It's debatable I suppose, if my hubby put cream in his coffee. One can go round and round but if it is milky instead of clear, chances are he's added the cream. And not something else, say, chalk. After all, it could be de.ba.ted that chalk gives the same consistency as cream in the coffee.
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro 224 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Fisherman
gnat, physical evidence is not view.
-
Bart Belteshassur
Fisherman- A view without physical evidence is worthless.
-
Jeffro
Good thing I've presented plenty of evidence.
-
Bart Belteshassur
Scholar- 2023 "No for the desolation of Judeah only commenced with the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE but it was certainly during the period of Babylonian rule as Stern writes."
Thanks for clarrifying that niether you or WT agree with Stern and that Stern does not agree with you or the WT. I can not therefore understand how you or the WT scholars can accept the archaeological evidence that that only relates to the time period following the fall of Jerusalem, and reject the same evidence that shows that Judeah was also desolate from the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzer to Jerusalem's fall. If you reject the evidence that disagrees with your position but claim the the validity of the evidence that agrees with your position, this is not scholarship or rational, and in the academic world would be considered decieptive and completely dishonest.
Therefore the use of Stern's quotation should not be quoted in any form to justify a position it does not agree with, unless you have additional archealogical evidence which can be used to counter Stern's conclusions ?
Stern does clearly state that the period of Babylonian to which he refers is 604 BCE to 539 BCE, and this period does match the one you propose of 607BCE to 537BCE. Are you saying that there is additional archealogical evidence which Stern was unaware of, that there was desolation between 539 BCE and 537 BCE, if you are please enlighten me?
BB
-
Bart Belteshassur
Sorry in the last pargraph "and this period does" should read "and this period does not."
BB
-
-
scholar
Berte Belteshassur
Post 74
Stern's article on the state of Judah during the Babylonian period which gives a slightly different chronology agrees with the WT interpretation of the biblical seventy year period. Namely that during that period of rulership that the land, the territory of Judah would be desolate and that is exactly what archaeology has found. The desolation was not uniform throughout the whole region as noted in areas such as Benjamin but overall this new evidence certainly vindicates our position.
Archaeologists are not experts in chronology so they simply adopt what ever scheme is popular amongst scholars so it is not surprising that the dating of the period does not exactly agree with ours but in broad terms i have no problem with the date for the period he has chosen. What is more imporatnt is that the period from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Fall of Babylon falls well within the framework of chronology that Stern has chosen to adopt.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Fisherman
Post 566
Chronology is all about interpretation and of course so is the Bible. You ask what is the correct interpretation? The answer is fairly simple. Which system is the simplest, easy to understand? Which system truly recognizes the historicity of the seventy years? Which system provides a consistent or 'cable of chronology going right back to Adam and to Jesus Christ? Which system is cognizant of Bible Prophecy and its fulifillment? Which system has practical value for our day explaining the 'times and the season' leading up to 1914, the birth of God's Kingdom and the 'Last Days'.
The chronology of Jeffro is simply a copy of others combining his own personal spin being antagonistic to the Witnesses. In short, it is a contrivance designed to mislead and deceive the gullible. He has also a website which seeks further to present his nonsense and his own personal interpretations.
So the decision as to which is correct is one that you must decide.
scholar JW
-