How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco 208 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Jeffro

‘scholar’:
How can you be definite that a definite or precise date such as 607 BCE is wrong when you cannot offer up any other precise alternative?
Argument from ignorance. Even if the exact year were not known it doesn’t mean that whatever nonsense is offered instead must be correct.
But the exact year is known anyway. It was 587 BCE. No study of the subject in the last 60 years has offered any basis for 586 BCE as the correct year and various studies have specified 587 BCE as the correct year. The fact that some sources simply repeat Thiele’s dating from the 1940s (based on Ussher’s even earlier work) is irrelevant misdirection.
Disillusioned JW

scholar, I disagree with the following comment you made to me. "What you are saying is nonsense. How can you be definite that a definite or precise date such as 607 BCE is wrong when you cannot offer up any other precise alternative?" [Update: Note that on this topic page Jeffro made an excellent rebuttal to you about your argument to me about the dates.] I offered to you an alternative (namely that of biblical scholars) which is precise to within one year and which differs from your date by 20 to 21 years, yet you reject it. Even if every biblical scholar came to agree precisely the year of 578 BCE, (even down to the exact day of that year and even to the exact hour of the day) you would still not accept it as correct. Is that right? So the issue is not really about the minor degree of imprecision of saying "587/586 BCE". Right? The issue really is about you not accepting any date derived from nonbiblical sources which disagrees with dates derived from the WT's (and your) interpretation of the Bible. Right? Yet even the WT's date of 607 B.C.E. relies upon the date of 539 BCE calculated by non-JW biblical scholars from nonbiblical ancient records (since the Bible does not provide any astronomical signs by which people can correlate the year of a biblical king's reign with our modern day calendar). Right?
I think I read that you have said that religion should not be judged by science, but that science should be judged by religion. But for me religion (including the Bible) should be judged by modern science instead of modern science being judged by
religion (including the Bible). Modern science is my standard and it has been since my childhood.That is largely because modern science uses the scientific method and that method is an excellent way of testing claims, and has an excellent track record. In contrast, a great many of the claims of religion (including of the Bible) are not testable, thus explaining why there as so many conflicting biblical interpretations by Christians (and so many denominations and sects of Christians) and so many thousands (or perhaps even millions) of different religions. In contrast within a given field/branch of science there is a consensus on multiple topics and over time the number of topics in which there is consensus grows (one of which is life on Earth has evolved).
For most of my life I thought that modern science backed enough of the claims of the Bible in order for me to accept that the Bible is entirely correct, even in those areas where it disagrees with modern science. But, when I was about 45 years old I learned that certain major findings of modern science (ones which I concluded are definitely true) strongly disagree with some major claims of the Bible. As a result at about age 50 I stopped believing in the Bible as being Jehovah/Yahweh God's word and I stopped believing in God. Believing that the supernatural exists (something which the Bible makes extensive claims of) was often times hard to believe anyway (even while a child) since I never discovered any definite proof of anything supernatural (and since I never ever experienced anything supernatural or anyone supernatural).
scholar, if the If the WT has proven the 607 BCE date as you claim, why is it unacceptable by all non-JW scholars of biblical history? Why hasn't the WT managed to persuade a significant number of them? To the biblical scholars and to myself the WT has not proved the 607 BCE as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem.
scholar

Jeffro
Argument from ignorance. Even if the exact year were not known it doesn’t mean that whatever nonsense is offered instead must be correct.
--
Nonsense is a two-way street and in your case, it is simply your opinion which is irrelevant.
---
But the exact year is known anyway. It was 587 BCE. No study of the subject in the last 60 years has offered any basis for 586 BCE as the correct year and various studies have specified 587 BCE as the correct year. The fact that some sources simply repeat Thiele’s dating from the 1940s (based on Ussher’s even earlier work) is irrelevant misdirection.
--
Nonsense. The date 586 BCE is the preferred date over 587 BCE but if you believe otherwise then state your sources showing the demise of 586 BCE being replaced by 587 BCE.Prove it otherwise your claim is simply fanciful.
scholar JW
scholar

Disillusioned JW
scholar which pages of the Insight book are you using for the data of the reigns of the Hebrew Monarachy which add up years from 539 (or 537) B.C.E. to get 607 BCE? Are you referring t the chart which is on pages 404-406 of Insight Volume 1? That chart is counting up (forward in time) from what the Insight book says happened in 1117 BCE. I don't see it counting backward in time from the well established date of 539 B.C.E. Therefore please provide us with more information so I and others can see what you are using to support your claim.
---
Simple for you only have to read what is published in WT publications to understand the methodology used for the scheme for the Divided Monarchy and for the calculation of 607 BCE using the pivotal date of 539 BCE. It is not 'rocket science' that even a layperson can understand both the methodology and the overall scheme of WT chronology. Just use the Insight and Aid publications and the information in the All Scripture Inspired publication.
scholar JW
scholar

