Need a little help on 607 586/587....

by undercover 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AlanF

  I see that the non-scholar is back, peddling his Watchtower foolishness.

  Scholar, last time we got into a scriptural discussion you ran away with your tail between your legs. In fact, you do it every time we get into a discussion. You have no scriptural answers for some very important scriptural disproofs of the nonsensical Watchtower chronology. That fact is proved by the fact that you consistently run away from dealing with them. Instead you dance the standard JW two-step -- offering up every excuse under the sun why you don't need to answer.

  As for Furuli, he's about as much a scholar as you are. I.e., his focus is not on scholarship as such, but on proving Watchtower foolishness right, whatever the cost in scholastic honesty. In the long run, Furuli's newest claims will be shown false, just as his older ones have. In the longer run, the Watchtower will drop its silly chronology, just as it has dropped all other disproven chronology invented by Nelson Barbour and Charles Russell. This won't happen, of course, until the present Governing Body (at least, the ones who were on the GB before 1992) members are dead, as we can't have the old geezers getting upset now, can we? By that time, 1914 and the nonsensical doctrines based on it will not have been mentioned for 10-15 years, and hardly any JWs will know a thing about them. Then when the change is made, it won't ruffle any feathers since hardly any JWs will care. Proof? Look at how the Society took about 25 years to jettison the failed doctrines about 1874, 1878, 1881 and so forth. According to them, it wasn't even until 1943 that 1874 was dropped, and 607 was adopted as the key date in WTS chronology.

  AlanF
• 

  undercover

  607 is a trusted and historical date will nicely accords with the secular and biblical evidence.

  That's the problem. 607 is not trusted or historical by anyone outside the Society. It does not accord nicely with the secular evidence(not that's been presented here anyway) and I'm trying to wrap my brain around whether it accords with the biblical evidence(so far it hasn't).

  You cannot beat the Society's calculation for simplicity

  You're right. You can't beat the Society's calculation for simplicity. 537-70+2520=1914. Simple. Too simple. While I like simplicity and hate research, when I do scratch below the surface all kinds of questions come roaring up.

  I thank you for referencing the Aid book pages. I will look that information up and continue my research.
• 

  cynicus

  The date of 607 is also confirmed by an appropriate exegesis of Daniel 1:1 and 2:1 despite the nonsense posted by cynicus. Yes, please read Jonsonn's hypothesis in his Gentile Times but I think this will be nicely rebutted by a forthcoming work by Rolf Furuli who is a competent Semitic scholar.

  While you're reading COJ you may want to pick up the Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 2nd edition, 1999, by Jack Finegan. Turn to page 251, and read section 5, in particular paragraph 433.

  Then reconsider the terms:

  appropriate ... nonsense ... scholar

  If you have the 2001 WT Library CD you will also be able to quickly find out that the WBTS has acknowledged the scholarship of mr. Finegan more than 25 times.

  (c)
• 

  Gamaliel

  scholar,

  Yes, please read Jonsonn's hypothesis in his Gentile Times but I think this will be nicely rebutted by a forthcoming work by Rolf Furuli who is a competent Semitic scholar.

  Do you know anything more about the schedule for this book by Furuli? I thought there was no secular evidence for 607. Am I wrong? I was always under the impression that no one ever has or ever would be able to produce a "scholarly" work supporting 607 BCE. I know that no one at Bethel in 1980 could provide any rebuttal to COJ's manuscript. It sat on a shelf for months and everyone was afraid to touch it. That includes both Frederick Franz and Jim Napolitano, their most competent Hebrew/Aramaic/Semitic scholar. What has come out since 1980, I wonder, that makes a rebuttal possible?

  To make it as simple as possible, you said:

  607 is a trusted and historical date will nicely accords with the secular and biblical evidence.

  Can you find even one place, anywhere, where any secular source points to 607 as either "trusted" "historical" or "nicely accords with [any] evidence? For that matter, if there is "Biblical evidence," as you say, has that evidence been evident to any Bible commentators outside of Watchtower publications? For all I know, 607 might be true and right, but why are JWs so anxious to say that there is secular evidence? In other words, why is it so important to lie?

  I'm only really interested in the question I highlighted. Perhaps there really is evidence and I missed hearing about it. I'll apologize to the forum for my presumptuousness if I'm wrong. But, I'll have to assume if you don't respond, that there isn't any secular evidence, and we'll have to make our own assumptions about why JWs are willing to lie about it.

