by Alwayshere 240 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
It appears that I have already provided a king's list which accurately presents Neo-Babylonian chronology as 'dog's breakfast'. No, I am not Rolf Furuli but simply a quiet, humble scholar defending our beautiful chronology from the assaults of apostates.
You weren't asked to provide a list of what you believe to be incorrect years, so your misdirection is irrelevant. You were asked to provide what you believe to be the correct years that supposedly ratify your interpretation.
It is your postulation that does not fit the facts of Josephus because you ignore what he plainly staes numerous times and rely on one case of a recogized scribal error.
I rely on the complete picture. I do not view the 70 years outside of what is required by the context. Though it may appear convenient for you for the 50 years of temple desolation to be a scribal error, it is consistent with the overall view that it is accurate. Your interpretation is full of problems, with the Bible, with Babylonian and Egyptian chronology, with Josephus, and with the entire professional community.
The 'dog's breakfast' is hardly a creation of the Society for many other scholars have made similar observations concerning Neo-Babylonian chronology. Josephus gave regnal data for the kings that conflicts with other evidence, there remains the seven year problem and the twenty year gap cannot be reconciled with simple Bible chronology.
The aspects of the 'dog's breakfast' that you refer to are concerning the 20-year gap, and the imaginary "seven year problem", both of which are of the Society's creation. I have repeatedly indicated why the "seven year problem" doesn't even exist, but you arrogantly ignore logic. I have reconciled bible chronology with secular chronology, so your statement that it cannot be reconciled is automatically recognized as a lie. That it doesn't fit your interpretation is irrelevant. That Josephus' 182.5 years, and Ezekiel 40:1 automatically fit my interpretation and conflict with yours is testament to my accuracy and your error.
Again Josephus clearly indicated that the seventy years was not a period of Babylonish domination but a period of exile-servitude-desolation running from the Fall to the Return inside his 182.5 year also ending with the Return.
Your assertion destroys the premise for the 182.5 years, because the Society's chronology places the end of the 182.5 years 23 years premature.
CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO YEARS AND A HALF.
Jeffro,
Yes, it is pretty amazing how "Scholar" and his "Celebrated Watch Tower Scholars" have the gall to say that Josephus supports their understanding of Bible history and Bible chronology. This is one more case proving just the opposite.
Historians tell us that Samaria, the capital of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel, fell to Assyria in 721 BC. But because the Watchtower Society dates the fall of Jerusalem 20 years too early, and then sets all other dates in Old Testament history by counting backwards in time from that incorrect date, they have also incorrectly added about 20 years to the date for the fall of Samaria. (I believe they date it's capture to 740 BC.)
The historically correct date for this event ( 721 BC ) was of course 182 years before "the first year of Cyrus" ( 539 BC ) - just as Josephus.told us it was.
How you have mustered the patience to respond to so much of Scholar's foolishness I have no idea. I suppose you have done so just in case someone else here may actually think the WT's teachings on this subject matter may have some credibility. But, as you and "Scholar" have here clearly demonstrated many times, they have absolutely none at all.
Mike
Jeffro
Response to post 772
It is impossible to provide a list regnal list for the Neo-Babylonian period because the data is too contradictory. My recent attempt as posted on this subject indicates that for at least kings there were too many variables. Other problems are the missing seven years for Nebuchadnezzer and the twenty year gap between current efforts and biblical chronology so it is as I have said a 'dog's breakfast'
scholar JW
Jeffro
Reply to post 773
Celebrated WT scholars also rely on the complete picture but with regard to Josephus there remain many problems in trying to resolve conflicting data and these issues are discussed in the fifth Dissertation on Chronology. However, Joephus' chronology is also based on Ten periods, the seventh of which discusses solely the seventy years which Josephus interprets only as aexile, servitude and desolation running from the Fall to the Return.
Egyptian chronology is also a 'dog's breakfast' because it fails to account for the forty years of desolation foretold for Egypt by Ezekiel.
Your attempt to sweep away the problematic 27 years for the Babylonians is well understood becuase you cannot afford to accept 607 and 1914 so you simply choose to ignore historical and exegetical reality. Our interpreation of matters nicely harmonizes all of the scriptural data including Ezekiel 40:1 with our theology and chronology of the seventy years, conforms with the testimony of Josephus and with secular evidence.
The 182.5 year periofd of Josephus is twenty years too short but we have never claimed to base our chronology on Josephus as his overall scheme differs from all others but his discussion of the seventy years as a distinct seventh period certainly does.
scholar JW
a Christian
Just because celebrated WT scholars and scholar does not use or agree with all of Josephus' chronology does not mean that we cannot use part or some of it. The data given for the introduction of the chapters of the Antiquities does not match up with the data Josephus assigns for the Ten periods. Perhaps you should read the Dissertation V which discusses the many problems with the chronology of Josephus.
Celebrated WT scholars have determined that Samaria fell in 740 BCE and not 721 BCE as dated by other scholars so you are about twenty years out. You need to do some further fine-tuning to your chronology. Your date for the Cyrus' first year is 538/537 BCE and not 539 BCE as you allege.
scholar JW
How can WT scholars be celebrated if these so-called scholars are anynomous and claim that WT publications are directed and edited by Jehovah? What's there to celebrate about that?
How can WT scholars be celebrated if these so-called scholars are anynomous and claim that WT publications are directed and edited by Jehovah?&
Excellent point Undercover! Its kind of hard to celebrate something that does not exist.
Tor
undercover
The dictionary gives several meanings for the word celebrate: to make known publicly or proclaim; to sound the praises of, extol.
Hope this helps.
scholar JW
a Christian
How you have mustered the patience to respond to so much of Scholar's foolishness I have no idea. I suppose you have done so just in case someone else here may actually think the WT's teachings on this subject matter may have some credibility. But, as you and "Scholar" have here clearly demonstrated many times, they have absolutely none at all.
Thanks Mike. Yes my reason for continuing to respond to 'scholar' is largely to demonstrate to others that his claims can easily be refuted with logic.
