587 BC for Total Dunderheads

by Farkel 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • ros

    Concerning a 1914 parousia:

    The Watchtower prophecy has it that Christ + 144,000 saints will reign in heaven for 1000 years.
    AND . . . they insist these numbers (144,000 and 1000) are literal numbers.

    So, if Christ returned in 1914, were 144,000 saints resurrected at that time?
    Not according to the WT prophecy.

    Has the 1000-year reign begun?
    Not according to the WT prophecy. It begins immediately AFTER Armageddon.

    Will some of the144,000 "saints" live through Armageddon into the New Earth, and thereafter die and be resurrected?
    That used to be the doctrine. Is it still the view? (Especially since anyone who dies in Armageddon has no hope of a resurrection.)

    It is now 90 years after 1914.
    If Christ returned in 1914, he has been reigning 90 years and the millenium has not begun.
    If some of the 144,000 will not die and be resurrected until after Armageddon, they will not reign with Christ for a full 1000 years.
    Christ and those "saints" who were resurrected in 1914 (or were they supposed to be resurrected in 1919?) will have reigned for 1000 years plus 90 years plus however many years still remain until Armageddon.

    For all their insistence that the 144,000 and 1000 years are literal numbers in prophecy, in no way can it be said in their teaching that Christ + 144,000 reigned for 1,000 years.

    Their own teaching denies the numbers are literal.

    QUESTION: If Christ returned in 1914, how has that affected the earth? What has changed? Weren't things supposed to get better?


  • toreador

    Good questions Ros. Some of those I pondered for many years as an active JW. Good questions for our good ol Scholar. I wonder what he will come up with. Nothing I presume.


  • confusedjw

    Thanks. Read um and find myself shaking my head. The things I didn't know I believed.

    On September 30 through October 2, 1944, a special Service and BUSINESS assembly was held at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA...

    But it was a "special" Service and Business assembly. Is that code for fullfilling prophesy?

    Ezekiel: ?please God! Don?t make me eat food cooked with people's shit!?

    God: "shut up!"

    Christ I hate whinning prophets.
  • confusedjw

    (Farkel throws this one out) 607/70 years

    Oh no another one! Okay let me try this one.

    That is 607 divide by 70 which equals 8.6714285714285714285714285714286

    Notice the repeatition of 142857 four times? Subtract from 144,000 and you get 1143. Would that be the number of "real annointed" left on earth?

    How'd I do?

  • Alleymom

    The Society's literature has simply given the traditional chronology for the Neo-Babylonian dynasty and this cannot be construed as an endorsement of this traditional chronology, The Society has not yet presented a reconstruction of this period but has assigned different beginnings for these kings such as the begiinning of Neb's first year. If you follow the current reigns for the dynasty then you would have a twenty year differnece because precedence has been for the the dynasty over and above the seventy year period. It is the seventy year prophecy that spoils the plot and not the length of the Babylonian period. However, one must make a personal choice and as I have said time and again the whole matter comes down to methodology, sevent years or the dynasty?


    Scholar --

    I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying in the first sentence. The WT literature I cited says that each king reigned for so many years ( or months). Are you saying that information is incorrect? If you read the articles you will see that the Society was not saying, "Here is the traditional chronology, but we do not endorse it." No, not at all. The articles say that King So-and-So ruled "x" years, and they present this as factual information. Are you saying this information from the Society is not accurate?

    You said: "However, one must make a personal choice". Why should someone have to make a personal choice as to which WT literature to believe in regard to the chronology? Are you saying that you have made a personal choice not to believe the WT literature which presents information on the dynasties? Suppose I choose to believe the information in the WT articles which give the regnal lengths for the kings. Are you saying I would be wrong to believe those articles?


  • JCanon

    Hi City Fan, with all due respect...you don't understand the concept of double dating in the first place, so you're not in a position to criticize it. It has nothing to do with any planetary references, ONLY LUNAR references and only those that are MISS MATCHED to 568BCE.

