i recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
Skeptical78:
I recently became aware of the new light. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
Both the old and current understandings of JWs regarding 1914 are and always have been wrong. Their fundamental beliefs about 1914 are based on an entirely false premise. See here for more information.
the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
scholar (22 December 2013):
I have my daughter and grandkids over Xmas but will respond to those posts that I have missed when they leave mid this week.
That must have been some Christmas party. Still waiting.
i thought i'd share the 2014 yearbook stats.
i converted the file to excel format & sorted the increase in publisher's column from largest to smallest.
as i suspected, the growth is limited to a very few # of "lands.
I think it would be clearer seeing the full chart. As presented, it seems like bad math. But this could be due to lack of data.
the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
scholar (22 December 2013):
I have my daughter and grandkids over Xmas but will respond to those posts that I have missed when they leave mid this week.
Still waiting...
according to the watch tower society, ahaziah (of judah) reigned for a single year, in 906bce.
the watch tower society also claims that judah and israel both used nisan-based dating for the start of reigns.. according to 2 kings 9:29, ahaziah's reign began in the 11th year of jehoram (of israel).
of course, if judah and israel were both using nisan-based dating, ahaziah's single year of reign couldn't have started in both years.
jamclark:
Most reigns start in the civil year (fall, as in 6 months after the scriptural year). The months before generally don't count and is called the ascension period.
I have already determined mathematically that reigns in Judah were based on the civil calendar (i.e. Tishri-based) and that reigns in Israel were based on the the sacred (not 'scriptural') calendar (Nisan-based). (Claiming that both used Tishri-based years would result in anomalies similar to those introduced by the Watch Tower Society's claim that both used Nisan-based years.) Additionally, comparison of various verses indicates that the Jews counted the accession (not 'ascension') period as part of the reign prior to Babylonian influence. (It should also be noted that the Jews had different names for the months prior to Babylonian influence.)
you may add many, but here are two:.
1) vegetation made on day 3, animals formed day 5,6, but- then.
in gen 2, man seems to be the primary creation, and vegetation and then animals were formed from the dust and brought to him to name them.
prologos:
I am putting you on
I'd never have guessed.
you may add many, but here are two:.
1) vegetation made on day 3, animals formed day 5,6, but- then.
in gen 2, man seems to be the primary creation, and vegetation and then animals were formed from the dust and brought to him to name them.
prologos:
actually the sun was made earlier, but the free-floating earth was captured by the sun's gravity and went into its permanent I AU orbit, and THUS the sun became the eart's day star.
yuhhuh... sure it was.
That must be 'true', because that's the best way of 'reconciling' the obvious mythology in the Bible with reality.
you may add many, but here are two:.
1) vegetation made on day 3, animals formed day 5,6, but- then.
in gen 2, man seems to be the primary creation, and vegetation and then animals were formed from the dust and brought to him to name them.
prologos:
1) vegetation made on day 3, animals formed day 5,6
And on the fourth day, the Lord didst sayeth unto himselves, "ah crap, the vegetation isn't doing well. I'd better make the sun."
you may add many, but here are two:.
1) vegetation made on day 3, animals formed day 5,6, but- then.
in gen 2, man seems to be the primary creation, and vegetation and then animals were formed from the dust and brought to him to name them.
Humans die because they were CUT off from their official diet, including the tree of life
JWs cling to the idea that the story of Adam and Eve is literal (most mainstream churches say the story is 'allegorical'). But the JWs still claim that the fruit of the 'tree of knowledge' was symbolic. That is, they say there was actually a piece of fruit, but they try to 'de-magic' the fruit, claiming that eating the fruit 'represented' disobedience rather than a property of the fruit itself. But then they're still stuck with the problem of God supposedly having to prevent them from eating from the other 'magical' tree.
you may add many, but here are two:.
1) vegetation made on day 3, animals formed day 5,6, but- then.
in gen 2, man seems to be the primary creation, and vegetation and then animals were formed from the dust and brought to him to name them.
Genesis 4:17: Afterward Cain had intercourse with his wife and she became pregnant and gave birth to E′noch. Then he engaged in building a city and called the city’s name by the name of his son E′noch.
JWs sometimes like to gloat about the supposedly 'satisfying' answer to Where did Cain get his wife? The Watchtower of 1 January 2004 gives a summary (purportedly one of the 'highlights' of the deplorable book of Genesis): "So Cain took one of his sisters or perhaps one of his nieces as a wife." That's right... he married... his sister, or maybe a niece. Ah... what a satisfying answer.
