kepler

Joined

• started 52 topics
• posted 552 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by kepler

• 
  10

  Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914

  by kepler in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a rube-goldberg based prophesying formula, i had mentioned a couple of historical leads i thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way.

  explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead.

  but nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century americana, there might be some insight after all.. theologian albert barnes (17981870) graduated from hamilton college, clinton, new york, in 1820, and from princeton theological seminary in 1823. barnes was ordained as a presbyterian minister by the presbytery of elizabethtown, new jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the presbyterian church in morristown, new jersey (18251830), and of the first presbyterian church of philadelphia (18301867).. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  AnnOmaly,

  Observations by you and OG about 607 BC vs. 606 acknowledged. I don't see much point on my part to insist on the year. But there is still the question of two decades differences between Russell and a source such as Barnes for II Kings. In the table above, I did not include the authors since the publisher claimed it was across the board Albert Barnes and James Murphy.

  What would still be a matter of interest is this: Scholarship or general knowledge in the 19th century would point to a specific date or dates for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonians. The example I provided indicated that the Barnes series of books provided a date, but it was published in 1879. The date for the event in Daniel was published in a volume in 1851.

  Now going from there, it would make sense to me to examine what was the consensus at the time and why? Did Darby say the temple's destruction was at either of these dates? Is there another well known writer of that era that made a call? My argument for Barnes was that his books were in wide circulation. An Adventist or Millerite publication is valid up to a point. But that does not necessarily mean that was a consensus among historians; nor more than say among astronomers there was a consensus that Mars was covered by canals because Percival Lowell had claimed to obseve them.

  You also mentioned the 70 year desolation argument. I am coming up to speed on this. My first reaction to this was that 70-year declarations amounted to circular reasoning. A prophet predicted something - and therefore because an individual was a prophet it had to happen. Is Jeremiah 25:11-12 a valid citation for this argument?

  "I shall curse them with utter destruction and make them an object of horror, of scorn ... and this whole country will be enslaved to the king of Babylon for seventy years. (But when thaat seventy years are over, I shall punish the king of Babylon and that nation, Yahweh declares, for the wrong they have done, that is the country of the Chaldeans, and make it desolate forever)and against that country I shall perform all the words which I have threatened it.."

  The portion in parentheses in the NJB notes some difference in Greek and Hebrew versions. In the NWT the same idea remains, however, though the translation is a little more gibberish.

  I better understand now the insistence of the pamphlet , "What the Bible Really Teaches" that Cyrus had marched into Babylon and destroyed the city like Sennacherib had done.

  But reading this, just like in Isaiah, I would call a good portion of the prophecy FAILED. The Watchtower built doctrines on scripture passages of prophecy that are demonstrably false by recorded history. Babylon prospered under the Persians and it remanined one of their principal cities or capitals. Alexander chose it as his capital for world empire and died there. Half wrong at best and questionable for the rest. How can the source foundation for the 70-year desolation prophecy proceed on the basis of being absolutely half right?
• 
  36

  If Serena wins gold, will she stand for the US Anthem?

  by Open mind in

  1. social
  2. physical

  they're playing right now and serena is ahead 6-0, 5-1.. .

  thoughts?.

  om.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  Seeing Serena on or off the court would make my day.

  But refresh my memory: Who invented the Olympics?

  Does Jehovah like the Olympics more than Christmas?

  Or is it that every time they come up, they figure it will be the last one? Four more year! ... Request denied.

  Or is it simply that the Olympics haven't risen over the horizon of the folks at Patterson?

  Let 'em sleep.
• 
  23

  1904 and Russell taken to task for 606 BCE...calling you brainiacs!

  by Aussie Oz in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  while cruising through the oct 1 1904 watctower i found this interesting challenge to russells 606 date.

  his response in part is also pasted from the wt, but goes on to a very lengthy argument that seems to avoid all the known facts.

  not being very good at understaning the issue at all, i wonder what those here more scholarly than i might make of his full reply.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  Diamondiz,

  Seventy years. Are we wandering too far afield in discussing this or are we keeping our eyes on the ball?

  If it is fair game to bring up 70-year desolations, enjoinders or penalty conditions, then I'd say, the plot thickens. ---

  It is described here and elsewhere how the“70 year desolation” of Jerusalem was looking for a place to land based on its “prophecy” a priori by Jeremiah.

