point.
pages 1744 thru 1746 feature a chart of the kings of the southern kingdom, ending with zedekiah in 607.. praise the new bible and all of the teaching aids .... draw attention to kings list and how convenient that is ... but, strangely, i decided to look up information in an encyclopedia about the different kings, and the dates are not the same ... so i checked a couple of sources and they are all different than the chart in the bible .... why would that be?.
NeverKnew:
For those who do not have the new Bible, is the RNWT chart online?
The new NWT is available online. The charts start on page 1744.
The charts are also presented (poorly) as text on the JW website in two separate parts.
pages 1744 thru 1746 feature a chart of the kings of the southern kingdom, ending with zedekiah in 607.. praise the new bible and all of the teaching aids .... draw attention to kings list and how convenient that is ... but, strangely, i decided to look up information in an encyclopedia about the different kings, and the dates are not the same ... so i checked a couple of sources and they are all different than the chart in the bible .... why would that be?.
Another example of problems with the JW chronology for the kings of Israel is that the gap between their chronology and reality increases to 68 years by the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. (This specific duration is deliberately manufactured to shift the end of Ezekiel's '390 years' to the fall of Jerusalem, though that period should end only once they'd 'atoned for their sins'. The difference of 68 years corresponds to the period from the JW's alleged fall of Jerusalem until the subsequent fall of the Babylonian empire in 539.)
This causes problems with correlating their chronology with secular history. For example, Assyrian inscriptions indicate that Shalmaneser III was contemporaneous with king Ahab, at the Battle of Karkar. The date of the battle is determined by secular historians as being in 853 B.C.E., based on astronomical observations.
In the JW chronology, there are 61 years between the end of Ahab's reign and the beginning of Shalmaneser's. Insight devotes more than a full page trying to debunk the fact that Ahab and Shalmaneser's reigns overlapped. However, in reality, Ahab was indeed contemporaneous with Shalmaneser III.
As seen in the chart I provided earlier, in 853 B.C.E. Ahab was co-regent with Jehoram, even though I gave no consideration to Shalmaneser's reign when determining the Bible's chronology.
pages 1744 thru 1746 feature a chart of the kings of the southern kingdom, ending with zedekiah in 607.. praise the new bible and all of the teaching aids .... draw attention to kings list and how convenient that is ... but, strangely, i decided to look up information in an encyclopedia about the different kings, and the dates are not the same ... so i checked a couple of sources and they are all different than the chart in the bible .... why would that be?.
DATA-DOG:
Your blog is awesome. Is there an even simpler explanation than your simplified page for beginners?
Hmmm... that's a challenge. I'm not really sure how to simplify it further without limiting the information presented. I'm open to suggestions.
Some people like to point out that the Neo-Babylonian period can be indicated from Watch Tower Society publications as agreeing with secular chronology of the period, and that's considerd a fairly simple approach. However, the JW publications in question only state that the lengths of each reign are those provided by secular sources, and they never actually say they agree with them.
pages 1744 thru 1746 feature a chart of the kings of the southern kingdom, ending with zedekiah in 607.. praise the new bible and all of the teaching aids .... draw attention to kings list and how convenient that is ... but, strangely, i decided to look up information in an encyclopedia about the different kings, and the dates are not the same ... so i checked a couple of sources and they are all different than the chart in the bible .... why would that be?.
The correct chart looks like this:
on an earlier thread i made the statement that, "an evangelical christian government would look a lot like the taliban".. laika asked me incredulously, "do you really think your friends from your old church would govern like the taliban!?".
i thought it was a really interesting question and might work as a separate thread.. the people i worshipped with were mostly a nice bunch of people, but the thought of them having secular power would make me shudder.. christianity is mostly harmless because it lacks power.
christian politicians are restrained by secular laws and constitutions.
unstopableravens:
well i would happy if abortion was illegal .!
If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Same goes for gay marriages. It really isn't complicated
the congregation i'm from is having their meeting tonight.
my husband said that his brother in law, who is an elder, called and said that there were going to be some big announcements tonight and to bring a notepad, because you will want to take notes.. does anybody know about this and what are the announcements?
?.
The Quiet One:
Exactly, Jeffro. Good to drop a hint for the lurkers ;)
What really strikes me as odd about that error is that I would think that a major publishing organisation would have a computerised system that automatically produces the text for the headers based on the actual content for that page. But apparently the text for those headings is produced manually for each page. How very tedious, and obviously prone to error.
the congregation i'm from is having their meeting tonight.
my husband said that his brother in law, who is an elder, called and said that there were going to be some big announcements tonight and to bring a notepad, because you will want to take notes.. does anybody know about this and what are the announcements?
?.
The Quiet One:
"We've just received word that the new Bibles have an error in them (Numbers 32 heading), please form a pile of RNWT's outside the Hall for immediate incineration. We must complete this important work before November 5th, or else onlookers may be stumbled by what looks like a bonfire. There's nothing like a good old fashioned book burning.."
I thought you were making that up. But I checked anyway. Oh dear.
after some considerable thought i have decided that i will no longer post on this forum because i want to return to jehovah.
thank you for all the kindness and many interesting discussions over the years.
i wish you all well in the future and the decisions you make.
slimboyfat (in the last couple of days):
I bet that will get the younger one thinking. There really is no good defense of the Watchtower practice of tearing up families for no better reason than some don't want to be JWs any more.
No just familiar gobbledygook. They like to talk about how Jehovah becomes king even though he is already king.
I always remember an early post I read online that simply said:Matt 8:11 - proof the Watchtower is lying to you!Not much you can say against that.
So, I'm thinking he's either joking or toying with semantics in reference to some 'other' 'truth'. Either that or he's gone insane.
did anyone notice that the graph of publisher growth in the jan 1st watchtower has been deliberately "tweaked" to give the impression of higher growth in the period 2000 - 2010?
i've tried to illustrate this by superimposing the actual graph line over the one from the watchtower ( which is the narrower line in the graph.
) the period up to 2000 exactly mirrors the actual figures but the artist has decided to edge up the last decade , for obvious reasons.
The points on the graph align correctly based on the selection of one point per 10 years, however it does smoothe out the problems during the 70s.
However, annual growth rate (%) is in decline.