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

You continue to raise the matter as to my opinion of the Neo- Babylonian dynasty and I repeat that the regnal years and the list of kings can only be considered as presently tenable. The current presentation of matters is simply unsatisfactory as it does not account for Neb's missing seven years of kingship and the twenty year gap problem when compared with authentic biblical chronology. So, my view like that of celebrated WT scholars is that such regnal lists can only be considered as provisional at this point of time.

Scholar, is English your first language? Yes, the years for the Neo-Babylonian dynasty are tenable. But I think you mean tenuous?

And while we're on definitions "biblical chronology" does not mean the same as "Watchtower Society chronology".

99

Scholar, please don't post and run...

by in a new york bethel minute in

now, could you do us all a favour and read the replies to your post in the 607 thread?

there were a lot of questions raised by your comment and i think it would be a good witness if you would at least attempt to answer them.

two very important ones are:.

Jeffro

On 26 September, 'scholar' said:

Believe you me celebrated WT scholars have carefully examined the Egibi documents and others that you like but from a close inspection of the material it was found that these materials have little impact upon biblical chronology but are of great value to the secular chronologist.

For him to know this, he would have to be either one of the anonymous "celebrated WT scholars", or a liar.

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 published over the years information concerning the regnal years of the Neo-Babylonian kings and I accept this information. However, the data as presently understood about this period is not absolute as any chronology based upon what is known or understood yields a gap of twenty years. So, our understanding of this period is somewhat in a state of flux, there also remains a proper accounting by the secular records for the missing seven regnal years for the reign of Nebuchadnezzer.

"any chronology based upon what is known or understood yields a gap of twenty years"? No, that's not right. Only the Society's flawed chronology yields such a gap. And the Society also admits that it has a 20 year variance with the independent contemporary Egyptian chronology as well. (If all of these ancient historians were so unreliable as the Society claims, there would not be an exact concurrence between the enemy historians of Egypt and Babylon.) Using the 20-year gap as a defense for 607 is pathetic.

The period of Neo- Babylonians is about 87 years from memory so such data of 27 years is a major worry for those who believe in the infallible history for these king lists.

"a major worry"? Not at all. No-one else took the kingship from Nebuchadnezzar during the seven years. You choosing to ignore that fact does not create any worry for the rest of us back in reality, and the other 20 years are just a Society-perpetrated myth with no evidence or backing.

Your tenacity is impressive, but you are still wrong.

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

Nothing that I or that of celebrated WT scholars has been refuted on this forum or any other board. You are dreaming if you believe that your interpretation of the seventy years is correct because no- one can agree as to its definite beginning or end and can factor in the length of the desolation of the land.

Many scholars agree that it ended, as the bible indicates, at Babylon's fall in 539. And I could dogmatically apply the same rule as the Society and add exactly 70 years and arrive at an exact date for the beginning as well - and just like the Society's method, I wouldn't actually need any proof whatsoever that anything actually happened at that starting point anyway, even though history bares out that it did. You say that I am wrong because not all agree. NO secular sources at all agree with the Society. How could the Society therefore possibly be right.

If I was dreaming, you wouldn't be here.

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

Scholar,

I anticipate that in your next post, you are going to saying something illogical that has already been completely refuted over and over again.

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 are not in the business of advocating any Babylonian chronology or any list of regnal years for the currently known Babylonian monarchs or kings. That is the businessof other scholars.

WT 'scholars' are not in the business of advocating any facts that disagree with their flawed doctrines. "The business of other scholars"? Don't you mean the business of "real" scholars?

Such a project is fraught with danger because biblical chronology proves that there is a twenty year gap when the two chronologies are compared.

No, Watchtower Society chronology (not 'biblical chronology') alleges (not 'proves') that a twenty-year gap exists. As a sidepoint, trying to use the twenty-year gap as a defense for the Society's interpretations is an absolute joke.

The seventy years mentioned in the Bible in connection with Jerusalem, its people and the land of Judah are not limited to a period of Babylonian domination or servitude as the Jonsson hypothesis attempts to argue. The evidence is simply not there because the relevant texts clearly refer to a period of servitude-exile and desolation.

What about the 70 "forgotten" years of Tyre? What about the 70 years in connection with the other nations (Egypt, Uz, the Philistines, Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, Ashdod, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Sidon, “the region of the sea”, Dedan, Tema, Buz, “those with hair clipped at the temples”, the Arabs, “the mixed company who are residing in the wilderness”, Zimri, Elam and the Medes) to which Jeremiah applied the 70 years? (Jeremiah 25:9-11,17-26) It is quite clear that the 70 years to which Jeremiah referred were of Babylon's dominance (as admitted by the Society in the Isaiah's Prophecy publication on page 253).

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

Yes you have made a tabulation that from your interpretation harmonizes the biblical and secular data and I have commended you for your courageous effort. But your chronology is plainly wrong as it misapplies the seventy year period and does not account for the twenty year gap but if it works for you then that is fine with me.

Though there may be minor errors in my tabulation (for example, as I stated in my tabulation, some years may be out by a year or so), to put it simply, if I am "plainly wrong" then the bible must also be wrong, in which case, the argument would be irrelevant. You cannot actually indicate textually from the bible how my chronology is wrong. You keep stressing this "servitude-exile-desolation" thing, but it has been demonstrated that the base words from the verses concerned (shamem, chorbah, za'am) do not require complete depopulation for that period. The Society even acknowledges that the 70 years were of Babylon's dominance when it discusses Isaiah 23:15 and the 70 years for which Tyre was "forgotten" though the 70 years did not apply entirely to Tyre.

