Anne is owning the false scholar. LOL
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
scholar
Ann OMaly
I choose what specific areas I wish to research not you just as you choose no to divulge your qualifications, if any and choose not to engage with directly my post or email.
You can what the areas are of conflict and agreement by reading ahat such scholars have written for it is called comparison. I do not need to make a comparison bewteen your so-called research and others because I have no confidence in what you say or your interpretation of this most contentious matter, It is best left to the experts. When you post your credentials of you both as Jonsson has referred you as scholars then you both can be taken seriously.
Yes, we call it the traditional chronology or Absolute chronology or Ne0-Babylonian chronology and Albertz simply uses the accepted date with some criticism and review at various points because there are considerable points of disagreement amongst scholars on this chronology.
Furuli is a real scholar with real degrees fully competent in the areas he is dealing with, those areas he not an expert he readily acknowledges. I am aware ofGrabb's criticism and that's fine for it is up to the reader to make a final judgement.
I do not mind being called a fool because I am in good company. If this is the case then why do you respond to my posts?
scholar JW
-
slimboyfat
scholar pretendus returns!
-
Jeffro
scholiar (to AnnOMaly):
I do not need to make a comparison bewteen your so-called research and others because I have no confidence in what you say or your interpretation of this most contentious matter, It is best left to the experts.
That's a disingenuous fabrication. Because, in fact, scholiar also does not respect the interpretations of the (other) experts either.
I do not mind being called a fool because I am in good company. If this is the case then why do you respond to my posts?
To demonstrate to other readers how dishonest and inept you are, of course.
-
Doug Mason
Jeffro,
The crucial date for the WTS is the moment when the first Returnees assembled at the temple in Jerusalem. They rely on their date of Tishri 537 BCE to be able to arrive at 607 BCE for the entry of Jews into Egypt, following the murder of Gedaliah.
It is my contention that no one, whether the WTS, you, or I, is able to positively date that event. It could have taken place in any year from 538 BCE to 535 BCE, depending on the assumptions being made. A search of the www shows the range of dates that are proposed. This is the major problem for the WTS; the elephant in the room.
As you point out, no one knows the timing of Cyrus’ Decree; it could have been made at any time during his first year. Likewise, no one has any proof – only assumptions – about the time taken for the Jews to prepare, when they actually left, arrived in the villages, the length of time they took to settle down, or the time they took after that to get to Jerusalem. If these were important to Ezra, he would have made a point of writing the details. His sole concern was identifying who had legitimate rights to the priesthood.
Nehemiah used the Tishri calendar, even when writing about a foreign monarch (see Theile, discussing Neh 1:1 and 2:1, as well as the period in question). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally a single document (scroll), and Ezra wrote the document named after him, as well as 2 Chronicles. So the likelihood of a Tishri calendar must not be ruled out.
The writer of Daniel ascribes to Darius a rule that reached its first year, which means it would have commenced on 24 March 538 BCE (P&D Julian dating). If, as you say, Darius and Cyrus were not coregents, that moves the start of Cyrus’ first year to 12 March 537.
To prove that the Jews assembled on Tishri 1 (5 October) in 537 BCE, the following needs to be known: In which part of his first year did Cyrus issue his decree (from 24 March 538 to 11 March 537, ignoring a rule by Darius). Then provide undeniable details, not assumptions, of how long it actually took people to prepare their families, and the date when they left. (They would have had to wait until people from various parts of the region had gathered.)
Prove how long it took them to move their families, possessions, and beasts, to reach Yehud. Prove how long it took before all of them had arrived at their respective towns and villages and had settled down. Prove how long it took before they all assembled at the temple site.
This is the exercise that the WTS has to address – but it cannot achieve its objective. In their system of reckoning, the date of the destruction of Jerusalem is a red herring. The WTS jumps from 537 to the exodus of Jews into Egypt. That is the date they have to be concerned about.
Doug
-
Jeffro
It is my contention that no one, whether the WTS, you, or I, is able to positively date that event.
I disagree. However, you are correct that if I'm right the WTS is wrong, and if I'm wrong, the WTS is wrong.
It could have taken place in any year from 538 BCE to 535 BCE, depending on the assumptions being made.
