by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible
scholiar:
Whatever, the outlook they were proven to be correct with the outbreak of the Great War in 1914.
No. They weren't.
Russell thought Jesus had 'returned' invisibly in 1874 and that Armageddon would begin "in or shortly after" October 1914.
A war starting in July 1914 that followed on from the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) had nothing to do with anything Russell predicted.
It was only years later that Rutherford retrofitted Bible Student (BS) beliefs about 1914.
True Jeffro lol
Jeffro
Aha Ha! You are back.
The comparison of the total regnal years for the Divided Monarchy with Bible Chronology is not meaningless especially when you compare these two listing with tabulations of other scholars for it is part and parcel of collecting relevant data toso as to become schematic. I never said that the assigned dates for the reigns agree with our chronology only the sum totals and also both of which agree with your tabulation so we are all together in the same bed. Is that not cosy?
I know what methodology means.Do you? Have you read the introductory paragraphs in his artcle titles "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" If not then read it.
Yes many reference works give 609 as the disappearance of Assyria from the pages of history but others do not. It is still a very poor choice for a chronological marker for it would be better to go for 605 BCE The end of any empire is in itself a significant event and that applies to Assyria but if you are truly honest that the most significant event in Israelite History was the Fall of Jerusalem- a far superior candidate for the beginning of the seventy years.
Jeremiah's prophecy was mainly targeted to Judah as confirmed by reading the very first chapter. In his book he prophesied to the nations as well but the principal audience of his book is Jeusalem-Judah and the Land.
The foundation of 607 BCE is now more solid because of recent research regarding the dating of the Neb's 37 th year as explained in the Nov 15 th Wt 2012 concerning Vat4956. This research now brings Neo-Babylonian chronology as a corrobative witness to the accuracy of Bible chronology. Further, NB chronology omits any reference to the biblical seventy years thus creating a historical gap of twenty years so when this is factored in then NB chronology can now be harmonized with Bible chronology proving 607 BCE
537 BCE as the endpoint for the seventy years conforms to the biblical and historical evidence as presented. As with many dates there is always some degree of uncertainty because not all of the facts are presented bu there is sufficent data to validate 537 BCE.
The date 586 enjoys wide support within scholarship. Why not Google it and test it yourself?
The change of leadership at Babylon has everything to do with the seventy years and Jeemiah's prophecy for did not Jeremiah and Daniel foretell this event? After Babylon fell there was a new King of Babylon who kept the Jews captive until their release two years later in 537'
I agree that Jeremiah 29:10 can accommodate the seventy years for Babylon but the domination of Babylon over the Jewish captives did not end in 539 but two years later when the new leadership rleased them thus ending the seventy years for Babylon and the seventy years in Babylon.
Yes I agree would it not be very exciting if some notable scholar published confirmation of 607 BCE. I can't wait but, hang on has not what Rolf Furuli has done?
The fact of the seventy years proves a gap of twenty years because NB chronology makes no allowance of it even though its dynasty parallels the same period. So, it cannot be ignored. Once recognized and factored in then you 607 confirmed. Done and Dusted.
Did you love my pretty illustration?
Was not Jeremiah talking about eventual judgement upon Babylon and its territiory and immediate judgement upon the King. Does not Jeremiah when prophesying against the nations speak of eventual judgement?
scholar JW
The foundation of 607 BCE is now more solid because of recent research regarding the dating of the Neb's 37 th year as explained in the Nov 15 th Wt 2012 concerning Vat4956.
LOL. That article was a JOKE. It has already been thoroughly debunked for the dishonest piece it is. And it was the 1 November 2011 issue. Are you too embarrassed to cite it correctly?
Was not Jeremiah talking about eventual judgement upon Babylon and its territiory and immediate judgement upon the King. Does not Jeremiah when prophesying against the nations speak of eventual judgement?
The immediate judgement happend in 539. If you try to twist the context of nations serving Babylon to some kind of eventual judgement after Babylon's king was dead, then that could mean the Jews still haven't been released. Your assertion is meaningless.
You've said nothing new and provided no sources.
