Posts by scholar

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

r51785

"Nothing needs to be done about 1914 for it is rock solid..."

Is that "rock solid" like the Great Pyramid?

--

Rocks erode over time thus the Great Pyramid as a solid rock has overtime become subject to theological erosion

scholar JW

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

The simplest way to prove Jerusalem fell in 587BC is using Ptolemys Canon. You can easily find it on the internet. Ptolemys Canon is merely a list of eclipses and astronomical observations, and the date they occurred, going back to around 750BC. The concept of "BC" didn’t exist back then so the date instead is made up of the name of the king and the number of years the king has been on the throne.

Because astronomers can calculate when eclipses should have occurred, even as far back as 750BC, astronomers have determined that Ptolomys Canon is completely accurate. Because Ptolemys Canon lists kings and when they came to the throne, we know that Nebuchadnezzar (who is specifically named in Ptolemys Canon) came to the throne in 605BC.

--

The trouble with Ptolemy's Canon is that it has little value except for historical purposes and must be used in conjunction with the Bible, not as a substitute for the biblical record. For example, it makes no mention of the Judean Monarchy nor the biblical 70 years for starters.

---

There is also now Archelogical evidence it was 587/586 as nmentioned in "The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule" and "Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of the City in the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods".

---

Such evidence is too vague for the purpose of doing a chronology.

---

Also, why does the bible have to be correct on 70 years? Can't take that as fact when it has been proven Daniel was written around 160BC, and contains historical errors. The Jews don’t include Daniel as one of the prophets, but the book is included in the "Ketuvim" (ie the fiction section of the Hebrew Scriptures).

--

Because the 70 years is a prime piece of evidence as a historical fact confirmed by other Bible writers which include Jeremiah, Daniel. Zechariah and Ezra and the secular Jewish historian Josephus.

--

here is therefore plenty proof it is 587/586 but there is none for 607. The only proof used is the bible, which cannot be trusted.

--

Nonsense. There is no proof for 586 0r 587 BCE because both dates fail to account for the Jewish Exile of 70 years whereas 607 BCE is based on the fact of the Exile of 70 years.

--

Jerusalem was under Babylonian siege for 2 years under the rule of King Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 52:4, 5* - "4 In the ninth year of Zed·e·kiʹah’s reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem. They camped against it and built a siege wall all around it. 5 And the city was under siege until the 11th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah."

--

A biblical event dated to 609 BCE consistent with Zedkiah's 11th regnal years as 607 BCE

---

The Bible states that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as king.

Jeremiah 52:12-14* - "12 In the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, who was an attendant of the king of Babylon, came into Jerusalem. 13 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down every large house. 14 And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard."

---

Again a biblical event of Neb's 19th year consistent with his destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

---

Babylonians kept extremely detailed historical records of everything from receipts to the positions of the stars and large events in the nation’s history. By extracting data from the abundant number of cuneiform tablets created by the Babylonians, and using extremely accurate mathematical and digital models that track the movement of the planets and stars in the location where the records were written, it is possible to establish the date that King Nebuchadnezzar took the throne of Babylon, which was sometime between 605-606 B.C.E.

--

The Biblical record is far more reliable as it gives a detailed description of the Judean Monarchy and provides some details of the NB Period whereas the Babylonian records give no or very few details for the Judean Monarchy. Thus, the Biblical record is far superior in order to construct a scheme of Bible Chronology.

--

Thus, according to historical record as well as the Bible, it is indisputable that Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem began in his 17th year of ruling as King of Babylon, or 588-589 B.C.E. Two years later, the Babylonians breached the walls and destroyed Jerusalem and took some of the Jews captive. This happened in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year as king, or 586-587 B.C.E.

--

False, the Biblical record shows a 20 year difference between the biblical chronology and NB Chronology. Therefore, the NB Chronology especially for the Neb's reign needs to be adjusted or 'fine-tuned in order for it to harmonize with Bible Chronology.

