Posts by Disillusioned JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Hi MeanMrMustard. I notice you said "... starting thr process described ...". I am thinking you might be correct in saying that is what the phrase means. Though I didn't say it in my prior posts, I was wondering if the wording of "beginning" or "begin" might mean that, namely the start of the process, even if the first part of the process doesn't directly effect Jerusalem or Judah.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Regarding the phrase "as it is this day" at Jeremiah 25:18, A Commentary on The Holy Bible By Various Writers (copyright 1908, 1909), Edited by Dummelow, on page 470 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary] says the following. "18. As it is this day] a later insertion by Jeremiah or another as comment on fulfillment."

The Abingdon Bible Commentary (copyright 1929), edited by Eiselen, Lewis, and Downey, on 694 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary] says the following. "Vv. 17-29 describe Jerusalem as desolate at this day (v. 18), and must therefore date from the time after the destruction of the capital. Their late origin is further proved by their asserting to Jeremiah in v. 17 what was physically impossible to any man. The later generation, which had lost touch with the actual situation, interpreted in a somewhat bald and literal way the fine symbol of the prophet being intrusted with the cup of divine anger. What remains after these excisions is an oracle on the day of the Lord: Jehovah is about to bring all the families of the North (v. 9, cf. 1:14) against Jerusalem first, but also against all the nations round it. The world shall become a desolation, returning to the condition from which God brought it at first (cf. 4:23f.). Jeremiah is repeating the revelation he received in the second vision after his call."

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

TonusOH I think a big part of the reason for the variation in the wording of the translations of part of a single verse that MeanMrMustard listed is due to copyright laws. In order to come out with a new translation and have it copyright protected and in order to avoid infringing on the copyright of earlier translations, the wording has differ to some extent in various places from those other translations.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

MeanMrMustard the way I see it, Jeremiah chapter 25 is including Jerusalem (which was the capital city of Judah) and all the other cities of Judah in the list of that which the chapter calls the "nations" who shall serve the King of Babylon seventy years (Jeremiah 25:11, 17-18, 25 [ASV]).

While the list of nations probably doesn't mean that calamity will come to them in that specific order, to me it clearly states (even if what is states is incorrect) that the calamity comes first to Jerusalem (begins at Jerusalem). I don't see the distinction you and some others make between the use of the word "beginning" (or "begin") and the word "starting" or "first" at Jeremiah 25:29. In your quotes of Jeremiah 25:29 you left out the words which said specifically where the calamity was said to begin, namely the city of Jerusalem. For example, note that Jeremiah 25:29 (ASV) says "For lo, I begin to work evil at the city which is called by my name ...." Verses 18 - 26 lists those who receive calamity and verse 17 (ASV) calls all of those groups "nations", and verse 18 includes Jerusalem in that category of "nations". Please keep in mind that in BCE times many cities were "nation states" (modern scholars of the history of the ancient Middle East call them such) and thus were nations (such as a the cities which the OT book of Joshua says the Jews conquered in the land of Canaan). Jeremiah 25:17 -18 (ASV) says "... and made all the nations to drink, unto whom Jehovah had sent me: to wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, a hissing, and a curse, as it is this day". Since verses 17 - 18 (ASV) indicates that Jerusalem is called one of the "nations" then when verse 11 (ASV) mentions that the "nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years", it is including Jerusalem as one those nations - even if in fact Jerusalem did not serve the king of Babylon for literally seventy years (and even if in fact the prophecy in the name of Yahweh partially failed).

The conservative Christian evangelical commentary called The International Bible Commentary: With the New International Version (a revised edition of 1986; the former edition used the RSV scripture text), which has F. F. Bruce as its General Editor, says the following on page 780 about Jeremiah 25:15-29 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary]. "... The scope of the Lord's fury embraces all nations beginning with Jerusalem and Judea and then 'the uttermost parts of the earth' (18-26; 28: 33). ... After Judah the list groups places affected by direct Babylonian campaigns (e.g. Egypt in 601 B.C. and Dedan, Tena and Buz in Central Arabia--all mentioned in contemporary inscriptions). ... 20-26. all the kings of ... : this repeated phrase has caused some commentators to reject these verses as late, but such phrases occur in contemporary historical texts. ..."

