A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  Doug Mason:

  Dating of the destruction of Jerusalem is a red herring (maybe a red whale!). The WTS does not start their 70 years with that event.

  Well... kind of. Strictly speaking, they count from after Gedaliah was killed (7th month) and additional people left over either fled or were also exiled to Babylon, rather than the exile and destruction of the temple in the 5th month. But it's inextricably connected to the same year that Jerusalem was destroyed.

  They place both events in 607 BCE.

  The correct year is 587 BCE.

  Not 607. Not 586. Not 587/586.

  587.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Except that I argue, as do others - including Jewish sources - that the period between the destruction of Jerusalem and the exodus into Egypt was far longer than 2 months; more likely 4 years. My explanation is at:

  http://www.jwstudies.com/Did_Jews_exit_after_two_months.pdf

  So the WTS starts from their mythical 537 BCE and say the Jews went into Egypt whenever - no proof either way.

  Their problem then lies in the fact that they require the land to be "empty" for the 70 years to run but they wait until long after the first Jews return from Babylon and settle into their towns and villages, then walk to Jerusalem before they end the 70 years. They have no parallel, just a solution looking for a way out.

  Their real issue is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that their ending event is correct (against 2 Chr 36:22) and that they definitely know the year that it happened. No need for neo-Babylonian chronologies.

  Doug
• 

  Doug Mason

  Scholar (on this Thread),

  Since you and I live in the same time zone, talk to me on Skype in the morning (Friday) and let's verify that you are genuine.

  Doug
• 

  AnnOMaly

  You really take the cake, Neil.

  Do you think your behavior recommends you as a 'scholar,' your online moniker that you are so boastful of? Hardly! After all these years you still have not learned a sense of fair-mindedness and still lack intellectual honesty. You can't even keep your story straight between sentences, let alone posts.

  'There's no room for dogmatism in chronology'; 'the WT is dogmatic'; 'the WT is not dogmatic.'

  'I don't know the identity and qualifications of the celebrated WT scholars'; 'I am aware of their identity as a group' (but you still cannot tell me what qualifications any of them has to merit, in your view, the term 'scholar').

  Not only that, but you don't know who the WT researchers are but somehow you know they don't include Furuli who is the only one who has published that 'research' and the only one who, according to you, alleges there are others.

  You admit that you have no competence to examine Furuli's/the WT's claims yourself nor the research I have done, but then you have the audacity to pronounce my (and Marjorie Alley's) findings and criticisms as invalid but Furuli's/the WT's as sound!

  You? A scholar? Your online behavior belies that claim, Neil. You remain a stuffed shirt and have no business speaking about matters you do not understand. All the articles, books and papers you boast about having read have done you not one iota of good - you are still unable to have a reasoned, honest, scholarly dialog about this subject and it is little wonder I and others get exasperated with you.

  My experience with Jonsson is that he is incompetent in using scholarly sources. I have caught him out before

  Really? You're not still banging on about that John Aquila Brown nonsense, are you? You were the one who got it wrong, you know.

  Doug, this 'scholar' joined the forum in 2001 and has a long history here. It's not the same person as the recent imposter who claimed he'd forgotten or lost his password or something and had to make a new account. Unfortunately, the thread has been removed now so I can't refer back to it.

  However, see here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/43480/3/So-where-DID-the-1914-timeline-go-awry
• 

  Jeffro

  Doug Mason:

  Except that I argue, as do others - including Jewish sources - that the period between the destruction of Jerusalem and the exodus into Egypt was far longer than 2 months; more likely 4 years.

  It's certainly possible that more time elapsed between Gedaliah's death and the later events, and it's probable that those were the exiles taken in 582. But it has no bearing on the actual 70 years of Babylon's dominance anyway.

  Their problem then lies in the fact that they require the land to be "empty" for the 70 years to run but they wait until long after the first Jews return from Babylon and settle into their towns and villages, then walk to Jerusalem before they end the 70 years. They have no parallel, just a solution looking for a way out.

  Agreed. Basically, JWs are either wrong, or still wrong.

  Their real issue is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that their ending event is correct

  Indeed. Unless Josephus and Ezra are ignored, the only possible year for the return is 538. But the return of the Jews as the end point of the 70 years is also a "red whale".

  Since Babylon's king was 'called to account' in 539 and Jeremiah 25:12 says Babylon would be called to account after 70 years, it's a no-brainer.
• 

  Dagney

  LOL @ Ann, "King Nevvawaza." I'm usin' it.
• 

  Jeffro

  [Fixed]
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Oops. Thanks Jeffro. Fixed it. You can remove the silly one from your post now.

  *Waves to Dagney* :-)

  I'm rushing - always a mistake. I posted this in the wrong thread and had to delete it
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  As I have said you need to tone down the vitriol becaus eall it does is reflect on your credibility.

  If you claim to be a scholar or are prepared to accept that label then if you are genuine then why don't you state your qualifications? Is that not hard to do? I have stated my qualifications on this forum many years ago.

  I simply do not believe that you are competent in matters of ancient chronology and neither you nor Jonsson are competent in that area.

  Your exasperation is born from your inability to deal with the issues at hand and the very fact that I have argued the matters over and over proves that I know what I am talking. Whenever I state a problem or difference of opinion between scholars you dismiss it. You only like what appeals to you and if you don't like my posts then go way. Why do you read them and seek to engage with me. If I am an idiot as you seem to be saying then why do you respond.? This is a public forum dealing with matters that to pertain to my faith so I seek to defend our wondrous chronology. I do not seek to convert others but simply to provide an alternative viewpoint.

  scholar JW
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Just do the research, Neil - even if it's to poke holes in my findings. Quit with your huff and bluster. Do the research.

  Another thought before I go offline - my findings are consistent with other scholars' findings - PhDs and professors among them, so if you're dismissing my research, you're dismissing theirs as well.