A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pterist

  Rattigan350 ***** Captivity ended in 537. Started 70 years prior in 607. 607 was not the destruction of Jerusalem. When the captivity started is when the gentile times started. Gentile times did not start at Zedekiah, but 20 years earlier at the first invasion. They ran from 607-1914.*****

  I have noticed this shift AWAY from the dethroning of Zedekiah as the starting point of the gentile times. It is the same argument used by other JW apologists in other forums, as they obviously see that the destruction of Jerusalem and the dethroning of Zedekiah was NOT 607 BC, as Rattigan350 also stated above.

  However, what the JW apologists fail to mention is that ORIGINALLY the gentile times was ALL BASED ON THE DETHRONING OF THE LAST KING OF JUDAH, UNTIL THE ONE WHOM HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT AKA Jesus Christ in 1914 based on the dethroning of Zedekiah in 607 BC.

  Mr Rattigan350, the WBTS's previous printed statements prove you are at best ignorant of past teachings on gentile times, or at worst deliberating hiding the facts and covering their errors. :)
• 

  Oubliette

  Londo, wow, you put a lot of work into this!

  Thanks for sharing.
• 

  Londo111

  Thank you. Hopefully it will be helpful to a few awakening JWs out there, at least, enough to start their own research on the matter.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I have noticed this shift AWAY from the dethroning of Zedekiah as the starting point of the gentile times. It is the same argument used by other JW apologists in other forums

  Interesting. There are only one or two JW apologists I've come across who ... shall we say ... allow for that possibility. The official WT stance, however, is STILL emphatic that 607 BCE was the year of Jerusalem's destruction, and the GB continues to go to great pains to hammer it home in JWs' minds.
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Thanks for the correction. My papers are boxed so I am quoting from Memory. Well he mentioned 537 so it is given some credibility but his silence on 538 speaks volomes. Why don't you nail your colours to the mast and say what date you prefer. What is more important is your opinion of his conclusions which certainly dont support 538?

  WTS are dogmatic about their chronology. They propose certain dates, advocate and promote such dates but this is not dogmatism it is simply promoting a belief system. This indicated that in your opiniont you believe that they are adjusting the beginning of the Gentile Times. They are not!

  When you claim that the NB period is fixed they you are moving into dogmatism for this is a stupid claim to make. LOL! Yes it is rather romantic perhaps poetic justice to have the rug pulled from under you by now using NB Chronology to support Bible chronology as now verified in the Nov,15 the WT.

  I am having no difficulty with the article so no need to write. Its your problem not mine.

  Bible chronology is now fully supported by NB chronology including all 14 lines of evidence all because of the seventy years and VAT 4956. Jeffro has simply piggybacked COJ for he may have fooled you but not scholar. Methinks the watch illustration is brilliant because it shows how the twenty hap is removed by factoring the seventy years which are missing from the NB chronology and history. Touche!

  Thanks for the link to his second review for at that earlier time it was not posted. I will check my files to see if in fact I did have it. I will now look at it and save it if needed for later printing. Although at the time he seemed to be supporting the paper by Doug Mason. Some mystery here but I will sort it out eventually and let you know. After all it is bout two years ago.

  Well for a person who cant use the tools I am certainly keeping you on the hop.

  You ask about the tables I do not have the tools nor the competence to use them for I only have a copy of Oppolzer's Canon of Ecliposes and the Parker and Dubberstein's Babylonian chronology. I am more than happy to defer to other experts. But by the way have you written to Furuli and engaged with him so his alleged errors as I have requested of you over many years. I do know that Furuli does engage with Hunger so I must contact Furuli for a update.

  Until you engage with Furuli directly then your criticisms of his work amounts to humbug!

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  The WtT articles do display sound scholarship with an appropriate List of References. Critics always claim that we misquote such references but when you do the checking one finds that what is sourced is accurate. Anyway if such scholars believe they are misquoted or any reader is not happy then they can always write to the Publisher.

