Posts by scholar

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

Disillusioned JW

scholar which pages of the Insight book are you using for the data of the reigns of the Hebrew Monarachy which add up years from 539 (or 537) B.C.E. to get 607 BCE? Are you referring t the chart which is on pages 404-406 of Insight Volume 1? That chart is counting up (forward in time) from what the Insight book says happened in 1117 BCE. I don't see it counting backward in time from the well established date of 539 B.C.E. Therefore please provide us with more information so I and others can see what you are using to support your claim.

---

Simple for you only have to read what is published in WT publications to understand the methodology used for the scheme for the Divided Monarchy and for the calculation of 607 BCE using the pivotal date of 539 BCE. It is not 'rocket science' that even a layperson can understand both the methodology and the overall scheme of WT chronology. Just use the Insight and Aid publications and the information in the All Scripture Inspired publication.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

Argument from ignorance. Even if the exact year were not known it doesn’t mean that whatever nonsense is offered instead must be correct.

--

Nonsense is a two-way street and in your case, it is simply your opinion which is irrelevant.

---

But the exact year is known anyway. It was 587 BCE. No study of the subject in the last 60 years has offered any basis for 586 BCE as the correct year and various studies have specified 587 BCE as the correct year. The fact that some sources simply repeat Thiele’s dating from the 1940s (based on Ussher’s even earlier work) is irrelevant misdirection.

--

Nonsense. The date 586 BCE is the preferred date over 587 BCE but if you believe otherwise then state your sources showing the demise of 586 BCE being replaced by 587 BCE.Prove it otherwise your claim is simply fanciful.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

Disillusioned JW

scholar even if modern biblical scholars (and I) are indefinite as to whether the destruction happened in 587 BCE or 586 BCE they (and I) are definite that it did not happen in 607 BCE. They are in agreement that it definitely did not happen any time before 587 BCE and that it definitely did not happen any time after 586 BCE---

---

What you are saying is nonsense. How can you be definite that a definite or precise date such as 607 BCE is wrong when you cannot offer up any other precise alternative?

---

Chronology is about accuracy or precision and is not about fuzziness. The fact is that based on the Bible, WT scholars over many decades have proven that 607 BCE is the only possible, validated date for the Fall and no other evidence has been found to disprove 607 BCE'

The best attempt to disprove 607 BCE is the scholarship of Carl Olaf Jonsson published as Gentile Times Reconsidered which claims that there 17 lines of evidence that disprove 607 BCE. A scholarly examination of his thesis shows that not one of these lines of evidence disproves 607 BCE so 607 has been held up to scrutiny and has passed with Honours.

scholarJW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

MeanMrMustard

Accepting for a moment that there a big debate between 586 and 587: The fact that you propose a more precise date doesn't mean it's correct. And if there is a large body of evidence pointing to a less precise date range, it can most certainly disprove your incredibly precise fantasy date.

--

The simple fact is that we have a definite date not wishy-washy date for the Fall of Jerusalem. A precise date does not of itself prove its accuracy but if you compare the alternative dates for the same event then it comes down not only to accuracy but methodology and confidence.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

Disillusioned JW

However the WT is very wrong in saying that Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah fell in 607 BCE, Whereas secular chronology is correct in saying it fell in 587 BCE. Furthermore the WT is wrong is saying became king over the Earth invisibly in heaven in 1914. The WT needs to ditch their second adventist derived chronology pertaining to 607 BCE, 1914, and 1918, as well as the idea of Christ's invisible presence as king. Those ideas are rubbish - not the secular date of 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

---

How can a calculated precise date of 607 BCE be wrong when you cannot agree as to whether it is 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem? How can it be that a definite date-607 BCE be falsified by an indefinite date-586 or 587 BCE?

The subject of Christ's Parousia is a matter of Biblical Theology based on a careful exegesis of various biblical texts as an introduction to Eschatology derived from the books Daniel and Revelation. This means that our teachings are well established and confirmed by the facts of modern history since 1914 which course is the first part of an eschatological triennium: 1914-1918-1919 CE.

