Seems like Scholar has not returned since this thread.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/107943/1907886/post.ashx#1907886
Easy Math for 586/587
by Mrs.Congeniality 17 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
startingover
This thread fits in well here I think:
-
greendawn
It's all very simple but because they are in a tight position they have to deny the self evident at any cost. They can't give up the 1914 date which is based on the 607 date because it supports too much of their ideology and dogma. That's why the whole world including the Jews whose history is directly involved have one date and the JWs another.
-
sf
Got it. Thanks.
sKally
-
TheOldHippie
Dearest Lady, ;-) the first quote refers to his becoming king over Babylonia, the second quote says that his kingship as a world ruler began in 607 (after the conquest of Jerusalem), so these are two separate evnts referred to in the book.
Greetings
-
Little Bo Peep
Dearest Lady, ;-) the first quote refers to his becoming king over Babylonia, the second quote says that his kingship as a world ruler began in 607 (after the conquest of Jerusalem), so these are two separate evnts referred to in the book.
Greetings According to the book, Nebuchadnezzar had become world ruler at this time (according to secular sources this was in 605/604, his accession year and then his first full year, as his father was still ruler in 607). But Babylon had become a world power, when they took power away from Egypt, not when Jerusalem was destroyed, another 18 years later. If one will but read the context of 2 Chron 35-36; 2 Kings 23-25 and Jere 18-52, you will see quite plainly, Jerusalem was in no position to be telling anyone what they could or could not do. They were subservient to Egypt and then to Babylon. Destroying Jerusalem in 586-587 or as the WT would have us believe, in 607, didn't make Nebuchadnezzar world ruler. He had been for some time. Jerusalem was but a very small part of his empire. The context of the above mentioned scriptures shows Jerusalem and her vassel king time and time again gave treasures from Jehovah's house to Babylon, even the gold doors of the temple, so can you really say they were still in power? As far as I can tell, this is just a "distinction without a difference", a way for the WT to try to make up the 20 year difference in whatever way they can. It shouldn't matter to us what the "book" says, but rather what the Bible itself tells us. When I first started reading the scriptures with my "blinders off" and without any "pre-conceived interpretations" my eyes were really opened. I would suggest to anyone interested in the facts, to first read the Bible accounts. It's really an "eye-opener." You'll think it's a lot to read, but once you begin, it's hard to put it down. I have found Bible reading to be really enjoyable (and I never did before) and so beneficial and comforting. Also, we were referred time and time again to the Kingdom Come book appendix. To read it at first sounds like "it makes sense" so no need to look any further. If you really want the facts, check it out "further". The first two pages are why we could probably believe 586-587, and the last two pages telling you why you shouldn't believe the first two pages. There are a lot of posts regarding this refutation, and worth taking the time to really check out. There is so much more to this than meets the eye, and as was commented on above, there is "everything" at stake for the WT. They must make this date work, at whatever costs, or all their authority structure will crumble. Thanks for listening... Little Bo Peep -
the sage
mrs congeniality!
your right on with this post!
thank you!
the sage
-
TheOldHippie
I'm not arguing that, but what I WAS pointing to, was that the BOOK says these are two separate occurances. So seen from the BOOK, there are no discrepancies here. The BOOK does not contradict itself, seen from its own point of view - and I was under the impression that the original poster wanted to have us believe that. FACTS - well, that's another story, but the book is coherent in its view.