Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[George88]

@BTK59

I believe Pudgy may have lost his composure and is now engaging in a self-debate, quite amusing!

[Pudgy]

Of course it appears that way to you Georgie … you and BTK cannot defend your fantasy constructs with what is demonstratively REAL.

 

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Individuals need to release their ignorance regarding the diverse ways people communicated in the past. Holding onto such unawareness only serves to present those individuals in an unfavorable light.

There seems to have been no change here for almost ten years, but rest assured, they will all be judged by God.

To date, the account of the Destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC is not completely certain. An event occurred in 606 BC, and now another one places the destruction of Nineveh in 608 BC, following the destruction of Jerusalem in 629 BC.

Chronology.

"This places the fall of Nineveh after the destruction of Jerusalem and is in perfect accordance with our finding that the destruction of Jerusalem was in our B.C. 629 and that the fall of Nineveh could not be earlier than our B.C. 608" p.363

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, BTK59 said:

COJ made a significant misinterpretation by only seeing what they wanted to in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

You got me curious, since I honestly had never even skimmed this portion of COJ's book. I noticed a footnote, on the same page you pointed to, about the famous eight-UK-clergymen December 1917 Manifesto, from their "prophets" conference. This manifesto has been referenced in the WTS publications several times.

*** nc pp. 20-21 pars. 36-37 When All Nations Collide, Head On, With God ***
Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Dr. F. B. Meyer, and six other well-known clergymen of England, issued a Manifesto, which was republished throughout the earth and which declared:
37 “(1) That the present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles. . . . (5) That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the second coming of our Lord, because all nations will then be subject to His rule. . . .”—Current Opinion, for February 1918.

I had already seen this same referenced Manifesto nearly 10 times in different WTS publications. But I had never realized that these "Gentile Times" were not really about 1914, but more specifically about the events of 1917. I hadn't noticed that the context in the WT about the 2520 years, really had nothing to do with this "Gentile Times" manifesto, because it was really more about the supposed fulfillment of the 1,260 days (years) of Revelation 11, which J.A.Brown had predicted 90 years earlier for 1917. (J.A.Brown never connected the 7 times, or 2,520 years, with the Gentile Times.)

So I looked up the phrase "present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles" in Google. Mostly it came back with Watchtower Library and jw.org links. And I found a lot of links that showed other religions had used the same Manifesto to show that their prophets were just as good or better (Mormons) and other religions used it to show just how useless and irrelevant those predictions had already become. 

But the most curious use of the manifesto was from Rutherford, who used it as "proof" that the world noticed the "beginning of the end of the world" in the 1920 book "Millions Now Living Will Never Die," page 40.

Rutherford quoted from the Manifesto, and had only good things to say about these particular preachers. He called them honest and faithful and good, as compared to so many other clergymen:

Even then, in 1920, it was rare to hear a good word about another preacher from Rutherford. But did he really think they were good, or did he change his mind about them?

A TALE OF TWO FCC's

[The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Council of Churches]

Well, I checked another link, this time to the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, which printed the entire speech of Rutherford in 1926, here, page 339. The speech follows the same logic and context of the 1920 "Millions" book treatment, still pointing out the Zionist fulfillment of prophecy. But this time he points out that "these very distinguished men who signed the manifesto have vehemently spoken against present truth and the Lord's kingdom."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Federal_Communications_Commission/UAwvAAAAMAAJ

What is his evidence of the signers of the above showing vehement opposition to "present truth" since then? It is that a different group of clergymen, who did NOT sign the above manifesto, had signed on to the proposal for the U.S. to join the League of Nations. So in January 1919, the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches, had made a "blasphemous" statement in that proposal about the League of Nations, hoping it represented a means to peace in the world:

 

The proposal was drafted by the executive committee of the FCC, and by December 1919 had become a petition to send to the U.S. Senate, where it failed. The proposals even contained wording that might remind you or Rutherford's own words about war. This is found in "Internationalizing the Social Gospel: The Federal Council of Churches and European Protestantism, 1914-1925 Author(s): Ralph L. Pearson"

But, naturally, Rutherford doesn't admit that the Watchtower itself had offered the same optimistic idea about the same League of Nations, following some of the same wording of the FCC:

One month after the statement of the FCC in January 1919, the February 15, 1919 Watchtower spoke in similar terms:

“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower,  February 15, 1919,  p.51 [Reprints page 6389].

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

“it is apparent that there are two classes of ministers in the world: the good and the bad, the honest and the dishonest, the faithful and the unfaithful. This same rule applies to almost any profession.”

