by Gamaliel 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I think if God meant for us to figure all this out he would have made it much plainer. Sheesh we all need IQ's of 300 just to understand it.
Did God mean for us to have to use secular and astronomical dating to figure out end times? If you believe the bible is inspired then how do you reconcile having to use uninspired secular and astronomical dating methods? Shouldnt we only need the bible?
SFF
I think if God meant for us to figure all this out he would have made it much plainer. Sheesh we all need IQ's of 300 just to understand it.
That's how I feel too. Extremely interesting discussion.
There are some "beautiful minds" on this board/thread.
I salute you!
Mak
Setfree,
I think if God meant for us to figure all this out he would have made it much plainer. Sheesh we all need IQ's of 300 just to understand it.
lol...excellent post.
Just producing enough information to show that WTS chronology is open to serious questioning is enough to unravel its 'end-times' powerbase. As it is, a large body of evidence exists that indicates that the WTS have built their empire on chronological sand and are at present unwilling to publicize this fact until they find a means of doing so that still allows them to keep a tight control on the lives of their adherents. Having spoken to some very senior personnel in the WTS who themselves admit to the 607BCE-1914CE problem, this is the only conclusion that one can reach.
Personally, I think that God stopped believing in the infallibility of the Bible, long before humans did!
Best regards - HS
Hi Gam,
You have misquoted me, again!!!
Your position is that you DO believe a conspiracy of sorts was responsible for the destruction and creation of all the business documents that finally resulted in the intended interlocked, relative chronology that hides a true chronology we were never supposed to discover.
I believe that for the Neo-Babylonian period where the years were reduced, documents were destroyed from the archives, yes. But you said "CREATION OF ALL BUSINESS DOCUMENTS".
Thus, again, your are creating more complexity to a simple revision process. The business documents were ALREADY THERE. The PERSIANS are the ones who needed to add years to their kings. So the Babylonians didn't have any need for any "conspiracy"; their records were just basically victimized.
You're trying to say that I'm claiming the thousands of business documents were "created" or revised and that is not the case; not from the Neo-Babylonian period.
Even so, Olof Jonsson and AlanF use the business documents to try to support the 568BCE chronology so it is an abused reference though irrelevant to ABSOLUTE DATING.
You know, I can't win. When I write detailed long posts, people get lost or give up. When I write short posts they fill in the rest with their own imagination of things...which is why I tend to write long posts.
At any rate, the "conspiracy" you are talking about is not MY conspiracy, so you can dismiss it if you want to. My conspiracy actually happened and I have proof of it in the VAT4956's double dating to 511BCE, the true original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.
JC
Hi Gam....you're fun!!!
I'm also guessing that you wish to dismiss the issue because you it reveals a weakness in your overall theory. (And, no, I don't expect you to admit that, even to yourself.)
Absolutely not. This is an EASY argument for me. If I might get to the MAIN POINT HERE. Those business documents, the ORIGINAL ONES, don't affect anybody's chronology. If you wanted to date year 18 in 607BCE those documents would not contradict that. If you wanted to date year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar in 587BCE, those documents neither prove nor disprove that dating. They are RELATIVE chronology and so simply don't matter. It's not the documents that were allowed to survie we're concerned about but the MISSING TEXTS we are concerned about. Furthermore, it's JOSEPHUS who claims there were 70 years for this period, right? So you have to fill in the years someplace. It is Josephus in Antiquities who says that Evil-Merodach ruled for 18 years!!!
Further as far as destroying the "extra texts" I suppose you believe that is a SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY, right?
Gam, your contemporary documents argument doesn't work because they do not affect the absolute chronology.
Truth is, I could live with a theory that called for a conspiratorial change to the official, royal chronology. That's all fairly centralized, and we'd have little evidence either way since the next world power tends to destroy these "official" documents anyway, by default. But what about the unbiased daily documents of the mundane transactions, trades and contracts? The story that they tell in aggregate holds a lot more weight than your fudged astronomical diaries. If those diaries clearly show two dates, I wouldn't necessarily care for either one of them.
