Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  Well if you have a personal compilation of the Divided Monarchy then post it on this board.

  What are you talking about?????!!!!!!! There is a link in my previous post to that very file!! According to my web server logs, it has since been accessed from 4 different addresses.
  You allege the superiority of the Watchtower model because it relies on regnal periods rather than supposedly dubious dates. My model for the Divided Kingdom relies on regnal periods, directly from the bible as well as the clear evidence of Daniel corroborating Jeremiah that the 70 years ended in 539. It could be argued that my model is better than the 'Society hypothesis' because completely by co-incidence it agrees with secular history remarkably well throughout the period of the Divided Kingdom. In case you will attempt to accuse me of making it fit the secular dates, I will point out that when calculating Israel and Judah's regnal years, I had not yet looked at the regnal years given by secular dating, so there was no means of collusion.

  you will be asked to explain the differences of which there will be many.

  Will there be differences with dates accepted by others? Certainly. I state in the spreadsheet that years have some flexibility, but not on the scale that the Society's model creates. There may even be, dare I say it, errors, but none of such are deliberate, and the details do indeed fit very well with secular history.
  And before you do start picking it to pieces, try to keep in mind the attitude the Society has toward what seem to be contradictions in the scriptures, and recognize that something that may seem like a discrepancy is not necessarily.
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,
  

  Over these many posts I have simply argued what the the seventy years stands for and it does not require a pit, acrobatics. goalposts for the matter is self evident.

  So self-evident that every single credible source, both secular and theological disagree with the WTS over both the 'seventy years' and the dating of the fiest fall of Jeruslaem at 607BCE.
  

  What you try to do, malevolently and without any success whatsover, is to pretend that Carl Jonsson is actually presenting to the world a new interpretation, or new information regarding to two issues above. This is where your intellectual, and personal dishonesty shine Neil, for as has been repeated so often my cat could understand, Jonsson is doing no such thing.

  Now, perhaps you might answer the following questions, avoided for many, many months by your good self. Answering these questions may go some way in allowing the readers to have a smidgen of credibility in the tattered Whore of Brooklyn :

  1) Can you present one credible source, without an Adventist agenda, who agree that Jerusalem fell in 607BCE?

  2) Can you present one Biblical interpretation of the WTS that is exclusive to themselves, say during the past fifty years, that has actually proved to be a correct interpretation? 3) When the WTS changes its 'understanding' on the year 607BCE, as it most certainly will, will you then repudiate your attachment to the WTS?

  Best regards - HS

  PS - Please forgive the formatting problems - the Babylonian's are fiddling with my Assyrians.
• 

  doogie

  1) Can you present one credible source, without an Adventist agenda, who agree that Jerusalem fell in 607BCE?

  
  

  
  you know, the correct, WT approved answer is pretty easy: NO

  they pride themselves on the fact that their chronology is unique (which of course is somewhat debatable) and provided from heaven only to them. i think it's interesting that scholar goes to such lengths to apologize the WT's interpretation. if their chronology is provided to a large extent by 'spirit direction' there should be no way to justify it (otherwise its a manmade interpretation) and there should be no need.

  scholar, the answer is no. admit it with pride just like the other non-scholar JWs.
• 

  hillary_step

  Doogie,

  Scholar has the word 'cult' tatooed on his thinking processes as we all once did. As such, it may not be the right time for him to face the facts just yet.

  I suspect that like myself, most posters on this thread do not post to Scholar. We may be looking in his general direction, but aiming our posts over his shoulder at the thousands of lurkers who read this site.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  doogie

  HS:

  i hear ya. i've been following these threads (with considerable effort) and it was more an observation than a challenge to scholar itself.

  i've had conversations with my elder/pioneer/PO dad and he's admitted that he has had doubts about the historical integrity of the WT's chronology and the bible in general. but he just says that he believes that the JWs are god's org so he'll follow them no matter what. it's nauseating, but at least he's an honest cultist. scholar wants it both ways... historical integrity and divine revelation. not possible (and any upstanding JW would agree that it's irrelevant to their beliefs).
• 

  hillary_step

  Doggie,

  Though Scholar does not seem to believe this, a few years ago I spoke with a very senior member of the Brooklyn contingency, and I mean at GB level regarding this issue.

  He was prepared to acknowledge that the WTS had a problem on their plates with the 607BCE issue and that 'in Jehovah's time' things might change. He was at pains to point out that 'dates do not really matter, what matters is the sign'. He was discussing the sign in Matthew 24, which he said precluded the need of dates as the evidence is 'out there for all to see'. I suspect that this is the spin that they are preparing to run in the future. They will gradually bury 607BCE in preference to a 'visible sign'.

  It is ironic, as I have pointed out before, that a lacky like Scholar is prepared to countenance no compromise over the 607BCE issue, but his masters are! This is actually very sad.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  LittleToe

  They can't bury 607 until they're ready to relinquish 1914, and that's unlikely to be before the very last day of 2034 at the earliest...
• 

  hillary_step

  LT,

  They can't bury 607 until they're ready to relinquish 1914, and that's unlikely to be before the very last day of 2034 at the earliest...

  I believe they can Ross.

  They can stick with 1914 as a significant date, as from their way of thinking the 'visible sign' indicated that Jesus was finally made King in Heaven. The thing that proves the 'time of the end' is Jesus own words in Matthew 24, he did not give a date to look for but an event in time - this is the defense used by the GB member I spoke with. It was quite clear to me that there had already been thinking along this line at headquarters.

  Of course, some JW's who tend to think beyond the facile will leave, as they have done in the past when the WTS tinkers with its main doctrines, but the majority will dunk another donut and pray for Paradise. Some like Scholar will come to JWD and bask in the brilliance of yet more new light flooding from the fanny of the Brooklyn Whore.

  HS
• 

  Narkissos

  If JWs eventually evolve to a mainstream denomination (still very far from now), they might keep paying lip service to 1914 but switch it to "community museum mode" -- as most SDAs do with 1844 afaik. E.g. "It's a cherished part of our history and inheritance, but we don't require anybody to believe it."
• 

  GetBusyLiving

  As we all know, without 1914 they can't claim to be chosen as God's channel in 1919. I can't see how they can get around this. There are going to be guys like scholar that will accept any old bullshit they spew but if they get rid of 1914 there would be a mass exodus of dubs. Its the hinge that holds all of the smoke and mirrors together, and its a lie.

  GBL