I for one would like a very, very detailed post/thread from Scholar where he consolodates the Babylonian and Israelite kings reignal years and gives an expanation of the Watchtower's dates. Each one these would be supported by a direct quote from the Watchtower or the Bible. No more vague I'm right because I say I'm right and the Watchtower is right because it says its right.
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Alwayshere
Little Bo Peep, Vol.1 insight book also says[under Daniel] Daniel was taken captive in 617 with Jehoiachin and the Bible says Jehoiachin was taken in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year as King.[2 Kings24:12] The Bible says plainly at Daniel 2:1 Daniel was taken before then because he is interpretating The King's dream in his [Neb.] second year.They just throw those years around because they know no one dares to question them because they will be labeled an Apostate if they do. It's a sorry organization that is run by Apostates. When they start studying the Daniel book again they contridict Daniel again. Forgot what page but it is when Daniel is telling Neb. the "Tree"[daniel chapter 4]is Neb. himself and his[Neb.]rulership is to the extremity of the earth. After quoting that scripture the Society says "Rulership to the extremity of the earth is Jehovah's." Daniel says seven times would pass over Neb. kingdom. But several pages over the Society uses these 7 times for God's kingdom. But no where did Daniel meantion the tree represented God's Kingdom. He said it represented Neb. and nothing else.Also close to the front they say Neb. ruled 43 years and Babylonian world power continued for 43 more years.Thats 86 years of world power.Vol.1 Isaiah book page 178 says Babylon had WP from 632-539 and that is 93 years. same book page 253 says 70 years for WP.I could go on and on for their stupid dates but this is enough for anyone to see they are wrong and they are also a cult.
-
scholar
IP_SEC
You are correct! There can be no biblical chronology without secular chronology because secular chronology gives an Absolute Date and the Bible with secular evidence gives us a Pivotal Date. Yes at this point we abandon the secular materials and then reconstruct a biblical chronology that harmonizes all of the biblical data. Bingo! Now we have a complete and accurate chronology for the OT. This meams that one can determine the dates for the Divided Monarchy, the Patriarchial period and the Antediluvian period right back to Adam.
With this framework the reigns of Nebuchadnezzer can thus be determined and the fall of Jerusalem in 607 because of a methodology and interpretation consistent with prophecy.WT chronology inspire a sense of wonder
By the way where is your chronology for the OT period?
scholar JW
-
Leolaia
There can be no biblical chronology without secular chronology because secular chronology gives an Absolute Date and the Bible with secular evidence gives us a Pivotal Date. Yes at this point we abandon the secular materials and then reconstruct a biblical chronology that harmonizes all of the biblical data. ...With this framework the reigns of Nebuchadnezzer can thus be determined and the fall of Jerusalem in 607 because of a methodology and interpretation consistent with prophecy.
And yet 587 BC is perfectly consistent with the Watchtower interpretation of the "70 years" if one starts off with a different absolute date than the one used by the WTS.
I've pointed out this problem six or seven times to scholar but he doesn't seem to grasp it yet.
-
observer
Page 46 refers not to his second year of his reign but the second year of his kingship as World Ruler beginning from 607 when Nebuchadnezzer destroyed Jerusalem. The second paragragh states that: "He had effectively become world ruler in 607 BCE, when Jehovah God allowed him to destroy Jerusalem and its temple.In the second year of Nebuchadnezzer's reign (kingship- Daniel 1:1; 2:1) as world ruler (606/605 BCE)".
That Watchtower's explanation is so lame..
It would be the same if I'd make a claim, that USA has now been World power about two years because not until in 2003 Saddam Hussein was deposed. -
scholar
Leolaia
What you fail to understand that your interpretation of the seventy years with 587 for the Fall of Jerusalem is simply the Jonsson hypothesis. Jonsson provides his interpretation of the seventy years using 587 but his explanation is a mess. The Society's interpreation using 607 is far better because it alone combines the elements of exile, servitude and desolation from 607 to 537.
scholar JW
-
Alwayshere
the Bible along with secular evidence gives us a pivotal date
Scholar, A pivotal date is 539, something Society agrees with history on. Society also agrees with history on the length of years that the last four Kings of Babylon ruled.Nebuchadnezzar-43, Evil-Merodach-2years, Neriglissar-4 and Nabonidus-17.Count backwards from 539 to17 years=556, add 4=560 add 2= 562 add 43= 605. starting with 605 as 1 year and go down=587 which is the 19th year for Neb. If you add or take away any of these years you can't get 539. The Watchtower Library2001 CD and the 1965 Watchtower January 1 page 29 show this. But they will dance around this just like they do everything else but the fact is, it is in their own literature that they agreed. BINGO
-
Black Sheep
Hi, Lttle Bo Peep. Welcome to the board.
I found an amusing discussion on Daniel that is relevant to the Daniel book and may help you to formulate a discussion.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/smcdownlds/chap09.html
The whole story is well worth a read.
-
Leolaia
What you fail to understand that your interpretation of the seventy years with 587 for the Fall of Jerusalem is simply the Jonsson hypothesis. Jonsson provides his interpretation of the seventy years using 587 but his explanation is a mess. The Society's interpreation using 607 is far better because it alone combines the elements of exile, servitude and desolation from 607 to 537.
I find it amusing that you still, after all my repeated and repeated attempts to explain the problem to you, have no clue what I'm talking about! Each and every time I said in no uncertain terms that the problem involves YOUR interpretation of the 70 years. The one used by the Watchtower Society. The one that you so dearly love. That one. In the 8 or 9 posts I've made on this problem, not once did I ever use any other interpretation of the 70 years than "that one". That you still persistently fail to realize this speaks volumes in terms of your intelligence.
-
Sheri
Told Elder yesterday that the Ark is not the organization it is Jesus Christ. He stopped by to check in since I was not at the meeting again. He mentioned the WT Study and I asked him how many times was Jesus mentioned and why where all the examples from OT if this was about our Christian Identity? Thanks so much Blondie!
Then told him I was studying more than ever and I was not lacking any zeal or apathetic in my spiritual life in fact I was testing everything I read to the Bible, but he brought up the paragraph from the Study about this and asked what the second portion of the article was and I told him I remembered it was to not to go to outside sources (such as Internet and apostate site, my comment) I told him that since my question to him was about 607 could he really say that everyone, even the Countries whoes history is in the Bible, could they all have it wrong and just the Society has it right to force a date of 1914? Told him I will put my research together soon and we can sit down and go over it and go from there. Asked me if I was saying that I did not think this was God's only Channel and told him from what I am reading old and new history I can say right now I dont think it is but open to them showing me why it is. Also told him I did not appreciate having articles always referring what the bible students in early 1870's understood and then plug in 1914 and Christ presence when that was clearly not what they understood, to me that was a "white lie" and God does not lie, so how can this be his only channel.
I do care for this elder and know he is trying to do what is right in his mind. Asked if he could say a prayer and said he could as long as he did not ask for my spiritual strength, as I am strong. Asked if he could pray for increasing light in my research and said yes as I pray that everyday. The journey has begun.
Sheri