Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar (Is it ok if I call you by your first name? I should have asked first, and I apologize for not doing so; I am editing this to delete your name until/unless you say it is ok) --
  

  it was not until the mid forties that major studies or interest began in the rare field of biblical chronology with the researcg began by Thiele. Therefore, it is not surprising that chronological schemas then proposed would have been adjusted to meet the advances of inguiring biblical scholarship.

  Somewhere earlier in the thread you referred to Thiele as a brilliant chronologist, and I agree. He really broke the logjam wide open with his analysis of the accession vs. non-accession year dating, Tishri-Tishri vs. Nisan-Nisan dating, and the question of changing point of view in the Bible narratives. So you are right when you say that it is not surprising that systems of chronology which were formulated in the pre-Thiele era needed to be adjusted.

  (You are wrong, however, when you said that studies in chronology only began in the mid-40's --- why, just look at the chronological systems which have been discussed here in this thread. From the Seder Olam to Isaac Newton to the 19th-century Adventists and Bible students to Martin Anstey, there is a long history of interest in the NOT-so-rare field of biblical chronology.)

  But the problem is that you want it both ways. In tonight's thread you are acknowledging Thiele again (as you did when you said he was brilliant), but you have also said that you reject his chronology and that his methodology was flawed.

  There is another problem, too, in that the Society is supposedly not just any old religious organization which didn't have the benefit of Thiele's brilliant scholarship and therefore erred in its chronology. If the Society is the Faithful and Discreet Slave and is God's channel of truth, they should not have to rely on a non-Witness scholar and his research to explain things for them, right?

  And if Thiele's research caused the Society to make adjustments and correct their errors, then why do they not accept his results? You do not accept his results, either, and earlier you said his methodology was flawed.

  Tonight you seem to be calling him a biblical scholar who has advanced our true understanding of chronology, but at other times you seem to lump all non-JW scholars together as non-genuine Christians.

  I'm really not trying to give you a hard time, but I wish you could see how inconsistent you are, and how you flip-flop back and forth from one position to another.

  Let me give another example from tonight.
  

  You wrote: Even the Second Day Adventists who have made an extensive service to the field of biblical chronology and with their own universiies offering degree in theology and biblical studies have not produced their translation of the Bible.

  Just a few days ago you were bashing the SDA's and (falsely) labeling them as practicing so-called "higher criticism" of the Bible. You jumped all over me when I cited an article by Mercer in AUSS even though you didn't know for sure whether Mercer is SDA. or whether AUSS only publishes articles by SDA believers. You were apparently ready to reject anything and everything that smacked of SDA beliefs.

  But tonight you are praising them. This doesn't make sense, and it comes across badly. It makes it seem as if you change your position at will, depending on what point you need to make to bolster your argument of the day.

  I do want to thank you, though, for clearing things up for me regarding the Society's beliefs on Daniel 2:1. I was doing my best to put myself in your shoes and look at things from the Society's point of view, but I didn't manage to do that. You have to understand that, for me, it's like Alice falling down the rabbit hole (did she end up in Australia, I wonder ) and finding herself in a world where nothing seems to make sense.

  I'm sure it's hard for you to see people poking fun at an organization you still believe is God's own channel of truth, but I think Alan's phrase "Keystone Kops" was meant to be a colorful way of showing that the Society was running around back and forth all over the place, changing dates and making adjustments like crazy to try to fix things up. If you were to check the link he provided to his website, you would find a very serious, very long, absolutely amazing article with a massive amount of historical research. And, according to the huge amount of documentation Alan provided, the Society sure was scrambling around.

  (Note to Alan --- I can't BELIEVE all the work you put into that article! Thank you very much for directing me to it!)

  I really do sympathize with you, Neil. I've been reading the thread that Earnest referred me to (the one from last winter), and I can see that you have done a lot of reading in the area of Bible commentaries. As long as you continue to look only at secondary sources (the opinions of the various commentators) and ignore the primary physical evidence (you said you don't give a hoot about the cuneiform tablets), maybe you will be able to rationalize everthing away. But, if you are really intellectually honest in your scholarship, there's going to come a time when you will have to take a long, hard look at the cuneiform evidence. If you ever do that, you're going to be in for a real shock. Maybe you suspect that already, on some level, which is why you are so assiduously avoiding the physical evidence.

