watchtower chronology suffers from weak logical links.
after all, they start with an unproven premise and begin linking and linking and linking and suddenly they produce the rabbit out of the hat.
1914 is the rabbit .
No Apologies
You must have rocks in your head if you think that there is abundant evidence for the suggested dates of 586/587 for the Fall of Jerusalem. The date of 607 for this event is baserd upon solid biblical and secular evidence and I suggest that you examine carefully the information contained in the Appendix in the publication concerning the Kingdom.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
watchtower chronology suffers from weak logical links.
after all, they start with an unproven premise and begin linking and linking and linking and suddenly they produce the rabbit out of the hat.
1914 is the rabbit .
Terry
Your last response to City Fan's comment says it all. You have failed to focus on any flaw in Watchtower chronology but simply presented an opinion of the Gentile Times and its chronology. WT chronology yields IMHO no discernible flaws becuse it is soundly based on an accepted pivotal date. The Gentile Times is based on an interpretation of Luke 21:24 correctly rendered in the NWT.
Perhaps you should apply a logical analysis to the Jonsson hypothesis with its unsustainable 586/587 for the Fall of Jerusalem. Jpnsson's schema is based on a peculiar rendering of a single Hebrew preposition in Jeremiah 29:10 and a whacky exegesis of the seventy years which contradicts biblical evidence.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
why did the watchtower publish the kit?
(kingdom interlinear translation).
both in 1969 and 1985 they came out with editions of this greek language translation of the scriptures.
VM44
The reason why the KIT of the NWT'S Greek Scriptures was published was an earnest effort by ther NWT Committee to help lovers of God;s Word to get acquainted with the contents of the original Koine Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
if you're a dunderhead on neo-babylonian history (like me) you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 b.c.
since i had nothing better to do today, i decided to finally take the time it takes to understand why dub chronology on that date is wrong.
this piece of information alone should give you a clue about how bored i am!.
City Fan
You have raised some interesting questions regarding the seventy years period and I will respond to these shortly. For the moment ley me make this one salutary point. When I first posted on this board I warned apostates and critics of WT chronology that the seventy years was vital for any constructed biblical chronology, The nature of it and its beginning and end must be consistent with all of the biblical data and this where Jonsson has failed. Scholars have a variety of opinions with no agreement about the seventy years and this easily seen when one studies the few journal articles on the subject published in the the last fifty years. Regardles of how well supported the traditional chronology of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty appears it clashes with a biblical interpreted seventy years creating a twenty year gap between the two and this is the dilemna. Jonsson attempts to marry the conflicting data with his own interpretation but it leaves serious questions that cannot be met such as what calender year should be assigned the seventy years= 605 or 609?
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
if you're a dunderhead on neo-babylonian history (like me) you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 b.c.
since i had nothing better to do today, i decided to finally take the time it takes to understand why dub chronology on that date is wrong.
this piece of information alone should give you a clue about how bored i am!.
Alleymom
The Society's literature has simply given the traditional chronology for the Neo-Babylonian dynasty and this cannot be construed as an endorsement of this traditional chronology, The Society has not yet presented a reconstruction of this period but has assigned different beginnings for these kings such as the begiinning of Neb's first year. If you follow the current reigns for the dynasty then you would have a twenty year differnece because precedence has been for the the dynasty over and above the seventy year period. It is the seventy year prophecy that spoils the plot and not the length of the Babylonian period. However, one must make a personal choice and as I have said time and again the whole matter comes down to methodology, sevent years or the dynasty?
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
if you're a dunderhead on neo-babylonian history (like me) you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 b.c.
since i had nothing better to do today, i decided to finally take the time it takes to understand why dub chronology on that date is wrong.
this piece of information alone should give you a clue about how bored i am!.
Farkel
You are quite correct, only a dunderhead could accept a hypothetical date 587 for the Fall of Jerusalem. The WT Society using reliable biblical data computes this event for 607. A foolproof methodology of 539 for the Fall of Babylon followed by the release of the Jews under Cyrus in 537 which ended their exile to Babylon and the desolation of the land of seventy years. One merely fixes the beginning of these momentous events by adding seventy years to 537=607. Boy that is so easy.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
the watchtower and many others claim something happend in 607. this is based on the idea the bible is acurate.
the watchtower states in a few places 586 is the "real date" but they would make the bible wrong which is a no no.
i know they have a vested interest in 607. i can't figure out why is this such a controversy.
stillajwexelder
Jonsson is no scholar because he has no academic qualifications and has simply rehashed the work of earlier SDA scholars on chronology. Further, his hypothesis has not been peer reviewed in scholarly journals and thus is deemed a simply piece of anti Witness propaganda. Thus far his so-called research has not been sourced by scholars working in the field of OT chronology and history and it must be stated that his view of OT chronology are not endorsed by scholars because there is no agreement concerning many of the dates for this later period of Judean history.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
the watchtower and many others claim something happend in 607. this is based on the idea the bible is acurate.
the watchtower states in a few places 586 is the "real date" but they would make the bible wrong which is a no no.
i know they have a vested interest in 607. i can't figure out why is this such a controversy.
XQ
At last you recognize that Jonsson and his supporters have dug a hole for themselves in connection with the beginning of the seventy years and its duration. Critics of 607 cannot agree amongst themselves as to what calender year should be assigned to the seventy years, Is it 605 or 609 or other candidates? Jonsson will shortly publish a revised fourth edition of GTR and no doubt it will continue with similar errors and sloppy reasoning such as his already public remarks concerning Jeremiah 29: 10 on the use of the Hebrew proposition.
For the benefit of the other posers on this board I have already shown the evidence for 607 and it begins with the evidence for the Absolute Date of 539 followed by the Decree of Cyus in 537 folloewd by the seventy year exile which fixes the beginning of the exile in 607 at the time of Jerusalems destruction under Neb and Zedekiak in their respective regnal years. There is evidence in scripture and in the secular history for these three distinctive scriptural and historical events. The methodology for this calculation is simple and immediate and cannot be refuted by any scholar, critic or apostate fella. You try to demonstrate a simple, coherent and united presentation of all the chronological data for the confused 586 or 587. You ask Jonsson to present such a simple schema and he cannot do so but seeks to confuse the reader with deceit and gibberish.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
the watchtower and many others claim something happend in 607. this is based on the idea the bible is acurate.
the watchtower states in a few places 586 is the "real date" but they would make the bible wrong which is a no no.
i know they have a vested interest in 607. i can't figure out why is this such a controversy.
The date 607 is a solid calcuable date based upon secular and biblical evidence. Also, it is a prophetic date for the establishment of the beginning of the 'seven times' of Daniel concluding in 1914. It stands in sharp contrast to the dead-end dates of 586-7 for the Fall of Jerusalem and to the muddled interpretations for the seventy years.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
hilay_step
Wiseman and Cagni have simply provided a reference for Jonsson;s work, Why have they not produced a somple literature review. These scholars simply do not like Witnesses and have climbed into bed with Jonsson and his SDA cronies. I have stated earlier Jonsson has simply rehashed the scholarship of the SDA's because the community of scholars do not suppory his views on the seventy years. Is Carl Jonsson a SDA?
scholar