No, Jeremiah, Ezra, Zechariah and Daniel all in concert refer to aperiod of seventy years marked by servitude-exile--desolation. By emphasizing only one aspect such as servitude is dishonest and is playing false with scripture.

It is evidenced both logically and contextually that Zechariah did not refer to a period that had ended 20 years earlier. Jeremiah, Ezra, and Daniel each discuss a common 70-year period, during part of which, Jerusalem was desolated. The initial prophecy regarding this period is quite clear as to what event would end it, and there is no room in the scriptures for Babylon to start to be judged before the 70 years had ended.

WT chronology is simple so that all can understand it, it is practical because it builds faith in the fulfillment of prophecy and gives certainty not ambiguity so characteristic of all other alternative chronologies.

Simple? Not really. Most Witnesses don't even understand the doctrine, and it has frequently been said from the platform that Witnesses shouldn't worry if they can't explain the doctrine. The problematic doctrine introduces such oddities as the suggestion that that at Jeremiah 25:1, Jeremiah refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s rule relative to Jehoiakim’s rule appointed by Pharaoh Necho, and that at Daniel 1:1, Daniel means Jehoiakim’s third year as a vassal king to Nebuchadnezzar. The average Witness doesn't understand either this reasoning or its purpose. This is much more complicated than the simple truth that Daniel used the accession-year system and Jeremiah did not. It is true that the Society's interpretation does build faith - faith in a false hope believed by the naive, the gullible and the depressed. But all of the believers eventually stop believing, either because they find out the truth of the matter, or they die. Yes, the Society gives a fairly specific date for Jerusalem's destruction, but that date is based on dogma and ignores the simple facts stated in the bible about what event ended the 70 years.

The three texts that you refer do not support your position but simply affirm that Babylon would be overthrown by Cyrus which occurred in 539 and wouls continue to be desolate throughout history.Such an event was necessary for the seventy years to be fulfilled with the Return of the Exiles under Cyrus in 537 BCE.

Any suggestion of simplicity in the Society's interpretation is destroyed by your assertion, as the simple clear statement of the prophecy is that "when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation". The order of events is very very simple. 70 years would end, and then Babylon would begin to be judged. That the desolation of Babylon would continue is irrelevant when considering the simple stated order of events.

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

Believe you me celebrated WT scholars have carefully examined the Egibi documents and others that you like but from a close inspection of the material it was found that these materials have little impact upon biblical chronology but are of great value to the secular chronologist.

On what basis do you state that the supposed WT scholars have "carefully examined the Egibi documents". Are you one of these scholars? Did one of them tell you they have "carefully examined the Egibi documents"? Or are you just trying to pass off assumptions as facts like the Society does? They only have "little impact" in that the Society ignores them because the facts are fatal to the Society's interpretations.

The reason why these documents are of minimal importance is because these materials cannot account for the twenty year gap when compared to biblical chronology. Therefore, their significance can only be cultural not chronological.

This really is laughable reasoning. It amounts to "Because these documents prove us wrong, the documents must be wrong." It has been shown previously that the bible is perfectly consistent with secular chronology in the matter of the 70 years, but the Society's interpretation is completely unworkable, so the Society must make the rediculous claim that all source that remove their fictitious 20-year gap are wrong.

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

Chronology is all about methodology and interpretation believe you me. It is good that you acknowledge the reliability and fixity of 539 and 597 is not the correct date but 617 is the one you must mean.

Let me think... No... no... I mean 597, but thanks for double-checking. Anyway, have you realised your misuse of "methodology" yet. Yes, I accept 539. It is only the Society's methods that would suggest rejecting it because it's based on that "unreliable" astronomical dating.

This date for the first year can be used as part of a regnal based methodology but an event based approach is preferable so celebrated WT scholars avoid potential problems by using the 70 years from the Return which directly produces the eventful 607 for the Fall. The principle is that if it works and is easy then that is the best sure-fired method to take.

You seem to fail to realise that real scholars employ both regnal-based and event-based "methods", as both form part of the "methodology" of chronology. The Society's method is extremely weak and instantly fails when cross-checked by any other methods. The "principle" that 'if something seems to work, you ignore any other evidence to the contrary and doggedly cling to it no matter what' is not "sure-fired", it's just stupid. (Good work on 'sure-fired' though... Sure, the expression is actually "sure-fire" with no "d", but I think that's the first time you've properly hyphenated something.)

The seventy years witha precise beginning and end is described in Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah and the Chronicles, the relative texts are well known to you and do not need a repetition for you.

But none of them say it was in 607. Of course this same precision that the Society applies to the desolation of Jerusalem must also be consistently applied to Tyre; that it must have been "forgotten seventy years", but no! The Society admits that it was only for a subset of that period, and that " the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination." (Isaiah's Prophecy I, page 253)

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 pivotal date of 539 is a derived from astronomical dates concerning the seventh year of Cambyses II followed by evidence for the ninth year of CyrusII with his acc. year539 BC. In addition, the Nabonidus Chronicles furnishes information for the Fall of Babylon in 539

Here scholar means "astronomical dating good".

There are many other astronomical dates for the Neo-Babylonian period but when these are utilized then there is a twenty year gap between such secular and biblical chronology. The 539 date is superior to other dates in that it bstands outside the square with its support base from Persian chronology and that it is more definable from a secular, biblical and theological standpoint.

Here scholar means "astronomical dating bad" or more loosely, "when we use all of the other secularly established years, our interpretations fall over in a heap".