Scholar and JCanon:
**I do not have to explain anything as the Bible itself provides its own chronology and history.**
If you cannot see the circular reasoning in that statement, then go back to school.
Scholar, I imagine that AlanF is weary from trying to get you to be honest; I certainly won't try.
JC: 455 fits nicely, doesn't it? The problem is: fitting nicely and being true are NOT the same thing.
2,520 fits nicely with 607 too; but the FACTS do not support it.
WAKE UP.
Many many books from library on 586/87
by ithinkisee 129 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Pistoff
-
scholar
ithinkisee
It is impossible for 607 to be a bogus date for you may as well say that 589, 588,587 and 586 are also bogus dates for the Fall of Jerusalem. The calender date 607 is a date calculated from secular, historical and biblical evidence as shown in the WT publications. The date of 607 is far more attested than the other dates for it begins the prophecy of the Gentile Times fulfilled in that momentous year of 1914.
The other useless dates of 587 and 586 have no significance for Christians today as such dates lack prophetic significance, these dates are 'dead-end dates, are of interest to apostates, unbelieving secular scholars and those who are jealous of the spiritual paradise enjoyed by the Witnesses.
scholar JW
-
iggy_the_fish
Share with us your Neo-Babylonian kinglist, Scholar. Who were the kings, when were their reigns?
ig.
-
orangefatcat
I have found that both the historical books, one by Flavious Josephus the "Antiquity of the Jews " to be helpful as well as the book by the Reverend Alexander Hisslop called the ''Two Bablyons."
I enjoy reading with a open mind the studies of the ancient civilizations.
I know for sure that the society's dates are wrong as was proved by Ray Franz, when he was assigned the part in the Aid book about the dates of the fall and restoration of Jerusalem., and that was part of the issue when it came to his being removed as a member of the Governing Body. He showed that biblical studies and scholars did not support the printed dates of the WTBS. He could not in good conscience print the lies the rest of the governing body wanted him to say . He proved to the other members the true dates and yet the other GB members refused to accept those dates as it would have screwed up the date 1914. and their chronology.
If you have a chance to read some of the literature by historians you will see that the right dates are not what the Society wants to hear.
Once again proving the WTBS teachings are lies.
Orangefatcat.
-
Leolaia
Just FYI, but the Hislop book is incredibly error-filled. Use at your own risk.
-
toreador
But they are considered the leaders and "experts" in their field and are quoted by everybody else but are liars! So all the books that quote them are not outdated.
JC I think you should check your above statement.
Tor
-
scholar
iggy_the_fish
Celebrated WT scholars are unable to provide a king list for the Neo-Babylonian period because the secular data for this period is very imperfect. Already there exists a problematic twenty year gap between accurate biblical chronology and neo-Babylonian chronology. This historical problem was admitted to when Edwin Thiele freely admitted that Ptolemy's Canon was unsuitable for the purposes of history and chronology. However, I can supply you a tabulation of the regnal yeras for the monarchies of Judah and Israel which far more valuable in reconstructing a chronology for the Old Testament.
scholar JW
-
scholar
orangefatcat'
Raymond Franz in his stupidity proved nothing about chronology because we only have his word that he had anything to do with chronology with respect to the Aid book. What Franz does indicate that he was hoodwinked by the theories on chronology by Carl Jonsson and did not have the intellectual capacity to see through the nonsense that Jonsson wrote. Hence, it is impossible to refute the accurate traditional chronology that WT scholars have published for decades for the simple reason that it gives us information that is not available from those chronologies advanced by scholars of Christendom. Franz has hung himself out to dry with no religion, church, theology, mission or brotherhood but has to content himself with a life of irrelevance. The only lies to be found are those advanced by Franz, Jonsson and those of his ilk.
scholar JW
-
EvilForce
You never cease to amaze me Scholar.
****Franz has hung himself out to dry with no religion, church, theology, mission or brotherhood but has to content himself with a life of irrelevance.
I didn't realize that serving God was predicated on status and rank. I guess I'm wrong.
****Raymond Franz in his stupidity proved nothing about chronology because we only have his word that he had anything to do with chronology with respect to the Aid book.
Oh, and your hero Freddy Franz, you accept every statement, innuendo, and whisper about his scholarly ability.
Your last post speaks volume about your true self Scholar. Very sad! -
Leolaia
Wait a minute. Do you mean to say that Ray Franz is lying about his authorship of the Aid book article? Or are you saying that this "celebrated WT scholar" has proved himself to be "stupid" and "hoodwinked" by being persuaded by Jonsson? My impression is that the Aid/Insight book article on "chronology" is the most monumental statement published by the Society on the subject. Would it bother you if in fact this "stupid" apostate wrote the piece?