by M.J. 128 Replies latest watchtower bible
Jeffro
Response to post 856
I have looked at all of the facts, read widely and thoroughly and more importantly I have read God's Word and rejected your nonsense, the Jonsson hypothesis and the opinions of the higher critics. Your constant carping and wingeing betrays that you are a intellectual babe and as I have told you repeatedly: You need to read more widely.
scholar JW
Jeffro
Response to post 857
You continue in relation to Jeremiah 25:12 that Jeremiah described the judgement of Babylon as of desolation after the seventy years were fulfilled. It is you that needs to get the facts right. The seventy years and its fulfillment was to be fulfilled how? Only by their Return in 537 as described and confirmed by Ezra. Ezra did not describe the end of the seventy years with the Fall of Babylon so your theory is wrong and plainly stupid.
The context of not only ch.25 but indeed the entire book of Jeremiah completely disproves yopur nonsense as he foretold that Babylon would fall and would be desolated along with the other foreign nations. The context says that the seventy years was not only of servitude but exile and desolation of the land of Judah, the latter facts you stubbornly refuse to accept.
I really do not care about your opinion of my posts because I can reply to you likewise. The date 537 is well established and if you know a better date then state it and show the evidence. You say it is more likely that the Jews returned in 538 then prove it! If then Jews returned in 538 and if this is so correct then how is it the case that other scholars champion 536 and where then does that leave the nonsens of Alan F? Neither you or Alan F can prove that the Jews returned in 538, even Jonsson in his hypothesis says very little about it and that is because he knows that 537 has considerable scholarly merit.
scholar JW
There is certainly a wealth of secular materials available that relate in various ways to the reconstruction of Neo-Babylonian chronology but I disagree that such materials have replaced the status and importance of Ptolemy' Canon. All of this other material is subject to interpretation and has not solved the many problems in establishing the reliability of such chronology. For example, there is a twenty gap between such chronologies and biblical chronology as established by celebrated WT scholars.
LOL. 'scholar's' "example" for suggesting that the extant contemporary independant evidence is unreliable (though it is by co-incidence in complete harmony with all other known records) is that it, like everything else, doesn't acknowledge the Society's spurious 20-year gap. What a farce!
In addition, there is the omission of imporatnt events during the reign of Nebuchadnezzer ie, the seven years absence from the throne which compromises the accuracy of all this so called evidence.
The 'seven year absence' is another strawman 'scholar' likes to prop up. As no other king took Nebuchadnezzar's place as king, there was no reason to indicate anyone other than Nebuchadnezzar as king for administrative business purposes. This supposed problem doesn't actually exist.
The Bible is the only reliable guide in establishing events in biblical history and it works very nicely because one can go right back to the time of Adam, The reason why it works is because careful Bible Students have used an event-based methodology which eliminates the many problems arising from a regnal-based methodology. Certainly, Young arrives at a conclusion which is 587 but he is yet to convince the rest of scholarship of the certainty of 587 for the Fall. I believe despite his sincerity that his efforts are doomed to failure.
Ignoring for a moment that 'scholar' is still misusing the word "methodology", which does not actually mean the same as "method"... because of the nature of dating the events of the period, any "event-based methodology" is ultimately from a "regnal-based methodology" anyway.
There is no imaginary twenty years because the Bible speaks most definitely of seventy years and not of your imaginary 'fifty years' which is required if one were to follow your hypothesis. As I have said our chronology is simple, elegant and correct and you cannot prove otherwise. When you have some certainty about a precise date for the Fall then you can boast but until then you should continue to research the matter.
Your misuse and improper application of the 70 years will never make you correct. Your chronology has already been disproved. We are still waiting for you to actually provide valid rebuttals for many of the problems that have been indicated with your flawed chronology. You claim that someone should provide you with a precise date, yet you don't actually have a precise date either. You have one speculative date arrived at by adding 70 to another purely speculative date, for which you have absolutely no proof. If I were dishonest like you, I could make up some other entirely speculative precise date, but I prefer not to distort the facts for my own ends.