This is interesting and valid. But you must realize that the PALACE kept thousands of business tablets stored in archives and usually when these buildings have been excavated they find thousands of tablets in one place. I'm SUGGESTING that that is where the large numbers come from. I mean, you'd only need to find one or two libraries to have thousands of documents on your hand and consistent documeents, say, from every year of the king in a central archive. You're suggesting that no such central records were found. I'm not saying that private records were not found. But what number of private records recovered compared to those found in the archives are we dealing with? So maybe we should CONFIRM as precisely as possible where the majority of these texts came from (I'll try to do a web search to see if I get lucky).
Now in my defense, I do believe that IF the chronology was changed that perhaps there should be SOME EVIDENCE SOMEWHERE in the records that proves it; something that escaped the hands of the revisionists. We know they destroyed the astronomical texts and revised their palace records. The records THEMSELVES are dated and admit they are copies some of them (i.e. the Babylonian chronicles). Thus the VAT4956 does that! It is a record that reflects two chronologies for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar existed during the Seleucid Period and one dated his year 37 to 568BCE and one to 511BCE. That's EVIDENCE of the conspiracy, and that also EXPLAINS why Josephus was claiming there were 26 years more in the Neo-Babylonian period than the REVISED documents show.
So talk about the business documetns all you want to. It might be interesting to finally see just how many came from miscellaneous sources and how many were logged in from central archives. That would be a matter of research; something that I think could be confirmed. I wouldn't mind knowing more specifics. Can you find out? Since you brought up the business documents. Ask AlanF if he knows and provide us with a reference!!! Should be interesting.
Even these arguments about relative chronology versus actual dates are not worth much to me. It's all relative. It's only that we think we have a better idea of exactly when an event happed relative to our own time when we can attach a BCE or AD/CE number to it.
WRONG. This is a disucssion about RECORDS. What they say. I don't have to worry about whether it is TRUE or not. Thus My point is that the best Persian reference we have gives evidence that the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar fell in 511BCE. Now that STILL may be a wrong date but that has to be what you go with if you use these records for dating. This is about what the RECORDS SAY. Olof Jonsson has a concept of what the "70 years" means in the Bible. That's fine. That has NOTHING to do with the RECORD that Josephus claims in Anterior. 11.1.1 that 70 years occurred in the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus. That's a RECORD that is there. And that's ALL I'm saying: "Hey, Josephus says seventy years was here? Strange. Why would he say that?" "Hey, the VAT4956 happens to have two references that don't work for 568BCE but for some reason both of them belong to the same lunar cycle in 511BCE. Is there something going on here? Is this a super-mistake? Why would the Persians date year 37 in 511BCE? ?? ???" We're discussing the RECORDS before us.
Some folks want to prove that an event happened 490 years before or after some other event -- all relative. Or 70 years before or after some event. Some folks want to prove an event happened 2,520 years before or after another event -- again, all relative. 1,000 years from now it might still be of "relative" interest that you once thought you discovered a chronology pointing to some dates that you thought were related to your "calling."
SORRY, not relevant. No matter what personal use I get out of interpreting some passages, it has nothing to do with a simple reference. Josephus claims that seventy years began in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. It's there. I didn't invent it. It needs no interpretation. It's just a record of his assignment of Jeremiah's prophecy in Babylonian chronology. You have to deal with that RECORD regardless of what fantasies I have about going to heaven one day or whatever. The VAT4956 has two references to 511BCE. I didn't write them there. Sachs/Hunger lied about what was in line 18 of the text. I didn't invent that, AlanF discovered that.
The real problem is that Bible has already shown us what kind of book it is -- useful in many contexts as a moral guide, but also useless in many contexts as a moral guide (let the reader use discernment). But the Bible is 100% consistently useless when it comes to a meaningful chronology for our day, except to show that we shouldn't rely on it for chronology any more than we should rely on pagan kings.
