A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible

scholar

Jeffro
Yes the date 538 is impossible because the timeframe is too short for the many events that are described in the first year of Cyrus. One recent scholar who has published on this subject discounts 538 but admits to the plausibility of 537 as a possible candidate and after a lengthy exposition on the subject comes out in favour of a later date which from was 535 BCE.
I have never maintained the view that scholarship supports our chronology. It does not. What scholarship has shown and does show that these dates are controversial with no agreement such as 586 vs 587, the seventy years, date of the Return etc. I appeal to scholarship in order to highlight the simple fact that the claim that WT chronology is so implausible and cannot be right is simply false because there is no universal agreement on chronology. All OT chronology is subject to opinion and interpretation and our chronology is just as credible and valid as any other scheme. Our chronology is simple and Bible based and nothing can detract from that.
The other major problem with your 538 proposal is that you have no ringing endorsement from Carl Jonsson who merely assigns this matter to a footnote in his GTR. His silence or reticience on this speaks volumes.
scholar JW
scholar

Jeffro
When I have in the past given you sources you express no interest in them as you tremendous self belief in your own ideas. If you manifested a genuine disposition in this matter then these would have been provided so do not whinge and whine about it. You ask about a chart for the Divided Monarchy but the only one that I respect is that published by the WT Society and you have that in the Insight book which you are very keen to use.
I have nothing to fear from you or your supporters on this forum concerning our chronology. I believe its is firmly established and is entirely defensible. Falsifiable yes indeed but you and your ilk have tried but failed. Carl Jonsson tried to do this with his Gentile Times Reconsidered with its four edditions and this material has failed to impress or convince scholar who has debated such matters pointy by point over these many years.
scholar JW
scholar

Jeffro
On the matter of tabulations of reigns for the Divided Monarchy it is a simple point of fact that there are so many differing tabulations or charts which appear in Bible Dictionaries and other reference works. If Christendom's scholars and chronologists cannot produce a uniformerly accepted scheme then they and its supporters have no business in critizing WT chronology. In other get your house in order first before you throw stones at another. I have in my extensive research library a publication which presents four different charts for the Divided Monarchy all have different regnal lengths and when you total numbers you have widely different totals for the regnal years for those Kings in Israel and Judah.
As a side point one well respected chronologist who has published several articles on chronology in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society over the years and supports 587 for the Fall has produced a king list that nicely agrees with WT chronology having a total number of 390 years. So in so many areas our chronology has support. Further to this our date for the death of Jesus being 33CE long championed since the time of Russell now enjoys widespread scientific support also their has been recent published confirmation for the Date of our lord's birth.
In short our OT chronology along with our NT chronology is well grounded in both past and recent scholarship.
scholar JW
Jeffro

Still no sources. Still no actual information. Still no real defence of your dogma.
You're just parroting the same old crap. Just go away.
Jeffro

scholiar:
The other major problem with your 538 proposal is that you have no ringing endorsement from Carl Jonsson who merely assigns this matter to a footnote in his GTR. His silence or reticience on this speaks volumes.
Readers, notice how 'scholar' usually refers to views contrary to the Watch Tower Society about 607 as 'the Jonsson hypothesis'. Yet here, he contradicts his own ridiculous premise, acknowledging that Jonsson is indeed not the source, nor is his 'endorsement' required. And yet despite having provided many sources that indicate 538, he claims it is merely 'my' proposal.
I'm not going to bother replying to 'scholar' further because he's a waste of time. However, if other readers have specific questions about his claims, just let me know, either in the thread or by PM.
AnnOMaly

