it seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
AnnOMaly:
Their conclusions must be based on more than just wanting to squeeze the book of Nehemiah into a narrower time-frame for theological reasons.
Really? Have you considered just how much of western culture is framed around a magical God-man who might not even have existed as a human??
it seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
AnnOMaly:
Walk me through this. Where did you get the years for the high priests? I couldn't locate them in Josephus. With which other sources do the year figures correspond?
I got the years from Wikipedia (ultimately from other Jewish sources). But the periods are confirmed by Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter 7:
2. Now when John had departed this life, his son Jaddua succeeded in the high priesthood. He had a brother, whose name was Manasseh. :Now there was one Sanballat, who was sent by Darius, the last king [of Persia]*, into Samaria. He was a Cutheam by birth; of which stock were the Samaritans also. This man knew that the city Jerusalem was a famous city, and that their kings had given a great deal of trouble to the Assyrians, and the people of Celesyria; so that he willingly gave his daughter, whose name was Nicaso, in marriage to Manasseh, as thinking this alliance by marriage would be a pledge and security that the nation of the Jews should continue their good-will to him.
* "[of Persia]" is an interpolation in the translation, not added by me.
Chapter 8 immediately continues into dealings with Alexander the Great, including references to Darius as his contemporary. Josephus is therefore not discussing Darius II.
Note also that Josephus (earlier in Chapter 7) refers to "another Artaxerxes" (Artaxerxes II [Mnemon]) as a contemporary of John (Johanan), after the Darius (II) contemporary with Judas (Joiada), but before the Darius (III) contemporary with Jaddua.
maybe born-ins are, because we converts made the choice whereas the born-ins did not.
or are the converts more likely to because of thought patterns developed outside the cult?
i'd like to know what you think..
I think it's more likely for converts to leave, because they have fewer attachments.
But I think it's more likely for 'born-ins' to want to leave.
Converts have usually already had to make changes in their social structure (spending less time with 'worldly' friends etc) when they joined the JWs, and it may seem more unpleasant to have to make big changes again.
i noticed over the years how bros & sis(tm) would pronounce words/names differently or totally substitute them so as not to sound offensive.. egs:.
instead of 'bible aids' a bro(tm) said 'bible helps' thus avoiding aids disease!?!.
instead of sodom the bro(tm) pronounced it 'sow dom'.
Julia, you have a PM
it seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
Fencing:
I can see the value as a sort of window into what first-century Jews thought about their own history, but how accurate has it really been found?
There are definitely errors in Josephus' works. But when his works correspond with (or do not contradict) other sources, I see little reason to doubt them.
it seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
AnnOMaly:
There are expositors who also think the Darius referred to at Neh. 12:22 is Darius II (Nothus). I wouldn't solely lay this identification at the WTS's door nor be hasty to say they are mistaken this time. ... The New Jerusalem Study Bible also tags him as Darius II.
I completely agree that this error isn't just 'a JW thing'. As I said in an earlier post, various Christian groups incorrectly posit Daniel chapter 9 as a 'Messianic prophecy' pointing to 'Jesus'. Similarly, as with many of their basic dotrines, the JW view about the reference to Darius at Nehemiah 12:22 is not original, but is borrowed from earlier groups.
we all know, any avid student of scripture in our time, can easily learn from their personal study of the holy writings, that jesus christ was clearly given the inestimable privilege to "sit upon god's throne," yes, being enthroned in the first century, and upon his resurrection where he was magnificently proclaimed a permanent "son of god," on an everlasting basis.
(see romans 1:4; revelation 3:12.
) this is an indisputable fact.
Phizzy:
Jeffro, my objection to the word "Moot", from the Old English "gemot", Meeting (where affairs of state etc were discussed), suggests that there could be discussion and debate on this point.
Yes, I'm aware that the original meaning of the word suggests worthy of discussion. But the modern colloquial use of the word is pretty much the opposite.
It's not moot, it's moot.
it seems that more often than not, when the watch tower society says something about biblical chronology, they're probably wrong.
this seems to be the case even for uncontroversial matters!
insight on the scriptures volume 1, page 584 states (bold formatting added):.
Emery:
Lars, everytime I see your long convoluted posts on chronology I immediately skip them...seriously. So please like AnnOMaly said, keep it short, sweet, and simple.
Yep. I'm not reading them at all this time either. Hopefully Simon can just delete his posts.
we all know, any avid student of scripture in our time, can easily learn from their personal study of the holy writings, that jesus christ was clearly given the inestimable privilege to "sit upon god's throne," yes, being enthroned in the first century, and upon his resurrection where he was magnificently proclaimed a permanent "son of god," on an everlasting basis.
(see romans 1:4; revelation 3:12.
) this is an indisputable fact.
Phizzy:
The year 1914 has no support as being significant from anything contained in the Bible.
That's kind of the point of the statement that 1914 is moot. At least that's what I meant. Who cares what Lars meant.
we all know, any avid student of scripture in our time, can easily learn from their personal study of the holy writings, that jesus christ was clearly given the inestimable privilege to "sit upon god's throne," yes, being enthroned in the first century, and upon his resurrection where he was magnificently proclaimed a permanent "son of god," on an everlasting basis.
(see romans 1:4; revelation 3:12.
) this is an indisputable fact.
Jerusalem actually fell in 529 BCE,
Wrong. Your alternative history is irrational, and requires 'unreliable' records only in the places you 'approve'.
You are not the Messiah. Get professional psychiatric help.
so 1914 is a moot issue.
Correct.