The closed and open club.

[JW Insider]

On 3/11/2024 at 2:15 PM, George88 said:

Hence, relying on VAT 4956 as authoritative evidence is akin to playing a game of foolishness.

Ramses II And His Time -- Immanuel Velikovsky -- Volume 5, 1978

But you seem to forget that NO ONE relies on VAT 4956 as authoritative evidence. It's just one part of a puzzle made up of at least 50,000 pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces just happen to consistently fit with all the other pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces mitigate against the WTS publications' timeline of Nebuchadezzar and the other 5 Neo-Babylonian kings. It's the sum total of several completely independent lines of evidence --at least a dozen independent lines, where the 50,000 business tablets is counted as only one of those lines of evidence. It's not about any ONE piece of evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline.

But most people would think it's akin to a game of foolishness to think of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky as providing authoritative evidence, as you have referenced him above. I have the book "Worlds in Collision" on the shelf behind me and I have skimmed it. You can verify in the May 8, 1950 Awake!, page 27,28, that his ideas were wildly speculative and completely unsupported by evidence. 

*** dx30-85 Worlds in Collision ***
WORLDS IN COLLISION
book by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky: g50 5/8 27-28

[moved to the end of the post]

That article was overly generous to him because he tried to support Biblical miraculous events with cosmic events in our solar system. Wikipedia gives a good summary of his ideas, some of which were published in "Worlds in Collision" some in "Ramses II and His Time," etc.

• The causes of these natural catastrophes were close encounters between the Earth and other bodies within the Solar System — not least what are now the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, and Mars, these bodies having moved upon different orbits within human memory.
• To explain the fact that these changes to the configuration of the Solar System violate several well-understood laws of physics, Velikovsky invented a role for electromagnetic forces in counteracting gravity and orbital mechanics.

Some of Velikovsky's specific postulated catastrophes included:^{[citation needed]}

• A tentative suggestion that Earth had once been a satellite of a "proto-Saturn" body, before its current solar orbit.
• That the Deluge (Noah's Flood) had been caused by proto-Saturn's entering a nova state, and ejecting much of its mass into space.
• A suggestion that the planet Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel catastrophe.
• Jupiter had been the prime mover in the catastrophe that saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
• Periodic close contacts with a "cometary Venus" (which had been ejected from Jupiter) had caused the Exodus events (c. 1500 BCE) and Joshua's subsequent "sun standing still" (Joshua 10:12–13) incident.
• Periodic close contacts with Mars had caused havoc in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, BTK59 said:

"This places the fall of Nineveh after the destruction of Jerusalem and is in perfect accordance with our finding that the destruction of Jerusalem was in our B.C. 629 and that the fall of Nineveh could not be earlier than our B.C. 608" p.363

The "Chronology" book you are quoting is from 1858 by Franke Parker. Before anyone puts too much stock in it, I think one should note that the so-called "absolute date" of 539 BCE has been changed in his book to 559, 560 or 561 BCE. This is in spite of the fact that he claims to make proper use of the Olympiad dating. His date for the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar is about 629 BCE. That's from 40 to 42 years before the astronomical dating of the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, along with the whole gamut of Neo-Babylonian evidence. The Watchtower is only 20 years behind the astronomical evidence and he is more than twice as far off.  

At least from a "relative" chronology perspective, he understood the sources that claimed only a 49 or 50 year space of time between Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and the last year of Nabonidus (Cyrus' 1st year as "Universal" king).

[Pudgy]

Velikovski’s book “Worlds in Collision” came out about 1950. I read it in the 7th grade. Even at that young age I knew it was total crap.  

…. the cover illustration and title suckered me in.

[TrueTomHarley]

10 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Velikovski’s book “Worlds in Collision” came out about 1950. I read it in the 7th grade. Even at that young age I knew it was total crap.  

…. the cover illustration and title suckered me in.

Yeah, you probably are still cowering in the basement from Orson Wells reading War of the Worlds.

Lions and tigers and Martians—oh my.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

Even at that young age I knew it was total crap.  

I didn't expect the 1950 Awake! article to be as supportive as it was. The entire article gives him the benefit of the doubt, right up to finally including a statement that it includes speculation and unproven ideas. Here is the first part, and I have included the conclusion above.  

 

[Pudgy]

yikes!

[Anna]

 

"The manna was synthesized out of the residue of the comet's  elements left in the earth's atmosphere" 😀