607, 70 years, 1914 (page 10)

scholar

Augustin

I am well pleased that you Applegate's article at hand. This article is comes on the back of all previous published articles on the vexed seventy years and you should also have those articles at hand also before appreciating the significance of the latest study. These articles or souces are note in footnote 3. Also, you need to read what Jonsson' interpretation is and how it compares to all other published views and opinions on the seventy years. Further, you should consult those leading commentaries on Daniel, Jeremiah, Zechariah and Ezra regarding the specific seventy year passages.

Applegate's article does not advocate 607 or any other date for that matter but is simply a study of the influence of the Jeremiah seventy year texts had on all other seventy year texts. This approach conflicts directly with the opinoion of Jonsson who denies such connection and influence.

scholar JW

Leolaia

The library informed me last Friday that they have received a copy of Applegate, so hopefully tomorrow I will be able to pick it up.

scholar

Jeffro

If you want to argue a position then you must get all of the facts and read more widely and deeply. Applegate's is there for all to read and gives a different and refreshing view point, it seems that your refusal to read other views says much about your ignorance.

scholar JW

scholar

Augustin

I did not say that Applegate's exegesis agrees with the Watchtower but his exegesis of those principal texts is very similar to our position on matter and most differs form that of the apostates and that of the Jonsson hypothesis.

For every scholar who supports Jonsson in respect to Daniel 9:1,2 I could produce many more who differ from Jonsson so what is your point? Have you read Applegate's discussion of Daniel 9:1,2 and how it differs from that of Jonsson?

scholar JW

Augustin

Neil MF,

Liberal scholars tend to think the Biblical writers were confused about history. If they agree with parts of the Watchtower eisegesis, that would be of no surprise. The following celebrated scholars agree with Jonsson re: the seventy years "for Babylon" (NWT Danish, NWT Swedish): Young, Fischer, Lundbom, Aalders, Gurney. Both Aalders and Gurney have reached the same conclusion as to how Daniel understood the seventy years "for Babylon". No celebrated scholar has ever advocated 607 BCE as the date for Jerusalem's destruction.

Perhaps one should ask Mr. Applegate for his view on 607 BCE as the year for Jerusalem's destruction... I mean, if the opinion of Mr. Applegate is so important

Hope this helps!

-- Augustin --

heathen

You go girl ......................... can't wait to see what sort of abscurities the WTBTS made out of it just to confuse everybody

Jeffro

If you want to argue a position then you must get all of the facts and read more widely and deeply. Applegate's is there for all to read and gives a different and refreshing view point, it seems that your refusal to read other views says much about your ignorance.

You really are an arrogant piece of work aren't you! I have not refused to read anything. If you have a link to it, by all means post it. But if I would have to pay for it, I'm not about to do that simply to please the unworthy likes of you.

scholar

Jeffro

Why not try and write to a public library in Australia and obtain a photocopy of the paper which can be mailed to you.

scholar JW

Jeffro

Why not try and write to a public library in Australia and obtain a photocopy of the paper which can be mailed to you.

Because you have not demonstrated any value in the effort to do so, and I'm not here to do things at your whim.

scholar

Jeffro

Therefore you will never learn and ever remain ignorant.

scholar JW

607, 70 years, 1914

Share this