scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,055 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  208

  How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  The said scholar loves to Wow!!!

  scholar JW
• 
  208

  How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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
  
  
• 
  208

  How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  MeanMrMustard

  You continue to miss the point. It's a matter of logic. To provide evidence is different than to undermine another's evidence. COJ is providing affirmative evidence.

  --

  I agree but in the provision of evidence to establish the fact of the matter also by logic would refute or disprove an opposing viewpoint.

  ---

  There's the fallback. In the face of overwhelming non-Biblical evidence *for* 587, its all swept aside because "the Bible says differently". And this brings us back to the grammatical issues you have with the scriptures themselves. The Bible agrees with secular history. You can only get to 70 years of desolation by forcing an ungrammatical, noncontextual reading of the scriptures, pushing it into the shape of your obscure religious framework.

  ---

  The 'overwhelming non-Biblical evidence' for 587 is open to interpretation and on examination is unconvincing and does not prove 587 or 586. The Biblical evidence proves 607 BCE and with 'fine tuning' of the secular evidence can harmonize such 'evidence' with the Biblical evidence. The 70 years of desolation is clearly stated and is consistent with a historical 'Exile' and Servitude to Babylon for such an understanding is established by exegesis.

  ---

  scholar JW