That's ok, I 've challenged him to actually post evidence for his 607 theory TWICE on a different thread and he completely ignores it because he can't. I'm sure he's rambling on and on here, with no lucid thought what so ever. He and Brownboy must be roomates.
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
lawrence
EF-
Excellent! I would add one more to the roster for room mate - Gordon from 'The Lord's Witnesses', Scholar, and BrownBoy. I wonder if that triumvirate would encompass Nicholson at the State Hospital. I would sign up for 30 days to see surreal again. You in for this one?
-
scholar
Alleymom
Marjorie.
When I refer to Mr Jim Bean I am simply being naughty. I have had a life long interest in chronology which in the seventies caused by debates with the SDA'S over comments about Ptolemy in our publication 'Babylon the Great'.
Because of my current academic studies in religion and philosophy I need to frequent a local theological library and whilst collecting material for research it is my custom to my eyes alert for any developments relating to chronology published in the journals.
Because of the Brooklyn apostasy in the Eighties and the fact that most Witnesses are not too familiar with chronology and coupled with the fact that the apostasy was largely about chronology and the Gentile Times, I have taken upon myself to be fully conversant with all matters relating to this issue. Years of biblical and academic learning have convinced me that we are right and poztates are wrong. Or, 607 is correct and 587 is incorrrect. The reason for this statement is that the 'seventy year's is the sole determinant and can only be the sole determinant in the establishment of a sustainable biblical chronology.
Indeed, the study of any subject can be a life-long passion, would you not agree that the study of Hebrew whether classical, biblical or modern can be a life-long pursuit. Similarly, the study of biblical chronology is for me a passion and a life-long pursuit. So, Jonsson and his poztate cronies are put on notice that the wiley scholar will always be around, one step ahead, fully competent and equipped to defend our sound biblical chronology based on 607.
scholar JW
-
EvilForce
Since you are at the library sooo much you might actually be able to find WRITTEN, VERIFIABLE, QUOTABLE, SECULAR, HISTORICAL EXPERTS, in which to post from.... but you do not. You simply post the same tired, unsubstantited WT garbage. Please find the evidence of your beliefs and post them...including the references and footnotes for accuracy....for there are none outside of the Witless dogma.
-
OldSoul
scholar: WT chronology is not affected by the controversies of men for it simply flies above the surface easily arring at point A to point B. Anyway, Enjoy!
True. A truer statement you have never uttered. Watchtower chronology is unaffected by anything. It has the astonishing capability to revise itself to arrive whenever the Governing Body wants it to, at either end. Very astute point. Such an ability is not even worthy of the word chronology, for it is surely anything but the result of study. Why would someone with the capacity to arrive at a foregone conclusion regarding the timing of events need to study the timing of events? Chronomastication would be a much more accurate term.
It flies above the surface (presumably you mean history) and creates its own timelines willy-nilly, easily arriving at Point A to Point B. So easily, in fact, that no independent scholarship at all is required.
All you have to do is keep picking years for the rapture until something significant happens in one of the years you picked. It wasn't even close to a rapture, but it was significant. Then you simply find some imagined pretext for converting days to years, when in most prophecies a day meant a day unless specifically stated otherwise. Now that you (inexplicably) have a lot of years to stretch from your rapture year backward, you can arrive at a point in history from which to start counting forward. And, if a few years down the road you realize you forgot there was no zero year, no need to trouble yourself overly. Just fly right over history and set the clock back a year in the opposite direction.
I have to say, for someone who purports to care about scholarship, your baseless dismissal of it in favor of a group of men who are so obviously lacking in intellectual integrity gives the lie to your chosen name just as clearly as your pathetic attempts to out-scholar the real scholars here (of which I am not one).
OldSoul
-
OldSoul
I have been thinking on this and I suggest an exercise. scholar repeatedly decries the influence of wily-poztates. scholar admits that Marjorie is not and never has been one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Marjorie is not an apostate.
