Many many books from library on 586/87

by ithinkisee 129 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  undercover

  Ya know, I quit posting on the 607 threads because it became the same old thing over and over....Scholar and his support of the WTS and how WTS chronology is absolute and without error. No matter how many times he is defeated, no matter by how many different people, he keeps up with the same old BS...

  He is either delusional and not quite right in the head or he's a plant to keep everybody all wound up about 607 for whatever reason. Either way, it's pretty much a waste of time to 'debate' with him. He's not going to get 'it'.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  I have been arguing WT chronology on this board for the last three years and not lost a single point to the dark side. Some posters have even asked perplexing questions such as Jeremiah 25:12 from the likes of Alan F who was unable to find and answer but scholar came to his rescue. So I have never been trounced nor have I ignored the facts because I am fully conversant with the facts as I have several books on chronology, journal articles and the latest research on chronology. In fact if you read through my posting history you will see that it is I that has frequently drawn attention to recent research in chronology on this board, hardly the conduct of a person who ignores facts.

  Did I not and only I commend you for your publication of your list for the Divided Monarchy, a list which approximated the list published by celebtrated WT scholars. I have long beseeched posters on this board to provide their list but nobody obliged except you. This proves that when it comes to chronology I am in command of the situation because I have nothing to fear from scholars or apostates. WT chronology is correct because it works historically, prophetically and theologically which cannot be said for alternate secular chronologies promoted by secular scholars and apostates.

  scholar JW
• 

  AlanF

  As virtually all readers can easily see, scholar pretendus absolutely refuses to quote Scriptures and comment on them word by word. The reason? When one sees what the Scriptures actually say, right there on the displayed page, his claims are easily seen to be totally bogus.

  Ask him to quote Jeremiah 25:11, 12, for example. He won't do it.

  Ask him to quote 2 Chronicles 26:21. He won't do it.

  This self-proclaimed "scholar", like his "celebrated WT scholars" (who really don't exist), is simply afraid to quote the Word of the God he claims to worship. This is extremely common among JW apologists who know they're facing a critical audience.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  That is great coming from someone who does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God and is a self proclaimed agnostic/atheist pretending to be concerned about my quoting certain texts. In my last post I simply referred to Jeremiah 25:12 as the reader can easily look up the text for himself. Besides what point are you trying to make by referring to 2Chronicles 26:21? Surely, you mean 2 Chronicles 36:21?

  Just remember it was scholar that answered your problem with Jeremiah 25:12 because you went far and wide to find the answer only to find comfort in scholar's bosom. On that occasion Jonsson your guru could not help you. Thank goodness for celebrated WT scholars.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Scholar

  I have been arguing WT chronology on this board for the last three years and not lost a single point to the dark side.

  You never gave any reply to several of my posts, such as that at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1580169/post.ashx#1580169. If there were a 'points' system, then you lost that one. You also did not respond to the list of problems with the 607/1914 dogma that I posted:

  • There is nothing in Daniel chapter 4 requiring a secondary fulfilment
  • The Society does not apply the same rule to the other 'times' mentioned at Daniel 7:25 and 12:7
  • 'Removing the turban' at Ezekiel 21:25-27 is directed to Israel, not Judah
  • World War I started several months before the supposed October fulfilment
  • The original text of Luke 21:24 indicates that the 'appointed times of the nations' is a period that began at or after 70AD
  • Jeremiah said the 70 years were of nations serving Babylon, not specifically exile.
  • Babylon's king could not be called to account 2 years before the 70 years ended
  • The NWT rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 is inconsistent with Jeremiah 25:12 and is not recognised as correct by most scholars
  • Daniel 5:26-31 indicates the fulfilment of the 70 years in 539BC
  • Judah still had inhabitants in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year
  • The Society is inconsistent in applying the entire 70 years to Judah but not Tyre
  • It was Persia's beginning to reign, not payment of Sabbaths, that fulfilled the 70 years of Jeremiah
  • The Hebrew words chorbah - 'devastated', shamem - 'desolated', and za'am - 'denounced', do not require complete depopulation
  • The 70 years of Zechariah could not have ended in 537BC
  • Secular records exist for every year of the known Babylonian kings but absolutely no records have been found for the 20-year gap of the Society's interpretation
  • The Society accepts 539BC as a pivotal date using means it rejects as being unreliable
  • No source other than the Society recognizes any significant event regarding Babylon and Jerusalem in 607

  Did I not and only I commend you for your publication of your list for the Divided Monarchy, a list which approximated the list published by celebtrated WT scholars.

  Yes you did commend me, as you should have. Because my list was based on only the bible, naturally the length of the reigns was similar (but not the same) as what is stated by the Society, however the years were significantly different, and were backed up by the bible and secular history. On the other hand the 'Society hypothesis' conflicts with both the bible and secular chronology.

  This proves that when it comes to chronology I am in command of the situation because I have nothing to fear from scholars or apostates.

