Posts by Jeffro

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Jeffro

In the Insight Chronology section (page 454) an example is given of 'flawed' dating regarding Shalmaneser. Here the Society revels in the apparent discrepancy, without any attempt at reconciling the secular and biblical history such that both may be correct.

To clarify: The Society does correctly point out that Ahab could not have been present during the reign of Shalmaneser III. The truth of the matter is that the chronology for Shalmaneser III's sixth year is correct, but the ascription of the name A-ha-ab-bu to King Ahab of Israel is either incorrect (as suggested by many historians), or refers to Ahab in the sense of Israel's king being his descendant. The Assyrian account does correctly indicate that Jehu was contemporary with Shalmaneser III. Assyrian history synchronizes very well with the bible when 587 is used for Jerusalem's destruction. All of the events in the bible mentioning Assyrian kings by name (Shamshi-Adad V, Tiglath-pileser III (aka Pul), Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esar-Haddon and Ashurbanipal) are consistent with secular chronology.

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Jeffro

Once again, you have shown your flawed logic. You boast that the Society's chronology models takes us "right back to Adam", as if having any chronology back to Adam means it must be correct. I did not suggest that 539 is a not valid pivitol year, but that the Society is hypocritical in accepting that year because it is determined using methods the Society criticizes as being invalid. It is only the Society's interpretation that introduces the unexplainable 20 year gap, a gap which puts the entire history of the Kingdom of Israel prior to the Neo-Babylonian out of synchronization with secular history by - you guessed it - 20 years. Therefore, the Society boldly asserts that every single historically determined date up until that point is wrong, yet it accepts the year 539 that is established using the same 'uncertain', 'unreliable', 'misunderstood' methods used to determine those dates.

The Society is biased in its criticism of secular chronology. In the Insight Chronology section (page 454) an example is given of 'flawed' dating regarding Shalmaneser. Here the Society revels in the apparent discrepancy, without any attempt at reconciling the secular and biblical history such that both may be correct.

Compare this to their dogged efforts at harmonising biblical accounts of the Isrealite Kings. Such as their defense of 2 Chronicles 16:1 which states that Baasha attacked Judah after he had died about 10 years earlier (Insight, volume 1, page 184 [Asa]). Or the discrepancy between 2 Kings 14:21 (Uzziah (aka Azariah) became king at 16 years of age, 15 years after Jehoash's death) and 2 Kings 15:1 (Uzziah (aka Azariah) became king in the 27th year of Jeroboam at 16 years of age) (Insight, volume 1, page 1146 [Uzziah]). Or the discrepancy between 2 Kings 14:29 (Zechariah began to reign when Jeroboam died) and 2 Kings 15:8 (Zechariah became king in the 38th year of Uzziah (aka Azariah)) (Insight, volume 1, page 1223 [Zechariah]). Or the discrepancy between 2Kings 15:30 (Hoshea began to reign in the 20th year of Jotham) and 2 Kings 17:1 (Hoshea began to reign in the 12th year of Ahaz) (Insight, volume 1, page 1149 [Hoshea]). For these cases, they suggest explanations that could be correct, but they don't allow the same latitude for what seem like errors in sources used for secular dating.

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Jeffro

The year 539BCE for the end of the Babylonian empire is fixed by historians by means of astronomical dating. The Society happily accepts this date for the end of the 70 years, even though it is arrived at using means which they claim are not reliable means for establishing historical dates. (Insight volume 1, page 454, paragraph 7). On what basis does the Society accept the year 539 for Babylon's destruction, when the same methods used to arrive at that date are so staunchly objected to for the dating of other events? (Insight volume 1 page 453 paragraph 2.) According to the Society, two lunar eclipses "evidently" confirm the 539 date. If the Society is not hypocritical it cannot accept as reliable the year 539 for Babylon's destruction, and it therefore destroys its own premise for a pivotal year for its interpretations. The only reason for accepting 539 using methods it elsewhere rejects is to make 1914 work (even if we were to ignore all of the other problems with their 607 theory).

In the dubious "Kingdom Come" appendix, the Society is forced to admit that

Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

Their rebuttal to these damning facts is that

From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

It is unlikely that the priests and kings were able to hide 20 full years of records held by individual citizens, as well as from contemporary records of other nations, especially since any motive seems lacking.

On a separate note of poor Society argument, consider their reasoning on why no record of the Isrealite slaves can be found in Egyptian history (from Insight volume 1 page 451):

Absence of information concerning Israel.This is not surprising, since the Egyptians not only refused to record matters uncomplimentary to themselves but also were not above effacing records of a previous monarch if the information in such records proved distasteful to the then reigning pharaoh. Thus, after the death of Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III had her name and representations chiseled out of the monumental reliefs. This practice doubtless explains why there is no known Egyptian record of the 215 years of Israelite residence in Egypt or of their Exodus.

