No, celebrated WT scholars
I swear, this scholar fellow must be a really involved satirist.
Many many books from library on 586/87
by ithinkisee 129 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
the_classicist
-
Jeffro
Your claim that 609 is accepted by most scholars as the end of the Assyrian Empire is simply false as there is no agreement within scholarship about this event.
You are saying that because not all scholars agree, then most don't agree? Basis?
Reference works give a number of dates and it seems that 612 for the Fall of Nineveh is the most popular for the end of the Assyrian Empire.
612 is accepted for fall of Nineveh. At that point Harran become Assyria's capital. Most historians agree with that, thought not all agree that Assyria was necessarily still an 'empire' as such. Even if no significant historical event occurred in 609, it would still be the year arrived at when adding 70 to the year in which Babylon was 'called to account'. It just so happens that something considered to be significant to many historians did occur in that year.
This is of sourse is a mighty deathblow for the absurd Jonsson hypothesis which favours 609 but then it also recognizes the validity of 605 for the beginning of the seventy years.
Hardly a mighty blow. I do not accept 605, and I do my own research rather than relying on what you like to call the 'Jonsson hypothesis'.
This dispute highlights one of the three problems that apostate and secular chronology have to contend namely a certain or definite date for the beginning of the seventy years which they cannot provide. Celebrated WT scholars have no such problem because wed have established a definite beginning of the seventy years with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.
There you go with the 'celebrated WT scholars' again. Do you have a shortcut key set up for that or something?? Historically the Watchtower Society has vacillated between 607 and 606 but that's another issue. The date the Watchtower Society has chosen has a flawed basis. Rather than arrogantly select exact dates where sufficient evidence does not exist, genuine scholars accept that there may be some variance in dates attributed to events. It does not make them invalid.
There is no such conflict between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 because bothe texts are discussing different historical events. The former text uses the time feature of an event during the reign of Nebuchadnezzer and the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim when the exiles were taken to Babylon. The latter simply describes an historical event in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzer whereupon Jeremiah prophesied to those inhabitants in Judah and Jerusalem. These clearly are not coincidental events but the latter event proceeded the former in time and place.
That's the unnecessarily complicated interpretation of the Society , but it is to defend their skewed chronology (and confuses many Witnesses). The actual, simpler explanation for the supposed discrepancy is that Daniel - in Babylon - uses the accession year system and Jeremiah does not. Therefore Daniel says that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (no year given) is Jehoiakim's 3rd year; and Jeremiah says that Nebuchadnezzar was in his 1st year when Jehoiakim was in his 4th year. They are both talking about the same year.
The prophecy or oracle in Isaiah 23 speaks of a seventy year period for Tyre and was clearly fulfilled when Babylon was destroyed in 539. This seventy year obviously is not identical with the seventy years for Judah and Jerusalem as referred to by Daniel, Jeremiah, Zecharian and the Chronicler.
Isaiah's Prophecy - Light for all Manking page 253: "Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble."
No, celebrated WT scholars
There's that shortcut key again
are not plaqued
That's twice now. I think you mean 'plagued'.
by the chronological problems that beset the Jonsson hypothesis and secular chronology because our chronology is simple, Bible based and is an event- based chronology because our methodology is different and superior.
Have you got 'Jonsson hypothesis' on another shortcut key? The chronology I have arrived at is definitely superior to the Society hypothesis because it is simple, without funny 'rule relative to vassalage' things. My chronology is bible based, without the conflict between Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31) and co-incidentally matches secular dating, making it even more superior to the 'Society hypothesis'.
I say once again that if you wish attack our chronology then you should get your own house in order first and that also applies to the apostate Carl Jonsson and his ilk.
And I say again that my 'house' is 'in order', regardless of whatever 'ilk' you want to insult. You can't just say that everything else is the 'Jonsson hypothesis' and therefore wrong. I do my own research (using nasty apostate sources like Watchtower publications and the British Museum) and make my own findings.
-
scholar
Jeffro
That is correct, scholars do not agree as to a proper date for the end of Assyria so we do not a date for this events only a number of dates which hardly constitutes a suitable basis for chronology. Therefore, if yoy choose 609 for the beginning of the seventy years then something of historical significance must have happened to mark the beginning of the seventy years. But historically nothing happened so it is a useless date. You now have big problem so you determined 609 purely on the basis of arithmetic.
In regard to your claim that Jeremiah 25:1 refers to the same event in Daniel 1:1 is clearly nonsense for Daniel refers to a deporation and Jeremiah refers to prophecying. There is nothing in the next that proves a coincidence so you now have to introduce a complesystem of dating in order to harmonize the numbers but your history is wrong. The numbers must agree with the history and vice versa and your interpretation fails.
If you believe your chronology is superior and your house is in order then that is fine with me as it is the case that we will continue to differ on chronology. I have my chronology which I believe is correct biblically and you have yours which you believe is biblically correct. The matter is settled.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
You now have big problem so you determined 609 purely on the basis of arithmetic.
The arithmatic seeks to determine when Babylon rose to supremacy - hence nations would be serving it. Co-incidentally, many historians note that Babylon destroyed Assyria's new capital Harran in that year. Just how do you imagine that your precious 607 is arrived at??? It is determined by *arithmetic* by adding 70 to 537, with a big unexplained 20-year gap in-between.