  I recently saw a video in which some LDS (Mormon) scientists were interviewed. They discussed the shock and cognitive dissonance they experienced when they found out that DNA research shows the Native Americans are NOT descended from the ancient Isarelites, as the Book of Mormon teaches. One man who was interviewed was a Mormon scientist working in plant biology. He said that he is familiar with DNA methodology, so he could not ignore the validity of the human DNA research showing the Native Americans are descended from the people of Siberia. But he said that for a period of a couple of weeks he just could not deal with it, because he KNEW the Book of Mormon was Scripture inspired by God. He believed it with all his heart. And yet, eventually, he could not ignore the truth that Native Americans are NOT descended from the ancient Israelites, which means the Book of Mormon is wrong. It was a wrenching experience for him and the others. The interviews were excellent, very thoughtful and sober.

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 

  AlanF

  "scholar" wrote:

  : It ia somewhat amusing that the community of Witnesses are the Keystone cops of scholarship when such a small group without the benefits of univiversity education

  How do you know that? You claim that the NWT Committee members are unknowable; therefore you cannot claim to know that they had no university education.

  : have been able to produce a translation of the Bible unequalled for its depth of scholarship and its multi-lingual facility, which you grudgingly have paid some respect.

  Oh, come on. Fred Franz was virtually the sole translator of the NWT (I know this from discussions with a man who worked directly with the NWT Committee in the 1950s, so don't tell me I don't know this fact) and anyone who knew him knew that he was a brilliant but demented man. His problem was that he had no trouble lying to the JW community when he thought it was in "the Lord's" interests. So although I personally think he did an amazingly good job on a literal (but often unpleasant to read) Bible translation -- except where existing JW doctrine demanded that liberties be taken with the text -- this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that old Freddie directly lied to the JW community in those 1943-44 books. Furthermore, your statement about "multi-lingual facility" is meaningless, because almost all non-English versions of the NWT were translated directly from the English version, not from the original languages. One does not need to be other than a good translator to do that well.

  Actually your argument here is a fine example of a non-sequitur, since the fact that a person can manage to do a good job in one area has nothing to do with his being able to screw up grandly in another.

  : Even the Second Day Adventists

  That's Seventh, not Second. Another example where you can't manage to get simple facts straight.

  : who have made an extensive service to the field of biblical chronology and with their own universiies offering degree in theology and biblical studies have not produced their translation of the Bible.

  So what? A lot of other groups and individuals have produced their own translations. But again this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Watchtower "chronology" is an ever-changing mishmash of failed biblical interpretations. Remember that C. T. Russell predicted all sorts of things that never happened. He didn't get even one thing right. He predicted that "the resurrection of the saints" would occur in 1878. When that failed he predicted 1881 and fully expected that he and his new wife would go to heaven then. When that failed he claimed that the resurrection of some "saints" had occurred but invisibly. As 1914 approached and various events did not happen as he had predicted, he kept changing his ideas and some dates. When 1914 arrived and Christ didn't appear, he claimed that the Great War just beginning was the beginning of the Battle of Armageddon and that Christ would surely appear by 1918. After he died in 1916 his followers predicted that 1918 would bring Armageddon. When that failed they started preaching about 1920, and then 1925. After 1925 came and went without fanfare, about 3/4 of the Bible Students had the good sense to abandon their foolish cult and move on to other things. The ones who were left were too stupid to understand that a series of failed predictions makes the predictors "false prophets" and ones who true Christians should avoid. After 1925 these dum-dums started changing what 1914 was supposed to mean, eventually spiritualizing whatever they could salvage from Russell's failures.

  But even after 1925 the Watchtower hadn't learned its lesson about making false predictions about "the end". They eagerly expected that WWII would usher in Armageddon. When that didn't happen they moved their expectations to the early 1950s. In 1966 old Freddie published the book Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God and made the famous prediction that 1975 would likely usher in Armageddon. When that failed, the Governing Body blamed the JW community for the failure and even scolded them for believing their false predictions. But they still kept generating expectations, like for 1984, 1994 and 2000. When 1994 didn't usher in a New World, they even changed their claims about what comprised "the generation of 1914", turning Jesus' words into a meaningless catch-phrase: the new definition was something like "whoever survives Armageddon", which completely disconnects it from 1914 since Armageddon could come 10,000 years from 1914 and the definition would still fit.

