The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  Hardly, I have seen many letters addressed to the Society and the Society's replies which have been posted on various forums. Many such letters are long and argumentative and the Society responds to such honest and humble inquiries in a simple and clear matter. They have no intention of getting into long arguments about matters which in most cases are clearly explained in our literature.

  Predictably, you have replied with "your preconceived ideas getting in the way of what you know absolutely know nothing about". You know absolutely nothing of the content of the letter I sent, so you assume that it took the form of the long-winded ones you have seen elsewhere. If things were 'clearly explained in their literature', I would have had no need to send the letter, and they did not add any clarification to justify their points.

  The most difficult of all subjects is chronology and that as a subject of much complexity for all genuine inquirers, it is better to stick to the facts presented in the Bible and avoid assumptions of which are many. But individual brothers and the public are welcome to write questions and they will receive a suitable reply.

  Though the Society will answer questions, any information that is not in agreement with the Society very quickly brings out their Nazi mentality.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  You seem to be concerned by the fact that your letter to the Society was not properly answered or dealt with, so if this is the case then perhaps you could forward a copy to me and I may be able to assist you in your hour of distress.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  You seem to be concerned by the fact that your letter to the Society was not properly answered or dealt with, so if this is the case then perhaps you could forward a copy to me and I may be able to assist you in your hour of distress.

  I think my "hour of distress" has passed but thanks for your kind offer. LOL. In any case, I don't think that you would offer anything useful, as although you have provided more 'information' on this forum than with which the Society responded to my letter, pretty much all of what you have said has been, at best, tainted with flaws, and more often, completely incorrect, and your bias in the face of logical argument is more than obvious. Not forgetting that it was people like you who caused my "hour of distress" in the first place by teaching me lies, and then by mistreating me when I found out the truth.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Well now I have some news for you in relation to Jehoiakim and his third year. An article was published in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 2002-3, Volume 4 under the heading "Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers - Did He? by Obed Lipschits. The is article is available for download from the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures website and you will that this new research supports the view on this matter by celebrated WT scholars excepting that the dates are of traditional chronology.

  Further, on this board we have been advised of a recent publication on chronology by Melbourne scholar Christine M Tetley titled 'A Reconstructed Chronology of the Divide Monarchy'/ I will be ordering this book as the List of Contents suggests that this is an important piece of research which discusses the many problems of methodology confirming all along issues that I have brought to your attention.

  scholar JW
• 

  Earnest

  "Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers..." (II Kings 24:6) - Did He?

  4. The Sources for the Reference to Jehoiakim's Exile (2 Chr 36:6) and to his Burial in the garden of 'Uzza (LXX version of 2 Chr 36:8)
  
  4.1 According to the description in 2 Chr 36:6-7, Nebuchadrezzar exiled Jehoiakim. The text states :
  
  "[Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. And Nebuchadrezzar carried some of the vessels of the house of the LORD to Babylon…".
  
  Various scholars have claimed that this account provides reliable historical information that supplements the information in 2 Kings 24.They found such corroboration for their position in Dan. 1:1-2. The text there states: "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadrezzar came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And Yahweh gave Jehoiakim the king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God…"

  4.2. It seems, however, that the description in the book of Daniel relies on that in 2 Chronicles. Moreover, the date reported in Daniel does not correspond to the well-grounded historical reconstruction of the days of Jehoiakim. One may assume it was taken from 2 Kgs 24:1, and certainly it cannot be used as the basis for any historical reconstruction. [55]

  Footnote 55 : In the third year of Jehoiakim (606 BCE) Nebuchadrezzar was still heir apparent and his father Nabopolassar was king of Babylon. This was one year before the decisive battle between Babylon and Egypt, only after which Babylon began to firmly establish its rule in Syria (605 BCE), so that it is not logical that already at this stage, Nebuchadrezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Moreover, in Jer. 36 the presence of Jehoiakim in Jerusalem is reported in the fourth and fifth years of his reign, so that it is not possible that he had been exiled earlier. On the difficulties in dating ‘the third year’ see Efron 1974: 311. On suggestions for emendation and explanation on the source of this number, see Young 1949: 268; Noth 1954: 282, n. 2; Delcor 1971: 59-60; Clines 1972: 20-21; Porteous 1979: 32.

  Young, E.J. 1949. Daniel. London.

  Noth, M. 1954. Geschichte Israels. Göttingen. (ET, New-York 1958).

  Delcor, M. 1971. Le livre de Daniel. Paris.

