by Xander 163 Replies latest watchtower bible
City Fan
Herein are a couple of references:
Chronological And Background Charts Of The Old Testament, John H. Walton 1994, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp.30-31.
Excursus 'Seventy Years' in the Word Biblical Commentary, Jeremiah 26-52, Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise , Thomas G. Smothers, Word Books. Dallas, Texas, 1995, Vol.27, pp. 73-75.
These materials should occupy you for awhile
Enjoy
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
onacruse
You make some startling claims about the nature of the NT corpus. It is true that NT is christogically focussed but it also contains eschatology. Such s subject embraces the Society's teaching of the Gentile Times as shown by its reference in the writings of prominent theologians. This is shown in Lukan studies considering the eschaton in Luke 21:24.
You should read the following:
The Theology of St. Luke by Hans Conzelmann. 1966
St. Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History by Helmut Flender,1967
Enjoy
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
Scholar BA MA Studies In Religion,
I cannot cite any modern reference work that gives 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem. However, all is not lost. What I can do is supply many refernces in the scholarly literature which highlight the confused chronology for the Divided Monarchy ending with the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 or was it 587? In addition, the literature shows that there is considerable confusion as to the subject of the seventy years.
Here we are again - back on your screens for the first time with the same defenses and the same issues. When we conversed a while back you may remember that I made the point that as no person can state with absolute certainty the exact date that Jerusalem did fall to the Babylonians, where does the secular weight of evidence lie with regard to the most probable date of this event?
Weight of evidence as you must know especially as you purport to be studying these matters in depth in a place of secular learning, works by assessing all the evidence, and the lack of evidence, then making a decision based on the percentage of certainties. For example the weight of evidence makes it likely that Shakespeare wrote the works ascribed to him, but many put up a vigorous argument that in actual fact Marlowe, or even Bacon wrote these works. However, until the weight of evidence overwhelms the current historical viewpoints, Shakespeare rules supreme.
So it seems sensible that if you wish to continue holding to your views that you acknowledge where the secular weight of evidence rests in this matter as of todays date and explain why any sensible person should risk their future and their belief system based on the tenuous evidence presented by researchers - many of whom, such as the WTS 'researchers' have an agenda the goes way beyond historical accuracy and is cemented in an Adventist theology that fell asleep at the turn of the Century.
Methinks the wise will stick to 607 as it avoids many problems and confusion
Methinks you confuse the term 'wise' with the term gullible.
Best regards - HS
Edited by - hillary_step on 3 January 2003 17:20:11
undercover
You ask that I supply secular evidence for 607 BC. I have not had difficulty in finding such evidence in the WT publications. So what is your problem? Poor literacy or comprehension? Such publications have discussed the matter in much detail so what is missing?
You tell me what evidence you are seeking and I will try to help. However, at this point no clay tablet has been found that has 607 inscribed upon it. Is this what you are seeking?
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
hilary_step
So we now have this new rule for the Fall of Ferusalem do we? THE SECULAR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE RULE, How ingenious.By such application of this rule many Christians who walk by faith would be troubled by the fact that many of the Biblical events are just stories. If this rule is so illustrious and confirmatory then how is that that you cannot determine the PRECISE date for Jerusalem, 586 or 587. You must remember that the Bible is not just the province of scholars but the populace who walk by faith and not absolute knowledge.
In the matter of reconstructing biblical history it is not just the weight of secular evidence that is important but the interpretation of that evidence but also the interpretation of the biblical narrative. A good example of this is the problematic period of the seventy years whereupon there is no secular weight of evidence.
Have you done your regnal list for the Divided Monarchy yet?
Regards
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
Alan F
Carl Jonsson in his Gentile Times Reconsidered has stated that he has nothing further to say on that subject and that he would use Internet forums if further discussion is needed. If this the end of the matter then perhaps it is time to produce new research on the Divided Monarchy as discussed by Edwin Thiele in his magnum opus -The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Perhaps, you and Carl collaborate in producing a revision of that work under the title which may Ibe so bold to suggest, to wit: THE MYSTERIOUS NUMBERS OF THE HEBREW KINGS - RECONSIDERED.
Please, you must do a better exegesis of Jeremiah 25:11-12. What has been attempted thus far is simply pathetic.