    In other words, in Line 3, the original translators of that text, Sachs/Hunger, noted "an error for the 8th" for that reference. In other words, it didn't match the right location. THAT's the reference that matches 511BCE. So it's not at all what matches 568BCE it is what doesn't. The text was designed to hide the references to 511BCE by making them look like an error of a few hours or a day and have all the other references match the revised chronology for 568BCE. So the other references are SUPPOSED to match 568BCE. Therefore, they have nothing to do with how the conspiracy was set up to reflect on 511BCE.

    It's only Line 3 that is a "mismatch" for 568BCE, pointed out by Sachs/Hunger themselves, and Line 14, which was noted to be a mismatch by Otto Neugebaur. THEY said it, not me. All I did was note that both "errors" were said to be a day off and when you compare them they match another year, so it wasn't an accident. That year is 511BCE. ANYBODY can check this out.

    I had the idea that you actually understood these concepts and were keeping up with them, but apparently not. At any rate, you can't rate something as "BS" that you yourself don't comprehend.

    Oh well...I tried.


    It's just the same cut and paste BS that he usually posts. Now take his VAT 4956 double dating rubbish. The VAT 4956 diary has 30 astronomical references that have different cycles, e.g. the position of Saturn that repeats itself once every 29.5 years approximately. Another reference is the "lunar three" observations which repeat every Saros or 18 years 11 days approx. There are also conjunctions of Venus which repeat every 8 years and conjunctions of the Moon which repeat every 19 years.

    I don't cut and paste, I type fast. Don't you see the typos? Furthermore, as noted, the planetary observations and lunar observations that match 568BCE are not the references in question, so your bringing them up shows you don't understand what is going on with this example of revisionism. All that you stated is true but irrelevant. Why don't you comment on WHY YOU THINK Line three is "an error for the 8th" as Sachs/Hunger says? It's Line 3 that doesn't match that's the problem. The other observations were meant as camouflage. Get it? Since they couldn't preserve any of the original texts which had to be destroyed, they decided to hide some references buried in a long "diary" with all the revised info. "Hide in plain sight." So it wouldn't matter if they had a thousand perfectly matched references to 568BCE, it's the ones that don't match that are linked to other years that has us questioning these references.

    The second thing of note is that any text that is created after the dates in question is easy to fabricate. You seem to think that copying information from old texts accurately and placing them in a new one and then putting a new king's year on the tablet makes it authentic. It doesn't. You're out of your debth here, unfortunately. But a lot of people are, this is technical. At any rate, at this point it is clear you're in no position to advise on this topic, so I'll just ignore your observation for now and blame it on not making myself understandable to you. I'll try to make it simpler the next time.

    Now JCanon has an agenda which is to date this diary as 511 BC so as to prove his messiah-ness!

    No I don't. I didn't INVENT the 455BCE chronology! Martin Anstey had already considered that 455BCE (457BCE) was the 1st of Cyrus and that the Babylonian records were in error. There is a whole group that follows this and acknowledges the Persian Period is 82 years off. I just agree with them. I didn't fabricate Josephus' statement in Antiquities 11.1.1 that says the 70 years were a literal 70 years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cryus. That's there! It contradicts the current chronology! Period. It has nothing to do with me other than I agree with their position. I'm not creating anything. When you date Cyrus to 455BCE then add the 70 years per Josephus you get year 23 in 525BCE and the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE. Simple. You can even find a reference to this dating in Olof Jonsson's book! It's not my theory on this, it's just one of many, only I agree with this.

    But what YOU have to deal with is that you can get an astronomical program and look up 511BCE, after ajusting the lunar position per line 8 to 4 cubits below beta-Germinorum as the text states then check for the 9th of Nisan and the 5th of Sivan and the moon will be precisely in the location the texts say. 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion on the 9th of Nisan, and 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis (bright star behind the Lion's foot) on the 5th. Because BOTH match a specific year, you can't presume this was not intentional. But if it were and there was a reference to 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, it should have had some "significance" historically, right? Was this the original dating? That would be the first presumption. So might funny to me, out of all the 'creative" but indepdent dating match-ups you can get out of the VAT4956, you get 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar which just so happens, BIG SURPRISE to be the same dating as year 23 in 525BCE. Now I wonder why that is? The Bible's chronology is the correct one. The fact that there is some surviving evidence in this from in the ancient records to the same chronology, just proves the Bible is correct, that's all.