Why not allow scholar the free space needed to "prove" his 607 claims to Marjorie. In other words, if both participants are game, let's see who has the most convincing case for their chronology.
Well, Marjorie? I know this is a lot to ask but it might save a mind. A mind is a terrible thing to baste.
scholar? Would you be willing to try?
-
toreador
Lawrence wrote:
Been watching these posts for a while. I read Hebrew and Greek, and I truly detest any man calling Fred Franz a genius and greatesT of all scholars. The bastard was a madman, a lunatic, a false prophet, and full of crap. That man was a menace to the Holy Scriptures.
Since you read Hebrew and Greek. What do you think of Leolaia and Alleymoms posts concerning the matter?
Tor
-
lawrence
Tor-
I have no disagreement on anything Leolaia, Alleymom, Alan F., or Narkissos has stated on this thread or any other thread. I might see things at times differently, but no major disagreement with anyone except The Scholar.
-
Alleymom
let's see who has the most convincing case for their chronology
OldSoul --
But, not being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have no interest whatsoever in trying to establish, proclaim, or promote a particular chronology.
If the 607 date is wrong (and it is), then Jesus did not return in 1914 and he did not examine all the religious groups on earth and choose the Bible Students to be the FDS, the sole channel for dispensing spiritual food.
If someone tells me that his religious organization is the only true Christian body on earth today, and that I am not a true Christian because I have not accepted that Jesus returned in 1914 (and I have therefore not associated myself with the WTS), all I need to show is that 607 is wrong (and I have done so on many occasions).
I don't need to show whether 586 or 587 is right, and I would not presume to tell someone else that they must accept one of those dates over the other. It is of no consequence whatsoever to the life of faith, imo.
In the three years that I have been a member of this board I have discussed the 607 date with Scholar many times.
I have an interest in archaeology and history, especially the neo-Babylonian chronology, and I have read rather extensively in that area. I have a large collection of academic journal articles, many of them dealing with the dated cuneiform tablets which establish the names and regnal lengths of the kings of the neo-Babylonian empire.
It is a simple matter to demonstrate that the 607 date is wrong. As a matter of fact, the WTS's own literature proves that the 607 date is untenable, which is why Scholar has steadfastly refused to give me a direct answer to the question of whether or not he accepts the statements in the 1/1/65 WT as completely accurate. I addressed this in the KISS thread two years ago and it has never been refuted. It can only be refuted by repudiating the WTS's own teachings as presented in the literature I referenced in message #2 of that thread.
The 607 date is wrong and Jesus did not return to earth in 1914 and later pick the Bible Students to be the FDS. I don't have to join the organization in order to have eternal life. Neil doesn't need to stay associated with an organization whose leaders, men with no academic credentials in Assyriology, archaeology, ANE history, or Semitic languages, have the hubris not only to teach the false 607 date but to insist upon its acceptance as a requirement for continuing membership in their religious organization.
Regards,
Marjorie Alley -
EvilForce
Alleymom..thanks for your post.
As I have mentioned in other posts about secular experts arriving at 586/587.... to them would they really care if it was 586/587 or 607 ? Since they are secularlist they couldn't care one whit about trying to fix a date one way or the other. No other religion bases it's existence on the 607 date. So if there is nothing to gain nor lose by picking one date over the other for other religions and secularlists don't you think we'd find SOME who disagree with the 586/587 date? I have not found a SINGLE, SOLITARY, quote from the catholics and/or the secularlists stating 607, and have REPEATEDLY asked Scholar to post them. I have now asked him 6 TIMES on 3 threads to POST THE EVIDENCE......Now make that 7 times. The reason there isn't any quotables for 607 is because the WTBS had already picked 1914 out as a date that was important and needed some sort of evidence to back it up. Some sloppy research/topical study was done and Waaaahhhla! 1914.
Scholar, please refute her posts individually using proof (not your delusions) from secular sources and I mean USE QUOTES and REFERENCES!!! 8 times now.