Londo, this thread passed me by. I've only seen the intro. video and it looks good. I have some catching up to do with the other videos and I'll let you know if anything else strikes me other than what Jeffro's pointed out. Your voice is fine - it has a nice tone to it but it just needed to sound a tad more lively. Minor stuff. Shame the audio is crackly though.
Neil! I'm almost pleased to see you (the real you this time LOL). I hope you are settled now in your new location. You know, you're repeating the same ol' default position that has been demolished on here by various people many times over. I see you're getting creamed again. Why do you do it? Why submit yourself to more humiliation?
Anyway, I know I'm late in the day, but I wanted to add a few comments.
You have contributed nothing new to this long standing academic debate for all that you have presented is simply a rehash in a pictorial form of Carl Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered.
Naturally so. COJ also presented what academia has long known.
Scholars have and continue to stumble over an interpretation of the seventy years, they cannot agree as to its beginning and end nor its duration and this is where you have a major problem.
Which 70 years do they 'stumble over'? Jeremiah's? Zechariah's? Are the 70 years to be seen as symbolic (as with Tyre's 70 years)? Rounded? Literal and precise? It depends on what the 'stumbling' scholars are talking about. You are already aware of Ross E. Winkle's studies that apply Jeremiah's 70 years literally with the established chronology and it fits very well.
Carl Jonsson who has researched this subject most thoroughly has not decided whether 605 or 609 BCE is the begiining of the seventy years for either date has the acceptance of some scholars.
*Sigh* The Assyrians were finally made to serve Babylon in 609 BCE; Judea and the surrounding nations were made to serve Babylon in 605 BCE; Tyre was made to serve Babylon some years later.
As the 'celebrated WT scholars' wrote:
"'These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.' (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above 'the stars of God.' (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble." - Isaiah's Prophecy I, p. 253.
However, one of your biggest problems is the fact that even to this day scholars do not know the precise calender year for the Fall whether it is 586 or 587 BCE for the Fall.
I don't know why you spin this line yet again. You have long been aware of Rodger C. Young's solution and how the 587 BCE date is confirmed.
The scholarly literature has always and continues to this day favour the 586 date as opposed to 587.
The 'celebrated WT scholars' disagree with you.
"Secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E." - w.2011, 10/1, p. 29.
[To Jeffro] Scholar is not impressed by pretty mischevious diagrams appearing on your blog.
Ann is amused that Neil is referring to himself in the 3rd person so soon and attributing naughty behavior to attractive diagrams. Perhaps they should be spanked most vigorously for their misbehavior and sent to their rooms without supper.
you have a fuzzy date for the ending of the seventy years.
October 12/13, 539 BCE ended Jeremiah's "70 years for Babylon." (Jer. 25:12a) What's fuzzy about that? You want an atomic clock time as well?
our chronology is just as credible and valid as any other scheme.
'Your' chronology is a non-starter and conflicts with both Bible and historical facts.
[To Jeffro] The other major problem with your 538 proposal is that you have no ringing endorsement from Carl Jonsson who merely assigns this matter to a footnote in his GTR. His silence or reticience on this speaks volumes.
That's a fib. Shame on you. COJ discusses it in the main text as part of his argument about when Jeremiah's '70 years' ended.
Oh, and make a note, Neil: Jeffro isn't seeking endorsement from COJ - hasn't even read COJ's work - so your comment is meaningless to him. Your fixation with COJ blinds you to the fact that there is no viable support, biblically or extra-biblically or among respected scholarship, for the WT chronology of that period. Period.
As a side point one well respected chronologist who has published several articles on chronology in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society over the years ...
How 'Watchtower' of you not to provide a specific reference.
... and supports 587 for the Fall has produced a king list that nicely agrees with WT chronology having a total number of 390 years.
You think that because the year totals amount to 390, it somehow confirms WT chronology? LOL, you goon!
garyneal
Jeffro

AnnOMaly:
Oh, and make a note, Neil: Jeffro isn't seeking endorsement from COJ - hasn't even read COJ's work - so your comment is meaningless to him.
I haven't read Jonsson's book.
I have read Jonsson's rebuttal to the articles that appeared in The Watchtower of October and November of 2011. However, my own brief overview of those articles was written prior to reading Jonsson's more detailed rebuttal. (The link to Jonsson's response was added later.)
Jeffro

AnnOMaly:
Ann is amused that Neil is referring to himself in the 3rd person so soon and attributing naughty behavior to attractive diagrams. Perhaps they should be spanked most vigorously for their misbehavior and sent to their rooms without supper.
I considered this advice, but a vigorous spanking might damage my monitor, and those "mischevious" diagrams seem completely oblivious to my stern looks of disapproval.
I wonder is pseudo-scholar knows that "mischevious" isn't actually a word...
Jeffro

Yes the date 538 is impossible because the timeframe is too short for the many events that are described in the first year of Cyrus.
Aside from it simply being a lie, I thought that statement was particularly funny in view of the fact that the JW dogma forces three years of events from 600 BCE until 598 BCE all into the latter half of 618 BCE because they cram all Nebuchadnezzar's actions from a 7 year period into just 3 years. BM 21946 shows the JW distortions to be entirely impossible.
Of course, all the dates assigned in the JW chronology are wrong as a result of their 20-year gap. But the bits in red indicate relative problems in the JW dogma that are even more wrong.

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

Share this