Posts by Jeffro

99

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

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

You have not provided any evidence for your position that Nebuchadnezzer took captives in Jehoiakims's third ;year (acc). The Bible, secular materials, Josephus and Berossus are completely silent on this matter. No it was not until Jehoiakim;s fourth regnal year that the political circumstances changed from a vassalage under Egypt through to a measure of independence and inhis last three years, vassalage under Nebuchadnezzer. This fact is attested biblically, by Josephus and Jewish tradition.

Berossus indicates that there were Jewish captives taken on Nebuchadnezzar's return to Babylon in 605, and Josephus explicitly agrees with him. Further, there is no reason to assume that Daniel himself meant any year other than 605, the third year of Jehoiakim's rule. To say anything else is simply twisting scripture to suit an agenda. Josephus neither says, nor implies, that Daniel was taken in 597. What is more, absolutely no source supports 617. You indicate that at Jehoiakim's fourth regnal year (which is his third year by the accession-year system) - 605BC - that things changed with respect to Jehoiakim's reign, and there is a measure of correctness in what you have said. He certainly did feel a measure of independence from Egypt at this time, for it was at this time that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho's forces. Thereafter he headed back to Babylon, where on his way he threatened Judah. Jehoiakim let him take some treasure and captives to avoid a larger conflict. 4 years later, Nebuchadnezzar demanded that Jehoiakim pay a regular tribute which he paid for three years but thereafter, in his 11th year - 597BC - he refused, at which point his reign was brought to an end.

Nebuchadnezzer's accession year could not begin until the fourth year of Jehoiakim, during the latter's third year, Nebuchadnezzer was a mere Crown Prince. The system used by Daniel denotes an epochal method of dating which means a dating between special events and that is why scholars use the term 'kingship' rather than reign. Jehoiakim as with Nebuchadnezzer were world rulers. Your method is impossible because Daniel 1:1 links the third year immediately with the time of Nebuchadnezzer laid siege to the temple, deported utensils and captives and installed Jehoiacjin on the throne. The context of Daniel 1:1-2 clearly refer to events that only occurred at the end of Jehoiakim's reign.

For a start, Jehoiakim was certainly not a world ruler. The Society uses 'kingship', but the original word implies nothing about some epochal method. There is no evidence for your suggestion that Daniel uses any form of dating other than the accession-year system referring to the normal reigns of the kings of which he writes. Most sources agree that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, and Jehoiakim's fourth regnal year both occurred in 605, (though it should be kept in mind that the first month of neither of their calendars matched the Gregorian).

There is a clear difference between the treasures taken to Babylon and the utensils that were taken because 2 Kings 24:13 refers to the cutting up of gold utensils in addition to the treasures. In ch 25:14 there is another reference to utensils of copper. So in the course of both deportations treasures and utensils were taken and in the latter utensils were taken to Babylon.

Yes, both 2 Kings 24:13 and 25:14 indicate a much more thorough collection of treasure in 597 and 587 than was taken in the event referred to at Daniel 1:1.

Daniel does not consistently refer to the kig's reigns using the acc system of reckoning at all for it is observed by scholars that Daniel' use of malkut is used in an absolute sense for world kingdom. This absolute use of kingdom is repeatedly used in the Aramaic chapters of Daniel.

Jehoiakim never ruled a "world kingdom", which immediately invalidates your suggestion. Assyria was the world power, and then Babylon was the world power.

Josephus confirms the fact that events ascribed to Jehoiakim occurred not at the beginning of his reign but toward the end which saw an end to Jehoiakim;s wicked rule. Josephus also confirms that Judah was not conquered in the fourth year of Jehoiakim but only in the Neb's 18th year with the land becoming empty, temple destroyed and the seventy years commenced. If he omits any reference to booty or captives taken in Jehoiakim's fourth year then one can only conclude along with the biblical texts that Nebuchadnezzer did not take such things in his first year.

