A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC (page 22)

scholar

Mr Freeze

You are confusing yourself and getting bogged down in nonsense. Keeping it simple is the way to go. Our timeline is based on principal events with principal dates and scripture texts. The NB period is well known and well represented in the literature. You can identify the rulers at Babylon, add up their respective reigns ending in 539 BCE. You then simply add up the biblical period taking note of the the kings of Judah and the principal events right up to 539 or until 537. You add upo the numbers and you will find a twenty year difference.

If you wish harmonize the two chronologies then you will need to factor in the seventy year period into the Babylonian period and it all comes together.

I could draw a chart for you but my computer skills are limited. Have a go and I will help you .

scholar JW

MrFreeze

You see, I had it all simply lined out but lost my work. I have to say, what I've written above is plenty simple. If you can provide historical proof (not out of the WT) that there were two kings named Nabonidus that ruled back-to-back before Babylon fell, then go for it.

If you add up all the kings from 539 using WT chronology (minus the additional random 19 years of a second Nabonidus that the WT throws in with no proof) then the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign falls on 587. Math really isn't that hard.

Londo111

KISS method outlined here:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/55372/1/586-587-the-K-I-S-S-approach-no-VAT4956-Ptolemy-Josephus-needed
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/215793/1/Watchtower-admits-the-KISS-method-works-Nov-1-2011-WT-p-24

Jeffro

scholiar:

I am aware of the identity of the celebrated WT scholars as a group.

So, according to scholiar, no one actually needs any credentials at all to be recognised as a 'scholar'. Any anonymous person implicitly recognised as part of a group apparently qualifies.

I do not know the identity of those researchers but what I do know is that they were a group independent of Furuli

You want them to be someone other than Furuli, and he is the most likely source. In any case, there's no indication the alleged 'researchers' are independent of the Watch Tower Society. And they've already been proven wrong.

I am no expert in ancient calendation

You're really really not. You can't even tell the difference between accession and non-accession years from a clearly labelled chart.

Bully for you!

Really? People still say that?

There is a credibility gap just akin to the Babylonian gap of twenty years.

Ooh, bringing out the big guns of comedy.

your statue was toppled by the two articles on Chronology published in the Watchtower.

Statue? Anyway... Those two articles are a joke. Misquoting sources, omitting sources, making things up. What a farce!

My experience with Jonsson is that he is incompetent in using scholarly sources.

My experience with scholiar is that he trots out the same generic unsourced non-answers year after year, and because he's said something, he believes he's actually refuted the arguments of others.

You have not dealt with Furuli by mail or email but only through the medium of a website.

That sounds so stupid that it's in the realms of superstition. At least email has made into the acceptable bounds of 'communication' for scholiar's approval.

I could draw a chart for you but my computer skills are limited. Have a go and I will help you .

So you could draw a chart, apart from the fact that you can't because you lack the skill.

Jeffro

Note that the first chart in the previous post provides the regnal periods as provided by classical historians. Financial records from Babylon give a slightly different picture but do not alter the overall length. Financial records can suggest a king reigned for (at most) a few months longer, where the source of the financial records was some distance from the capital city, as news of the change of a king was affected by travelling times.

Jeffro

scholiar:

Scholar is largely reviled on this forum with the exception of the gentleness and sweetness of AnnOMaly who loves the rough and tumble of strong debate

AnnOMaly:

'Gentleness and sweetness'? Well shucks, Neil, but you have a short memory!

Two days later...

scholiar:

AnnOMaly
The first rule of posting on this forum is not to use insulting and provoking language and I find your tone and direct remarks insulting and unbecoming to someone who has been referred to as a scholar.

LOL

Finkelstein

Scholar says ....... 1. I am aware of the identity of the celebrated WT scholars as a group.

This so called identified group of people are a bunch of amateur bible scholars, who were mostly self taught within themselves.

Ignorance prevails within this group like no other large religious organization and why wouldn't since it was started by an

amateur bible scholar C T Russell. This amateur bible scholarly was proliferated through the organization's published works

......... Unfortunately.

Doug Mason

Jeffro,

Have you made any effort to verify that the person who calls himself "Scholar JW" in these exchanges with you is really Neil or an imposter? The nature of these posts by this "JW Scholar" do not match my knowledge of the genuine N Mc.

Doug

Doug Mason

Dating of the destruction of Jerusalem is a red herring (maybe a red whale!). The WTS does not start their 70 years with that event.

Doug

Jeffro

Doug Mason:

Have you made any effort to verify that the person who calls himself "Scholar JW" in these exchanges with you is really Neil or an imposter?

The pseudo-'scholar' on this thread is the same forum user account he previously used. Unless someone has been given his J-W.net password, it seems quite unlikely to be anyone else. The style of argumentation is reminiscent of the same style from years past.

Or are you actually asking about the other goon from a few months back? Yes, he was an imposter. But he's long gone.

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

Share this