Posts by Bungi Bill

492

607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury in

if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

Bungi Bill

TD:

The WTS though highly enough of the Nabunaid Chronicle to quote it at length in the Watchtower of August 15, 1968 (p.491):

(Incidentally, this one of those "non-existent" Watchtower texts that I was accused of inventing the other day!)

Other investigators say this "The Nabunaid Chronicle ... states that Sippar fell to the Persian forces VII/14/17 (Footnotes)"VII/16/17". The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus' reign (Oct 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VII/3/17 (Oct 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus."

Please note that in this Watchtower article, nowhere is the above quotation presented as a contrary opinion to the one held by the publishers:

- Unless there is a disclaimer included somewhere in that WT article, one that I can't see!

From that data, count back from 539 BC 17 years for Nabonidus' reign, several months for Labashi-Marduk, 4 years for Neriglissar, 2 years for Evil Merodach, and 43 years for Nebuchadnezzar, and you arrive at 605 BC as the start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign - making the 18th year of his reign 586 BC - not 607 BC. (This by simply counting backwards, using data presented as fact in various WTS publications).

Of couse, you and I both know this to be the case:

- there are others, of a more fanatical frame of mind, who have a mental block when it comes to considering these facts!

Bill.

55

Saturday Morning Musings ...

by snowbird in

one hot, hot thursday, in july of 1987, i worked a half day, drove from wilcox county to mobile county to pick up a sister, then hit i-10 for new orleans to attend the convention which began the next day.. the evening traffic was unbelievable; when i finally arrived and pulled into our hotel parking lot, i was shaking like a leaf in the wind.

we checked in, and after showering, i fell into bed and slept like a drunk person.. the next morning, friday, was a complete blur as we made our way to the superdome.

i don't remember anything that was discussed that day, just the searing heat as we returned to the hotel.. after a long shower, i again fell into a deep slumber.

Bungi Bill

The first DC that I attended in 1971 was a bit of a novelty for me, so I had little trouble in kidding myself that it was "good."

Likewise for the "Divine Victory" International Assembly in 1973 - very memorable for me, as it was there that I fell in love for the first time!

After that, though, I became very much like Sizmik, and could never understand all the pre-assembly hype. I always particularly felt for the small children of JW families, and thought that the assemblies were just one more piece of evidence that Jehovahs Witnesses are not a family friendly religion.

Bill.

492

607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury in

if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

Bungi Bill

Beware of those who are "fanatical about their beliefs" (whether self confessed or not):

- there is something clearly not quite right about them!

Bill.

492

607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury in

if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

Bungi Bill

Ann,

Excellent point:

- this fellow is at variance with the WTS in his claim about the length of Nabonidus' reign.

Without any qualification whatsoever, Insight on the Scriptures Vol.2 p. 457 gives the length of his reign as being 17 years. Nowhere does Insight on the Scriptures state that it was in fact 35 years in length - and that 17 years is an inaccurate period, arrived at by "secular" means.

In fact, nowhere at all does any WTS publication state that Nabonidus ruled for 35 years, as certain people insist he did.

From the length of each Babylonian king's reign, as stated in the WTS literature, it is possible - as you put it, by using "simple math" - to determine that 607 BC is not the date of Jerusalem's destruction. (In fact, nowhere even close!)

Bill

492

607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury in

if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

Bungi Bill

Inreferring to the Babylonian King lists, Insight to the Scriptures and Babylon the Great has fallen, God's Kingdom Rules offer that information on the various reignal years without qualification:

- i.e. nowhere does either publication put a disclaimer on that reignal data, to the effect of "these are the views of some researchers, but are not subscribed to by Jehovahs Witnesses." Rather, such data is presented as being accepted by the publishers of both books (The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society).

Most of what has been said on this thread in support of 607 BC tells us much more about the individual poster than it does about the subject under discussion. From following this thread, it does not take much to realize that religious fanaticism is as prevalent among the Jehovahs Witnesses as it is amongst any other religious group:

- and that there are some very disturbed individuals amongst them!

Bill.

PS: I identify 100% with Witness My Fury's feelings on discovering that "being a JW is based on lies / false chronology and mis interpretation of scripture." It "sucks" all-right; and that is putting matters lightly!

492

607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury in

if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

Bungi Bill

By referring to information in just two of the WTS's publications - Insight on the Scriptures and Babylon the Great has fallen,God's Kingdom Rules (who could ever forget that one!) - and then counting backwards from 539 BC, it becomes evident that the WTS is contradicting itself when it insists on the 607 BC date.

1) That Nabonidus was the last "supreme ruler of the Babylonian Empire" and "ruled for some 17 years" is stated in Volume 2 of Insight on the Scriptures (p.457, under the heading "Nabonidus"). In that particular passage, Insight on the Scriptures even performs the calculation for you!

i.e. It even gives the years of his reign as being from 556 to 559 BC.

2) "Labashi-Marduk ... was a vicious boy, and within nine months had his throat cut by an assassin." (Babylon the Great has fallen, God's Kingdom Rules. p184)

That leaves us still in the year 556 BC.

