Posts by scholar

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

Your response to my posts proves the resurrection as you have similar retreated over last several months. You only appear on this board when I post so you pay me the greatest of compliments. The truth of the matter is that I have simply moved house and that is very unsettling and a nuisance. Now down to business.

Your exegesis of 2 Chronicles 36:20 is absurd for the next has nothing to say about Babylon, its last ruler or 539 for that matter. Ezra defines quite clearly in verses 22-23 that it was the first year of Cyrus was when the royalty of Persia began to reign and no other circumstance is possible. Further, the exiles were still captive in Babylon and were still serving a new king of Babylon on and after 539. Also, the land of Judah remained a desolate place in 539 as the exiles had then not yet returned. So, the biblical evidence destroys your specious theory. Josephus on numerous occasions states that the seventy years ran from the Fall to the Return under Cyrus so this supports the Bible and the view of the celebrated WT scholars.

Your special theory that the Jews returned home in 538 BCE is based upon your specific model whereas we have selected a model that gives 537 BCE for the Return so it is simply a matter of modelling based upon how one uses the availkable biblical and secular evidence. The question that you choose to ignore is that if it is the case that the Society is demonstrably wrong regarding 537 BCE for the Return then why is it the case that Jonsson has not throughly exposed such a blatant error? Jonsson is rather cautious in this matter relying on slight evidence from two minor sources by way of a footnote. I put it to you that the 537.BCE model is reasonable and there can be no room for dogmatism. Why is it also the case that amongst many reference works that there is no definite date for the Return of the Exiles? If you are so confident about your model and proposed date of 538 BCE then please alert the world of biblical scholarship to this new light and have it published. Your bald claim of 538 BCE for the Return amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps you should alert Doug Mason to your new light as he posted research on this matter but if my memory serves me correctly I do recall that he proposes an alternative. Must go and check.

You will never see wiley poztates tackle the difficult issues or follow through with thorough research by publishing anything of value to scholarship for all they do is be critical of the ground-breaking research provided by the celebrated WT scholars and the FDS.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

1544

The brilliance of the NWT is shown by its careful rtendering of Jeremiah 29:10 recognizing the simple fact that the simple Hebrew preposition has a wide semantic range and can properly be rendered as 'at' rather than 'for' which is in harmony with the context of Chapter 29 but also the whole book of Jeremiah. The context is clearly addressed to those exiles living in Babylon during the seventy years already commenced.

You say the Bible never mentions a period of seventy years of exile my response to this nonsense is that the Bible never mentions a period of seventy years of servitude or that the seventy years refers to a period of Babylonian supremacy or that the seventy years when the Babylonian king and his nation were punished that is in 539 BCE or that the seventy years of servitude began many years before the destruction of Jerusalem, All of these conclusions are simply interpretations. Wiley poztates have there own views so do the celebrated WT scholars and so does scholarship.

No, I did not lie about a tabulation of the Neo-Babylonian kings being made by my goodself for I could construct any number of models because the date is not consistent thus making any proposed tabulation problematic so why would one bother. The twenty year gap exists because of the seventy year for the Babylonian scribes did not account for it whereas the Jweish scribes faithfully recorded such a fixed historic period.

I repeat you have one bigggggggggg pwoblem.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

Post 1543

Your accusation that the NWT's rendering of 2 Chronicles 36:21is badly punctuated andnot honestly presented is plainly false. The rendering of the NWT is in agreement with RSV which reads similarly. Your statement that the sentence attributed to Jeremiah is shown parenthetically in the NIV is not shown in my NIV Study Bible, 1995 nor is it presented in parenthgesis in the NIV edition cited by Ross Winkle in his journal article on the seventy years published in 1987. So, what NIV edition are you using in order to support your accusation?

Commentators agree that the Jeremiah sentence is a citation of Jeremiah 25:11; 29:10 conjoined with Lev 26:34 so the rendering as it appears is valid unless you can demonstrate that the Chronicler was mistaken on this matter.Therefore there is no need of any parenthesis in this text as you demand because the only Bible that I am aware that has such parenthesis is a Swedish translation published 1917.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

Post 1543

Whatever I post you will surely respond so my postings must be of a serious threat to your nonsense.

The NWT is the most brilliant of all translations so any accusation of mispunctuation amounts to jealousy on your part.

Are you trying to say that the expression 'until the land had paid of its sabbaths' does not occur in the original text? Or is it the case that your special pleading cannot accommodate this expression because it makes you look foolish? This expression is not parenthetical because the marginal reference in the NWT cites Lev.26:34 which contains this identical expression thus destroying your argument.

Indeed verse 20 highlights servitude to Babylon which I have always maintained for the seventy years for in short the seventy years was a period of exile, a period of serviude and a period of desolation.

A tabulation of Neo-Babylonian rulers is impossible because the data is not reliable between the sources and is compromised by Josephus' history. Also, the Bible provides minimal data for these rulers which shows its insignificance in respect of establishing a accurate Bible chronology. But the most grevious issue is the simple fact that such proposed regnal years cannot account for the seventy years with a Babylonian Gap of twenty years.