Oh, so THIS is why none of this research is working on you. Interesting you take this position. But guess what Gam? THE VAT4956 is a PERSIAN DOCUMENT. It's not the Bible. I don't have to discuss the Bible's chronology on this one. In other words, yes, if you believe the Bible is true, you'd have to dismiss some of the pagan chronology as revised or false or whatever. But that is not necessary now with the VAT4956. With the VAT4956 double-dating to 511BCE, I don't have to bring up the Bible at all. I can confirm that you are WRONG if you date year 37 to any other year than 511BCE based upon the PERSIAN RECORDS themselves. Because this is a PERSIAN RECORD it dismisses it's own revised chronology! It's like a confession or catching someone who is stealing red handed! So the Bible's just a book of fantasies for you? Fine. Whatever. That's the Bible and you. But if you try to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to any other year than 511BCE, I can confirm for you that you are wrong based upon the Persian Records. So be my guest and dismiss the Bible if you want, but we're not talking about the BIBLE in this instance. We're talking about the PERSIAN RECORDS WITH DOUBLE DATES FOR NEBUCHADNEZZAR. That's where the 511BCE comes from, not the Bible.
These actual "numbered" dates (as "opposed" to the relative chronology) would not even be of any interest to me either if it weren't for the mystical hold they have on so many people. Seems that a lot of people have decided to hypocritically dismiss the Bible's own advice (and failed record) about chronology. And they leverage their interpretations of that chronology to control the actions of others. It's a travesty and a tragedy, and that's why we discuss it on this forum.
Well, that's fine, Gam. That's YOU. Some people like to sing in karaoke bars in their free time. I like discussing chronology and exposing liars, that's my thing. But you know, Gam, you have just told us how frustrated you are with the Bible. This is just your psychological way of dealing with it.
So my PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION IS: You felt a comfort level with the lines of evidence that would seem to contradict the Bible rather affectively. Now that those same records confirm absolutely that the Bible's chronology is true, which just means the Jews kept good records (no biggee, right?) and that the Persians were good at changing theirs, your little comfort level has eroded just a bit and you're feeling a bit embarrassed. You need to repeat to yourself that "this is not REAL"... because if it is, it's too much to comprehend.
You're like many others who seem to be frusted and angry with the Bible and with God for nothing being more cooperative in doing things YOUR way, I know. But that's YOUR EXPERIENCE and you're entitled to it.
IN my case, on this issue, I'M THE WINNER and the BIBLE is a winner. Does that mean there was actually a global flood? No. But it does mean that the Bible was correct in its dating of the Neo-Babylonian period, both relative and absolute. A small little victory. But I suppose much more than some feel comfortable with.
Thanks for sharing. I empathize with your frustration. It's just not my experience. I'm a total intellectual Biblicalist and am enjoying every minute of it!!! I'm into AHKENATON now, the Egyptian pharoah who became a monotheist!!! That's proof of the 10 plagues in my book!!! So I'm getting lots of FAITH BUILD UP from research in other related cultures to the Jews of late. I'm shocked the witnesses or Jonsson haven't focussed in on him before now. There is a lot there!
Take care, Gam... Sorry you feel you're in the dark. But I'm glad I'm in the light!! It's great!!!
JC
JCanon,
I said:
Your position is that you DO believe a conspiracy of sorts was responsible for the destruction and creation of all the business documents that finally resulted in the intended interlocked, relative chronology that hides a true chronology we were never supposed to discover.
You said I misquoted you based on the following belief of yours:
I believe that for the Neo-Babylonian period where the years were reduced, documents were destroyed from the archives, yes. But you said "CREATION OF ALL BUSINESS DOCUMENTS".Thus, again, your are creating more complexity to a simple revision process. The business documents were ALREADY THERE. The PERSIANS are the ones who needed to add years to their kings. So the Babylonians didn't have any need for any "conspiracy"; their records were just basically victimized.
What you missed is the point I've now highlighted in yellow from my quote. In order to produce an interlocked chronology, where the business documents that cover the transition periods from one king will run smoothly and without contradiction to the business documents of the successor. Transactions could sometimes cover the last year of one king and the first or accession year of the next.
Some transactions could be in two parts, for example, where the transaction to purchase a slave under Nebuchadnezzar was finalized or paid off under Evil-Merodach. From the essay at http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gentile2.htm:
A slave girl was placed at the disposal of one Nabu-ahhe-iddina "in the month of Ajaru, forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon." Some months later, "in the month of Kislimu, accession year of (Amel)-Marduk," full payment was given for the girl. This text, then, fixes the length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and shows that he was succeeded by Evil-merodach.