Thutmose III had whose name erased?? Surely we wouldn't know her name if they were so good at this practice of erasing history, and that is only one individual, not 215 years of an entire national group's presence.

27

No compassion during Bible Study

by Grace in

jw
friends

i was remembering today about a bible study an elder's wife took me on once (actually, her elder husband was the congregation overseer).

after the chapter was over for that day (i think the knowledge book), the elder's wife asked when we could arrange the next study.

the frail single mother of three evaded the question, and the elder's wife persisted.

Jeffro

A sister in my old congregation started a study with a physically disabled woman in field service. Even though the lady had a severe speech impediment and other problems, the sister patiently continued the study at the lady's own pace, and also visited to talk about other issues without counting time. The sister took the lady to hospital and other appointments, helped her with her shopping and was supportive of her problems even though interest in the actual bible study was declining. When it was learned that the lady's carer was using the government carer's pension for alcahol, the sister helped the lady get back in touch with her estranged adult children in New Zealand, with whom she became re-united.

They're not all evil.

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Jeffro

I give up... and not because I think scholar is in any way right. It's like talking to a slug with below-average intelligence. Nothing gets through.

Scholar, your arguments are full of flaws in logic, you call upon (usually unstated) sources that are in the minority of secular opinion (for the rare cases that you present any source at all), and you rely on information from the Society for which there is no secular backing whatsoever.

You do not give any explanation for valid logical, verifiable information presented to you that is not consistent with your model and you provide no way for that information to fit your own model.

You condescendingly refer to anything you disagree with as the 'Jonsson model', (as if this disproves any argument?) though I hadn't even heard of Jonsson, and had only used the bible, Watchtower publications, Strong's concordance and the British Museum to disprove 607 when I first started questioning the conflict the Society has with Jeremiah 25.

You dismiss any interpretation of the scriptures that the Society disagrees with even where such explanation is completely consistent with the bible, and you support the Society's inconsistent application of interpretations by applying different rules to similarly-worded scriptures.

'Scholar', to call yourself a scholar is downright insulting to academia.

121

i need some skeptic input... dreams that come true

by googlemagoogle in

jw
friends

listen to this: the other day my wife was talking in her sleep and she said "sister xyz died".

i just thought, well she's dreaming.

the next day one of my friends told me "sister xyz died yesterday".

Jeffro

Sometimes people are brighter than you give them credit for? And sometimes they aren't

27

No compassion during Bible Study

by Grace in

jw
friends

i was remembering today about a bible study an elder's wife took me on once (actually, her elder husband was the congregation overseer).

after the chapter was over for that day (i think the knowledge book), the elder's wife asked when we could arrange the next study.

the frail single mother of three evaded the question, and the elder's wife persisted.

Jeffro

Crumpet, I'm sorry that you inferred from my post that people shouldn't relate their personal experiences. People sharing their personal experiences is certainly important.

My point was about applying generalisations to a whole group of people. Saying all JWs don't have compassion is like saying all Worldly™ people are bad.

27

No compassion during Bible Study

by Grace in

jw
friends

i was remembering today about a bible study an elder's wife took me on once (actually, her elder husband was the congregation overseer).

after the chapter was over for that day (i think the knowledge book), the elder's wife asked when we could arrange the next study.

the frail single mother of three evaded the question, and the elder's wife persisted.

Jeffro

Such vitriol is counterproductive. While the actions of the woman in the example are certainly insensitive, it is not fair to say that the behaviour is typical of all Witnesses. Officially, they are 'encouraged' to be helpful and supportive of people they study with.

That said, the 'genuine' interest of Witnesses in those they study with dissolves very quickly when a study loses interest in the truth™.

There are plenty of factual things to find fault with about the Watchtower Society rather than nit-picking on the actions of individual members.

121

i need some skeptic input... dreams that come true

by googlemagoogle in

jw
friends

listen to this: the other day my wife was talking in her sleep and she said "sister xyz died".

i just thought, well she's dreaming.

the next day one of my friends told me "sister xyz died yesterday".

Jeffro

the end result would be an uneasy acceptance that it refered to a medieval implement of heat transportation

I know that, and you know that, but I don't think most people recognize the original use of the word so the connection would probably not be made by many.

"He's not the Messiah... He's a very naughty boy!"

Do heretics weigh the same as a duck? Or does that only apply to witches?

121

i need some skeptic input... dreams that come true

by googlemagoogle in

jw
friends

listen to this: the other day my wife was talking in her sleep and she said "sister xyz died".

i just thought, well she's dreaming.

the next day one of my friends told me "sister xyz died yesterday".

Jeffro

the secret is in salting the comments lightly, so that offense is hard to take

The word "faggot" in the sense of 'kindling' is not in common usage, so your comment wasn't so much 'lightly salted' as 'pickled in brine'.