Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE? (page 12)

AlanF

Scholar pretendus:

You have not yet provided a chronology of the OT and nor have you provided a chronology of the Divided Monarchy except by claiming that the Watchtower's is acceptable, which is a meaningless statement. Your so called Neo-Babylonian is in fact for all practical purposes useless.

Thiele's chronology is complete a workable framework completely suitable for Christians and those loyal to God's Word.

As for your claim about Watchtower chronology:

: There are no pieces of scriptural data that conflict with it. Put your claim to the test and provide a list of texts that conflict with it.

I already did that is this very thread, the last time you made this claim, you idiot: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/3.ashx in posts dated 31-Mar-05 20:34 and 02-Apr-05 22:50. You failed to comment on anything in the first, even though you claimed you would, and made comments on the latter that various posters have thoroughly disproved. And of course, you're very well aware that the Society's own comment in the Paradise Restored book proves that your claims about Zechariah 7:1-6 are wrong.

: I have already provided a tentative list of the Reigns of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty as described in WT literature.

No, you have not. You're a pathological liar. The only way for you to get out of this lie is post a link to the thread and to the specific post where you did. And don't insult readers by claiming that a simple, general comment amounts to a list.

A proper list would be of the form:

King Length of Reign B.C. Dates

Nabopolassar 21 years 625-605
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 604-562
Awel-Marduk 2 years 526-560
Neriglissar 4 years 560-556
Labashi-Marduk 3 months 556
Nabonidus 17 years 556-539

Now will you look at that! I've already provided a framework for you. All you have to do is type in your own numbers!

Of course, we all know that you'll find some excuse to avoid doing that, and avoid posting a link to where your above claim can be verified. And once again you'll have confirmed that you're a cult-minded liar.

AlanF

Alwayshere

once again you will have confirmed that you 're a cult-minded liar

Well said AlanF.He is probably a dumb ass elder!

Alleymom

Alan F. to Scholar: I will answer that after you answer the question that Alleymom has been asking you for a long time: Do you fully agree with the Watchtower's assignment of dates to the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings?

Hi, Neil ---

As you may recall, what I had been asking you about specifically was the information in the January 1, 1965 WT article, "The Rejoicing of the Wicked is Short-lived."

To refresh your memory, I'm pasting in a copy of an exchange we had. You never did answer the question at the bottom: "Are all six of these statements [from the 1/1/65 WT article] true?"

If you disagree with one of the six statements, could you please tell me which one?

Regards,
Marjorie Alley

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/85117/1403036/post.ashx#1403036

Hi, Neil ---
Could you please tell me whether or not you believe the following information from the January 1, 1965 WT is accurate?
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived *** Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Thank you!
Marjorie Alley

Scholar replied:
Broadly speaking I exclaim Yes! YES! Why did you appeal to such an older Watchtower for this information? If you are a sincere person why do you not consult the Insight Volumes on information for those Babylonian rulers?

I am a sincere person. And I quoted from the Insight volumes in message #2 of the KISS thread back in 2003.

I did not do so this time because I wanted to know whether you believe the specific information I posted from the January 1, 1965 WT is accurate.

You replied: "Broadly speaking I exclaim Yes! YES!"

I am puzzled by the qualifier you have added. Does "broadly speaking" mean that you agree with most, but not all, of the information?

Is there a statement in that passage with which you disagree? If so, could you please tell me which one? I have numbered the statements for your convenience.

#1 --- Evil-merodach reigned two years
#2 --- and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar
#3 --- who reigned for four years ...
#4 --- [Neriglissar's] underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months.
#5 --- Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne
#6 --- and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Are all six of these statements true?

AlanF

Alwayshere said:

: He is probably a dumb ass elder!

You can omit the elder part. Scholar pretendus is far too stupid even to be an elder.

AlanF

scholar

Alleymom

I believed I have answered your question. If there is some doubt then whatever data on those reigns is published in the Insight volumes then I would be in agreement with as this contains the latest information on chronology.

scholar JW

scholar

Alan F

You have not yet provide a chronology for the OT and for the Divided Monarchy. You have not supplied any substantive criticism of WT chronology as you have claimed to have provided. Ihave fully addressed your previous criticisms and showed these to be false.

scholar JW

Alwayshere

whatever data is published in the insifght volumes then I would be in agreement with

Scholar, they are all in the insight volumes except for Neriglissar and guess they left him out for a good reason. But WTS does agree with History on the fall of Babylon in 539 and the only way you can get 539 is using these 66 years that 43, 2, 4, and 17 total.If you add any more years or take away any years from any of these Kings you will not be able to get 539 for the fall of Babylon. I won't be writting anything else to you because you are as full of chit as the WTS! Besides Jesus, in one of his illustrations compared the Kingdom to a pearl. A pearl is something precious and he said not to cast your pearl before a swine because they would not appreciate it. I can only hope the others will ignore you as well because it is pretty obvious you are an Apostate!

ellderwho

Alwayshere........ But WTS does agree with History on the fall of Babylon in 539 and the only way you can get 539 is using these 66 years that 43, 2, 4, and 17 total.

This is what scholar cannot deal with. If you continue to pressure scholar on this problem as Alleymom has done, it is obvious scholar has nothing to back his wt chronology. Except to say there was a missing king somewhere in the neo-Babaylonian rules.

Notice he will never give his knigs list of neo-Babylonian rule with years????????

Still waiting Neil.....

AlanF

Scholar pretendus said:

: You have not yet provide a chronology for the OT and for the Divided Monarchy.

Personally, no. But neither have you. If you claim you have, then post a link to where you did.

On the other hand, I've given Edwin Thiele's chronology as a workable one, just as you say that WTS chronology is a workable one.

Your hypocrisy and double standards are evident yet again.

: You have not supplied any substantive criticism of WT chronology as you have claimed to have provided.

Of course I have. I've given the links to that substantive criticism, which is in this very thread.

: Ihave fully addressed your previous criticisms and showed these to be false.

No you have not, you fucking liar. As I said, the fact that you refuse to provide links to your supposed addressing of my criticisms proves that you've done no such thing, and are now merely lying to yourself.

Where did you address my proof that 2 Chronicles 36:20 disproves WTS chronology?

Where did you address my proof that Jeremiah 25:12 disproves WTS chronology?

Where did you address my proof that Jeremiah 27:7 disproves WTS chronology?

Where did you address my proof that the Society has never addressed the above scriptures?

Where did you address my proof that the Society's own book Paradise Restored to Mankind By Theocracy disproves WTS chronology?

It astounds me that any human being could be so stupid as you, Neil, as to think that anyone besides yourself believes your lies.

AlanF

scholar

Alan F

I have posted information whereupon the Society's complete chronology for the OT and the Divide Monarchy.. Readers on this board can access the Society's publications that I referred to and see the charts for themselves. You, on the other have had a long time to provide an alternative to WT chronology as all you can do is criticize something that you do not have.

Where is your alternative to the WT chronology that is presented in the publications which includes charts of dates for the OT and charts of dates for the Divided Monarchy?The Jonsson hypothesis does not give much credit to Thiele's scheme bevcause Thiele believes in 586 and Jonsson believes 587. So you are in big disagreement with Thiele bigtime. Come on, put up or shut up/

scholar JW

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

Share this