    So he ignores every observation in this diary as yet another conspiracy and sticks with the lunar conjunctions which repeat every 19 years.

    What can I say? I don't need the VAT4956 to prove there was a conspiracy. The Bible says at Ezra 6:14,15 that Darius I only ruled for six years and he was followed on the throne by a king called "Artaxerxes". My first research was looking into the Persian historical information when I found out Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. So it's more than just about this text. This text just gives us a good "absolute date" that links us to Nebuchadnezzar!! That's what's nice about it.

    Anyway, I'M CONVINCED about this. Maybe only I and those who follow me need to have this interpretation of the information anyway. And don't feel bad you don't grasp the concept. Believe me, many don't including those at the British Museum. They just don't get it. I feel like Einstein when he came out with the theory of relatively (even though it's not accurate, but, same scenario...)

    Unfortunately for him even to make a few of these references work he has to use a different measuring system than the Babylonians used and also has to ignore the scientifically proven and observable rate of decline of the Earth's rotational speed. This means his "double dates" only work from Honolulu!

    Yes, I know this was a bit much for you. But Sachs/Hunger already said that line 3 was an "error". Line 8 places the moon 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum, which is not where it is when you locate from Babylon. But it IS where it is from the longitude near Honolulu. In other words, if you observe from Honolulu and punch in that date, and check for the lunar location it will be 4 cubits below beta-Geminorium. This was done because of the text when the entire text was being charted for accuracy. If you don't locate the moon there, then it's another "ERROR". So Honolulu was a direct result of the text adjustment. If you don't want to make the correct text adjustment, if that's too much for you, then fine. Anyway, it was only by accident after that relocation was made that it was discovered that lines 3 and 14, previous "errors" for 568BCE anyway now matched 511BCE. Since 511BCE was the original dating, of course, that's why the "errors" were there. There was their way of hiding their reference to the true chronology. What can I say. I understand it. Sorry you can't.

    There are eclipses he changes for other dates to fit his agenda where Babylon is at Babylon, not Honolulu!

    Not sure what you mean by this. Once you relocate PER THE TEXT you have to apply that to ALL OTHER LOCATION references. As far as I know, I apply the "Honolulu" location for all eclipses to get the correct timing. That means lunar eclipses from the time of Babylon all the way to the time of Herod during Jesus' time. I don't believe I'm inconsistent in this area. You might be mistaken. But I don't know what you specifically are referring to.

    I'm fully expecting more cut and paste BS in reply to this. Instead I suggest he goes on an astronomy course, or goes to the nearest psychiactric ward and checks in. CF.

    Well, I can understand your position, because it does take some "adjusting" to do. But to my credit.

    1. AlanF discovered that Sachs/Hunger had lied about the observation for Line 18. They said the "moon" was below the BSBLF near the 15th when the Moon was no where near Virgo at the time having long since past. Thus this was not an error. Instead, Venus was in that position. When you locate Venus there, as Neugebaur does then it changes the definition for this star and changes the reference to Line 3, making Sachs/Hunger inaccurately assigning the wrong star. The British Museum acknowledged this was an "error" for line 18. So guess what? If you want to compare the text accurately to the astronomy program you first have to get through the "BS" of the professionals to do so. But, I'm sure since you admire them so, you think the error is perfectly acceptable and it doesn't mean anything. To get to the TRUTH you have to sometimes apply a lot of heat and do a lot of washing. That's all this is.

    Hey, I may very well be crazy. But it wasn't ME who first believed the Bible's chronology is more reliable than the pagan chronology and decided to date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE, presuming an 82-year discrepancy. That was Martin Anstey and many others who followed. I'm with them. I don't trust the post-dated and skimpy records of the Persians, especially when I CAN SEE CLEARLY they hid references to the original chronology in some of their texts.

    So granted, maybe I'm crazy. But maybe, you're just not that smart after all. Ever think about that?


  • JCanon

    Hello Link....

    In reply to your position. Note that 70 years is 70 years first before you make it anything else. The Bible can count. 70 is not 68, it's not 69 it's not 71, it's 70. The numbers in the Bible have significance and often events are manipulatd to fit these PATTERNS. Sometimes the Bible does round off numbers, but it is usually marginally (i.e. like making every month 30 days, etc.)