I see no possibility that it could be as late 536 let alone 535. Unless you start ignoring sources altogether.
Comparative analysis of Daniel, Ezra, Josephus and the Nabonidus cylinder fits perfectly with what I've said.
Comparison of Ezra with Josephus only allows for the temple reconstruction in May of Cyrus' second year.
Comparison of Nabonidus cylinder with Daniel only allows Darius the Mede a brief term as governor before Cyrus arrives and takes the throne.
These factors combined restrict the period of Cyrus' decree to early 538.
As you point out, no one knows the timing of Cyrus’ Decree; it could have been made at any time during his first year.
You are making a conclusion that I did not 'point out'. The period is reduced by deductive reasoning. Unless you ignore what Josephus says.
Nehemiah used the Tishri calendar,
Indeed. And going back to my notes, I have indicated as much.
(see Theile, discussing Neh 1:1 and 2:1, as well as the period in question)
Thiele is wrong at various times, including, notably, his assessment about 586 for the fall of Jerusalem. This is probably for his own theological reasons.
In any case, there is no indication Ezra and Daniel used Tishri based years. I will, however, further analyse the various alternative theories.
It's also worth noting that Nehemiah 1:1 doesn't mention Artaxerxes. (For example, it could have been Eliashib's 20th year, following on from Ezra chapter 10, though that can't be said with any certainty.)
The writer of Daniel ascribes to Darius a rule that reached its first year,
Darius was a governor. Governors don't have accession years.
If, as you say, Darius and Cyrus were not coregents, that moves the start of Cyrus’ first year to 12 March 537.
Actually, I said they occupied different positions, and that even if those periods overlapped, Cyrus still took the throne in Babylon in late 539.
Again, the WTS is wrong anyway, and this is only one of many problems for their superstitious numerology.
-
Doug Mason
Jeffro,
My detailed analysis of the situation is at:
http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Jews_return_home_ver_3.pdf
An interesting clue lies in the fact that Cyrus' decree as recorded by Ezra bears no semblance to the words on the Cyrus Cylinder.
Doug
-
Doug Mason
Jeffro,
See the Chapter "Jews Return to Yehud" (at least) in my Study:
http://www.jwstudies.com/They_would_not_listen_Version_1.pdf
Doug
-
exwhyzee
marked for later reference.
-
AnnOMaly
Neil,
I do not need to make a comparison bewteen your so-called research and others because I have no confidence in what you say or your interpretation of this most contentious matter, It is best left to the experts. When you post your credentials of you both as Jonsson has referred you as scholars then you both can be taken seriously. ...
... Furuli is a real scholar with real degrees fully competent in the areas he is dealing with, those areas he not an expert he readily acknowledges. I am aware ofGrabb's criticism and that's fine for it is up to the reader to make a final judgement.
'The reader' can only make a 'final judgment' if they are knowledgeable about the issues being referred to. You are not. You refuse to look at my and others' research. You do not know if my, Marjorie Alley's, COJ's, Hunger's, or Furuli's and the WT's claims are valid. Therefore, you cannot make an informed judgment about which research can be taken seriously and upon which to base your confidence.
You say you are confident in Furuli's research despite him not being an expert in those fields and yet you dismiss out-of-hand others' research because they are not experts in those fields, and as Jeffro said, you dismiss even the experts' research! You (again) reveal that you actually prefer to remain ignorant of the facts and blindly prejudiced. Regardless of the degrees you boast about having, a true scholar would not act in such a capricious manner.
I do not mind being called a fool because I am in good company. If this is the case then why do you respond to my posts?
LOL. Yes, there is another saying - "Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." So why do I respond to you?
1. I cannot stand pompous blowhards and feel an overwhelming urge to deflate them.
2. You speak a lot of nonsense and, for the sake of lurkers and newbies, that nonsense has to be rebutted.
3. There's something about those who vociferously defend shaky WT doctrines that makes me wonder how assured of their position they really are.
4. Doug has told me in the past that you're a nice guy in real life. One day I hope to reach that 'nice guy' buried underneath the online persona and actually have a respectful, sensible, scholarly conversation with him. (I won't hold my breath, though.)