by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible
thirdwitless, can you explain to our JW lurkers why you disagree with "the faithful and discreet slave's" explanation of the 70 years of Tyre's being forgotten?
Can you explain why Exodus' statement that the heavens and the earth and everything in them were created in six days is false?
AlanF
It's quite obvious that Ezekiel predicts for Nebuchadnezzar the conquest of Egypt (chapter 30, verse 10) as well as Tyre (chapter 26:7). The prediction of the conquest of Tyre, however, is corrected in Ezekiel chapter 29 verses 18-19, where we learn that Nebuchadnezzar unsuccessfully besieged Tyre for 13 years. So Ezekiel promises him Egypt instead. But there is no evidence to corroborate that this happened. We do know from a fragment record that Nebuchadnezzar led an attack on Egypt in the 37th year of his reign (568 B.C) but the success of the attack is not known. We know that Neb. defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish on the Euphrates in 605. After this victory, however, he was recalled to Babylon by the death of his father; with the succession to the throne assured, he returned to pursue the Egyptians, who retired slowly South, and to secure the submission of the territory. These campaigns continued through 603-602 and ended in an unsuccessful attempt to invade Egypt in 601. So, we can see that Neb. did not win in every engagement he had with the Egyptians.
I was thinking about the implied claim made that to believe secular history over the bible is somehow wrong and yet that is exactly what the whole last days interpretation claim does - 1914 happens by sheer coincidence to have been the start of a huge war and this fact is clung to by 1914 proponents (i.e. a secular history claimed as proof of a biblical prophecy) even though the actual secular proof is not in any way shape or form proof that Jesus took over His kingdom in 1914 (if it was one would have to suggest that it would have been kinder not to have done since beginning a world war by one action then not intervening isn't very christian - how did taking over a kingdom in heaven start a war here anyway?)
The whole dating game relies utterly upon secular evidence to have any veracity - the destruction of Jerusalem took place a few times as attested by secular evidence and the believer in a date system needs those markers to tie the chronology to. The real challenge for the 'date maker' is what to do when the secular evidence begins to contradict a theological belief in what a prophecy said (after all its only a belief / interpretation that says these days of Daniel have to be literal years - could be real days or just a mathematical numerical symbol that we don't have - we know that 3,7 and 40 are both symbolic.http://www.biblequestions.org/Archives/BQAR316.htm) Critically this 'straining at a gnat' is the human thing to do when faced with a lack of any genuine revelation and direction from God - arguing about Adam's belly button and angels on pinheads is the same as wishing you knew a bible interpretation and fighting tooth and nail not be proven wrong.
The weight of evidence currently rests with 587/6 , evidence that wasn't as available when the WT made a mistake about 1914 - a mistake that was proven by the following 1975 lynchpin date that hung off 1914.
Alan F
4557
I do not accept your tabulation or your methodology The first year of Cyrus is given by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 1998, p.180, Table 88 as 538/537 BCE. Therefore, that first year was evenly divided or lay equally between the 538 and 537, this means that the seventh month would fall not on the side of 538 but as the beginning of 537 BCE.
Celebrated WT scholars have said in former times that "Whether the time of their arrival and resettlement there be reckoned as in the first or second full year of Cyrus' reign makes no difference. In either case, as above shown, Cyrus' decree and the Jew's resettlement could both be in 537 BCE".
If the Society's presentation of matters is impossible as you argur then how is that this is the first time that such claims have been raised? Carl Jonsson who is very familiar with calendation would seized upon such a blatant error if in fatc such an error is made. Even in Jonsson's recent fourth edition of his GTR he is not critical of the Society's explanation of 537 BCE as the year of the Return. Jonsson in the footnote 2 on page 90 states "The context seems to imply that this was still in the "first year of Cyrus". Most authorities, therefore, conclude that this was in the autumn of 538 BCE and not in 537 BCE as the Society insists". However, Jonsson cites two authorities in support of this view but a close reading of that material does not clarify the matter greatly.
