Posts by Bart Belteshassur

19

Where did Russell steal 606/7 BCE from ?

by Phizzy in

this 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

19

weird: passing around literature fragments in prison

by Magnum in

i dont have any specific references, but over the years i remember reading in the mags and hearing in talks stories of imprisoned jws who would somehow get a piece of a page of a jw magazine or an article or something like that and pass it around and get spiritually nourished by it as if it almost had a magical or supernatural nature.

does anybody else remember such?.

i always thought it just didnt make sense.

Bart Belteshassur

Was this to do with those who were detained during WW1, for printing subversive literature, and objectors which explains why it had to be smuggled.

BB

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i 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 - The return in 523BCE is based on the narrative of chapter 4. It would be rediculus to suggest that the chapter is written in complete chronological order, than can not be the understanding or there would be little need to introduce Cambyses and Bardiya into the chronology at this point. Ez 4:4 to 6 has to be a comment on the past and the narrative of Ez 4:1-3; 7 onwards relates to the current descriptive narrative. As this is regarded as a letter to Bardiya it can only be placed between 2nd and 8th month of Acc Darius, 522BCE, and the second year of Zerubabbel's return. If this is not the way it is intended to be understood what is the point in detailing the letter as it does not achieve any further understanding and could lead to confussion. It must be placed to explain the outcome when the complaint was considered from Ez 4:1-3, and why the work was further halted until the 2nd year of Darius.

The work on the foundation could well have started in the reign of Cyrus under Sheshazzar but as Ezra gives no date and fails to address the issue this is an arguement from silence, and pure speculation.

How can Sheshazzar be Zerubabbel? In Ezra 5:14 the reply detailed in the letter to Darius shows that Zerubbabel himself speaks of Sheshazzar in the third person, if it had been him, he or the older men would have named him, as Darius had evidently made Zerubbabel governer by the 2nd year of his reign, and to use his own name in this context would give far more authority to the statement than to use a name which Darius may have been unfamiliar.

BB

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i 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

Meanwhile back in the sand pit.............

If the JW hisorty states that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 and 8 is Bardiya, then it follows that as chapters 2,3 and 4 are a continuation of each other that the first year of the returnees who come with Zerubbabel must have been 523 BCE at which time the foundation was laid and then halted. Evidently of the narrative we can asume that Sheshazzar had continued as governer throughout the reign of Cyrus, and Cambyses,however the work could not get started due to complaints,and was still governer at the time the foundation was laid in 522BCE, as this work was initially attributed to him at Ezra 5:16, although Zerubbabel organized the work. Zerubbabel became governer sometime before the sixth month 520BCE.

Therefore Ezra chapter 2 can not be used to date the return of the Jews exiles that came with Sheshazzar the details of which are unknown, and as shown above the first building of the alter took place seventh month 522BCE Acc Darius. With no fixed date for a return there can be no date calculated for the start of the seventy years.

Now we shall continue with the adult conversation.LOL.

BB

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i 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 - Sorry, I should have quoted Theile or Mcfall, got my wires crossed somewhere. So I should have done the Jubilee proof to 587 instead, but as I said it is a little more complicated and would be outside of WT doctrine regarding Cyrus. I take on board the point re WT view on Ezra, hard to get around that given that constraint.

BB

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i 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

Terry - Asking Siri is evidently a waste of time it only knows what it has been told, if I ask the WT instead they would say 607, if I ask AnnOmally she will tell me 586. So is this method of any use ? I now have three different dates. The easy method has got me nowhere. I hope you don't rely on Siri for all your knowledge I don't think it will get you very far. Interest it throughs up Jehovah's Judgement if Siri could read that it would answer 607 and not 587, just goes to prove Siri is a very unreliable source doesn't it.

Do you have a view on my original question regards the 70 year Jerusalem question?

BB

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i 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

Terry - If the me paid $30 but it should have been $25, if they only got $3 back then they paid $28 and the Bell Boy had $2. I don't get your point, it's just your maths is wrong? Is what your example showing is that if you twist the truth you can make it incomprehensable to those who are not sharp enough to see the stupidity of your methadology?

Haven't checked the rest of posts yet but I will give it further consideration,

BB

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i 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

Terry - I agree that the reference to the 70 years apply to Kings of Babylon in Jeremiah 25, but could you not argue that in Jer 29 it can equally apply to Jerusalem, and same can be said of Leviticus 26, without doubt that is what Daniel states in ch 9. Interestingly that is also implied in Haggai and Zechariah that there is a double meaning in 2 Chrono 36 19-21 which ties in with Daniel , and Lev 26. How would see it in that context?

BB

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i 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 - Silly me, I forgot than in la la land when history does not agree the the NWT and WT truth, then just make it up, oh the intellect they show!!!

Good points thuogh apart from that, thanks.

Jeffro - Is that the WT view on it? I am sure they wouldn't use Jopheus though, that would leave them open to his contraditions of 607? It is possible because they will quote Jopheus were he does not contradict them, however they miss represent his context.

And meanwhile back in the real world, the Ezra/Nehemiah scroll contains much that we could debate primarily whether Nehemiah came to Jerusalem before Ezra which is the I would tend to go.

BB

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i 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 Haggai, during the 2nd year of Darius, claims that Jehovah states that his house is still a waste whilst the returnees have build their own own homes 1:9. This shows that the returnees have made no effort to build his house but have built their own instead, and planted crops which Jehovah with held the dew from. He continues to say that Jehovah then rouse up the spirit of Zerubbabel and Joshua and all the people and then they began the work on his house. This indicates that this was the first they did any work on the house, other wise he would have said continued.

This is made clear by Jehovah's statement at 2:15 from the 24th/9th/2nd " from this day forward, before there was the placing of a stone upon a stone in the temple". No work had been done no stone on stone, unti the foundation stone was laid on that day 2:18.

From Haggai it is clear that work on the temple started in the second year of Darius for the first time.

I agree with you that Ezra 3:8 links directly with 3:1,6, however Ezra does not state that the event after chapter 1 were during the reign Cyrus they are in fact undated and therefore we must look elsewhere for the date, but he does states that the returnees of chapter 2 did not include Sheshbazzar the govener, in those lead by Zerubbabel, but again Ezra does not tell us his capacity, which agrees with their later arrival , and Haggai.

As regards chapter 4 the chronology is a mess due to very poor redaction, and I do not know how this viewed in WT land. However what is clear is that 4: 1-4 follows the chrono of Haggai. As Sheshbazzar was made governer by Cyrus Ezra 5:14, why do the adversaries of 4:1-2 speak to Zerubbabel and not Sheshbazzar, this does make perfect sense though if this happens when Zerubbabel is governer as sated at Haggai 2:21.

(1 Esdras from the LXX gives a much better understanding of the true timing of events.)

I take your point regarding the second arguement re the Jubilee, but it does work and is more justified for 587 if the laws regarding release from Deuteronomy are applied for an exact timing, pointless to use that here as you say the 586 basic explaination is complicated enough.

Thanks for your input thus far,

BB