Scholar, Given that there are no dates in the bible, can you please explain what you mean by "biblical chronology"? thx
The missing 20 years and Jehoiachin's exile
by AuldSoul 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
fullofdoubtnow
Scholar, Given that there are no dates in the bible, can you please explain what you mean by "biblical chronology"?
Now, THAT should be well worth reading.
Linda (breathless with anticipation)
-
scholar
Alan F
There is nothing to disprove because Josephus says nothing that contravenes the calculation of 537 BCE for the Return as you well know. The biblical accounts along with Josephus agree that the only possible year for the Return was 537 and not 538 BCE for the latter is simply to early. You need to rethink the calendation for the period because what you have posted is utter nonsense as you well know.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
There is nothing to disprove because Josephus says nothing that contravenes the calculation of 537 BCE for the Return as you well know. The biblical accounts along with Josephus agree that the only possible year for the Return was 537 and not 538 BCE for the latter is simply to early. You need to rethink the calendation for the period because what you have posted is utter nonsense as you well know.
I see scholar is back to his old lies again. After not being able to refute the simple diagram I laid out for him, he just dropped off the forum for a couple of weeks, thinking everyone would just forget. And he makes the even more arrogant claim that AlanF 'knows' that what 'scholar' says is true, when in reality, not only does not AlanF not 'know' that to be true at all, but AlanF along with the rest of us know quite well that the Society's 537 date for the Jew's return is quite impossible.
Please indicate, preferably diagramatically, how the biblical account dictates that 537 is the only possible year for the return of the Jews.
-
Hoping4Change
ummm....Josephus and the 537 calculation are "Secular" calculations, are they not? (Still wondering what "biblical chronology" is. Why? Because I am a simple person and it seems to me pertinent that in order to understand (which I am trying to do)the root cause of any disagreement, one must first establish if there is anything that opposing sides DO agree to; i.e. build up the list of 'agreed to' assumptions/beliefs, and THEN proceed to show how/why one derives the conclusions one does.)
-
Jeffro
Whenever you continue to promote a demonic secular chronology I will continue to promote the true biblical chronology which knocks down such foolish devilish schemes.
Now the secular chronology is 'demonic'? Ad hominem at its absolute finest!
-
Jeffro
Your query is an interesting one but completely mistaken because WT chronology as developed by celebrated WT scholars, hereafter termed the 'celebrated' have based their biblical chronology on the historic fact of the biblical 'seventy years' which is overlooked by Neo-Babylonian chronology. This means that the dates for the reign of Nebuchadnezzer is dated from 624 - 582 BCE with the desolating of Jerusalem and the commencement of the seventy years in 607 BCE which was his 18th regnal year. Such an historic insertion unknown to the pagan Babylonian scribes would create a twenty year gap between biblical chronology and pagan chronology which fixes 586/587 for this event.
For a start, "the biblical 'seventy years'" is subject to interpretation and is not automatically a 'historic fact'. (One could just as bombastically assert that "the biblical 'seventy years' for Tyre" were also a 'historic fact' as well, throwing chronology (both secular, and the Society's) into complete disarray. The Society applies the same arrogant presumption to the 'forty years for Egypt'.) The simplistic view of 'scholar's', and of the Society, that you can just insert an extra 20 years without affecting anything else is of course ludicrous. Since all of the astronomical data fits for hundreds of years before and after the events in question, the dogma of the Society and its ilk is completely irrational. It can be deduced from the scriptures that the temple was destroyed 10 Ab (about the beginning of August) of 587BC (Jeremiah 52:11-12). Incidentally, Ezekiel 40:1 flatly refutes the claim that the 70 years were of exile beginning with the temple's destruction.
Further, the chronology for the following Babylonian rulers in uncertain because in the case of Evil-Merodach there is ambiguity as to the length of his reign whether it was two years or eighteen years however his reign began in 581 BCE and in 580 BCE released Jehoiachin in his 37th year of exile which commenced in 617 BCE. Following from Amel-Marduk' uncertain reign there were the following kings: Neriglisser, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus who began his reign in 556 BCE ending in 539 BCE.
The Society accepts the length of Cyrus' reign simply because of his last-dated inscription (Insight Vol. I, page 453). But apparently that's not good enough for establishing the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings. Awfully convenient that the 'fossils go missing in all the important places' isn't it?
The Neo-Babylonian chronology is unreliable because it does not give an accurate history of the Nebuchadnezzer period and bad history equals bad chronology. The following historical facts are missing from the Babylonian period but are mentioned in the Old Testament writings:
What you are actually saying is that the accepted Neo-Babylonian chronology must be wrong because it disagrees with the Society's interpretation. None of the three 'facts' that 'scholar' goes on to mention are actually factual.
1. The seventy years of Judah's subjugation
Actually, to quote the Isaiah's Prophecy book, "the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination". This is amply demonstrated by Jeremiah chapter 25.
2. The seven years of Nebuchadnezzer's madness
No-one else was king during the time; regardless of his physical presence it was still during his reign. This is a complete red herring, easily invalidated by 2 Kings 25:27 which indicates an explicit period of time that is inclusive of any seven year period of madness, rather than adding 7 years.
3. The desolation of Egypt for forty years.
The Society's chronology implicitly adds 20 years to the reign of Amasis (aka Ahmose II, aka Chenibra Amose-si-Neith), giving him a total reign of about 65 years. This is especially unlikely if a literal 40 year desolation is applied to Egypt for most of that time, and is more indicative of a prosperous reign.
Hence, the missing twenty years is not found during the late Neo-Babylonian period as you allege but in fact were characteristic of Nebuchadnezzer's reign with the Fall of Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year.
That is just a plain rediculous statement. The fact is that the Society's interpretation creates a spurious twenty years, so the Society suggests ambiguity between Evil-Merodach and Nabonidus, because the other reigns can be explicitly derived from the bible, which the Society can't dissuade its members from reading as easily as secular sources.
-
AuldSoul
[scholar assumes the tone of Mrs. Slocombe]
I agree that the Watchtower scholars are correct and should be celebrated, and I am unanimous in that.
[scholar drops the Mrs. Slocombe voice]
If anyone disagrees, they are being used as a tool of the Devil, which is why I will never entertain the possibility the Watchtower scholars might be wrong. I don't see what is so complicated about my position on the matter, since I agree with WT scholars (except where they disagree with themselves) I am on the side of God and everyone who is not on my side is on the side of Satan.
I thought I made this perfectly clear in my post to AuldSoul when I stated that secular chronology amounts to Devilish schemes. Promoter of the Devil's schemes are obviously working for the Devil.
errant JW
-
AlanF
scholar pretendus goatus buggerus wrote:
: There is nothing to disprove
You're absolutely the most actively and militantly morally stupid person I've ever come across. You have no problem claiming one thing on one day and its opposite on another.
Several times you've claimed that you would advance a "disproof" of my argument about Josephus when you're "good and ready". Now, having found that you have no disproof, you dismiss everything with a blanket denial. That does not change the facts, as shown below.
: because Josephus says nothing that contravenes the calculation of 537 BCE for the Return as you well know.
Of course he does, as I have repeatedly explained to you.
Josephus states that the temple was begun to be rebuilt in the 2nd year of Cyrus, which spanned 537-536 B.C. (March/April 537 to February/March 536), and Ezra 1-3 states that the temple foundations were laid in the 2nd month (April/May) Iyaar of the year after which the Jews returned to Judah. If the Jews returned to Judah in Tishri (September/October) 538, then the temple was begun to be rebuilt in the 2nd month of 537 B.C., namely, Iyaar (April/May). This was Cyrus' 2nd year, which is consistent with what Josephus stated, and so the Jews' return in 538 is established by Josephus.
But if the Jews returned in September/October of 537 B.C., then the following "2nd month" of the year after their return was April/May of 536, which Josephus disconfirms because this would have been in Cyrus' 3rd year. This is the only available secular evidence on this question, and it contradicts the Watchtower's claims.
Now let's see you deal with the actual evidence, rather than dismissing it with transparently stupid denials. You're fooling no one but yourself.
: The biblical accounts along with Josephus agree that the only possible year for the Return was 537 and not 538 BCE for the latter is simply to early.
Nonsense. The biblical account says nothing that distinguishes between 537 and 538. If you can find a biblical statement that confirms your claim, then post the reference. And of course, Josephus proves that 537 is wrong.
: You need to rethink the calendation for the period because what you have posted is utter nonsense as you well know.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, there is no such word as "calendation". You make up words just as you and your Mommy make up nonsensical biblical interpretations.
I've proved my case about Josephus by using references in a number of previous posts. There is no need to repeat them again -- you've seen them all. Therefore, it is you who needs to realize he's posting complete nonsense.
AlanF