3)"Neriglassar ... reigned for four years." (Babylon the Great has fallen, God's Kingdom Rules. p184)

So, (when I went to school, at least!), 556 + 4 = 560 BC.

4) "After reigning but two years, King Evil-Merodach was murdered" (Babylon the Great has fallen, God's Kingdom rules. p184).

Adding two years to 560 BC takes us to (560 + 2 )= 562 BC for the beginning of Evil-Merodach's reign.

5) "Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years" (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, p.480, under the heading "Nebuchadnezzar").

Adding 43 years to 562 BC (562 + 43) brings us to the year 605 BC as being the start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

i.e. two years before the WTS would have us believe that he destroyed Jerusalem and its temple. (Which 2 Kings 25: 2, 8 tells us occurred during the 19th year of his reign - NOTtwo years before it started!. Again, simple maths takes us from 605 - 19 = 586 BC).

It is not for nothing that all informed researchers agree on 586 or 587 BC as being the date of the Jerusalem Temple's destruction - Archeology alone providing overwhelming evidence. However, one only needs to go to the information provided by the Watchtower Society's own publications -and then do some simple mathematics - to see that the 607 BC date is wrong.

Yes, it is contradictory; and yes, it is totally irrational - and those stubbornly clinging to the 607 BC date are well and truly deluding themselves!

Bill.

492

607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury in

if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

Bungi Bill

WTS literature agrees that Nabonidus ruled for 17 years, and you only have to pick up your copy of Insight on the Scriptures to find this (Volume 2, p.457, Nabonidus), where it clearly states:

Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire, father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts, he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556 - 539). He was given to literature, art and religion. (Quoted word for word)

Notice that Insight on the Scriptures even does the calculation for you, so that you don't have to make the effort of subtracting 17 from minus 539, in order to discover that Nabonidus reigned between 556 and 539 BC!

Bill.

PS: Witness My Fury, all this appears not simple enough for one certain individual - seemingly, somebody needs to teach him how to count! When I first began posting on jehovahs- witness.net, I never imagined that I would be teching Grade 2 maths.

492

607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury in

if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

Bungi Bill

Witness My Fury;

Indeed - as I said at the outset, those various WTS publications mention the length of the reigns of the various Babylonian kings:

- "go read the Watchtower!"

- All anybody has to do is to then count backwards from what the WTS believes to be the "Absolute Date" of 539 BC to establish the dates of the reigns of the five last kings of Babylon ( not too difficult a task, surely - but then again maybe to some it is beyond their capabilities?)

Of course, if certain ones (no names mentioned!) still want to continue denying the obvious, then that is their problem.

Bill.

492

607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury in

if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

Bungi Bill

This is the main reason that I finally broke with the WTS:

- i.e. being more and more placed in a position of having to try and defend the indefensible.

All one has to do in order to realize the 607 BC date is wrong is to:

(i) Read what WTS literature itself says about the reigns of the five last Babylonian kings.

(ii) Then count backwards from what the WTS calls that "Absolute Date" - 539 BC.

1) Nabonidus, reigned 17 years i.e. 556 - 539 (WT 68 8/15 p.491)

2) Labashi-Marduk, reigned "less than one year" i.e. 556 (WT 65 1/1 p.29)

3) Neriglassar, reigned 4 years i.e. 560 - 556 (WT 65 1/1 p.29)

4) Evil-Merodach, reigned 2 years i.e. 562 - 560 (WT 65 1/1 p.29)

5) Nebuchadnezzar, reigned 43 years i.e. 605 - 562 (WT 00 5/5 p.12)

According to 2 Kings 25: 2,8 Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed during Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of reign - according to the 607 BC date, Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed two years before his accession to the throne!

The Watchtower article of January 1, 1965 in particular mentions nothing about an extra (or kings) between Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus. All one has to do is count backwards, which is not diffcult!

Once more, as in many other matters, it is the WTS's own literature that shoots them in the foot.

(Realizing, of course, that this is not going to bother the more blinkered JW diehards - which, sad to say, constitutes most of them. In the end, it all comes down to "God is using only one channel, which is the FDS, and this is what they say .......... etc. etc. etc - all without one shred of evidence in support).

It would all be quite laughable - except so many people have been badly hurt taking this denial of the obvious seriously!

Bill.

68

Is there a correlation between personality type and leaving the WT?...

by Tuesday in

jw
friends

on facebook tonight there was a post asking to take a personality test, in posting the personality tests a trend started emerging that certain personality types seem to leave around the same time.. i came out as an intj which is introverted intuitive thinking judging.

which a good paragraph describing it was:.

intjs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "does it work?

Bungi Bill

INTJ

According to Keirsey, "Only ideas that make sense to them are adopted."

In my case, that statement (at least) is certainly relevant:

- as time went on, I became increasingly frustrated with trying to make something work that was never going to work; and by extension, becoming more and more frustrated at having to try and defend the indefensible.

Bill.