Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  I was going to comment on the 'administration' point yesterday but ran out of time. We, of course, are not talking about democratically elected governments and presidents. This was a military invasion, conquest and take-over. One ruler out; new ruler in. The Bible says Belshazzar (acting ruler) was killed. Secular sources say Nabonidus was captured. Pfft. That was the end of the Babylonian administration.

  Indeed. My initial analogy about the change of the US president was only a very basic demonstration of a different administration. My follow-up suggestion of a take-over by a foreign power was more accurate.

  The Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that Cyrus arrived in Babylon about 16 days after his armies took it and he was readily accepted by the people - they hadn't thought much of Nabonidus anyway. Quickly, and within the same month (Month 8), new officials had been appointed. Beginning in Month 9 (so before the year 539 BCE was out), he was reversing previous Babylonian policy, starting to return the gods to their cities and temples. Obviously, the Jews didn't have gods in their temple, so it would be the sacred temple utensils which would have to be returned to them.
  
  Anyway, point being, Ethos's contention about how long ("several months") it would take for Cyrus to get some real authority and power to change policies, and get a new administration together, etc. is NONSENSE! He's the conquering king, for crying out loud, he can do what he damn well likes, and he DID, as history shows!

  The thing is, even if Cyrus' had decided, "they ran things really well here, I don't need to change any policies," it was still a new administration as 539 quite definitely marked the end of the Neo-Babylonian empire.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I will also address AnnoMoly's frivolous and nonsensical questions that show she hasn't grasped the fundamentals of my premises.

  I think I've grasped them all right. It's just that they are flawed and you then make knight-jump conclusions. But by all means, knock yourself out.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  The thing is, even if Cyrus' had decided, "they ran things really well here, I don't need to change any policies," it was still anew administration as 539 quite definitely marked the end of the Neo-Babylonian empire.

  Sure. I can't disagree there.

  Btw, the post was more for Ethos's benefit. I know you know this stuff inside-out
• 

  tornapart

  Well.. both myself and SD-7 have asked Ethos a question in this thread and I have yet to see the answer. It's seems to me to be deliberately 'missed' because he either can't or doesn't want to answer it.... (page4 & 5).

  Think JW facts made a great point on pg5 too!
• 

  PSacramento

  Thanks AnnOmaly for your views on ancient chronology, they echo what I have read by so many others.

  The issue to me is that pretty much ALL evidence we have that CAN be traced and verififed through multiple and independant source make it clear that Jerusalem fell to Babylon in the 587/586 BCE and the only way to make it be in 607BCE is to ignore the evidence AND to modify/re-interpte biblical text and I just don't see why we have to do that since it is quite clear that according to evidence AND the straight forward reading of biblical text that the event happened in 587/586.

  I understand how badly they WT needs it to be 607 because of their major doctine of 1914 but what I don't get is that it is quite obviously wrong AND a change in the dotrine (ie: new light) would actually HELP them and buy them more time.

  Shooting themselves in the foor it seems.
• 

  Jeffro

  Well.. both myself and SD-7 have asked Ethos a question in this thread and I have yet to see the answer. It's seems to me to be deliberately 'missed' because he either can't or doesn't want to answer it.... (page4 & 5).

  Yep. He's completely ignored a few things I've raised in this thread too. Maybe we need a nice simple list for him?
• 

  PSacramento

  Not sure what the point of debating this with Ethos is, It seems clear that he won't answer questions that he doesn't have an answer for ( not a bad thing when yoiu think of it) but what is worse is that:

  He is right and it is obvious that he is right so any disagreement with him is wrong because he is quite obviously right.

  Since only his intrerpretationis correct than, quite obviously, any other that is different is incorrect since, obviously, only his is correct.
• 

  Ethos

  It's a lie to say I don't answer questions. In fact, I've addressed a great number of questions (though off topic) in this thread even with my 10 posts per day posting limit. If I'm not responding, it's because I need more time to pass so I am allotted more posts so I can actually engage in discussion. There's that argument from silence fallacy rearing it's ugly head again.
• 

  Jeffro

  It's a lie to say I don't answer questions. In fact, I've addressed a great number of questions (though off topic) in this thread even with my 10 posts per day posting limit. If I'm not responding, it's because I need more time to pass so I am allotted more posts so I can actually engage in discussion. There's that argument from silence fallacy rearing it's ugly head again.

  It really seems like you're just not very good at defending your position. You've responded to later posts without responding to earlier ones, ignoring specific questions by various people along the way.

  Perhaps you should review the thread, noting each of the questions/concepts you've missed. You could then compile a single response at least briefly dealing with each issue so it doesn't affect your posting limit too much.
• 

  TD

  TD and Jeffro though, obviously the 2520 years are not calculated solely from Daniel. But it is a strawman....

  You would need a nominative statement, erroneous either on its own (lack of) merit or because it does not follow from the premises used to support it before an assertion like the one captioned above is justified.

  To reiterate, you stated:

  Any biblical exegetical class will catechize you into the habit of understanding scriptural passages and Bible books on their own merit. In other words, you cannot flip back and forth between two books of completely different literary contexts, origins, and time periods and use one to qualify what the other meant.

  ..a statement to which I wholeheartedly agree.

  However since the Protestant and more specific to this conversation, JW notion that the sixty-six book Bible is a work with a common author and can therefore be read contiguously when it's convenient runs counter to your common sense statement above, your statement is understandably a point of curiosity. --All the more so because that notion is sometimes openly threaded throughout JW treatments of this very topic. (As you allude to in your statement below..)

  Therefore, I'm understandably curious where you're coming from, since no meaningful conversation can take place until all parties have at least some grasp of the other's position. You obviously can't discuss trigonometric functions with someone who doesn't agree with you on the sum of two and two anymore than you can discuss ancient Greek with someone who doesn't agree with you that ανθροπος means 'man' (Or mankind)

  To that end, I've simply asked you some polite questions and have drawn no conclusion from them that would qualify as a strawman fallacy.

  ....I said I establish Revelation on its own premises, as I do Daniel. Thats why I said I teach the Gentile Times last, since I dont need it to establish 1914 and I dont necessarily agree with the biblical exegesis of the Gentile Times for reasons aforementioned.

  How is 1914 established without 607?