Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters (page 3)

BORG OFF

Hi, I am having a discussion very similar to this with my family, so I will follow very closely any comments and further information provided, the more the better! One thing that jumped out to me was they claim around 11 discrepancies in the cuneiform record, if you have 50,000 cuneiform tablets and only 11 discrepances that is a massive piece of evidence to show the accuracy of the cuneiform record

Finkelstein

Most likely the prophet Daniel used 70 years since the number 7 was sacred to the ancient Hebrews.

The documented actual events were something quite different.

Gorbatchov

They take an effort to answer your question. You can accept or decline.

But why a dispute about a year?

You can use your energy better.

G.

Lobsto

Thank you all for the responses. I’ll definitely look at Jonson’s book. Also, while I know that this may be partially futile, I need to keep going back and forth for a little while until they have a very noticeable slip up. This is probably the best way for me to leave the organization in good standing with my family. If the society is shown to be clearly wrong about this date, maybe the consciences of my family will turn closer to my side. And that’s all I want.

Gorbatchov

Lobsto it doesn't work like that. 607 is not relevant anymore. Your family will see you with a smile because they are so happy with the lifestyle.

607 doesn't care them at all.

G.

scholar

Lobsto

Other posters have encouraged you to read Carl O. Jonsson's book refuting WT Chronology, Gentile Times Reconsidered in order to assist your understanding of the subject. However, you should be aware of the following problems with Jonsson's thesis which include the following:

1. When did the seventy years begin? COJ discusses both dates 605 and 609 BCE for the beginning but there are inherent problems with either date.

2. What was the actual length of the period? COJ is uncertain on this point either it was literally 70 years, a round number or 66 years.

3. When did the 70 years end? COJ states that the period ended with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCEbut again there are problems with this interpretation as it clashes with the direct testimony of the prophets who lived at that time

4. Why is it that despite the so-called accuracy of Neo-Babylonian Chronology there is no agreement within current scholarship about the precise calender year for the Fall of Jerusalem namely 586 0r 587 BCE. COJ favours 587 BCE but most leading scholars prefer 586 BCE.

Enjoy!!!

scholar

.Doug Mason

How are you, my dear friend?

You are correct in that 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is a calculated date calculated from secular tablets hence properly considered by Chronologists as a Pivotal or Absolute Date and is accepted by the 'celebrated WT scholars'. COJ considers 568 BCE as an Absolute Date but this has been seriously challenged by Rolf Furuli and is not listed by the world's most prominent Chronologist, Edwin Thiele thus scholars have not accorded the same status as an Absolute Date to 568 BCE as they have accorded to 539 BCE.

Regarding your previous comments on 537 BCE for the Return of the Jewish Exiles it must be stated that what event marked the beginning of the 70 years was not the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. the fifth month but the evacuation from Judah in the seventh month, 607 BCE, both events occurred in the same calender year of 607 BCE

Scholarship has no problem with 537 BCE for the Return of the Jews because it well accords with both the textual and historical data and is the suggested date in much of the literature. COJ had no problems with 537 BCE as he dealt with the matter by means of a footnote reference.

Blessings

scholar

BORG OFF

Is Scholar a troll??

scholar

Lobsto

In your letter to the Society, you that regarding the beginning of the Monarchy with the reign of David that the starting date is different from any other scholarly source and that our dates for the Kings of Israel and Judah are off by several decades from what is academically accepted. In this, you are quite mistaken for there is simply no scholarly consensus for the reigns of the Divided Monarchy and for the date of David's reign.

For example, in the Chronological And Background Charts Of The Old Testament, 1994 by John H. Walton, pp.30-31 he presents tabulations by six prominent OT historians: Hayes & Hooker, Thiele, Bright and Tadman & Cogan who list heir own dates for each of the reigns and for each king the dates vary considerably. The total reigns for Judah are tabulated as follows:

Hayes&Hooker 340 years, Thiele- 345, Bright- 335, Cogan & Tadmor- 342

In contrast, WT scholars have given 390 years for the total reign for Judah and this is in accord with Jewish tradition and the prophecy of Ezekiel. One critic of WT chronology made a similar determination even though he does not accept 607 BCE. What this means that WT scholars have demonstrated over many decades competence in matters of Chronology and therefore in the matter of 607 BCE one can be very confident in the Methodology chosen by WT scholars over many decades.

scholar

BORG OFF

Scholar is not a troll for you only have to ask Doug Mason!!!!!

scholar

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

Share this