Disillusioned JW
scholar, I disagree with the following comment you made to me. "What you are saying is nonsense. How can you be definite that a definite or precise date such as 607 BCE is wrong when you cannot offer up any other precise alternative?" [Update: Note that on this topic page Jeffro made an excellent rebuttal to you about your argument to me about the dates.] I offered to you an alternative (namely that of biblical scholars) which is precise to within one year and which differs from your date by 20 to 21 years, yet you reject it. Even if every biblical scholar came to agree precisely the year of 578 BCE, (even down to the exact day of that year and even to the exact hour of the day) you would still not accept it as correct. Is that right? So the issue is not really about the minor degree of imprecision of saying "587/586 BCE". Right? The issue really is about you not accepting any date derived from nonbiblical sources which disagrees with dates derived from the WT's (and your) interpretation of the Bible. Right? Yet even the WT's date of 607 B.C.E. relies upon the date of 539 BCE calculated by non-JW biblical scholars from nonbiblical ancient records (since the Bible does not provide any astronomical signs by which people can correlate the year of a biblical king's reign with our modern day calendar). Right?
--
The issue at hand is one of intellectual honesty for you cannot criticize 607 BCE which is a precise date with dates that even though there is a difference of one year is acceptable. You must establish your Chronology then you are in a position to be critical of another Chronology.
The issue at hand is that our Chronology is Bible-based whereas your Chronology is based on secular and pagan sources which contradict the Bible history it is that simple.It is quite acceptable to use 539BCE as a pivotal date even though it is from a secular source as it is our methodology that warrants such a choice otherwise no scheme is possible.
Always be careful of science as it is a human construct prone to error.
--
scholar, if the If the WT has proven the 607 BCE date as you claim, why is it unacceptable by all non-JW scholars of biblical history? Why hasn't the WT managed to persuade a significant number of them? To the biblical scholars and to myself the WT has not proved the 607 BCE as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem.
--
Simple for such fools are misled by the great Deceiver, Satan the Devil and such so-called intellectual ones do not believe the Bible- its History-its Eschatology and Prophecy. I am not interested in whether WT has proved 607 BCE to you but on the basis of my nearly 50 years of research, I have proved 607 BCE beyond any shadow of a doubt. Further, I have debated this issue with the best and brightest on this forum for decades.
scholar JW
Splash

Simple for such fools are misled by the great Deceiver
Yet you quote these same, deceived fools when they align with your dogma.
It must be nice to pick and choose your beliefs like a child in a sweet shop.
MeanMrMustard

Jeremiah sets out a list of nations starting with Judah to experience Jehovah's judgement whether it is of a conquering order or otherwise is not made plain in the prophecy for it begins with Judah and then successively lists and describes the fate of each nation.

Starting in verse 17, the list of nations is just an enumeration of all the nations that will serve Babylon, in one form or another, for 70 years. Jeremiah just got done stating that "these nations" will serve, and for emphasis, he starts to list them out, getting more general toward the end of the list. It's a way of underscoring the clear grammar of verse 11 - there are a plural number of nations serving Babylon. The listing doesn't imply conquering order at all - that's why you reach for the unusual translation of verse 29.

Going to biblegateway.com again, enumerating v29 in every translation they have, it becomes pretty clear. All of them, except one, render the verse and some derivation of "beginning to bring". The CEV uses "first", but it doesn't surprise me that you find at least one on your side, especially among the versions that don't mind wondering from the literal language:

KJ21

For lo, I begin to bring evil..

ASV

For, lo, I begin to work evil...

AMP

For behold, I am beginning to work disaster ...

AMPC

For behold, I am beginning to work evil ...

BRG

For, lo, I begin to bring evil ...

CSB

For I am already bringing disaster...

CEB

Look! I’m bringing disaster ...

CJB

For, look! — if I am bringing disaster ...

CEV

Starting with my own city of Jerusalem, everyone on earth will suffer from war.

DARBY

For behold, I begin to bring evil ...

DRA

For behold I begin to bring evil ...

ERV

I am already making these bad things happen ...

EHV

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

ESV

For behold, I begin to work disaster ...

ESVUK

For behold, I begin to work disaster ...

EXB

Look! I am ·already bringing [beginning to bring] ·disaster ...

GNV

For lo, I begin to plague the city ...

GW

I am going to bring disaster ...

GNT

I will begin my work of destruction ...

HCSB

For I am already bringing disaster ...

ICB

I am already bringing disaster ...

ISV

Look, I’m beginning to bring disaster ...

JUB

For, Behold, I begin to bring evil ...

KJV

For, lo, I begin to bring evil ...

AKJV

For, lo, I begin to bring evil ...

LSB

For behold, I am beginning to bring ...

LEB

For look, on the city that is called by my name I am beginning to inflict harm ...

TLB

I have begun to punish ...

MSG

“‘Prepare for the worst! I’m starting off the catastrophe in the city ...

MEV

For I am starting to bring calamity ...

NOG

I am going to bring disaster ...

NABRE

Now that I am inflicting evil on this city ...

NASB

For behold, I am beginning to inflict disaster ...

NASB1995

For behold, I am beginning to work calamity ...

NCB

Behold, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NCV

Look! I am already bringing disaster ...

NET

For take note, I am already beginning to bring disaster ...

NIRV

I am beginning to bring trouble ...

NIV

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NIVUK

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NKJV

For behold, I begin to bring calamity ...