Dogmatism without certainty is pure arrogance and stupidity.
Indeed.
I have looked at all of the facts, read widely and thoroughly and more importantly I have read God's Word and rejected your nonsense, the Jonsson hypothesis and the opinions of the higher critics. Your constant carping and wingeing betrays that you are a intellectual babe and as I have told you repeatedly: You need to read more widely.
Nothing you say has any weight. You claim to have read widely, yet all you read simply adds to the long list of facts that you choose to ignore in favour of your flawed dogma. You employ tired expressions, and presume to know even what others have and have not read. You undermine yourself with every post, until you are at the point now where you have no credibility whatsoever.
Jeffro
Response to post 860
All of the secular materials requires interpreatation and such current interpreatation clashes with the plain and direct reading of God's Word. this means that your chronology is hopeless and dead wrong. The consequence of this situation is a twenty year gap and a further seven year problem with the differences between the regnal lists. These issues expose current chronologies as fraudulent. Perhaps you should consult a good dictionary and try to understand the meaning of 'methodology' and understand the difference between an event -based methodology and a regnal -based methodology.
Your silly and perverted understanding of the seventy years exposes your chronology as false for it simply does not work and ignores the basic fact that the seventy years was a period of exile-servitude and desolation. Our superior chronology does in fact provide a precise date for the Fall which is 607 BCE but you have none. LOL. Our dates are not speculative but calcuable and based on biblical and secular evidence blessed with simplicity and elegance.
i am still waiting for your proof for your false date of 538 BCE for the Return. Where is it smart alec?
scholar JW
'Scholar'
There is certainly a wealth of secular materials available that relate in various ways to the reconstruction of Neo-Babylonian chronology but I disagree that such materials have replaced the status and importance of Ptolemy' Canon.
I can agree with the above statement, I think - that Ptolemy's canon is still important. But I still disagree with your earlier statement that, "this material is the bedrock for Neo-Babylonian chronology with all other subsequent lines of evidence built upon this document. It is the basis or framework for interpretation of material relevant to any king for that period," because the wealth of secular materials is independent of Ptolemy's canon.
All of this other material is subject to interpretation and has not solved the many problems in establishing the reliability of such chronology. For example, there is a twenty gap between such chronologies and biblical chronology as established by celebrated WT scholars.
Where is the 20 year gap between secular and Biblical chronology? I don't see any. You do know that if you introduce an extra 20 years into the Babylonian chronology, you create problems in synchronizing other Scriptures?
And do you, for example, believe Strm Kambys 400 is part of the material subject to interpretation?
In addition, there is the omission of imporatnt events during the reign of Nebuchadnezzer ie, the seven years absence from the throne which compromises the accuracy of all this so called evidence.
Only if you insist they are years. The Aramaic word also means 'period' or 'time of duration.' Compare Dan. 3:15 where the word clearly does not mean year. If not years, the seven times can more easily be fitted in to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. I'm not surprised history doesn't (as far as we know) record Nebuchadnezzar's madness. It would be a huge embarrassment for such an eminent ruler.
The Bible is the only reliable guide in establishing events in biblical history and it works very nicely because one can go right back to the time of Adam,
Humm. You're either terribly naive or ... not as clued up on Bible history and chronology as you claim.
The reason why it works is because careful Bible Students have used an event-based methodology which eliminates the many problems arising from a regnal-based methodology.
What are the problems with regnal-based methodology and how does an event-based methodology eliminate those problems? Give me an example.
Certainly, Young arrives at a conclusion which is 587 but he is yet to convince the rest of scholarship of the certainty of 587 for the Fall. I believe despite his sincerity that his efforts are doomed to failure.
OK. Maybe, maybe not. But the bigger problem is how to convince the scholarly community that 607 was the Fall in the face of no evidence.
There is no imaginary twenty years because the Bible speaks most definitely of seventy years and not of your imaginary 'fifty years' which is required if one were to follow your hypothesis.
Now this is where correct interpretation comes into play.
