Posts by scholar

103

Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?

by digderidoo in

i have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.

although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.

the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".

scholar

digderido

Post 841

It is imposible to reconcile 586/587 BCE with the biblical 'seventy years because the only date that works is 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem. Scholars have for many decades tried to harmonize the data but without any success. Apostates such as Carl Jonsson attempted a similar effort in his Gentile Times Reconsidered but failed misereably. It seems that A@G did not pay attention to this subjects whilst at Gilead because he too has simply repeated old and empty arguments.

Celebrated WT scholars over the last three centuries proved beyond doubt that the seventy years was a period of exile. desolation and serviude running from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE as also attested by all of the OT and Josephus. The theory that A@G and Jonsson proposes that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian domination is simply false and cannot be sustained from scripture for no single scripture or those collected texts can in any way support this singular proposal. All of the 'seventy-year' texts agree that that period was of exile-desolation and servitude. The seventy years did not belong to Babylon but to Judah alone with Babylon being simply the means by which matters were fulfilled as Jeremiah prophesied.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

Mr Majestic

The case of Jonsson and the Society are indeed poles apart. The Society's role or charter is to promote and provide Bible Education by means of publishing Bibles and Bible-study aids. Their interpretation of the Bible is truly unique for it is Bible-based and where outside research is of value then such research is employed. Jonsson as a former Witness has an 'axe to grind' offering nothing new but a rehash of old criticisms lacking the objectivity and methodology of scholarly research.

The date 607 as a Biblical date is very important to our theologyand the theology of the Bible particularly its eschatology and as for Jonsson it has given him some infamy.

The British Museum is not a proper forum for accurate Bible knowledge so such telephone inquiry would be meaningless for you may just as well contact Oxford or Cambridge University. Such institutions noble as they are simply endorse wordly thinking and ideas and are not places of spirituality.

I disagree with you most strongly that the seven times of Daniel chapter 4 does not have a major fulfillment for the internal evidence proves that it does. Indeed the whole theme of that chapter is the Sovereignty of God as realized by the establishment of a future Kingdom of God. Such is introduced in verse 3, affirmed in verses 17, 25, 32 and concluded by verse 34 as acknowledged by Nebuchadnezzer. In short, this whole chapter develops the coming and establishment of a future, worldwide, permanent rulership. There are other exegetical issues that I could mention that prove that the 'seven times' had more than a literal application to Neb's reign.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 746

Your best bet is to address your queries to Furuli directly rather than using the Yahoo forum and I amm quite sure he will respond.

Furuli has always invited criticism from his readers particularly competent scholars as he mentions on page 14 of Volume 1.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOmaly

Post 745

Jonsson's book is not research pure and simple but as Gallagher correctly states that it is simply an overview and from my standpoint a bit of 'sult bashing'. Furuli's books are research based raising new questions and seeking a fresh look into current chronologies combined with a radical new hypothesis, oslo chronology.

I telephoned Rolf at his home and asked whether he had received any communication from an Ann O Maly and he said that he hadn't. Further, he will email me a copy of the SDA complimentary letter as soon as he can find it. Further, he informed that his second volume has been reprinted with some corrections and additions expecially in reply to Jonsson's recent critique and he will forward also tho me that attachment. Further, there is published new research on the beginning of the Babylonian New Year which has been a subject of some controversy. This new journal article should be most interesting with regard to Furuli's data have the year beginning in some years early May.

I thank you for the update of Gallagher and now I know who and what I am dealing with.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 744

I can only quote what Furuli has actually stated and he is quite clear about his qualifications, motivation and methodology and such are fully expalined very clearly in the Introductions in both volumes. Just read what he says. Jonsson has no qualifications or methodology but as the 'reviewer' says "finest overview of NB chronology available...meaningful for the general public". This therefore, is not research. The book is designed to tear down and not build up.

If there is no need for an intermediary then don't complain about any perceived delay but be patient.

Furuli has simply informed me of a written reply from an SDA scholar and so to date I have not received a copy but no doubt this will be forthcoming as he has also informed me that his book has been sent for review by other prominent scholars. All will be revealed in due course. Perhaps you could enlighten all about the status of W. Gallagher? There seems to be a physicist floating around the University of Vienna or Wien. Is he the authority? If so, How is it the case that a scientist did this unusual Review?

