Posts by scholar

100

Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze in

okay so we've obviously established on this board that 607 is not the correct date that babylon destroyed jerusalem.

even before 1914 came around, the bible students still thought 1914 would be a pivital date.

the only way they can gain that info is from the 7 times or w/e.

We owe a great debt to the 'celbrated' WT scholars who have given to the world of mankind a very accurate Bible chronology which champions the correct date of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem which falsifies the impossible and incorrect dates of 586, 587 and others for the Fall of Jerusalem. You ask concerning the origin of 607 BCE?

The corrected or adjusted date of 607 BCE was first published in 1944 in the publication The Kingdom Is At Hand which nicely brought Biblical scholarship up to date. No doubt one of the influences for such an adjustment in Bible chronology was brought about by advancing research in Babylonian chronology by such eminent scholars as Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein who published their Babylonian Chronology 626 BC - AD 45in 1942. This period of the forties was groundbreaking in various fields of Bible schoilarship and along with further insights into biblical revelation led to many refinements in not just chronology but also translation of the Bible along with eschatiology.

scholar JW

15

607 - New 'Apostate' Light

by sweet pea in

.

thanks to frank kavelin for looking at the old well worn subject from a completely different perspective.. enjoy!.

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/chronology/607-bce-the-bible-or-the-formula.html.

scholar

sweet pea

Post 1154

Scholar has responded to Kavelin's nonsense with a brief comment. The fact of the matter is that the calculated date of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is very well established in accordance with the Bible but also secular evidence despite the feigned protestations of apostaes and higher critics. Kavelin's perspective is neither new or fresh but is simply a rehash of the 'Jonsson' nonsense.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1225

Promoting your fanttisies and twisting my comments out of context iare good reasons why you should quit.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1222

You are right to say that I should quit this subject for it lie outsisde my expertise and that applies to you as well because you too have no expertise in the matter. Rolf Furuli has researched this subject and shows a modest and cautious use of Newton's findings and that Neo-Babylonian chronology is open to criticism and is not so well-established as previously thought. In any event the NB data proves that there is at least a twenty year gap between the two so one should not preseumptuous about the infallibility of Neo-Babylonian chronology.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1219

The matter as to whether Ptolemy's Canon has been independently verified is a matter of dispute even up to the present according to both critics and supporters of Newton. Newton's thesis created a 'dust storm' and even now 'the dust' has not yet settled on Ptolemy. It is far early for you to claim any victory.

Ptolemy's Canon still remains the 'backbone ' of Neo-Babylonian chronology because as Thiele correctly noted in a earlier edition of his Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings, "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical not historical purposes." So as it stands it provides a wonderful template for all later discoveries pewrtaining to the NB period. Further, as confirmation of the proper status of the Royal Canon as Carl Jonsson prefers to name it. a Dr. Leo Depuydt title his article 'More Valuable Than All Gold': Ptolemy's Canon and Babylonian Chronology' published in the Journal of Cunieform Studies, Vol. 47, 1995, pp.97-117.

scholar JW

112

The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff in

i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

scholar

garyneal

Post 513

The Bible has nothing to do with a king list because it does not supply that data as it does with the Kings of Judah and Israel. Neo-Babylonian chronology has commonly presented a king list by means of Ptolemy's canon but this list does not agree with other ancient historians.

So your problem is first of all is provide a accurate king list that is reliable and trustworthy before you are able to make an criticism of 607 BCE or WT chronology.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1214

I think you are rather foolish in working up a lather over the information that Doug Mason has presented on Newton's book and the various reviews. The fact is that Newton's views on Ptolemy regarding the nature of his observations have found some support but whether Ptolemy was a fraud is a debate that remains unsettled.

Newton does certainly uphold aspects of Neo-Babylonian chronology regarding the reigns of particular kings but how these relate to a chronology is a matter of interpretation for accurate data does not necessarily mean an accurate chronology as Furuli and other scholars have commented. The simple fact is that Newton believed that Ptolemy could not be trusted and that his Canon had to be independently verified.

Chronologists most certainly need Ptolemy as his Canon remains even to this day the 'backbone of Neo-Babylonian chronology. Jonsson would have us believe otherwise expressing the tendency to abandon Ptolemy or at least put him outside. Perhaps, Jonsson like others iare somewhat embarasssed because of Newton's most strident criticism of Ptolemy. Yes there is much material that has been unearthed but much of this needs to be transalated so modesty would caution us to be a little circumspect in this regard.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

Leolaia

Post 13924

I have no information as to Couture's qualifications etc but the very fact that Newton acknowledged Couture's contribution is a significant proof of Couture's scholarship.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

Doug Mason, Leolaia, AnnOMaly

It must be of much chagrin to WT critics and apostates that Dr Robert Newton in researching for his The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy sought the valuable assistance of a JW, chronologist Philip G. Couture. Do you not think that such a 'celebrated' scholar would be included in that august body of 'celebrated WT scholars?

scholar JW

95

For those who researched 607...

by AwSnap in

jw
friends

did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

scholar

garyoneal

Post 508

Celebrated WT scholars have an interest in all secular sources because these documents are of value and provide much information for all but in terms of constructing an accurate Bible chronology these resources are either unnecessary or of limited value.

scholar JW