by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
AnnOMaly
Post 961
Robert Young's article only established what he believed the year to be according to his own selected methodology but 586 BCE still remains the preferred choice of serious scholars.
Do not forget from where it was that you first learnt of that seminal article and it was from your mighty scholar.
scholar JW
*** si pp. 282-283 par. 28 Study Number 2—Time and the Holy Scriptures ***
28
Pivotal Date for the Hebrew Scriptures. A prominent event recorded both in the Bible and in secular history is the overthrow of the city of Babylon by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. The Bible records this event at Daniel 5:30. Various historical sources (including Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and the Babylonian tablets) support 539 B.C.E. as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus. The Nabonidus Chronicle gives the month and day of the city’s fall (the year is missing). Secular chronologers have thus set the date for the fall of Babylon as October 11, 539 B.C.E., according to the Julian calendar, or October 5 by the Gregorian calendar.
You said "The Ba(b)ylonian records do give any calendrical dates as we know it but simply events linked with a regnal year which allows scholars to determine a date for that event. " You really should read the All Scripture book more.
Ann O Malley kindly corrected a mis-statement on my part regarding the difference between 587 and 586 BCE, which I had actually forgotten about regarding regnal vs ascention year chronology. Here is her statement and my response in its entirety.
Ann O Malley wrote
AllTimeJeff #1620
Meanwhile, more history books then can be found have the date as 587/586 BCE as the date of Jerusalems fall, the year off being for those use the zero year or not.
(Hope you don't mind, ATJ.) Just to clarify for any newer readers - the ambiguity as to whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 derives from the Bible's dating of its fall in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (in one Scripture) and in his 19th year (in another Scripture). A judgment has to be made on whether the writer was using the accession year system (0-1-2-3-etc.) or non-accession year system (1-2-3-4-etc.) for counting regnal years.
"Ann, I appreciate the correction. I actually read up on that a little last night. I got myself confused. Thanks!"
(fake) Scholar, I believes that answers your question as well.
(fake) Scholar, AllTimeJeff recognizes not only the problem that you have in maintaining 607 BCE as legitimate, but the bungled JW strategy that the cult has been using since 1960 to prop up its date by discrediting the dates and findings of everyone else.
Whether you like my date of 587/586 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem or not, I have supplied sources. I realize that JW's call these "popular" as if having a fact accepted by the majority must be rejected because it is accepted by the majority. Not exactly a desireable premise to have sir.
I remind you once again of the question you have failed to answer: Where is one, non JW, scholar that has backed up 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem by Baylon? I ask you again. And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
Where is one, non JW scholar that has backed up 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem by Baylon?
AllTimeJeff realizes you would rather not answer that question. But AllTimeJeff will not let you off the hook with that one.
...........
..............
isaacaustin
Post 1608
Indeed there is everything in Luke to prove its connection with Daniel 4 namely the use of 'times', Jerusalem and its 'being trampled' and the period of the Gentile Times. It is all there in the mix.
Daniel 4 id not only about Neb's experience for seven years but more to the point it is about seven times of Gentile Rulership at the expense of God's Kingdom which is the focal point of that prophetic drama.
The 'day for a year' is indeed a Bible rule of interpretation proved also by its long tradition amongst Biblical and Jewish interpreters.
You miss the point, chronology is all about doing just that: counting back and with prophecy counting forward.
Jeremiah foretold seventy years of servitude-desolation-exile whilst under Babylonian domination you are only seeing part of the story. Dating the period from 609 BCE is simply a guess propounded by apostates with little support from scholars. Also, nothing of any significance occurred in that year so your proposal is dumb.
Your proposed 609-539 BCE period and your proposed 586/587 BCE conflicts with the Bible on numerous grounds and it most certainly conflicts with our wondrous Bible chronology developed by those 'celebrated WT scholars.
scholar JW
While AllTimeJeff is waiting for (fake) Scholar to concede the point, AllTimeJeff would like to bring something to (fake) Scholar's attention: It's called indepenent verification.
At Gilead, they made a big point of talking up the "J" references regarding the insertion of Jehovah in the New Testament. While these 15th century sources had purely political reasons for inserting "Jehovah" in there, they were thrilled that they had a non JW source for there spurious insertion.
In your case, JW's have zero independent verification. Those who have studied JW eschatology (that is, real JW history) are well aware that the date of 607 BCE only has value to JW's because of 1914. Because they couldn't count, they use to say Jerusalem was destroyed in 606. Remember that pesky zero year?
I just wanted to point out just how much on an island you are on, and that JW's are on. Yet, JW's continue to insist they have the truth, a truth that they make up out of thin air for the express purpose of indoctrination and consolidation of the power of the Governing Body.
Mary
Post 10713
That's right scholarship does not treat Neb's seven year experience as literal history and this is a big problem for those supporters of NB chronology and for those who argue against a major fulfillment of Dan 4. It all boils down to credibility a word unfamiliar to apostates.
There is no need for any extravagant claim about this matter for all you need to do to understand the said scholar's observation is to simply read the literature.
scholar JW
Btw, some here have suggested that (fake) Scholar is a character who used to be a JW and is using a JW point of view to illustrate how untenable their chronology and dogma is.
Just in case that is correct (fake) Scholar, kudos... I guess.
Otherwise, give our regards to the GB. Pat Teddy Jaracz on the head for us. We think of him often.
Off to dinner. I'll be back to check the BS response later....
Scholar is awesome. I thought it would be impossible to keep rambling inane references in the light of actual logic, facts, and reasoning. He has proven me so wrong. It is possible to keep rambling inane references in the light of actual logic, facts, and reasoning even for a month! The thing that made me realize the "scholarship" of the WTS was not scholarship at all was to look at how often they used nonsense reasoning. You can see it clearly in Scholars posts. Saying something is "obvious", "clear", "evident" about a text does not make it so. What is "obvious", "clear", "evident" to me is not to you. I have ideas about what scriptures actually mean, but I would never claim my understanding is the "one and only truth". Also to see the lack of quotes supporting Scholar's position is embarrassing to all JW's. Again the WTS does the same thing misquotes scholars to support its position and then say all other scholars can be rejected because they disagree with the bible. I am still waiting just like Jeff for a non-JW scholarly support of 607.
AllTimeJeff - Everytime I read your posts it is the voice of Colbert in my head. Awesome pic there.
