Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 119 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Your reply to my challenge is just as I expected. You simply cannot deliver despite your claims to have undertaken research concerning the Society's chronology. You are simply a person who has read the Jonssson hypothesis without any original thought of your own. You demonstrate this by your presentation of Jonsson;s interpretation of the seventy years. Scholars would not accept these views because of the complexity of the subject. There is no consensus within scholarship as to how the seventy years should be understood, for this reason I raised the subject of a thesis in order to address this issue'

  The Society has listed the reigns of the kings right back to the early ywenties and in recent times has presented a format wherupon the data can be understood as shown in the Aid book. Such a list is in fact the skeleton of biblical history and if you or your readers cannot see its relevance to Babylonian chronology then you are as ignorant of chronology as the innocent inquirers to this board.

  Jonsson by the way would be unable to provide such a list, at least there have been recent attempts to present the data and they to be congratulated.

  scholar
• 

  Fredhall

  Go easy on him scholar. Go easy on him.
• 

  AlanF

  To non-scholar:

  Your reply to my challenge is just as I expected. You simply cannot deal with the Bible despite your claims as a JW to put it first. You are simply a person who has read the Socieyt's claims without any original thought of your own. You demonstrate this by your presentation of the Society's interpretation of the seventy years. Scholars do not accept this view because of the vast amount of data that proves the Society wrong.

  : There is no consensus within scholarship as to how the seventy years should be understood, for this reason I raised the subject of a thesis in order to address this issue'

  Jonsson has already produced such a thesis, dorkbrain. So have other scholars. The only reason JWs don't accept the conclusions is that they are emotionally enslaved by the Society.

  Your point about the Society's listing of Jewish kings is completely irrelevant to the question of Neo-Babylonian chronology. You have not shown that it is relevant. Furthermore, as I stated, the Society has nowhere presented any material on how it arrived at its list -- it simply presents the list. For this reason, no serious scholar would undertake to try to show any problems with it. It would be like a small child asking of its Mommy, "Tell me what I'm thinking." The Society's works like Aid and Insight are not intended to give scholarly reasons for Watchtower doctrines -- they are intended to give a mere appearance of scholarship in order to fool ignorant cultists like yourself.

  The simple fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses by and large do not care about facts. They care only about their religion, just as young-earth creationists care only about their religion. They all come to conclusions based on who-knows-what, and then search for justifications. Often when justifications, in the course of time, become untenable, they drop them and then find other justifications for the desired conclusion. That is well illustrated by the way the Watchtower Society has changed many details of its 1914 chronology, but always maintaining that magical date of 1914. I leave you to your cult.

  AlanF
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  My reason for bumping this to the top of the postings again is, I can assure you, not in the interests of verbal warfare, but in the genuine intellectual interests of the many 'lurkers' who are visiting this Board with their minds yet undecided on the issue at hand. It is, as you are aware, of utmost importance to conclude exactly where the weight of evidence actually does rest on this issue, which after all is crucial in establishing the veracity of the WTS claim to be the sole conduit through which God works his purpose on earth.

  Scholar, it seems to me that an ideal opportunity has presented itself for you to establish with written evidence the validity of this claim by the WTS. As a ‘scholar’, you well know that giving these people vague nuances and quoting the names of a few authors is not actually producing evidence but is a display of intellectual irresponsibility if it is not sustained by scholarly evidence. I for one can guarantee that I will examine this evidence with a completely open mind.

  Please present, in your own words the evidence for your statement that Jerusalem fell into Gentile hands in 607BCE. You must recall that some of us researched and reached conclusions regarding this issue before Carl Jonnson’s even sent his thesis to Brooklyn.

  You are dangerously close to a new thread being started on this board entitled, ‘Validity Of Scholar's Nom-De-Plume’

  Best regards - HS
• 

  scholar

  Hilary Step

  Your humble request for evidence for the validity of 607 has deeply moved me, there have been not a few posters on this board who have made a similar request. As I have stated on numerous occasions, this subject is very complex and is open to many interpretations by scholars. Chronology is not an exact science and is dependent upon three factors: methodology, sources and interpretation. In order to understand calculus one must have mastered algebra. Therefore for yourself and other interested persons you would to complete the following assignment before you can possibly understand the evidence that will be made available to you.

  Before beginning the assignment please read the article 'Chronology' as discussed in the Aid and Insight book published by the Society.

  ASSIGNMENT:

  Submit three different lists of the reigns of the Kings in Israel and Judah for the period known as the Divided Monarchy.

  Each source should be identified and you are to complete a short essay explaining what you have learnt form these respective lists. The word length is discretionary.

  In order to complete this assignment you will find the following texts helpful. There is no priority intended in this list.

  1. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings by Edwin R. Thiele Third Edition.

