LeeT

Joined

• started 6 topics
• posted 144 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by LeeT

• 
  154

  Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

  by Lobsto in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

  two days ago, i received a response from them.

  i think this is gonna be the first of many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar
  "My careful exegesis which plainly you have not done proves that Jer. 25:11, 2 Chron. 36:17-21; Dan. 9:2 all discuss and link the beginning of the seventy years with the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar with the desolation of Judah, the commencement of the Exile and the nation of Judah under servitude to Babylon all for the period of 70 years."
  None of which refer to the destruction of the temple which is what I was asking about. I'll try a third time. Why do you associate the beginning of the period of Babylonian dominance when nations came to serve Babylon, including Judah, with the same date as the destruction of the first temple?

  "Jeremiah was not confused as you are because he foretold specific consequences in a judgement message"
  But not specific in setting any date which we can discern now, 2,600 years later. That was my point.

  "COJ is not known for his humility in relation to his criticism of 607 BCE."
  Isn't an answer to the question I asked. I'll try again.
  "Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?"

  "Jeremiah . . . the 70 years was quite descriptive and specific and could only have begun with the destruction of the City of Jerusalem, its Temple and Land in Neb;s 18th year and Zedekiah's 11 the regnal year."
  How do you reach that conclusion from Jeremiah?

  When do you think Daniel went into captivity? Is there any problems with taking a plain and fairly literal reading of Dan 1:1?

  You criticized Doug for not proposing an alternative thesis. What is your alternative thesis to explain the body of the secular record? By your own standards, you cannot criticize it without one. Are you proposing a massive conspiracy to replace all the original records with ones portraying a fabricated history or do you have another idea?
• 
  154

  Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

  by Lobsto in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

  two days ago, i received a response from them.

  i think this is gonna be the first of many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar,

  "Jer. 25: demands careful exegesis which I have done "
  So how did your careful exegesis lead you to equate the destruction of the first temple with the start of 70 years? You seemed to skip over that part of my question which you quoted in the reply above.

  "It cannot be a period of Babylonian domination because we cannot determine a precise year as a beginning of that Period."
  How does our inability to determine the exact start date the writer of Jeremiah had in mind preclude the idea he was talking about a period of Babylonian domination? This looks like a non sequitur.
  Besides, didn't you tell me the precise time was when Babylon conquered Jerusalem making it a global power?

  "even COJ is confused about the matter shown by comparing his discussion of both dates in his 3rd and 4 the edn of his GTR."
  Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?

  "Criticism is fine and has its place but . . . you must argue your case or thesis in order to be credible"
  Jeremiah doesn't tell us a start date. Doug has pointed that out.
  "The Bible does not state ―this is when the Seventy Years‖ started, showing that those people were not concerned with identifying a specific moment or incident"
  Page 14
  https://jwstudies.com/Critique_of_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf
  That is the case he's arguing. Like most others who've spent mch time on this, he seems to have concluded that there are a few possible options which could mark the start of the seventy years. He also spends some time trying to differentiate between the seventy year period of servitude and the idea that the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple which would only happen later if Judah didn't mend its ways. That makes it clear that in his view, the destruction of the temple could not mark the start of seventy years.
  As far as I can see he has backed a horse. The horse is uncertainty in the scriptures.

  Doug, if you'd like to respond to that please correct me if needed. I don't want to misrepresent your position.
• 
  154

  Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

  by Lobsto in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

  two days ago, i received a response from them.

  i think this is gonna be the first of many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar

  Your listing of the reigns of the Babylonian Kings is falsified by the biblical seventy years which proves that there is a 20 year Gap between Neo-Babylonian Chronology and Bible Chronology. The fact is that the biblical evidence proves that 607 BCE is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem"

  What makes equate the beginning of 70 years with the destruction of the temple rather than the beginning of a period of Babylonian dominance?
  What is the period in which "these nations" served Babylon for 70 years?

  You are aware you are putting your faith, not in the Bible, but in the WT Society (and their uncelebrated scholars) interpretation of it aren't you?
• 
  154

  Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

  by Lobsto in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

  two days ago, i received a response from them.

  i think this is gonna be the first of many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar
  

  "you [Doug] do not provide an alternative so unless you can argue for a better date your criticisms although interesting have little value."

  Why does Doug need to back a different horse? All he's doing is pointing out that the three-legged nag which is due for the knackers yard which you have placed your money on isn't going to win the race.
  
