i have made two corrections to my recently announced study, "insights reliance on secular sources", which is available at:.
http://www.jwstudies.com/insight_s_reliance_on_secular_sources.pdf.
page 3: an unwanted word "the" near the bottom of the page.
I have made two corrections to my recently announced study, "Insight’s Reliance on Secular Sources", which is available at:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Insight_s_reliance_on_secular_sources.pdf
Corrections.
Page 3: an unwanted word "the" near the bottom of the page. The phrase should thus read: "Most significantly for its purposes"
Page 20: Should read "568 BCE for the 37th year of his son Nebuchadnezzar."
I have corrected the online file.
Doug
the wts says that the seventy years started when a group of judeans, including jeremiah, crossed the border into egypt.
this, they say, was required since the land had to be absolutely and totally depopulated, without a human or a beast on the land.. one would thus expect that the wts would end the seventy years when the first captives crossed the border into the province of yehud.
that would mean that once again there were people on the land.. but no, the wts does not do that.
The WTS rabbits on about the need for the land of Judah to be totally devoid of people and beasts for the full 70 years, even waiting until a group enters Egypt before allowing the period to start, yet it does not terminate the period when people return. The WTS waits until after the Returnees have settled into their communities, made their journeys in the land to Jerusalem, and then held a ceremony at the temple site. Even when, for the WTS, the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem did not mark the start of the 70 Years.
Doug
the wts says that the seventy years started when a group of judeans, including jeremiah, crossed the border into egypt.
this, they say, was required since the land had to be absolutely and totally depopulated, without a human or a beast on the land.. one would thus expect that the wts would end the seventy years when the first captives crossed the border into the province of yehud.
that would mean that once again there were people on the land.. but no, the wts does not do that.
The WTS says that the “Seventy Years” started when a group of Judeans, including Jeremiah, crossed the border into Egypt. This, they say, was required since the land had to be absolutely and totally depopulated, without a human or a beast on the land.
One would thus expect that the WTS would end the Seventy Years when the first Captives crossed the border into the province of Yehud. That would mean that once again there were people on the land.
But no, the WTS does not do that. The WTS lets each Returnee settle into their own house, village and community, but the Seventy Years continues.
Then, after having settled down, each person makes the journey to Jerusalem, and yet the Seventy Years is still continuing, even though the land is now populated, settled with man and beast.
Not until people perform a ceremony at the temple site (surrounded by opponents), does the WTS end the Seventy Years. Does the Bible say this event marked its ending?
If the Seventy Years could not start until the “last person” had gone to Egypt, if the Seventy Years required the land to be without a person living in it, then how could it continue for such a long time after people had returned?
If the Seventy Years did not start when the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed, why did the WTS make the end relate to the temple?
Or is it significant that the time from the destruction of the temple to its rebuilding was 70 years?
Doug
after starting the previous thread i realised that i had been using firefox, so here it is through ie.. the chronology article in "insight on the scriptures" accepts from secular sources the date of 539 bce for the fall of babylon.
it must do so since it is not possible for pre-christian sources to provide dates in terms of present-day calendars.. .
the chronology article, however, denigrates the dates, source material, and chronologies employed by those who provide it with that date.. .
Sorry. After starting the previous Thread I realised that I had been using Firefox, so here it is through IE.
The “Chronology” article in "Insight on the Scriptures" accepts from secular sources the date of 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. It must do so since it is not possible for pre-Christian sources to provide dates in terms of present-day calendars.
The “Chronology” article, however, denigrates the dates, source material, and chronologies employed by those who provide it with that date.
My study is available at:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Insight_s_reliance_o...
Doug
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:donotshowrevisions /> <w:donotprintrevisions /> <w:donotshowmarkup /> <w:donotshowcomments /> <w:donotshowinsertionsanddeletions /> <w:donotshowpropertychanges /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
/* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} [endif] .
The “Chronology” article in “Insight on the Scriptures” accepts from secular sources the date of 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. It must do so since it is not possible for pre-Christian sources to provide dates in terms of present-day calendars.