  Clines, D.J.A. 1972. ‘Regnal Year Reckoning in the Last Years of the Kingdom of Judah’. AJBA 5: 29-32.

  Porteous, N. 1979. Daniel (OTL). Philadelphia.

  Earnest
• 

  Jeffro

  Well now I have some news for you

  Why do you say things like that? Do you really want people to see what an egotist you are?

  in relation to Jehoiakim and his third year. An article was published in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 2002-3, Volume 4 under the heading "Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers - Did He? by Obed Lipschits. The is article is available for download from the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures website and you will that this new research supports the view on this matter by celebrated WT scholars excepting that the dates are of traditional chronology.

  Yet another article that says that the Society is wrong about 607. Thanks for the info.

  The varying opinion on this issue is increased by the ambiguity of Daniel 1:1, which, on its own, can be interpreted that Jehoiakim was actually taken to Babylon at this time, or simply given into Nebuchadnezzar's hand in the sense of submitting to him.

  Of course, when looked at overall, there is absolutely no problem with the bible being correct about this event happening in Jehoiakim's 3rd year (accession-year system).

  Further, on this board we have been advised of a recent publication on chronology by Melbourne scholar Christine M Tetley titled 'A Reconstructed Chronology of the Divide Monarchy'/ I will be ordering this book as the List of Contents suggests that this is an important piece of research which discusses the many problems of methodology confirming all along issues that I have brought to your attention.

  I'm sure you'll let me know if Tetley agrees with 607.

  'Scholar', I grow tired of your clutching at little tiny straw-like snippets to try to prove little tiny aspects of your flawed beliefs, even though none of these sources actually agree with the Society, and they do not affect the big picture whatsoever.
• 

  gumby

  Not forgetting that it was people like you who caused my "hour of distress" in the first place by teaching me lies, and then by mistreating me when I found out the truth.

  I noticed Scholar didn't bother to address any of the above....and he won't. The only thing in his life is his bible chronology. If the society themselves were to change and view the 607 date as erronious, Scholars hobby would be shattered. This is what makes him happy.....proving Watchtower Scholars correct....and adding little unauthorized "twists" of his own.

  Try golfing dude. You can't lie unless you play by yourself.

  Gumby
• 

  Cygnus

  14 pages long, this thread is. Even if Zedekiah was killed and Jerusalem sacked in 607 BCE, there's still a ton of biblical and mental gymnastics to apply the 'times of the nations' to a 2520 year period at the end of which hails Christ as king, but not of the millenium. This aspect of JWism really needs to die. Scholar, you might have a vested interest in this topic, but it's really about the most irrelevant nonsense in the world.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Absolutely not for this article clearly demonstrates that Daniel's'third year of Jehoiakim' cannot be used a a basis for any historical reconstruction' as you attempt to do but as with Jewish tradition it can only be properly viewed as the third year of Jehoiakim's rebellion or revolt to Nebuchadnezzer which only occurrred at tthe last three years of his reign.

  So, this article is a vindication of biblical history advance d by celebrated WT scholars and Jewish scholars of antiquity.

  Tetley's new book would not promote 607 but it would certainly show the confusion of methodology over 586 or 587 which is what I have been telling you these many months.

  scholar JW
• 

  Alleymom

  Tetley's new book would not promote 607 but it would certainly show the confusion of methodology over 586 or 587 which is what I have been telling you these many months.

  Neil ---

  How do you know what "it would certainly show" when, as of your post a few days ago, you hadn't even ordered the book yet, let alone read it?

  Incidentally, I did look up the "JRTS" article you cited. As we discussed via PM, it was really an article in JETS, not JRTS. And you had the author's name wrong. It was a good article, but it in no way supports your claims about methodology or dating. I've been meaning to get back to you and post a summary of the article, but I've been busy.

  Why do you continually give references like this when they don't support you? I have purchased or looked up many of the works and articles you have cited over the years, and they are invariably worthless in terms of proving your point.

  Don't you have a professor with whom you are on good terms, perhaps the one who advised you on your master's thesis? In all seriousness, you ought to consider asking him to look over your numerous citations and give you some honest, impartial feedback about the quality of your research. I don't want to offend you, Neil, but imo your work falls far short of scholarly standards. If your heart's dream is to be a published scholar or some kind of research consultant for the WTS, I have to tell you that, honestly, I think you need to sit down with an advisor and reevaluate your goals and gifts and qualifications. Tell him that you would take it as a kindness if he would be totally honest and unsparing in his assessment.

  Just my two cents.

  Regards,
  Marjorie