  No, "scholar", your objections to my characterizing Watchtower "chronologists" as "Keystone Kops" are quite unfounded.

  : Your comments about apparent revisions of various dates

  The revisions are not merely "apparent" -- they're documented in Watchtower literature. I know it's hard for you to admit that "divine direction" could produce such foolishness, but you need to face facts.

  : only amount to historical curiosity as it was not until the mid forties that major studies or interest began in the rare field of biblical chronology with the researcg began by Thiele.

  Nonsense. If you look at the link I gave you'll find copious references to the Watchtower literature of the era. That literature shows that Fred Franz had undertaken a major revision of Watchtower chronology -- all of which had previously been characterized by him and other WTS leaders as a system of "God's dates" that could not possibly be changed -- based on secular references as early as 1907 (other references had been available much earlier but were not cited in this WTS literature). This revision was mainly about finding solid underpinnings for the date of Babylon's fall, which they first revised to 538 and later 539 B.C.

  : Therefore, it is not surprising that chronological schemas then proposed would have been adjusted to meet the advances of inguiring biblical scholarship.

  My point is not about adjusting "chronological schemas". My point is that the Watchtower Society lied to the community of Jehovah's Witnesses in their 1943 and 1944 books. That was grossly unchristian and an unassailable proof that Watchtower leaders have nothing to do with God, since the God of truth would never permit liars to represent him.

  Translations of The Truth Shall Make You Free into non-English languages further demonstrate that Watchtower writers knew they were lying to the JW community by making false arguments. On pages 238-9 the English book made the following argument:

  Beginning in 606 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these 'times' end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?.... In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 606 B.C. Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile "seven times" began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end.

  However, in other languages (I've verified Spanish, German, Danish and Arabic) this argument was made:

  Beginning in 607 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these 'times' end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?.... In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 607 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 608 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 607 B.C. Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile "seven times" began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end.

  Since both arguments cannot be true, at least one is false. Since it is obvious that Watchtower writers knew what they were doing, it is obvious that in either the English or the non-English books they knew they were giving a false argument, and that they were lying to their readers.

  Here you go with another irrelevent, ad hominem argument. I'll play along because it serves my purposes:

  : Please keep in mid that you were a person who intellectually believed in Witness teaching

  I did when I was 15 years old and was baptized in 1967. Having been raised as a JW and not knowing anything else, I was deceived. Later in 1967 I read the Society's new teaching that organ transplants were the equivalent of eating the organs. That bit of nonsense started me down a long road of finding out that my entire family was part of a deceptive, destructive cult. I eventually had the sense to get out of it, but most of my family did not.

  : and for some peculiar you became converted to the idea that the beliefs that you held were now wrong.

  It's not peculiar at all. I dislike being lied to, and I particularly dislike being lied to by men who falsely claim to speak for God.

  You can easily see the many Watchtower lies and stupidities that I've documented over the years. Just start reading here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm

  : Was your intellect not functioning, were you deceived or brainwashed?

  Deception by one's parents and elders often leads to a sort of brainwashing where one's intellect is made subservient to other considerations. Such considerations include wanting to avoid shunning by one's entire family and all the friends one ever knew. In other words, cults like the JWs use emotional blackmail to retain members far longer than would otherwise be the case.

  : One cannot but wonder abour your intellectual integrity and credibility and whether you are counted as a Christian.

  I'm certainly not a Christian, but I think that my integrity and credibility are adequately demonstrated by the link I gave above to some of my writings.