  You do not know precisely when the nations stopped serving Babylon and the fact of an eventual demise of Babylon is exactly what Jeremiah prophesied.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Are you saying that Jeremiuah did not preach against Judah but for the nations only. Did not I tell you that his target audience was Judah but he also prophesied against the nations. Scholars agree and they use the term OAN in the literature which is a acronym for Oracles Against the Nations. A good example of this is that according to a major biblical commentary -Wprd Biblical Commentary on Jeremiah begins such as subheading from Jeremiah 25:12. discussing under the heading pertaining to Babylon

  The NWT illustrate this by beginning verse 12 as a separate paragraph, this mean s that verse 11 and 12 are referring to a different subject: the former for Judah and the latter for Babylon and the other nations in turn.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  I have just accessed the link that you supplied and I strongly suspect that I have that article for a cursory reading refreshed my reading. Whatever is claimed about the ins and outs of the astroprograms and the Babylonian records and whether the WT writers misused those sources the fact renains that COJ in his conclusion to the interpretation of the seventy years for it all hangs on that. This being the case I have no need to be competent in matters of astro-astronomy.

  Jonsson says in his second article that he had confirmation of the programs from two competent scholars Ann OMaly and Marjorie Alley. As you are now considered to be scholars according to Jonsson would please inform me as to both of your qualifications What are your degrees and where did you both study?

  I was correct, Jonsson makes reference to the two rebuttals by Doug Mason who I believe was the first person to publish such rebuttals. Jonsson's attribution to Doug Mason is a bit

  Jonsson believes that the researchers who checked the astro programs were in fact singular -one person Furuli not plural of many persons as stated in the WT. Furuli assuired me that this was the case and he was hesitant about their identification. Hence a mystery and scholar loves the mysterious.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  I checked Andrew Steinmann's artcile on the JETS website and he gave his comment on 537 beginning on the last sentence on the first page and concluding on the first line on the second page so I was right after all from memory. Also you did not quote him correctly for he says"the date is usually given as 537BC by those who accept Ezra's chronological statement as accurate but the date is usually offered with some reservation.3".

  The footnote 3 only quotes from one scholar Yamauchi who lists it as follows"537?". Steimann quotes quotes from one authority and it is true that many references works assign 537 BC with a ? omitting any reference to 538 or any other candidate. So, 537 is the more acceptable date than any others as suggested by Styeinmann but then he pursues his thesis for another proposed date more in line with his methodology. The point of all of this is that 538 is out of the picture whereas 537 remains in the frame.

  As an aside Steinmann has recently a new book on Bible chronology endorsed by Rodger Young. As far as I can see it appears that Steinmann corroborates WT chronology pertaining to the Life of Christ so this is a breakthrough, at the very least until I have set aside time to examine it carefully it appears the case.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  scholiar:

  You do not know precisely when the nations stopped serving Babylon

  17 September 539.

  The Medes (Jeremiah 25:25) were listed among the nations that would serve Babylon. The Medes were not serving Babylon when the Medo-Persian empire was in power after "Darius the Mede" conquered Babylon.

  Idiot.

  Critics always claim that we misquote such references but when you do the checking one finds that what is sourced is accurate.

  Another lie. Scholars quoted in JW literature (e.g. Steele & Sack in 2011, Campbell & Freedman in "Let Your Kingdom Come") have explicitly stated they were misrepresented in JW literature.

  And why are you saying "we"? Are you on the writing committee?

  Anyway if such scholars believe they are misquoted or any reader is not happy then they can always write to the Publisher.

  If scholars write to the Society, they'll be ignored, and no retraction will be printed in JW literature. No retractions or apologies have been printed in the past when scholars have said they were misquoted.

  If a reader writes to the Society, they'll be hounded by 'elders'.

  Steimann quotes quotes from one authority and it is true that many references works assign 537 BC with a ? omitting any reference to 538 or any other candidate.

  I've already shown on this thread that many reference works say 538.