scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  68

  Sorry, another 607 question? I'm confused.

  by lost_light06 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  im trying to figure something out concerning the wts 607-1914 chronology that has me confused.

  i thought they based the chronology on when jerusalem was destroyed.

  however, the following is taken from the daniel book and it seems to base it on something else.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider
• 
  68

  Sorry, another 607 question? I'm confused.

  by lost_light06 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  im trying to figure something out concerning the wts 607-1914 chronology that has me confused.

  i thought they based the chronology on when jerusalem was destroyed.

  however, the following is taken from the daniel book and it seems to base it on something else.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  1637

  Celebrated WT scholars prefer an 'event-based' approach to chronology rather than the 'regnal-based-approach' because it avoids the confusion over the use of regnal years conicciding with know historical events. For example, this is the reason why scholars and apostates have found themselves in a predicament with using a regnal-based chronology because it fails to determine whether the historical event of the Fall of Jerusalem is dated to 586 or 587 BCE. Biblical chronology based upon necessary secular data avoids this problem by simply factoring historic events such as the seventy years and coinciding this with biblical and regnal data for the reigns of the both the Judean and Babylonian Monarchy.

  scholar JW
• 
  68

  Sorry, another 607 question? I'm confused.

  by lost_light06 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  im trying to figure something out concerning the wts 607-1914 chronology that has me confused.

  i thought they based the chronology on when jerusalem was destroyed.

  however, the following is taken from the daniel book and it seems to base it on something else.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  1636

  Certainly 539 and 537 uses secular evidence that is also used for the construction of Neo-Babylonian chronology but the methodologies used for biblical and secular chronology differ. Celebrated WT scholars use a 'event-based approach' whereas secular scholars use 'regnal-based approach' both produce different outcomes such as 586/587 for the Fall of Jerusalem or 607 BCE. The celebrated ones have wisely noted the historical relevance of the 'biblical seventy years' which escapes the attention of secular scholars hence a twenty year gap is produced.

  Just because something is mentioned by Jonsson does not make it fact in fact Jonsson has made one very critical historical blunder which has been exposed by the said scholar and has been confirmed by the Alan F's buffoonery.

  scholar JW
• 
  68

  Sorry, another 607 question? I'm confused.

  by lost_light06 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  im trying to figure something out concerning the wts 607-1914 chronology that has me confused.

  i thought they based the chronology on when jerusalem was destroyed.

  however, the following is taken from the daniel book and it seems to base it on something else.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  1631

  It is you that doesn't get it! It is not your business to decide what methodology the celebrated WT scholars should employ. It is their business and they have decided that 539 BCE is a adequate pivotal date for the reconstruction of OT chronology. If you prefer another date then you go with that and reap the futility of doing so. Certainly, 539 is a derived date but so are all dates derived from established data so you are merely stating the obvious. There is no evidence that Freedman was misquoted by the writers of the Appendix as this was a claim made by the apostate Jonsson which in fact was quite mistaken and erroneous. The very fact that Freedman admitted that there was some controversy about 586 or 587 proves that such methodology is faulty and is unreliable. It would have been preferable if scholars followed the lead of the celebrated and very wise WT scholars.

  All dates are derived as they are not mentioned as such in Scripture or other secular writings and are subject to interpretation and methodology hence scholar's formula: CHRONOLOGY = INTERPRETATION + METHODOLOGY. The foresaid scholar is brilliant.

  scholar JW
• 
  68

  Sorry, another 607 question? I'm confused.

  by lost_light06 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  im trying to figure something out concerning the wts 607-1914 chronology that has me confused.

  i thought they based the chronology on when jerusalem was destroyed.

  however, the following is taken from the daniel book and it seems to base it on something else.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  1631
• 
  68

  Sorry, another 607 question? I'm confused.

  by lost_light06 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  im trying to figure something out concerning the wts 607-1914 chronology that has me confused.

  i thought they based the chronology on when jerusalem was destroyed.

  however, the following is taken from the daniel book and it seems to base it on something else.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  The date 539 is considered by the celebrated WT scholars to be a pivotal date for the purposes of constructing a chronology for the biblical period and the date 537 is a derived date as with nearly all other dates for the OT including 607. If we use the Neo-Babylonian method there are also fixed astronomical dates or pivotal dates and then we use derived dates also with this method however the latter Babylonian system ignores the seventy years so our calculation is twenty years short of the mark from the derived 586/7 until the correct established date of 607.

  scholar JW
• 
  68

  Sorry, another 607 question? I'm confused.

  by lost_light06 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  im trying to figure something out concerning the wts 607-1914 chronology that has me confused.

  i thought they based the chronology on when jerusalem was destroyed.

  however, the following is taken from the daniel book and it seems to base it on something else.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  lost_light

  Celebrated WT scholars base or begin biblical chronology with a pivotal date which is universally accepted for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Henceforth, it is determined that the Exiles returned to Judah in 537 BCE ending the foretold prophetic/historic period of seventy years which began with the destruction of Jerusalem and the major exile to Babylon in 607 BCE. This historic event saw the end of the Judean or Davidic monarchy thus ushering in Gentile Rulership foretold to last for seven times thus ending in 1914 CE.

  In short, the overthrow of Jerusalem in 607 BCE is equated with the end of the Davidic Monarchy thus beginning the Gentile Times which were of a duration of 'seven times' ending in 1914. Such an overthrow with the end of Zedekiah would naturally represent a loss of sovereignty in respect of God's typical kingdom at Jerusalem. This is no new light but simply a matter of emphasis.

  scholar JW
• 
  184

  Celebrated WT scholars? :)

  by Augustin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

  "once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

  --augustin --

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  976

  When it comes to hypocrisy, apostates exceed in bucketfuls because once they believed they had found theTrue Religion and after careful study of the Scriptures they were convinced that this was the case and then proceeded to confirm this intellectual decision by means of dedication and baptism. Now such ones because of some pitiful issues betray that intellectual and spiritual commitment and persue a course of abandonment not having found the True Religion. Such ones find themselves in spiritual darkness and spend their time opposing their former associates and allegiances. This is hypocrisy at its worst.

  I care nought for your compliments because it is not in the nature of apostates to compliment others but simply to vent their anger at loyal Christians. You are to be pitied because you have found nothing and have nothing'.

  scholar JW
• 
  184

  Celebrated WT scholars? :)

  by Augustin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

  "once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

  --augustin --

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  ozziepost

  I am an active JW and I am in good standing in the Christian Congregation. But more to the point what is your status? Are you a disfellowshipped person from the Christian Congragation?

  scholar JW
• 
  184

  Celebrated WT scholars? :)

  by Augustin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

  "once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

  --augustin --

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  4485

  Are you now embarrassed? Scholar helps you and then you want to beat him. You should find another hobby or better still Read God's Word Daily!

  Scholar JW