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

AnnOMaly

Post 768

No, the Samaria article is about methodology wherein the Introduction discusses three major factors that produce conflicting chronologies. All of these involve methodology and the article's summary discusses five reasons that require careful analysis in determining the beginning and end of the regnal years. The preceeding jounal article is the one that sets out Young's preference for 587 over 586 for Jerusalem's Fall. It is the former article nott the latter that interests me but the reverse is true in your case no doubt.

I am not dodging the ball but playing catch up as I always have done on this forum and every now and then I throw a little further so as to annoy the apostates.

scholar JW

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

Cunningman

You are sadly mistaken. The seven times of Neb's madness had a typical and antitypical fulfillment and this is proven by the use of 'times' and the context of Ch. 4.

The day for a year principle is well enshrined in Biblical Hermeneutics and has a long history of tradition apart to being well attested in Scripture. So you are certainly wrong on both counts. You need to research the subject more deeply rathing than relying on the mischief of apostates. Why not make a detailed analysis of Daniel chapter 4, verse by verse for starters and scholar will help you.

scholar JW

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

AnnOMaly

Post 767

We are both talking about different articles. The article by Young that you refer was entitled 'When Did Jerusalem Fall' which was the second part of a series of three studies wherein Young raises the issue of methodology in chronology. He discusses the calendrical issues when using a 'regnal' based approach and proceeds by using Dcision Analysis which according to his new hypothesis favoured 587 BCE. In his third article 'When Was Samaria Captured The Need For Precision In Biblical Chronologies' he explores in more detail the issue of methodology and it is this article that I am mainly interested. I have said on many occasions that chronology is methodology and interpretation and is well supported by Young's contribution.

Methodology would vary amongst scholars especially with chronology and that is why there are numerous schemes and dates within scholarship but this is the first time that a scholar has 'nailed the matter to the mast' apart from the aforesaid scholar.

scholar JW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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