THOSE TYPES OF DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE CREATED TO CREATE SUCH A SMOOTH TRANSITION BETWEEN KINGS. You have a very similar problem with the cache of documents found buried and sealed for the House of Egibi. For anyone who hasn't looked it up themselves, I would like to quote Alan's essay again on this subject:
Boscawen states that the tablets "relate to the various monetary transactions of a Babylonian banking and financial agency, trading under the name of Egibi and Sons." The tablets "relate to every possible commercial transaction; from the loan of a few shekels of silver to the sale or mortgage of whole estates whose value is thousands of manas of silver."
After a short examination Boscawen realized the importance of following the sequence of the heads of the Egibi firm, and soon ascertained the main lines of the succession to be as follows: From the 3rd year of Nebuchadnezzar a person named Sula was the head of the Egibi firm. He continued for 20 years up to the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, when he died and was succeeded by his son, Nabu-ahi-idina. Nabu-ahi-idina ran the firm for 38 years, until the 12th year of Nabonidus, when he was succeeded by his son Itti-Marduk-Balatu. Itti-Marduk-Balatu in his turn remained head of the firm for 23 years, until the 1st year of Darius Hystaspis (521 B.C.; see Insight, Vol. 1, subject "Darius," p. 583).
Adding up these periods from the 3rd year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st year of Darius Hystaspis, we find: 20+38+23=81 years. This gives 83 years from Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year to Darius Hystaspis's 1st year. This agrees exactly with Berossus, Ptolemy, the Neo-Babylonian historical records, and the other business documents. Counting back 83 years from 521 brings us to 604 B.C. as the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, which agrees exactly with all the other lines of evidence presented in this essay.
The Society would have us believe that somehow, conspirators wanting to insert 20 years into the chronology for some mysterious purpose, dug up all these buried archives, made new clay tablets with the data changed by 20 years, and then resealed and reburied all the storage jars -- and this with no errors among tens of thousands of documents! If anyone can swallow this line of reasoning, let him contact the author of this essay -- he has a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
The archive of the Egibi-house alone suffices to establish the length of the Neo-Babylonian period. The archives, containing tablets dated up to the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Evil-merodach, the 4th year of Neriglissar and the 17th year of Nabonidus, give a complete confirmation of the chronology as stated by Berossus and Ptolemy. Since the 19th century still other collections of tablets belonging to the Egibi family have been discovered. Yet the Egibi tablets are only a small part of the thousands of business and administrative documents discovered from the Neo-Babylonian era.
Remember that according to your theory, it was not a simple matter of destroying anything that mentioned the [imo, imagined] "44th" or "45th" year of Nebuchadnezzar, for example; it was also a matter, to fit your theory, of destroying only a specific portion of the documents from his 43rd year so that all documents from his 43rd year that, in this case, were sure to stop on October 8, 562 BCE, per the P&D chart above.
You're trying to say that I'm claiming the thousands of business documents were "created" or revised and that is not the case; not from the Neo-Babylonian period.
I never said that. But you should have to claim that key, interlocking ones and a few of the the smooth uncontradictory transitions found in the transaction records of the Egibi and Nur-Sin families would have to have been created or revised or your case crumbles. You also are no doubt saying that a few other astronomical or chronological references in the Babylonian Chronicles and a couple other inscriptions were revised or re-created.
Even so, Olof Jonsson and AlanF use the business documents to try to support the 568BCE chronology so it is an abused reference though irrelevant to ABSOLUTE DATING.
It's very relevant when you are also dismissing the relative chronology, as both you and JWs are doing.
You know, I can't win. When I write detailed long posts, people get lost or give up. When I write short posts they fill in the rest with their own imagination of things...which is why I tend to write long posts.
I wasn't complaining about the length, I'm all for good, long posts; I was only complaining about the relevance.