In regard to your claim that Jeremiah 25:1 refers to the same event in Daniel 1:1 is clearly nonsense for Daniel refers to a deporation and Jeremiah refers to prophecying.
Sorry, perhaps 'event' was the wrong word. They refer to the same year. You're clutching at straws, and I think you've drawn the shortest.
There is nothing in the next that proves a coincidence so you now have to introduce a complesystem of dating in order to harmonize the numbers but your history is wrong. The numbers must agree with the history and vice versa and your interpretation fails.
Where does it fail? What 'complesystem' (complex system) of dating?
If you believe your chronology is superior and your house is in order then that is fine with me as it is the case that we will continue to differ on chronology. I have my chronology which I believe is correct biblically and you have yours which you believe is biblically correct. The matter is settled.
You believe that you are right, and I know that you're not. Settled.
-
Jeffro
Just remember it was scholar that answered your problem with Jeremiah 25:12 because you went far and wide to find the answer only to find comfort in scholar's bosom?
Didn't anyone else find this to be LOL funny?Funny in a disturbing kind of way.
AlanF, if you really did get an explanation of Jeremiah 25:12 from scholar, have you since been given the correct explanation? -
-
jwfacts
The biggest joke about Scholar is that in trying to defend the WTS on this site he is showing total disrespect for the WTS.
The w81 9/15 25-26 states that speaking to disfellowshipped people can be grounds to be disfellowshipped. In my latest elder's meeting I was told if i am caught talking to d'd people again i will be disfellowshipped.
Scholar may feel he is defending their honor, but in actual fact he is working against the WTS.
Scholar are you unaware of the rest of the rules of being a Witness, or are you here just to try to win arguments, without any respect for what it means to be a Witness? -
AlanF
Jeffro said:
: AlanF, if you really did get an explanation of Jeremiah 25:12 from scholar, have you since been given the correct explanation?
The moron never gave any proper explanations of any sort. All he has ever done is to spout a few generalizations about his view of what that, and a few other scriptures, should have said, in view of what the Watchtower Society today claims or implies they should have said.
As I've shown repeatedly, this idiot absolutely refuses to post an actual quotation of scriptures like this alongside his idiotic comments, because he is very well aware that doing so would instantly trash his moronic claims.
It's like if respected source reference BIBLIA says, "the sky is blue", but some moron wants it to say, "the sky is green", and the moron resolutely refuses to actually quote BIBLIA, but repetitively and stupidly repeats his mantra, "BIBLIA says the sky is green". How can you deal with such resolute and militant stupidity?
AlanF
-
scholar
Jeffro
It is arithmetic for you or perhaps I should have said that in the case of the assumed dating of the seventy years you rely on a educated guess whereas for celebrated WT scholars we use arithmetic tho date two biblical events, the Fall of Jerusalem and the Return of the Exiles. What you have is a academic guess for the Babylonian Empire and its Fall. Such a reckoning is historically flawed and weak but it suits apostates and scholars because it removes the problem of the seventy years.
Your claim that Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 refers to the same year lacks evidence because the history proves that these are two separate historical events occurring at different times.
Alan F would not conceed that I helped him with the problem of Jeremiah 25:12 but you can check my posting history for confirmation. What Alan F does not tell you that in his published biography he boasted that Schroeder of the Govering Body could not answer this problem in a telephone conversation and Alan has been boasting about this problem ever since until scholar in his wisdom nailed him to the floor. Had Alan F checked the commentaries or even checked that the fact the Bibles usually separate the verses 11 and 12 by paragraphing, the matter wouls have been solved.
The simple fact is that verse 12 is a new context or new oracle ahgainst Babylon and therefore it accords nicley with our interpretation of the seventy years.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
It is arithmetic for you or perhaps I should have said that in the case of the assumed dating of the seventy years you rely on a educated guess whereas for celebrated WT scholars we use arithmetic tho date two biblical events, the Fall of Jerusalem and the Return of the Exiles. What you have is a academic guess for the Babylonian Empire and its Fall. Such a reckoning is historically flawed and weak but it suits apostates and scholars because it removes the problem of the seventy years.
There's that 'celebrated WT scholars' shortcut key again... LOL
Actually, both of us use the same source for the fall of the Babylonian Empire, specifically the accepted year of 539. (If you are going to allege that the Babylonian Empire continued until 537, you might like to dwell on the fact that the Medo-Persian Empire did not become the Babylonian Empire, it replaced it.)
You say that I make an 'academic guess' to arrive at 609, even though 1) historians indicate an event regarding the end of the Assyrian empire in that year and 2) I have a complete chronology of Neo-Babylonian kings for the entirety of the period. I'm not sure where the guessing comes in. The Society on the other hand adds seventy onto 537 (ignoring Jeremiah, Daniel, 1000s of contemporary clay tables, Berossus, Josephus and every secular authority on the matter) and arrives at 607, with a 20-year gap for which no chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period exists. Who's guessing??
Alan has been boasting about this problem ever since until scholar in his wisdom nailed him to the floor.
What kind of conceited person talks about his own 'grandiose' wisdom in the third-person like that? Nauseating.