The “Chronology” article, however, denigrates the dates, source material, and chronologies employed by those who provide it with that date.
My study is available at:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Insight_s_reliance_on_secular_sources.pdf
Doug
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:donotshowrevisions /> <w:donotprintrevisions /> <w:donotshowmarkup /> <w:donotshowcomments /> <w:donotshowinsertionsanddeletions /> <w:donotshowpropertychanges /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif].
i have my idea why the wts waxes so strongly against higher criticism, so i would like to hear the views of others on this matter.. i do not want this thread to degenerate into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of higher criticism, but rather for this thread to explore the reason(s) why the wts has to be so adamantly against it.. as a clue to my own thoughts, i suggest that consideration should be given to the wts's silence -- as far as i am aware (and i am open to correction) -- on the subject of lower criticism (and other forms of analysis).. doug.
I have my idea why the WTS waxes so strongly against Higher Criticism, so I would like to hear the views of others on this matter.
I do not want this Thread to degenerate into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of Higher Criticism, but rather for this Thread to explore the reason(s) why the WTS has to be so adamantly against it.
As a clue to my own thoughts, I suggest that consideration should be given to the WTS's silence -- as far as I am aware (and I am open to correction) -- on the subject of Lower Criticism (and other forms of analysis).
Doug
in its article on chronology and in the direct context of from 997 bce to desolation of jerusalem, page 462 of insight on the scriptures cites pages 20 -21 of the 1950 edition of soncino books of the bible, commentary on ezekiel.. what are the words that the insight article omitted when it cited the soncino commentary?.
what does the soncino commentary say about the bce dates of that period?.
http://www.jwstudies.com/soncino_commentary_on_ezekiel.pdf.
In its article on “Chronology” and in the direct context of “From 997 BCE to desolation of Jerusalem”, page 462 of Insight on the Scriptures cites pages 20 -21 of the 1950 edition of Soncino Books of the Bible, Commentary on Ezekiel.
What are the words that the Insight article omitted when it cited the Soncino Commentary?
What does the Soncino Commentary say about the BCE dates of that period?
http://www.jwstudies.com/Soncino_commentary_on_Ezekiel.pdf
Doug
satan and nvl recommended that i start this thread.
i'm not sure anyone will have interest.
but one of the things that proves to me that the bible is accurate is the prophecies that were written before the fullfillment, in detal.
cyberjesus,
I have sent you a pm
Doug
hi,.
i need to obtain scans of the following pages, and i would be deeply grateful if someone can help me.. anchor bible dictionary, volume 6 pages 392-393 ("tetragrammaton in the new testament", article by george howard.).
if anyone can help me, it would probably be best to send me a pm, so i can pass on my email address.. doug.
Hi,
I need to obtain scans of the following pages, and I would be deeply grateful if someone can help me.
Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 6 pages 392-393 ("Tetragrammaton in the New Testament", article by George Howard.)
If anyone can help me, it would probably be best to send me a pm, so I can pass on my email address.
Doug
the evidence for some form of evolution -- and the age of earth and life upon it -- is mounting almost daily.
how long can the wts insulate its followers from the incontrovertible evidence without lapsing into total irrelevance?
what do you think?.
simon17,
You wrote: "The 607/587 thing doesn't matter because there is NO information that people come across regarding this."
The 607/587 thing is critical to the authority of the WTS and to its Governing Body. They claim to be the sole earthly representative on earth of Jehovah's Government that began to rule towards earth in 1914. That date is based on a calculation that includes 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the reason WTS apologists rise so strongly to defend that date. See how much effort their JW doyen Furuli expends on the subject.
I suggest the reason that JWs are not provided with any information is to keep them in the dark. It's a form of "theocratic war strategy" being waged by the WTS towards its followers. The WTS is seeing an increase (modest and certainly not spectacular) which could be jeopardised should the sheep be advised that there is a need to defend the date. Keep it quiet, sweep it under the carpet, keep the troops ignorant, and it will go away and not cause a problem.
When is the last time you have seen a detailed defence of 1914 based on the chronology and interpretations of Daniel 4, Ezekiel and Jeremiah that they employ?
Doug
