by MrFreeze 100 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Miseryloveselders, actually the Insight book changed the date of the Battle of Carchemish, and deceptive quoted a source and inserted in brackets the date 624BCE for the battle. When going to the source you find they use the date 604BCE.
Here is the thread and proof-
Isaac, I'm at work right now, and I'm actually shocked by that. I'm shocked at the lengths they'll go to misrepresent real scholars to support their own mistaken date!! I'm kinda at a loss for words right now. I really don't know what to say right now. It's just mind boggling how dishonest the WT is. I mean, wow. That's all I can say, is wow. Thanks for linking that thread. Wow. Average people today don't bother to do proper research, and something like that 9 out of 10 people would never catch because they would never think to question the WT. Its sickening. Talk about reading the fine print LOL
Wanted to mention, I bought Carl Jonnson's book last fall. I read it, but didnt really "read" it. The past month or so, I've taken the time to get the notepad out, and start really examining his arguments. His arguments make sense to me. I really don't think there's any real contradiction between the Bible and Historians. I've been doing the same with the WT's Revelation Book, and Historians interpretation of Revelation. PBS Online has a really good website focusing on apocalyptic views. It kills me how the WTS is willing to do almost anything to hide the truth about The Troof.
You're welcome MLE. The thing is this- if you go to the source and the page listed it takes you to the appendix of the source- where it mentions the battle, but NO date is listed. If you then go into the section of the book that actually discusses the battle in detail you see the date they list for the battle as 604BCE. Like you said, JWs generally do not question, let alone verfiy sources.
MLE, the standard JW answer is 'we acept the Bible over secular historians"...however..that is a loaded answer. The Bible's credibility is not impacted by 607 being wrong. WT doctrine is MAJORLY impacted.
So, let me get this straight, Jerusalem was desolated in 587 BCE, so the 2520 years so plain in Daniel, end in 1934 AD.
What actually happened in 1934, Scholar ?
LOL in 1931 they adopted the name Jehovahs Witnesses...so if you count back 1260 days from 1934...LOL
Or if we just allow some wiggle room the number 144,000 was filled in 1935- oops old light SORRY!
AnnOMaly
Post 1383
Jehovah is very happy with 607 BCE because it pays attention to prophecy and that is what distinguishes us from apostates, scoffers and higher critics is that they do not value prophecy nor are they lovers of God's Word. The date 607 BCE is correct because it works, it succeeds, it began the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE.
Yes you can use an imperfect chronology for indeed all chronologies are not perfect or infallible for it is simply working with the best data available and with an appropriate methoidology you have BINGO, a chronology.
Yes we use all the of the avaialble data to calculate and validate 607 BCE both in terms of its chronology and its historicity. You must remember that chronology is simply the framework of history so all of the pieces must fit together. Your chronology is flawed on many counts, the methodology is prone to error, it trivializes or ignores the seventy years, indifferent to prophecy and theology and its history is also flawed. The result is no precise calender year for the Fall.
Yes, Young resolved the problem to his satisfaction that 587 BCE was the most likely suspect but even up to the present it has not overtaken 586 BCE championed by more serious scholars. Also, do not forget it was scholar who drew attention to his research on this forum. You should say Thanks, scholar!
scholar JW
Jehovah is very happy with 607 BCE because .......
I suppose it's too much to ask for proof?
Jehovah is very happy with 607 BCE because it pays attention to prophecy ...
Another unsubstantiated assertion, Neil.
... and that is what distinguishes us from apostates, scoffers and higher critics is that they do not value prophecy nor are they lovers of God's Word.
Ad hominem fallacy as well as generalization.
The date 607 BCE is correct because it works, it succeeds, it began the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE.
Unsubstantiated assertion which has been proven erroneous on countless occasions.
Yes you can use an imperfect chronology for indeed all chronologies are not perfect or infallible for it is simply working with the best data available and with an appropriate methoidology you have BINGO, a chronology.
Yes we use all the of the avaialble data to calculate and validate 607 BCE both in terms of its chronology and its historicity. You must remember that chronology is simply the framework of history so all of the pieces must fit together.
Exactly! 'All of the pieces must fit together.' So you cannot utilize a secular chronology to "firmly establish" a WTS date if the secular chronology is out by 20 years. End of story.
Your chronology is flawed on many counts, the methodology is prone to error, it trivializes or ignores the seventy years, indifferent to prophecy and theology and its history is also flawed. The result is no precise calender year for the Fall.
On the contrary, it takes into account the biblical and secular testimonies and comes up with a potential margin of error of 1 year (depending on how Neb's reign is counted in the Bible) rather than the WTS' 20 years.
Yes, Young resolved the problem to his satisfaction that 587 BCE was the most likely suspect but even up to the present it has not overtaken 586 BCE championed by more serious scholars.
So Young isn't as serious a scholar as the the ones who favor 586? Is that what you're saying?! You impudent monkey! One thing I do know - he's a 1000 times the scholar you are and then some. At least you admit that 587 is the most likely suspect according to his method.
Also, do not forget it was scholar who drew attention to his research on this forum. You should say Thanks, scholar!
Actually, it was Carl Olof Jonsson from ChannelC who drew your attention to his research in the first place. You should say, Thanks, COJ!