At any rate, the "conspiracy" you are talking about is not MY conspiracy, so you can dismiss it if you want to. My conspiracy actually happened and I have proof of it in the VAT4956's double dating to 511BCE, the true original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.
That's another point. Interesting, but I haven't seen enough evidence yet.
Gamaliel
As it is, a large body of evidence exists that indicates that the WTS have built their empire on chronological sand and are at present unwilling to publicize this fact until they find a means of doing so that still allows them to keep a tight control on the lives of their adherents.
Does anyone actually believe IF the watchtower finally decides to ADMIT they were ...."wrong.....needed adjusted", it would really change anything? Why would it? They have changed so many things before and gotten away with it with their members, that this will be simply another. To change the 1914 date is a foundation factor yes........but NOT one that will put much of a dent in their overall power they hold over their members. They explain away whatever they want and it is accepted by the far majority.
If these things were discussing are viewed as a means to get " at least a few out" then fine. If it's viewed as a means to bring the demise of this horrid Organisation.......then I think your wrong.
Gumby
Gumby,
You make an importamt point.
Does anyone actually believe IF the watchtower finally decides to ADMIT they were ...."wrong.....needed adjusted", it would really change anything?
Each time the WTS has introduced a 'bright light' on their interpretation of Biblical end times , such as '1975' and the 'geneo' issue, they loose thousands of adherents. Raymond Franz made it clear in his book 'Crisis Of Conscience' that these losses deeply impact the GB. He mentions discussions regarding how to introduce changes in doctrine, while minimizing losses on more than one occasion. The GB believe that doctrinal changes impact membership and so do I.
We should not underestimate the enormous numbers of people who have left the WTS over the past fifty years due to doctrinal change. The 1914-607BCE issue is not going to go away and of course the GB are aware of the tenuous position that they have regarding this problem. They have remained totally mute about it since the mid 80's but a growing number of people are leaving the WTS on discovery of this issue. In fact a new member who came to the Board yesterday acknowledges that was this issue that bought them here.
You will note that I wrote :
As it is, a large body of evidence exists that indicates that the WTS have built their empire on chronological sand and are at present unwilling to publicize this fact until they find a means of doing so that still allows them to keep a tight control on the lives of their adherents.
The highlighted portion is important. Yes, the WTS will find a means of changing 1914CE and all that is attached to it. It will happen slowly, but it will happen. They will lose thousands of adherents but will work to minimize these losses. As to the slow change, well, this is already happening. Most JW's I have spoken to about this subject in recent times all parroted the same response - "does chronology really matter, who else is doing the preaching work, who else has peace among its brotherhood world-wide?". What is interesting about this whole scenario is that around three years ago, I spoke in detail about the issue to a very, very senior member of the Brooklyn heirarchy ( about as senior as one can get). Their response? "Chronology does not matter, look at the 'sign' being fulfilled, who else is warning people about Armaggeddon?"
I suspect that if you polled the Board you would find that a not insubstantial number left the WTS after first discovering this gigantic flaw in their chronological interpretation.
gumby,
Does anyone actually believe IF the watchtower finally decides to ADMIT they were ...."wrong.....needed adjusted", it would really change anything? Why would it?
I understand your point. I personally don't think that the Organization will come tumbling down when they finally admit they were wrong on this point. After all, the original Bible Students are still hanging on to several of the goofier chronology ideas that the Witnesses dropped years ago, and I think a couple of Bible Student associations are still growing, albeit slowly (fortunately). They will all ultimately admit they were wrong, though, even it it waits until 2050.
They have changed so many things before and gotten away with it with their members, that this will be simply another. To change the 1914 date is a foundation factor yes........but NOT one that will put much of a dent in their overall power they hold over their members. They explain away whatever they want and it is accepted by the far majority.
Ultimately, it still damages their very basis for any authority: the 1918 and 1919 choice for the faithful and discreet slave "class". The change will dent the authority with which they have imposed their two-class heavenly vs. earthly hope, the authority with which they can press their unique interpretations of prophecy, including everything they've built around 1918 and 1919: the imprisonment of the Watchtower Society leaders fulfilling every "captivity" prophecy, the resurrection that supposedly happened at that time, the silly Watchtower articles and assembly talks beginning at that time that supposedly fulfilled every Bible prophecy from Isaiah to Malachi (and Revelation). Currently these interpretations blind their followers to seeing any other possibilities. Loosening them without firm replacements will force JWs to think for themselves. Not all of them want to think, but imagine the feeling of freedom and joy for those who can use their minds again. It will free those JWs who couldn't quite fathom the importance the group puts on publishing as opposed to true charitable works.
