Comatose True, scholar likes to play but he also likes to help. My purpose on this forum is not to convert others on matters of chronology but simply to defend our Bible chronology. Scholar is largely reviled on this forum with the exception of the gentleness and sweetness of AnnOMaly who loves the rough and tumble of strong debate and one wonders how long he will continue. Perhaps until he gets bored as he has in the past. scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
ICeltic
The matching up of 1914 is not the problem because that is what History is all about. History seeks to explain our past, where we came from and the Why's and the How's are all valid questions that historians seek to explain. 1914 is considered to be by many prominent intellectuals the most significant event in recent human history epecially in the last century and with its Centennary approaching one would expect similar expressions and opinion to be offered.
What is most interesting that this is a prophetic year proclaimed by those early Bible Students validated by careful Bible and NB chronology which enhances its lustre. Russell in his times used Pyramidology as an additional witness to Bible chronology and perhaps we can look back think that was rather silly but one needs to suspend judgement on matters far removed from his present position. Mistakes perceived in the past are like stepping=stones upon which knowledge grows and illuminates and all of us have a 'past', history is littered with error, mistakes accompanied by the light of truth so we today must always consider the past in context. Whatever, the outlook they were proven to be correct with the outbreak of the Great War in 1914.
I am glad that you enjoy Jeffro's post and so do I for he needs all the encouragement he can get as he disputes with scholar!
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Fencing
I have answered your question fully.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Fencing
Do you want me to go away? If so then I will.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Fencing
It is called apologia. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you dont. I was wondering how long before this objection would show up. Also, put it down to Conscience and Christian Freedom.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Comatose
I have answered and responded to all of the issues and question asked of me on this forum over many years and if you took the trouble to look over all of my postings you will that this is the case. I cannot remember off hand any single issue or single question that I have not addressed.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Steinmann does mention 537BCE as a credible date in the footnote on the first page of his article . His article is the latest on the subject of the Return and he certainly does not support 538 BCE. I mention his article because it is the latest scholarship and highlights how complex this subject and silences those who are dogmatic about the false date of 538 BCE. There is no room for dogma in chronology.
Rodger Young supports 587 BCE but his regnal lists for the Divided Monarchy supports WT chronology. My purpose in referring to Rodger Young is that he stresses the importanc eof methodology in doing chronology which supports scholar's truism before Young's article appeared in the literature that Chronology = Methodology+Interpretation.
I cannot comment as to whether Furuli has dug himself deeper because I do not have his revised editionof his second volume.
The Fall of Assyria marking the beginning of the seventy years is problematic because no year can be positively asserted for not all historians would agree that 609 BCE should be the only marker for the purposes of chronology. As you Jonsson also proposes 605 BCE and in my view this is a more chronologically significant date. Yes I agree with you and I always have that the seventy years represents dominion under Babylon but Jeremiah's prophecy restricts this to Judah alone in concert with other nations also being under Babylonian domination. For Judah these seventy years also meant exile and desolation of the land. There is no discrepancey with the seventy years of Tyre because the respective seventy years for Judah and Tyre are not historically or theologically identified. The only commonality between the two nations is that of servitude to Babylon and the fact that for Judah there was a precise length calcuable and for Tyre a length of time uncalcuable. If you disagree then please give a timeframe with dates and event for Tyre for Isaiah does not give these details.
Yes at times 607 and 606 were given as precise dates for the Fall and with advances in chronology 607 is now believed to be the precise date. Chronology has and always be a work in progress for it is not and exact science as far as I know but you may know better. The foundation for 607 BCE is as firm as ever even the more so if one introduces Neo-Babylonian chronology into the picture. There is a gap of twenty years between Bible chronology and NB chronology. The intoduction of the seventy years which is omitted in NBC fine tunes or readjusts such chronology harmonizing it with biblical chronology. That means that scholar can fully utilize NB chronology as a support for the validity of 607 BCE all because of a unrecognized piesce of Jewish history-Jeremiah's seventy years. This Romance at its best!!
You know full well that scholars and historians nominate 586 rather than 587. The date 586 is the preferred option no doubt to the legacy of Edwin Thiele. I cannot be held responsible for the comment in the Wt article in which you have some difficulty. I suggest you write about it. I did not edit the article, I would have expressed the matter differently.
Not quite, even thoughthe leadership changed at Babylon with the Medo-Persian Empire the exiled Jews still remained in Babylon and were still in her cluthes undera new king of Babylon so in respect of their exile, captivity, desolation of the land nothing had changed until the Decree of Cyrus. Jeremiah 25; 12 quite clearly foretold the fate of the king, the land and territory as I have explained many times in great detail on this forum.
I raise the matter of COJ with Jeffro because Jeffro has simply rpeated or rehashed the Jonsson nonsense. He says that he has noit read COJ but how can he be trusted.? If you trust his word fine but for me the coincidence is too much. If Jeffro used scholarship as COJ has done then that would give some credibilkity to his independent research but Jeffro shows no interest in such therefore suspicsion remains.
I do not desperately seek scholarship to support 607 BCE. I seek scholarship to broaden by horizon of understanding and to keep up to date. There is no need of desperation because I have long held the view that WT chronology is supported by secular chronology with the adjustment of the seventy years.
For example if a watch is out of sync with some standard of time the watchmaker uses a screwdriver to adjust the watch so that it tells the corect time. The screwdriver in this case is the seventy years, the watch is the NB chronology and the universal standard is WT-Bible chronology. Don't you love this powerful illustration?
COJ submitted a review of the first WT article but did not supply a review of the second to my knowledge. Doug Mason wrote for the second which was endorsed or supported by COJ as far as I remember but my files are boxed at the moment.
Competence and agreement are not both sides of the same coin. At the very least I have the tools at hand!
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
At least I have read for you have not. You simply reject any evidence or information that disagrees with your preconceived dogma. And you never cite any sources but simply rely on what others have told you to believe.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
A workman is only as good as his tools, he or she will endeavour to acquire the best and correct tools to do the job. You cannot be competent in chronology unless you have the right tools and can use those tools correctly. I have the best tools for chronology and I have the University training which has taught me how to think critically and to use those tools competently. I suspect you have no tools so you are incompetent in matters of chronology generally speaking. Where you have have only on the one occasion hit the mark then I have commended you for your effort but largely you do not know what you are talking about! Further you have and continue to show a lack of interest in scholarship and that is your big mistake.
I use scholarship to give me context for chronology and as it is a work in progress I note by comparison our chronology with secular chronology, I study the differences, I study the different interpretations of all of the seventy years texts by the use of scholarly articles and commentaries. I have read all of the criticisms of Wt chronology pre COJ and post COJ. After all of this work over many years I form an opinion which I happily debate with whomsoever.
In saying that we possess nutty insane dogma says more of you than of me. This shows that you are biased, obsessed and narrowminded and incompetent in matters of chronology.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Further, I also have in my library the most technical Bible commentaries dealing especially with those books of the Bible that deal with the seventy years such as Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah. I give you list of commentaries that I personally use:
Word Biblical Commentary
Hermenaia
ICC- International Critical Commentary
ABD- Anchor Bible Series
Keil & Delitzch
These represent the leading technical commentaries used universally by scholars. I do not have any Roman Catholic or Jewish commentaries in my possession but have access to such when required.
So scholar has the best of the best and if required I could list all of the journal article titles in my possession which include Journal of Biblical Literature, Journal of Theological Studies, Andrews University Bulletin Series and many others. All together I have to hand up to fifty specialized articles on chronology.
So there!
scholar JW