  So if Jeremiah prophesied it, it must have happened, right? And, I presume, if Jeremiah prophesied Babylon’s destruction, it must have happened as well.

  In an earlier topic and post “Impact on the receiving end of What the Bible Really Teaches”, I had asked rhetorically:

  Is it necessarily a matter of faith that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Babylon was destroyed by Jehovah as a punishment? Is it also necessary that we come to understand Jehovah as an adjunct to Assyrian culture and politcal philosophy? Is that the sort of consolation and glad tidings from the Gospel that we should seek, that we are as one with the Assyrians? What is this all about?

  ----

  In investigating all this, one of the fascinating finds I came across was a brief paper by the University of Chicago Assyrianologist D. D. Luckenbill.

  The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Apr.,1925), pp. 165-173Published by: The University of Chicago:

  The Black Stone of Esarhaddon

  To quote D. D. Luckenbill:

  The seventy years of the Exile have given Old Testament scholars a great deal of difficulty. They are hard to fit into any chronological scheme, and do not go well with a forty-year period suggested by Ezek. 4:6. Perhaps our Esarhaddon text suggests a way out.

  I shall quote a few passages from the Old Testament which would seem to indicate that seventy years was a perfectly proper period for an ancient oriental city to lie desolate:

  “And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith Jehovah, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it [Babylon] desolate forever” [Jer. 25:12].

  “For thus saith Jehovah, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place [Jer. 29:10]”. ....

  “To fulfil the word of Jehovah by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths: for as long as it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years [II Chron. 36:21 f.].”

  #.. . In the first year of his [Darius']reign I , Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years whereby the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years [Dan. 9:2].

  ================

  On that last quote, I spent some time examining the assertion of Dan. 9:1 in another topic. No one seems to know who Darius the Mede was except Thucydides, but he was talking about the monarch who was invading Greece in the 480s BC. In the History of thePeloponnesian War, he identifies the Persians, if not exclusively as Medes 50 times and frets about Greeks becoming “Medized”.

  But let it also be noted that in the same passage that Jeremiah predicts a 70 year penalty for Jerusalem, he throws the book at Babylon, to be immediately in effect after return to Jerusalem.

  When I was visited and instructed by delegations of Jehovah’s Witnesses at my home, we conducted our studies based on the pamphlet “What the Bible Really Teaches”. As a result of reading this booklet carefully, almost immediately I came to believe that I was being manipulated and deceived.

  In the sections discussing the downfall of Babylonian rulers to the Persians, I was led to believe by the text and the selected Bible verses that Jehovah had utterly destroyed Babylon in 538 BC for wicked deeds performed by the reigning king. …

  Despite what is depicted in “What the Bible Really Teaches” on pages 23-24, I can find no evidence that Cyrus destroyed Babylon. To the contrary, cuneiform accounts relate that he was warmly received there. Babylonian and Persian records on clay tablets and stone before and after make that quite clear. Alexander liked it enough that he had selected it as his capital and died there in the fourth century. What destruction there was of Babylon was almost exactly 100 years before Nebuchadnezzar brought down Jerusalem. This was the result of an attack by Sennacherib, the same Assyrian monarch who had besieged Jerusalem in Isaiah’s time.

  Strangely enough the expected 70 year desolation period for Babylon (not Jerusalem) decreed by Sennacherib was revoked by his son Esarhaddon in a ceremony also recorded in stone, recovered and translated by Assyrianologist Luckenbill and others. The destruction is well recorded and Isaiah’s reference to it in the pamphlet Isaiah 14:22-23 (its flooding) is edited out in “What the Bible Really Teaches” so one can’t spot the connection. It is hard to interpret this omission as anything other than deliberate deception about the events.

  D. D. Luckenbill in the above paper, translated the Black Stone of Esarhaddon and its description of the rescinding of the sentence of 70 year desolation. The stone, residing in the British Museum is dated to the accession year of the Assyrian monarch Esarhaddon, son and successor to Sennacherib.

