ANOTHER Difficult Doctrine. With a less complex explanation.

[JW Insider]

43 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Keep trying. I'm sure Aruana aka ComfortMyPeople find your explanation compelling.

You put too much focus on who upvotes a person's posts. It's probably what drives you to constantly create additional accounts so that you can upvote and downvote people. When "Little Joe" made himself available to downvote my sister's experience, along with a couple of posts from others, I was pretty sure that we would soon see @Little Joe come over to this thread and start downvoting several of my posts on chronology. Sure enough, that was just about all Little Joe was good for up to that point, but quite predictable, of course. And by the way, you probably didn't mean Arauna, because she would normally side with the Watchtower on this topic, unless she's been studying it more deeply as of late.

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 I was pretty sure that we would soon see @Little Joe come over to this thread and start downvoting several of my posts

If it wasn’t so much work, Hoss would come around and do that for him

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

hoped you meant that "Math is a subject as e to the pi (e^πi)." Which, coincidentally, as a function of the number "e" produces a sine of the times. (especially  π times i ) So we've now come full circle back to the topic, and back to square one at the same time. [Get it? "square one"? Because i is the square root of -1]

This reminds me of the court musician in Amadeus who presents to Mozart a clunky little ditty and Mozart instantly transforms it into a masterpiece.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Since you brought up the COJ book as your source

Projection again. You were the one who wanted to claim the COJ book as my source. Since I know it is not, I would have never brought it up as if it was.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

However, if there is a little Joe that thinks your falsehoods are not acceptable, then let little Joe know, . . .

I'm not too concerned because I'm pretty sure he already knew that they were NOT falsehoods. I mentioned it mostly to do you the favor of reminding you that it's a lot easier to identify a "sockpuppet" account than you evidently think it is.

Also, it's a common habit seen on forums and other social media where people often know deep down that something is true, but they need to show their disapproval because they WISH it weren't true. Therefore they know that they don't really have a valid or relevant response. So what's left is to create chaos with meaningless repetitive but empty claims, create diversions, create confusion with irrelevant sources, trying to create work for the person they oppose, attack the messenger, etc. It's partly because they don't want others to see the strength of the evidence against the position they have represented. It's probably even more because they have invested themselves in representing the wrong position and their ego kicks in so that they need to "appear" right even when they know they are not. Most people won't do this if it's just a small item, but if they think it reflects on a larger ideology, then they can rationalize that they were wrong, but there is no need to admit it because they are still on the right side overall.

(Examples may include women who have been caught defending Bill Clinton's promiscuity, but denouncing Trump's. They think it's OK even though deep down they know it's wrong, because they feel they are still on the right side of the larger ideology. They seem to rationalize that admitting they are wrong would reflect poorly on an otherwise correct "democratic" ideology.)

This is actually one of the reasons I continue to bring up the 1914 problems. (The Biblical ones more often than the secular ones.) People evidently tend to think it's one of those issues about which it's OK to be deceptive, because otherwise it would reflect poorly, they think, on the entire Witness ideology. This is like one of the issues that drove coverups and deception in the world of CSA, and it ended up getting exposed at the ARC, for example. But the exposure drove the WTS to make more definitive CSA processing changes. What's more, it has now been made clear that a CSA predator does NOT bring reproach on the CCJW, WTS, or congregation (or even the victim) -- he brings reproach on himself. Using the same principle, it will be easier for the WTS to finally change the 1914 doctrine, and we can blame the doctrine, not the overall Witness ideology, the Bible, the congregation, or ourselves. It's not nearly the same thing, of course, but from the perspective of reasonableness and paying close attention to our teaching, the 1914 doctrine really does bring reproach, but not on all the other doctrines.

And, yes, I'm saying that I believe you have already given a lot of evidence that you know the details of the Watchtower chronology for 1914 must be incorrect. You have many times offered evidence that 607 was not the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. You have implied that it might be some other "Nebuchadnezzar-related" event around 607 that might still salvage the overall doctrine. But this is still an admission that the Watchtower position is weak, if not altogether wrong.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Another disingenuous observation that there is no scholar to agree with 607BC

I never observed that there is no scholar to agree with 607. All scholars agree that things happened in 607, and all of them would agree that 607 is 70 years prior to 537, among other things. What I observed is that all these persons you have quoted from that you say are "established scholars and historians" would agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem.

But I definitely implied it, I admit, when I said that every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology, with no exceptions, is a source of evidence that hurts the Watchtower's 1914 tradition. (Since that tradition includes the idea that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607.) And of course, I am referring to living scholars, not those who were forced to make guesses in the 1800's when a lot of this information was just then coming out for the first time, Akkadian was not well understood, and misinformation was still rampant.

If you still think it's disingenuous, try to find one. And please don't try to pretend that Rolf Furuli was a Neo-Babylonian scholar. At least he admits that he is not one.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You would like to pretend that it's just one person's claims. Turns out it is every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology. No exceptions! And it's clear that you don't want people to see that your OWN sources hurt the Watchtower's theories and traditions.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

All of these established scholars and historians of yours agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. All of them would put that year in either 587 or 586. There is no question about this any more because just as your own source "Exile and Return" says: 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

César Chávez:

You are either certifiably insane, or a Democrat Congresswierdo.

...merely my opinion, however.

I believe you would stand in quicksand and deny it, even as you drowned.

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I’ll leave those word games to you,

More "projection." I enjoy puns, but you are the one playing word games to dodge questions, repeat false claims, use innuendo, avoid explanations, etc.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

But since you have nothing better to offer than your bluster

Actually I offered several items of evidence, which you have ignored and distracted from, so far. Calling that my bluster is "Projection 101."

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

since you enjoy misapplying my evidence

Evidence of what? You didn't say, except for that one diversion (out of the blue) about Nebuchadnezzar surviving some rough travel itineraries with the help of Nebo/Nabu.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

People see through your deceptions. . . .Especially when it comes to tongue twisting of words.

Are you going to point out where I have done this, or should I just expect more bluster?

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I have proven by scholarly works that many scholars understand the time of Nebuchadnezzar better than COJ and his puppet 2 professionals he duped by manipulating the Watchtower articles in order to receive a disingenuous response.

I had a feeling you might go with bluster!

I see that defensive "echolalia" again, whenever I apparently touch a nerve. I said "sockpuppet" so you worked the word "puppet" into an attempted insult to some COJ-duped professionals. Sounds like you are all upset that actual professionals sided with COJ. Yet again, why are you so obsessed with him? COJ is completely unnecessary to this entire charade of yours.

Feel free to point out anything you wish about COJ, I really don't care. He is (or was?) just one man out of thousands who have access to the same evidence that ends up embarrassing the Watchtower Society on this topic.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Here's another view that you can project as me somehow showing the Watchtower is incorrect when the Watchtower has been correct all along.

No doubt, if history is prologue, you will now show me some "evidence" from a writer/scholar who will somehow show us that the Watchtower is incorrect about the dates the WT gives for the exiles and the destruction of Jerusalem in 607. You will no doubt try to imply that this evidence against the Watchtower is actually evidence that the Watchtower has been correct all along. (And "correct all along" is a very odd choice of words considering the number of times the Watchtower has changed the endpoints and milestones of the chronology.)

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In Israel under Babylon and Persia, he reflects on the artificiality of the designation since only a portion of the population was exiled, and he called for scholars to carefully reassess the role played by those who stayed behind. He (1970:1) also noted that hardly one date could be assigned to the beginning of the exile (597,587,581 BCE, etc.) let alone a time for the return, which only began in538–537 BCE.

Thanks for providing the reference.

As usual, you found another reference that hurts the Watchtower's tradition about 607 and 1914.

First of all, Eric Meyers, the author, of this chapter (10) is expressing appreciation for the findings and work of Peter Ackroyd who wrote "Exile and Restoration" and then later wrote a followup: "Israel under Babylon and Persia." I don't believe you read what he said, or else you must have completely misunderstood it, and only copied it here because he used the familiar range "607 to 537" for the 70 year period mentioned in Jeremiah/Daniel.

Second, when Meyers says that Ackroyd was "prescient" for reflecting on the artificiality of the term exile and restoration, he is asking us to agree with them both in their view that the Bible is wrong. The Bible you might recall says that the land was totally desolate and uninhabited. Ackroyd claimed this was artificial language because "only a portion of the population was exiled." On page 167, the very paragraph following your quote says: ". . .his strong textual sensitivity allowed him to see . . . that  perhaps the text in 2 Kings was in error."

Third, the Watchtower says the exiles were primarily in the two groups taken in 617 and 607. Note that these are the only two Judean exile events mentioned in the Insight book under the article on "EXILE:"

*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
Judah. In 617 B.C.E., King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, in 607 B.C.E., at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon, from which exile only a mere remnant returned 70 years later.—2Ki 25:11; Jer 39:9; Isa 10:21, 22; see CAPTIVITY.

A third exile would have been put in 602/601 since Jeremiah indicates it was about 5 years later (23-18=5):

(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. ²⁹ In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. ³⁰ In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.

So if this source of yours thinks the Watchtower is right, they will include those two exiles in those years: 617 & 607.

If this source thinks that COJ and all current Neo-Babylonian scholars are right, then we'd expect to see: 597 & 587.

Your source, says that there was no simple exile and return, because the exile happened in several pieces (and using the numbers in the Bible, only amounted to a small number of exiles each time). But what are the dates of those various exiles?

He (1970:1) also noted that hardly one date could be assigned to the beginning of the exile (597,587,581 BCE, etc.) let alone a time for the return, which only began in 538–537 BCE.

So, you found a resource that agrees with COJ's dates for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the associated series of exiles. It disagrees with the Watchtower's dates for those events. As usual. In fact the primary difference between COJ and your source is that one of COJ's objectives was to show that the Bible is correct and your source preferred to see the Bible as incorrect in some of the claims about the totality of the exile.

These authors are also telling us that there was no single year that we could point to as the "Return"/"Restoration." They will say it only just started in 538/537, but plenty of evidence shows that it was a trickling of Jews coming back home to Judea over many years, and of course, this also matches some Biblical evidence that shows that many didn't want to leave Babylon at all. We already knew from many Jewish writings that were written in Babylon that healthy Jewish communities lasted for several centuries thereafter.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

My first proof was that of the time period where Nabopolassar reign and the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. 607BC, now we go to the other-side with Lester Gabbe 538/537BC.

Your "proof" of the time period merely proves that the Watchtower's chronology is completely wrong. Since you have correctly admitted that 607 was in Nabopolassar's reign, it then follows that Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his full first year until 604 BCE. So Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year could not be the same as Nabopolassars 18th year. How could he be in the 18th or 19th year of his kingship if he had NOT even started his first year of kingship?

As for the fact that the chapter mentions the familiar range of 70 years, I thought you might go here, which is why I already had mentioned this before your post:

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

All scholars agree that things happened in 607, and all of them would agree that 607 is 70 years prior to 537, among other things.

As you probably remember, I have never had any problem with this same range for the 70 years of Jeremiah/Daniel. At most it's only a couple years off, and I've often said on this forum that it may even be correct. After all Jeremiah says that Babylon would be given 70 years of domination as a power over the surrounding nations, and this is a pretty good estimate of the timing of that power. Basically the idea is that the Babylonian world power could be identified as the 70 years between the Assyrian world power and the Medo-Persian world power. I can still admit that the 70 years can be identified with those same years. And if you are admitting the same, then you are also claiming that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon about 587/586 BCE.

As I've already said, I was pretty sure you actually agreed already with COJ and thousands of other scholars for the date of Jerusalem's destruction.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, the only deception that you keep bringing up is yours.

I think you've now passed Projection 101, 201, 202, 203, and 301. We can now project that you will graduate with this as your major.

[b4ucuhear]

On 12/20/2019 at 10:44 PM, JW Insider said:

First of all I don't care about Wiseman and Grayson or your COJ references. I believe Jesus was right when he said chronology is in the jurisdiction of the Father, and that it does not belong to us to get to know the times and the seasons. Paul said that as for the times and seasons brothers you need nothing to be written to you.

So while I don't have any personal interest in even trying to see how a secular chronology might match the Bible, I am only concerned that we aren't getting overly concerned about certain specious claims that turn out to be untrue, and have already resulted in expectation postponed that makes the heart sick. One of our responsibilities as Christians is to encourage one another and build one another up. If false stories and genealogies are likely to end up disturbing our brothers in the long run, our obligation is to make sure of all things so that we can hold fast to what is fine.

Well said. The sooner we stop "going beyond the things written" and stick to our Christian mandates the better. The fact that we have been totally wrong about numerous other dates (every other date?) should give anyone legitimate pause for concern and to be skeptical that not only might the hallowed date of 1914 be wrong (including the fact that certain expectations regarding that date never materialized) but whether Jehovah even blesses that presumptuousness. We have lots of more important things to accomplish than to pin our hopes on the prognostications of well-meaning, but uninspired, imperfect men who sometimes go beyond what they have been authorized to do. Making predictions is not part of our mandate. Proclaiming what Jehovah and Jesus actually tell us in his Word are. Yes, I believe Jehovah is using his organization and the GB is doing an admirable job in organizing his people to accomplish many great things. But since it is (generally) forward-moving, it should not surprise us or cause us to get too excited about discarding things we may have held dear - as in the past - and may need to let go of now. Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter. Maybe we need to put 1914 on the "date pile" along with the others promoted as being significant. Even if per some unexpected chance the date turns out to be right, should our relationship and dedication to God be based on a date anyway - or either way? I think too much focus has been place on dates anyway. Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

[Srecko Sostar]

I would say this way. The year 607 is real year. The year 1914 is real year. But it seems that only thing that connecting this two subjects is, numbers. They ARE numbers. And for people who lived in those times, these years meant something. To us today, meaning lies in .... discussion only. 

[TrueTomHarley]

48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

19 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You are either certifiably insane, or a Democrat 

In my opinion JTR you are both!

Now you’ve stepped over the line.

JTR is NOT a Democrat!!!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I am not CERTIFIABLY insane.

The dog ate the paperwork.

[Anna]

12 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter.

I agree with you. The problem with this date is that no one can actually prove that it is wrong, but it can't be proved that it is right either. Jesus' enthronement was "conveniently" invisible, so we can claim he was enthroned in1914, in correlation with WW1, because that is when he was supposed to have thrown Satan down to the earth. The truth is, I feel its a little bit like a fortuneteller predicting someones future. You can always find something applicable, and it makes it look like the fortuneteller has got it right.....

12 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

 Exactly

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I remember during the Jimmy Carter years the gas shortages.

You could fill up your tank if your license plate ended in an odd number, on an odd numbered day, and if your license plate ended in an even number on an even numbered day.  If you had "out of state" license plates you could fill up at any time, but not in your home state.

To me, this entire discussion is like that.

For 20 years I worked around the East Coat of the US, and kept Texas license plates on my truck.

I had the original 23 gallon gas tank, and in the bed of my truck, two auxiliary 50 gallon gas tanks, with a three way valve on the floor by my left hand.

It is my considered opinion that NO ONE has the correct understanding of all these conjectural timelines.

But then again ... some people never get their dandruff cured ... because they like to scratch it.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am not CERTIFIABLY insane.....The dog ate the paperwork.

For multiple reasons the scriptures do not portray dogs in a favorable light.

I just thought of another one..