If these things were discussing are viewed as a means to get " at least a few out" then fine. If it's viewed as a means to bring the demise of this horrid Organisation.......then I think your wrong.
I don't think they even have to come all the way out to have their lives improved. Any lessening of the authority of a Governing Body and local Elders will have a positive effect in allowing people to live with a little less stress and pressure. They will enjoy life to larger degree than is possible for them now. In the late 70's many JWs were already enjoying this freedom of expression, and being a JW around these people was a much more enjoyable experience. It's like the difference in being stuck in a room with Ray Franz as opposed to being stuck in a room with Ted Jaracz. True they're still stuck in a room, but the difference is night and day.
My own parents are still JWs but I think the obvious has already had an effect on them. They have seen many of their long-held chronology hopes fail as they saw their own JW parents die. This was never supposed to happen in this system of things. They were never even supposed to grow old, themselves. They are no longer ready to follow any Circuit Overseer's advice to pioneer until the end, which is a good thing because my mother used to be "of a mind" to follow their lead blindly. Now they enjoy world cruises and visits with old friends and even non-JW relatives -- they've even taken an interest in their genealogies and other time-consuming hobbies that would have been unheard of several years ago.
There is a further reason to discuss these issues here. The pressure from "apostates" to point out the truth before they admit it creates a "dam" effect. They have to publically speak out against the "apostates" for as long as they can hold back the pressure from the facts. This makes the "bursting" of the dam all the more powerful and public when it finally happens. This naturally creates a further, quicker erosion of their authority because the "apostates" saw it coming. It will be more difficult for many JWs to see "apostates" as true enemies. The exposure of their history has already created an ambivalence to people that are the heirs of the "evil slave" class. (Modern Russellites/Bible Students) Many JWs have already begun to accept them as fellow believers at some level. If "apostates" might not really be apostates, imagine what other freedoms JWs could be exposed to!
Gamaliel
Gamaliel wrote:
There is a further reason to discuss these issues here. The pressure from "apostates" to point out the truth before they admit it creates a "dam" effect. They have to publically speak out against the "apostates" for as long as they can hold back the pressure from the facts. This makes the "bursting" of the dam all the more powerful and public when it finally happens. This naturally creates a further, quicker erosion of their authority because the "apostates" saw it coming. It will be more difficult for many JWs to see "apostates" as true enemies. The exposure of their history has already created an ambivalence to people that are the heirs of the "evil slave" class. (Modern Russellites/Bible Students) Many JWs have already begun to accept them as fellow believers at some level. If "apostates" might not really be apostates, imagine what other freedoms JWs could be exposed to!
These are outstanding observations! They've been demonstrated to be true. Back in 1994, after the changes in the Society's view of the "signs in sun, moon and stars" of Matthew 24 etc., "apostates" like me pointed out to JWs on the Usenet forum talk.religion.misc that the Society would soon follow with other changes. Those changes came in the fall of 1995, when the definition of "the generation of 1914" was changed. Several JWs emailed me and said they were astounded that us nasty old "apostates" knew this ahead of time. Then we pointed to the old masthead in Awake! that spoke of "the Creator's promise" about the generation of 1914, and said that it was inconsistent with the "new light" on the "generation of 1914", and would therefore soon change. Within a couple of months it did, and several JWs quit in disgust.
The Society's basic problem here goes right back to The Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses: The Governing Body speaks for God and is always 100% right until they say they were wrong. Of course, they rarely admit they were wrong about anything until much time has passed, so they minimize it by relegating the wrongness to the ancient, unimportant, fuzzy past when they celebrated Christmas etc. But a fraction of JWs will see through the standard ruse and quit, after noting that "apostates saw it coming".
AlanF