Again you force me to repeat that Josephus indicates that Jerusalem was not conquered in 605, but this does not preclude captives and booty being taken, given to him by Jehoiakim to allay the siege that began when Nebuchadnezzar came through on his return to Babylon. Josephus specifically says that he accepts what Berossus said about Jewish captives being taken back to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.

Jehoiakim paid tribute to Neb in the last three years and then he rebelled which brought about the invasion by Neb and the deposing of Jehoiakim with the deportation to Babylon, all confirmed by Josephus and the biblical narrative.

Finally you give a sentence that, in itself, is actually valid. However, you are probably implying that Daniel was taken at this time, and if so, 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

You are finally coming around to our line of thinking about the events in Jehoiakim's reign. Yes that final three years of Jehoiakim's reign referred to in Daniel 1:1 and 2 Kings 24:1 and by Josephus in Ant. Book 10:6:2 was a period of vassalage and rebellion tol Nebuchadnezzer who invaded Judah, ended Jeholiakims's reign and deported booty to Babylon as further described in 2 Kings 24:13 all relating to that one event. Well done!!!!!!!!!

You funny little man... you do make me laugh. I'm not "coming around" to your rediculous line of thinking. Daniel 1:1 does not refer to Jehoiakim's final three years unless he only reigned for a total of 4 years (including accession year), which we all know he didn't. 2 Kings 24 does not refer to the same event as Daniel 1:1, as already explained. Apparently you have misinterpreted something I said to come to the conclusion that I was agreeing with your rediculous mangling of the events.

Yes that last third year was the 11 th year of Jehoiakim's reign as also long understood by Jewish scholars who interpret matters similarly as did Josephus. This is in fact traditional Jewish interpretation and was not in fact invented by Wt scholars.

Rather than rely on tradition, I prefer to rely on facts. The only possible time for Jehoiakim's third year in Daniel 1:1 that is fully consistent with the bible, extant cuneiform writings, Berossus and Josephus is his third year, based on the accession-year system as used in Babylon.

You err again and I will correct you once again. Daniel 2:1 does not refer to the second regnal year of Neb's reign but to his second year of kingship or as World Ruler who had conquered Jerusalem in 607 so his second year is properly conyted from that epochal date. This is the view of many commentators.. Your interpretation of matters concerning Daniel 2:1 and 1:1 is complex and the subject of much endless dispute by scholars. The interpretation offered by celebrated WT scholars is easy, accurate historically and is theological significant.

As we have already been through, there is no basis for this 'year of kingship starting from some other point' rubbish. I don't know how it can be viewed as complex that Jehoiakim's 3rd year is Jehoiakim's 3rd year and Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year is Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year... (The only possible confusion I can think of that you might be happen is if you still don't fully grasp the accession-year system? Do you need another diagram?)

It cannot get any simpler than this, and is much less complicated than the Society's rediculous 'Nebuchadnezzar's rule relative to Jehoiakim's rule relative to Nebuchadnezzar's rule' anomaly.

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

Scholar said:

Reply to post 538

Seeing as this is my 536th post, either scholar was replying to a post I have not yet made, or he was asking me to reply to his 538th post, which said:

stevenyc
If it was not 607 then What is it then?
scholar JW

The faulty logic in expecting an exact alternative date in lieu of the erroneous 607 date has been indicated previously.

I do ignore the form of reckoning that you employ in a awkward attempt to harmonize Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 but I simply reject it because these two verses are historically incompatible. There is no historical or biblical fact that connects these two texts. Jeremiah refers to an epochal event at the near beginning of Jehoiakim's reign and Daniel refers to an epocha event that occurred at the end of Jehoiakim's reign.

I have already provided information that indicates that the bible, Babylonian cuneiform documents, Berossus, and Josephus are all completely compatible with captives being taken in Jehoiakim's 3rd year (accession-year system).

The fact that Nebuchadnezzer was not a king in the third regnal year of Jehoiakim's reign is an insurmountable objection to your interpretation for the reason it was not until a year later that his in Jeholiakim's fourth year that Neb became a 'king' in any sense at all. When Daniel was taken to Babylon it was most certainly the case that Neb was a king because he had ruled as king for seven or eight years.

Jehoiakim's 3rd year (accession-year system) was indeed Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, and just prior to that his father Nabopolassar was very ill and Josephus quotes Berossus as saying that the administration had secured the throne for Nebuchadnezzar awaiting his return, so there is absolutely no problem here. Your reasoning implies that the accession-year system would be applied by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar but not Jehoiakim, which is unlikely as Daniel wrote after being trained in Babylonian customs, and would have applied the accession-year system to both.

Jeremiah's reckoning that Jehoiakim's fourth year was Nebuchadnezzar's first, is equivalent to Daniel's reckoning that Jehoiakim's third year was Nebuchadnezzar's accession year; this is confirmed by Daniel 2:1, three (cardinal) years later, which was in Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year.

Yes 2 Kings 24:13 refers to Neb bringing all of the teasures of the house of Jehovah in that first deporatation to Babylon but Daniel refers to the additional fact that some of the utensils of the house of Jehovah were brought to Babylon on that same occasion. So, one event with different items were part of the booty which included all the treasures, some utensils, and higher stationed people of the land. These two texts are referring to the same event.

Daniel wasn't writing to supplement what Jeremiah had recorded in 2 Kings. 2 Kings 24:13 indicates that "all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king’s house" were taken; there is simply nothing for Daniel to supplement anyway. To argue that the utensils, made from precious metals, were not included in the treasure is rediculous, and is simply a semantic last-ditch effort to suggest that the same event is being discussed.

No, Daniel obviously used a different method of reckoning as shown in Daniel 1:1 and 2 wherein Daniel employs a secondary reckoning of the years of the king's reigns is demonstrated. He reckons by counting from epochal events within the reign that put the king in a new relationship and this is well proven by Josephus comments on the coincidence of Jehoiakim's reign and that of Neb reign in their respective eight and 11th year.

"Obviously"? By this you mean it's the only way the Society's interpretation could work. Indeed, why would Daniel inexplicably switch between dating methods without any other frame of reference, leaving the reader to guess when he was talking about. The simple fact is that Daniel consistently refers to kings' reigns using the accession-year system. It is unclear how you think Josephus proves your point, as he only indicates relative reigns consistent with what I have said.

If it is the case that you have self-originated this model then you are to be congratualated but it is still the old and current theory within scholarship.

Thank you both for your congratulations, and for acknowledging that I have arrived at the correct conclusion as supported by experts in the field.

The comment by Berossus on the'captives taken from the Jews' does not necessarilly equate with Jewish captives. At any rate Berossus conflicts with Josephus and the Bible on this specific point.

Josephus explicitly says he agrees with Berossus, and only says that Judah was not "conquered" at that time; he never said that no captives or booty were taken. Both are in agreement with the sequence of events in Daniel chapters 1 and 2.

The third year of Jehoiakim' kingship does indeed coincide with his death in his 11 th year because it was that year that Neb replaced hin with Jehoiachin and it was that same year that Neb invaded Jerusalem and deported the first captiveds to Babylon. ;No other solution provides an ; account of this three years of vassalage which could have only happened towards the end and not the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign.

Jehoiakim paid a tribute to Nebuchadnezzar for his last three years, but that does not place the third year of his reign at that time, and there is nothing to suggest that it should.

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

Now you are seeing the light. You finally accept the fact that Neb's eigth year coincides with the 11th year of Jehoiakim's reign which brought about after three years of vassalage to Neb, this invasion by him and the death of Jehoiakim. For this reason, the third year of Jehoiakim'svassalage to Nebuchadnezzer brought about his downfall and the deportation of Daniel and other captives to Babylon.

