Posts by garyneal

112

The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff in

i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

garyneal

Scholar

Post 1839

Are you for real?

This now accurate informatioin loyally upholds the Bible as God's inspired Word rather than the lying prpaganda, demonic attacks on the Bible by higher critics and other opposers which has as its sole objective to destroy the faith, missiion, love and unity of the Lord's people and His Organization.

So many fallacies that I find it very difficult to even take this post seriously. So the agenda of the scholars and historians who support 586/7 BCE is to attack the Bible? Destory the faith, mission, love, and unity of the Lord's people and His Organization???? Was the Bible NOT taken into account when the 19th year of Neb's reign factored in to establish 586/7 BCE?

28

The 607 / 587 / 586 B.C.E. Research

by garyneal in

for anyone who read through my previous thread concerning the conflict my wife and i had over my coming to this forum will recall that my wife agreed to go with me to the library to research 607 b.c.e.. well, unfornately my daughter and i got sick over the weekend so we could not make that trip.

however, my wife did do some research in her wt publications and on the internet!

frankly, i was surprised she even went to the internet but i told her that to 'stay away' from 'apostate' sites all she had to do was google 'babylonian captivity' and see what comes up.

garyneal

Lady Liberty,

My apologies for not thanking you for your very well written post on this thread. I was especially intrigued with this piece:

After about 5 hours, and after much study of the scriptures themselves, comparing it with the Kings lists, he could see that 586/587 was the match, not 607!

Which scriptures were you two studying and comparing with the Kings list? Were these scriptures referenced by any of the WT publications that you two were reading?

28

The 607 / 587 / 586 B.C.E. Research

by garyneal in

for anyone who read through my previous thread concerning the conflict my wife and i had over my coming to this forum will recall that my wife agreed to go with me to the library to research 607 b.c.e.. well, unfornately my daughter and i got sick over the weekend so we could not make that trip.

however, my wife did do some research in her wt publications and on the internet!

frankly, i was surprised she even went to the internet but i told her that to 'stay away' from 'apostate' sites all she had to do was google 'babylonian captivity' and see what comes up.

garyneal

Black Sheep,

I hear what you are saying and I should not have backed down so easily. However, I believe if I had of pressed him for proof, all he would've done was continue to cite WT literature. He gave me a printout of kc chapter 14, well 5 pages of it, in the chapter called "The King Reigns!" He also gave me an appendix to this chapter that addresses the issue between 586/7 BCE and 607 BCE. I've read it and it seems to suggest that secular historians are NOT taking the Bible into account and using it as supreme authority.

Now, the appendix tries to suggest that the secular timelines are 'subject to change' and states that "Christians who believe the Bible have time and again found its words stand the test of much criticism and have been proved accurate and reliable." While Christians who believe the Bible would certainly agree with that quote, one thing that has always been 'subject to change' are the man made interpretations of the Bible. This is especially true within the WTS for it is my understanding that 1914 had an entirely different meaning to the Russelites in 1919 than it does to the JW's today.

Frankly, I've become rather intrigued with this whole subject of study so I will continue to see what I can dig up.

95

For those who researched 607...

by AwSnap in

jw
friends

did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

garyneal

Scholar

Post 1838

The King's list only accounts for 66 years counting backwards from 539 BCE. If King Neb started his reign in 605 BCE and according to the Bible, Jerusalem was destroyed in his 18 regnal year (19 accounting for his accession year), how come the math does not work out to 607 BCE? How is it that the WT has somehow managed to insert 20 years into the calculations?

95

For those who researched 607...

by AwSnap in

jw
friends

did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

garyneal

Outlaw,

Yes, that is exactly what I see is going on when trying to determine which is correct. Only WBT$ approved publications are used by Jehovah's Witnesses to validate 607 BCE.

Now I am in the process of trying to understand this myself but there seems to be so much confusion over the topic. However, here are some simple things that seem to just make sense.

Outside of the WT, there isn't a single source that I've encounter so far that supports 607 BCE.
I see absolutely no reason why anyone outside of the WT would even care whether or not the destruction of Jerusalem happened in 607 BCE or 587 BCE.
The WT clearly seems to have a motive in supporting 607 BCE for if 607 BCE is not right, then 1914 CE is not right. If 1914 CE is not right, then 1919 CE is not right. Therefore, Jesus did NOT begin reigning invisibly in 1914, He did not survey the world's religions between 1914 and 1919, and He did not select the WTS as His sole channel on Earth.
I've so far found two answers to the 70 years fulfillment.
- The nations beginning their servitude to Babylon in 609 BCE when Babylon assumed control over Assyria to the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.
- The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE to its being rebuilt in 516 BCE.
Charles Russell used pyramidology and astrology to help predict 1914 CE.
Jesus Christ clearly stated that it is not for us to know these dates, SO HOW DO WE KNOW?

