Posts by scholar

221

Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA

by V in

scholar

V

Post 533

I have printed out for critical examination Leolaia's analysis of the Watchtower article on the Parousia and the Generation. It is pleasing that the 'celebrated WT scholars have for the benefit of not only the Lord;s people and those of 'goodwill' but also the community of scholars worldwide. The Watchtower is the most widely published Bible journal on earth and has a long contribution of producing research for the benefit of all peoples. For many decades scholars and theologians alike have been much troubled in the exegesis of the Olivet Discourse in the Synoptic Gospels and in particular that troublesome phrase 'this generation' in Matt 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32. At long last the matter is now simply and accurately presented in the Watchtower, Feb 15, 2008 Study Edition.

Leolaia's analysis is amateurish, devoid of careful scholarship and full of deceit and trickery. It is typical apostate nonsense with half truths and a pandering to higher critics and those who would rather pursue a lazy and unChristian lifestyle. From the very first comments on the mistaken Markan priority over Matthew it is all 'downhill' from there. So, I wish to respond in some detail to this nonsense posed as scholarship over the coming days and I will be offering pertinent criticism of this nonsense.

scholar JW

7

Ptolemy's "Canon" unreliable .

by hamsterbait in

the "canon" of ptolemy cannot be used to reconstruct babylonian succession.

this is because it is an astronomical treatise.. it does not even pretend to be a history of the babylonian kings list.. ptolemy compiled his information to back up the (at that time) astonishing accuracy with which astronomical events could be predicted and traced using his model of the solar system expounded in the almagest.. so if no notable event happened in the reign of a particular king, he is not mentioned.. however events which could be traced to a date and time, are mentioned, and the king ruling at the time named.

this would facilitate tracing the records made by the babylonians who were expert observers of celestial phenomena.. the egyptian historical records also show 587 as the date of jerusalem being sacked.

scholar

hamsterbait

Sadly, Ptolemy's Canon is very unreliable and is useless for the purposes of accurate Bible chronology for even one of its greatest supporters the esteemed chronologist Edwin W Thiele admitted that it was prepares for astronomical and not for historical purposes. In fact, the king list for the Babylonians is at least twenty years too short giving a false and misleading date for the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 or 587 BCE rather than the biblical date of 607 BCE.

Along with the Egibi documents such secular records omit important historical facts such as the missing seven years of Nebuchadnezzer' reign and the fact that the biblical seventy years that began during Nebuchadnezzer's reign proves that the Neo- Babylonian chronology is at least twenty years too short. It is far wiser to accept the Bible as the authority rather than the opinions of apostates and higher critics who have not interest in upholding the integrity of the Bible.

scholar JW

18

Egibi Business Tables, The Watchtower ignores fundamental Evidence!

by VM44 in

the egibi banking family lived in babylon continuously through the time period of the reigns of the neo-bablylonian kings.. many of their buisiness records for have survived and provide a detailed description of how business was transacted by the babylonians circa 600 bce.. the discorvery of the egibi records is not recent.

they were found in the later half of the 19th century and are mentioned in many books and articles.. for example, google books has this book, hours with the bible, or, the scriptuers in the light of modern knowlege, by cunningham geikie.

that was published 1892, that mentions the egibi records and how they provide .

scholar

VM44

Post 3910

Well it comes down to the fact as to how much historical value can be attributed to these documentts. You claim that these documents are a credible witness to the integrity of the traditional chronology but that does not make sense when these documents lack historicity. Further, the data in these documents do not account for the twenty year gap between biblical chronology and Neo-Babylonian chronology for there is compelling evidenc ethat the traditional chronology is at least twenty years too short. The business documents are at best 'problematic' and have only cultural merit being useless for the purpose of chronology.

scholar JW

18

Egibi Business Tables, The Watchtower ignores fundamental Evidence!

by VM44 in

the egibi banking family lived in babylon continuously through the time period of the reigns of the neo-bablylonian kings.. many of their buisiness records for have survived and provide a detailed description of how business was transacted by the babylonians circa 600 bce.. the discorvery of the egibi records is not recent.

they were found in the later half of the 19th century and are mentioned in many books and articles.. for example, google books has this book, hours with the bible, or, the scriptuers in the light of modern knowlege, by cunningham geikie.

that was published 1892, that mentions the egibi records and how they provide .

scholar

VM44

Post 3898

Celebrated WT scholars have lomg been interested in the Egibi business tablets as they provide a fascinating insight into the every day life of the Babylonians and its economy however these tablets have very little value for chronology. Apostates and higher critics have in recent times peddled the view that these documents support the traditional chronology accounting for every single year of the entire Neo-Babylonian period thus proving that there is no gap of twenty years required for biblical chronology.

However, there are serveral problems with such a grandiose claim and that is that these business documets have to be interpreted and the data that these documents provide must fit a template and what template did those first scholars who accessed those documents provide. Why was it not Ptolemy's Canon that George Smiith and W. Boscawen utilized. Since those times such a Canon has long since been discredited and recent research by Rol F Furuli has shown that the data in those business documents is unreliable and in fact can be expanded to prove that the Neo-Babylonian period was much longer than traditional chronology allows.