---

scholar you comment of "... such Bible Chronology enables faithful people to locate themselves in the stream of time by means of being able to understand Prophecy" is incorrect in regards to 607 BCE and 1914 CE. There is no personal God, not even Jehovah God. Jehovah God as described and defined in the Bible definitely does not exist.

--

The dates 607 BCE and 1914 CE are validated by Bible History-Bible Theology - Secular History both Ancient and Modern. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to my interpretation.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

--If you want to open the embarrassing can of worms that CTR created, which have over the years been systematically dropped as teachings by WT, then you need the bumps on your head felt.

Which incidentally was some other quackery CTR believed in.

--

Rubbish. The only can of worms is found among those who have become enslaved to a secular chronology that ignores the Bible and further such Bible Chronology enables faithful people to locate themselves in the stream of time by means of being able to understand Prophecy.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

Disilluisioned JW

Your point? Russell acknowledged and expressed his indebtedness to others including Barbour in connection with Barbour with all such contributions helped to build our scheme of wondrous Chronology- Bible Chronology.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

Does it matter? It has always been stated that Jerusalem was destroyed 586/587 because one date can't be pointed to.

---

It certainly does matter for Chronology as science seeks to establish accurate dates based on accurate information or provide a scheme of chronology that is faithful to all of the data. WT critics are dogmatic in their contention that 607 BCE is wrong so they make that claim definitive, a counterclaim to this would be that such critics provide a definitive date or solution and if this cannot be done then they should cease their dogmatism until the matter is resolved definitively.

---

There are no WT scholars. It is Nelson Barbour that moved the destruction 20 years back because he thought the 70 years was from the destruction, when it was not.

--

What about the 'celebrated' WT scholars? WT Chronology is based not on Barbour but Charles Russell and his associates and proved that the 70,years began with the desolation of Judah.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

"So you already have a new chronology? Just need to lose 20 years somewhere I suppose"

--

It is not a 'new chronology' but an old traditional chronology. The 20 years only occurs when one compares a scheme to another scheme of chronology.

---

Um, It is not new chronology. That is the original chronology. It is Nelson Barbour that added the 20 years because he thought that 587 would make it a 50 year desolation. But he did not understand that the 70 years ran from when Daniel was taken (that's how Daniel knew when they would end, because he knew when they began) not when Jerusalem was destroyed.

--

Whatever the case Russell corrected Barbour's scheme constructing a chronology more faithful to the Bible. The view that the 70 years began with Daniel's deportation or exile was false as Russell realized that the 70 years was a period whence the Land was to be desolate hence it could only have begun 10 years later.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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

MeanMrMustard

No. The order Jerimiah lists the nations doesn't imply a conquering order. It's just an enumeration of the nations "round about" that will serve the king of Babylon.

--

Jeremiah sets out a list of nations starting with Judah to experience Jehovah's judgement whether it is of a conquering order or otherwise is not made plain in the prophecy for it begins with Judah and then successively lists and describes the fate of each nation.

--

If that list described a conquering order, starting in verse 17, it means you have Judah conquered before Assyria. How is this supposed to have transpired? Do the armies of Babylon pour out, passing through Asssyria, Persia, without conflict, only to arrive at the nations surrounding Judah, ignoring them as well, but allowed to pass through without resistance? What did Neb say to these nations? "Nevermind the massive army I'm moving through your lands. Just passing through. I'm really after this small state on the coast. But I might attack on my way back"?

---

The prophecy is simply one of succession for some nations may have received their judgement simultaneously for the account does not provide Neb's military strategy or battle plans.

---

Good lord. This is utter craziness. The list of nations is just a list of nations. Verse 29 is translated as "beginning to", not "first".

--

The words 'first', 'beginning to', 'starting off' all can refer to a moment or time and priority of movement thus Jehovah's judgment against the nations began with Judah first.

scholar JW