539 BCE

by Zico 142 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jeffro

  I cannot, with certainty, rule out 587 BC or 586 BC. Since I cannot rule these two years out as possibilities, I must—in the interests of intellectual honesty—allow for the possibility of either year. Much the same as Sam's acquaintance had to allow for the possibility that the bug could be either a beetle or a nymph of some sort, while being completely certain it was not a 14-foot-long crocodile, I must allow for the possibility of either 587/6 BC while being completely certain that Solomon's Temple was NOT destroyed in 746 BC.

  On what basis would you accept 586 for the event? In view of the scriptural account - and it is indeed the scriptural account where the claimed ambiguity lies - there is no leeway for placing it in 586 without shifting other years associated with Nebuchadnezzar's reign. It seems that stating the two years has arisen as a compromise simply to placate a traditional belief. Am I definitely right? Maybe not... but I am yet to be shown anything supporting argumentation to the contrary.

  Please feel free to comment on any errors in my assessment in my previous post:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/117184/2056627/post.ashx#2056627
• 

  LovesDubs

  All of this hype and crap that the JWs put into proving WHAT about 1914? That it came after 1913? That none of the things that they said were going to happen in that year actually happened? That Jesus came back like Harvey the RABBIT instead of in FULL GLORY with his angels and swords blazing??

  Their contention is that they DIDNT get the DATE wrong but that they "misunderstood" the events of the date. LOLOL!! Oh ok. So if I say "something BAD is going to happen in 2007!!!" Then when there is a tornado in Kansas in April of 2007, I can then say in May of 2007 "SEEEE?? SEEEE? Didnt I WARN YOU???"

  That's right up there with figuring out a date based on the number of miles between New York and Philadelphia via the turnpike or whatever that damn calculation was they used. And using HANDS to measure pyramids or FEET to measure anything in Egypt and using that number as something Biblical.

  Give any mathmatician a date and I bet he can BACK INTO that date using fourteen different calculations including the number of ho's Russell jumped, and the number of bushels of Miracle Wheat he sold, divided by the number of HATS in his old store.

  Puhleeze.
• 

  moomanchu

  Scholar ,

  Why did the WBTS change the meaning of the phrase "this generation" in 1995.
  (1995-1914 = 81)

  Do you think the start of Armageddon can be anytime, from now to hundreds of years from now?
• 

  AlanF

  Jeffro, I want to point out that Jonsson is convinced that 587 B.C. is the correct date for Jerusalem's fall. For the most part, secularly oriented scholars accept this date, whereas religiously oriented scholars tend to accept Edwin Thiele's conclusions about 586. I think 587 is right, too.

  AlanF
• 

  hillary_step

  Alanf,

  For the most part, secularly oriented scholars accept this date, whereas religiously oriented scholars tend to accept Edwin Thiele's conclusions about 586.

  Yes, and just for the record let us once more note that despite repeated challenges over the years, Scholar has been unable to produce ONE secular OR Biblicaly oriented scholar with credentials outside a crackpot Adventist agenda, who agrees with the 607BCE date for thr first fall of Jerusalem.

  When the WTS does adapt the Brooklyn Chronology to a changing world, as they have been inevitably forced to do with so many of their doctrines these past 100 years, I suspect that Scholar will only show momentary surprise before he does an about turn and begins extolling the brilliance of scholars for being able to revise history with not a shred of guilt for the many millions of lives with whom they have played games with.

  Sociopathic thinking at its best.

  HS
• 

  Leolaia

  Jeffro....Have you seen the 2004 JETS article by Rodger C. Young? He makes the most objective and powerful case for 587 I have yet seen. I can send you the paper if you don't have it.
• 

  toreador

  Scholar ,

  Why did the WBTS change the meaning of the phrase "this generation" in 1995.
  
  (1995-1914 = 81)

  Do you think the start of Armageddon can be anytime, from now to hundreds of years from now?

  Soon, it has to be right around the corner. If it happens hundreds of years from now it will still be soon in Jehovahs timetable. ;) Right scholar? Tor
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  1040

  In no way is the chronology of the Society loosely based upon the Bible and contradictory for these are simply your dishonest claims whern you have nothing to offer as an alternative. You have raised nothing substantial in refuting 607 but have simply copied false ideas from the Jonsson hypothesis.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Auld Soul

  3830

  Josephus is the major primary source for Berossus and scholars agree that Josephus is the most reliable source for the preserved quotations of Berossus' work (JJonsson, 1998, p.92-3). Both Berossus and Josephus give conflicting numbers for the reigns of some of the kings for the Neo-Babylonian period and I and the celebrated WT scholars share no responsibility for this dilemna. The texts in Chronicles, Daniel and Jeremiah uniformly attest to the simple fact that Judah lay desolate or was devastated for a period of seventy years but if you interpret these texts differently then so be it, Josephus also showed several times that the seventy years was a period of exile, desolation and servitude so Josephus agrees with the celebrated WT scholars and so do I.

  Frankly, I am not interested in your other silly questions because these are insignificant issues when you consider the many difficulties and issues that NB cannot address such as the missing 40 years of Egypt, the twenty year gap problem. the missing seven years of Neb and the omission of the seventy years of Judah. Such omission of these biblical facts proves that the history of the Neo-Babylonian period is deficient and as I have always said: Bad history = Bad chronology.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  4512

  Readers on this board will notice that you are nothing but a bluff and your hypothesis for 538 is sheer nonsense because it is simply too short a time. You have provided no proof that 538 was the year for the Return and Josephus does not support your nonsense. I invite other readers to analyze your nonsense and spot the flaws as an academic test, I will respond only after others have read your nonsense and made a definitive comment. Is everyone up for the challenge? Let there be proof for 538 and then this material can be published so as to enlighten the scholarly community and Carl Jonsson.

  Jeffro has had a go so others should likewise follow his fine example.

  scholar JW