  Since I think it unlikely that you'll bother yourself actually to read anything at that link, I'll give you an example. When I was in my sophomore year of college at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I took an anthropology course. For a term paper I decided to write something about how the geographical distribution of languages was strong evidence that Noah's Flood was a historical event. I looked up all of the Watchtower Society's references to this notion in MIT's extensive library. Unfortunately for my confidence in Watchtower writers, I found that all of the references were unusable because they either misrepresented what the source said, or otherwise did not support the point that the Watchtower writer was making. Had I used these references in my paper, I would have been given a failing grade -- and worse, I would have been guilty of intellectual fraud. So I abandoned that idea and decided to write a paper supporting creation and attacking evolution, again using references I found in Watchtower literature. Once again I found that most of the references were unusable because they misrepresented a source or did not really support the point. I finally gave up on using the Society's literature and found a book written by a lawyer named Norman MacBeth, which cited source references in an honest manner.

  So, "scholar", I think that this experience of mine demonstrates who has intellectual integrity and credibility -- and it ain't the Watchtower Society.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  In my last post to you I gave a brief overview of study in biblical chronology in the last century, this was not meant to be a complete analysis of its history. In any overview of the period one must recognize the contribution made by Thiele as a pioneering attelmpt to resolve the problems of the Divided Monarchy. I do not believe that Thiele's work had any impact on the Society as their approaches are very different and their methodologies. However, I believe that credit where due must be given so I personally see value in Thiele's research even if it becomes a model for comparative purposes only. I also acknowledge the simple fact that in the earlier part pf the last century that there was not much research done in chronology with the exception of the work done by Martin Anstey who provided strong criticism of Ptolemy's Canon. So, it is somehow not surprising that gy the forties the society made adjustments to a already long held view which I believe has stood the test of time.

  Secenth Day Adventists have also made a systematic approach to chronology in various publications culminating in a series of articles which have appeared in their commentary and encyclopedia. They too have had a long fascination with chronology and prophecy as do the Witnesses.Hereagain I acknowledge their scholarship with their various journals and universities even though I do not accept their theology or their chronology. In short, I endeavour to respect genuine efforts by individuals or groups who have a genuine interest in the Gospel and its proclamation but that does not mean that I cannot be critical of those attempts when necessary.

  I agree with you that genuine scholarship must look first at primary sources where available and you make much of the cunieform material/

  I am not a semitic scholar so I have to rely on others or at least consult those material that are available in English. Fortunately, Rolf Furuli has the competence to investigate such material and in his now published book no doubt this will be of much assistance. Nevertheless, I worry about the validity of the cunieform materials to specific biblical issues and the attempt to harmonize both primary sources. Afterall the biblical recore is the only primary source for the biblical history in question and it deals with specific dates, places and reigns of both pagan and diivine kings. The biblical data cobflicts with the secular data as currently understood or the secular data does not deal with the specifics of biblical history. For the Christian one has to make a intellectual judgement and with a prophetic vision in faith make certain judgements about what chronology best conforms to the biblical record. In doing so one undertakes a large intellectual risk of either being mocked or ridiculed by critics, apostates and athiests. The society of witnesses and in keeping with their brothers form earlier times have the courage to go against popular or worldly opinion.

  I have studies chronology for some thirty yeras and I fully appreciate the magnitude of oppostion to our chronology. The Jonsson hypothesis afterall details 14 lines of secular evidence to invalidate 607. This is a formidable and impressive argument but when I examine citicaly his use of the scriptures in support of his secular evidence, I remain unconvinced of his reasoning, argument and exegesis of the texts. A good example of this is of course is Dan 1:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:20-22/

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  AlanF

  "scholar" wrote:

  : I have studies chronology for some thirty yeras and I fully appreciate the magnitude of oppostion to our chronology. The Jonsson hypothesis afterall details 14 lines of secular evidence to invalidate 607. This is a formidable and impressive argument but when I examine citicaly his use of the scriptures in support of his secular evidence, I remain unconvinced of his reasoning, argument and exegesis of the texts. A good example of this is of course is Dan 1:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:20-22/

  Marjorie, this is another very good example of The Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses in action. No amount of evidence, not even the Bible itself, will convince these people of anything if the 'Magisterium' known as the Governing Body tells them different. "Scholar" would change his views on chronology and pretty much anything else if this Governing Corpse told him to. That's the power of a cult. The exercise of such power is what defines the JWs as a cult. Scholarship is therefore not an issue with them, but a pretense of scholarship is very important because it helps them convince unclear thinkers to join up.

