scholar:
What your pretty chart demonstrates the validity of WT Chronology and its scholarship based on biblical evidence.
It's already obvious that you're too deep in your delusion. You don't need to keep affirming it.
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 150 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Jeffro
-
Jeffro
scholar:
What is false about your post is the claim that Daniel in this instance used a different calendrical system.
Wrong again, 'scholar'. Daniel's use of Nisan/accession dating is consistent throughout the book of Daniel, and it was the dating system used in Babylon where the story is set (and where Daniel was purportedly educated), the subsequent Persian period when JWs believe Daniel was written, and the Seleucid period when Daniel was actually written.
Jeremiah's use of Tishri/non-accession dating is also consistent for kings of Judah. There is insufficient information in Jeremiah to confirm whether he uses Nisan or Tishri dating for Babylonian kings (though likely Nisan consistent with 2 Kings), but he consistently uses non-accession dating (except for the Babylonian interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28-30, which is evident from the relative references to the 7th and 18th years).
-
scholar
Jeffro
scholar', you're just going round in circles with the same claims, so no extended response is required. Your claims that actual scholars support the JW view of the exile are entirely dishonest, and your use of the term "exilic scholars" as a qualifier is not particularly helpful. (A Google search for "exilic scholars" and "70 years" together yields only two results; one is a scam and the other is a JW-related forum comment by you. Changing "70 years" to "seventy years" yields 6 results, being either of similar 'quality' or otherwise not supportive of your views.) You know very well that actual scholars view the exile from early 597 BCE and the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, and secular historians do not conflate Babylon's 70 years with the exile (and nor do Ezekiel or Jeremiah). Jeremiah explicitly states that Babylon's 70 years end and then Babylon is called to account, and Daniel explicitly indicates Babylon being called to account in the agreed year of 539 BCE. Jeremiah further explicitly states that attention is given to the Jews' return from exile after the 70 years had ended. There is simply no getting away from the fact that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE and are therefore not the same as the period of exile.
--
You are ignorant of current scholarship especially with regard to the subject of the Exile-Jewish Exile for there are scholars who are properly termed 'Exilic scholars' who specialize in this period of Jewish history such as Rainer Albertz. There is no need for me to 'go round in circles' for I unlike you, know the subject, its implications for theology and history.
Scholars properly date the Exile from the Fall to the Return and not earlier which saw at least one deportation of some Jews prior to the Fall and they do conflate the 70 years of captivity with the Exile of 70 years for there is no other period or different 70 year periods. There is only one period of 70 years and this can only be construed byJerr that period of Exile-Captivity-Servitude.
Jeremiah quite explicitly states that the 70 Years ended not with the Fall of Babylon but after the 70 years was fulfilled, such event occurred only after Babylon's Fall with its own ongoing judgment of desolation.
Daniel describes the continuance of the 70 years as a period up to the Fall of Babylon and beyond with the lamentation of the Exile by means of prayer which would come to end.
Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezra all agree that the 70 years ended not with the Fall of Babylon but only with the Return of the Jews which occurred after 539 BCE. Further, if you count back 70 years from 539 BCE you get to 609 BCE with nothing happened in that year, no significant historical event .
scholar JW
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Wrong again, 'scholar'. Daniel's use of Nisan/accession dating is consistent throughout the book of Daniel, and it was the dating system used in Babylon where the story is set (and where Daniel was purportedly educated), the subsequent Persian period when JWs believe Daniel was written, and the Seleucid period when Daniel was actually written.
--
This amounts to just special pleading on your part ignoring historical facts about the reigns of Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzer and ignores the precise timing of Jehoiakim's vassalage to Neb. The dating system that you allege is simply nonsense- a theory similar to your spurious claim that Daniel was written in the Seleucid period.
----
eremiah's use of Tishri/non-accession dating is also consistent for kings of Judah. There is insufficient information in Jeremiah to confirm whether he uses Nisan or Tishri dating for Babylonian kings (though likely Nisan consistent with 2 Kings), but he consistently uses non-accession dating (except for the Babylonian interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28-30, which is evident from the relative references to the 7th and 18th years).
---
This comment although true in terms of principles of Chronology as recognized by WT scholars is open to many problems highlighting the issues of Methodology. The simple fact that our methodology in constructing a viable scheme of Chronology is superior to other scholarship and your bogus scheme.
scholar JW
-
Rocketman123
As I've said before scholar cant be articulately honest because of his devout religoius convictions as a JWS.
His counter agreements are nevertheless useful to those interested in the doctrines made by the JWS such as 607 BCE and 1914 showing how flawed they are.
The top JWs leaders have never been involved in academic bible theology, they have been involved in novice charlatanism though.
Right Neil ?
-
Jeffro
scholar:
a theory similar to your spurious claim that Daniel was written in the Seleucid period.
I don't even need to respond to your other nonsense because this well demonstrates the level of your dishonesty and/or ineptitude. It is the scholarly consensus and a matter of historical fact, and not merely my 'specious claim', that Daniel was written during the Seleucid period.
-
scholar
Rocketman123
Right Neil ?
---
Wrong!
scholar JW
-
scholar
Jeffro
I don't even need to respond to your other nonsense because this well demonstrates the level of your dishonesty and/or ineptitude. It is the scholarly consensus and a matter of historical fact, and not merely my 'specious claim', that Daniel was written during the Seleucid period.
--
This theory that you accept is known as the Maccabean Hypothesis and is well debunked by many scholars and by WT scholars even Rolf Furuli in his latest scholarship- When Was The Book Of Daniel Written? A Philological, Linguistic, And Historical Approach, 2017, Awatu Publishers
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
scholar:
even Rolf Furuli
hahaha... I like the way you say "even Rolf Furuli", as if he's supposed to be a particularly credible source for such matters.