scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,125 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  103

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

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 766

  Yes, you claim to have read the article but you seem to miss the point of the article which was about methodology so I repeat you must read the Introduction again. It seems that all that you see is the fact that the author uses computer modelling to arrive at the opiionated date of 587 BCE for the Fall.

  Celebrated WT scholars have used all of the evidence oth biblical and secular to prove that 607 BCE is the only possible datre for the Fall of Jerusalem. Their methodology is carefully explained as with all of the evidence and it is simple and precise which cannnot be said for the proponents of 586 or 587 BCE.

  The existing secular chronology is sick and is not in good shape and that is why Young wrote that article. The very fact that the precise date for the Fall cannot be determined proves that the traditional chronology is hopeless. This chronology was far too complex long before your so-called amateurs dealt with for you only need to read the immense literature published on trying to solve the calendrical problems over the last few decades. Even Jonsson an amateur was forced to acknowledge these issues in his Appendix to the GTR.

  I believe I first introduced Young's article on this forum and perhaps on Channel C but in any event I beat the apostates to the punch on this line as well as with a few others. Besides, Young's article nicely addresses Jonsson's complaint about the Society's preference for 539 BCE.

  scholar JW
• 
  103

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

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  No it is not. The problem is not the Bible but that of methodology. You should read Young's article more closely and pay attention to the Introduction pf the journal article. Besides, celebrated WT scholars use the same identical data and they have no problem in deternining quite precisely that the Fall was in 607 BCE. so, if they can do it why cannot other scholars do it? They have developed a complex calendrical chronology which does not work but if they had chosen a regnal based chronology then Presto! ALL would be well.

  The reigns of the Neo-Babylonian monarchs are contradictory so this only adds to the confusion, the gap exists because of the reality of the seventy years and to ignore such a significant period of biblical history compromises anu chronology.

  Jonsson even up to this day probablt is unaware of Young's article but he certainly was not aware of it when he published his fourth edition. But he should have known better because I have for many years staed the inportance of mnethodology in chronology so Jonsson should have been aware of this critical scholarly approach.

  scholar JW
• 
  103

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

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 764

  The scholarly controversy over 586 or 587 BC is not about a fault in the biblical data or as Jonsson does complain that it is the Bible's fault. Rather, it is simply a matter of methodology. This is the substance of Young's article that it is a methodological problem and remember it was I, that said 'scholar' who first introduced that article on this forum and it was I, that first introduced the notion of methodology into chronology which was later vindicated by Young's scholarship.

  scholar JW
• 
  103

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

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 764

  My maths is OK. You have misread what I had written. Scholars and apostates have two big problems. First, despite their claims that Neo-Babylonian chronology is the only reliable system of providing accurate dates they cannot determine the precise calender year for the Fall of Jerusalem. Second, there is a 'Babylonian Gap' of twenty years between the chronology for the period and the Bible when the two chronologies are compared. This 'gap' is observed because of the biblical 'seventy years' and the lack of reliable data for the reigns of the Babylonian kings. Celebrated WT scholars in their wisdom and brilliance have for a long time brought these matters to the attention of scholars.

  scholar JW
• 
  103

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

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  dawg

  Post 2174

  The identity of the 'celebrated WT scholars' is not for you so you should not trouble yourself with such information. I would suggest that you read the Bible and the publications of the FDS.

  scholar JW
• 
  103

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

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  BarefootServant

  The date of 537 BCE is well attested in scholarship in fact to be more precise it is only the research by the 'celebrated WT scholars that has defined precisely when the Jews returned home. Scholrs are somewhat vague about the precise historical details but generally favour 537 BCE. However, this discussion is about the 'seventy years' so you should stick to the subject at hand.

  scholar JW
• 
  103

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

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  digderidoo

  Post 849

  The data has not been harmonized otherwise scholars would by now have a consistent interpretation of the seventy years. Also, the data is so confusing that scholars cannot agree as to whether the Fall occurred in 586 or 587 BCE. There is a consistent twenty year gap and this problem has not been solved by scholars.

  The position of apostates is well known because they prefer the opinions of higher critics and blindly follow chronology developed by SDA's, they offer nothing new because of their failure to listen to Bible prophecy.

  Celebrated WT scholars have most cerainly proved beyond any shadow of doubt that 607 BCE was the calender year for the Fall and the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE all because they have payed close attention to that definite historic period of seventy years.

  Jer.25:11 simply refers to the simple fact that along with Judah who served Babylon for more than seventy years with other nations who also were brought into Babylon's servitude. Jeremiah specifically referred to a specific seventy year of Jewish exile of all of the nation whilst the entire land was desolate. So, there is no conflict with verse 11 which simply proves that for seventy years Judah would be punished along with other nations.

  scholar JW
• 
  103

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

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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