Let us see if you can answer these relevant questions seeing that it was you who first promoted this Review.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 743

Furuli was upfront and honest about his credentials and he acknowlwdges those areas where he lacks expertise as he outlines in his first volume, page 14. His approach has always been linguistical and does not seek to challenge the findings of archaeo-astronomers but is critical of some of their applications on the basis of his linguistic examination of the primary documents. For this he is more than competent. Jonsson on the hand can do none of these things but simply engage in'cult-bashing'.

He outlines his methodology in both volumes and seeks to ask new questions by revisiting old terrain which is the very essence of good scholarship.

It is good that you have asked him questions and you must be patient for the answers for I am confident that he will look after you. If you have any problems then email a list of questions to me so that I can take the matter up with Furuli. Keep your questions short and specific with specific references would help.

Gallagher whoever he or she is, is a 'mystery' person as despite my best efforts I can find any academic position for this person. It has been observed that apostates are noted for conspiracy and the use of writing under a false names and this applies particularly to Jonsson's closest colleagues.

This journal AfO is only published annually and is German so it would be easy to miss out on that Review. The University whereupon I obtained my copy has only recently acquired this volume and it is the latest copy in its holdings even though it is for 2005/1006. Besides how is it then that it has taken you so long to post a refernce to it on this forum?

Methinks that it is you who have lost the plot but unlike you I am far from done.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 742

One thing is certain is that Jonsson wasn't worried about photographs because all that he needed were the opinions of others. Second-hand research is amateurish and unscholarly at best and only 'meaningful for the broader public'. LOL.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 741

Furuli in his Introduction makes no false claims about his credentials and openly admits where his expertise lies and where it does not. Jonsson on the other hand makes no such admissions but pretends that he is some 'expert.' in all areas and that what he has written must be correct even though his research is secondary in nature offering no fresh insights. In short, he is simply a disgruntled ex-Witness with an agenda.

If you have a problem with Furuli's methodology then you write to him about and seek an explanation for his claimed use of a secondary source rather than primary source for perhaps there is a very simple explanation. By and large Furuli uses primary sources wherever possible something which Jonsson cannot do.

I believe that the Reviewer is somehow suspect because I found it impossible to find anu information on Gallagher so is this a pseudonym for someone else because the Review is somewhat suspect in content. If you have information about the Reviewer then please enlighten us.

Scholar for many years requested that a Literature Review by a respected scholarly journal be made and for the first time this has now happened at scholar's request and yet what is said is rather odd and elevates 607 BCE to the international scholarly community. Bravo!!!!!

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 735

As a non-specialist Jonsson cannot deal directly with primary sources so he is reliant on those that can, this means his research is second-hand in nature thus merely continuing the views of others. His so-called research is thus limited, opinionated and does not push scholarship forward. Furuli on the other hand is an authority and can deal with the primary sources which is the hallmark of a 'true scholar' for his latest research is challenging conventional wisdom and invites a fresh appraisal of Neo-Babylonian chronology.

Furuli has informed me of an upcoming review in a leading academic journal by a scholar of great repute so this will be of much interest alongside a pevious view of dubious note.

I have already a copy of the Review in that leading journal by W. Gallagher. That journal in publishing this Review has paid celebrated WT scholars the ultimate compliment because it draws attention to 607 BCE, the Gentile times and 1914. Jonsson has done us a big favour by producing criticism of our chronology which in turn has now acheived academic notoriety by being debated in this journal.

I shall write to Gallagher when I can locate him and the Editor of the Journal giving my views on this Review as soon as practicable.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 731

Yes I noticed the endorsement of Jonsson's work by a scholarly journal but you were very selective in your use of this Review so why do not you post the entire review so that would make the matter fully transparent. I noticed that the reviewer correctly observed that Jonsson is no specialist and therefore he cannot work with the primary sources. Furuli, on the other hand is competent in this respect and so it will be interesting to see if a review of Furuli's research will be published in this journal.

scholar JW