scholar, could you please provide me with the names of the celebrated wt scholars so I may check out their education status? Thank you. If I am going to study something I would certainly want to know the persons are trained in their field of study.
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
jeanV
Josephus makes many reference to the fact of the seventy years as a fixed historic period which ran from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Return of the Exiles under Cyrus and he shows in agreement with biblical history that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation.
you'd better check well those references and the reliability of Josephus. If you examined Josephus with the same criteria used by the WTBTS to question Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries, etc... he would not stand for half a second.
-
scholar
jeanV
Let me assure you that I am fully aware of the issues surrounding Josephus and I have concluded that as with all other secular historians and secular records that these are not inspired of God and are fallible sources and documents. Josephus is a reliable but not infallible historian and his Jewish history should not be ignored but provides a useful testimony to the biblical record and supports nicely, accurate Bible chronology long proclaimed by the celebrated WT scholars.
scholar JW
-
scholar
carla
I cannot assist you with the identity or qualifications of the celebrated WT scholars
Regretfully
scholar JW
-
Arthur
I cannot assist you with the identity or qualifications of the celebrated WT scholars
Let me guess. Because of modesty they wish to remain discreet and anonymous? If that is so, why is it that the organization has no problem placing color photos of the Governing Body members in the yearbook?
Perhaps these "celebrated" WT scholars are the same "celebrated" scholars who created the "superior" and "unbiased" New World Translation.
-
Jeffro
I see 'scholar' has returned. LOL.
Now that you're back... you were going to show us your promised complete tabulation of Neo-Babylonian kings... And you were also going to demonstrate where any of the actual flaws were with the tabulation I had provided for that period. Good luck. Or will you continue to just attack other posters with unverified claims that the scriptures supposedly support your view without any references whatsoever - still clinging to your misunderstanding of 2 Chronicles 36. LOL. They've really got a stranglehold on you, haven't they... -
scholar
Jeffro
Post 1542
Yes, I am back for the moment. There is no misunderstanding with 2 Chronicles 36:20-22 but simplystating plain statement of Scripture. It is you and your wiley poztates that are victims of higher criticism and convoluted misinterpretation of the Scriptures. If you require a tabulation of Neo-Babylonian rulers then consult the secular records but as Josephus provides different regnal data then you have a bigggg problem.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
Yes, I am back for the moment.
Hopefully it will only be a brief moment, unless you actually come up with something worth posting.
There is no misunderstanding with 2 Chronicles 36:20-22 but simplystating plain statement of Scripture.
You refer of course to the badly punctuated rendering of the NWT for that verse. But let's analyse that rendering:
19 And he proceeded to burn the house of the [true] God and pull down the wall of Jerusalem; and all its dwelling towers they burned with fire and also all its desirable articles, so as to cause ruin. 20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
These verses aren't honestly presented by the NWT. The key is that the NWT (and some other translations) attempts to give the impression that Jeremiah prophesied something about paying off Sabbaths, which does not actually appear anywhere in the bible at all. Therefore the rendering is incorrect, and it is something else in the verses that fulfilled the words of Jeremiah. The statements about paying of Sabbaths can only be validly viewed as a parenthetical remark, because they do not refer to anything Jeremiah wrote. As The New International Version puts it:
The land enjoyed its Sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.
However, the NWT wording can also be reconciled with reality when the parenthetical remark is put in the right context:
Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign, to fulfil Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah (until the land had paid off its Sabbaths; all the days of lying desolated it kept Sabbath), to fulfil seventy years.
'scholar' will of course claim that this is not valid, however he cannot point to anything in the scriptures about this supposed 'paying off of Sabbaths' as prophesied by Jeremiah. Additionally, verse 20 indicates that they were servants of a Babylonian lineage until the end of the 70 years, and that cannot be inferred to continue past 539.
It is you and your wiley poztates that are victims of higher criticism and convoluted misinterpretation of the Scriptures.
There you go again with childish name calling because you can't accept facts on their own merits. You have to resort to ad hominem attacks because you cannot validly dispute the subject matter.