As Sir Robert Anderson said (as quoted in Walvoord's commentary of Daniel), "The failure to distinguish between the several judgments of the Servitude, the Captivity and the Desolations, is a fruitful source of error in the study of Daniel and the historical books of Scripture."
This is where the WTS falls down, unfortunately.
As I have said our chronology is simple, elegant and correct and you cannot prove otherwise.
You have been given plenty of proof otherwise. You just wish to ignore it.
When you have some certainty about a precise date for the Fall then you can boast but until then you should continue to research the matter.
Give me some proof for a 607 Fall, and I'll consider it. Until then, I shall go where the evidence leads, i.e. 587.
Dogmatism without certainty is pure arrogance and stupidity.
I wholeheartedly agree. Proponents of the 607 dogma never cease to amaze me on that score.
'Scholar' to Jeffro: All of the secular materials requires interpreatation and such current interpreatation clashes with the plain and direct reading of God's Word. this means that your chronology is hopeless and dead wrong.
I guess you're saying the interpretation of secular materials clash with the 'plain and direct reading' of Dan. 1:1, which plainly says Jehoiakim's 11th year [edited - you're right Jeffro - not 8th] of kingship; and the 'plain and direct reading' of Dan. 2:1, which plainly says the image dream happened in Nebuchadnezzar's 20th year? Is that what you mean, 'scholar'?
Scholar, when it is all thought out and said, your efforts to defend the wbts and their use of 607 bc and its use in supporting certain prophecies are totally irrelevant and useless. Verging on silliness as are most if not all of their claims and predictions.
Especially their claim to historic knowledge being above and beyond that of all the other historians.
All one has to do to debunk this whole issue is to consider all the failed prophecies from the wbts.
Some using 607bc as a base and others not based on 607bc.
The prophecies regarding the years 1914 1918 1925 and 1975 for a few ,destroys any legitimacy in or from the wbts teachings and beliefs from their celebrated scholars.
The change in the "millions now living will never die" prophecy makes me and anyone that hears it, laugh at their nonsense they are left to apologize for and never do.
Celebrated scholars??? don't make me laugh.
Your efforts are like the owner of a race horse that he describes all of its strength and beauty after the
horse is dead.
Outoftheorg
I've read some of Johnsson's comments regarding facts and the bible account, and I found his summary most enlightening. His plain conclusion is that there is no bible chronology without reference to secular sources. That is, while events listed in the bible can be reconciled internally, we run in to trouble as soon as we try and reconcile them to external facts. There is no "bible" chronology without some reference to a known historical event, externally validated.
All of the secular materials requires interpreatation and such current interpreatation clashes with the plain and direct reading of God's Word. this means that your chronology is hopeless and dead wrong. The consequence of this situation is a twenty year gap and a further seven year problem with the differences between the regnal lists. These issues expose current chronologies as fraudulent. Perhaps you should consult a good dictionary and try to understand the meaning of 'methodology' and understand the difference between an event -based methodology and a regnal -based methodology.
You can't even accept something as plain and direct as "Jehoiakim's 3rd year"; instead you distort it to mean his 11th. You seem to imagine that the '20-year gap' problem is everyone else's problem and not the Society's - a delusion that it seems you cannot shake. The '7-year' problem is simply a product of your imagination and needs no consideration. You would suggest that I consult a dictionary for the meaning of 'methodology' after you continue to use it incorrectly? What a pompous ass!
Your silly and perverted understanding of the seventy years exposes your chronology as false for it simply does not work and ignores the basic fact that the seventy years was a period of exile-servitude and desolation. Our superior chronology does in fact provide a precise date for the Fall which is 607 BCE but you have none. LOL. Our dates are not speculative but calcuable and based on biblical and secular evidence blessed with simplicity and elegance.
How is your supposed "exact date" for the return of the Jews "calcu[l]able"? It is nothing but purely contrived speculation. Your chronology is wrong, and therefore superior to nothing.
i am still waiting for your proof for your false date of 538 BCE for the Return. Where is it smart alec?
There is no need for me to reinvent the wheel. Read AlanF's posts.