Best wishes
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
?scholar?; what part of this is so hard for you ???? i'll make it 3rd grade easy for you OK.... first check jeremiah.. it clearly says NATIONS WILL GIVE SERVITUDE TO BABALON FOR 70 YEARS...EASY ENOUGH ,that means nations will have to pay a tax,or give slaves ,food, money, crops ,livestock, what ever.. so now let's get on with the facts 3rd grade style, easy simple ok in 609b.c. babylon took over the asyians and took over most of the kingdoms in their area. in 605b.c. they got to jerusalem and beat the jews, and took money and slaves etc... but it was not destroyed.. this all took place in nebbcadnessers father's rule and the first year of nebuchdnezzerar's rule. even if my spelling sucks it is easy to follow. now the bible says CLEARLY THAT JERUSELEM WAS DESTROYED IN NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S 18TH YEAR.. look it up it's in the bible, add 587 plus 18 you get 605 ...that might be 4th grade math,.now i'm not going over your head.. now to make a long story short to keep it in a GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL... you tAKE THE DATE THAT THE WT AND ALL WORLD HISTORY AGREES ON 539B.C. WHEN CRYUS beat the babylons and you ADD 70 OF SERVITUDE TO BABYLON AND YOU GET 609.BC. IF you dig enough you will find that the temple was finished in 517b.c. so now you have two time lines that give you 70 years... i spent many months, 3 years ago looking this stuff up ...and i can clearly see how secular history and the bible are in harmony with 587b.c. and every other date , and i only have a high school education.. in fact my 11 year old daugther was advanced enough to understand the math and add up the numbers....i have read many wt books on this and the bible verses they use , and you would need to be an idiot,retartard,or living in wt zombie land to believe that markley!!!!! keep in mind i will not do no research for you... you need to do it for yourself with out your wt rose colored glasses... call the wt and see if they still have any of those radium biola corrective glasses they were selling at the 1922 convention... now what university are you from, that gives b.a.'s ,m.a. master's and ph'ds to restroom attendents. i would love to sit in on one of your classes and give you a PU degree in shit sniffing, as your posts show that's your speciality...john
Scholar,
You ask that I supply secular evidence for 607 BC. I have not had difficulty in finding such evidence in the WT publications. So what is your problem? Poor literacy or comprehension? Such publications have discussed the matter in much detail so what is missing?
Have you read the appendix to the Kingdom book? You know, where they admit that all the secular evidence points to 586/7?
AlanF, you have been down this road with scholar many times, haven't you? Nice to see you here.
Non-scholar lied:
: Please, you must do a better exegesis of Jeremiah 25:11-12. What has been attempted thus far is simply pathetic.
You have never refuted anything I have written concerning that or any other passages concerning this matter. You have done one thing: made excuses as to why you need not do so. So for you to make this claim is as ludicrous as is the Governing Body's claim to have Jehovah's backing.
Now, let me ask you a simple, but leading question: If I told you that I attended college in Massachusetts until June, 1980, and you later learned that I actually attended until June, 1982, would you consider my statement true or false? Why?
I have no doubt that you'll make another excuse as to why you can't answer this question, or you'll fail to respond at all. But that's typical of Jehovah's Witnesses -- running away from questions they don't like. You're spiritual cowards, every one of you.
AlanF
Hi NoApologies,
: AlanF, you have been down this road with scholar many times, haven't you?
That I have. This dodo is so stereotypically braindead that he doesn't realize how stupid his responses are. Apparently he's read Jonsson's writings, but he obviously doesn't understand them. Not because he's mentally stupid, but morally stupid. I.e., he doesn't want to understand, for to do so would force him to abandon the JWs. No doubt as with most JWs, he can't do that because it would upset his cozy little world too much.
A good example is his bringing up the fact that the scholarly community can't decide on 586 or 587 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem. But Jonsson shows clearly why this is, and a careful reading of other scholarly literature supports it: The problem is that the Bible itself is ambiguous about whether Jerusalem fell in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. Nevertheless, Jonsson and non-evangelical scholars have, I think, the weight of evidence on their side that the fall was in 587 B.C. Edwin Thiele and other evangelical-related scholars tend to lean towards 586, but I have not seen them resolve certain biblical chronology problems which are neatly taken care of by assigning the 587 date.
Of course, moral morons like scholar steadfastly refuse to discuss any of these, since then they'd have to get down into the very details they know destroy their claims.
: Nice to see you here.
Thanks!
AlanF