• 
  62

  Evolution - A Conversation with Alex Williams

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  alex - thank you for your offer to have a conversation about evolution.. i accept the scientific evidence that all life - including humans - evolved from a common ancestor through unguided evolution over millions of years.

  this isn't even a controversial position in the scientific community.. the evidence rests on the data from many interconnected fields including paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology and especially genetics.

  it is no exaggeration to say that the evidence for your own non-human ancestry is contained in every cell in your body.. it is my experience that jws are generally quite ignorant (not in a pejorative sense) of the scientific case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  Cofty
  
  "If you have any other examples of misleading references in Origins of Life I would love to see them too."
  
  You might try downloading this review of the 5 Questions and Was Life Created brochures.
  http://www.mediafire.com/file/3wil5bzi59b2l8f/Weighed1.1.pdf/file
  It's pretty lengthy (40 pages) but also serves as a good intro to evolutionary theory although the referencing could have been better.
  If you just want to pick out the selective quote-mining the text is searchable.
  
  I'm fed up of explaining to JW's that branching descent means that statements like "but we see that dogs always produce dogs" are correct and exactly what evolutionary theory says we should expect. They seem to have some odd straw man caricature to demolish and never seem to bother to learn much about the theory they oppose.
• 
  154

  Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

  by Lobsto in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

  two days ago, i received a response from them.

  i think this is gonna be the first of many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar

  A.1. Babylon was a World Power for 68 years 607 BCE-539 BCE

  What particular events in 607 BCE do you think marked this transformation to World Power Status? Do you think conquering Judah, a fairly insignificant power in a strategically important region marked a tipping point whereas defeating Assyria didn't?
  
• 
  154

  Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

  by Lobsto in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

  two days ago, i received a response from them.

  i think this is gonna be the first of many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar
  

  Why did you not get your Certificate?

  I was doing another degree at the time and didn't want the added pressure of deadlines or the added expense.

  one must make a choice between the Biblical history of the Period and the contemporary documents

  
  

  I see you as choosing a particular interpretation of Biblical history. Others seem to have little difficulty in arriving an interpretation which conforms to their understandings of both the Bible and history or even to arrive at an inconclusive conclusion.
  
  How would you go about testing whether a particular interpretation of historically related Biblical text is accurate? Surely you'd expect it to be in conformity with well arrested secular evidence or have a compelling case for why the secular record is in error.
  
  You don't need to abandon inerrancy to abandon an interpretation.
  
  Personally, I'm an atheist and quite happy with the idea that there are errors, intentional hyperbole, rounded figures and that different writers may have had differing opinions and written from their own perspective. I'd like to make sense of it all, but I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that some of the 'rough' is a feature and needn't be smoothed away to create a gloss finish.
  Eg I find it quite OK for Jonsson to conclude that he isn't certain of a start date, that there are merits and demerits to alternative positions.
  
  

  What must be explained is the silence of the Babylonian records pertaining to the missing seven-year reign of Nebuchadnezzer

  British Museum, No. BM 34113 (sp 213), and was published by A. K. Grayson in Babylonian historical-literary texts, 1975 might be what you want but it's hardly conclusive of anything.
  

  2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered
  3 His life appeared of no value to [him, ......]
  5 And (the) Babylon(ian) speaks bad counsel to Evil-merodach [....]
  6 Then he gives an entirely different order but [. . .]
  7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tier(s) - - -]
  11 He does not show love to son and daughter [. . .]
  12 ... family and clan do not exist [. . .]
  14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]
  16 He prays to the lord of lords, he raised [his hands (in supplication) (. . .)]
  17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] gods [......]
  18 His prayers go forth to [......]

  http://a-laymans-journey.blogspot.com/2009/12/text-of-bm34113-british-museum-no-bm.html

  What if the silence is because nothing much actually happened to be recorded or it a misremembering of Nabonidus' long stay in Teima? People doing business would still have recorded the dates of their dealings and if the madness was real. If seven years of madness exist, they're already included amongst the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar II's rule.
  
