Sorry, another 607 question? I'm confused.

by lost_light06 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Hellrider

  You just don`t get it, do you! You say:

  The date 539 is considered by the celebrated WT scholars to be a pivotal date for the purposes of constructing a chronology for the biblical period

  Yes, and that is where they went wrong! They (the "celebrated WT scholars", lol) do consider 539 to be a "pivotal date", but they never should have done that! Do you have to be spoonfed? The date 539 is also a derived date, derived from a chronology in which the "pivotal dates" are from the years around 600, especially the date for the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (10 years after it, according to the "celebrated WT scholars" say that it was destroyed). Such as dr.Freedmans reply to the WTS after they again misquoted him:

  This is one of the best-known periods of the ancient world, and we can be very sure that the dates are correct to within a year or so, and many of the dates are accurate to the day and month. There is therefore absolutely no warrant for the comments or judgments made by the Watch Tower Society based on a statement about our uncertainty. What I had specifically in mind was the disagreement among scholars as to whether the fall of Jerusalem should be dated in 587 or 586. Eminent scholars disagree on this point, and unfortunately we do not have the Babylonian chronicle for this episode as we do for the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). But it is only a debate about one year at most (587 or 586), so it would have no bearing upon the views of the Jehovah's Witnesses who apparently want to rewrite the whole history of the time and change the dates rather dramatically. There is no warrant whatever for that.

  And so, the dates of 539 and 537 (or maybe...538 ) are both derived dates, derived from other (earlier) events in Babylonian history. But still, you insist on using the derived date to go back and change the "pivotal date" that you used to arrive at the derived date! And while doing it, you simply don`t understand that this also destroys the derived date...

  This is not so much about history anymore, Scholar, no matter how much you try to hide the forrest behind the trees. This is about pure, mathematical logic. Not even Yahweh could make 2 pluss 2 = 5.

  Of course, you can try to prove me wrong. Provide us all with an astronomical tablet that (by itself) sets the date for the release/return of the captives to 539/537. That would make the date pivotal.
• 

  Leolaia

  Still celebrating scholars, I see.
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  Celebrated WT scholars base or begin biblical chronology with a pivotal date which is universally accepted for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.

  Now, now, behave yourself or we will employ the services of Leolaia to tan your theological hide - again.

  HS
• 

  AuldSoul

  [Scholar tents his hands ala Montgomery Burns]

  we will employ the services of Leolaia to tan your theological hide - again.

  And all the while they will think it was their idea. Excellent!
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  1631
• 

  jwfacts

  Reliable Bible chronology indicates that this took place 70 years before 537 B.C.E.,

  Typical Watchtower lie slipped into the article.

  The bible does not say it was 537, neither does history. History says 539 was the Babylonian destruction, the Watchtower Society assumes the Jews left in 537 in order to arrive at 607.

  Neither does bible chronology say the event for which the 70 years ends, it is a biblical interpretation that chooses which events should be the start and end of the 70 year period.
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  1631

  It is you that doesn't get it! It is not your business to decide what methodology the celebrated WT scholars should employ. It is their business and they have decided that 539 BCE is a adequate pivotal date for the reconstruction of OT chronology. If you prefer another date then you go with that and reap the futility of doing so. Certainly, 539 is a derived date but so are all dates derived from established data so you are merely stating the obvious. There is no evidence that Freedman was misquoted by the writers of the Appendix as this was a claim made by the apostate Jonsson which in fact was quite mistaken and erroneous. The very fact that Freedman admitted that there was some controversy about 586 or 587 proves that such methodology is faulty and is unreliable. It would have been preferable if scholars followed the lead of the celebrated and very wise WT scholars.

  All dates are derived as they are not mentioned as such in Scripture or other secular writings and are subject to interpretation and methodology hence scholar's formula: CHRONOLOGY = INTERPRETATION + METHODOLOGY. The foresaid scholar is brilliant.

  scholar JW
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  It is not your business to decide what methodology the celebrated WT scholars should employ. It is their business and they have decided that 539 BCE is a adequate pivotal date for the reconstruction of OT chronology.

  With this alarming confession, you have buried any credibility that you might of had left in dealing with this chronological issue. I think we can all go home now, and all the JW 'lurkers' reading this thread will recognize the sound of defeat in your post.