    Excuse my ignorance but the Bible says THESE NATIONS will serve the King of Babylon for 70 years. It does not say that the JEWISH NATION - or any single nation will serve for all of the 70 years.

    Whoever "these nations" were they were to serve AT LEAST 70 years. If you will note, many of the nations were listed as having to drink the bitter cup of Nebuchadnezzar who would desolate the entire region of Israel including the nations around about. So whomever these "nations" were, one group of them had to serve for 70 years. Babylon deported various nations and people, including the Jews for different lengths of time. But it was the Jews last deported that JOSEPHUS, the Jewish historian, claims served the 70 years. Of note, he also records at this time that Nebuchadnezzar also deported other peoples, including those who had reinhabited the northern kingdom. So the Jews last deported along with the remaining nations in the land in a SPECIFIC YEAR would serve out 70 years at Babylon. Further, the Bible indicates that Jerusalem would be the first to drink from this better cup and be desolated so the 70 years for those nations would have to begin after the destruction of Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar's last campaign into the region before he invaded Egypt in his 37th year was in his 23rd year. It was those nations last deported that year who served out those 70 years. Of note, archaeological evidence shows Ashkelon, which is mentioned as one of those cities to drink of that bitter cup was devasted for "70 to 80 years" per archaeologist estimates which ended with the Persian Period. So some evidence does exist that supports the Bible.

    A date for the start of the Jewish exile cannot be fixed from the Bible records and there is no valid reason that it had to be 70 years in length. All the indications are that The nations as a whole served Babylon for 70 years with the majority of the Jewish people serving about 50 of them.

    Again, you haven't done your research. JOSEPHUS specifically tells us when the 70 years of the Jews in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy began, which was the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar. Antiquities 11.1.1. So there is no debate or discussion as to when the JEWS and the BIBLE dates this period. The Bible reference that proves agreement with Josephus is Zechariah 1 and 7 which show the Jews still in exile and under "Darius" in his 2nd year and 4th year, 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and after the mourning for Gedeliah, respectively. So they were still in exile 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem. So the 70 years of complete desolation must not have begun at that time but later. Obviously it had not since the Bible says some poor people were left in the land to still harvest crops. These passages prove that Darius the Mede ruled for six years on his own before Cyrus came and took over and released the Jews in his first year. This was clearly understood by others including Isaac Newton way back when who also acknowledges the Jews were still in exile during the independent reign of Darius the Mede (though he only accords 2 years vs the Bible's 6). So sorry, but the Bible and Jewish history do tell us precisely when the 70 years was to begin. At the time of the last deportation.

    Just my personal opinion. link

    So noted, but you need to do a little more research. When the Jews think the 70 years occurred in their own history is quite clear. The only problem here is that it disagrees with the Babylonian records, which apparently were revised. No problem. Thanks for sharing your view, though. It's interesting to see how people think and view things when presented with some of this information. JC

  • JCanon
    Nope not dead yet. I am still reading it.

    JCanon, your posts are just too dang long.

    Apparently not long enough, some people don't seem to grasp what is going on when they have all the evidence they need right in front of them.

    On the other hand, it takes 8 years to become a doctor. It depends upon how important this information is to you as to whether it is "too long" or not. You wouldn't be in THAT big of a hurry would you? Remember the warning, "They were eating and drinking, marrying....and took no note?" Some things take time. Satan has made it difficult to find the truth. He knows some will give out early, whether they are tired or maybe lazy.

    Remember Jesus' parable about the seed of the kingdom. How some fell on the road and was eaten by birds. How some fell on shallow soil and sprouted up quickly but without depth, withered in the sun. And some found fertile soil and good roots but weeds came up and intangled it. Those weeds were the other cumbersome things in life that choke out the time it takes for the truth to produce fruit.

    But for some, those who are truly searching, those who would sell all for one fine pearl that they see in the kingdom, their seed is well founded in fertile soil, and it grows great and it bears much fruit.

    Which do you want to be seen as?...by he angels looking on at this final drama?


  • JCanon

    Hi Gumby...

