WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • kurtbethel

    The claim that planetary data is less reliable is not accurate. If you think of planets marking time like an hour hand on a clock, with the moon like a minute hand, then obviously lunar data would be more reliable for marking a specific day than the planets would be. The planets would be less precise for determining one day after another compared to lunar movement, but it makes then great markers for what year is being described. The "researcher" is either unaware of this and is unqualified to examine this evidence, or knows it and dishonestly hides this data so that the deception might not be uncovered.

    What you are looking for is " Saturn was in front of the Swallow " (Pisces) and " Jupiter was above α Scorpii " (Antares). The year in question would need to meet both of these conditions. 568 BCE meets that test, while 588 BCE does not.

    The bottom line is that using the data from VAT 4956, which the Watchtower currently accepts as valid, Stellarium shows that Jupiter and Saturn were in the positions described in the tablet in 568 BCE, and could not possibly be in those positions in 588 BCE. So 586 BCE was Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year of reign and all the other events in question can be mapped from this.

    The Watchtower has jumped the shark. It has no credibility.

  • Cadellin

    I don't have the article in front of me at the moment, but I thought the WT's objection to using planetary location (aside from the fact that it would blow their theory out of the water) is that the names used for the planets were open to multiple interpretations and so (supposedly) b/c the planets could not be positively identified, they would be elided.

    Sounds incredibly fishy and, no surprise, there's no evidence provided for multiple readings on the planet names.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    names used for the planets were open to multiple interpretations

    The WT often makes this kind of sweeping statement when there is no question of any confusion in the specific instance it has a problem with.

    What I want to know is, is the name used for Saturn in this instance ever used to describe another heavenly body that could create confusion?

  • Londo111

    This is definitely the Achilles Heel of WTS doctrine. And the shell game the writer(s) of these articles played is plain inexcusable. All Witnesses need to be made aware of this.

  • Ucantnome

    This isnt really my subject.

    However in Zechariah 7:5 "When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?"

    how do you explain this? What happened in the fifth month and in the seventh month that cause wailing for 70years?

    I'm not a JW.

  • Black Sheep
  • Ucantnome

    Thank you Black Sheep I will read it.

  • Londo111

    Thanks, Black Sheep!

    Upon reading that, I believe Zechariah 7:5 adds more weight for the 587 date, not the other way around!

  • Tuesday

    Has anyone simply said "no one is saying the bible is wrong, everyone believes the 70 years of servitude started before Israel was enslaved"?

  • Londo111

    I remember reading a letter to the Society where one brother wrote a letter about Jeremiah 25:12, showing the end of the 70 years occured in 539 BCE, not 537. And it is a simple enough scripture, the 70 years get fulfilled, the king of Babylon and the nation of Babylon would get called into account, and then Babylon would become a desolate waste. The Society's response was bizarre, something to the effect that since the city of Babylon wasn't a waste until some time in the 4th Century, so the ending of the 70 years couldn't be tied to these events. Since the 4th century occured after 539 BCE...and thus after the 70 years were fulfilled, I don't follow...

    Then there is the logic that Cyrus became king over Babylon, and that verse applied to him in 537... That makes no sense. Cyrus wasn't called into account, he was used to bring Babylon to account.

    Then I believe I read something where Furuli tried to say that the Hebrews had a difference sense of time, then us modern Westerners...so we couldn't read it as a sequence of events as in 70 years fullfilled THEN king of Babylon/Babylon called into account. I don't know ancient Hebrew, but I've seen enough to believe that the English translations of this verse carry the meaning.

    It's very fallacious logic in this articles. It's presented with binary logic of either one believes the Bible and accepts 607BCE...or you reject what the Bible says. Given that choice, most sincere Witnesses who don't put these articles to the test will obviously side with 607 BCE. The fact that the Bible is in perfect harmony with the historical evidence in regard to 587 is not an option presented...

Share this