Posts by scholar

183

Hubby is Researching 607...

by cognac in

jw
friends

would you say that's the beginning of the end?

hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1108

I have a better idea in addition to you setting up a thread on this subject for my benefit and education. My proposal is as follows:

1. You select those issues that you feel are significant in falsifying Furuli's hypothesis.

2. That you write to Furuli either by letter or email concerning those issues.

3. That you forward to me copies of this corrresspondence and Furuli's replies.

4. If these issues are similar or identical to that of Carl Jonsson then these references be noted.

5. With all of this information to hand I will proceed to have these matters independently adjudicated by contacting either other experts in the field of ancient astronomy and by making a submission to the Observatory of NSW, Australia which would have the last astro programs.

scholar JW

44

The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

by Doug Mason in

1. does the wts date the end the 70 years as soon as the babylonian exiles returned to the land, or when they started the building of the altar?.

(ezra 2:68 makes it clear that the returnees arrived early enough for the exiles to be settled in their own towns (verse 70) well before they started to build the altar in the seventh month of an unidentified year (3:1)).. .

2. why were the returnees frightened of the people around them when they started to build the altar (ezra 3:3)?

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 693

My comments on the end of the 70 years in Tishri, 537 BCE are largle taken from the publication Babylon The Great Has Fallen God's Kingdom Rules, 1963, pp.354-375.

Regards

scholar JW

28

May I just ask one simple ? on 607, apologists, and this board???

by JWoods in

here we have iirc more than four separate threads on 607, and of course a remonstration to not be unkind to the apologists.. why?

607 is of course complete nonsense - not even regular witnesses can remember the "logic" behind it and why it is even mentioned from time to time in their stupid "deep spiritual literature".

some time back this board was so badly infected with this junk by people like the "scholar" that it was painful to look over all of it and find an intelligent thread to participate in.

scholar

JWoods

I have often asked this same very question and it rather baffles me that in spite of all of the evidence from the Bible and secular history people still believe in the nonsense perpetuated by apostates that Jeusalem fell in the impossible dates of either 586 or 657 BCE. Scholar has for many years argued most thoroughly that such such mischief is against Scripture and common sense.

Pleas explain!!!

scholar JW

26

For your research: Chart for 70 Years for Babylon

by Lady Liberty in

609- nabopolassars 17th reignal year.

607- nabopolassars 19th reignal year.

605- nabopolassars 21st reignal year.

scholar

lLady Liberty

There ae at least 5 major flaws with your chart:

1. The claimed date of 608 BCE for the beginning of the seventy years is useless becuase nothing of historical significance occurred in that year/

2. The chart omits significant events in the reign of Nebuchadnezzer.

3. Presents no precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem

4. Conceals the biblical fact of a twenty year gap bewteen NB chronology and biblical chronology

5.. The date 539 BCE ending the seventy years is impossible because the Jews were still exiled in Babylon

scholar JW

13

607 Resaerchers may find this tidbit VERY INTERESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Lady Liberty in

this was a post i made some time ago, but since the jws are always trying to discredit the dating system of the babylonians i thought this was very interesting.

was watching a awesome program last night called solar max on cable.

it is a imax film about the solar system.

scholar

Lady Liberty

I know that you are a devoted fan of the Babylonians but accurate Babylonian astronomy does equate with accurate Babylonian chronology and history. Babylonian astronomy like other ancient astronomies are subject to ongoing scieintific criticism and the big problem with this astronomy ai that the records of their observations are subject to interpretation. So, it is far wiser and prudent to base one's chronology on the infallible Word of God rather than the science of men.

scholar JW

44

The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

by Doug Mason in

1. does the wts date the end the 70 years as soon as the babylonian exiles returned to the land, or when they started the building of the altar?.

(ezra 2:68 makes it clear that the returnees arrived early enough for the exiles to be settled in their own towns (verse 70) well before they started to build the altar in the seventh month of an unidentified year (3:1)).. .