    "Wanna know what I think" ( said in my best droopy cartoon voice),

    I think JCanon.....since he claims to be Jesus Christ himself in the flesh......should use some of those powers he has and give us all some mindblowin, cyber zappin, internet explodin, visual convincin proof, that his ass REALLY came in 1914...... or whenever he actually came. A god as powerful as he shouldn't need to debate on dates.


    Christ at the second coming comes with a SWORD. He comes to divide! To label. To separate the sheep from the goats. "His sheep will hear his voice." He is here to "clean up the threshing floor" of all the chaff! So in a way, he is here to keep out the goats from the kingdom as much as to gather his sheep. He knows who the goats are and sends them complicated messages as he did when he was here the first time. He spoke in parables so that the "outsiders" looking in curiously would not understand. But for his followers, he showed the sacret secrets. Chist coming "on the clouds of heaven" is really saying he's kind of a "cloudy" character in nature. He doesn't really give you a clear picture of what he's up to. He's not really up front. Fact is, as prophesied, even when Christ is recognized by many whom knew him to "teach in their broadways" who will seek to get into the kingdom one day, will be turned away. Oh yes, they will believe and want to get in, but it will be too late. So maybe I will one day do some cyberzippin and mindblowing in some way; some obvious miracle that YOU believe you needed to believe. But when that happens and the Messiah is "revealed" the world, he comes from behind the clouds, it will be to late. He will be revealed to announce the end of the this old world and the beginning of the millennium. Don't forget, nobody believed Noah when he was preaching, but everybody was a believer at the time of their death. All the angels believe in God, both good and bad. So getting people to "believe" is not what this is about. It's not about you accepting me.....but me accepting you. I'm doing the separating and the choosing. Some who don't even know me are chosen. So who knows, maybe you're already chosen. Remember that parable by Jesus when the door was closed and some people found they would inherit the kingdom? They couldn't figure out why? It's because of things they did, like the Good Samaritan. It was the good heart of the Samaritan, not doctrinal beliefs. There other TRICK to this is TIMING. It's not what you will eventually accept, but what you accept under certain circumstances when you're being watched and judged. Most thieves who are about to be caught or who know they are being watched will straighten up their act, but they are still a thief. So what God does is makes it really EASY for them to "be themselves" and then he takes notes on that. How many wouldn't accept Christ after he's here and about to destroy the world. JC

  • City Fan
    City Fan


    you don't understand the concept of double dating in the first place, so you're not in a position to criticize it

    You don't understand astronomy, physics or mathematics so you're in no position at all to analyse these diaries.

    It has nothing to do with any planetary references, ONLY LUNAR references

    That is exactly what I said you used for your "double dating" rubbish. I said "he ignores every observation in this diary as yet another conspiracy and sticks with the lunar conjunctions which repeat every 19 years".

    If you don't cut and paste then you certainly repeat yourself ad-nauseum.

    The second thing of note is that any text that is created after the dates in question is easy to fabricate. You seem to think that copying information from old texts accurately and placing them in a new one and then putting a new king's year on the tablet makes it authentic

    And what you fail to comprehend is that all these "created" texts follow the known algorithms for the slowing of the rate of the Earth's rotation. So do Chinese astronomical texts, so do Islamic texts, so do medieval texts etc etc. So to suddenly pick up Babylon and then drop it back down in Honolulu is simply ridiculous. How did the Babylonians invent texts that complied with the known rate of decline in the Earth's rotation? It doesn't matter which king is assigned to which year. The texts prove the known algorithms. But as I said your knowledge of mathematics is virtually non-existant so I expect you'll never grasp this concept.

    But what YOU have to deal with is that you can get an astronomical program and look up 511BCE, after ajusting the lunar position per line 8 to 4 cubits below beta-Germinorum

    It doesn't need to be adjusted. I've explained this to you a number of times and but you just simply don't understand Babylonian astronomy.

    Line 8 places the moon 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum, which is not where it is when you locate from Babylon.

    You're wrong. This line of the text is perfectly correct and confirms the date of this observation as 22 May 568 BC.

    I feel like Einstein when he came out with the theory of relatively (even though it's not accurate, but, same scenario...)

    There's nothing like modesty JC!

    (BTW, I've tried to be as condescending in my replies to you as you are with everyone else.)

Share this