The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  It will be interesting to see how Tetley treats the vexed matter of the 586/587 controversy because her thesis is about methodology in chronology in reconciling the regnal data for the Divided Monarchy. I have not purchased her book but I have read two reviews and a Table Of Contents has been posted so an informed person can easily see that methodology is the issue.

  The article by Robert Young is also about methodology and he supports 587 rather than Thiele's date of 586 even though he acknowleges Thiele's pervading influence on modern chronology. In fact on the very first page he begins his argument base on three factors that relate to method and methodology.

  The references that I cite are not given because such references support 607, on the contrary these references do not support 607 but they do discuss the problems of methodology and interpretation which have a direct bearing on any or all chronologies. I post thes sources to show posters on this forum that despite the hysteria surrounding the so called falsehood of 607, there is not a suitable candidate for the Fall of Jerusalem and modern scholarship is moving albeit slowly in the direction of 607 by negating or displacing currents dates which are simply unsatisfactory.

  Thankyou for your opinion of my scholarship but my research skills are more than adequate and I think your criticism of me is more to do with my religion, beliefs or theology rather than my academic prowess. I have seen much intellectual dishonesty from apostate writings particularly in the form of the Jonsson hypothesis than in anything that I have posted on matters of chronology.

  scholar JW
• 

  City Fan

  Just getting back to the main theme of this thread, the fact is we now have access to the primary sources from this period, that is the business and administrative documents that show the exact lengths of reigns of the neo-Babylonian kings.

  More straightforward interpretations of the bible's 'seventy years' verses agree with these primary sources. So no need for any wacko interpretations that use 1914 as a starting point.
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  There is no such thing as straight forward interpretation of the seventy years because it is a period that refers to servitude, exile and desolation of the land. The apostate interpretation as promoted by the Jonsson hypothesis of servitude alone is impossible and imaginary because it has no precise historical or scriptural starting point and ignores the most definite reading of the texts that Judah, Jerusalem and Temple would be desolated for seventy years.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Scholar said:

  modern scholarship is moving albeit slowly in the direction of 607 by negating or displacing currents dates which are simply unsatisfactory

  Scholarship has not actually diverged away from 586/587, and certainly has not moved toward 607.

  The apostate interpretation as promoted by the Jonsson hypothesis of servitude alone is impossible and imaginary because it has no precise historical or scriptural starting point and ignores the most definite reading of the texts that Judah, Jerusalem and Temple would be desolated for seventy years.

  More illusions... The scriptural endpoint of Babylon's seventy years was quite definitely at or before the death of Babylon's king and the overthrow of the nation (Jeremiah 25:12, compare Isaiah 43:1, Daniel 5:26-31). This is a key "most definite reading" that the Society deliberately chooses to ignore. It then tries to suggest that the original word for "desolated" means something that, linguistically, it does not necessarily mean. Specifically, the words used in the scriptures do not require complete depopulation.

  Further, the Society states that the exact same period of Babylon's 70 years of dominance did not fully apply to Tyre, although the scriptures apply the same period to that nation.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Let me assure you that scholarship is moving away from the impossible dates of 586/587 albeit slowly because of the problems of methodology which have only recently surfaced and I will be doing all I can to hasten this process.

  Certainly Babylon's domination over the nations as prophesied ceased at her Fall in 539 BCE but it was not until the seventy years of Judah which did not cease until the release from captivity in 537 could it be said that they were not still in servitude to Babylon.

  The seventy years for Tyre was a period independent of the seventy years as this period was of Babylonian domination but in the case of Judah it was to a a period of exile, servitude and desolation as prophesied. The seventy years of Tyre was a period long recognized by celebrated WT scholars even before the new Isaiah commentary.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Let me assure you that scholarship is moving away from the impossible dates of 586/587 albeit slowly because of the problems of methodology which have only recently surfaced and I will be doing all I can to hasten this process.

  You cannot actually cite any evidence for this bold statement can you.

  Certainly Babylon's domination over the nations as prophesied ceased at her Fall in 539 BCE but it was not until the seventy years of ; Judah which did not cease until the release from captivity in 537 could it be said that they were not still in servitude to Babylon.

  Wrong. Jeremiah 25 clearly indicates that only after the 70 years had ended would Babylon and its King be called to account, placing the end of the 70 years in 539.

  The seventy years for Tyre was a period independent of the seventy years as this period was of Babylonian domination but in the case of Judah it was to a a period of exile, servitude and desolation as prophesied. The seventy years of Tyre was a period long recognized by celebrated WT scholars even before the new Isaiah commentary.

  Wrong. The Isaiah publication explicitly cites Jeremiah 25 in reference to which seventy year period referred to Tyre.
• 

  ICBehindtheCurtain

  Scholar, I understand you have a rather difficult time accepting that 607 is COMPLETELY WRONG, be that as it may, all this chronology mumbo jumbo and acrobatics is totally unnecessary, all you have to ask yourself is, did Jesus Christ's reign really begin in 1914 and if so where is the proof?

  In the book "End-Time Visions - The Road to Armaggedon, by Richard Abanes (which I highly recommend you read Scholar) many interesting things come to light:

  Are you aware that 1914 was not the real first world war? According to historians the War of Spanish Succession (1702-1713) was the actual 1st world war. This conflict involved France, Britain, Holland and Austria. Historians R.R. Palmer and Joel Colton note that this was the true frist world war because "it involved the overseas world together with the leading powers of Europe."

  The legitimate second world war was the Seven Years ' War (1756-1763). It involved all four continents and all of the major oceans.

  And, before these two "world wars" earlier conflicts led to widespread death and destruction. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) involved ten nations and claimed the lives of two to three million soldiers. Thirty to forty percent of the civilian German population (i.e., seven to eight million people) died. Germany did not suffer such loses during World War 11. Then there was the Manchu-Chinese War of 1644. It left twenty-five million deas. The Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) took five to six million lives, and the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864) --"the most destructive war of the entire 19th century" - resulted in the deaths of approximately thirty million! To get a perspective on these numbers, World War I claimed a total of ten to twelve million lives, including approximately eight and a half million solders.

  So as you see Scholar, the WTS belief that 1914 is the year that Christ began ruling, is only a delusion, wake up and realize that you are trying to prove something that has no basis in truth, only a made up idea by some men who wanted to control a group of people.

  IC (of the I doubt Scholar's blinders are never coming off class)
• 

  gumby

  only a made up idea by some men who wanted to control a group of people.

  I've never been one to subscribe to this idea. I believe Russell was sincere as well as most ( later) GB members, however the worthless alchoholic Rutherford could have had any agenda the mind could imagine.

  Gumby
• 

  ICBehindtheCurtain

  Gumby, I should have clarified that, I was referring to the later Rutherford era understanding of that date, I know Russell believed that Jesus began reigning in 1874 and that 1914 was the date Armaggedon would begin.

  Thank you Gumby, I also see alot more sincerity (a little weirdness though) in Russell, than in Drunkard Rutherford.

  IC
• 

  gumby

  I also see alot more sincerity (a little weirdness though) in Russell, than in Drunkard Rutherford.

  Mornin IC

  Me too. Sorry if I was being picky with your words as I know you meant as you replied.........but I hear a lot of ones make statements that the "leaders" of the WTBTS are little greedy men who are only interested in publishing vast amounts of moneymaking literature and want the power to control lives. GB members ( presidents after Rutherford included) would not spend 40 years of their life for an organisation to get a spot at the glory I just mentioned. ( The majority of them anyway) They did it because they believed it to be the truth....nothing else.

  Gumby