jeanV

Joined

• started 2 topics
• posted 263 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by jeanV

• 
  89

  Is WTS chronology flawed?

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

  the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

  the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  scholar,
  
  as I mentioned in an earlier post about Rolf Furuli, I have a certain admiration for you guys that are doing the work the WTBTS should be doing. It is quite interesting how they stay away from the subject of Chronology. No direct references are made anymore to actual archaeological texts/documents. Just vague statements. Even the last reference to the appendix of Let your Kingdom come (where at least VAT4956, Ptolemy, etc... were mentioned by name) was eliminated with the revised Revelation book. This definitely does not give them any credit about scholarship.
  
  All references about Chronology are now to the Insight book only, where vague statements are made about the evidence against 607.
  
  That having been said, I feel you have a number of problems to solve, which I'll try to list:
  
  I read many of your past comments (also on other boards, like channelC) and find that you, like the WTBTS, lack of concrete arguments. You hang on a couple of Scriptures and reject everything else without giving proper reason for it. The last example is when you say it is impossible to write an accurate Babylonian king list. Given that statement, I would expect a huge debate among scholars about Neo-Babylonian chronology, which is absolutely not the case. So far I could not find one that disagrees with it.
  
  The Bible is not a book about chronology. Its chronology is totally dependent on secular chronology (I wonder why God did not give more chronological details) and, when it presents dates, is far from being perfect. A good number of scriptures need harmonisation as they apparently seem to contradict themselves. Why should it be taken so strictly when talking about the 70 years of desolation?
  
  If it wasn’t for the JW prophecy about the 7 times (which is not directly mentioned in the Bible as a prophecy); would JW’s still be advertising that 607 BCE is the date of Jerusalem destruction?
  
  Besides posting here, I have you seriously challenged scholars about the accepted neo-Babylonian chronology? What was their response?
  
  If you reject about 90% of the accepted secular chronology, insisting on the 70 years of destruction for Jerusalem, on what basis you chose where to start and to end them? Or you want to tell me that what the WTBTS has published on this point corresponds to serious scholarship? w86 11/1 p. 6 A Dream Reveals How Late It Is - When Did the “Seven Times” Really End?
  Some people argue that even if the “seven times” are prophetic and even if they last 2,520 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses are still mistaken about the significance of 1914 because they use the wrong starting point. Jerusalem, they claim, was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E., not in 607 B.C.E. If true, this would shift the start of “the time of the end” by some 20 years. However, in 1981 Jehovah’s Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date. (“Let Your Kingdom Come,” pages 127-40, 186-9) Besides, can those trying to rob 1914 of its Biblical significance prove that 1934—or any other year for that matter—has had a more profound, more dramatic, and more spectacular impact upon world history than 1914 did?
  
  Scholarship is about ascertaining facts to establish the truth, not to start from the “truth” and work out the facts in favour of it and reject everything else.
  
  If the WTBTS spreads new light about chronology, you will have to retreat all that you have been saying so far (some people will have to rewrite their websites ), that is why it is generally not appreciated that you make a defence for them
• 
  16

  AS A 16 YEAR OLD am i able to choose to have a blood transfusion

  by Lotus65 in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  if i ever needed a blood transfusion would i have a right as a minor to choose a blood transfusion

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  imo the scriptural basis given is not valid, but if you are a jw and take a transfusion (and it becomes known) you automatically disassociate yourself.

  I wrote "it becomes known", bcs I am aware of doctors that offer the option to JW's to take blood guaranteeing that they won't reveal to anyone.
• 
  16

  AS A 16 YEAR OLD am i able to choose to have a blood transfusion

  by Lotus65 in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  if i ever needed a blood transfusion would i have a right as a minor to choose a blood transfusion

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  at 16 I am sure yes, in any democratic country in the world.
• 
  11

  Former elders: need some info

  by bethel anorexic in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  when a publisher has just moved into a new cong, i understand that the secretary sends a request to the pubs former cong requesting their info and records.

  is this a wt form or just a regular typed letter?

  if it's a regular letter does it have to be on wt stationary to be legit?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  it starts with a phone call. You only write an informal letter when, after several phone calls, no letter/records are received.
• 
  89

  Is WTS chronology flawed?

