Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto 154 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LeeT

  Scholar
  

  Why did you not get your Certificate?

  I was doing another degree at the time and didn't want the added pressure of deadlines or the added expense.

  one must make a choice between the Biblical history of the Period and the contemporary documents

  
  

  I see you as choosing a particular interpretation of Biblical history. Others seem to have little difficulty in arriving an interpretation which conforms to their understandings of both the Bible and history or even to arrive at an inconclusive conclusion.
  
  How would you go about testing whether a particular interpretation of historically related Biblical text is accurate? Surely you'd expect it to be in conformity with well arrested secular evidence or have a compelling case for why the secular record is in error.
  
  You don't need to abandon inerrancy to abandon an interpretation.
  
  Personally, I'm an atheist and quite happy with the idea that there are errors, intentional hyperbole, rounded figures and that different writers may have had differing opinions and written from their own perspective. I'd like to make sense of it all, but I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that some of the 'rough' is a feature and needn't be smoothed away to create a gloss finish.
  Eg I find it quite OK for Jonsson to conclude that he isn't certain of a start date, that there are merits and demerits to alternative positions.
  
  

  What must be explained is the silence of the Babylonian records pertaining to the missing seven-year reign of Nebuchadnezzer

  British Museum, No. BM 34113 (sp 213), and was published by A. K. Grayson in Babylonian historical-literary texts, 1975 might be what you want but it's hardly conclusive of anything.
  

  2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered
  3 His life appeared of no value to [him, ......]
  5 And (the) Babylon(ian) speaks bad counsel to Evil-merodach [....]
  6 Then he gives an entirely different order but [. . .]
  7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tier(s) - - -]
  11 He does not show love to son and daughter [. . .]
  12 ... family and clan do not exist [. . .]
  14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]
  16 He prays to the lord of lords, he raised [his hands (in supplication) (. . .)]
  17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] gods [......]
  18 His prayers go forth to [......]

  http://a-laymans-journey.blogspot.com/2009/12/text-of-bm34113-british-museum-no-bm.html

  What if the silence is because nothing much actually happened to be recorded or it a misremembering of Nabonidus' long stay in Teima? People doing business would still have recorded the dates of their dealings and if the madness was real. If seven years of madness exist, they're already included amongst the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar II's rule.
  
  

  the omission of any mention of the seventy years hegemony over Judah and the other serving nations roundabout

  Yes, there doesn't appear to be much bombast and the chronicle records seem sparse.

  the length of the Neo-Babylonian Period is problematic and far from settled as it has not accounted for the twenty-year Gap proved by the 70 years of Babylonian domination

  I was a bit lazy above in using 66 and 86 year periods. WT agrees that Nebuchadnezzar II reigned for 43 years and appear to give Nabonidus 16 years so the window for the 20 missing years can be narrowed substantially. Is it fair to say the WT believes the 20 years must be inserted somewhere between the 43rd of Nebuchadnezzar II and the 1st of Nabonidus?
• 

  Doug Mason

  Scholar,

  I do not need to provide a date for the Exiles' return. It's the issue for the WTS as it matters to them, but it is not significant for me.

  I have analysed the WTS's explanations -- see pages 6ff of my investigation, including diagrams, at:

  https://jwstudies.com/The_Jews_return_home_ver_3.pdf ]

  Doug
• 

  johnamos

  quote -The date for Assyria's ending as a World Power is problematic but the accepted Date is 609 BCE and that is fine with me because it has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the 70 years. - end quote

  Thank you for that answer...and you are just showing that you really have no idea what you are talking about, but by no means please don't stop, PLEASE see this whole thing out.

  You say you are fine with saying Assyria ended being the 2nd world power in 609 (which is correct) because it "has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the 70 years".

  Take note of this first:

  [12-1-71 WT p. 715 - This prophecy begins to apply, therefore, after Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian brought about the downfall of Babylon in the autumn of the year 539 B.C.E. and the Medo-Persian Empire was established as the Fourth World Power of Bible history. This Empire, which grew to greater size than that of Babylon, eastward and westward and southward, continued its world domination from 539 to 331 B.C.E.]

  Notice that the WTS states accurately that the Medo-Persian Empire was established as the 4th world power in 539 with the downfall of Babylon (3rd world power).And they go on to show that Medo-Persian Empire was the 4th world power until 331 and although not stated here it ended in 331 due to Greece overthrowing it and thereby becoming the 5th world power.

  Likewise, Babylon defeated Assyria (2nd world power) in 609 thereby becoming the 3rd world power until 539 and as we just read Medo-Persian then became the 4th world power having defeated Babylon.