LOL. Don't try to make it seem as though I have finally conceded to some point of yours. I have never said anything other than that Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year is Jehoiakim's 11th. However, the rest of your statement is a lie. Nebuchadnezzar was paid a tribute by Jehoiakim in his final 3 years, and when he refused to pay it, he suffered the consequences. He wasn't appointed as king by Nebuchadnezzar, and his reign did not change in any spectacular fashion to justify counting his 'kingship' from some other point.

Hence. this removes the mathematical gymnastics imposed by those who seek to relocate the three years of Jehoiakims' reign to the beginning and not to the end.

You seem to think it is more straightforward to say that Jehoiakim's third year was actually his 11th in order to make events fit your interpretation, and then you allege that it is more complicated to say that Jehoiakim's 3rd year was his 3rd year. The accounts of the events in Daniel 1:1 and 2 Kings 24:13 are obviously describing different events, and it was Jehoiachin who was king during that deportation after the siege.

Daniel 2:1 talks about Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year. Using the accession-year system, this was the 3rd year (accession, first, second = 3 years) that Daniel had been in Babylon (Compare Daniel 1:5). The only way that it works is if Daniel was taken just prior to Nebuchadnezzar's accession, learned the Babylonian ways for 3 years, and then during Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year (3rd absolute year), Daniel was presented to Nebuchadnezzar. There are absolutely no mathematical gymnastics. No twisting or justifying what the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign referred to. Just simple straightforward descriptions of the events, just as with the clear reading of Daniel 1:1.

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 raise the matter of logic by inferring that the Society's chronology is illogical and that its derived dates are false. Yet, you offer no alternative, your proposed numerous chronologies offer no dates so your schemes are in fact useless. If we are wrong and you are right then what does your truth consist of? It is far wiser when providing a criticism to have a solution but you have no solution and you call this logic?

Of course your argumentation here is flawed. Firstly, the Society's model in fact has no use except to delude people about its end-time prophecies and to scare them into submission. Further, an exact alternative date need not be offered in order for the Society to be proved false, and because there is no secret end-time agenda of honest people to 'force' a particular date, it is indeed less important that an exact date is given.

Your reasoning here reminds me of a long-time mathematical problem. Your 607 theory is kind of like saying that because c 2 = a 2 + b 2 therefore c 3 = a 3 + b 3 . It has never been proved exactly why the latter doesn't work but the former does, but that doesn't make the assertion any more correct. (You should not infer that I am saying no-one knows why 607 doesn't work, just that the logic employed is similar in that a full alternative explanation to the contrary is not required for 607 to be proved wrong.)

You say there is no evidence for 607 but you know this is untrue because 607 is a derived calculation from fixed forms of evidence both biblical and secular. The 607 date leading to 1914 is fully proved by the state of the world since then as predicted by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

No, I don't "know this is untrue". What I know is that nothing spectacular happened in October of 1914. I know that every point of defense the Society has for 607 falls over under honest examination. I know that there is no secular evidence to support it. Yes, there was a war in 1914 (that started too early in the year for the silly prophecy), but this wasn't the result of a sudden action that happened at that time, it was a result of political issues that had been fomenting over a long period.

Yes you have facts and so do we have facts. It is not the facts that is the problem because there is an abundance of facts, it is the methodology that is how the facts are used and the interpretation that is how such facts are to be understood. As I have reminded you repeatedly: CHRONOLOGY IS ABOUT METHODOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION..

The Society's methodology includes distortion of facts, and ignoring some of the facts completely.

Of course, your use of the word "methodology" is erroneous and you usually should be saying "method". It is simply pretentious writing to use the word "methodology" when describing particular methods employed. The subject of Chronology overall has a "methodology", or a 'set of principles', but you refer to "methods", or 'principles within that set'. You also may wish to review the spelling of 'cuneiform'.

