by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Re "Scholar".
Friends of mine have had personal face-to-face contact with Scholar over the years, and they tell me he is exactly as the way he posts.
Scholar provides an excellent service, albeit quite unintentionally. I wonder how many JWs have seen the inanity of the WTS's reasoning through his inability to provide any support for the WTS's positions?
He lives in another State of Australia, so I have not had the privilege of speaking directly with him.
Doug
Jee,
I wonder if someone should out him and get him DF'd. That would be one hell of a scholar... defending a cult that hates him, LOL.
Back from dinner... (and btw, I have no meeting tomorrow, I am going to have a couple of beers and fall asleep when I fall asleep. SCREW THE WT STUDY)
Ok, having said that, I am waiting, still waiting.... (tick tick tick tick tick)
AllTimeJeff
Post 1638
As said or meant to have said that Babylonian records do not give calendrical dates for those events an dneither does the Bible so the chronologist must assign dates according to our modern reckoning.
The confusion as to what precise year should be reckoned for the Fall of Jerusalem is often blamed on the biblical data but the celebrated WT scholars have always been fully aware of the 19th and 18th years of Nebuchadnezzer and also the difference between regnal and accession year method of dating. Further, they are also aware of the difference between calendrical systems either dating from the Spring or the Autumn. However, taking all of these factors into account as carefully explained in the All Scripture Inspired of God and Beneficial, 1963, pp.277-383. these scholars have quite successfully unlike modern scholars to determine a precise calender year for the Fall which is 607 BCE.
Scholar has no problem and never has had any problem in defending and expalining the validity of 607 BCE and has done just that on this forum for the last eight years and will continue to do despite the vehement attack by apostates.
Scholar is untroubled by your adherence to a problematic 587/586 BCE date for the Fall and is fully aware of your sources but these sources are not from the Bible and it is the Bible alone that determines Bible-based chronology.
You ask for names of those non JW scholars who support 607 BCE:
Jerry Leslie
Julian T Gray
Paul S Johnson
Morton Edgar
Charles f Redeker
I hope this helps.
scholar JW
Doug Mason
Post 566
I would be most happy to meet you face to face at time and place of mutual convenience so as to discuss your claim of my' inability to provide any support for the WT's position'.
scholar JW
Scholar is untroubled by your adherence to a problematic 587/586 BCE date for the Fall and is fully aware of your sources but these sources are not from the Bible and it is the Bible alone that determines Bible-based chronology.
AllTimeJeff is untroubled by your total ignorance regarding chronology, as there is no biblical chronology to be found that can be verified without the consultation of said sources already referred to.
AllTimeJeff promises to continue to hold your feet to the prophetic fire as to your BS. Don't worry, I am sure you are used to it.
doyryakii
Post 626
1. The matter of the zero year was simply a matter of methodology and when it was realized that there was an error then an adjustment was made. This is no big deal because chronology is a science that has always been in a state of flux. Suh fine tuning did not impact on the validity of the 1914 CE date for the end of the Gentile Times, thanks be to Providence.
2. Accoding to accurate Bible chronology Josiah died in 629 BCE so you are twenty years wide off the mark.
3. Biblical evidence begins Neb's reign in 624 BCE so once again you are twenty years off the mark.
4. 537 BCE is not guesswork but a defined date calculated with the secular and biblical evidence if you have a better date then please put it up. No one suggests that the trek back to Jerusalem took two years but rather 4 months would be reasonable depending on what route the exiles took.
5. To say that 607 BCE has no support is simply stupid because there is clear evidence both from the Bible, Josephus and NB chronology to support such a determination. With the latter its records brings us within a twenty years striking distance and when the seventy years is factored into that chronology then Bingo you have a rock solid, irrefutable 607 BCE.
5. Apostates have a hang-up over the zero year problem but fine tuning and correct methoidology proved the validity of 1914 CE.
scholar JW
5. To say that 607 BCE has no support is simply stupid because there is clear evidence both from the Bible, Josephus and NB chronology to support such a determination. With the latter its records brings us within a twenty years striking distance and when the seventy years is factored into that chronology then Bingo you have a rock solid, irrefutable 607 BCE.
AllTimeJeff is still waiting for (fake) Scholars promised proof with statement of fact by scholars who, with the "celebrated JW scholars" have also realized that the rest of modern scholars are wrong regarding 587/586 BCE, and have presented evidence to the contrary. (as opposed to an Oprah like book of the month club)
Don't give us authors names. Quotes man! Quotes! Just one... Still waiting hotshot... (tick tick tick tick tick)
AllTime Jeff
Post 1657
Methodology selects those sources that are appropriate, you have yours and we have ours.
Scholar has hasd nine years of enjoyment refuting the apostate nonsense.
scholar JW
Methodology selects those sources that are appropriate, you have yours and we have ours.
Scholar has hasd nine years of enjoyment refuting the apostate nonsense.
Scholar, like the Arizona Cardinals, no doubt enjoys the game, but that doesn't mean they won.
AllTimeJeff would still like to point out the gigantic piece of stinking kaka that represents (fake) Scholars evidence. That is to say, none.
AllTimeJeff is enjoying watching (fake) Scholar squirm like a squirrel half run over by the tires of evidence. Still twitching, just barely....