  Line (incomplete notation) Line

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  12 [70 ] sanate mi-nu-ut 12 Seventy years as the period

  13 ni-du-ti-su is-tur-ma 13 of its desolation he (Marduk) wrote down ( in the

  Book of Fate)

  14 ri-mi-nu-u d Marduk 14 But the merciful Marduk

  15 sur-ris lib-ba-su i-nu-uh ma 15 in a moment his heart was at rest (appeased)

  16 e-lis a-na sap-lis 16 turned it (the book) upside down

  17 us-bal-kit 17 and for the eleventh year

  18 sanate a-sab-su ik-bi 18 ordered its restoration

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The last line of the Black Stone inscription shows the nature of the document:

  “The sons of Babylon, who had been brought to servitude, who had been apportioned to the yoke and the fetter, I gathered together and accounted them Babylonians. Their freedom anew I established. The Black Stone contains the city's charter.”

  A full translation of the text was to appear in D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (1926–27).

  And when Esarhaddon’s remedy of his father’s desolation decree for Babylon is rescinded, it becomes clear that Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s insistence on 70 year desolations is a cultural inheritance from Assyria. Esarhaddon had a high priest read the 70 year desolation decree on Babylon upside down so that it read as an effective sentence of 11 years.

  I find abundant evidence in history that Babylon continued as a thriving city for centuries. Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon record many events there and Persian cuneiform records address events in the city without any significant interruption.

  In fact, the only evidence I see of a destruction of Babylon in accordance with prophetic utterances by Isaiah in chapters 13 and 14 was a destruction that included flooding in the year 689 BC. This was undertaken not by the Persians or Medes but Isaiah’s contemporary the Assyrian King Sennacherib. Are the authors of the pamphlet aware of this? I noticed that in quoting Isaiah 14:21-22

  “… Never again must they rise to conquer the world and cover the face of the earth with their cities.

  I will rise against them declares Yahweh Sabaoth, and deprive Babylon of name, remnant, offspring and posterity, declares Yahweh…”

  The pamphlet stops short of quoting Isaiah about how Babylon was turned into a swamp as a result of Jehovah’s wrath.

  “I shall turn it into the haunt of hedgehogs, a swamp. I shall sweep it with the broom of destruction, declares Yahweh Sabaoth.”

  ------------------

  I had missed the double desolation reference in Jeremiah 25:12 until now. Leaving it at that, I'll let someone else explain how it is absolutely half right.
• 
  10

  Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914

  by kepler in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a rube-goldberg based prophesying formula, i had mentioned a couple of historical leads i thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way.

  explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead.

  but nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century americana, there might be some insight after all.. theologian albert barnes (17981870) graduated from hamilton college, clinton, new york, in 1820, and from princeton theological seminary in 1823. barnes was ordained as a presbyterian minister by the presbytery of elizabethtown, new jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the presbyterian church in morristown, new jersey (18251830), and of the first presbyterian church of philadelphia (18301867).. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  AnnOmaly,

  RE: "Barnes was more in tune with the conventional chronology. Speculation and scriptural number crunching..."

  Perhaps I should clarify. I am not suggesting that Barnes' work was full of such speculations ( though I certainly haven't checked near enough pages to verify that either). What I am saying is that when either Barbour or Russell sought a foundation for their speculations, they were reliant on sources available in 19th century America - or in Barbour's case England. And dates of publication for the Barnes volumes made speculation based on exposition of verses in Daniel more readily available than II Kings.

  In seeking answers for other matters you raised, I noticed that Darby and other Millerite sources are available on line. I'll leave examination of those sources to someone else. This is headache enough.

  Regarding "Chuck the Trucker's error", I don't think I should demean him in any way for coming to the same conclusion that Charles Taze Russell did. Whether they arrived at their conclusion via the same route, I do not have enough information to verify. Had I been given the same task five or ten years ago and working in a vacuum, I might have drawn the same initial conclusion. It is implied though that just everybody knows the difference between Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin... Maybe it was in your mind, but little in our previous Daniel discussion made that distinction clear either. Any credence I gave the date in Daniel 1:1 came not from reading the Bible but an archeologist discussing Babylonian records. Even the text of Daniel itself, though, would lead the reader to assume that Daniel was taken away in one of the two later sieges. If the chronology were understood as suggested ( early 600s), then Daniel looks like Marshall Petain.

  Circumstances under which Chuck the Trucker and Chuck the Huckster drew their conclusions seem remarkably similar. And 21st century Chuck is just as adamant as the one from a century ago.

  RE: "Barnes did not publish II Kings...