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

1. You give a quotation from the Insight volume regarding Nebuchadnezzer's forays into Hattu but the evidence does not show that he took captives from Judea, part of Hattu in his acc or first regnal year. In fact, Josephus excludes Judea from that earliest foray into Hattu during the fourth year of Jehoiakim and when Neb became king. I refer you to Antiquities Of The Jews, Book10, Chapter 6 where this geographical location, Judea is exempted from that invasion. Also, the cunieform evidence does not state the precise nature of the booty in either of his acc year nor in his 1st regnal year. So, your evidence for such a claim is completely missing and further the Bible says nothing about Neb taking captives in that year.

Josephus does not exclude them from having any contact with Nebuchadnezzar. He says that they were not "conquered", unlike other parts of Hattu such as Ashkelon. A comparison of Josephus, Berossus, and the original cuneiform documentation give a complete picture that booty was taken from Judah which included human captives, which is apparent to an unbiased reader. But you prefer to look at things piece-meal style so that you can ignore things that seem small before they come together as a whole.

Further , for your information Carl Jonsson in his GTR, 3rd edn, 1998, p.205 provides a fine map of Judah and the surrounding nations which clearly shows Hattu..

Um.... okay.. not sure what your point is. Unless you're saying that Jonsson wrote it on behalf of the Society in defense of my comment that the Society never indicates where the region is.

2. You next quote Josephus in Against Apion, Book 1, 19 wherein Josephus quotes Berossus' abbreviated account of Neb's reign. You claim that the statement "the captives he had taken from the Jews' means that Neb took Jewish captives or that he took captives from Judea. Your interpretation conflicts with Josephus' own account of history which differs from Berossus on this point if in fact that is what Berossus means. His statement can be read in different ways but those captives are not said toi be Jewish captives but captives belonging to Jews who were living outside of Judea.

Your defense here is laughably weak. It is unlikely that when the captives were taken from any particular area, they bothered to ask if there were any stray Jews amongst them. It is quite obvious from Josephus quote of Berossus that Jews were taken from Judah. There really is no conflict with Josephus at all. Firstly Josephus explicitly says that he agrees with Berossus' accounts, and also as stated above, Josephus only said that Judah was not "conquered" at that time.

3. You raise the matter as to Why Jewish captives were not taken in Neb's acc year, the reason being omitted in the Kindom publication. The simple answer to this question is that it wasnot God's time for this specific judgement to occur. Jehovah used Jeremiah to foretell when these judgements would occur and their manner of occurrence for Judah and its kings had a long history of a broken covenant relationship and during this time Jehovah allowed various forms of discipline to befall his people. For example, a key event when Jehoiakim became a vassal to Egypt and followed by domination to the next power Babylon. There were a long series of episodes that befell the Judean monarchy which eventually led to their complete removal in 607.

That's not an answer, its a superstitious theory based on a preconception to support a doctrine. What is more, you contradict yourself by saying that "there were [was] a long series of episodes that befell the Judean monarchy" 'before it was time', but then deny that Nebuchadnezzar could have taken Judean captives because it 'wasn't time yet'. It is much, much more likely that Jehoiakim, upon being confronted by Nebuchadnezzar's troops in 605BC (your 625) allowed him to take captives and 'part of the treasure' (as opposed to 'all of the treasure' that was taken in 597 [your 607]) in exchange for not being conquered. This is consistent with Josephus, Berossus, and the extant cuneiform documentation.

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

'Scholar' has continued to vehemently reject that Nebuchadnezzar took captives in his accession year.

The following paragraph from Insight (volume 2, page 480, "Nebuchadnezzar") is of interest:

The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and "in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon." (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. (See ASHKELON.) During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1) Also, in the fourth year Nebuchadnezzar led his forces to Egypt, and in the ensuing conflict both sides sustained heavy losses.