NLV

See, I am beginning to make trouble ...

NLT

I have begun to punish Jerusalem ...

NRSVA

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NRSVACE

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NRSVCE

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NRSVUE

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

OJB

For, hinei, I begin to bring ra’ah on the Ir ...

RSV

For behold, I begin to work evil ...

RSVCE

For behold, I begin to work evil ...

TLV

See, I am beginning to bring evil ...

VOICE

Do you think I will bring disaster ...

WEB

For, behold, I begin to work evil ...

WYC

for lo! in the city in which my name is called to help, I begin to torment ...

YLT

For lo, in the city over which My name is called, I am beginning to do evil ...

The rendering of "beginning to bring" makes much more sense. It aligns perfectly with v18 - "as it is this day". And it doesn't try to turn "nations" into a singular, and "serve" into "desolation".

It also makes physical sense - as your proposal would require Babylonian armies marching over long distances, for months, without attacking anyone, leaving their worst enemy, Assyria, standing while Babylon is unguarded.
MeanMrMustard

The simple fact is that we have a definite date not wishy-washy date for the Fall of Jerusalem. A precise date does not of itself prove its accuracy but if you compare the alternative dates for the same event then it comes down not only to accuracy but methodology and confidence.
Note to reader: "wishy-washy" for scholar means "date I disagree with". Which bring us to this gem of a comment:

The best attempt to disprove 607 BCE is the scholarship of Carl Olaf Jonsson published as Gentile Times Reconsidered which claims that there 17 lines of evidence that disprove 607 BCE. A scholarly examination of his thesis shows that not one of these lines of evidence disproves 607 BCE so 607 has been held up to scrutiny and has passed with Honours.
Note to reader: COJ's book, now in its 4th edition, peer reviewed, doesn't present 17 lines of evidence against 607. It presents 17 lines of evidence, FOR 587, showing how each independent line agrees with the others, ending finally in astronomical calculations, which are very accurate and precise.

There's nothing "wishy-washy" about 587. Which being us to this jewel:

WT critics are dogmatic in their contention that 607 BCE is wrong so they make that claim definitive, a counterclaim to this would be that such critics provide a definitive date or solution and if this cannot be done then they should cease their dogmatism until the matter is resolved definitively.
Of course, this has already been done, and he knows it, as his last comment reveals. It's important to note that it's the WT apologist that MUST stick to every point dogmatically, violating grammar, changing plural to singular, mutating servitude into complete desolation, proposing conquest order that contradict the grammar in the verse, and established historical order, independently of any set date.

There is no contradiction between history and the Bible. There is only contradiction between history (and even astromony at this point) and the WT's ungrammatical reading of the scriptures and interpretation of these events.
It is the epitome of dogmatism.
Disillusioned JW

In an earlier post I said to scholar "... which pages of the Insight book are you using for the data of the reigns of the Hebrew Monarachy which add up years from 539 (or 537) B.C.E. to get 607 BCE?" But when I woke up this morning it occurred to me one can't add up the reigns of the Hebrew Monarchy from 539 BCE to the year in which the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. That is because there was no Hebrew monarchy in Judah during that time period.
In the list of chronology, on pages 464 - 466 of Insight Volume 1, of the combined 12-tribe kingdom and of the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the WT probably calculated those dates from the the year 607 BCE, which in turn they likely calculated by going back 68 years from the pivotal year of 539 BCE (or by going back 70 years from the year 537 BCE, which in turn was calculated by going forward 2 years from the year 539 BCE). In listing the dates from 1117 BCE forward in time to 607 BCE they likely give the impression to many readers that the 607 BCE date was determined by starting with the 1117 date. But, what the WT most likely actually did was to calculate the 1117 BCE date (and the dates between 1117 BCE and 607 BCE) from the BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order. Likewise that is probably the reason their year for the creation of Adam (stated as 4026 B.C.E. on page 459 of the Volume 1 of Insight) is 26 years earlier than the date calculated by Ussher, rather than 20 years closer to the date calculated by Ussher (his date was 4000 BC.
scholar I notice you said the following. "The issue at hand is that our Chronology is Bible-based whereas your Chronology is based on secular and pagan sources which contradict the Bible history it is that simple. ... Always be careful of science as it is a human construct prone to error." That confirms what I thought about your approach. You consider the Bible to be far more reliable than science. In contrast, I consider science to be far more reliable than religion and the Bible.
My observation is that religion is vastly more prone to error than science is prone to error. The WT and its JW religion are extremely prone error. That is partly demonstrated by their numerous doctrinal changes throughout their history.
Since are views on this matter are the opposite of each other and since our views on this matter are strongly entrenched, it is probably not worthwhile for me to continue to debate this matter (and other matters in which your religion is in conflict with science) with you.
Have a nice day.
TonusOH

As an aside, that list of translations of a single verse that MeanMrMustard listed makes me wonder just how far off any translation of the Bible is from the original writings (which, as I understand it, have never been found). If all of these varied translations are from relatively few manuscripts, then it shows how difficult it is to get a consensus (impossible, by the look of it). If there are many manuscripts available to translate from, then are those also varied in what they say and how they say it?

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

Share this