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

  the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

  the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  Josephus makes many reference to the fact of the seventy years as a fixed historic period which ran from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Return of the Exiles under Cyrus and he shows in agreement with biblical history that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation.

  you'd better check well those references and the reliability of Josephus. If you examined Josephus with the same criteria used by the WTBTS to question Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries, etc... he would not stand for half a second.
• 
  22

  Comments You Will Not Hear at the 5-6-07 WT Review (Resist Demons)

  by blondie in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  comments you will not hear at the 05-06-07 wt study (march 15, 007, pages 26-30)(resist demons).

  review comments will be in red.

  wt material from today's wt will be in black.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  He has the power and the methods needed to blind the minds of the world's rulers and their subjects. With propaganda and religious myths and lies, he has deceived mankind.

  let me think of a few religious myths and lies
• 
  20

  Who has the truth about 607BC??

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the next link is a jw site saying that 587 is wrong and 607 is right.

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk.

  the following 7 page document says that 607 is wrong and 587 is right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  there is a rebuttal of the jehovahsjudgment website written by Jeffro: http://jeffreyd.no-ip.com/wordpress/index.php/jehovahs-witnesses-and-1914/response-to-607-website/

  I am with Arthur.
• 
  20

  Has the WTS ever published a complete list of babylonian kings??

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  lets cut to the chase shall we.

  i'm looking for the wts list of babylonian kings and the years they reigned.

  evidently the wts discredits any historical list of babylonian kings.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  a lot of info here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx

  it is to be noted that lately the WTS, tends to avoid mentioning the length of rule of certain Babylonian kings, or to cast doubts on the reliability of the info available. For example, the insight book under evil merodach states:

  (E´vil-mer´o·dach) [from Babylonian, meaning "Worshiper of Marduk"].

  The Babylonian king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 B.C.E. In the year of his becoming king, Evil-merodach extended kindness to Jehoiachin the king of Judah by releasing him from the house of detention. That was in the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s exile in Babylon. Evil-merodach granted him a position of favor above all the other kings who were in captivity in Babylon. (2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34) Josephus claims that Evil-merodach viewed Jehoiachin as one of his most intimate friends.

  There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: "Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon." (MémoiresdelamissionarchéologiquedeSusiane, by V. Scheil, Paris, 1913, Vol. XIV) Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself assigns him 18 years. Supposedly slain as the result of a plot, Evil-merodach was replaced by Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer). Reliable confirmation of these details is lacking.

  I post here I comment I wanted to make in the other thread concerning Josephus. As Dandamaev in his book, Slavery in Babylonia, Josephus can only be considered as a secondary source when examining the Neo-Babylonian era. In general the works of Josephus are full of mistakes: http://www.allabouthistory.org/how-reliable-is-josephus-work-faq.htm
• 
  89

  Is WTS chronology flawed?

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

  the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

  the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  Doug I guess it is from "against Apion".

  Jeffro makes some interesting comments about the society claiming that to be a scribal error: http://jeffreyd.no-ip.com/wordpress/index.php/jehovahs-witnesses-and-1914/
• 
  10

  Men vs Boys at the San Siro

  by needproof in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  oh dear, doesn't look like it's going to be their night.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jeanV

  I think we watched a different game or maybe is just because I am a liverpool fan

  Chelski played with the sole objective of scoring on a break away. It is obvious that liverpool cannot attack their heads down. games nowdays are a lot about tactics (which ManU IMO failed miserably last night)

  anyway, chelski had one or two opportunities. liverpool had several ones (and a disallowed goal that I thought was legitimate). Physically chelski were stronger and the more time passed the more liverpool had to be careful not to lose silly balls. so yes, they played tactically well, but not to go to penalties, although they clearly were careful not to give the ball away. Rafa does not have the quality players of milan, manU or chelski so he has to make up for it with good team spirit and tactics.

  milan will likely win the final, but I hope not.