My problem with all of those business documents legal and otherwise is the lack of historicity. In other words, specific historical data is missing such as the simple fact of the missing 'seven years of Nebuchadnezzer's absence from the throne. Where is that seven years gap accounted for in all of the many thousands of secular documents? I find such a blatant omission very troubling indeed but I am much encouraged by the fact that those celebrated WT scholars have remained true to the infallible Word of God and proved absolutely that there is such a twenty gap between biblical chronology and traditional chronology.

scholar JW

6

The WTS twists Jeremiah 38:17 18

by Doug Mason in

towards the end of zedekiah's reign, jeremiah pleaded with him, telling him to willingly serve babylon.

a period of 70 years servitude to babylon was already in place and jeremiah told the king that if he was not prepared to serve babylon, the city of jerusalem would be needlessly destroyed and his life would needlessly be taken.

but if zedekiah surrendered, not only would his life be spared, but the city would not be burned down.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 438

I simply cannot agree with your claim that the Society has paraphrased Jeremiah 38: 17, 18 incorrectly or has twisted a very obvious and plain reading of the text. It appears that you are trying to superimpose a meaning of the text by somehow dividing up the seventy years as a period of servitude alone rather than the simple fact that the seventy years was a period of servitude-exile-desolation as described by Jeremiah 25:11.

The events of chapter 38 pertain to the seige of Jerusalem prior to her Fall and Destruction in 607 BCE for at that time Judah was already in servitude to Babylon but the foretold seventy years had not then commenced because Jerusalem and Judah were inhabited. Zedekiah simply faced a choice and could have minimized the effects of the seige but foretols seventy years would still have to run its course as Jeremiah foretold.

scholar JW

6

The WTS twists Jeremiah 38:17 18

by Doug Mason in

towards the end of zedekiah's reign, jeremiah pleaded with him, telling him to willingly serve babylon.

a period of 70 years servitude to babylon was already in place and jeremiah told the king that if he was not prepared to serve babylon, the city of jerusalem would be needlessly destroyed and his life would needlessly be taken.

but if zedekiah surrendered, not only would his life be spared, but the city would not be burned down.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Jerermiah does not make it plain that the 70 years could have run without the destruction of Jerusalem because Jeremiah makes it very plain that the seventy years was not only a period of servitude to Babylon but included exile and desolation of the land. At that late hour of Zedekiah's reign he could have chosen to what extent Jerusalem would be destroyed and that such a surrender would not have resulted in preventing the period of the seventy years for that prophetic judgement had to run its course. At that time Judah was already in servitude to Babylon so this proves that the final outcome had to eventuate and that final outcome would be simply the fact of complete deportation of the people from Judah to Babylon and a land desolate for a period of seventy years.

scholar JW

6

The WTS twists Jeremiah 38:17 18

by Doug Mason in

towards the end of zedekiah's reign, jeremiah pleaded with him, telling him to willingly serve babylon.

a period of 70 years servitude to babylon was already in place and jeremiah told the king that if he was not prepared to serve babylon, the city of jerusalem would be needlessly destroyed and his life would needlessly be taken.

but if zedekiah surrendered, not only would his life be spared, but the city would not be burned down.

scholar

Doug Mason

I cannot agree with your claim that the paraphrase of Jeremiah 38:17-18 in the Watchtower, February1, 1980 twists what Jeremiah said for it is simply the csae that a choice was put to Zedekiah that by his actions, Jerusalem's fate could be determined. In fact, you muddy the waters by yopur claiming that the 70 years of servitude had already commenced at that time of Jeremiah's prophecy. The Bible clearly indicates that the seventy years only began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE when Nebuchadnezzer finally deported the population to exile at Babylon leaving a desolated land of Judah. The period of seventy years does not enter anywhere into the context of Jeremiah 38 and all that you are doing is introducing the 70 years as a 'red herring'.

scholar JW

16

An apparent drift in WTS dates

by Doug Mason in

according to the wts library cdrom, the watchtower, august 1 2005, page 12 provides a table of the kings of judah and israel.. i decided to reproduce the table and add two columns.

my first additional column shows the conventionally accepted date and the second additional column shows the difference between the wtss date and the conventional date for each listed king.. as expected, since the final event listed is the destruction of jerusalem, that difference is about 20 years.

i had expected this difference would be maintained throughout the table.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 426

Have been out of town these last few days so have now the time to post a response. I have your email and will reply to that separately.

The reasons for the divergence between WT/Bible chronology and other systems is simply the fact that Ezekiel provides a prophetic framework of the history of Israel and Judah of 390 years. Therefore, celebrated WT scholars having established a 'pivotal date' simply count back with the regnal data of the kings found in the OT. Other chronologies employ a different methodologies hence producing widely different results. Our approach is simple and that is its strength whereas the others are too complex and fail to inspire confidence. The point of difference would be the choice of the pivotal or Absolute Date and whereas we accept 539 BCE other systems have different dates alltogether.

You are the misconception that there is only one conventional chronology which you have taken from the NIV Bible, this chronology is most likely that of Edwin Thiele but his system is simply one amongst many. So, it is most unwise to compare our chronology with simply numerous systems which in themselves are problematic. All of these fall well short of the '390 years yardstick' so my scholarly advice is to ditch the the other nonsense and utilize WT chronology. I have already given the page number of the cited reference as page 30 and you can obtain this book from Koorong Books at about the princely

sum of ten dollars at time of purchase some years ago.

scholar JW

If you require a detailed explanation of each and every king then you should consult the charts of the Divided Monarchy, pp.340-347 in the publication Aid to Bible Understanding

19

Why is 537BCE important?

by whereami in

in very layman's terms can some help me why this date is important to the jw 607 theory?

i'm trying to show my wife that the wts is wrong on the 607 date.

i told her that no respected scholar agrees with that date.

scholar

onacruse

No leap of faith required here but good old solid exegesis and a strong belief in the authenticity of God's Word over and become the confused nonsense of apostates and higher critics who cannot decide which year Jerusalem fell, when the seventy years began or ended. When you have sorted our your mess then you can properly be in a position to criticize the chronology developed over many centuries by the celebrated WT scholars.

scholar JW

28

NWT translation of Daniel 1:2 and 607

by behemot in

do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.

1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.

has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.

scholar

Auld Soul

Touche! But just think and pause for a moment because you will never know their identity or their qualifications. The mystery remains.

scholar JW