  For a start your use of the word 'apostate' is childish and borders on offensive. You also have never properly dealt with many of the contradictions of the Society hypothesis, such as it's weak (and verifiably incorrect) explanation for the alleged discrepancy between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1, it's conflicting application of the 70 years regarding Babylon with respect to Tyre and Jerusalem (and when that period ended), the extreme statistical improbability of having a contiguous period of 20 years of no contemporary records though records exist for every single other year... etc.

  WT chronology is correct because it works historically, prophetically and theologically which cannot be said for alternate secular chronologies promoted by secular scholars and apostates.

  You have not ever identified any legitimate faults in anything I have countered you with.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Frankly, I can;t be bothered with replying in detail to your list of 17 so-called problems, I do not have the time to deal with a matter that requires a great deal of research for apostates who would not read it anyway. I am more than happy to deal with issues as they arise on this board and I respond to these as I see fit.

  There are no contradictions in the Society's hypothesis but there are certainly deficiencies in the Jonsson hypothesis. To say that our hypothesis is weak is absurd perhaps you could elaborate for you must understand that chronology is not a perfect science and is very much a work iin progress. I reply that your chronology is also weak and full of contradictions such as the inability to agree on the Divided Monarchy, the inabilty to agree on the seventy years, the lack of definition forthe Fall of Jerusalem. These are three majoe issues that plaque the chronologies of Christendom and apostates. WT scholars are not troubled by these three areas.

  Perhaps you spend your time in meaningful research and solve these three problems and then you can deconstruct WT chronology. In other get yopur own house in order before finding fault with the other.

  Thre three issues you mentioned at the end of your post I will attend to this afternoon and if you are disturbed by the other issue then perhaps we could talk on the telephone which wouls be much more friendly and constructive. Interested?

  scholar JW
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  Official Thread Score Card:

  "Apostates" 10

  "Scholar" 0

  Damn, the wheel is spinning, but the hamster left town...lol

  Scholar, CCG (Correspondence Course Graduate), do you even have the mental capacity to see that your posts look like automated responses from some advertising 'bot' with a few personalized phrases thrown in?

  You are publicly humiliated and seem to be loving it... My, God man! It's no wonder you won't tell anyone where you got your degree, a Masters if I remember your prior claim correctly. Your "University" would hunt you down and revoke it based upon your arguments here...

  J
• 

  AlanF

  Scholar pretendus wrote:

  : That is great coming from someone who does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God and is a self proclaimed agnostic/atheist

  My views on the Bible's authenticity as the Word of God has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to analyze its contents.

  Let's turn your silly reasoning around: Since the "celebrated Watchtower scholars" don't believe what they believe in books about biblical chronology, they must not be able to understand and analyze them.

  : pretending to be concerned about my quoting certain texts.

  I'm not pretending.

  : In my last post I simply referred to Jeremiah 25:12 as the reader can easily look up the text for himself.

  Precisely my point. If you actually quoted the passage alongside your ridiculous claim about what it says, even you would see that your claim is false. But that's typical of cultish minds. They think that if they don't see conflicting information side by side, it doesn't exist.

  : Besides what point are you trying to make by referring to 2Chronicles 26:21? Surely, you mean 2 Chronicles 36:21?

  Of course. Just as you meant to write 2 Chronicles 26:21.

  What jerk! You make an error while pointing mine out.

  : Just remember it was scholar that answered your problem with Jeremiah 25:12

  Not at all. Your reply is a clear misrepresentation of the text. Furthermore, I had no questions about the passage, since I know perfectly well what it says and means, so your claim here is yet another lie you like to tell yourself. What I've done is to challenge you to explain why you misrepresent what you claim is God's Word.

  : because you went far and wide to find the answer only to find comfort in scholar's bosom.

  LOL!

  : On that occasion Jonsson your guru could not help you.

  You're completely delusional. There are no threads containing anything like what you claim.

  : Thank goodness for celebrated WT scholars.

  Like the ones who produced the scholastic atrocity known as the Creation book.

  "Celebrated WT scholars"! If they're unknown, they can't be celebrated. And whoever writes the tripe appearing in most WT publications, most certainly aren't scholars. I mean, according to you, Carl Jonsson isn't a scholar because he has no degree. Yet you think that a bunch of anonymous, degreeless chimpanzees can be called "celebrated WT scholars"! Yup, you're completely delusional.

  AlanF
• 

  Jeffro

  Scholar,

  Frankly, I can;t be bothered with replying in detail to your list of 17 so-called problems, I do not have the time to deal with a matter that requires a great deal of research for apostates who would not read it anyway.

  You're still using that lame term, 'apostates'. It is meaningless and childish JW rhetoric. Maybe saying it makes you feel superior or something but it's just stupid.

  I am more than happy to deal with issues as they arise on this board and I respond to these as I see fit.