95

For those who researched 607...

by AwSnap in

jw
friends

did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

garyneal

scholar

Post 1837

Did you watch the video LatinxJW posted on post 22? How do you account for the king's list totally 66 years and the Bible's account of the destruction of Jerusalem happening on the 19th year of Neb's reign?

20

"Encouragement" from my mother-in-law to my wife

by garyneal in

my wife did not attend the holiday celebrations with my daughter and i and instead chose to spend the time with her parents.

she told her mom how she saw nothing wrong with the holiday celebrations and my m-i-l told her that she was right in that the things people do this time of year are very beautiful indeed.

however, it is the reason why people do these things why we are not suppose to partake in them.

garyneal

Lady Liberty:

Yeah, while my wife and I were researching 607 BCE, I did mention that some people insist that 12-25 is connected to Christ birth by saying that it could've been the time He was conceived. My wife asked, "Who celebrates the conception?" Well, aside from the obvious fact that we announced the 'conception' of our daughter as soon as we got the first ultra sound picture, it was mentioned in the Bible that an Angel told Mary that she would conceive a child. Never-the-less, the point I was making with that statement is that even though hard facts are presented to discount a belief (like 12-25 being the birthday of Christ) some people try to twist the facts to suit their own beliefs anyway. I was simply cautioning her not to make the same mistake concerning 607 vs. 586/7.

112

The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff in

i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

garyneal

ATJ:

WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE DARE QUESTION LIFELONG HISTORIANS AND SCHOLARS WHO HAVE DEVOTED THEIR LIFE TO THE STUDY AND RESEARCH OF ARTIFCATS AND CULTURES AND WHO UNIVERSALLY AGREE ON CERTAIN DATES BASED ON INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE? THESE SCHOLARS HAVE NO VESTED INTEREST, NO AGENDAS AT ALL IN ANYTHING EXCEPT DISCOVERING WHAT FACTS AND DATES ARE AVAILABLE TO DISCOVER!!!

And this is exactly why I could not just accept hook line and sinker what the elder of my in-laws congregation was trying to put forth. I guess I think too much to be duped by the whole idea that secular historians and all of christendom would accept a date that allegedly 'contradicts the Bible' as much as they claim. There's got to be something more to it than that. I was especially dismayed when that elder present his case using only Watchtower literature such as the insite book and some printings he made from a WT CD. I mean really, does any Jehovah's Witness consider anything at all outside of the 'truth?'

thetrueone:

I highly recommend a DVD entitled " From Jesus to Christ : The first Christians "'

I watched that on PBS and remember finding it to be very interesting though I cannot say I remember much of the details about it now.

28

The 607 / 587 / 586 B.C.E. Research

by garyneal in

for anyone who read through my previous thread concerning the conflict my wife and i had over my coming to this forum will recall that my wife agreed to go with me to the library to research 607 b.c.e.. well, unfornately my daughter and i got sick over the weekend so we could not make that trip.

however, my wife did do some research in her wt publications and on the internet!

frankly, i was surprised she even went to the internet but i told her that to 'stay away' from 'apostate' sites all she had to do was google 'babylonian captivity' and see what comes up.

garyneal

reslight2:

So what exactly is your take on the whole premise that the WTS teaches that Christ began reigning invisibly in 1914, surveyed all of the world's religions, and selected them as His "Faithful and Discreet Slave" in 1919? I did a brief check on your website and noticed that your are not affiliated with the witnesses. Are you a follower of the original Russellite teachings? I do know that a lot of what the society is today came primarily from "Judge" Rutherford, not "Pastor" Russell (the year 1914 not withstanding).

6

New study on the Babylonian Exile, and without chronologies

by Doug Mason in

i have placed my new study into the babylonian exile at.

http://www.jwstudies.com/they_would_not_listen_version_1.pdf.

when i set out on the journey of writing this study, i was determined that i would not discuss chronologies or dating systems.

garyneal

bttt