Thinking is hard. Thank Jehoover the GB and writing committee do our thinking for us!
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows
by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
GMahler
The truth is that the average JW doesn't even know who Carol Olof Jonsson is or about any ofthe events that took place in Bethel during the late 70's/early 80's. They aren't even aware that reliable scholarship favors the 586/587 BCE date, or that there is even any academic interest in Neo-Babylonian archaeology in general. Even though this article is, at best, a superficial treatment of the issue, for most JWs, it's content is entirely too deep for them. As has been mentioned, most readers will skim through the article and simply accept the 607 BCE date without any question.
I suspect the reason this article has been posted is because Bethel has been inudated with questions about this issue. I thought it was interesting that they would release this article after talking about sending questions for research in the Private Edition of October's Watchtower. I'm sure elders have been questioned about this,too. Even though I don't expect them to take any more interest in this article than the average JW, it will supply them with a reference should any members of their congregation raise any questions. And if any member's of the congregation are unsatisfied with their answer, they can always say, "The faithful slave has already dealt with this issue. Either get in line with Jehovah's direction or show yourself the door!".
-
Lore
This article relies on a LOT of assumptions.
Assumption 1: The bible is always true. (but a lot of the readers will grant this assumption.)
Assumption 2: The 70 years is a literal number, unlike pretty much every other round number in the bible.
Assumption 3: The 70 years started when the last of the Jews were captured, and ended when they were decreed to be released. (but we'll ignore that and say it wasn't the year they were ALLOWED to leave, but the year they officially started plowing fields, which of course gives us some flexibility.)
Assumption 4: Cyrus II decreed them to be released on his very first year as ruler OF BABYLON, not his first year as ruler of anything.Assumption 5: Diodorus of Sicily was correct when he stated that Cyrus II became ruler on the opening year of the 55th olympiad.
Assumption 6: The opening year of the 55th olympiad was 560 BCE
Assumption 7: Herodotus was correct when he said that Cyrus II died after ruling for 29 years
Assumption 8: The cuniform tablets they mention are correct in stating that Cyrus II ruled over Babylon for 9 years before he died.So if the 55th olympiad opened in 560, and Cyrus II started ruling that year, and he took over babylon 9 years before he died, which was a bit over 29 years after he started ruling, then Cyrus 2 took over in 539 or 540 ish and that year allowed the jews to leave. And evidently it took them 2-3 years to get started tilling the land so we'll call it 537 BCE. . . 70 years before that was 607, so there you have it.
If ANY of these assumptions are incorrect or lack evidence, then the whole thing crumbles.
-
breakfast of champions
I like how it starts 'one of our readers' wrote in questioning the 607 date. Try thousands. I do not doubt many who ' woke up' with the overlapping generation BS lie myself started questioning their dates and writing in.
Digging their heels in as 2014 approaches.
-
Iseenow
A bethelite gave me this article last week because of my questions about 607 vs 587/586. I told him after reading it that the
GB rely on it since without it 1914 would crumble. The scholars, on the other hand, have nothing to lose. All he could say was: "So you trust the scholars more."Most dubs will just eat it up and many who may have had problems with 607 will return to their normal routine. Thankfully not all, though.
-
No Room For George
"So you trust the scholars more."
That's what this is going to boil down to. Yet another doctrine that places a tough decision on a conscious JW. Any JW who does the math, and comes to the conclusion that the WT got this wrong, will be forced to keep their mouth shut for fear of being marked or a judicial committee.
-
AGuest
"So you trust the scholars more."
Funny (may you all have peace!), they don't consider themselves to be among these (or among the "scribes"... OR the "Pharisees". S'yeah, right...). Yet, they hold themselves out as scholars of a sort, do they not?
Ever read the Foreward or Introduction to any of their publications, particularly any of the NWTs? What about the "Aid" Book? "Insight on the Scriptures"? Based on the their claim as to "research"... and the plethora of "references" they cite... what in the WORLD makes them any different than the "scholars"? Wasn't Fred Franz a Rhodes' Scholar?? I mean, seriously...
Folks should feel free to trust the "scholars" as much... if not more so... than the WTBTS. Pretty much the same ilk, give or take a college degree...
Seriously, though...
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
Mad Sweeney
This topic angers me because it preys on the compliant minds of the indoctrinated and the ignorant. The Bible doesn't even say what they say it does, so how could it possibly MEAN what they say it does? But the sheeple will ooh and aah about how informative and timely this information from the FDS is and NEVER EVEN OPEN their Bible to read Jeremiah chapters 24 and 25 in context.
Also, they are clearly reading JWN and taking ideas from here.
The Borg sucks. I hate it more with each passing day.
-
TD
This is the same old 'shuck and jive' --Accept 539 (Box on page 28) and then turn around and reject the data and methods that support it.
That they would continue do this shows an absolute contempt for the intelligence of the average JW. --I guess they know what they're doing in that department though....
-
Iseenow
It's even more pathetic considering the fact that they got the 539 date from these very same people that bethelite denies.