  So if you know that Babylon defeated Assyria in 609 then why do you say that they (Babylon) did not become the 3rd world power until 607 and that they were only a world power for 68 years? Even the WTS states that Babylon's greatest domination period was 70 years long.

  Anyway, I hope you are aware that Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father) was king and with Nebuchadnezzar when they defeated Assyria in Haran in 609, and Nabopolassar died 4 years later in 605 and that is when Nebuchadnezzar became king and then the Bible account goes on to say that Nebuchadnezzar sacked Judah 18 years after becoming king.

  605 -18 = 587... But all here know that the WTS likes to magically add 20 years to 587 to arrive at 607...but that also means that they add 20 years to the Babylon overthrow of Assyria in Haran 609 which would be 629.

  629 - 539 = 90 years

  So knowing that the WTS stated that Medo-Persian became the 4th world power starting at the point they overthrew Babylon until they were overthrown by Greece...do say that:

  Babylon defeated Assyria in 629 and thereby the 3rd world power for 90 years until 539?

  Or do you say:

  Babylon defeated Assyria in 609 and thereby the 3rd world power for 70 years until 539?

  Or do you still say that Babylon became the 3rd world power in 607 for 68 years until 539?

  If so, do you say they defeated Assyria in 629 (like the WTS does) or 609?
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar

  A.1. Babylon was a World Power for 68 years 607 BCE-539 BCE

  What particular events in 607 BCE do you think marked this transformation to World Power Status? Do you think conquering Judah, a fairly insignificant power in a strategically important region marked a tipping point whereas defeating Assyria didn't?
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  Scholar says ...

  Vanderhoven7

  That is the problem. Scholars cannot agree as to the precise calendar year for the Fall of Jerusalem whether it 586 or 587 BCE

  As you can see he's been intentionally evasive and dismissive to the argument, which is why as I mentioned before he's intellectually dishonest and disingenuous as well.

  He calls the WTS head editorial writers Celebrated Scholars which kind of shows where his true honesty is situated at.

  His argument sits on the basis that the bible says 70 years of desolation, so going back 70 years from 537 you arrive at 607 (Jerusalem's destruction)......... so there this is his belief
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  So Scholar are you a practicing baptized Jehovah Witness ?
  

  And perhaps how would you like to comment about the WTS's date setting of 1914 and their chronological calculation when Jesus himself said clearly that no one knows of the time not even he.

  He also admonished is true faithful followers to not set a time upon god's own sacred time.

  There is much condemnation and warning of false prophets in the bible as well such as 1 John 4:1 .......

  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
  
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Yes, and apparently scholar would have secular scholars base their conclusions on a specific interpretation of prophesy to arrive at a WTS approved date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Otherwise they are confused and using sloppy methodology.

  Perhaps he would have all secular scholars also add 2520 prophetic years to 607 to prove when the second coming occurred.
• 

  scholar

  LeeT

  I see you as choosing a particular interpretation of Biblical history. Others seem to have little difficulty in arriving an interpretation which conforms to their understandings of both the Bible and history or even to arrive at an inconclusive conclusion.
  
  How would you go about testing whether a particular interpretation of historically related Biblical text is accurate? Surely you'd expect it to be in conformity with well arrested secular evidence or have a compelling case for why the secular record is in error

  ------

  WT scholars have in our publications showed great accuracy to Biblical history which undergirds sound Chronology. In short, WT publications have shown competence in this field and this was well tested when I did that online course on the Rise and Fall of Jerusalem. Most other historians have-not demonstrated that same competence as shown by their failure to discuss the seventy years as definite historical period.

  The current understanding of Neo- Babylonian Chronology has its own difficulties and I believe that the missing seven years of Nebuchadnezzer is a significant factor in Neb's overall reign of 43 years. My trust is firmly rooted in the Bible History concerning that period rather than whatever information is contained in the many thousand clay tablets or other artefacts. Further, we have the Babylonian gap of twenty years which must be resolved when comparing Bible Chronology with neo-Babylonian Chronology, So, WT critics have two problems to solve namely the Gap of twenty years and Neb's missing years hich will continue to be of some embarrassment for them.

  scholar
  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  If you cannot or will not provide an alternative date for the Return then on what basis can you be critical of other proposals for your criticism is simply vacuous and it is no issue for WT because we have proved its validity in our publications.

  I have read your studies of this subject and found such to be of little merit but interesting contributing nothing to scholarship.

  scholar
• 

  Doug Mason

  These celebrating WTS heads do not have a clue about the subject -- they rely on RF for their material on the neo-Babylonian chronology.

  Doug