by crazies 129 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hellrider
When I am good and ready for all that I will say for the moment is that this research was published in 1997 and escaped the attention of the Jonsson hypothesis because it is too blinkered and biased against biblical chronology. The latest edition, the fourth was published 2004 and omits any mention of this new material which reflects poorly on the author and his phantom group of editors.
scholar JW
Yes, I am back with a vengeance for the time being as I have discovered new research vindicating the interpretation of the seventy years by the celebrated WT scholars. I have indded furnished ample proof for the illustrious date of 607 but you simply choose to ignore the facts of the matter. By the way, you have not posted any evidence for your proposed date or dates of 587 or 586 as I can reply likewise.
And what is this supposed brilliant flash of light?
You have neither provided proof or support for 607, nor have you countered all of the evidence against it.
I have not ignored anything. I have replied to everything you have presented, indicating the many problems. You refer to valid refutation of your flawed dogma as ignoring, yet you gloss over points which are not compatible with your interpretation, such as the simple plain fact that Jeremiah states that Babylon's king would be judged only once the 70 years were fulfilled.
I have not given up at all and it is you that is a slave to falsehood because your understanding of the seventy years id not universally accepted by scholars. When you have some concensus on the seventy years within scholarship that would be the time for boasting and not before.
Thanks again for a good laugh. Your flawed 'methodology' <chortle, snicker> isn't supported by any scholars at all, so there is little meaning to your irrelevant claim that there is not universal support for my model.
Jeffro
I have always urged you not to be lazy but get into some real research and to read widely for if you had listened to my counsel then you would be familiar with the latest research published in 1997 and revisted in a recent scholarly reference work on the Old Testament published 2005. This study is the most recent study of all of the principal texts pertaining to the seventy years and clashes with the Jonsson nonsense. Such scholars confirm the fact that the judgement against Babylon began after the seventy years had ended with a period of desolation just as scholar has been telling you.
scholar JW
I have always urged you not to be lazy but get into some real research and to read widely for if you had listened to my counsel then you would be familiar with the latest research published in 1997 and revisted in a recent scholarly reference work on the Old Testament published 2005. This study is the most recent study of all of the principal texts pertaining to the seventy years and clashes with the Jonsson nonsense. Such scholars confirm the fact that the judgement against Babylon began after the seventy years had ended with a period of desolation just as scholar has been telling you.
What I choose to do with my time is none of your business, and your calling me lazy only demonstrates your ignorance and arrogance.
It matters little to me whether a particular study conflicts with Jonssen's research, largely because my model is not based on Jonssen's research, but also because none of the research supports 607 either. There are many hypotheses, of which the rediculous 607 dogma is just one - one which is completely discordant with the general consensus that the event occurred around 20 years later.
Again you try to confuse the issue of Babylon's judgement with the judgement of Babylon's king, when in reality neither began before the 70 years had ended - a fact, which by necessity of your flawed beliefs, you choose to ignore.
Just a tip, scholar.
If you spent even bit of your time on actual facts and figures instead of empty rantings, condemnation and name calling, then perhaps your posts would have a better chance convincing someone of something.
`Scholar jw:
I have always urged you not to be lazy but get into some real research and to read widely for if you had listened to my counsel then you would be familiar with the latest research published in 1997 and revisted in a recent scholarly reference work on the Old Testament published 2005. This study is the most recent study of all of the principal texts pertaining to the seventy years and clashes with the Jonsson nonsense. Such scholars confirm the fact that the judgement against Babylon began after the seventy years had ended with a period of desolation just as scholar has been telling you.scholar JW
You`re going to have to elaborate a bit on that one. Historians have written several hundred books about babylonian chronology (someone posted a "large list of books on babylonian chronology" not long ago, was it M.J?), and not a single work supports the 607-date, apart from the one book written by the Jehovahs Witness, Rolf Furuli (who isn`t even a historian), and who obviously has an agenda, unlike the hundreds of historians who have no agenda at all, who support dates around 586/ 587 BC. So, what kind of work are you referring to here? Is it Furulis piece of toilet paper you are referring to, or is it another book?
(By the way, it`s nice to see that you are still referring to yourself in the third person. We haven`t seen you in a while, so I was afraid you had some low self-esteem issues or something now ).
MJ
I am not interested in convincing anybody of something because I have long recognized the fact that such is impossible with those who have rejected the True Religion.
scholar JW
Just a thought, everyone.
My brother-in-law was a magnificent "scholor" of Greek mythology. He could, for example, go on and on about which of the gods was half human, which one got dipped in the river Styx, which one was doing his mother, etc. He would correct you in mid-conversation if you misused their names - for example, if you mixed up the names of the father and son who flew too close to the sun and melted their waxwork wings.
This used to really irritate me - but then I got a life. I came to realize that he was just trying to be an expert on some subject so boring and inconsequential to any real world purpose that no one else could hardly bother with it.
Guess where I am going here, scholar...what the hell does all this adding up one date or another and so many made up days have to do with the price of tea in China? People have a false religion if they don't add this up the same as you???? Such is your theology????
This is like all the monks in "The Name of the Rose" getting together to argue over whether Jesus owned his clothes!
James
I am not interested in convincing anybody of something because I have long recognized the fact that such is impossible with those who have rejected the True Religion.
Then why are you here?
I am not interested in convincing anybody of something because I have long recognized the fact that such is impossible with those who have rejected the True Religion.
'scholar', adherence to your 'True Religion'™ is all a bit 'Emperor's New Clothes'. Anyone who doesn't see the invisible magic is automatically ridiculed, but in reality, there's just nothing there.
The reason no-one accepts your weak reasoning is that you use poor arguments in attempting to prove an unprovable position and ignore proof to the contrary. It is really quite lame to blame your failure on superstitious reasoning of people not believing a particular religion.