So you have one biggggggg.....problem!

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

Post 1542

Yes, I am back for the moment. There is no misunderstanding with 2 Chronicles 36:20-22 but simplystating plain statement of Scripture. It is you and your wiley poztates that are victims of higher criticism and convoluted misinterpretation of the Scriptures. If you require a tabulation of Neo-Babylonian rulers then consult the secular records but as Josephus provides different regnal data then you have a bigggg problem.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

carla

I cannot assist you with the identity or qualifications of the celebrated WT scholars

Regretfully

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

Let me assure you that I am fully aware of the issues surrounding Josephus and I have concluded that as with all other secular historians and secular records that these are not inspired of God and are fallible sources and documents. Josephus is a reliable but not infallible historian and his Jewish history should not be ignored but provides a useful testimony to the biblical record and supports nicely, accurate Bible chronology long proclaimed by the celebrated WT scholars.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 140

The scriptures most definitely state that the 'seventy years of Jeremiah' ended with the Return of the Exiles not at the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE but at the Return of the Exiles in 537. This accords with Ezra's history as stated in 2 Chronicles 36:20: to wit "until the royalty of Persia began to reign". This unambiguous statement does not and cannot coincide with the Fall of Babylon and its ruling dynasty which ended in 539 BCE.

Further, the immediate context deals with the first year of Cyrus that Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years would be fulfilled and no mention is made in this context of Babylon, its Fall and her last ruler. So, the evidence is quite clear that the hypothesis of the seventy years ending with Babylon's demise is plainly false. Josephus makes many reference to the fact of the seventy years as a fixed historic period which ran from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Return of the Exiles under Cyrus and he shows in agreement with biblical history that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation.

The seventy years is the subject of widespread disagreement within scholarship and the 'wiley poztates and such controversy arises when higher criticism and secular chronologies are preferrred over plainly stated scriptures such as those in Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Zechariah. The understanding of the seventy years as advanced by celebrated WT scholars promoted in WT publication and made known to all by Jehovah's Witnesses works whereas the other views fail.

I acknowledge the contents on chronology posted on your website and your research over many years published in the now defunct SDA Witness periodical as I have much contact with its edittor, Bruce Price on matters of chronology. I will give further comments on your published comments on our chronology and wish to contact you by telephone and e-mail.

scholar JW

54

Fact Jews Returned In 538 BC Kills Off Watchtower Chronology

by AlanF in

the watchtower society's 1914 chronology hinges on a dicey chain of claims.

if any of these claims is wrong, then the chain is broken and watchtower chronology collapses.

along with it goes the entire belief structure built on it, including most importantly the claim of the leaders of jehovah's witnesses to have been specially appointed in 1919 by god over "all christ's belongings" on earth.

scholar

Alan F

4634

You continue to refuse to explain why Jonsson has not provided support for your grandiose claim and you fail to provide any scholarly support for 538 as the only possible year for the Return. Your failure to address these two fundamental issues proves that your claim is false and that your tabulation is a shonk. Celebrated WT scholars have indeed presented clear evidence in support of 537 and have also demonstrated competence in matters of calendation.

scholar JW

54

Fact Jews Returned In 538 BC Kills Off Watchtower Chronology

by AlanF in

the watchtower society's 1914 chronology hinges on a dicey chain of claims.

if any of these claims is wrong, then the chain is broken and watchtower chronology collapses.

along with it goes the entire belief structure built on it, including most importantly the claim of the leaders of jehovah's witnesses to have been specially appointed in 1919 by god over "all christ's belongings" on earth.

scholar

Alan F

There is no hypocrisy at all because celebrated WT scholars are merely stating the generally accepted fact that the Return happened in 537 BCE or in other words this observation of the biblical and secular evidence reflects current and past knowledge. What you claim is rather an extreme and fanatical view of simple biblical and secular facts that cannot be construed your dogmatic position. I know that your view would not be accepted by any serious-minded scholar because of the simple onservation that the year of the Return is of minimal importance but the fact of the Return is of significant historical and theological significance.

The calculation of 537 BCE is not based upon speculation at all but on biblical and seclar evidence and these relevant facts are presented in WT publications over many decades. Jonsson himself acknowledges this because he offers no substantive criticism of the this date and its determination. Josephus has offers nothing that disproves that 537 BCE is the year for the Return and neither does Ezra.

The facts that you say are incontrovertible are such only to youand like-minded apostates and are viewed somewhat differently by scholars. You really need to run your hypothesis past your guru Jonsson and see if he will include this new material in a future edition of his GTR for it to have any merit at all.

What you need to understand first before tabulating the data is that there is considerable debate about when the first year of Cyrus should commence but in either event celebrated WT scholars have reconciled such views so that the Exiles returned home by the seventh month of 537BCE which recognizes the Finegan observation that the first year of Cyrus began 538/537 BCE.

If you wish to examine the acceptance of 537 by the scholarly community then is amply demonstrated by using Google and you will have all the information you need.

scholar JW