Pivitol Date Stuff

by IP_SEC 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  OldSoul

  scalar: WT chronology has a;ways placed an emhasis on the seventy years as desolation of the land which by definition implies exile and servitude.

  I am not impressed by your unbased definitions of implication. Actually, by every "definition" the implication is the state the land would be left in. Astonishingly destitute, a waste. A scholar would know that. That word does not in any way apply to the people's state of exile or servitude except through grossest liberties in interpretation. A modest argument could be made to indicate that in addition to physical desolation there may also be a connotation (as opposed to denotation) of spiritual desolation, but that is as far as one could reasonably go with interpretting the meaning of the Hebrew word שׁמם (shaw-mame') or its variants.

  Anyone who goes beyond that is stepping outside the bounds of translation and entering the arena of fantastical contrivance. There is no path by which such an interpretation can be drawn using scripture to interpret itself. This is, therefore, another example of the Governing Body exercising magisterium over the laity under the pen name "Faithful and Discreet Slave." You bear the name scholar like an ill-fitting crown.

  I think perhaps you might consider fully expounding your substantiating materials so that I might arrive at the same conclusion independently of your insistence that, "It is so!" Otherwise, you could seek some other haunt more conducive to your efforts at peddling false sagacity. I get the distinct impression no such substantiating materials may reasonably be expected in the near future. You wish me to content myself with your anecdotal claims of the existence of such material. I would as soon believe that Mr. Smith, at the direction of Moroni, actually found some gold leaves sorely in need of translation.

  So far, thanks for the levity. That is all you have really added.

  Peace,
  OldSoul
• 

  OldSoul

  mkr: Your arguments are so UNscholarly as to work in the exact oppisite of your desired intent! You are actually convincing people that the date is wrong by trying to show them that it's right!

  Interesting observation, but your advice may go unheeded. Given the abysmally lacking defense it may be scalar's purpose to do exactly what you suggest he (or she) is doing.
• 

  City Fan

  mkr,

  Everyone else- Why are you arguing with this fruitcake? Why not argue with brownhole or better yet that oak tree in your yard...

  Although you would get much more sense from a tree than from scholar, I think threads like these can be useful to post arguments and evidence for why 607 is so very wrong.

  Arguing with Brownhole is completely pointless.

  CF.
• 

  scholar

  mkr32208

  In answer to your question, NO.Because I believe that there is sufficient secular and overwhelming biblical evidence that validates the calender date of 607. I argue about because apostates dogmatically asert that 607 is incorrect as they have surrended their critical thinking to the Jonsson hypothesis and hav ebelieved in an alternative that is simply a dead-end determination. After, 596 or 587 are useless dates having no application for those interested in prophecy.

  You state that my arguments are unscholarly if this isreally the case then why is that it is my postings that have attracted the most reaction and interest on this board. Why is it that atheists like Alan F are moved to comment quite vehemently when I post on this subject? Such idiots respond to my posts because they are scared that my comments will undermine their blind error. I have every intention to exposing Jonsson's fraudulent hypothesis so you had better get used to it.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  scholar

  Old Soul

  Listen you clown it is not rocket science. The simple facts are that the land was desolate for a considerable period which some consider to be fifty years, others seventy including WT scholars. If the land was desolated without an inhabitant then the people must have been exiled and if exiled then the people must have been invaded and made subject to a foreigh power namely Babylon. Thus the seventy years can only be properly understood as being of exile, servitude, and desolation. This is not a fantastic contrivance at all bu faithfully represent Jeremaic theology and is supported by Daniel, the Chronicler and Zechariah.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  In AlanF's last posting he mentions that the seventy years mentioned in Zechariah do not refer to one period but two periods independent of each other. A comment please. I will respond to your last post and to Alan F's shortly.

  scholar
• 

  confusedjw

  Can we talk MOTIVE for a minute?

  1. This calculation of 2520 days / 606 - 1914 were one of MANY date prophesies that Russell borrowed and put forth. He never identified it with the selection of a FDS class as he considered himself to be that slave.

  2. Only years later was 1914/1919 taught to be the founding of the FDS class - chosen although they didn't even know it at the time. They were still celebrating Christmas, teaching that the last days started in 1799, that Jesus had taken control in heaven in 1874 and preparing to expound how the resurrection would start on earth in 1925. Why wouldn't have Jehovah bothered to give them some indication they had just passed "the test" of not believing in Hell and an Immortal Soul - thus was now put in charge of all His belongings?

  3. Who Scholar, has the dishonest motive here? What does AlanF or Carl have to lose by aligning the 70 years with known and established history? What does the FDS have to lose? When it comes to honesty and dishonesty, you have a religious headship which disappears if 606/607 turns out to not be true. And you have followers, like you, who would lose their hope of a new system if they admit that 606/607 is wrong. No different than "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" - "It's God's Organization no matter what" -- No matter the failed prophesies (1874,1914,1925,1975) and predictions the moving target dates, the "Whole purpose we exist is to teach that the Generation which saw 1914 will see the end", no matter that they were an NGO ...

