Excelent Londo111, Thank you for sharing.
Can I use these videos on my blog ? if we need to communicate privately please send me a PM for approval and or your requirements.
Thank you in advance.
PT
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Londo111
Thanks, Ann!
Pterist: Go for it. I didn't know you had a blog. We align closely in terms of eschatology, I’d love to see what you have to say!
-
garyneal
I think the thing that so fascinates me about this is that no one outside of the JW faith even cares about this stuff. Most people just accept the evidence that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE and go on with their lives.
-
Londo111
Sometimes I wonder if us former JWs are the number one consumer of the work of Assyriologists and Archastronomers. Happy are you, Gary, never have to carry the baggage of bad chronology around in your head.
-
Finkelstein
Scholar says ...
Jeffro
Our interpretation is based on Scripture and harmonizes well with the historical evidence, it is simple and not convoluted.
Quite the opposite in reality the WTS. interpretation is solely their own and is not supported by anything but weakly
devised speculation and improbable self imposed theory, there is now a growing mountain of evidence to uphold the recognized date of
Jerusalem finally destruction of 587 BCE.
Sorry Scholar that you choose the wrong religion, but you must remember the WTs. and its leading writers/executives were never
well trained bible scholars, they were more religious minded businessmen running and operating their own publishing house.
Out of that endeavor they created their own weakly devised doctrines, which had more commercial appeal other than their acute accuracy.
-
Finkelstein
It seems that when (605 BCE) Nebuchadnezzar took over the throne from his father that he started the ruling Abdication over
Jerusalem around at that time. From the time of him being over throned by Cyrus in 539, 605 - 539 still makes up only 66 years.
close to 70 but not quite.
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Hi! How are you? Yes I repeated myself and it is my default position because nothing has changed much. Since we spoke last time we have Wt issues on Chronology been published in two issues, Rolf Furuli has revised his thesis with a rebuttal to Hunger, Rodger Young has contributed further articles on chronology pertaining to sabbatical year and Jubilee cycles. Steinemann if my spelling is correct has published a lenghty artcle on the Date of Return wherein he advocates 535 BCE. But overall nothing much else has changed so my overall approach remains the same. There are a couple of minor issues on chronology bubbling away so I will be alert to these matters.
At the moment I am not completely settled, my library is in storage at my residence and when I get somme bookcases in order then I will have immediate access to my papers and books.
Scholars continue to stumble over the years because there remain so many different interpretations and this remains the case right up to the present day. One thing is fairly certain that such scholars do regards the seventy years in the Bible, as one holistic period so that is good start. I am very familiar with Winkle's studies along with all of the others so one has read the literature on the subject then one can form a considered opinion and I have stated mine .
Your comment about 609BCE and Assyria is problematic as a beginning for the seventy years. This simply your opinion of matters. COJ has the same view but he also admits th the possibility of 605 BCE so even here we have opinion. I believe we can do much better for a beginning of the seventy year period.
As for the seventy years of Tyre these represented a period of Babylonian domination which is well explained in our commentary on Isaiah but our conversation concerns the seventy years of Judah a period of servitude-exile-desolation totally different to what befelled Tyre.
I spin out the controversy concerning 586/587 for the simple reason that this proves that the methodology is deficieent and that is reason why Rodger Young wrote his article pleading the solution as 587. So it comes down to methodology. Wt scholars do not have this problem because we apply a different method in calculating relevant dates thus arriving at a precise date 607 BCE for the Fall.
It is correct that the Wt states that secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE but what is not stated is that serious biblical scholars endorse 586 BCE as opposed. Other chronologists have proposed 589 as a suitable candidate. So scholarship is divided on this point.
What is fuzzy about connecting the Fall of Babylon with the end of the seventy years that the Jews were still captive to, for, at , in Babylon after 539. The exile had not ended and the land of Judah was still desolate so the seventy years must have ended after 539 according to the specific words of Jeremiah .
It may come as a surprise to you Ann is that I care not one iota whether Jeffro has read COJ for there were other scholars who wrote similar criticisms of WT chronology long before COJ and Jeffro. Also, i remain unfazed that Wt chronology is not supported by scholarship.
If a published regnal list agrees with that published by WT then that proves that we are doing something right and that we are competent in the field of chronology . You give credit where credit is due and not be churlish about such matters.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
we have Wt issues on Chronology been published in two issues
And what laughably dishonest attempts they were. See here and here.
Your comment about 609BCE and Assyria is problematic as a beginning for the seventy years.
Notice how pseudo-scholar attempts to skirt around the fact that there was a significant event 70 years prior to the known end point of the 70 years when Babylon's king was "called to account".
The exile had not ended and the land of Judah was still desolate so the seventy years must have ended after 539 according to the specific words of Jeremiah .
That is no rationale at all for entirely ignoring what is directly stated at Jeremiah 25:12 (not to mention completely ignoring the context of Jeremiah 29:10). The Bible never mentions 70 years of exile, and explicitly states that "all these nations" would serve Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-11), and that only nations that would not submit would be exiled (Jeremiah 27:8-11).
It may come as a surprise to you Ann is that I care not one iota whether Jeffro has read COJ for there were other scholars who wrote similar criticisms of WT chronology long before COJ and Jeffro.
But you can be certain that pseudo-scholar will continue to make the claim about my research when it suits him, even though he knows his claim to be false.
If a published regnal list agrees with that published by WT then that proves that we are doing something right and that we are competent in the field of chronology .
No, moron. The JW chronology of the Divided Monarchy is based on that provided by James Ussher - unsurprising for an Adventist sect that developed from Protestantism. That is why there are relative synchronisms with other Christian sources regarding the 390-year period, which is derived from Ezekiel 4:5. However, the years assigned by the Watch Tower Society for the Divided Monarchy are all wrong because of their 20-year gap in the Neo-Babylonian period, and the years they assign have no agreement from other sources.
-
cha ching
Jeffro: thank you for all of your hard work also, and thx for the link. So much work, so little time, tho I have investigated much, bought astrolony books, etc. on my own.. thank you.
Scholar/WTBTS: thank you for "your two scholarly articles," they helped both me and my family escape! Right from the "horses" mouth. What could be better?
Cha Ching Cha Ching...no more bling!$$$
-
scholar
Jeffro
I am fully aware of Jonsson's rebuttal and also his reliance on the contribution by Doug Mason. All such material is in my files and i have difficulty in refuting and responding to all of these criticisms.
The only significant event which marked the beginning oif the seventy years was the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE and the only two significant events which climaxed the end of the seventy years was the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE shortly followed by the Return of the Exiles in 537BCE.
Both Jeremiah 29:10 and Jeremiah 25:11-12 are consistent with the simple fact that the seventy years was aperiod of EXILE-SERVITUDE-DESOLATION. Such an interpretation is equally consistent with the other seventy year texts of Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah.
Your research is simply a rehash of Jonsson's views so there is no need to pay any attention to your nonsense.
The chronologies of the Divided monarchy are independent of James Ussher and all such chronologies differ widely, Go and make the relevant comparision!
The 390 year period of regnal lengths of the Divided Monarchy are separate to the issue of dating the precise dates of those kings for it is not so much the lengths that are in dispute because the Bible provides such details. The challenge for the chronologist is to signs respective dates for each reign. Neo-Babylonian chronology is simply 20 years too short because it fails to account for the seventy years hence the Babylonian Gap.
scholar JW