  Here is the on line source.

  http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/barnes/kg2025.htm

  4 Kings (2 Kings) 25:8

  kg2 25:8

  The nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar - 586 B.C., if we count from the real date of his accession (604 B.C.); but 587 B.C., if, with the Jews, we regard him as beginning to reign when he was sent by his father to recover Syria and gained the battle of Carchemish (in 605 B.C.).

  ----------------------

  The site itself is a mish-mash of sacred texts and commentaries free of copyright limitations, but I have no ready answer for your claim about F.C. Cook, seeing no mention of Cook there either. The publishing history provided above was derived from another on-line source. Are you saying that Barnes said or would have said something else? Or that nothing about 2 Kings in that era was ever attributed to Barnes at all?

  ---

  Here is some additional discussion of Nelso Barbour from various sources.

  ----------- From one source related to CT Russell biographical data: http://www.pastor-russell.com/misc/barbour.html Nelson Homer Barbour, (1824-1908) a "Millerite" Adventist born in Toupsville, New York USA, is best known for his association with Charles Taze Russell from 1876 through 1881. After several years of wavering faith following the "Great Disappointment" of 1844 he began to study the Bible with the aid of numerous scholarly works that were newly emerging in the mid-19th century. He published his own work in 1869, entitled Evidences for the Coming of the Lord in 1873, or The Midnight Cry. It went through several editions. ... Little is known about his private life other than what was printed in the newspaper biography:

  The Rochester Union and Advertiser for October 5, 1895, (all spelling is as appears in article)

  Nelson H. Barbour was born at Toupsville, three miles from Auburn, N. Y., in 1824. At an early age the family moved to Cobocton, Stueben County, N. Y. From the age of 15 to 18, he attended school at Temple Hill Academy, Genseco, New York; at which place he united with the Methodist Episcopal Church, and began a preparation for the ministry under elder Ferris. Having been brought up among Presbyterians, however, and having an investigating turn of mind, instead of quietly learning Methodist theology he troubled his teacher with questions of election, universal salvation, and many other subjects, until it was politely hinted that he was more likely to succeed in life as a farmer than as a clergyman. But his convictions were strong that he must preach the gospel even if he could not work in any theological harness. And at 19, he began his life work as an independent preacher. ...Mr. Barbour believes that what he denominated the present babel of confusion in the churches is the result of false teaching and the literal interpretation of the parables.

  The Church of the Strangers was organized in 1879. Mr. Barbour has preached in England, in several Australian colonies, in Canada, and many states of the Union. For the past twenty-two years he has published the Herald of the Morning in this city; claiming that in his 'call' to preach, he confered not with flesh and blood. Nor was he called to convert the world; but independent of creed, to search for the truth 'as it is in Jesus,' the 'second man Adam,' believing that the restored faith is a precurser of the millenium and 'Times of restitution of all things.'"

  A somewhat different description of Barbour's life is given in the Wikipedia:

  Barbour was introduced to Millerism through the efforts of a Mr. Johnson who lectured at Geneseo, in the winter of 1842. Barbour associated with other Millerites living in that area. ..

  Adventists in the Geneseo area met in Springwater to await the second coming in 1843. Their disappointment was profound, and Barbour suffered a crisis of faith. ..

  Barbour abandoned his faith. He pursued a medical career, becoming a medical electrician, a therapist who treated disease through the application of electric current, which was seen as a valid therapy in those days.

  He left for Australia to prospect for Gold, returning via London in 1859. There is some evidence that he preached on occasion while in Australia. A ship-board discussion with a clergyman reactivated his interest in Bible prophecy. He consulted books on prophetic themes at the British Library and became convinced that 1873 would mark the return of Christ. This was not a new speculation but had been advanced by others at least as early as 1823.
• 
  23

  1904 and Russell taken to task for 606 BCE...calling you brainiacs!

  by Aussie Oz in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  while cruising through the oct 1 1904 watctower i found this interesting challenge to russells 606 date.

  his response in part is also pasted from the wt, but goes on to a very lengthy argument that seems to avoid all the known facts.

  not being very good at understaning the issue at all, i wonder what those here more scholarly than i might make of his full reply.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  Just put together some analysis for a related topic...

  Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914
• 
  10

  Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914

  by kepler in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a rube-goldberg based prophesying formula, i had mentioned a couple of historical leads i thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way.

  explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead.

  but nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century americana, there might be some insight after all.. theologian albert barnes (17981870) graduated from hamilton college, clinton, new york, in 1820, and from princeton theological seminary in 1823. barnes was ordained as a presbyterian minister by the presbytery of elizabethtown, new jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the presbyterian church in morristown, new jersey (18251830), and of the first presbyterian church of philadelphia (18301867).. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  In the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a Rube-Goldberg based prophesying formula, I had mentioned a couple of historical leads I thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way. Explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead. But nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century Americana, there might be some insight after all.

  Theologian Albert Barnes (1798–1870) graduated from Hamilton College, Clinton, New York, in 1820, and from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1823. Barnes was ordained as a Presbyterian minister by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey (1825–1830), and of the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia (1830–1867).

  He held a prominent place in the New School branch of the Presbyterians during the Old School-New School Controversy, to which he adhered on the division of the denomination in 1837. In 1836, he had been tried (but not convicted) for heresy, mostly due to the views he expressed in Notes on Romans of the imputation of the sin of Adam, original sin and the atonement; the bitterness stirred up by this trial contributed towards widening the breach between the conservative and the progressive elements in the church. He was an eloquent preacher, but his reputation rests chiefly on his expository works, which are said to have had a larger circulation both in Europe and America than any others of their class. Of the well-known Notes on the New Testament, it is said that more than a million volumes had been issued by 1870. The Notes on Job, the Psalms, Isaiah and Daniel were also popularly distributed. The popularity of these works rested on how Barnes simplified Biblical criticism so that new developments in the field were made accessible to the general public.

  What is significant here is that prior to Russell's publishing career, Albert Barnes had been a national figure for his sermons and a series of books that eventually interpreted or provided commentary on nearly every line of scripture, about 10,000 pages in all. Unlike Russell or Barbour, Barnes had knowledge of Biblical languages, which he provided in the text - and access to some of the best libraries in the country (e.g., Princeton). Much of Barbour's digging around was in Australia - literally mining. And Russell, though he seems to be a good grammarian, probably would not feel very encumbered by his organization's current day attitude toward higher education. In court appearances in Canada prior to the war, it was demonstrated he was absolutely ignorant of either Greek or Hebrew.

  Thus, it was said that a 17-volume set of commentaries on nearly every verse of the Bible prepared over several decades; and that the work is filled with cross references to other verses and exegetical texts, u sed by ministers across the country to prepare sermons and originating with Dr. Barnes’ lectures to his Bible study classes. The books were purchased and read by maybe millions of American churchgoers

  So, my point here is that although Barnes was not responsible for any of the conclusions drawn and might not even been aware of either Barbour or Russell, his series of books probably were a source for the two Millerite's speculations. Moreover, once the Watchtower Society was institutional, Barnes' Bible Notes, full encyclopedic editions, was a fixture supporting the writing department. It was in one of Ray Franz's two books where he noted that either his uncle Fred or predecessor Knorr ordered the books to be kept off desks and in the drawers or covered shelves.

  During the last year, I met a trucker and retired railroad engineer who lives on a boat by the bay. He was setting up a website with ancient history chronologies where he relied greatly on Barnes. As a result of discussions from time to time, he decided to give me a preview look. I have to say that he is the ONLY other instance I have ever encountered beside the Jehovah’s Witnesses who claimed that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in 607 BC. Chuck Based based this assertion on a Barnes citation. I tracked down Barnes to find out why or how he came up with that and here is what it says.

  Daniel 1:1

  In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem - This event occurred, according to Jahn ("History of the Hebrew Commonwealth"), in the year 607 b.c., and in the 368th year after the revolt of the ten tribes. According to Usher, it was in the 369th year of the revolt, and 606 b.c. The computation of Usher is the one generally received, but the difference of a year in the reckoning is not material. Compare Michaelis, Anmerkung, zu 2 Kon. xxiv. 1. Jehoiakim was a son of Josiah, a prince who was distinguished for his piety, Kings2 22:2; Chronicles2 35:1-7. After the death of Josiah, the people raised to the throne of Judah Jehoahaz, the youngest son of Josiah, probably because he appeared better qualified to reign than his elder brother, Kg2 23:30; Ch2 36:1. He was a wicked prince, and after he had been on the throne three months, he was removed by Pharaoh-Nechoh, king of Egypt, who returned to Jerusalem from the conquest of Phoenicia, and placed his elder brother, Eliakim, to whom he gave the name of Jehoiakim, on the throne, Kg2 23:34; Ch2 36:4.

