by Nathan Natas 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
‘scholar’:
It is impossible to refute your 'proof' of 587 as it is your contrivance based on your assumptions and methodology.
You’re just demonstrating your own Ignorance. The analysis makes no assumptions. Unless you want to go on some infinite regress to hard solipsism. 🤣
This goes about nothing. 607 is a meaningless issue for current jw's.
It's rearly mentioned and an absolute non issue.
So, I would say, invest your energy in a something more useful activity like walk arround in spring time 😉
G.
Scholar JW: The fact is that despite the numerous charts, books on chronology, and academic journal articles no scholar today knows the precise date for the fall except Jehovah's Witnesses by means of those 'celebrated' WT scholars.
Total bellend. Deserves to be ignored.
Gorb:
This goes about nothing. 607 is a meaningless issue for current jw's.Except for the fact that it is specifically covered in a chapter of the ‘study’ publication that all new JWs go through. 🤷♂️
It's rearly mentioned and an absolute non issue.
Where do people get this incorrect notion that it’s not taught anymore??
@TonusOH
The claim was that the event (Christ returning) had indeed occurred, but it had happened so quietly that even those who expected it hadn't noticed.
It's the sort of obvious nonsense that we normally see through, when the stakes aren't as high as we believe them to be. If our hopes and dreams are dependent on a prediction coming true, we are willing to extend our credulity surprisingly far.
---
What you write is absolutely spot on! The claim of the invisible(!) arrival of a person cannot be "tested", or rather, it may work for a while, but after a while, it ceases to be interesting. Invisible arrival, then, equals: not here.
For the one who claims that Jesus came invisibly, this is convenient. His statement is somehow not contestable, especially when he hedges it with the "authority" that anyone who questions this statement is the son of the devil...
Jeffro: Where do people get this incorrect notion that it’s not taught anymore??
I don't think anyone is denying that it is taught (like a hoop to jump through or a box to tick) but I think the consensus is that no-one cares about it.
As in
”APATHY?
Who cares!”
Jeffro
You’re just demonstrating your own Ignorance. The analysis makes no assumptions. Unless you want to go on some infinite regress to hard solipsism.
--
You certainly make assumptions. Just read your article or better still if you were to provide a proper PDF without its silly ads then I could refer you to specific paragraphs.
scholar JW
Jeffro
Where do people get this incorrect notion that it’s not taught anymore??
--
The said scholar teaches the subject with great gusto in the field ministry.
scholar JW
scholar’:
You certainly make assumptions. Just read your article or better still if you were to provide a proper PDF without its silly ads then I could refer you to specific paragraphs.
Lamest excuse ever. Seriously… ‘can’t refer to a specific paragraph because ads’. 🙄🤣 I’m not going to change the format just to pander to your special needs, nor do I see the need to pay more for hosting just so you don’t have some minor inconvenience.
Back on topic, poor ‘scholar’ seems to imagine I haven’t considered Thiele’s view. In the 1940s, Thiele’s chronology placed the Battle of Carchemish in the summer of 604 BCE. However, in 1956 after publication of the Babylonian chronicles, Thiele was forced to acknowledge that the battle was actually in 605 BCE. But he was desperate to retain his claims about the fall of Jerusalem occurring in 586 BCE. Thiele correctly deduced that the books of Kings and Jeremiah use Tishri dating for kings of Judah, but incorrectly concluded it was Tishri/accession dating so that Zedekiah’s 11th year would align with 586 BCE. However, to apply consistent reckoning for Jehoiakim’s reign would require either that Jehoiakim had a 12th regnal year (13 including accession year) or that the battle of Carchemish was in the summer of Jehoiakim‘s 3rd year (depending on Thiele’s deliberations about whether Jehoiakim began to reign before or after the start of Tishri 609 BCE, though it is now known it could not have been before anyway). Neither conclusion is consistent with the Bible.
On the other hand, I have reconciled all of the relevant verses. The siege ended in July 587 BCE. Correct application of the dating systems consequently identities the start of the siege in January 589 BCE.
