Posts by Jeffro

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 text in Daniel that says that Neb took Judean captives in his acc year or his first year

A proper chronology of the relevant scriptures places Daniel 1:1 occuring in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. (As previously covered at lengh, there is no basis for the Society's pretending that "kingship" means something different to "reign" because there is no distrinction in the original text, and other words could have been employed if vassalage was intended.)

and Josephus who sources Berossus clearly states that it was only in Neb's 18th year that he first took such captives beginning the period of seventy years. Also, the re is no cunieform evidence to prove your claim.

Sheesh... that is your defense?? If Josephus did not mention the exile in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, then either Josephus simply did not mention all of the exiles, in which case his not mentioning exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year is immaterial... or, you are saying that Jeremiah 52:28 is wrong about exiles in the 7th year.

We justify the claim that the exile that began the seventy years began in Neb's 18th year because that was when the land began its desolation which also was a period of exile or a second exile and a period of servitude for the complete nation deported to Babylon.

(You mean "attempt to justify".) Why would the Jews refer to their exile as a period much shorter than for which most of them were actually there? It is a rediculous assertion.

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

Utter nonsense. The Bible clearly and unambiguously and as testified by Josephus that the seventy years was a period of exile-desolation-servitude. These elements together or in concert were not present in Neb';s 7th year but only in his 18th year because that is the only year that saw the temple, the city and the land destroyed. This year is calculated to be 607 because a count of 70 years from their return under Cyrus in 537 leads one to 607.

(Perhaps you meant to have a colon rather than a fullstop after the words "Utter nonsense" just to let us know what was about to follow.)

Scholar, the Society's interpretation, regardless of how many times you repeat it, is simply disproved by the bible. The fact is that most of the exiles were in Babylon for longer than 70 years, and some were there for less than 70 years. The actual number exiled in 587 (your 607) was relatively insignificant and doesn't gel with your 'exile-desolation-servitude' thing.

Of course this is just one more problem with the Society's model among a long list of problems.

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

I wonder where "celebrated Watchtower scholars" think the 745 Jews came from who were captured and exiled in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year if Judah was completely depopulated? (Jer 52:30) This would be 5 years into ;Scholar's ;fictional 70 year period of 'servitude-exile and desolation'.

Scholar will simply parrot the Society's speculation that these were Jews who had run off to other nations.

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

Sorry about being a stickler, because I know this is a bit off topic. But 2 Kings 24:14 does not refer to captives Nebuchadnezzar took from Jerusalem in his eighteenth year as Babylon's king. It is referring to the number of people he took from Jerusalem in his "eighth year as king of Babylon at the time he took Judah's king Jehoiachin prisoner.

Yes, it was in his eigth year. Thanks for picking that up. I had quickly re-read through the Insight book's on Captivity section shortly before posting and misread part of it, and I think I might have posted it without my usual caffeine I.V. But this point you have highlighted even better proves my original comment to 'scholar' that the number of exiles in what the Society reasons was 607 was barely an exile at all compared to the large number taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. (Jer 52:28, 2 Kings 24:14) Therefore the Society has even less justification for saying the 70 years of exile began in 607 (though compare Jeremiah 25:12 for the significance of the 70 years anyway).

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

Your claim that Neb took captives from Judah in his acc. or first regnal year is utter nonsense for there is no biblical or secular evidence for this fact. Provide your evidence.

Berossus and Daniel both confirm that captives were taken at this time. Other sources indicate that booty was taken, which often included people as slaves.

There is evidence for the twenty year gap because it is plainly revealed when the secular and sacred chronologies are compared for the difference of twenty years is stark.

You claim that the evidence for the extra 20 years in the Society's interpretation is the extra 20 years. Circular reasoning at its finest.

The seventy years of Jeremiah are of exile -desolation and servitude as confirmed by Josephus from the destruction of the temple by Neb in his 18 th year until Cyrus released the exiles in 537.

Parrotting the same old rubbish I see. Since the largest exile occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, how can the Society justify starting the exile from his 18th year?

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

Both quotations from Josephus support the interpretation of the seventy years a presented by celebrated WTscholars, namely that the seventy years was an interval beginning with Nebuchadnezzer's destroying the temple and depopulating Judah for seventy years in his 18 th year and the 11th year of the last Judean king, Zedekiah. Further, the is interval ended not at the Fall of Babylon in 539 but with the release of the exiles under Cyrus in 537. Josephus provides the secular evidence for our calculation of 607 from the establishment of that seventy years. Josephus is a withess for our defence of 6O7, Period!

According to Jeremiah, there were a lot fewer people exiled in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year than in his 7th. So if the Society interprets the 70 years as being of exile rather than of nations serving Babylon's, why not start the exile from then? The Society's chronology is simply a dishonest dogma with the sole purpose of propping up the error-plagued 1914 doctrine. Why do you continue to ignore Jeremiah's indication of the significance of the 70 years?

"6O7"? You are aware that O is a letter of the alphabet, not a number?

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

Not at all. There is no way that the fifty years can fit into the context of seventy years. Scholars of Josephus have opined that the original reading was seventy rather fifty and this would harmonize with the seventy years not fifty years mentioned in the previous paragraph 19 of chapter One. In addition there is no chronological construct applicable for a fifty years but of course there is for the seventy year period. In short, the fifty year period is a nothing period.

The fifty years ran from 587 to 537, from when the temple was destroyed to when it started to be rebuilt. It fits very logically with the facts. The Society's suggestion that the exile started in 607 is readily disproved from the bible. Isaiah 45:1, Jeremiah 25:11-12, Daniel 5:26-31 and Jeremiah 52:28,29 all invalidate the Society's model before even approaching the secular evidence.

What you fail to realize that any chronology is constructed on the basis of methodology and interpretation and chronologies differ because of different methods and views. In other words, chronologies are deductive in nature, our chronology is event based whereas the populist are regnal based thus arriving at different conclusions.

The Society's chronology is not event-based, it is dogma-based. It must provide a result of 1914, and so it twists the scriptures to achieve its goal. That is why no-one else agrees with it, because real scholars prefer facts to dogma, and no matter whether they rely on contemporary Babylonian chronology or Egyptian chronology, Ptolemy, Josephus, or any other source, they all end up twenty years different to the Society's incorrect interpretation.

Celebrated Wt scholars adjusted their chronology with new and latest research and so have other scholars operating on similar lines. The book of Daniel is prophetic in outlook with a basis in history and this leads to much larger fulfillments of prophecy. Indeed, Daniel as a book was to be sealed up until the time of the end so it is no surprise that Daniel is about eschatology including the Gentile Times. It appears that you do not like Daniel and you have littel interest in its contents.

The only adjustment the Society has made to its chronology was when they realised there was no year 0. You errorneously conclude from Daniel 12:9 that it is the entire book of Daniel that was "sealed", again with no valid basis. The "Gentile Times", as has been explained previously cannot have started prior to 70AD because of the use of the Greek word 'esomai' in the original text at Luke 21:24.

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

It was not fifty years but seventy years for that is what is stated in Against Apion 1:21. All that we have here is a scibal error because 50 years cannot be placed anywhere, the Bible omits it and cannot hav e a beginning and end point because you do not accept 537 and i do not accept 587 so no chronology can be constructed with fifty years.

What evidence do you have that this is a scribal error? I have already indicated how the two references are consistent. When did I say I don't accept 537? I only said that I don't rely on the Society's interpretations for the selection of that year, and that it could have been in that year, but not by necessity. Also, it is completely possible that Josephus, who based his information on Berossus' data from the Seleucid period, may have approximated the fifty years for which the temple was desolated.

For every problem with the 607 issue, you choose to ignore the facts with weak excuses, contradictory reasoning, and absolutely no logic to achieve whatever conclusion the Watchtower Society wants you to. If an interpretation does not agree with the known facts, then the interpretation is simply wrong. You continue to claim that the interpretation of the Society is 'the facts' without any actual basis whatsoever.

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

Why do you all let scholar wind you up, he continually uses the phrase ;"celebrated WT scholars" ;to do this he must laugh every time he clicks his key board.

If scholar really is just trying to wind us up and doesn't actually believe the drivel he posts, that really would be pathetic...

Almost as pathetic as if he is actually serious.

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

Your argument is flawed by the simple fact that there is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer took Jewish captives in his accession year.

(Technically, it was before his actual accession to the throne, on his return to Babylon, however it was in the same year that he took the throne, i.e., his 'accession year'.) There is evidence that he took booty, and booty very often included captives. There is also no evidence of the missing twenty years for the Society's spurious gap... are you therefore acknowledging that the Society's "argument is flawed by the simple fact that there is no evidence"? Or are you taking the position that there should be more evidence for a single event than there should for an entire 20-year period?

All of Josephus' references to the seventy years are easily reconciled to the basic fact that these ended at Cyrus in 537 and began with the conflagration of Jerusalem in 607.

There is no evidence of a "conflagration of Jerusalem in 607". On what is your "basic fact" based?

More to the point is how he describes the seventy years as a period of exile, servitude and desolation which coincides with the Bible and that of celebrated WT scholars.

Indeed. Jeremiah 52:28-30 indicates that more people were exiled in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year than in his 18th, so this would place the period of exile earlier than alleged by the Society even if the captives taken in his accession year are ignored. But because the 70 years is actually of 'nations serving Babylon', after which Babylon was 'called to account' (Jeremiah 25:11-12), it need not.