  AlanF
• 

  gumby

  "Scholar" would change his views on chronology and pretty much anything else if this Governing Corpse told him to. That's the power of a cult.

  Scholar and every single dub on this planet changes their views when the society changes it's view. Isn't that right scholar?

  Gumby
• 

  onacruse

  AlanF:

  a pretense of scholarship is very important because it helps them convince unclear thinkers to join up.

  Oh how true! And even JWs who otherwise consider themselves to be clear thinkers are often immobilized in "analysis paralysis" by that potion of superficial "scholarship" combined with authoritarian pressure.

  It's an incredibly difficult barrier to break.

  Craig

  edit to add: Marjorie, I'd once again like to thank you for your remarkably comprehensive research and commentary on this thread. It's been a distinct pleasure to follow (or attempt to follow ) your tightly reasoned conclusions.
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,
  

  I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of your argument, oft used in this thread, that because a person was once convinced they believed the truth about a matter it is to their detriment that they changed their views on receiving more accurate information. Surely this process is to be commended, not sneered at. It is on the basis of this sort of intellectual development that the JW’s heartily commend a newly converted member for having his eyes opened regarding ‘false religion’.

  Most persons who begin to study with Jehovah’s Witnesses have little knowledge of even the very basics of Biblical chronology. It is not a hard matter to show them illustrations of banded trees, lycanthropic ex-Kings and statues and convince them that Jerusalem’s first fall was in 607BCE, after all, most people are unaware that the temple at Jerusalem fell at any time in history, let alone that there exists a controversy regarding this date at least where the WTS is concerned. They merely believe what they are told and any doubts they may have are quickly brushed aside by their teachers.

  An insight into why the WTS will not acknowledge the weight of evidence for the universally accepted date of Jerusalem’s first fall is provided in the following quote, one does not even need to read between the lines :
  

  *** w89 3/15 21-2 Insight That Jehovah Has Given ***Fulfillment of Bible Prophecies

  15

  Why have Jehovah’s servants had such insight? Because they have full confidence in the written Word of God, they obey it, and Jehovah’s spirit is upon them. This has also enabled them to understand vital Bible prophecies, and this is the fifth point that we are going to consider.

  16

  Secular historians, relying on their interpretation of what are in some cases fragmentary tablets unearthed by archaeologists, have concluded that 464 B.C.E. was the first year of the kingship of Artaxerxes Longimanus and that 604 B.C.E. was the first year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar II. If that were true, the 20th year of Artaxerxes would begin in 445 B.C.E., and the date of Jerusalem’s desolation by the Babylonians (in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year) would be 587 B.C.E. But if a Bible student uses those dates when calculating the fulfillment of prophecy, he will simply be confused.

  Please note the language carefully chosen to undermine the authority of the scientific archaeologist and then place it firmly within the grasp of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a group of men more known for their arrogance and stubbornness than for their historical and analytical skills. After all, as you know they speak for God on matters of faith and interpretation The only problem is that they seem to speak a different language to the God they purport to have exclusive communication with, as they have yet to ‘understand’ one Bible prophecy that they have not needed to repeatedly attend to as time, and the absence of Armageddon unravels their incantations. In fact, I once again as I have done in the past, challenge you to publicly note one prophecy that the WTS has correctly interpreted and that is exclusively their own prophecy, during the past fifty years.

  Though I appreciate your chronological position Scholar, having maintained it myself for many years until further research showed my position to be untenable, I would state for the record that you have been unable to answer many of the more important points of issue raised by Alleymom and AlanF without eventually relying on the fierce last stand of all JW’s defeated on points of issue. You have resorted to the customary position of retreat worthy of the final stand at the Alamo, where all one needs to do is pronounce in an almost Descartian chant, "I have faith in the Bible therefore I am right".

  Scholar you are wrong, possibly on both counts, as you tend to dismiss even Biblical evidence when it challenges the WTS interpretation . I believe in your heart of hearts you know this. One day soon, the WTS own chronological ‘hypothesis’ regarding its mutated 607BCE dating for the first fall of Jerusalem will crumble and a new one will replace it. No doubt you will show equal zeal and conviction in propping up yet another WTS theological rope trick as long as you are convinced that the men who conjured up the trick are still faithful and a trifle slavish.