How certain was Russell about the date 606 B. C. which was later changed to 607? . What Pastor Russell Said, Q84, states: . This reason: We endeavored to find the date on which the kingdom was taken away from Israel, the date on which the crown was taken from Zedekiah, the date on which the kingdom of Israel there ceased, the kingdom of Judah there ceased and went into absolute captivity and the city of Jerusalem went into destruction. Now what year was that? We understand, as nearly as we are able to calculate: we do not claim infallibility, but as nearly as we are able to know, from all the history there is to be known, we believe that to {Page Q84} be the year 606 B. C. We will not go into all the proofs. That would take us all afternoon, and you have it in print, you have read it for yourselves and you know whether you believe it or whether you do not believe it and you were not urged to believe it. I simply set before you what I found there, what seemed to be, to me, the most reasonable answer to this matter, and you believed as much of it or as little of it as appealed to your heart. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------- . History shows us that Russell was wrong about 606 because it was changed to 607! Was it not? How certain about the 606 date does Russell sound in his answer? How certain do his words sound? . 1. as nearly as we are able to calculate . 2. we do not claim infallibility . 3. nearly as we are able to know . 4. and you were not urged to believe it . . ------------------------------------------------- . But are JWs urged to believe it? NO! They are forced to believe it! Or else! . . . . . Atlantis
Jeffro
Whatever, 2011 then. The articles display sound scholarship and although others have critiqued them and formed a opinion then that is matter for them. In my opinion the articles were up to date, clearly written with a presented the case well. These articles were long overdue as it is some thirty years since anything of depth has been published on this subkect of chronology. I have copies of the criticisms and it is to be expected that there would be much that is open to contention but those articles were not written for such critics. The first review by Jonsson with its opening paragraphs regarding the very first quote regarding thei important event in Jewish history showed the bias against these articles. It was all down hill from there.
Yes there was an immediate judgement for the then king of Babylon but in that very same verse and eventual judgement was specified against that nation and land. All in the same mix. So you cannot and have not proved that Jeremiah 25:12 only applies to 539BCE
scholar JW
The articles display sound scholarship
No. They don't. The authors are anonymous. There was no formal peer review of the WT articles. Scholars who were cited have said they were misquoted and taken out of context. The identity of alleged 'researchers' (most likely Furuli) supposedly supporting a JW interpretation of VAT 4956 was omitted entirely. The article lied about the validity of the planetary positions in VAT 4956. The whole thing was a joke. I suppose your self-identification as 'scholar' is consistent with that kind of 'scholarship' though.
Yes there was an immediate judgement for the then king of Babylon but in that very same verse and eventual judgement was specified against that nation and land. All in the same mix. So you cannot and have not proved that Jeremiah 25:12 only applies to 539BCE
Same claim, different day. Fact remains that the surrounding nations (which included the Medes - Jeremiah 25:25) were not serving the Neo-Babylonian kings beyond 539, and the judgement of Babylon's king is explicitly indicated in Daniel 5. Some ambiguous eventual judgement of the land (which is still inhabited) later than 537 has no bearing on anything at all.
One of the most interesting things I've discovered of late is how the House of Egibi records confirm the reign of the Babylonian Kings.
Thus helping again to shoot down 607.
Oddly, and I can't think why this is, the 2011 WT made no mention of these incredibly important line of evidence.
Scholar - what are your thoughts on the House of Egibi and why this was left out of the 2011 WT?
The two articles in the October and November 2011 WT were fantastic, they helped free 2+2=5 of his long held religious superstitions.
Scholar, why do you want to discredit your holy book by trying to go against the overwhelming evidence? Do you prefer that the bible is in clear conflict with the thousands of pieces of evidence that form the foundation of a widely accepted date in history?
The fact is the bible is in harmony with the historic evidence. It has been explained here and elsewhere many times.
It is obvious to everyone reading this, that the only reason you cling to 607, is the implications it has to your entire belief system (1914). It's a hard pill to swallow. It just requires some honesty on your part.
Some religious quacks in the 1800's were off track with prophetic speculation, and devised ways to attract attention to their published works by speculating on the scriptures with crazy date setting and numerology, all garbage. A few people in New York are still doing it. Just deal with it and move on.
wizzstick:
Oddly, and I can't think why this is, the 2011 WT made no mention of these incredibly important line of evidence.
Kind of obvious, isn't it?