  -----

  He speaks of Nebuchadnazzar but nothing of king Zedekiah. But now look at what he says for

  2 Kings 25:8 the verse being

  On the seventh day of the fifth month in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.

  The nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar - 586 B.C., if we count from the real date of his accession (604 B.C.); but 587 B.C., if, with the Jews, we regard him as beginning to reign when he was sent by his father to recover Syria and gained the battle of Carchemish (in 605 B.C.).

  On that day (verse 9 NJB)“He burned down the Temple of Yahweh, the royal palaces and all the houses in Jerusalem.”

  -------------------

  I thought that that was pretty much the end of the story until I discovered that the encyclopedic Barnes set was published over several decades, some of it post-humously. The New Testament notes came out all together in 1884-85. But beside the dates, it is interesting to contemplate which books of the Bible were given "priority" and the greatest amounts of commentary.

  From the 21st century, one assumes that the whole 10,000 page opus suddenly appeared. But it didn't.

  Title: Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testaments (26 vols.)

  Authors: Albert Barnes and James Murphy Pages: 10,715

  Title Publisher Date Pages

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------

  Genesis Eates and Lauriate 1873 540

  Exodus to Ruth John Murray 1879 480

  I Samuel to Esther John Murray 1879 510

  Job, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1847 384

  Job, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1847 339

  Psalms, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1870–1872 480

  Psalms, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1870–1872 450

  Psalms, Volume 3 Blackie & Son 1870–1872 410

  Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,

  Jeremiah, & Ezekiel John Murray 1879 423

  Isaiah, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1851 513

  Isaiah, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1851 446

  Daniel, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1853 336

  Daniel, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1853 310

  Minor Prophets, Vol. 1: Hosea to Jonah Funk & Wagnalls 1885 427

  Minor Prophets, Vol. 2: Micah to Malachi Funk & Wagnalls 1885 504

  Matthew and Mark Blackie & Son 1884–1885 416

  Luke and John Blackie & Son 1884–1885 415

  Acts Blackie & Son 1884–1885 400

  Romans Blackie & Son 1884–1885 344

  I Corinthians Blackie & Son 1884–1885 350

  II Corinthians and Galatians Blackie & Son 1884–1885 400

  Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians Blackie & Son 1884–1885 288

  I Thessalonians to Philemon Blackie & Son 1884–1885 316

  Hebrews Blackie & Son 1884–1885 328

  James to Jude Blackie & Son 1884–1885 406

  Revelation Blackie & Son 1884–1885 496

  My own prejudice in these matters is that if Christianity is Chrstrianity, then a hierarchy of study would start with the Gospels and Epistles and then work its way toward examining more minor books. The Old Testament, as I learned late in life, has a hierarchy provided by Jewish scholarship of Law, Prophets and Writings, but I can see that it has long been largely ignored in my part of the world. While Roman Catholics are likely to read the same scriptures over and over again as part of the year's liturgy, Protestants (which I have spent some as being raised as as well) tend to treat all writing in the OT as equal in standing.

  But in addition to all that, when one considers what Barnes volumes were available to Barbour and Russell when they set out on their determinations of when Christ would return, the volume addressing when Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple was ruined was yet to be published. Russell and Barbour could read all they liked about Daniel, Isaiah and Solomon. And if they thought Barnes was supportive of their claims for Jerusalem's destruction, they would likely have cited his notes on Daniel 1:1.

  His later publication of II Kings commentaries would have had to be taken as "New Light". But already it had arrived too late.
• 
  4

  Who are Anointed according to the Bible?

  by The Searcher in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  acording to the bible, who are "anointed" in god's eyes?.

  the term 'anointed' occurs in the greek scriptures.

  in all but one of the verses, they refer to jesus.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  Regarding who are "annointed" according to the Bible...

  In Isaiah Chapter 45, the text reads,

  "Thus says the LORD to Cyrus His anointed, Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue nations before him.."

  Whether Isaiah himself wrote that, I highly doubt. Isaiah as a document is more easily explained as being written by at least three authors before and during late captivity (Plus some editors). If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to picture what kind of best-seller the full text of Isaiah would have been in a Neo-Babylonian court.

  But as far as I can tell, Daniel was unaware of it. And everyone else in the OT unaware of Daniel.