2. why were the returnees frightened of the people around them when they started to build the altar (ezra 3:3)?

scholar

Doug Mason

The seventy years offically ended on the first day of the seventh month (Tishri) 537 BCE on the occasion or the Festival of the New Moon which was September 28/29, Gregorian Calender or October 4/5 Julian Calender. This festival was shortly followed by the Festival of Booths on the fifteenth day of the month.

This means that a precise seventy years from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Return was accomplished which proves that Jehovah God is a Great Timekeeper and Chronologist.

scholar JW

183

Hubby is Researching 607...

by cognac in

jw
friends

would you say that's the beginning of the end?

hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

scholar

isaacaustin

Posts 3818

Josephus quite emphaticaly on at least 4 occasions in his Antiquities that the seventy years not fifty was period from the Fall to the Return marked by exile desolation and servitude which is exactly what the celebrated WT scholars have been telling the international scholarly community for several decades.

scholar JW

183

Hubby is Researching 607...

by cognac in

jw
friends

would you say that's the beginning of the end?

hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

scholar

Alwayshere

Post 607

This is simply done because 625 BCE was Neb's accession year followed by 624 BCE as his 1st regnal year counting from Nisan.

scholar JW

183

Hubby is Researching 607...

by cognac in

jw
friends

would you say that's the beginning of the end?

hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

scholar

Ann O Maly

Post 1107

The Insight article explains the methodology for using the regnal years, 18th and 19th ending in 607 BCE as the Fall of Jerusalem. You are correct in stating that the Bible does not tellus how to use regnal years and that is why we have the science of chronology which is based on methodology and interpretation.

Your post 1104 simply prefers 587 BCE but serious scholars prefer 586 BCE so this shows that your methodology is deficient so the smart thing to do is to take notice of the celebrated WT scholars.

I have followed your debates on this subject with Furuli and Wrench so I have a good idea of your attitude and bias. Furuli will be forwarding the articles from the Catastrophism Review which includes Furuli's response to Jonsson and vice versa.

Your observation on Furuli is misguided and plain wrong because Furuli is a competent scholar who has the ability to work with the primary sources, something that most WT critics cannot do and he has made real holes in the traditional chronology or at least brought the entire edifice under the microscope.

There is much more to Furuli's thesis than the use of a astro program because Furuli has dealt with the primary source materials firts hand rather than relying on orthodox tyransaltions which is the practice of Jonsson. Furuli told me by phone last night that he in fact is revising his First volume and he has used a astro program which viondicates 455 BCE.

scholar JW

183

Hubby is Researching 607...

by cognac in

jw
friends

would you say that's the beginning of the end?

hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1106

If you had bothered to read the Insight article your would have learnt that 60y BCE was marked by the 11th year of the Zedekiah's reign and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzer's reign if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year. Nebuchadnezzer began his first regnal year in Nisan, 624 BCE preceeded by his accession year in 625 BCE see Insight, p. 480. Thus the matter of the 18th/19th of Nebuchadnezzer is easily resolved by the 'celebrated WT scholars.

I notice that you conveniently avoided addressing the issue of fixing a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem because you simply do not and cannot know. Your chronology like that of many othersecular chronologies is compromised by methodology and your methodology fails you when you most need it. Our chronology devised by the clebrated WT scholars works because of our methodology and interpretation of the Bible so we know the precise calender year of the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

It appears that you are having triuble in understanding the terms that scholar invented: Event-based chronology versus Regnal-based chronology. The former term describes the methodology of WT biblical chronology and the latter describes the methodology of most secular chronologies which rely too much on calendation at the expense of accurate history. I can explain this further if you require.

Regarding the ongoing debate between Furuli and Jonsson typified in the Catastrophism Review website I will phone Furuli this week to get his side of the story as your comments are too biased and useless. Furuli is a very competent scholar and I know from my conversations with him that he is on top of this debate.

scholar JW