  Fair enough. But if 'as you see fit' conveniently ignores the biggest problems with the 607/1914 doctrines, then that is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty.

  There are no contradictions in the Society's hypothesis but there are certainly deficiencies in the Jonsson hypothesis.

  (You refer to the 'Society's hypothesis' as a possessive, but to the 'Jonsson hypothesis' as a noun (obviously with intent to denegrate it). It is another silly thing that you keep doing. If you are honest in your 'scholarly approach' you would consistently use a possessive with both or a noun with both. It should be noted that my occasional use of the term 'Society hypothesis' is a parody of your terminology.)

  To say that our hypothesis is weak is absurd perhaps you could elaborate for you must understand that chronology is not a perfect science and is very much a work iin progress. I reply that your chronology is also weak and full of contradictions such as the inability to agree on the Divided Monarchy, the inabilty to agree on the seventy years, the lack of definition forthe Fall of Jerusalem.

  There are no contradictions in my chronology... unless you are claiming that I am responsible for all hypotheses concerning the issue other than that of the Society??? Surely I would be seeing some serious dollars coming my way if that were the case. My chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period, and for the Divided Monarchy are based on the bible and co-incidentally match perfectly with known secular history of the period. It is a fact that most historians agree on 539 for the overthrow of Babylon. It is a fact that Jeremiah said that Babylon as a nation and its king would be called to account once the 70 years were fulfilled. It is a fact that Daniel 5:26-31 indicates that Babylon was weighed, found deficient, and that the kingdom was taken away from it in the established year of 539. It is a fact that 609 is agreed by most historians to be the end of the Assyrian empire by the hands of the Babylonian Empire. There is your 70 years. You should note that the results of secular authorities who do not use the bible as their source are not my responsibility. What you fail to realise is that the Society's hypothesis is just one more variant chronology which disagrees with other sources; what is more, it contradicts the bible and the known secular facts. The 'Daniel's Prophecy' book gives a dishonest explanation for an alleged conflict between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1, and the 'Isaiah's Prophey' inconsistently indicates that the 70 years ended in 539 rather than 537. You tell me to clean my own house (referring to the entire body of secular thought outside that of the Society, rather than any contradictions in anything I personally have said), yet the Society's view has inconsistencies wholly within itself as well as with all outside sources.

  These are three majoe issues that plaque the chronologies of Christendom and apostates. WT scholars are not troubled by these three areas.

  Most WT 'scholars' ignore the issues, which is why they are not troubled by them. Wasn't Franz a 'WT scholar'? Wasn't it specifically because he was 'troubled' that the WT Society labelled him an 'apostate'?

  Perhaps you spend your time in meaningful research and solve these three problems and then you can deconstruct WT chronology.

  I have provided a meaningful chronology already. It is not my responsibility to reconcile all of the varying opinions of other people.

  Thre three issues you mentioned at the end of your post I will attend to this afternoon and if you are disturbed by the other issue then perhaps we could talk on the telephone which wouls be much more friendly and constructive. Interested?

  I would prefer not to give you my phone number, and I am not paying for telephone charges to call you long distance, so I have to decline your offer.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Your claim that 609 is accepted by most scholars as the end of the Assyrian Empire is simply false as there is no agreement within scholarship about this event. Reference works give a number of dates and it seems that 612 for the Fall of Nineveh is the most popular for the end of the Assyrian Empire. This is of sourse is a mighty deathblow for the absurd Jonsson hypothesis which favours 609 but then it also recognizes the validity of 605 for the beginning of the seventy years. This dispute highlights one of the three problems that apostate and secular chronology have to contend namely a certain or definite date for the beginning of the seventy years which they cannot provide. Celebrated WT scholars have no such problem because wed have established a definite beginning of the seventy years with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

  There is no such conflict between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 because bothe texts are discussing different historical events. The former text uses the time feature of an event during the reign of Nebuchadnezzer and the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim when the exiles were taken to Babylon. The latter simply describes an historical event in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzer whereupon Jeremiah prophesied to those inhabitants in Judah and Jerusalem. These clearly are not coincidental events but the latter event proceeded the former in time and place.

  The prophecy or oracle in Isaiah 23 speaks of a seventy year period for Tyre and was clearly fulfilled when Babylon was destroyed in 539. This seventy year obviously is not identical with the seventy years for Judah and Jerusalem as referred to by Daniel, Jeremiah, Zecharian and the Chronicler.

  No, celebrated WT scholars are not plaqued by the chronological problems that beset the Jonsson hypothesis and secular chronology because our chronology is simple, Bible based and is an event- based chronology because our methodology is different and superior. I say once again that if you wish attack our chronology then you should get your own house in order first and that also applies to the apostate Carl Jonsson and his ilk.

  My offer of exchanging phone numbers stands as I am quite prepared to pay for the call as I will call you first if you agree.

  scholar JW