  Another individual, according to JW logic, that would seem to have a seat among the anointed would be the thief on the cross who asked Christ to remember him in his kingdom. Whether he arrived that day or later with the supposed nearly 144,000 guests, I'll let pass.

  But considering how many details entered above are submitted as "obvious facts", then why not move on to such issues as who will provide the catering service and the arranging of anointed name tags in the banquet halls.
• 
  57

  Is the Soul Immortal...Biblically Speaking?

  by Vanderhoven7 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wonder if someone would care to produce a list (full quotes) of all the proof texts in scripture they are aware of that establish that the human soul is innately immortal?.

  just the scriptures...without comment please...so everyone will see just how clear the bible alone (sola scriptura) is on this issue.

  vander.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  King Solomon,

  If it's quibbling to you, then leave it to others. As for myself, I'm going to dig in.

  Gen 1 is a different vision of God and creation than chapter 2 and 3. More akin to the notion of God who speaks in Exodus from burning bushes or within the clouds of Mt. Sinai. This God creates out of nothing. That's the one that text says man and woman is made in the image of - not a guy with a garden.

  Your perspective about punctuation is much the same, I suspect, as that of the director of that translation Frederick Franz . It looks like someone waited for about 1900 and some years to locate it. Otherwise, had the comma been invented and located a few centuries before, there wouldn't have been any Christianity. There wouldn't have been any people to knock on the doors of and tell them they had gotten it all wrong.

  Of course, in behalf of the argument the idea that Christ was telling the thief that he had something important to say on THAT DAY, much like a flyer to a memorial meeting, maybe he could have elaborated on all those future plans:

  -that Christianity for nearly the next 1900 years wouldn't amount to a hill of beans,

  [that he would discuss the 144,000 with John Patmos in a dream,

  - and that his next return to the Earth would be invisible, though re-scheduled several times and he would spread out his definition of "generation" into a discussion of who knows how many centuries...

  But this is not spelled out Biblically either.

  He said that something more direct that had more meaning than anything that anyone with a Watchtower in his hand had ever delivered to a door or prison cell.

  For me this issue is pivotal.
• 
  57

  Is the Soul Immortal...Biblically Speaking?

  by Vanderhoven7 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wonder if someone would care to produce a list (full quotes) of all the proof texts in scripture they are aware of that establish that the human soul is innately immortal?.

  just the scriptures...without comment please...so everyone will see just how clear the bible alone (sola scriptura) is on this issue.

  vander.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  Luke 23:42-43

  Then he [the other thief] said,"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

  He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

  If Paul had a corporeal view of resurrection, then Luke must have had one which was not. The NWT finessed the translation of this to be in accordance with doctrines derived from Daniel and when Jesus would next stop in at earth.

  We know what plans he had for that day. If Jesus would be physically dead at its end and he told the thief that he would be in his kingdom - Paradise, but not Eden... Need I draw this out any further?
• 
  76

  Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

  by Calebs Airplane in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

  yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

  assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  kepler

  A continuation.

  The summation of the supreme court's ruling on the Joseph Parisi case is lengthy. And I am not a lawyer or even a legal issues reporter. I'm not sure I can spell enough legal terms to go ahead with this. Suffice it to say that the principal issue was "habeas corpus" or "you have the body" - and that phrase is why I fear to tread in the realm of interpretation.

  In American history Lincoln's annullment of "habeas corpus" is one of the most famous cases - and holding of war on terror suspects in the present day is another. The contradictory nature of the expression though, is that the annullment means that the authorities could hold a suspect without holding a "writ" to hold for trial. All of the permutations? See a lawyer.

  The case of Joseph Parisi had three points that could tie it to the case or experience of Anthony Morris.

  1. Joseph Parisi was an army enlistee/draftee who declared himself a conscientious objector while serving

  2. His case grew out of Vietnam war era service (1968-1970) and subsequent court hearings ( early 1970s)

  3. The matter was settled in terms of application "habeas corpus" guidelines.

  It should not be surprising that many such cases can be found on line. There is a filing system, but I haven't cracked the code. XXX F.2d XXX such as the Parisi files indicated above.

  Using the search criteria of conscientious objector, habeas corpus and vietnam, it was possible to locate at least a dozen such cases such as the the Joseph Parisi case. But none of these included the name of Anthony Morris or fit his description or the 1984 account in Awake any better.