scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
scholar
Splash
Your methodology is flawed as it does not account for the biblical-historical period of the 70 years which is unaccounted for in the scheme of NB Period which you have taken from the Insight volumes. When you factor in the 70 years it shows that there is a 20-year gap or difference between the Neo Babylonian Period and the Late Judean Monarchic Period which fully accounts for or proves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.
scholar JW
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
The Jews arrived in 538 BCE based on comparison of Ezra and Josephus. In any case there’s no basis for the dogmatic claim that it was 537 BCE
---
When one compares Ezra and Josephus the date 538 BCE fails as the timeframe is too narrow making such a computation impossible. The date 537 BCE accords well with all of the established evidence.
---
Attention to the Jews’ return world explicitly be given after Babylon’s 70 years had been fulfilled.
---
False. The Return of the Jews as Exiles ended the 70 years of Exile or in other words, the Return marked or ended the 70 years of Babylonian servitude.
---
Serving Babylon was explicitly the way to avoid exile.
---
Serving Babylon for 70 years as Exiles in Babylon constituted the Jewish Exile.
---
The Bible never mentions 70 years of exile.
---
The Bible describes the 70 years as an Exile- a period of Exile to or for Babylon, the place of Exile in or at Babylon, and the time frame of the Exile to Babylon.
scholar JW
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
scholar
St George of England
think what you are referring to is a video on YouTube. There are several variations of this but they all start at 539 BCE and work backwards to Neb'r and then down to 586/7 BCE. This is probably the one you have in mind:-
--
This video along with many others of similar ilk shows a flawed methodology. The presenter simply presents the agreed NB Dynasty with its total reigns of 66 years from which it is deduced that the Fall of Jerusalem fell in Neb's19 th year as 586/587 BCE. Notice that using such methodology alone does not give a precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem during Neb's reign. Further, such methodology fails to synchronize the NB record with the biblical record which in contrast by means of the biblical-historic period of 'the 70 years' computes a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem as 607 BCE.
The major commonality between this presentation and that of the referred WT source publication is that both methodologies agree as to a common base point as the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Now, in keeping with the quoted KISS principle in the video, we can easily agree that the Jews returned home from their Exile in Babylon in 537 BCE and if we agree that the Exile was of a duration of 70 years as stated by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Josephus then their Exile must have begun in 607 BCE which is consistent with the event of Neb's destruction of Jerusalem. KISS!!!
scholar JW
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
scholar
Rattigan350
I thought the objective was to set them straight that Jerusalem wasn't destroyed in 607 but in 587.
That is not debunking 1914, because while Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, Jesus still became king in 1914.
--
This is nonsense because such dogmatism about 587 BCE as the date for the Fall of Jerusalem is not universally supported by current scholarship. Leading scholars including biblical historians, archaeologists, chronologists etc endorse 586 BCE and not 587 BCE.
WT scholars have traditionally provided simple and compelling evidence based on the recognition of the 70 years of Jewish Exile and the fact that Judah was desolate for 70 years proved beyond doubt that the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem was 607 BCE.
scholar JW
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Tell me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy without telling me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy. 😂
--
The said scholar prefers both as norms of exegesis and translation- doctrinal or theological bias and accuracy!!!
scholar JW
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
scholar
MeanMrMustard
The Bible says 70 years of servitude of nations (plural). You are attempting to make an equivalence between "70 years" and "desolation". It's nowhere in the Bible, especially Jeremiah 25:11.
--
Jer.25:11 most definitely associates the 70 years with the servitude of the nations combined with the servitude of Judah as a desolated land.
scholarJW
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
scholar
MeanMrMustard
Pure delusion. I invite everyone to go to biblegateway.com, type in Jerimah 25:11. At the bottom there is a link to view the scripture in every English translation they have. All of them... ALL.. render the verse this way. I'm sure you can find a "version" out there that renders it differently, but it's not a translation, it's some version that inserts preconceived ideas into the text.
--
Jer.25:11 can be translated from Hebrew into Greek in three different ways but it is not the translation of this verse but its interpretation wherein lies the problem. The LXX translation and other omits the phrase 'the king of Babylon'.
---
And this is the trouble JWs find themselves in here. The prophecy originated in Jerimiah, and Jerimiah was painfully clear. The grammar used is so clear that just about every translator that's ever given this verse a shot has rendered it as two separate thoughts (in one way or another). And then for good measure Jerimiah starts to list off the nations to which the servitude would apply (v 18). And then goes into what the servitude means in chapter 28 (and it's not strictly desolation and exile).
---
Grammar won't help you but it is the context alone that provides the correct interpretation of this verse. The target or focus of this Prophecy right from vs. 2 is 'the people of Judah and all of the inhabitants of Jerusaelem'.and then in vs. 9 it states' this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations' altogether will be brought into servitude to Babylon for 70 whilst Judah is desolate as the backdrop for such servitude.
---
Yes. Yes you would.
--
Based on the context and skilful exegesis
---
Flawed logic. It's very similar to the "during every birthday in the Bible something bad happened, therefore birthdays are bad" type of logic.
---
Logic or plain common sense shows the need to read carefully paying attention to the context.
---
Right. And because it's 70 years of servitude (even applying to other nations), the Exile fits quite well with the official historical data. But not 607.
--
Agreed. Now that we have established the fact of the Exile it is then easy to see how that began only with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Easy is it not?
scholar JW
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
scholar
TonusOH
Isn't this the same as the grammatical approach that you rejected earlier? Do you switch between exegesis and 'plain reading' as it suits you?
--
The said scholar works with both and is comfortable with both levels of activity namely the natural and plain reading of the text as an OBSERVATION which is the first step in carrying out and exegesis of the text or passage.
scholar JW
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
scholar
MeanMrMustard
In the same verse, yes. But there are two grammatically independent statements, separating elements 1 and 2 from 3 and 4. Element 3 and 4 are in the second half of a compound sentence. Some Bibles render this verse with a separating semicolon (making the separation stronger than ", and"). Some some Bibles just make this verse two separate sentences completely.
--
Utter nonsense. The text is quite ambiguous according to scholars and commentators for a number of translations into English are possible based on the Hebrew text. The immediate context proves that the subject in view is not Babylon or the nations but Judah.
---
The 70 years in the last half of the verse applies to the servitude. That's it. You can't push it back into the first half of the verse without breaking grammar.
---
This is simply your opinion for I would argue that the 70 years of servitude and desolation apply both to Judah and the nations.
---
To read this verse grammatically it states Judah would become desolate, an object of horror. (THOUGHT ENDS, NEW INDEPENDENT CLAUSE) The nations would serve Babylon 70 years.
--
Grammar won't help you because the text as it reads is ambiguous so you have read this verse in context and the subject in focus is the Land -Judah.
--
As for context - ch 15, v 18 - "as it is this day." The servitude had already started at the time of the writing of Jerimiah 25.
---
Wrong. A servitude to Babylon certainly began 10 years prior to the Fall of Jerusalem as Judah was in vassalage to Neb however Jeremiah's prophecy in ch. 25 links the servitude with the desolation of the Land so thiis was a far greater servitude of the Exile.
--
What does servitude mean? Ch 27 is pretty explicit, listing nations, and encouraging every nation that doesn't want to be destroyed to "bring its neck under the yoke" of Babylon.
---Servitude or 'serving Babylon under Neb's reign took different two different forms , first , one of vassalage under a present monarch and an Exile whereupon the Monarch was deposed and forced into Exile to Babylon.
scholar JW