  2. Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olaf Jonsson, Third Edition.

  3.Handbook of Biblical Chronology by Jack Finegan, 1998.

  4. Secrets of the Times by Jeremy Hughes, 1990.

  The readings outlined are comprehensive in that these are drawn from WT sources and other reputable chronolgists. As you are a open minded person I am confident that you will find this assignment both intellectually challenging spiritually refreshing.

  Best wishes

  scholar
• 

  Abaddon

  Scholar; You really are determined not to engage in the debate. Pity.

  Oh; "In order to understand calculus one must have mastered algebra" is funny! You make the statement "Chronology is not an exact science and is dependent upon three factors: methodology, sources and interpretation" and then compare the subject to an exact science!

  Gimp.

  Chronology, as you admit, is an at times notoriously 'soft' science, especially when it comes down to arguements like the one at hand. By 'soft' I mean that the chronologist's viewpoint can bias the opinion they choose to defend.

  A mathmatician is either right or wrong, and can demonstrate that, as maths is a notoriously 'hard' science, where there exist 'proofs' that cannot be ignored just because someone holds a differing opinion as to the value of the sixteenth digit of pi.

  Quit with the prevarication.
• 

  ianao

  skaaller said:

  Your humble request for evidence for the validity of 607 has deeply moved me, there have been not a few posters on this board who have made a similar request.

  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OOHHHOHOHOHOOOH OHOO.

  (ow my sides)

  Oh, and here's the kicker...

  ASSIGNMENT

  You can't even present your case clearly in terms that everyone will understand. Hillary asked you to provide something in your own words and you give her a damn ASSIGNMENT? Why don't YOU do the damn work and post your results here as YOU are the one with something to prove? Don't give out that tired "meek and humble" bullshit either because it's a damn cop-out on your part. You take the time to ASSert yourself on this board so take the damn time to prove your case. If the "evidence" that you have is sound it will stand on it's own merit without the need to re-define it's basis.

  Some damn scholar. You should change your name to chicken-shit.
• 

  AlanF

  Our resident non-scholar is heavy into stereotypical JW murkiness. In La-La-Land, things that JWs have a terrible time explaining are murky, but the JW rank & file, not being able understand them, calls them deep. This suits the Society's purpose well, because it means that they can assign any meaning they like to any scriptures they like, based entirely on the self-proclaimed authority of JW leaders.

  Non-scholar's posts here are a case study in creating murk where there is none. The Bible's chronology of Israelite and Judean kings is a confused hodgepodge of often contradctory statements about what king reigned for how long. Different books of the Bible sometimes contain contradictory statements, or even errors, about certain kings. No surprise, given that it was written over many hundreds of years and covers a period of some 500 years. On the other hand, the Neo-Babylonian period covers only about 85 years, and while the Bible contains statements that the Watchtower Society claims are contradictory, a careful examination of small number of non-ambiguous biblical statements resolves the contradictions. This resolution turns out to be perfectly in line with secular history. Unfortunately for the Society, the resolution kills its 1914 doctrine. Thus springs the need of JWs like non-scholar to create murk and to ignore the Bible's clearest statements and to denigrate the accuracy of secular history.

  Non-scholar demonstrates the technique of creating murk by completely ignoring and refusing to discuss the Bible's direct comments on when "the 70 years of Jeremiah" ended. Instead he wants to misdirect the discussion into a deep (read "murky") discussion about the unrelated topic of Jewish kings. What he hopes to accomplish is to get any discussion so bogged down in this irrelevant discussion that participants will give up and go home. Once they do, he'll declare victory in his own little mind and shuffle off satisfied that he's defended his Mommy. This is absolutely typical of how so many JWs that I can't even count them have, over my years on the Net, tried to sidestep and derail discussions that they knew they'd lose if they stuck to them.

  AlanF
• 

  MadApostate

  AlanF and Others:

  Forget it, Schmolar is too smart to engage in a battle that he knows he will lose.

  The 607/1914 issue is so important to the WTS that I would like to see a DB established for no other topic other than the discussion of this issue. Entitle it as a "challenge to the WTS and all JWs to PROVE that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607. Set it up so that JWs can post anonymously without IP logging. Then limit XJW responders to a designated few, so that JWs don't feel ganged-up on. Moderate heavily for no personal attacks, vulgarities, etc. Keep it such that JWs cannot point to any "negatives" as an excuse not to except the following challenge.

  THEN, send challenges to every member of WOL, GC, etc. to come to this new DB to PROVE what the WTS teaches re 607/1914.

  They can either accept the challenge or let the DB stand as a monument to JWs inability to prove their own doctrines.
• 

  Fredhall

  AlanF,

  Unlike Scholar, it is to bad that you are not open minded.