Another Revised NWT Thread - subtly sowing seeds of doubt with chart

by mindnumbed 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Rattigan350
    Rattigan350

    "So, it's not just 607 that the WTS is at odds with modern historians but the whole of the kings of Israel chronology. How do they get away with this? What sources do they use?"

    Say what? This is not news. This is how they have calculated it since Nelson Barbour came up with the 70 years from Restoration of jerusalem to destruction. 537-607 for the destruction of Jerusalem and then worked back. There is a 20 difference between that and the 586ers. Russell took that then Rutherford and everyone since that time.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    The correct chart looks like this:

  • Emery
    Emery

    The majority of believeing Jws could care less, they're more concerned about making a comment at the meeting than researching the solidity of doctrine.

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    You must respect the channel that God is using.

  • NeverKnew
    NeverKnew

    For those who do not have the new Bible, is the RNWT chart online?

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    Jeffro,

    Your blog is awesome. Is there an even simpler explanation than your simplified page for beginners?

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    DATA-DOG:

    Your blog is awesome. Is there an even simpler explanation than your simplified page for beginners?

    Hmmm... that's a challenge. I'm not really sure how to simplify it further without limiting the information presented. I'm open to suggestions.

    Some people like to point out that the Neo-Babylonian period can be indicated from Watch Tower Society publications as agreeing with secular chronology of the period, and that's considerd a fairly simple approach. However, the JW publications in question only state that the lengths of each reign are those provided by secular sources, and they never actually say they agree with them.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Another example of problems with the JW chronology for the kings of Israel is that the gap between their chronology and reality increases to 68 years by the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. (This specific duration is deliberately manufactured to shift the end of Ezekiel's '390 years' to the fall of Jerusalem, though that period should end only once they'd 'atoned for their sins'. The difference of 68 years corresponds to the period from the JW's alleged fall of Jerusalem until the subsequent fall of the Babylonian empire in 539.)

    This causes problems with correlating their chronology with secular history. For example, Assyrian inscriptions indicate that Shalmaneser III was contemporaneous with king Ahab, at the Battle of Karkar. The date of the battle is determined by secular historians as being in 853 B.C.E., based on astronomical observations.

    In the JW chronology, there are 61 years between the end of Ahab's reign and the beginning of Shalmaneser's. Insight devotes more than a full page trying to debunk the fact that Ahab and Shalmaneser's reigns overlapped. However, in reality, Ahab was indeed contemporaneous with Shalmaneser III.

    As seen in the chart I provided earlier, in 853 B.C.E. Ahab was co-regent with Jehoram, even though I gave no consideration to Shalmaneser's reign when determining the Bible's chronology.

  • MrFreeze
    MrFreeze

    The WT backs up their claims of 607 by adding a non-existent king into the Babylonian line of kings.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    NeverKnew:

    For those who do not have the new Bible, is the RNWT chart online?

    The new NWT is available online. The charts start on page 1744.

    The charts are also presented (poorly) as text on the JW website in two separate parts.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit