JWINSIDER #004: ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

This site now has permission to reprint various postings and articles from JWFacts, JWStudies, JWInsider, and several others. We are still working on getting more content from still other posters, bloggers, and site creators, and are especially looking for JWs who have taken up the same studies about chronology that we focus on here.

JWINSIDER #004 on 1914: From posts in the topic ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view.

The original context is found here:  https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/39516-all-aspects-of-1914-doctrine-are-now-problematic-from-a-scriptural-point-of-view/

[Most responses or questions from other forum participants, unless very brief, are removed.]

The general view by the Governing Body is likely that this is exactly what they have been doing for as long as possible, but I’m sure that all or most of them believe they have been doing it for the right reasons. I have no reason to believe that any of the current Governing Body doubt the general idea about 1914, whether or not all of them specifically believe in the Daniel 4 foundation or not. (For many years, Daniel 4 on its own, had nothing to do with the “foundation” for 1914, although it was considered to be a weaker, but still valid, bit of corollary evidence by Russell.)

My understanding is that some scholarly type has written a defense of 607. That’s all you need.

If it were only true. What this “scholarly type,” R.Furuli, had done was take the 10 pieces of independent archaeological and historical evidence and not even address 8 of them except with flippant false claims that shows he doesn’t even care to research them. He pins all the importance on only ONE of those pieces of evidence, which is odd because 607 as the year when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem is falsified just as easily by the other pieces of evidence without even needing to rely at all on this one piece of evidence. But then, even at that, he comes up with the most convoluted reasons for rejecting this one item: VAT 4956.

VAT 4956 is one of several astronomical diaries that would ultimately identify Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year as the year 568/567 BCE, based on the astronomy that fits no other possible year. Of course, if the tablet is correct, then it’s the same as saying Nebuchadnezzar’s 36th year would be 569/8 BCE, his 35th would be 570/569 BCE on back to his 19th (or 18th) year, which would be 587/6 BCE, which is a year that Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles associate with the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, it’s just another of several items of evidence that consistently fits the “secular” chronology — which also happens to fit the Biblical chronology, even though these particular bits of Biblical evidence are not accepted by the Watch Tower Society.

But even though Furuli grasps at all kinds of straws to invalidate the tablet, most JWs don’t even realize that Furuli ADMITS that most of it actually does refer to the date 567 and no other possible date. That is an admission that MOST of this tablet still invalidates the Watch Tower Society’s preferred date of 607 BCE for the Temple destruction. He even says that the museum curators might have taken a grinding tool and forged the “37” onto it to look exactly like all the other cuneiform letters that were made when the clay was still wet. Since it’s a two-sided piece of clay, he even thinks that one of the two sides might have been faked and didn’t originally go together. This is in spite of the fact that he admits that the number 37 on the tablet (in more than one place) is the correct year for most of the readings.

He thought he could find some trouble with the lunar readings, based especially on the fact that there is a known copyist’s error on the tablet. He admits that he was an amateur when it came to trying to figure out the astronomical readings, but it does not take a genius to try to duplicate his readings and see that his mistakes were worse than amateurish. They have been discussed elsewhere on the site, and so far, everyone who has tried to duplicate them has seen the errors.

But as you said: “That’s all you need.” Unfortunately, this is true for many persons. I think that most of us believe that if someone makes a claim that fits a preconceived notion, it must be true. It’s a lot like watching CNN and MSNBC fall over themselves to find new ways to use the phrase “Russia hacked our 2016 election.” Very few point out that one of the candidates failed to even visit states where she had a preconceived notion of a sure win.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s