This paragraph identifies that in his accession year, Nebuchadnezzar took "a vast booty" from Hattu to Babylon. (Hattu of course being Syro-Palestine.) There is certainly nothing here to suggest that captives were not taken from Judah in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. The next paragraph from Insight again mentions Hattu as including Judah, describing the siege against Jerusalem in 597 (617 according to the Society).

A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946) states: "The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon."

The Society, though usually very clear on identifying geographical locations, never gives any direct indication of where Hattu was. Why is this? It is because Jerusalem was in Hattu, and this supports the fact that Nebuchadnezzar did in fact take booty in his accession year, as supported by Daniel 1:1.

This is also in agreement with Josephus, in Against Apion, Book 1, chapter 19:

"When Nabolassar, father of Nabuchodonosor, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and over the parts of Celesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer; but committing certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then but young, he sent him against the rebel: Nabuchodonosor joined battle with him, and conquered him, and reduced the country under his dominion again. Now it so fell out that his father Nabolassar fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him."

Josephus was here quoting Berossus, and in chapter 21, indicates his agreement with Berossus saying, "These accounts agree with the true histories in our books;". Thus Josephus indicates that he agreed that captives were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.

The Society's "Let Your Kingdom Come" Appendix states that Judea was excepted from being conquered in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, but they fail to admit why. It certainly was not because Jerusalem was enjoying God's favour. More likely they were not conquered specifically because Jehoiakim allowed Nebuchadnezzar to take booty and captives.

46

What's the worst song you've ever listened to?

by JH in

jw
friends

back in the mid 70's my sister won a 45rpm record from a radio station, and it was horrible .

the title is "don't worry kyoko" by yoko ono.

dont, dont, dont worry, kyoko.. mums only looking for her hand in the snow,.

Jeffro

Crazy frog is latest together with that piece of shite that kid sings about the crocodile. EEEoooooooh

Ja, "Schnappi das kleine Krokodil". Nicht gutes Hören!!!!

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

Nope, no coma but scholar has followed this controversy for many years for it was Carl Jonsson who first attempted a major rebuttal of our chronology but failed to provide any convincing alternative or any coherent interpretation.

It is not surprising that prior to Jonsson, no-one else had bothered to make a major exposé of the Society's flawed central doctrine as, even still, most of the world's population are completely unaware of the minor religion's beliefs. It is an error in logic to suggest that an exact alternative date must be offered for the Society's interpretations to be proved false, despite the fact that there is indeed much known information that proves the Society to be wrong.

The simple fact that a start and end date is achieved is indeed significant othberwise any such scheme would be of little value for Christians today. The dates therby deduced such as 607 and 1914 are confirmed by the present state of the world today and the fact the Kingdom is ruling.

There are no facts in your statements here. There is no evidence in support of 607. Nothing happened at the supposed October 1914 fulfilment. There is no tangible evidence that "the Kingdom is ruling". Dooms-dayers have been saying for centuries that the 'current' world conditions are the worst they've ever been to 'prove' their own end-time ends of scaring people into submission.

Your flights of fancy and false chronologies are empty and are of no value to you and other ridiculers. We have something that works, you have something that fails.

I have something that agrees with facts. You have something that says the facts must be wrong because the facts don't suit your interpretations. But it seems from your rediculous tenacity that even on your deathbed you will be confident that the Society's empty promises will come true, even though it wasn't in your lifetime. For that I pity you.

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 said:

blah blah blah

The simple fact is that neither malkut nor the English word 'kingship' do anything at all to validly shift the time period referred to in Daniel 1:1 to a later time. Josephus only confirms my chronology which perfectly corelates Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year with Jehoiakim's 11th, with absolutely no need for rediculous mathematical gymnastics.

Your post indicates that you hate the things that you formerly believed and are a person who prefers the lie over the Truth.

It is a natural response to hate the fact that you have been taught a lie. I note that you capitalized Truth. The problem is that the Truth™ simply is not true.