Thanks to Frank Kavelin for looking at the old well worn subject from a completely different perspective.
Enjoy!
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/chronology/607-bce-the-bible-or-the-formula.html
607 - New 'Apostate' Light
by sweet pea 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
mentallyfree31
Good stuff Sweetpea. Thanks. I copied this to a Word file for later use.
As my brohter shared with me a few months ago: If we can't rely on secular history, then we can DEFINITELY throw out 607, because there is no way to arrive at 607 or 587 or any other date without secular history. The bible is silent on the matter of dates. So without accepting the secular date of 539 BCE, there is no possible way to forumulate any calculations.
-mentallyfree31-
-
scholar
sweet pea
Post 1154
Scholar has responded to Kavelin's nonsense with a brief comment. The fact of the matter is that the calculated date of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is very well established in accordance with the Bible but also secular evidence despite the feigned protestations of apostaes and higher critics. Kavelin's perspective is neither new or fresh but is simply a rehash of the 'Jonsson' nonsense.
scholar JW
-
bohm
But but but are there no 'celebrated' scholars which has replied to Kavelin?
WHY ARE THE CELEBRATED SCHOLARS SILENT ON THE MATTER!
(and who are they)
-
Black Sheep
Scholar has responded to Kavelin's nonsense with a brief comment
There is a difference between a 'responce' and dealing with the issues raised. Anybody can say a meaningless mouthful. Politicians do it all the time.
How do you feel about your 'response' to Alleymom's K.I.S.S. thread?
I don't see any attempt at dealing with the issue and that thread is years old.
Cheers
Chris
-
Mad Dawg
Scholar! It is good to see you back! This thread is exactly the question that I spent weeks trying to get you to answer before you disappeared. Are you ready to answer it now? Here goes: Can you show, using the Bible ONLY, that Jerusalem fell 607 years before the birth of Jesus??
-
jookbeard
C O Jonsson 's writings on the matter are some of the most respected, acclaimed information on the matter that anyone could possibly need , even the most biased WT apologist would have difficulty in refuting the data that he presents. Scholar's dismissal of labelling the works as "rubbish" is strange.
-
Mad Dawg
"scholar's" dismissal is typical for him. In his mind, it relieves him of having to deal with the data.
-
Mad Sweeney
Since he lacked either the courage or the intellect to use copy-paste technology, Scholar didn't bother putting his response to Frank here on JWN. Here it is:
Your post is simply nonsense and demonstrates your lack of understanding of such matters. However, there is one point in which scholar commends you.
I respond to your review as follows;
1. The Bible clearly attests to the 'year day ' rule in Numbers and Ezekiel as you have cited and this in itself has sufficient exgetical relevance. Further, SDA scholarship has contributed much to this principle of exegesis.2. There is sufficient biblical evidence for the exegetical connection of Luke 21:24 and Daniel 4. Further, Roman Catholic scholarship has made a valuable contribution to this debate as far back as far back as 1985/
3. The seventy years of Jeremiah was a period of desolation, servitude and Exile as proved by Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah. The historian Josephus confirms this presentation of matters made by 'celebrated WT scholars.
You are to be commended for supporting the Society's statement that Brown did connect the times of Daniel 4 with Luke 21:24. Carl Jonsson tried to refute this view and was supported in this error by Raymond Franz and James Penton.Have at him.
-
sd-7
1. The Bible clearly attests to the 'year day ' rule in Numbers and Ezekiel as you have cited and this in itself has sufficient exgetical relevance. Further, SDA scholarship has contributed much to this principle of exegesis.
Great. Demonstrate that the year-day rule must apply in Daniel 4. Even with that, if we use this rule, applying it to a 360-day calendar causes us to lose 5 days every year in the calculation, which throws it all off and makes the actual start date in 1879--a date which I'm sure 'scholarship' would agree is the end of the Gentile Times if it served the necessary purpose behind all of this--a need to demonstrate that a 'faithful slave' class was chosen in 1919, which cannot happen without 1914.
2. There is sufficient biblical evidence for the exegetical connection of Luke 21:24 and Daniel 4. Further, Roman Catholic scholarship has made a valuable contribution to this debate as far back as far back as 1985/
Sources please. Ironic sources, at that--you mean Babylon the Great supports your argument? Hey, you said it, not me. Even if that's so, odd that no other Christian religion is teaching this doctrine.
3. The seventy years of Jeremiah was a period of desolation, servitude and Exile as proved by Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah. The historian Josephus confirms this presentation of matters made by 'celebrated WT scholars.The seventy years of Jeremiah, as clearly stated by Jeremiah himself, do not deal only with Jerusalem, but with ALL the surrounding nations--this is easily determined by reading Jeremiah 25. The appropriate start date would have to be when Babylon meaningfully had domination over all the nations in that region.
You are to be commended for supporting the Society's statement that Brown did connect the times of Daniel 4 with Luke 21:24. Carl Jonsson tried to refute this view and was supported in this error by Raymond Franz and James Penton.Still haven't proven it to be error. Interesting that in Daniel chapter 4, after Jerusalem has long been destroyed, the Gentile king who destroyed it proclaims throughout his realm that "the Most High IS RULER in the kingdom of mankind." Guess his rulership wasn't interrupted after all, if the very king who supposedly interrupted it is actually acknowledging it. Kind of a problem for the whole notion.