scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,125 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  129

  607, 70 years, 1914

  by crazies in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry for the long post!.

  what the watchtower society says:.

  24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  You are being rather cheeky aren't you?

  Indeed as usual I have read Applegate's paper closely as my usual practice, Have you? Also, I have read Young's papers on chronology, Have You? Please remember that it was scholar who first introduced these researches to this board and I did so because such recent research is a contribution to the ongoing debates within scholarship which although do not in itself prove 607 but certainly does not disprove the date but moves inexorably to that goal of 607.

  scholar JW
• 
  290

  607

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

  thanks again for your answers.

  zico

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Muadib

  Thank you for kind appreciation even though you are critical of my scholarship I do not mind because whatever its merits I get plenty of attention. If my reasoning or academic methodology is inferior and you may well be very correct because I am a person of humble background and limited education with a very low 1Q of about 50 it is somewhat paradoxical that my postings attract so much attention from the intellectual and mighty ones on this board. How can this be?

  I have no intention of identifying and describing the credentials of the celebrated ones for it is far better and wiser for you to benefit from their research published in WT publications over many decades.

  scholar JW
• 
  290

  607

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

  thanks again for your answers.

  zico

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Rockhound

  Simply a typo error for the pages in the Appendix are from 188 to 189. If you are concerned about the celebrated WT scholars then you should just relax and enjoy the fine spiritual food coming from the faithful and discreet slave which is priviliged to use the timely contributions by such a fine company of scholars over many centuries.

  scholar JW
• 
  290

  607

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

  thanks again for your answers.

  zico

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  Response to 6947

  I believe you are either confused about the seventy years or are being deliberately deceptive. The seventy years of Jeremiah 25 apply to Judah alone and was a fixed historic period from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537. Such a period was of an exile, desolation and servitude. Jeremiah in 25:12 said that the nations would also serve Babylon and so they did but Jeremiah applied no fixed historic period to those Nations however Isaiah certainly applied aseventyh year period to that of Tyre as one of thos Foreign Nations but although this was a period of servitude akin to Judah's seventy years of servitude, no historic limits were stated. Therefore, scholars conclude that in the case of Tyre's seventy years were rounded whereas Judah's seventy years were fixed even though a period of servitude under Babylon was held in common as prophesied.

  scholar JW
• 
  290

  607

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

  thanks again for your answers.

  zico

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  Reponse to post 6933

  I do not agree with your summation of matters for Jonsson makes the extravagant claim that in connection with Zechariah 1and 7 with reference to a 'seventy years' there is no reference to Jeremiah's prophecy. Such a conclusion is rejected by Applegate and other leading commenators and perhaps you should read Applegate's article before venturing an opinion based upon your ignorance.

  It is good that you publicly admit that Jonsson is no scholar so his hypothesis is simply the conjecture and opinion of an amateur who has a vendetta against WT chronology. You seem to misunderstand how scholarly literature is used by scholars because I have stated that I do share or agree with all of Applegate's conclusions therefore I should not use those points that I agree with. Such reasoning is unscholarly and I have the academic freedom to use the latest scholarship as I see fit and simply point out where I agree or disagree for that is the very nature of schol,arly debate.

  WT scholars have concentrated theitr attention on the biblical evidence in support of the seventy years but 'scholar' has gone beyond this field and utilized the very best and latest of scholarship in support of the WT understanding of the seventy years. It is correct to say that such celebrated scholars have not commented much on the secular evidence but there is no reason to because such evidence conflicts with the plain reading of scripture so there remains a twenty year gap between secular chronology and biblical chronology.

  You ask questions about Applegate's study of Jeremiah 25 and 29:10 and he does discuss such relationships and if you are so interested then Why not study the article as I have done.

  scholar JW
• 
  290

  607

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

  thanks again for your answers.

  zico

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia
• 
  290

  607

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

  thanks again for your answers.

  zico

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  A singular and coherent interpretation is far superior than conflicting and confusing theories of the seventy years which usually means that most scholars regard the seventy years simply as a round under in order to remove the so called exegetical problem. Celebrated Wt scholars have such an understanding of the seventy years whic harmonizes the biblical and secular evidence as well as having a prophetic outlook.

  By the way, smart alec, 'prophetism' is a word. Look up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary On Historical Principles. You need to do more research and read more widely!

  scholar JW
• 
  290

  607

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

  thanks again for your answers.

  zico

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Narkissos

  The seventy years as interpreted by the celebrated WT scholars is treated in a singular manner giving a holistic understanding of matters. Scholars and advocates of the Jonsson hypothesis give various interpretations lacking coherence and agreement such views rob the seventy years of any prophetism. However, interpretation is a subjects of choice and the reader must decide for himself which is better and works.

  scholar JW
• 
  129

  607, 70 years, 1914

  by crazies in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry for the long post!.

  what the watchtower society says:.

  24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Your pretend model is based on the Jonsson hypothesis despite your protestations to the contrary. Yes, there are many hypotheses and yours or Jonsson's is amongst them. I am not confused about the judgement of Babylon foretold and described by Jeremiah at 25;12 which began after the seventy years were fulfilled.

  scholar JW
• 
  290

  607

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

  thanks again for your answers.

  zico

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Muadib

  If you do not like or enjoy my posts then don't read them. My posts for the last five years have been most challenging for all of the intellectuals who have and currently post on this board in reponse to my postings.

  scholar JW