Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro 223 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Bart Belteshassur
    Bart Belteshassur

    Scholar- Are you stating that the WT agree that the delosation started in the first year of Nebuchanezzer as Stern states in the quotation that was used, and if so how can you equate Exile with Desolation as you have already stated?

  • scholar
    scholar

    Bart Belteshassur

    Post 71

    No for the desolation of Judah only commenced with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE but it was certainly during the period of Babylonian rule as Stern writes. His chronology differs from that of WT scholars but he finds agreement by mean of archaeology that the land of Judah specifically was desolate. However, findings for other areas such as the territory of Benjamin did attest to habitation but of course the the territory of Benjamin was north to the Judah.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    Your table is simply a contrivance designed to mislead the gullible and further it is not scholarship because it is simply a copy of others chronology.

    You keep jumping between saying my chart is not consistent with other scholars and saying it's a copy of others' work. As usual, you don't make sense.

    Our computation of the Ezekiel's 390 years is simply taken from the year for the beginning of the Divided Monarchy in 997 BCE adding up all of the regnal years of the respective kings of Judah which ammounts to 390 years thus reaching the end at 607 BCE. No manufacturing or manipulation is required for the numbers simply fall into place.

    Again, you keep saying 'our', but you are just a Watch Tower crony with no original thought of your own. The Watch Tower Society's chronology is full of "manufacturing and manipulation". The overarching manipulation is to 'force' a fit of superstitious JW numerology regarding 607 and 1914. However, there are various aspects of manipulation.

    • Spurious periods added before Zechariah and Hoshea.
    • Generally denying co-regencies, but allowing one co-regency for the entire period.
    • Shifting reigns for Egypt, Assyria & Babylon to fit JW chronology (but with no specific years provided), saying every secular source on the subject 'must be wrong'.
    • Redistribution of a spurious period prior to Uzziah (from 1944 JW chronology) into smaller less noticable discrepancies of a year each.
    • Randomly switching between dating systems to 'explain' various inconsistencies.
    • Counting years of reign from the point of 'vassalage', with no support from any source.
    • Beyond one-year differences due to inconsistent use of dating systems, inability to reconcile 2 Kings 3:1, 2 Kings 15:1, 2 Kings 17:1.
    • Distorted order and placement of events involving Daniel.
    • Distorted placement of events of Nebuchadnezzar's early reign.
    • Ignoring context of Jeremiah chapters 25-29.

    There's a lot more that could be said, but that's sufficient for now.

    Stern's article was straightforward and so was the specific reference chosen by the WT writers. Stern does not endorse WT chronology but certainly does agree that during the Babylonian period the land was desolated.

    The only correct parts of your statements there is that Stern's article was straightforward and that Stern does not endorse WT chronology.

    The only difference apart from the dates is that Stern finds no evidence for the complete dehabitation but you would not expect any other result from archaeology.

    Basically, the 'only' difference is that what Stern said is fundamentally different to what the Watch Tower Society claims.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    Scholar

    Interesting debate expressing opposing views. WTS chronology is produced with interpretaion (yes or no?); but so what? so is the opposing view (yes or no?). Which view is the correct one? As far as I view it, interpretation is a conclusion, and therefore we dont know for a fact at this time until there are more real facts to consider. I do know that now a WTS creative yom is no longer 1000 years in length. -Not, that it has anything to do with chronology, but 1914 is never going to go away until it validates or invalidates WTS chronology. I think that you are beating a dead horse here and that is the botton line.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Fisherman:

    Interesting debate expressing opposing views. WTS chronology is produced with interpretaion (yes or no?); but so what? so is the opposing view (yes or no?). Which view is the correct one? As far as I view it, interpretation is a conclusion, and therefore we dont know for a fact at this time until there are more real facts to consider. I do know that now a WTS creative yom is no longer 1000 years in length. -Not, that it has anything to do with chronology, but 1914 is never going to go away until it validates or invalidates WTS chronology. I think that you are beating a dead horse and that is the botton line.

    I've shown quite definitely that the JW interpretation contradicts the Bible, which is supposed to be their source material. There's no point 'interpreting' the text so far from what it actually says to be unrecognisable. As shown in detail by myself and others, the WTS chronology is entirely dishonest.

    But you are right in that because there are many gullible JWs who are too afraid to honestly consider their own beliefs for fear of being shunned that the group will probably be around for some time to come. The doggedness of victims like 'scholar' to claim the Bible says exactly the opposite of what it actually says demonstrates well the power of sectarian brainwashing.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    I've shown quite definitely that the JW interpretation contradicts the Bible

    Jeff, listen to what you say. You are only stating your personal conclusion, what you believe you have done. Can you say "It is a fact that JW interpretation contradicts the Bible?" Even if you did say that, you would still be stating something that you believe. Your interpretaion and JW interpretaion are beliefs. Beliefs do not always turn out to be true.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Fisherman:

    Jeff, listen to what you say. You are only stating your personal conclusion, what you believe you have done. Can you say "It is a fact that JW interpretation contradicts the Bible?" Even if you did say that, you would still be stating something that you believe. Your interpretaion and JW interpretaion are beliefs. Beliefs do not always turn out to be true.

    Instead of making the same kind of vague rebuttals as 'scholar', feel free to comment on the specific scriptures I've already raised.

    For a start, read Jeremiah chapter 27. Then say here what it says about exile and about serving Babylon.

    My 'interpretation' is completely consistent with secular sources regarding the Neo-Babylonian period and the records of all the nations contemporaneous with ancient Judah and is not hinged on magical thinking or 'end times' beliefs.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    de·bat·a·ble

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Fisherman:

    de·bat·a·ble

    cop·out

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    As I said before, Jeffro and Ann, I have enjoyed this debate between you and "Scholar", he has exposed the W.T's chronology for what it is, total error.

    I would advise not engaging Fisherman in any conversation, it will simply pull the debate down to the level we see in his posts just above.

    Fisherman=Troll.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit