sorry for the long post!.
what the watchtower society says:.
24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.
Jeffro
If you want to argue a position then you must get all of the facts and read more widely and deeply. Applegate's is there for all to read and gives a different and refreshing view point, it seems that your refusal to read other views says much about your ignorance.
scholar JW
sorry for the long post!.
what the watchtower society says:.
24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.
Augustin
I am well pleased that you Applegate's article at hand. This article is comes on the back of all previous published articles on the vexed seventy years and you should also have those articles at hand also before appreciating the significance of the latest study. These articles or souces are note in footnote 3. Also, you need to read what Jonsson' interpretation is and how it compares to all other published views and opinions on the seventy years. Further, you should consult those leading commentaries on Daniel, Jeremiah, Zechariah and Ezra regarding the specific seventy year passages.
Applegate's article does not advocate 607 or any other date for that matter but is simply a study of the influence of the Jeremiah seventy year texts had on all other seventy year texts. This approach conflicts directly with the opinoion of Jonsson who denies such connection and influence.
scholar JW
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
helppls
If your husband is such a beautiful person then you should follow his lead and listen and learn from him.
I am more than happy to address your sincere and humble questions regarding such a complex and confusing subject of chronology which is not for the fainthearted but the strong.
Celebrated WT scholar for decades have shown the impossibility of Jerusalem's destruction in 587 or the preferred date of 586 BCE. This is because such chronology which is based solely on secular evidence ignores the biblical seventy years. Such ignorance created a gap of some twenty years between biblical and secular chronology, God or man's chronology. Which one will you prefer?
The biblical and secular evidence proves that Jews did return in 517 but in 537 BCE although some advocate 538 BCE. This means that from 537 BCE we count back the full seventy years which establishes very nicely, ever so nicely the year of 607 BCE.
Scholars and the testimony of Ezra does not allow for 517 as the year for the Return because the seventy years ended the exile, servitude and desolation which could be achieved by the fact of a return back home and the eventual establishing true worship with a rebuilt temple. I hope this is simple enough and my advice is for you to learn more and study hard the Bible and the wonderful publications of the faithful and discreet slave.
scholar JW
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
Alan F
At least Leolaia does not share your low opinon of me and I think does not regard me as a moron for at least she asks me a question. Also, you are very much interested in my attention to your questions regarding 537/538 contoversy. Remember, it was scholar and only scholar that first answered your questions regarding Jeremiah 25:12 which from your own account baffled the late Albert Schroeder. Also, it is scholar whoc first introduced Applegate's paper to this board which provides a rebuttal to the Jonsson garbage regarding the seventy years.
scholar JW
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
Leolaia
Response to post 6973
No problem. The text which in context is with the the fact that Judah would be a desolated place for seventy years during this historic period of exile, desolation and servitude, the foreign nations would similarly experience that same domination by Babylon ie. being made to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. History, secular or biblical does not give precise chronologies for those respective nations of their servitude but with Judah it iwas different because her servitude lasted exactly seventy years from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537 BCE.
scholar JW
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
Lady Liberty
You disagree so what! I disagree with your interpretation of matters. If another scholar had inserted by means of parenthesis a chronolgy agreeable to you then you would have no complaint. It is only the case that because WT scholars have inserted their chronology by means of parenthesis into Grayson's reference work, you now cry foul. Special pleading indeed. I think you should take a cold shower and please scan the relevant page from Harper's reference work.
scholar JW
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
KW13
Not so, Jeremiah's calling to account in 25:12 does not apply to the Fall or demise of Babylon in 539 BCE according to the apostate Jonsson hypothesis. Scholars interpret the 'calling to account.as occurring after the fulfillment of seventy years when Babylon would be punished and desolated which of course did not occur with her Fall in 539 BCE.
Babylon in its entirety and an oppressor and subjugator of God's people would be brought to account by means of her perpetual desolation as foretold by Jeremiah in 25:12.
scholar JW
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
Alan F
Response to post 4425
I have not forgotten about you and will attend to your nonsense regarding 538 shortly and your misuse of Josephus. I am well pleased that you have Applegate's article which of course you owe a debt of gratitude to scholar and will look forward to other piece of scholarship that you are excited about. Scholar says 'bring it on'!
scholar JW
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
Jeffro
Response to post 909
1. I have not ignored the context of Jeremiah at all because the simple fact is that the Jews remained in Babylon after 539 until their release by the Decree of Cyrus which was after 539 BCE.
2. Indeed it was certainly foretold by Daniel that Bazbylon would fall to the Medo Persians and tyhis event happened in 539 paving the way for the end of the Jewish exile in 537 BCE.
3. The Jews could not have returned home in in 538 as this does not allow for the return home journey unless you beliueve in supersonic air travel by QANTAS in the 6th century BCE.
scholar JW
sorry for the long post!.
what the watchtower society says:.
24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.
Augustin
Applegate's paper is an exegesis of all of the principal seventy year texts and their relationship to Jeremiah' seventy years. It is the latest study on the subject published in 1997 and refers to all of the previous journal articles on the seventy years, it differs from the earlier studies by examining the Jeremaiac influence upon Chronicles, Daniel and Zechariah. Its interpretation of those texts does not agree with Jonsson's interpretation of those texts. Simple as that.
scholar JW
