Sorry missed out the hyphon, www.jehovah-witnesses.net/280517/1.
Bart Belteshassur
JoinedPosts by Bart Belteshassur
-
17
help needed....cult question from watchtower
by goingthruthemotions inso i was looking at the boards not too long ago and saw a list of questions that were related to whether or not a religion was a cult that looked like it came from the watchtower.
i've been trying to find those questions again so i could find the watchtower and hopefully one day show this to my wife who is still asleep to the troof of the gb.. .
the help would be greatly appreciated.. .
-
-
-
17
help needed....cult question from watchtower
by goingthruthemotions inso i was looking at the boards not too long ago and saw a list of questions that were related to whether or not a religion was a cult that looked like it came from the watchtower.
i've been trying to find those questions again so i could find the watchtower and hopefully one day show this to my wife who is still asleep to the troof of the gb.. .
the help would be greatly appreciated.. .
-
-
Bart Belteshassur
GTTM - 2months ago www.jehovahwitness.net/280517/1 .
-
100
Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?
by Bart Belteshassur ini haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.
in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.
once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.
-
-
Bart Belteshassur
Jeffro - If neither the author of Ezra and Esdras, and Josephus are all in error as to the throne names, but relate them to the correct period in the time, what starting point are we supposed to use. My question must be which Darius is refered to in Haggai, and which Artaxerxes relates to Nehemaih's decree, and which Artaxerxes relates to Ezra?
AnnO, same question for you if you wish.
I am not looking for an answer that is reliant on assumption, or inspiration, the Biblical and historic evidence should be enough however as the last few pages of this discussion have shown, Ezra, Esdras and Josephus can not be the point at which to start, can it?
BB
-
100
Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?
by Bart Belteshassur ini haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.
in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.
once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.
-
-
Bart Belteshassur
AnnO - Is that the offical WT view of Ezra 4? If that is the case that the narrative of chapter3 and at some point in 4 are disconected. Ezra 4:7 onwards then as it does not mention the temple could be applied to Artaxerxes I, and there would be no need to complicate the chronology by inventing new throne names for Cambyses/Ahasuerus and Bardiya/Artaxerxes. So why would the WT bother to do it?
Jeffro - Which bible do you prefer to believe the Hebrew or the Greek, Josephus is following the LXX, with Artaxerxes. That may be because there is no evidence that Esther was part of the Hebrew cannon in the late 1st-early 2nd century. He also indenfies the king at the time of Ezra's commission as Xerxes, as it is given in the LXX as Arthasastha. I would tend to except the older reference, and as Esther is missing from the Dead Sea canon it places Josephus, and the Lxx older than the Hebrew I believe
It is also interesting to note that Josephus places the events of Ezra 3 in the reign of Darius as do I in parralell with Haggai.
AnnO - If you argue for a disconect in the chrono of 4, then under the same reasoning 2and 3 and early part of 4, can be just as disconected to the reign of Darius and note Cyrus
-
100
Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?
by Bart Belteshassur ini haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.
in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.
once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.
-
-
Bart Belteshassur
Jeffro - Can you give me a reference in Josephus were he equates Cambyses to Artaxerxes, I can only find two refs, one is Artaxerxes I, and he later refs another Artaxerxes which is either II, or III?
BB
-
100
Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?
by Bart Belteshassur ini haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.
in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.
once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.
-
-
Bart Belteshassur
AnnO - I am making the point that in the second year of their coming is when the letter to Aterxexes was written which as you suggest is between the 4th and 7th months of 522BCE. It therefore follows that the return of this group must have been the year before 523BCE, as the chrono from ch2 runs through 3 and 4 as the WT must claim I assume. If not why identify Ahasuerus as Cambyses and Atraxerxes as Bardiya, there would appear to be little point.
Outsider of la la land I agree with the idea tha t there would have been little time to contact Bardiya, even if they know he was the man to contact. It would be far more likely that those in Jerusalem would have known of Cambyses death before those in Elam, and that Darius was on his way back to Babylon to claim the crown, having been in Egypt with Cambyses when he died, if memory serve correctly.
BB
-
100
Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?
by Bart Belteshassur ini haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.
in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.
once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.
-
-
Bart Belteshassur
It appears unlikely that Cambyses would feel threatened by the building of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. In the Elephantine papyri P13495 the writer states that "when Cambyses came to Egypt he found it constructed (the Jewish temple). They (the persians)knocked downall the temples of the Egyptian gods; but no one damaged this temple."
Therefore Cambyses evidently respected the Jewish temples and their faith. Just a quick comment from the sand pit of..........
BB
-
19
Where did Russell steal 606/7 BCE from ?
by Phizzy inthis is something i have wondered about, and our great poster stillin posed the question on another thread .
russell get the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 606/7 bce?
(he adjusted 606 to 607 when it was pointed out there was no year "0").. as in the main a plagiarist, rather than an original thinker, i guess he got it from someone else ?.
-
-
Bart Belteshassur
I have not got access to Aquilla Brown's bible (it was a very old copy I had for a while) but if memory serves correctly the chrono that Brown used was Usher and this gives the date of the fall of Babylon was in 536 BCE. So Russell worked it out from the fall of Bab, the WT had to discridit this in 1942, as by then everyone accepted that Bab fell in 539 BCE. If they had continued to follow Russell explaination but converted to the new figure Jerusalem would have fallen in 609 BCE, that no good as they wanted to prove 1914. To much had been written relative to 1914 and thats why their explaination is so defective.
BB
-
19
Where did Russell steal 606/7 BCE from ?
by Phizzy inthis is something i have wondered about, and our great poster stillin posed the question on another thread .
russell get the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 606/7 bce?
(he adjusted 606 to 607 when it was pointed out there was no year "0").. as in the main a plagiarist, rather than an original thinker, i guess he got it from someone else ?.
-
-
Bart Belteshassur
Sorry I meant Russell did NOT.
BB
-
19
Where did Russell steal 606/7 BCE from ?
by Phizzy inthis is something i have wondered about, and our great poster stillin posed the question on another thread .
russell get the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 606/7 bce?
(he adjusted 606 to 607 when it was pointed out there was no year "0").. as in the main a plagiarist, rather than an original thinker, i guess he got it from someone else ?.
-
-
Bart Belteshassur
Russell did make a foux pas in his calution at all. That is a fallacy that the WT put out. He was aware of Millars error regarding 1843, and although he calculated the date from 536 start point he states that as the Jewish year started in the October then the beginning of 1915 was actually Oct 1914. The original complilation of BS came from Brown in the early 1820's I think, but it is likely that Miller used his cals in some way. Russell adapted much of Millers calcs by useing different numbers from Daniel thus adding 30 years to Miller's date of 1844 and arriving at 1874 or as he saw it Oct 1873. This and numerous other calcs, including Pizza Smyth's pyrimid deductions lead him to Oct 1914. Hope that helps.
BB