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

Alethia

Can you provide further details of the missing 20 years?

--

1. The astronomical diary VAT 4956 indicates that Bebuchadnezzer's 37th year was 568 BCE and the tablet Strm Kambys 400 indicates that Cambyses' 7th year was 523 BCE. This leaves only about 50 years for the Babylonian Exile of the Jews, whereas the Bible unambiguously says that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for 70 years. One or two of the sources must be wrong but which one(s)?

2. The conclusion drawn on the basis of a study of hundreds of cuneiform tablets is that the New Babylonian Empire should be expanded by twenty years. This means that Nebuchadnezzer II started to reign in 625 BCE and not in 605 BCE as is almost universally believed.

Will this suffice?

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

Alethia

holar, can you provide some evidence for the missing 20 years?

--

The missing 20 years is shown when one compares Bible Chronology with NB Chronology or secular Chronology. For example, using the calculated date for the Fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzer you can calculate two different dates: 586/7 BCE or 607 BCE depending on the different methodology.

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

Aannnnnnddd again - Jerimiah is clear. It's 70 years of servitude, for the nations of the region, to Babylon.

--

Jeremiah is very clear and so is Ezra, Daniel, Zechariah and Josephus in that the 70 years was a definite historic period of EXILE + SERVITUDE +DESOLATION

-

That is the definition of the 70 years according to Jerimiah. Priper "exegesis" takes into account grammar.
---
Exegesis proves that the 70 years was a period of Exile, a period of Servitude and a period whence the Land of Judah was desolate.
scholar JW
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

Jeffro

Wow. Even more of an outright liar than ‘scholar’.
---
It is just like this: The Bible nowhere has the expression 'Babylonian domination or servitude'.
You got it?
scholar JW

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

Splash

Your methodology is flawed as it does not account for the biblical-historical period of the 70 years which is unaccounted for in the scheme of NB Period which you have taken from the Insight volumes. When you factor in the 70 years it shows that there is a 20-year gap or difference between the Neo Babylonian Period and the Late Judean Monarchic Period which fully accounts for or proves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.

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 Jews arrived in 538 BCE based on comparison of Ezra and Josephus. In any case there’s no basis for the dogmatic claim that it was 537 BCE

---

When one compares Ezra and Josephus the date 538 BCE fails as the timeframe is too narrow making such a computation impossible. The date 537 BCE accords well with all of the established evidence.

---

Attention to the Jews’ return world explicitly be given after Babylon’s 70 years had been fulfilled.

---

False. The Return of the Jews as Exiles ended the 70 years of Exile or in other words, the Return marked or ended the 70 years of Babylonian servitude.

---

Serving Babylon was explicitly the way to avoid exile.

---

Serving Babylon for 70 years as Exiles in Babylon constituted the Jewish Exile.

---

The Bible never mentions 70 years of exile.

---

The Bible describes the 70 years as an Exile- a period of Exile to or for Babylon, the place of Exile in or at Babylon, and the time frame of the Exile to Babylon.

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

St George of England

think what you are referring to is a video on YouTube. There are several variations of this but they all start at 539 BCE and work backwards to Neb'r and then down to 586/7 BCE. This is probably the one you have in mind:-

--

This video along with many others of similar ilk shows a flawed methodology. The presenter simply presents the agreed NB Dynasty with its total reigns of 66 years from which it is deduced that the Fall of Jerusalem fell in Neb's19 th year as 586/587 BCE. Notice that using such methodology alone does not give a precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem during Neb's reign. Further, such methodology fails to synchronize the NB record with the biblical record which in contrast by means of the biblical-historic period of 'the 70 years' computes a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem as 607 BCE.

The major commonality between this presentation and that of the referred WT source publication is that both methodologies agree as to a common base point as the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Now, in keeping with the quoted KISS principle in the video, we can easily agree that the Jews returned home from their Exile in Babylon in 537 BCE and if we agree that the Exile was of a duration of 70 years as stated by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Josephus then their Exile must have begun in 607 BCE which is consistent with the event of Neb's destruction of Jerusalem. KISS!!!

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

I thought the objective was to set them straight that Jerusalem wasn't destroyed in 607 but in 587.

That is not debunking 1914, because while Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, Jesus still became king in 1914.

--

This is nonsense because such dogmatism about 587 BCE as the date for the Fall of Jerusalem is not universally supported by current scholarship. Leading scholars including biblical historians, archaeologists, chronologists etc endorse 586 BCE and not 587 BCE.

WT scholars have traditionally provided simple and compelling evidence based on the recognition of the 70 years of Jewish Exile and the fact that Judah was desolate for 70 years proved beyond doubt that the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem was 607 BCE.

scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Jeffro

Tell me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy without telling me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy. 😂

--

The said scholar prefers both as norms of exegesis and translation- doctrinal or theological bias and accuracy!!!

scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

MeanMrMustard

The Bible says 70 years of servitude of nations (plural). You are attempting to make an equivalence between "70 years" and "desolation". It's nowhere in the Bible, especially Jeremiah 25:11.

--

Jer.25:11 most definitely associates the 70 years with the servitude of the nations combined with the servitude of Judah as a desolated land.

scholarJW