If you require a tabulation of Neo-Babylonian rulers then consult the secular records but as Josephus provides different regnal data then you have a bigggg problem.
You well know that there are supposed problems of different regnal terms of kings even as stated in the bible, and these can usually be explained by periods of co-regency. Your strawman argument about Josephus is irrelevant, and you are still avoiding the issue of providing information that you claimed to have. And when you want to emphasise extended pronunciation of a word, it is customary to repeat the vowels of the word: "biiiiig" rather than your effort, which would be pronounced as "big-g-g-g-g-g".
-
scholar
Jeffro
Post 1543
Whatever I post you will surely respond so my postings must be of a serious threat to your nonsense.
The NWT is the most brilliant of all translations so any accusation of mispunctuation amounts to jealousy on your part.
Are you trying to say that the expression 'until the land had paid of its sabbaths' does not occur in the original text? Or is it the case that your special pleading cannot accommodate this expression because it makes you look foolish? This expression is not parenthetical because the marginal reference in the NWT cites Lev.26:34 which contains this identical expression thus destroying your argument.
Indeed verse 20 highlights servitude to Babylon which I have always maintained for the seventy years for in short the seventy years was a period of exile, a period of serviude and a period of desolation.
A tabulation of Neo-Babylonian rulers is impossible because the data is not reliable between the sources and is compromised by Josephus' history. Also, the Bible provides minimal data for these rulers which shows its insignificance in respect of establishing a accurate Bible chronology. But the most grevious issue is the simple fact that such proposed regnal years cannot account for the seventy years with a Babylonian Gap of twenty years.
So you have one biggggggg.....problem!
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
'scholar', you poor deluded minion...
Whatever I post you will surely respond so my postings must be of a serious threat to your nonsense.
I reply to your drivel for the benefit of new readers, and those who haven't had the opportunity to investigate the issues in depth. Nothing you have ever presented has ever been a threat, in fact I usually just have to do a cut-and-paste of things I've previously written because there is nothing you can present on this issue to challenge me.
The NWT is the most brilliant of all translations so any accusation of mispunctuation amounts to jealousy on your part.
Now, that's just funny. For example, there's the woeful and deliberate mistranslation of Jeremiah 29:10. We all know they word it that way to lend support to their errant spin on the 70 years. But their translation ignores the context of the previous chapter: the 70 years hadn't even begun during the setting of that verse, so the NWT's usage is meaningless.
Are you trying to say that the expression 'until the land had paid of its sabbaths' does not occur in the original text? Or is it the case that your special pleading cannot accommodate this expression because it makes you look foolish? This expression is not parenthetical because the marginal reference in the NWT cites Lev.26:34 which contains this identical expression thus destroying your argument.
I forgot that I would need to really dumb things down for you. Do you know what 'parenthetical' means? I never contended that it doesn't belong in the verse in 2 Chronicles. I said that 'paying off the sabbaths' was not part of what Jeremiah prophesied, and is therefore not that of Jeremiah's words that was "fulfilled".
Indeed verse 20 highlights servitude to Babylon which I have always maintained for the seventy years for in short the seventy years was a period of exile, a period of serviude and a period of desolation.
The bible never mentions a period of 70 years of exile, so your conclusion is invalid. "Nations" served Babylon for 70 years, and that irrefutably ended in 539 when Babylon was "called to account" (Jeremiah 25:12; Daniel 5:26-31).
A tabulation of Neo-Babylonian rulers is impossible because the data is not reliable between the sources and is compromised by Josephus' history. Also, the Bible provides minimal data for these rulers which shows its insignificance in respect of establishing a accurate Bible chronology. But the most grevious issue is the simple fact that such proposed regnal years cannot account for the seventy years with a Babylonian Gap of twenty years.
So you admit that you lied when you said you could present that information. The 20 year gap doesn't exist, and this is further proven by the correlation of my previous tabulation of the reigns of the Divided Kingdom through to the Neo-Babylonian period with Josephus' statement regarding "the interval of one hundred and eighty-two years and a half".
So you have one biggggggg.....problem!
There is no big problem. There is a small problem... well more of a minor annoyance really, and that is you.