The conservative Christian evangelical commentary called The New Bible Commentary Revised (Third Edition, copyright 1970), edited by Guthrie and Motyer, says the following on page 642 about Jeremiah 25:11, 15, 29 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary]. "11 The duration of exile, seventy years, ensures that all the original exiles would be dead before its end; this is a round figure approximately correct. ... 15 Cup of wine is the symbol of Yahweh's inescapable wrath over Judah and other nations (cf. Ps. 75:8; Is. 51:17). Babylon is His agent. ... 29 Observe that the fury of the Lord begins with Jerusalem (cf. v.18) and extends to other nations who also deserve the divine chastisement." Notice it says "Judah and other nations" and "Jerusalem ... and ... other nations", thus by its use of the word "other" it is treating Judah and Jerusalem each as a nation also. That backs up what I said above.

Regarding the phrase "as it is this day" at Jeremiah 25:18 it might just mean the time period in which Jeremiah wrote his account (or whoever wrote the account), namely the time of the exile of the Jews. Or, the phrase might be an insertion into the account by an editor.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Corrections: In my prior post where I said "... from the BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order" I meant to says "... from the 607 BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order". Where I said "Since are views on this matter ..." I should have said "Since our views on this matter ...".

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

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.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

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.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

On page 2 of this topic thread Splash lists pages in the Insight volumes about the Babylonian kings. Moments ago I started reading the one about Belsshazzar and I find myself fascinated about what it says. I am astonished that it (on page 283) demonstrates there are archaeological records which are consistent with, and even collaborate, some statements in the book called Daniel. Prior to today I had little interest in reading the Insight volumes (or the Aid to Bible Understanding), even though I obtained the Insight volumes in first year they were published (1988) and even though that prior to that I tried to order the Aid book from the WT (but it had gone out of print by then). In the year 2006 I finally found and purchased a used copy (in very good condition) of the complete Aid book (1971 Edition), thus replacing the 1969 Edition I had since childhood.

I notice that Insight Volume 2 page 457 says that Nabonidus "... ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.)." It thus explicitly agrees with with what Splash calculated as the first year of the rule of Nabonidus, and thus at point in the chronology the WT agrees with the secular chronology. But when we come to Evil-Merodach the Insight book (Volume 1 page 773) explicitly says that Evil-Merodach began his rule in 581 B.C.E. whereas Splash calculates 563 B.C.E instead, a difference of 18 years (but not 20 years). Thus it appears that some of the difference in the WT's dates from the secular dates is somewhere in between the reigns of Nabonidus and Evil-Merodach. Likewise
Insight Vol 2 p.480 gives a date differing by 18 years form that calculated by Splash, the Insight book says "Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.) ... " and thus claiming Nebuchadnezzarbegan to rule in the year 624 B.C.E. instead of Splash's calculated date of 606 B.C.E. Does perhaps the WT think that
Neriglissar ruled for about 18 years more than 4 years? Apparently not, since on page three of this topic thread Vanderhoven7 says "Neriglissar ... reigned four years Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184". I do see that the Babylon Great book (as published in the 1999 Edition of the Watchtower Library does say that which Vanderhoven7 quoted it as saying. Does then the WT think there is an unknown king missing from the extant Babylonian records of their kings?

Splash says "Minus Neriglissar (4 years) = 561 BCE - Insight Vol 1 p.453" however I don't see Insight Vol 1 p.453 as saying that Neriglissar ruled for a total of 4 years. Instead in my copy of the Insight book (which is the "First Printing") I instead see the following. "For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Murduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. Notice it does not claim "up to his fourth year", but it does say Awil-Murduk is Evil-Merodach for in the prior sentence it says "... Awil-Murduk (Evil-Merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28) ...".

On page 6 of this topic thread scholar says the following (which I think is interesting).

