i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
Mr. Finkelstein
In fact you idiot it was for the first time the concept of 'Methodology' in the academic literature was introduced by Rodger Young for I was familiar with the concept because Methodology was a Unit of study as part of doing an Honours program of my Arts degree. Methodology is an essential tool, one masters when beginning a Research degree at least in all Australian Universities.
scholar JW
i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
johnamos
Now notice what Dan 2:1 says:
[In the second year of his kingship, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had a number of dreams, and he* was so agitated+ that he could not sleep.]
Okay, even though the WTS claims Neb became king in 625 (which we know it was really 605) they say 624 was his 1st official year of his kingship. So with that being said and using that date (624) then based on Dan 2:1 then Neb’s 2nd year of kingship should be 622 (623 if we use 625), so we should expect that the WTS says Dan 2:1 occurs in 623/622…but NO instead they say Dan 2:1 occurred in 606/605.
They twist the Scripture to say that he became ‘world ruler' in 607 but the Scripture reads that it was in the 2nd year of his KINGSHIP
----
The accusation of twisting is nonsense and shows that you lack an understanding of the matter. Dan 2:1 is a good example of the need for exegesis. Have you done that? If you had done that then most likely you would have arrived at a different conclusion..
This text omits any specific month and reads according to the NWT: "In the second year of his KINGSHIP,(emphasis added) notice not his reign, This means that Neb's 'second year' must be viewed not in terms of his reign but from another perspective such as Babylon's becoming the new World power in 607 BCE in relation to God's people.
There is one at least well-respected Commentary on the OT which makes a similar point which came to my attention when we studied the Daniel book years ago at the Book study and I made a marginal note in my personal copy. I can expand further on this matter but this will do for the moment.
scholar JW
i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
TD
How are Jehovah's Witnesses immune from the uncertainty inherent in the Bible itself, over the counting system in use vis-à-vis the reigns of kings?-
---
You ask a very good question and the answer is very simple. It comes down to a very important word in Chronology -METHODOLOGY. Scholar was the first person in the world of academia not just in this form but also in the academic literature pertaining to Chronology to introduce this was about 2000. A short time later 2004, Rodger Young in the Evangelical Theological Society Journal discussed this concept as a tool in settling the controversy about 586/587.
Chronologists in constructing a scheme of Bible Chronology use a regnal/calendrical approach with at least one Absolute Date. This approach has two disadvantages:1. It is complex beyond the comprehension of the average reader 2. lacks uniformity'
Celebrated WT scholars have a different approach which has none of the above but has the advantages of simplicity as it is event based and uses Absolute dates or at least one eg. 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon
----Do not Jehovah's Witnesses themselves date Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the metal image to 606/605 BCE?
-- Correct, because the event lies midway between to fixed calendrical years lacking a specific month which would give a specific year.
scholar JW
i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
stavro
I think most people who attempt to interpret the scriptures start out using exegesis and end up with eisegesis. I may be wrong, but I’m not personally convinced there is one harmonious way of interpreting the scriptures, despite using rigorous exegesis. To my mind there seems to be too many places where the scriptures can be used to support more than one position. I find you end up using your own personal preferences in deciding upon which position you ultimately chose to side with.
A well informed and knowledgeable former brother by the name of Eric Wilson also advocates the importance of careful exegesis. Despite both yourself and Eric using the same methodology you guys still draw different conclusions on many important doctrines.
----
Students who enter the ministry at a theological seminary learn the art of exegesis in interpreting a text and this consists basically of :
OBSERVATION
INTERPRETATION
CORRELATION
APPLICATION
These are the basic methods that one uses when searching the scriptures. Unfortunately most Witnesses are not skilled in this art and use similar but a different method when studying the Bible for even the word 'exegesis' is not found in WT publications.
Eric Wilson, who I have some familiarity no doubt practices exegesis in his published critique of WT theology and this fair enough for not everyone is going to reach the same conclusion as to the meaning of a text so this gives to a Church imposed eisegesis- and imposed text interpretation. Exegesis is a personal approach to Scripture and that is why Bible Commentaries abound.
Scholar in studying the principal texts relating to 607 BCE debate consults with all of the leading published commentaries as part of his research methodology
scholar JW
i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
johnamos
scholar, you speak on the discrepancy of 587/586 but you ignore the one with the WTS 607/606.
I have showed that the years the WTS has for Jehoiakim are 628 –618
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22628-618%22&p=par&r=occ
Based on that Neb's 18th year would be 606
------
There is no comparison because there are two different scenarios: for the first, we are referring to a specific date for the Fall, we say it is 607 BCE, other say is either 586 or 587 BCE, secondly, we are talking about events- reigns of kings between years so that is why historians say eg. 607/606 BCE etc.
====
The WTS say that in Oct 1914 is when Jesus became king and the first thing Jesus (Michael) did was throw Satan out of heaven to the earth which meant WOE for the earth. They say WW1 is evidence of that WOE. Here is the thing though, WW1 started in June/July of 1914.
WW1 began on July 28, 1914 after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand occurred on June 28, 1914.
-----
Simple. There is nothing to suggest in Scripture that the beginning of the Great War had to immediately coincide with the beginning of the Gentile Times. The Gentile Times ended in October 1914 by historians do not hive a specific date for the when the Great War began as different nations joined the War effort not always when that first pistol shot was fired end of June 1914.
scholar JW
i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
stavro
Fair observation. In view of the current climate that we find ourselves in, I have learned some very important lessons over the years in defending our doctrines and there are two things: the importance and role of theology and the need of careful exegesis of the biblical text as opposed to simply eisegesis in making application of the latter. Thus this creates a most interesting spiritual journey for myself and for others as one seeks to understand Jehovah's will for us.
Blessings
scholar JW emeritus
i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
Stavro
I thank you for your kind comments and I am sure Rolf would appreciate this. Sadly, it appears that with the departure of Rolf from the scene it would that scholar out of the entire world wide Witness population remains alone in the advocacy of 607 BCE and other related matters.
scholar JW emeritus
i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
stavro
It's nice to see you are as enthusiastic as ever Scholar JW. I know you don't get to express your opinions on doctrinal matters as freely as you would like over on JW talk. I can't help but feel you must be a little disheartened with the level of scholarly insight provided by the current Governing Body.
---
Yes. Times have changed so one must move with such change and this can be both difficult and challenging. One such recent adjustment was the recent development with my friend Rolf Furuli who had sent me a personal copy of his book on our beloved Religion and the governing body which was a most interesting read. Further, here in Australia we are in the news with CSA in relation to the Redress scheme so we live in very interesting times alongside the current pandemic.
scholar JW emeritus
-----
i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
Mr. Finkelstein
I have to admit Scholar you have courage, determination and spunk to come to this forum and fight for the JWS doctrines
----
Thank you for your kind words. Scholar is here to help and to act as an Apologist.
scholar JW
i don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
Finkelstein
I am here for the sole purpose of amusing you
scholar JW
