scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alwayshere

  Post 641

  I agree fully with the forementioned quotation.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Black Sheep

  Post 3680

  I did in fact reply to Alan F's tabulation on various occasions and pointed out to him that his tabulation was based on assumptions and key omissions and therefore it just a simple piece of 'mischief making'. My dealings with him ground to a halt on my part because I felt that his atheism made his opinions worthless because he did not even believe in the things he was writing about.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 737

  Jeremiah does indeed after discussing the seventy years of Judah's punishment as exile-servitude-desolation describes Babylon's fate which began after Judah's punishment had ended and it could be argued that it began with the Fall of the city in 539 BCE. Jeremiah is not specific about a precise event or date for that prophecy to begin.

  True, Daniel refers to Jerusalem but the city could also represent not only its people but the country in which it was located namely Judah and so what befell the city also affected the people and the territory of Judah.

  The seventy years ended with the Return of the Jews to their cities and territory which included its capital Jerusalem in 537 BCE.

  Ezra wrote the book of Chronicles and in 2 Chronicles 36:21 he does use the expression 'seventy years'.

  Zechariah's 'seventy years' ended with the return of the Jews under Zerubbabel in 537 BCE.

  Judah's punishment ended after sevnty years with the Return from Exile in 537 BCE

  The removal of humans and animals from the land as punishment was for the period of seventy years (607 -537BCE)

  Kind regards

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 736

  It is foolish to equate the date and event of the Fall of Jeusalem with the event and date for the Fall of Babylon. Why so? For the simple reason scholars on the basis of available data do not the precise year dated for the Fall of Jeusalem whereas there is certainty as to the date for the Fall of Babylon. When the scholarly community has solved this problem then and only then can change matters. You let me know whether it is 586 or 587 BCE and I will see what I can do for you.

  539 BCE is a pivotal date and like all othe dates it too is 'calculated'. However, scholar prefers the term 'Absolute Date' as a matter of preference. I am very happy with sentimentality and as this sentiment denotes history and history is a basis of faith then I believe I am in good company.

  "A pivotal date is a calender date in history that has a sound basis of acceptance and that corresponds to a specific event recorded in the Bible" says the All Scripture Is Inspired of God And Beneficial, 1990, p.290. The term was developed by the celebrated WT scholars and is a far better term than 'Absolute Date because it describes the status of the event and date rather than its precision. Such a date shares the same property as an Absolute Date inasmuch as both are astronmically fixed as a sound basis of acceptance.

  I have a personal copy of the DOTHB and fully appreciate historiography and history as related to the Bible and I believe that such matters have a direct bearing on chronology and theology. It is for these reasons that validate WT chronology as opposed to other chronologies. In short, one finds that in historiography and history with its development of theology provides a 'ground' for WT Bible chronology.

  If you cannot understand how the term' Absolute Date' can be used rhetorically then I cannot help you , my advice is to meditate on the matter.

  Kind regards

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 734

  In a sense you are right. That is why celebrated WT scholars prefer the term 'pivotal date' as applying to 539 BCE rather than an 'absolute date' which is technically more correct. However, I prefer to use the term 'Absolute Date' in reference to 539 BCE for two reasons: 1. scholar is a sentimental person and loves tradition whiich accompanies WT chronology over many decades. 2. The term is useful as a rehetorical device .

  Scholars use several notable eclipses to establish chronology for the Ancient Near East but the Celebrated WT scholars prefer 539 BCE as a pivotal date because it is grounded in both the Bible and secular history as an event and is datable astronomically.

  Regards

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  isaacaustin

  Post 4220

  Your claim that the Gentile Times is bogus and that Dan 4 was only fulfilled in Neb is blatantly false. The evidence that Dan 4 has a major fulfillment is proved by the simple fact that the entire chapter is about God's Sovereignty and His Kingdom clearly something that lay beyond a mere human ruler. Further, Jesus clearly linked the tree dream with Jeusalem in his prophecy and the perspective of history in Luke 21:24.

  Your opinion that the seventy years pertained to Babylon's dominion from 609 BCE until 539 BCE implies that the seventy years was Babylon's and not that of Judah. But such an interpretation shifts Judah's punishment of seventy years as stated by Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel and Zecharian to that of Babylon but this is clearly impossible for Jeremiah clearly addressed Babylons's punishment along with the other foreign nations later in his prophecy.

  The simple fact is that the seventy years applied to Judah alone and not to Babylon. Nowhere does the Bible state that Babylon was punished for seventy years but what it does state that Judah was to serve Babylon for seventy years thus Babylon's dominion over Judah was for that period of seventy years. All that can be said is the seventy years connected Judah and Babylon because Babylon was the instrument of punishment over Judah which lasted for seventy years.

  I cannot answer your final question but I have received much postive feedback.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  isaacaustin

  Post 4221

  I replied to almost every argument that Alan F made and if I did not then list them. If you truly believe that Alan F defeated me then please show those points and my replies. The fact is that Alan F tried everything to silence me and failed at every turn. He had some questions that no one could answer so scholar came to the rescue. These debates are on public record so it is up to others to make their own personal evaluations but please remove the bias and be a little honest with the facts and give due credit where it is due.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1153

  Another pasting I think O Alas! Pray tell Why is it the case that there are so many hands on the 'brush', would not one suffice?

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  PSacremento

  Post 1861

  609 BCE is not universally accepted as the end of the Assyrian Empire, it is accepted only by some scholars and apostates. Check it out!

  607 BCE is based on the Bible and secular evidence, it is also strengthened by the fact that it is a prophetic date, no such claim can be made for the other 'false 'dates. The only thing that is thrown out of whack are the false assumptions of NB chronology whereby there is at least a twenty year gap.

  You are somewhat puzzled by the fact that there is the same evidence for 539 BCE as for 587 BCE. Why are you puzzled? Perhaps you fail to understand something. If what you say is correct then why is not 587 regarded by scholars as an Absolute Date as with 539 BCE? That is a question for all the smarts on this board?

  The answer to your last question is Methodology.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  isaacaustin

  Post 4224

  It all boils down to Methodology.

  scholar JW