by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
djeggnog
I understand why Jehovah's Witnesses would not accept all the Babylonian Chronicles, but don't you accept the Nabonidus Chronicle? JW literature seems to generally speak highly of it, since it is the most important piece of evidence establishing the coregency of Belshazzar (?)
Inreferring to the Babylonian King lists, Insight to the Scriptures and Babylon the Great has fallen, God's Kingdom Rules offer that information on the various reignal years without qualification:
- i.e. nowhere does either publication put a disclaimer on that reignal data, to the effect of "these are the views of some researchers, but are not subscribed to by Jehovahs Witnesses." Rather, such data is presented as being accepted by the publishers of both books (The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society).
Most of what has been said on this thread in support of 607 BC tells us much more about the individual poster than it does about the subject under discussion. From following this thread, it does not take much to realize that religious fanaticism is as prevalent among the Jehovahs Witnesses as it is amongst any other religious group:
- and that there are some very disturbed individuals amongst them!
Bill.
PS: I identify 100% with Witness My Fury's feelings on discovering that "being a JW is based on lies / false chronology and mis interpretation of scripture." It "sucks" all-right; and that is putting matters lightly!
djeggnog:
Why are you studiously ignoring TD's points? I particularly look forward to you addressing them.
djeggnog:
@AnnOMaly:
Ok.
[djeggnog to Bill] But Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the king-lists to which you refer as accurate. ...
Then on what basis do you accept 539 BC as accurate?
... For all we know, Nabonidus may not have succeeded Neriglassar's son, Labashi-Marduk, to the throne in 575 BC. ...
Who's the 'we'? You surely mean, 'for all I know' because, as has been pointed out to you, the WTS has no problem with Nabonidus' 17 year reign ending in 539 BC (yep, do the math). Moreover, 'we' do know for fact that Labashi-Marduk succeeded Neriglissar and immediately preceeded Nabonidus as king. But I see that you may be starting to use a little imagination in finding other ways to stretch the time-line ;-)
... But we believe that Belshazzar was appointed coregent of Babylon during this father, Nabonidus' third regnal year, which would have been 572 BC according to our reckoning that he and his son ruled jointly from 572 BC until 539 BC when Cyrus' armies deposed Babylon. ...
Again, who's the 'our' in "our reckoning"? You are not speaking on behalf of the CCoJWs or the GB here. They do not agree with you. This 572 BC date is your own invention.
... Of course, we could be wrong, but so what? ... ...
Yes, YOU (sing.) are wrong - wronger than the WTS is - which means you are ... umm ... wrong!
'So what'?
... ... As far as all such dates are concerned, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on calculations made using the drop dead year 539 BC. We could be mistaken, but we don't believe we are mistaken.
You (sing.) are mistaken with your personal time-line; the WTS/JWs are mistaken with their time-line. In both cases this mistake knocks flat the whole JW row of eschatological dominoes leading to 1914. This mistake means that the WTS/GB has been teaching a falsehood for more than a century* despite claiming to be the sole representatives of the God of Truth! It means you, personally, are also teaching something demonstrably untrue despite claiming to be a spirit-directed genius!
* This includes the time when the BSs/JWs based their calculations on the 'drop dead years' 538 BC as the fall of Babylon and 536 BC as the first year of Cyrus and the return of the exiles. (Cf. The Truth Shall Make You Free (1943), p. 151; ZWT 1896, May 15, p. 105 [R. 1975].)
He's off doing research * Ann, he'll be back shortly. Part of me want's him(?) to bugger off and never come back here, but another part WANTs him to open his eyes and SEE. It is that part of me that has the upper hand at the moment, so I go with that for now.
* I bloody well hope he's off DOING research and carefully making sure of what he believes at any rate.
DjEggNogg..
Why should anyone that chooses to keep his or her anonymity forget all about anonymity and satisfy your curiosity and the curiosity of others?
You`ve made a claim you can`t back up..You say your a JW..But..
You say your not a Rank and File JW..Even the Anointed take orders from the WBT$ GB..
We know your not a member of the WBT$ GB..Theres nothing else left to be..
Your one or the other in Watchtower World..
Can you back up your claim or not?..
What are you,other than a "Nothing in Watchtower World?"..
....................
...OUTLAW
@ Witness My Fury:
You wrote:
He's off doing research * Ann, he'll be back shortly. Part of me want's him(?) to bugger off and never come back here, but another part WANTs him to open his eyes and SEE. It is that part of me that has the upper hand at the moment, so I go with that for now.
* I bloody well hope he's off DOING research and carefully making sure of what he believes at any rate.
Don't forget that threads like this one are open to the public - you don't even have to be a member to view it. It does far more damage to the WTB&TS, IMHO, to have an active witness come onto a forum like this and try, as hard as he (or she?) can to defend 607 BC with every argument he (or she?) may have, being met head on by posters that can reveal how shallow and deceptive the 607->1914 world view is. Many lurkers come and read the thread, and for those who are trying to decide, it can make a big difference.
Let eggnog try... that's why the GB wants him (her?) off sites like this. It just becomes an embarassment for them. The GB doesn't want eggnog on here, not because of the spiritual dangers we might pose to eggnog. Rather, it is because eggnog does more damage than we could on our own.
I do think its also proper to document just how much eggnog is deviating from the offical WT partyline, including the GB's admonition not to post on sites like this.
MeanMrMustard
Absobloodylutely MeanMrMustard!
djeggnog wrote:
If you don't believe that Solomon's temple was destroyed in 607 BC (why do you keep bringing up the year 1914, when we are not talking about 1914, are we?), you don't have to believe this to be true.
I've noticed this line of reasoning from family JWs lately, and frankly, I don't understand it. It's as if they say, "If you don't believe that 607 was the date for Jerusalem's fall, no big deal! After all, that doesn't affect much, right? Just keep going to meetings, keep going out in service... just don't express your doubts out loud, and you're golden!"
djeggnog, if 607 is false, then the events attached to 1914 never occured. No invisible return of Jesus, no subsequent appointment of the WTB&TS as God's organization. In other words, if 607 falls, then it reduces the GB to just a bunch of men, no more appointed by God than my cat...
And if that is the case, then the entire idea of a "ministry" to convert people to be JWs is a meaningless and false ministry.
MeanMrMustard
Ann,
Excellent point:
- this fellow is at variance with the WTS in his claim about the length of Nabonidus' reign.
Without any qualification whatsoever, Insight on the Scriptures Vol.2 p. 457 gives the length of his reign as being 17 years. Nowhere does Insight on the Scriptures state that it was in fact 35 years in length - and that 17 years is an inaccurate period, arrived at by "secular" means.
In fact, nowhere at all does any WTS publication state that Nabonidus ruled for 35 years, as certain people insist he did.
From the length of each Babylonian king's reign, as stated in the WTS literature, it is possible - as you put it, by using "simple math" - to determine that 607 BC is not the date of Jerusalem's destruction. (In fact, nowhere even close!)
Bill