  Do you really think that Miller / Barbour / Russell / Brown were scholarly enough to have gotten this right? Do you think they took a historical look at this or did they find something pretty close so to offer "verification" of their religious views?

  Scholar you aren't an idiot, you know with what lack of data that Miller / Barbour / Russell / Brown had and how poorly they came up with their dating (539 BC, 1799, 1874) and how cavalier they used the different "days" in the bible. e.g. 1335, 1260, 1290 to mark dates.

  So you often mention that those who don't believe in 606/607 are just apostates. The ones employing 606/607 are false prophets who stand to lose their status in the world. Who really is blinded by Motive?
• 

  AlanF

  mkr32208 wrote:

  : Why are you arguing with this fruitcake?

  I do mainly to keep myself sharp on this issue. Also because the occasional JW might come along who hasn't the wherewithal to see through unscholar's dishonest arguments -- any more than most JWs can see through the Watchtower's dishonest arguments. Some years ago I took much time to argue about astronomy and such with the crackpot known as Bibleman, Gary, Larry or whatever. It wasn't to convince him, but to keep myself sharp and to prevent the naive from accepting ridiculous ideas. I learned a great deal by doing the necessary research.

  As for unscholar changing his mind, of course he'd change his mind -- if Mommy told him to.

  Unscholar wrote:

  : I argue about because apostates dogmatically asert that 607 is incorrect as they have surrended their critical thinking to the Jonsson hypothesis and hav ebelieved in an alternative that is simply a dead-end determination.

  Just like biblical and secular scholars have done for well over a hundred years, eh? The very ones from whom Jonsson learned all about Babylonian chronology.

  Your repeating nonsense like this simply shows -- as if more proof is needed -- your thoroughgoing dishonesty.

  : After, 596 or 587 are useless dates having no application for those interested in prophecy.

  Aye, there's the rub! The 607 date is necessary, not because of biblical or historical data, but because earlier Watchtower leaders used it to "fulfill prophecy" -- a prophecy entirely in their own self-interest. What self-interest? That of claiming that, based on 1914, 1919 was a prophetic year in which they claim that God appointed them "over all Christ's belongings". Confusedjw correctly pointed out that this, and only this, is the real reason that the Watchtower clings to this absolutely disproved date.

  : You state that my arguments are unscholarly if this isreally the case then why is that it is my postings that have attracted the most reaction and interest on this board.

  See above.

  : Why is it that atheists like Alan F

  I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. I've told you this before. You have a mind like a sieve.

  : are moved to comment quite vehemently when I post on this subject? Such idiots respond to my posts because they are scared that my comments will undermine their blind error.

  Only to those who might also blindly accept the notion that JW leaders speak for God. Such people need all the help they can get.

  : I have every intention to exposing Jonsson's fraudulent hypothesis so you had better get used to it.

  Just like the entire world of non-JW scholars accepts the "Jonsson hypothesis" -- a term only you use. LOL!

  : ... including WT scholars ...

  LOL! There have been only two JWs who could even remotely be called scholars with respect to Bible chronology -- Fred Franz and John Albu. Both are dead. And John admitted to me that the Watchtower has no good explanation for the fact that the prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11, 12 blows away its claim that the 70 years ended in 537 B.C., and not 539 B.C. "How should I view this fact, John?" I said. "Wait on Jehovah." he said. Sorry, man, but facts speak louder than Watchtower words.

  : I will respond to your last post and to Alan F's shortly.

  Correction: you'll type some words. You won't answer anything.

  In particular you won't answer why the Watchtower agrees that the 70 years spoken of in Zech 7:5 ended in 518/7 B.C., making the entire period 90 years from 607 to 518/7.

  confusedjw: which "Brown" are you talking about?

  AlanF
• 

  confusedjw

  A. Brown of England who was first to come up with the 2520, but didnt apply it to the Gentile Times as Russell later did when he borrowed the dating scheme.
• 

  Leolaia

  So why doesn't schooler START OUT with 568 BC as the pivotal absolute date instead of 523 BC? Isn't VAT 4956 a less problematic witness than Strm Cambys 400? If we go with the best external witness, then the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer would be 587 BC and THEN (rejecting Strm Cambys 400 instead of rejecting VAT 4956) use the vaunted, sacrosanct "seventy years" to then compute the end of the Neo-Babylonian period in 517 BC. You would face the exact same problem of needing to squeeze 20 years into the Neo-Babylonian period and the years of the Persian kings would be 20 years off from secular chronology just as the years of the Neo-Babylonian, Assyrian, and Judean kings would be 20 years off from secular chronology. It's just as an idiosyncratic, unpopular chronology as the one of the Society that makes 607 BC to be the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer. But it is still better because you get to have BOTH your favored interpretation of the 70 years AND 587 BC as the year of Jerusalem's destruction. Why is this possibility hardly ever discussed. Why is it just assumed to start the chronology from 539 BC on the basis of Strm Cambys 400 instead of from 587 BC on the basis of VAT 4956?