  

  the omission of any mention of the seventy years hegemony over Judah and the other serving nations roundabout

  Yes, there doesn't appear to be much bombast and the chronicle records seem sparse.

  the length of the Neo-Babylonian Period is problematic and far from settled as it has not accounted for the twenty-year Gap proved by the 70 years of Babylonian domination

  I was a bit lazy above in using 66 and 86 year periods. WT agrees that Nebuchadnezzar II reigned for 43 years and appear to give Nabonidus 16 years so the window for the 20 missing years can be narrowed substantially. Is it fair to say the WT believes the 20 years must be inserted somewhere between the 43rd of Nebuchadnezzar II and the 1st of Nabonidus?
• 
  154

  Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

  by Lobsto in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

  two days ago, i received a response from them.

  i think this is gonna be the first of many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar,
  
  I too did the course a couple of years ago, though uncertificated and without purchasing the book. I'm an impoverished cheapskate. I still read all the recommended readings I could find and more besides plus the video transcripts. I was indeed enjoyable.
  If you still have copies I'd love to read your mini essays arguing for the complete depopulation of the land for a period of 70 years, an idea that flies in the face of one of the central themes of the course.
  
  "Do any of these texts shed any light on the 70 years"
  I've not read many of the several thousand texts listed here. This doesn't look like an especially useful list to use unless you want to exhaustively read up on a particular year for clues and need all the archive numbers. There seem to be better ways of working. I'm yet to figure out how to navigate my way to specific translations and find many of the museum and archive cataloguing systems somewhat confusing.
  
  But, yes, in outline the list does shed light on the 70 years. Prior to this the best list of texts I had was Boscowan or Pinches (I forget who, one of the late Victorians who worked on the Egibi Archive) which had a much, much shorter list of something over 100 texts ordered by date. That in itself made explaining the lack of tablets of the missing Kings the JW's assert must have existed incredibly unlikely to have been a random occurrence. This list puts a stake through the heart of the JW case, nail guns the coffin lid shut, encases it in titanium and blasts it into space.
  
  625 BCE (WT date for Neb yr 0) -539 BCE = 86 years of history according to the WT scholars.
  
  Total number of dated texts from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II: 2826
  Total number of dated texts from the reign of Amel-Marduk: 167
  Total number of dated texts from the reign of Neriglissar: 249
  Total number of dated texts from the reign of Labashi-Marduk: 12
  Total number of dated texts from the reign of Nabonid: 3910
  
  Covering 66 years of known reigns.
  
  Total number of dated texts from the reigns of known Kings in period = 7164
  Total no of dates texts from unknown Kings the WT asserts must have reigned = 0
  
  If the WT is right and these texts are distributed randomly throughout the 86 year timespan they claim they cover, what are the chances of having 20 years with no hits out of a sample size of 7164?
  
  Please check my maths.
  
  No of combinations for choosing 66 "hit years" from 86 = 18,293,741,700,978,245,355
  https://www.calculator.net/permutation-and-combination-calculator.html?cnv=86&crv=66&x=24&y=13
  For each combination, the chance of randomly obtaining one of the 66 'hit' years in an 86 year timeline = 66/86
  
  For 7164 tries the chances of them all being 'hit years' = 18,293,741,700,978,245,355 * (66/86)^7164
  = 5.35 * 10^-805
  That's a pobability with over 800 zeros before the decimal point.
  
  Conclusion. To assert that tablets from the missing years "might just turn up on a dig" is laughable at this point.

  So "do any of these texts shed any light on the 70 years?"
  Yes, none of them are 'missing years' between the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar II and the last of Nabonidus.
  
  
  
• 
  154

  Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

  by Lobsto in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

  two days ago, i received a response from them.

  i think this is gonna be the first of many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  Live life dangerously.
  Incur the wrath of Tony Morris.
  Do a short Uni course for free.
  Undermine your confidence in Jehovah's organisation.
  Study "The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem" with Oded Lipschits.
  
  https://www.coursera.org/learn/jerusalem
  
  
• 
  154

  Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

  by Lobsto in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

  two days ago, i received a response from them.

  i think this is gonna be the first of many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LeeT

  This was referenced in the response letter.
  Chronological List of Texts From the First Millenium B.C. Babylonia, by Janos Everling
  
  I've dug up the .pdf and it's brilliant.
  http://okor.btk.pte.hu/sites/okor.btk.pte.hu/files/files/SEAL/sea-l_3_jeverling_materials_vol1.pdf
  Scroll to Page 24 where the Neo-Babylonian texts start. Note the sheer quantity of texts in each year of the conventional secular chronology. Where are all the texts from the 20 years the Society incorporates into its chronology? They're not there, there are none, these years don't exist.