  Game, set and match to the 'Wiley poztates', humiliating defeat to the self-pronounced Scholar. That having been said, I am quite sure that you will fulfill the headlines that I hung on you a while ago, 'Knocked-Out Boxer Claims Victory'.

  HS
• 

  Hellrider

  It is you that doesn't get it! It is not your business to decide what methodology the celebrated WT scholars should employ. It is their business and they have decided that 539 BCE is a adequate pivotal date for the reconstruction of OT chronology

  LoL. I don`t know whether to laugh or cry...

  Certainly, 539 is a derived date but so are all dates derived from established data so you are merely stating the obvious.

  Sure thing, buddy, but that doesn`t change the fact that 539 and 537 are derived from the chronology that you dismiss. These dates were arrived at from the historical dates such as 597 and the lengths of reigns listed by the real scholars (not the "celebrated watchtower scholars"), dates and lengths of reigns that you (in turn) will have to dismiss to place the destruction of Jerusalem in 607. So this means that you will have to dismiss every argument that got you to 539 and 537 in the first place. And that means that yours (and the Societys) belief in 537 and 539 are just that, beliefs, and there is nothing "scholarly" about these dates (within your JW-context) at all.

  You simply don`t understand this, and you never will.

  There is no evidence that Freedman was misquoted by the writers of the Appendix as this was a claim made by the apostate Jonsson which in fact was quite mistaken and erroneous.

  Aha, so it`s a lie because it was in one of Jonssons texts/books. And I assume it doesn`t matter that Freedman actually said this.

  The very fact that Freedman admitted that there was some controversy about 586 or 587 proves that such methodology is faulty and is unreliable

  Oh here we go again...

  I hope you get well soon, Scholar jw.
• 

  AlanF

  hillary_step said to scholar pretendus goatus buggerus:

  :: It is not your business to decide what methodology the celebrated WT scholars should employ. It is their business and they have decided that 539 BCE is a adequate pivotal date for the reconstruction of OT chronology.

  : With this alarming confession, you have buried any credibility that you might of had left in dealing with this chronological issue. I think we can all go home now, and all the JW 'lurkers' reading this thread will recognize the sound of defeat in your post.

  I was thinking the same thing. A bit further on in his post, this moron virtually admitted to being on this board simply for the fun of pretending to be a real JW -- "The foresaid scholar is brilliant." I'm beginning to wonder if we're dealing with a truly pathological case of split personality here. I mean, the guy doesn't respond to challenges in a sane way.

  scholar pretendus goatus buggerus said to Hellrider:

  : It is not your business to decide what methodology the celebrated WT scholars should employ. It is their business and they have decided that 539 BCE is a adequate pivotal date for the reconstruction of OT chronology.

  Right. Just as these morons once decided that 1874 was a pivotal date in more recent human history. Just as other morons have decided that Genesis is a literal description of earth history.

  : If you prefer another date then you go with that and reap the futility of doing so.

  'Futility'. LOL! Your use of this term is a fine example of circular reasoning. You need the 607-1914 'chronology' to establish a foundation for your worship of Watchtower leaders. Anything not in line with that need is 'futile'.

  : Certainly, 539 is a derived date but so are all dates derived from established data so you are merely stating the obvious.

  Wrong. "Derived date" is a technical term used in contrast with "astronomically fixed date". The latter is a date fixed to a historical event by finding in a document a reference to some unique astronomical event linked with that historical event. A derived date is one found by linking historical evidence that is not astronomically determined to an astronomically fixed date. This is all BY DEFINITION.

  What you want to do, scholar pretendus, is misuse these clearly defined terms to pretend to yourself that you have a point.

  : The very fact that Freedman admitted that there was some controversy about 586 or 587 proves that such methodology is faulty and is unreliable.

  Nonsense. The basis for the discrepancy is as so many scholars have said: the Bible is ambiguous about the date.

  : It would have been preferable if scholars followed the lead of the celebrated and very wise WT scholars.

  Right. And come to such nonsensical conclusions as that Jesus returned in 1874 or 1914 -- take your pick. Or that Watchtower leaders are divinely directed.

  : All dates are derived

  Here's that dishonest use of a technical term again.

  : as they are not mentioned as such in Scripture or other secular writings and are subject to interpretation and methodology

  This is gibberish.

  : hence scholar's formula: CHRONOLOGY = INTERPRETATION + METHODOLOGY. The foresaid scholar is brilliant.

  You've become insane. Either that or you're a troll.

  AlanF