  Gamaliel
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  I thank you for your post and your concerns for the availability of evidence for 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem. Yes, it is very likely that a scholarly presentation for the historical and biblical validity for 607 will be presented. Rolf Furuli is shortly to publish research on this subject and this should be compared with the Jonsson hypothesis. Your comments about the affect of Jonsson's treatise on those at Bethel are probably correct but do not think for a moment that Brother Franz could not have blown it apart if he felt inclined. Brother Franz was one of the most formidable Bible scholars of the last century and it is difficult to imagine that any person could put something past him. The treatise submitted by Jonsson is simply rubbish and only succeeds in demonstrating the efforts that some will go to to undermine a very accurate methodology for establishing secure biblical dates. There is clear historical and biblical evidence for 607 just as it nicely provides prophetic implications for the Gentile Times concluding in 1914.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  scholar

  cynicus

  Please be assured that I am well familiar with the publications of Jack Finegan as I have both his latest edition and his earliest edition in my library ot reference works on chronology. Nevertheless, his research is important to any chronologist but the Society's viewpoint is the more accurate as it places a greater priority on the biblical record.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  scholar

  drawcad_1

  The Society calculates the date of 607 from the available secular and biblical evidence as presented in its many publications. Chronology when all is said and done amounts to interpretation. The Society uses exegesis to determine aspects pertaining to 607 as does all other scholars. At this stage nobody has found any artifact with the date 586/587 or 607 inscribed thereupon. thus, you are dependent upon scholarly opinion for any date in history.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  I am back again. I have not run away with my tail between my legs as you claim. You have not and cannot prove that there were three deportations as bo scholar has yet published such a fanciful claim as this excepting Jonsson and the authors for the Seventh Day Adventist Bible commentary. The plain fact is that the biblical record attests to only two deportations as you only know too well.

  You certainly are presumptuous in ridiculing Furuli's forthcoming book when it has not yet been published. You cannot and should not make any comment until those books are published. I do not believe that your leader namely Carl Jonsson would stoop to such a dismal intellectual level. You also ridicule Furuli's academic qualifications when you do not possess any academic credentials in the fields in which you claim to be an expert. Rolf Furuli is a post graduate Semitic scholar and a university lecturer. What are your qualifications? Carl Jonsson has no university qualifications in the subjects that he claims to be expert at. My advice is for you to listen and learn or stick to your electronics and computers.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  drawcad_1

  Scholar

  You state that the society calculates the 607 date from scholarly and ‘biblical’ sources. What is the biblical source that states the destruction will be for 70 years? If you tell me that it is the prophesy in Jeremiah, don’t you mean servitude as it plainly states. If you read it without the veil of watchtower reasoning it does not state how long the destruction will be. If there are other sources for this time period, that are biblical, please inform me.

  I guess it was a real eye opener for you that no artifacts have been found with the date 607BCE or 587BCE on them. A word of warning ‘ don’t hold your breath.’ But there are definite links between the reigns of Babylonian kings. If you want to hold the 537BCE date you must agree with a 587/586 BCE date. All of the artifacts that are systematically discredited by the watchtower when applied to the 587/586 date are surprisingly very accurate and used by them to support a 537BCE date.

  You call Carl Johnson our leader from a very ignorant standpoint. As I had mentioned earlier on, I have cross-referenced all of the data that I have read. When I was told by the watchtower that Josephus had said the destruction lasted for 70 years I was astounded to find out, from looking in one of his translations, that he also mentioned 50 years in his later books, to make up for his earlier mistakes. When I was told of VAT 4956 pointing to the dates of Nebachadnezar’s ruling period, I had a JW use a celestial computer program to confirm it. If you say that COJ is our leader then you are wrong, he is a link in the information that we have used to confirm a lie that has been told to the R&F.

  MAYBE YOU SHOULD GO AND TALK TO YOUR LEADER “MR. FURULI” AND ASK HIM TO HURRY UP WITH HIS BOOK, SINCE YOU ARE TIRED OF MAKING WILD CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT. Once, this work has been published will you believe every word that is written, or will you do any research to check its validity, or will you just believe because you are told to.

  In your signature line I think you should include a big portion of BS to go with the BA and MA.
• 

  logansrun

  *Scholar*,

  I'm not going to step into the theological / archaeological debacle going on here (I believe it is 587/6), but I just want to ask a very simple question: How can you justify coming here, to what the WT calls an "apostate" forum? You seem to put quite a bit of faith in this religion (I assume you are a JW) and, yet, go directly against it's rules. Why? How do you justify this? What is your purpose?

  By the way, I'm not saying you should leave. I delight in reading fringe JW propaganda and the logical replies of people like AlanF etc...

  Bradley