If you have conclusive proof that you are right and that 537 BCE is utterly and postively wrong then write to the Society and put your view forward or further prepare and submit an article to some scholarly journal in order that all scholars can know for certainty the precise year for the Return.
scholar JW
Leolaia
7775
I did enjoy the pretty picture of modern Tyre that you posted for my benefit and I am overjoyed that you kindly thought of me. However, what you have presented merely shows some remains of the ancient Tyre which of course has not been rebuilt as it is still there as it was. All that has happened over the centuries is the building of a new Tyre which exists in a modern form today but the ancient city of Tyre has not been rebuilt it remains as it was, strfipped of its former glory. So, the existence of the ancient city and the modern city today clearly proves the fulfillment of Ezekiel's words that Tyre, that Phoenician will never be rebuilt.
scholar JW
I do not accept your tabulation or your methodology The first year of Cyrus is given by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 1998, p.180, Table 88 as 538/537 BCE. Therefore, that first year was evenly divided or lay equally between the 538 and 537, this means that the seventh month would fall not on the side of 538 but as the beginning of 537 BCE.
What a ludicrous and completely rediculous stretch. First, 'scholar' draws a rediculous conclusion not reached anywhere in scholarship that the calendation of 538/537 somehow means that it must refer to parts of both years equally - though it is known that the Jewish year started from Nisan - and from his flawed conclusion, he infers that the 7th month of that year falls in a month that is still not within that period. 'scholar', if you're going to talk absolute crap, you could at least try to give it the slightest glimmer of intelligence.
Celebrated WT scholars have said in former times that "Whether the time of their arrival and resettlement there be reckoned as in the first or second full year of Cyrus' reign makes no difference. In either case, as above shown, Cyrus' decree and the Jew's resettlement could both be in 537 BCE".
What the self-proclaimed WT pseudo-scholars have said is irrelevant because it is disproved by Ezra.
Jayhawk1
1858
You ask about the names of the celebrated WT scholars. I, too have asked that same very question so when I find the answer I will let you know.
scholar JW
I did enjoy the pretty picture of modern Tyre that you posted for my benefit and I am overjoyed that you kindly thought of me. However, what you have presented merely shows some remains of the ancient Tyre which of course has not been rebuilt as it is still there as it was. All that has happened over the centuries is the building of a new Tyre which exists in a modern form today but the ancient city of Tyre has not been rebuilt it remains as it was, strfipped of its former glory. So, the existence of the ancient city and the modern city today clearly proves the fulfillment of Ezekiel's words that Tyre, that Phoenician will never be rebuilt.
LOL. 'scholar's' argument here is that the modern city of Tyre is not Tyre rebuilt because... it is modern. Apparently it is "strfipped of its former glory" specifically because it now has modern conveniences.If a person's house is burned to the ground, and they decide to rebuild their home, it doesn't mean that they must make the new home from only the burnt remains of the old one. Similarly, a city that has been built on the site of an old city, having the same name as the old city, is naturally that same city rebuilt. Once again, 'scholar' indicates that his understanding of the English language is brutally deficient.
Jeffro,
I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you for your most illuminating posts. They are incredibly helpful to those of us interested in ancient bible history. Whilst not in the same league as yourself, Leolaia, AlanF and AuldSoul I do enjoy reading how modern archaeology is uncovering more and more about the Bible lands - revealing how utterly duped mankind has been for centuries.
Scholar is undoubtedly posting just to wind people up because, surely, no one could be that stupid? Suffice to say, that yours and other's answers to him and thirdwitness have educated us so much, saving us both time and money on the necessary research (because it is obvious you have thoroughly researched your subject unlike our two apologist "friends").
With profound thanks,
Ian
thirdwitness,
So, just answer me this: Does everything Jehovah says will happen occur exactly as prophesied?
Yes, or no.
Still waiting. It doesn't need an explanation, just an answer. We will see if you are a deceiver. (2 Corinthians 11:12-15)
