Posts by scholar

53

1975 on the back burner

by Fisherman in

“1975” still marks 6000 years from the creation of adam in wt calendar.

according to “all scriptures inspired” book, there is a gap between the creation of adam and the creation of eve and her marriage to adam.

it was at that point in time when eve was created that marked the end of the 6th creative day and the beginning of god’s rest, the 7th day as recorded in genesis.

In just two years' time, 2025 we will celebrate the fact of the biblical significance of 1975 with the passing of its Jubilee of 50 years which according to accurate Bible Chronology proved 7000 years of human existence from Adam's creation in 4026 BCE. In earlier times, Chronologists such as the venerable Irish Anglican prelate Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) had calculated 4004 BCE for the creation of Adam. This date has been subsequently corrected by 'celebrated WT scholars from Pastor Charles Russell's day to 1963 as 4026 BCE.

Such scholars speculated that 1975 could also coincide with the beginning of the seventh period of a thousand years - a sabbath period of rest and release as a great Jubilee sabbath. Such an event would fittingly fit into or coincide with. Jehovah's God's creative week of 'seven days' with its seventh day thought to have been of 7000 years in length according to Jewish tradition.

For me, 1975 and its attendant 4026 BCE as the date of Adam's creation demonstrates the accuracy of Bible Chronology as opposed to many other schemes of Chronology proposed by scholars in Christendom. It has stood the test of time, especially with regard to many of its significant dates such as the dates for the Divided Monarchy, the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, the Jewish Exile, the date of the Exodus and events in the life of our dear sweet Lord, Jesus Christ.

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

Fisherman

The poetic language of the Bible and the irony requires that Zion was dispossessed of Jews and that 70 is a literal prophetic number.

--

In short, the Jewish of the Babylonian Exile specifically of 70 years duration.

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

TD

Not at all. Some of the criticisms of the NWT are weak inasmuch the renderings in question still fall within standard definitions and rules of grammar, even if they do offend the biased views of others. Surely you're aware of this?

--

The said scholar is fully aware of this.

---

With the foregoing in mind, you've argued for a preferential rendering not simply as one of multiple ways the passage could be understood, but as the correct understanding. You've done so on grammatical grounds without actually framing an argument to that effect.
I haven't said you are wrong here. I'm just curious. I'd kinda like to hear the grammatical argument, if there is one.
--
- With the foregoing in mind, you've argued for a preferential rendering not simply as one of multiple ways the passage could be understood, but as the correct understanding. You've done so on grammatical grounds without actually framing an argument to that effect.
  I haven't said you are wrong here. I'm just curious. I'd kinda like to hear the grammatical argument, if there is one.
  --
  There is no grammatical argument necessary as a plain reading of the text and its context suffices.
  scholar JW
  Link Dislike Like
Link Dislike Like

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

Sanchy

Scholar is big on grammar and big on exegesis but not so big on eisegesis.

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

Disilluisoned JW

I appreciate that you appreciate the way I made use of Bible commentaries.

--

Keep it up and you find the Commentary on the Old Testament by Keil and Delitschz most valuable.

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

TD

I'd kinda like to hear a grammatical argument if such can be framed.

Assuming a preferred understanding is the only grammatically possible understanding is exactly how critics of the NWT get themselves into trouble.

---

Another word for gobblydook

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

Thank you for your posting from different Bible Commentaries which not only contain observations that support WT Chronology but also contain observations that test our interpretation and our scheme of Chronology.

Whilst living in Sydney, Australia I had ready access to the largest theological college library in Australia. Moore Theological College Library which was across the road from the University of Sydney. When I was researching a particular verse such as Jer. 25:11-12; Dan 1;1 and all of the other texts pertaining to the 70 years, I would go to the section where all the commentaries are arranged per book and take each one off the shelf, take it to the adjoining desks, make notes and if suitable have the pages photocopied. That was my practice over a number of years whilst doing research on Chronology. Thus, I place a high value on all Bible Commentaries. My favourite ones are the ICC, ABD, WBC and Hermeneia series which are classified as Technical Bible commentaries.

Scholar's research methodology on Chronology is the following:

1. Bible and all other relevant translations

2. WT publications from the recent to the oldest

3. Bible Commentaries- Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical and Reformed

4. Chronology text books such as Finegan and Thiele and others

5. Theses, Monographs, Dissertations

6. Academic journals such JTS, JBL, Vetus Testamentum and Novum Testamentum and others

7. OT History reference works or textbooks

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

The said scholar loves to Wow!!!

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

Then you aren't reading the verses grammatically. The first step in exegesis is to let the verse speak for itself. Don't impose bias on it. Read it assuming the writer knew what he was doing by choosing the words and grammar that he chose.

--

The said scholar is big on grammar and he has read the verses grammatically in line with sound exegesis.

---

This is a compound sentence. If you read this as 'this country will become a desolate wasteland for 70 years and these nations will serve the king of Babylon 70 years', then you are reading meaning into the verse beyond its grammar.

This is basically two sentences - which is why some Bibles just render it as two sentences.

--

OK. No problem for the 70 years defines the time element which was a period of 70 years that covered the elements of Judah as a desolate place in servitude to Babylon along with the other nations. Very simple prophecy!!

---

Starting in v17 there is an enumeration of nations. Verse 29 doesn't give an order of conquering unless you choose a version that plays fast and loose with paraphrasing.

Verse 12 DOES give you an order of events at the end of the 70 years, which undercuts 537 as the end of the 70 years.

--

After vs. 11 the account presents a list of those nations that would receive judgement from Jehovah commencing first with the nation 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

Jeffro

o, when it says, ““‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’” your most reasonable interpretation ‘even if you weren’t a JW’ would be that 70 years ends two years after Babylon’s king is called to account. 🤦‍♂️ What a farce.

---

Yes, what a farce indeed. The judgement against Babylon could only have begun after the 70-year years had been fulfilled and not before. Thus, the only event that fulfilled the 70 years was the Return of the Jews which occurred after the Fall of Babylon as , a plain reading of the text says. which is the most reasonable interpretation.

scholar JW