was buried in tirzah; and elah his son reigned.
judah, elah the son of baasha began to reign.
they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of israel?.
Do you really believe that the Bible provides an unbiased literally true historical record?!
For example, do you believe that there was a person named Moses and that there was an Exodus from Egypt, or that there were kings named Solomon and David as described in the Bible? Were the Israelites powerful or were they simply poor Canaanite hill-dwellers who made up stories?
Doug
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/z1879jul.asp.
the first issue of the watchtower was july 1879, about 135 years ago.
it is interesting to skim the first issue, as well as the letter that russell sent out to the readers of the previous magazine he was involved with, the herald of the morning.. as to the split between russell and barbour, while the issue over the ransom seems a contributing factor, the first concern in russells letter is a monetary dispute.. the early issues of the watchtower were open to many viewpoints.
The title of the magazine was in 2 parts:
Zion's Watch Tower [not Watchtower], because Russell was convinced that the coming of unprecedented peace in 1914 would be under the Zionists;
and
Herald of Christ's Presence, because he was heralding that the Parousia had taken place in 1874.
Doug
this topic has been covered extensively but i just wanted relate what hapopenes with this subject and my elder father.
he called me up one day to check in on me he always asks if i'm going to msettings and i always tell him no im not.
well this time he wanted to know why i didn't trust the g.b.
To make it very simple: the Bible cannot and does not provide BCE dates or CE dates. This means that the WTS completely relies on secular sources for dates. The WTS accepts from secular sources the date of 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. These secular sources derive this date from a chronology that the WTS does not accept.
These sources say that the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is an Absolute Date that is fixed at 568 BCE. Then using the neo-Babylonian chronology these secular sources arrive at other dates, including 539 BCE.
BTW. Your father can feel comfortable communicating with me since I have never been associated with Jehoavh's Witnesses or with the Watchtower Society.
Doug
this topic has been covered extensively but i just wanted relate what hapopenes with this subject and my elder father.
he called me up one day to check in on me he always asks if i'm going to msettings and i always tell him no im not.
well this time he wanted to know why i didn't trust the g.b.
A date that the WTS - and everyone else - is incapable of proving is the timing when the first returnees gathered at the site of the ruined temple. The WTS arbitarily says this took place in 537 BCE while others, just as arbitarily, select other dates.
Without any Biblical justification, the WTS ends its "70 years" with that event. From there, it jumps back 70 years to the exodus into Egypt by the murderers of Gedaliah.
Interestingly, although the WTS requires the land to be utterly depopulated for the entire 70 years, the returnees were settled in their homes before they trekked to Jerusalem. Only then does the WTS end its "70 years".
Doug
this topic has been covered extensively but i just wanted relate what hapopenes with this subject and my elder father.
he called me up one day to check in on me he always asks if i'm going to msettings and i always tell him no im not.
well this time he wanted to know why i didn't trust the g.b.
I have material on the neo-Babylonian chronology at: http://www.jwstudies.com/babylonian_captivity.html
My interest began when I read the "chronology" article in the WTS's book "Aid to bible Understanding". When I checked their sources, I found that the sources were being misquoted and misrepresented. This included their gross misrepresentation of the Adad-Guppi Stele as discussed by Pritchard in Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ANET); there were several other examples.
The WTS continues its misquotation of sources, a recent example is discussed at: http://www.jwstudies.com/The_June_2012_Awake_Citation_of_Ephraim_Stern.pdf
Another recent example is presented at: http://www.jwstudies.com/Response_from_John_Steele.pdf
Also: http://www.jwstudies.com/Soncino_commentary_on_Ezekiel.pdf
Something a lot more technical: http://www.jwstudies.com/539_BCE_and_an_astronomical_tablet.pdf
You might find some information helpful: http://www.jwstudies.com/Insight_s_reliance_on_secular_sources.pdf
The WTS tried to make out that in his book "Crime of Claudius Ptolemy", R R Newton supported its cause. Newton wrote that one person was in contact with him, but enquiries revealed that this person was an active JW. But even then Newton's book does not support the WTS: http://www.jwstudies.com/Newton_Crime_Ptolemy.pdf
Information from the WTS supports the accepted ("secular") chronology: http://www.jwstudies.com/WTS_support_for_the_Babylonian_king-list.pdf (6 pages)
Also see: http://www.jwstudies.com/Why_historians_know_Babylon_fell_in_539_BCE.pdf
The WTS does NOT start its "70 years" from the date of Jerusalem's destruction. It starts its count from the moment that exiles went into Egypt. It says that this took place just two months after Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. They do this because they say that the land needed to be absolutely and totally depopulated before the count could begin. HOWEVER, with all of the events that took place between the destruction and the exile into Egypt could not have taken place within such a short period, as I show at: http://www.jwstudies.com/Did_Jews_exit_after_two_months.pdf
You and your father will find my email address on these items. You can both be confident that I never divulge confidences, so much so that I would not even tell either of you what the other has communicated with me.
