Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE? (page 13)

the_classicist

My previous question was serious. Who are these WT scholars.

AlanF, you can call him Litteratus Fraudator.

Perhaps I missed something (I'm not that much interested in chronology), but have the WT "scholars" finally made their minds about which one of the neo-Babylonian rulers they would ascribe the "missing" 20 years to?

stevenyc

I do not have access to the materials scholar is refering to, so could someone on the board drop some scans, or relay the info.
Many thanks,

steve.

GetBusyLiving

The shorter guy with the hair in the suit in this video is how I picture scholar everytime I try to read one of his posts.

http://www.starcantdead.com/sketches/kissinghanksass.html

GBL

AlanF

Scholar pretendus:

I have posted information whereupon Edwin Thiele's complete chronology for the OT and the Divide Monarchy.. Readers on this board can access Thiele's book that I referred to and see the charts for themselves. You, on the other have had a long time to provide an alternative to Thiele's chronology as all you can do is criticize something that you do not have.

Where is your alternative to Thiele's chronology that is presented in his book which includes charts of dates for the OT and charts of dates for the Divided Monarchy?The WT hypothesis does not give much credit to Thiele's or Jonsson's scheme bevcause Thiele believes in 586 and Jonsson believes 587. And the WT scheme is divided against itself, as proved by my quotation from the Paradise restored book. So you are in big disagreement with the WT bigtime. Come on, put up or shut up/

AlanF

Good one, the_classicist!

AlanF

The Leological One

Hi,

I'm admittedly a little bit novice at this dating situation, though I feel I can understand some problems for the 607 BC date.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the situation, and my DF'd JW wife feels that the date 29 CE of Jesus' baptism or something like that is supposed to hold some importance in the matter, though she's not sure. She feels like she has to see something about refuting this date to refute the 607 BC date. Is this date actually important at all in the coming up with the 1914 date, or is the 1914 date specifically calculated from the 607 BC date? I've never seen a post mentioning 29 CE on these threads and so explained I doubt it has any importance in the matter, but it'd be sweet to get any input~!

Thanks for any info if anyone looks this far into the thread~!

Narkissos

The Leological One,

In the WT chronology 29 AD (or, should I write, CE) is unrelated to the 607 BC / 1914 AD issue. But the confusion might come from the fact that the WT links the 29-33-36 dates to another passage of Daniel, namely the 70 weeks of chapter 9. In this perspective 29 (Jesus' baptism) is supposed to be the beginning of the 70th week of years, 33 (Jesus' death) the middle of the week and 36 (the mission to the Gentiles, starting with Cornelius' baptism) the end of the week.

Of course this has nothing to do with the actual meaning of Daniel (referring to current events in the 2nd century BC), but a similar interpretation can be found in other Christian traditions as well.

See for instance http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/d/daniel_seventy-weeks.html

AlanF

Leological One,

In addition to Narkissos' comments, I will add that the Watchtower's interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel apply from 455 B.C. to 36 A.D. They try to establish the 455 date (incorrectly, it turns out) completely independently from the way they try to get the 607 date, so as Narkissos said, one has nothing to do with the other.

AlanF

Alleymom

Scholar ---

I believed I have answered your question. If there is some doubt then whatever data on those reigns is published in the Insight volumes then I would be in agreement with as this contains the latest information on chronology.

Well, no, actually, you still have not answered my question. I really would appreciate a direct answer.

Are all six of these statements from the January 1, 1965 WT true?

#1 --- Evil-merodach reigned two years
#2 --- and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar
#3 --- who reigned for four years ...
#4 --- [Neriglissar's] underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months.
#5 --- Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne
#6 --- and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

You said, "If there is some doubt ..." Can you explain what you mean by that? Are you saying that there is some doubt about one of these statements?
If so, which statements are not true? And are you saying that the Insight volumes contain information about the reigns which was not available in 1965?
Thank you,
Marjorie Alley

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

Share this