--

The Organization blatantly disregard archaeologically and historically verified fact and continue to state that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E., a full 1-2 years before Nebuchadnezzar was reigning as King of Babylon. Although prior to 605-606 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar was the commander of the Babylonian army, Jeremiah 52:4 states that Nebuchadnezzar was already King of Babylon and later at Jeremiah 52:12 states that Nebuchadnezzar had been ruling for 17-19 years by the time these events took place.
--
False. The Organization well understands the landscape of secular NB Chronology but it is rejected because it conflicts with accurate Bible Chronology. Jer. 52:4 ; 52:12 simply shows the reigns of Zedekiah synchronized with that of Neb which validates the successive 11th years and 18/19th year of Neb. which all validate 607 BCE.
scholar JW
Link Dislike Like

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

Duran

The 70 years were from 609-539, not 607-537. 539 is the 70th year it is not the 68th year lie that the WTS tried to sneak in there.

--

That is simply one interpretation of the 70 years and is impossible as neglects the biblical and historical facts of the Jewish Exile. which ran from the Return of the Jews from Exile in 537 BCE until the beginning of the Exile in 607 BCE with the deportation of Jews to Babylon leaving an empty land. The two prophecies of Jeremiah that you have cited mean that the 70 years was a definite historic period of servitude to Babylon, an exile in Babylon leaving a desolated period all of 70 years.

scholar JW

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

Ding

I have studied GTR closely over many decades from its earliest edition even having an autographed copy of his Third edition, 1998

JW Facts .com is simply is a rehash of GTR nothing new or original in Grundy.s column as he is no scholar or chronologist.

scholar JW

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

There has been considerable criticism of the date for the destruction of Jerusalem as 607 BCE rather than 587 or 586 BCE proposed by past and current scholarship. In a recently published work and previous editions by Carl Olaf Jonsson who made it his life's work to refute 607 BCE and 1914 CE, attempts to refute such claims using seventeen lines of evidence. However, if 607 BCE is demonstrably wrong then only ONE line of evidence is needed. So, my challenge to all critics of the date 607 BCE is to provide one single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?

scholar JW

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

Phizzy

The 1914 Doctrine is complete and utter bollocks from start to finish, start = 607 BCE which has been totally discredited as a date for the destruction of Jerusalem, King neb. was not even ruling then ! It has been proven by several methods that are irrefutable evidence that the destruction the Org. refers to happened in 587 BCE.

--

The only bollocks is that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE which is impossible because the Jewish Exile under the Babylonians lasted for 70 years and ended with the release of the Jews in Babylon in 537 BCE. Thus counting back 70 years one arrives at the beginning of the Exile in 607 BCE and not 587 BCE. Further, scholars cannot agree as to whether the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587 or 586 BCE so scholarship is very fuzzy here .

The calculated, precise date of 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple under the reigns of the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar and the Judean King, Zedekiah is well documented in both biblical and secular history Despite the best attempts by scholars originating with Adventist scholars in Australia and later foolish attempts utilizing so-called 'seventeen lines of evidence', the date 607 BCE is the only possible date for the Fall.

scholar JW

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

r51785

Throughout Watchtower history dates have been a problem. The usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road. This needs to be done with 1914. The generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span. The best thing to do would be to find a more recent date to replace 1914 ( kind of like when the Judge replaced 1874 with 1914). I have a proposal. I apologize if someone has already brought this up, but I haven't seen it mentioned.

---

There is no problem for our dates are based on a sound biblical chronology that has served us well and that of Christendom's scholarship. Nothing needs to be done about 1914 for it is rock solid based on the following key factors:

Biblical Chronology
Gentile Times doctrine- Bible Prophecy
Modern secular history

The generation doctrine has 'muddied the waters' but remains one of the key factors that prove that we are living in the time of our Lord's Parousia and the 'conclusion of the system of things'.