"By constructing a scheme of Chronology based on the backward computation of the reigns of the N B Period you get 586/587 for the Fall of Jerusalem base dom material in the Insight volumes. I get that!.

However, if using the same methodology by means of counting back using the regnal data- reigns of the Hebrew Monarchy as published in that same volume then you get 607 BCE. Do you get it?"

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.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

I think way to much about religious matters. I need to spend much more of my time thinking about things which will benefit me (including in practical ways), such as intensely studying the stock market (including how various factors influence the prices of stocks) to greatly improve my results in stock market trading and hopefully become wealthy.

My being raised from infancy in the WT's JW religion over time eventually developed a strong interest in me in religion, which in some respects is very disadvantageous to me. I somehow need to stop studying the Bible, to stop writing (including debating and arguing) about religion on this website, to stop reading religious posts on this web site (but most of this web site is about religion, and much of the rest is about politics and unproven conspiracy theories), and to stop being interested in the subject of religion. However, I have become hooked on those matters (despite me now being an atheist and nonreligious) and it is thus very hard for me to completely cease doing those things. I spend several hours per week (with most of that time on my days off from work) thinking about religion, including spending hours per week on this site making posts about religion.

Perhaps the only way I can stop thinking about religion is so much would be if I somehow managed to stop caring about what other people think about religion. But, it is highly doubtful I could achieve that since I strongly want human society to become atheistic naturalists and to be nonreligious.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

scholar even if modern biblical scholars (and I) are indefinite as to whether the destruction happened in 587 BCE or 586 BCE they (and I) are definite that it did not happen in 607 BCE. They are in agreement that it definitely did not happen any time before 587 BCE and that it definitely did not happen any time after 586 BCE.

Your argument is flawed where you say the following. "How can a calculated precise date of 607 BCE be wrong when you cannot agree as to whether it is 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem? How can it be that a definite date-607 BCE be falsified by an indefinite date-586 or 587 BCE?" 607 BCE is not a definite year for the destruction, in the sense of it being proven as a correct date by a consensus of biblical scholars. It is only 'definite' in the sense of it being one specific year and in the sense that the WT and many JWs teach it is correct, but those people are not biblical scholars. The governing body of the WT and the other writers of the WT's literature (except maybe for rare exceptions of the Writing Committee) and nearly all of the other JWs did not get a university degree in biblical studies, nor an studies of any middle eastern ancient history, nor in ancient middle eastern languages. Extant archaeological artifacts in no way indicate that the destruction happened in 607 BCE or even in some year within the range of 607 BCE plus or minus 10 years. In contrast biblical scholars have demonstrated a precision of their date to within 1 single year, without having to resort to claims made in biblical prophecies (such as a prophecy in the book of Jeremiah). Instead, the biblical scholars made use of extant historical records which said that it happened during a specific year of a specific king's reign, however the years for the start of a king's reign don't start in the same month as the years of our Gregorian calendar years start in. For a hypothetical example, one year of the reign of a king might have started in March 15, 587 BCE and ended in March 14, 586 BCE (like a fiscal year of a modern day corporation; for example one whose 10th year of operation was from May 2010 through April 2011, instead of from January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010). As a result when one reads an ancient document that says an event happened in a specific year of the king (such as perhaps the 19th year of the king), which doesn't also mention the month (or give a clue as to the month), that means that according to our calendar it might have been in the year 587 BCE or the year 586 BCE, in this hypothetical example, according to our Gregorian calendar, but definitely not 607 BCE. That is because in this hypothetical example the 19th year of the king overlapped with parts of two years of our modern day Gregorian calendar.

Consider the following as another example. Someone might say that something happened in either in 400 CE or 401 CE, and definitely not in some other year (such as the year 350 CE). Someone else might say it happened in 350 CE instead. Just because someone might be uncertain as to whether it happened in 400 CE instead of in 401 CE, that doesn't mean they are wrong in being certain it didn't happen in some year which was neither than 400 CE nor 401 CE. It does not mean the one who say it happened in 350 CE is correct.