Finally, there is a most serious manner in which the WTS deliberately misquotes its sources, and this is in the area of the medical use of blood: http://www.jwstudies.com/Handling_Medical_Evidence.pdf
Doug
there is a medical procedure known as: fecal microbiota transplantation (or transfusion).. has the watchtower society identified whether blood is possibly transfused through this process?
if it has, what is its verdict?
if it has not investigated this medical procedure, why hasn't it?.
I presume the product could easily contain whole blood, and this is a transfusion process. Has the WTS openly objected to this process, which is a procedure that is medically accepted and administered - that has save many lives and influenced various serious ailments with some patients.
I shall need to research this. My questions include the timing of its modern application, as compared to the timing of the WTS's start of opposing the tranfsusion of blood (relaxed somewhat in recent times), and if it was an ancient medical practice.
If you get the chance, watch "Life On Us, Part 2: Superhuman". (Try YouTube - at a cost.) Part 1 is also amazing, about the animals and stuff that live on our skin.
Doug
there is a medical procedure known as: fecal microbiota transplantation (or transfusion).. has the watchtower society identified whether blood is possibly transfused through this process?
if it has, what is its verdict?
if it has not investigated this medical procedure, why hasn't it?.
There is a medical procedure known as: fecal microbiota transplantation (or transfusion).
Has the Watchtower Society identified whether blood is possibly transfused through this process? If it has, what is its verdict? If it has not investigated this medical procedure, why hasn't it?
Was James, he of "First Century Governing Body" fame, aware of this medical procedure, just as he was aware of the medical transfusion of parts of blood?
Doug
i spent a couple of hours trying to work out the poetic structure of john 1:1-18. i have made my first rough draft available as a word document so that others can amend it for themselves.
the text i used is from the niv.
it will be interesting to see the poetic structures produced by analyses of other translations.. http://www.jwstudies.com/chiasms_of_john_1_vv_1_to_18.docx.
Thank you Bobcat,
I used that site to create for myself a searchable PDF.
It brings up another thought: given the way in which, at ch 21:31, the John Gospel returns to its opening, I wonder if it would be possible to create a multi-level chiastic analysis of the whole Gospel. Not right now for me, unless someone has done it already. I'll have a look at the commentary on by Leon Morris that I have, but I seriously doubt it. Neither do I think that Spong looks at the chiasms in his consideration of the Gospel. I will have to look some other time.
Doug
i spent a couple of hours trying to work out the poetic structure of john 1:1-18. i have made my first rough draft available as a word document so that others can amend it for themselves.
the text i used is from the niv.
it will be interesting to see the poetic structures produced by analyses of other translations.. http://www.jwstudies.com/chiasms_of_john_1_vv_1_to_18.docx.
Bobcat,
I located that book and it certainly provides an exhaustive analysis. Thanks,
Doug
i spent a couple of hours trying to work out the poetic structure of john 1:1-18. i have made my first rough draft available as a word document so that others can amend it for themselves.
the text i used is from the niv.
it will be interesting to see the poetic structures produced by analyses of other translations.. http://www.jwstudies.com/chiasms_of_john_1_vv_1_to_18.docx.
Villagegirl,
I found the Orthodox Jewish Bible at:
where it is possible to download the complete book.
This is a bit bewildering at the moment. Obviously this requires some research.
Thanks,
Doug