  Best regards - HS

  PS - I would also with many others, like to thank Alleymom for her most interesting collation of evidence. Though the thread has ducked and weaved, an open-minded reader has had little difficulty in following her arguments. Many thanks to Alan also.
• 

  Earnest

  Marjorie,

  Many thanks for your extensive answer to my hypothesis that Evil-Merodach's reign was considerably longer than the evidence indicates. I particularly appreciate the point that you make :

  [Cuneiform tablets are] primary evidence. The opinions of the later historians and chronographers (Herodotus, Xenophon, Megasthenes, Berossus, Polyhistor, Ptolemy, Josephus, the Seder Olam, Jerome, Eusebius, Syncellus, etc.) are secondary and tertiary (or worse), so one must evaluate their opinions, especially any divergent opinions, in light of the mass of primary evidence, the dated cuneiform tablets themselves.

  I quite accept that the 18 years Josephus referred to was tertiary (he was quoting Berossus) and must be evaluated in the light of primary evidence (i.e. rejected). In fact, there were other (tertiary) sources for a longer period of rule by Evil-Merodach but I considered them so unreliable they were not even worth mentioning.

  After showing that both Evil-Merodach and Labashi-Marduk are included in the Harran inscription you say:

  But I am not sure I followed your reasoning at this point. Since you cited the Harran inscription, you are aware that Adad-guppi did not, in fact, expunge all mention of Evil-Merodach. Can you run that part by me again? Are you suggesting that she somehow destroyed records of 18 years of a purported 20-year reign, but did not manage to destroy the records for 2 years of this 20-year reign?

  This was a misunderstanding on my part. The four monuments of the reign of Nabonidus found at Harran carry two different inscriptions, there being two copies of each. I had understood that only one of the copies referred to "the 2nd year of Awel-Marduk" which I thought was significant. But reading through the information again I see the original (H1.A) was simply defective and there is no evidence Awel-Marduk was deliberately excluded.

  The WT seizes on any discrepancy in these later historians and makes a big deal over it.

  I would not disagree with that but my suggestion about an extended reign for Evil-Merodach was mine alone. As far as I know the WT accepts a two-year reign for this king.

  Thanks for all the work you put into clarifying the relevant evidence.

  Earnest
• 

  scholar

  hilkary_step

  In reply to your query I wish to respond as follows. I am suspicious of individual who have converted as a Witness after a considerble time of education and reflection whereupon such an individual was convinced intellectually and nourished in faith to being baptized. Now, for unexplained amd for irrational reasoms they now find that what they once believed is now error, a classic example is Alan F who now admits publicly to all that he is no longer a Christian having once from youth being raised in the faith has now become an unbeliever. How can such people realy be credible commentators of scripture?

  You quote from an article published in the Watchtower, 1989 in regard to the the insight of the Witnesses and the fulfillment pf prophecy. I endorse wholeheartedly those comment and reflect the essence of Christianity in that his people wiuld have insight, would be his people and would in themselves fulfill prophecy and announce prophecy. In short, the Christian church has been prophetic in character and mission. In their prophesied spiritual estate they have fulfilled and are fulfilling the Great Commission and the Gospel Proclamation as prophesied in Matt.28:19,20 and 24:14.

  In the calculation of prophecy Christians are urged not to be misled by fragmentary secular evidence or piles of evidence with its interpretation as opposed to the reading of scripture. For this reason, Witnesses have accurately explained the fulfillment of the 70 weeks of years of Daniiel to the comming of our Lord and the fulfillement of prophecies surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and Babylon in 607 and 539.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  City Fan

  Come on scholar - what is your real reason for posting here?

  I am suspicious of individual who have converted as a Witness after a considerble time of education and reflection whereupon such an individual was convinced intellectually and nourished in faith to being baptized. Now, for unexplained amd for irrational reasoms they now find that what they once believed is now error

  This is becoming a theme of your recent posts. I don't think you even believe this last statement. I do think you are taking the piss.