----

1914 is based on a period called "The Seven Gentile Times." The Watchtower says that this is the period from the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 607 BCE to Jesus coming into kingdom power (invisibly) in 1914. The calculation is: seven times equals seven lunar years of 360 days (7 x 360 days = 2520 days). Days are converted to years thus giving us 2520 years. From 607 BCE to 1914 CE is 2520 years. But what if new light reveals that seven times is actually seven solar years? That would mean each year or "time" would be 365.25 days (365.25 x 7 = 2556.75). That means that instead of the "Seven Gentile Times" being 2520 years they would be 2556.75 years. Thus counting 2556.75 years from 607 BCE we would end at the summer of 1951. The generation of 1951 is only 73 years old! No more overlap needed!

---

Good summary! The idea that the 'seven times' can only be interpreted as 'seven solar years' makes no sense, simply fanciful. Far better to stick to the dual application model i.e. seven literal years with Neb's reign and the figurative period of Gentile rule over the potential reign of God's Kingdom typified by the Davidic Monarchy.

scholar JW

7

Can ANY JW provide Bible proof?

by BoogerMan in

hitchins razor - "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

which bible verse/s conclusively prove the following claims?.

w16 november p. 30 par.

scholar

BoogerMan

Indeed: positive or convincing proof is surely needed to establish the simple fact that JW's are indeed the True Religion in accordance with the historical basis for the Early Church as described in the Acts of the Apostles. Note that such was in accordance with 'convincing or positive proofs' - Acts 1:3.

Thus, modern-day Christians identified as Jehovah's Witnesses can testify or demonstrate such clear and demonstrable evidence as follows:

Fulfillment of Bible prophecy

Modern-day history prior to and subsequent to 1914 CE

Bible chronology establishes 1914 CE.

These three things form what the said scholar has termed an ' eschatological triennium' consisting of the key dates of 1914, 1918 and 1919 CE all based on careful exegesis and eisegesis of the Holy Scriptures.

Enjoy!!!

scholar JW emeritus

72

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

scholar

aqwsed12345

Which "scholar's opinion"? Howard? Read what he wrote about this, on the first page, he even distanced himself from you and declared that his hypothesis does not justify that you can arbitrarily include it in the New Testament without manuscript evidence!

--

I am the 'said scholar'

--

It's simple: it didn't refer to any "name" in terms of content, because "name" here means God's being. "Hallowed be the 'name' of God" is a simple Hebraism, meaning "Hallowed be God!". Read what your publication says about this, which I quoted on page 3.

--

Indeed, it is simple. The very fact that Jesus said 'Let Your name be sanctified' indicates that Jesus was not referring to the name in an abstract sense but in a distinctive sense as it is something that is possessed or belongs. In Hebraic thought the name and person are indistinguishable thus elevating the importance and significance of his personal or distinctive name -"Jehovah'.

--

The Tetragrammaton simply has no role in the context of the New Testament, in the NT the name what is relevant: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in whose name we are baptized, and the name that is above all (Philippians 2:9) is that of the Lord Jesus.

--

Regrettably what you say has occurred because the Name has been obliterated or obscured about meaningless debates about its provenance and pronunciation but providentially it has been restored 237 times places in the NT via the NWT since 1950.

scholar JW

72

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

scholar

aqwsed12345

I answered all 9 "reasons", none of them "prove" that it was in the New Testament, nor that they were entitled to include it. Do you have ADHD so you can't process what I wrote, or what?

--

That is your opinion. The said scholar's opinion is that the nine reasons are sufficient proof for the insertion of 'Jehovah' - God's Name in the NT and that the NWT Committee have full justification in so doing.

--

In the Lord's Prayer "Hallowed be Thy Name", this has nothing to do with the God's YHWH name used in the Old Testament, associated with the Hebrew cult. "Your name" here does not mean the Tetragrammaton, but God himself. "Blessed be your name", is a biblical phrase, it does not mean that the name, the string of letters that you wear, should be blessed, but that you yourself should be blessed. According to the WTS publication Aid To Bible Understanding (1971), page 1202:

--

Nonsense. If the name mentioned in the Lord's Prayer has nothing to do with God's distinctive personal Name then what name is it that Jesus referred and how is it then to be sanctified or hallowed?

scholar JW