by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible
Once again, he's said abolutely nothing relevant to the subject.
Regardless of what material pseudo-scholar (allegedly) has read, he has stated outright on many occasions that he simply rejects any secular information that does not agree with his religion's preconcieved dogma. And he still hasn't cited any sources that agree with his nutty religion.
Jeffro
At least I have read for you have not. You simply reject any evidence or information that disagrees with your preconceived dogma. And you never cite any sources but simply rely on what others have told you to believe.
scholar JW
troll
At least I have read for you have not. You simply reject any evidence or information that disagrees with your preconceived dogma. And you never cite any sources but simply rely on what others have told you to believe.
Idiot. As I've told you many times, I've actually done my research based on source materials such as the Bible, Josephus and tablets held at the British Museum, and only then compared with other sources afterwards. And I'm still correct, as indicated by the agreement found with other sources. Occasionally, I've had to make minor corrections (though not on any major points) upon review of other sources, but as I have no vested interest in superstitious magical thinking, this has never mattered.
Your childish taunts about what I may or may not have read are just stupid. And your claim is internally contradicted anyway.
If you're not going to bother citing anything relevant, just go crawl back under your rock.
You endlessly spout superstitious JW dogma, while claiming that everyone else is relying on what they've been "told to believe". It's so hypocritically sad that all I can do is laugh.
So...
anyone here doing the whole Tisha B'Av thing tonight and tomorrow? Comes once a year you know....
How are you?
I'm fine, thanks for asking :-)
Yes I repeated myself and it is my default position because nothing has changed much. Since we spoke last time we have Wt issues on Chronology been published in two issues, Rolf Furuli has revised his thesis with a rebuttal to Hunger, Rodger Young has contributed further articles on chronology pertaining to sabbatical year and Jubilee cycles. Steinemann if my spelling is correct has published a lenghty artcle on the Date of Return wherein he advocates 535 BCE.
Steinmann advocates 533 BCE for the Date of Return which doesn't help WT chronology.
Rodger Young still advovates 587 BCE as the Date of Jerusalem's Fall which does nothing to help WT chronology.
Rolf Furuli 
with every revised 'thesis,' has progressively Dug for Himself Even Deeper Holes which further weakens his case for WT chronology.
In spite of all this, you're still in denial about your untenable position. So yes, I guess nothing's changed.
Your comment about 609BCE and Assyria is problematic as a beginning for the seventy years. This simply your opinion of matters. COJ has the same view but he also admits th the possibility of 605 BCE so even here we have opinion. I believe we can do much better for a beginning of the seventy year period.
As for the seventy years of Tyre these represented a period of Babylonian domination which is well explained in our commentary on Isaiah but our conversation concerns the seventy years of Judah a period of servitude-exile-desolation totally different to what befelled Tyre.
It's not simply my opinion. It has been established that Assyria was crushed in 609 BCE, the Babylonians swept through the Hatti-land in 605 BCE and subjugated the nations there, and Tyre was forced to submit some years later. As you well know, the 70 years Jeremiah spoke about relate to how long the nations would serve Babylon. The 'celebrated WT scholars' noted the discrepancy with their application of Isa. 23:17, where its 70 years is identified with Jer. 25's 70 years, and solved it by making the period represent Babylon's greatest domination over the nations (including Tyre). You may well try but you cannot get around their 'spirit-directed' conclusion, can you?
So it comes down to methodology. Wt scholars do not have this problem because we apply a different method in calculating relevant dates thus arriving at a precise date 607 BCE for the Fall.
Yes, both 'solid' dates for the Fall of Jerusalem (607 and 606 BCE), as have been given by the WTS, were precise dates ... and both are completely WRONG. The WT scholars' method is centered on maintaining the religion's eschatological spin and ecclesiastical authority at all costs.
It is correct that the Wt states that secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE but what is not stated is that serious biblical scholars endorse 586 BCE as opposed.
If the WT is correct on this, you were wrong in stating that most scholars favor 586 BCE.
What is fuzzy about connecting the Fall of Babylon with the end of the seventy years that the Jews were still captive to, for, at , in Babylon after 539. The exile had not ended and the land of Judah was still desolate so the seventy years must have ended after 539 according to the specific words of Jeremiah .
You know better than to spout this again. The 70 years of Babylonian domination came to an end in 539 BCE when the Persians began to rule. If you really think otherwise (and I doubt it), you will have to explain which Persian king YHWH called to account for the Babylonian nation's error, how He did so and why.
It may come as a surprise to you Ann is that I care not one iota whether Jeffro has read COJ
So why bring up the issue of COJ not endorsing Jeffro's view? It backfired, that one, didn't it?
Also, i remain unfazed that Wt chronology is not supported by scholarship.
Then why are you desperately grasping any strands from scholarship that may, even tenuously, support it?
If a published regnal list agrees with that published by WT then that proves that we are doing something right and that we are competent in the field of chronology . You give credit where credit is due and not be churlish about such matters.
Don't be ridiculous LOL.
[Neil to Jeffro]
I am fully aware of Jonsson's rebuttal and also his reliance on the contribution by Doug Mason.
No he didn't rely on Doug's contribution! They wrote their rebuttals at the same time and referenced each other's works.
I have the best tools for chronology and I have the University training which has taught me how to think critically and to use those tools competently.
Trouble is, Neil, you DON'T use those skills competently, otherwise you would have ditched the WT's falsehoods long ago! 
Thanks for the good thread....
Back to the main point of the thread...
Check out Londo's video playlist at http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyNx0oM_bmgBFMnAPjR_V5Fe9_pf8sQA1
Damn. Noticed a typo in my post. 'Advovates' - clumsy fingers.
Though he has been asked for specific information, scholiar has instead blustered for the last 4 pages of this thread with irrelevant speculation about how 537 'might' be correct, dithered about with stupid comments about how he has access to a bunch of journals, and made childish taunts about what he imagines I've read.
So... going back to page 3
scholiar:
there is a firm view that 538 BCE is highly unlikely
Whose "firm view" are you citing?
Historians discount 538
Which ones?
Put up or shut up.
