scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Goldminer

  You should listen to your wife as it seems she is smarter than you are. Jeremiah 25:12 has nothing to do with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE ending the seventy years. The opposite is in fact the case because the oracle against Babylon began only after the seventy years were fulfilled which according to biblical history and chronology occurred in 537 BCE with the Return of the Exiles ending the desolation of the land. After that year of 537 then Babylon would experience judgement from Jehovah as foretold by Jeremiah along with all of the other foreign nations referred to in the remainder of that chapter.

  Further, using 539 as the end point of the seventy years would have 609 BCE for its beginning and nothing of note happened in that year so such an interpretation is impossible for numerous reasons. Listen to your wife!

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Honesty

  Your Neo-Babylonian chronology is shonky, it is wobbly because there is confusion over the precise length of the reign of Amel-Marduk or Evil-Merodach. Some authorities give his reign two years whereas Josephus gives him eighteen years so this makes your supposed list of conjectured 66 or 67 years useless. Try again and try harder!

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  1023

  586/587 cannot be a well established date because it fits nothing, it is a 'sleight of hand' or a conjurer's trick' to deceive the foolish and ignorant. If it is supposed to refer to the Fall of Jerusalem then precisely what year was it? If the claim of its well-establishment is correct then what year was it? Is it 586 or is it 587 for it cannot be both?

  Your explanation of 587 as the preferred date is nonsense as it is simply the minority view. The majority of scholars advocate 586 and if you have solved this problem which has bewailed scholars for decades then publish your findings in a journal. Further, your hypothesis claims that Jeremiah employed a different mode of reckoning the regnal data from that of Daniel in order to synchronize Jeremiah 25:1 with Daniel 1:1. The third year of Jehoiakim and his fourth year are simply two distinct regnal years marked by distinctive historical events: Jehoiakim made a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer and Nebuchadnezzer becoming King.

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  1022

  The reason why celebrated WT scholars prefer the Persian chronology over the Neo-Babylonian chronology is because the pagan Babylonians ignore the biblical 'seventy years' which creates a twenty year gap between biblical chronology and secular chronology.

  Also, Neo-Babylonian chronology has poor history omitting significant biblical events and the regnal data for some of the Babylonian monarchs is unreliable.

  Finally, as I have repeatedly informed you that chronology is dependent upon methodology and interpretation as so it is that the 'ceelbrated' have simply chosen a different methodology from other scholars. The same 'celebrated' have expained the fact of the Return in 537 BCE which is not explained to the same degree by other wordly scholars who simply fuse the Decree of Cyrus and the Return in c. 538 BCE. Such scholars have no interest in the precise time of the Return of the Exiles.

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Drew Sagan

  In answer to your two questions:

  1. Celebrated WT scholars have published scholarly information on Chronology in both the Aid to Bible Understanding and Insight to the Scriptures. Also, an excellent Appendix on chronology was included in the Let Your Kingdom Come publication. Scholar has evaluated the Jonsson hypothesis in all its detail over several editions and has commented extensively on his nonsense on this forum.

  2. The public teaching of the truth of 607 BCE and its accompanied implications can in no way be a violation of Jesus' wrning and prophecy at Luke 21:8, in fact it is in harmony with those words for it alerts the public to the dangers of being misled by false chronologies such as Jonsson's theories which 'cloud' over the significance of the End Times beginning in 1914.

  scholar JW
• 
  28

  The missing 20 years and Jehoiachin's exile

  by AuldSoul in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in my attempt to make this issue as simplified as possible, i have set out to determine exactly wherein the wts' missing 20 years must be found (607 bc versus 587/86 bc).

  i think i have done it, and i would like some confirmation/correction from alleymom, leolaia, narkissos and any others who consider themselves scholarly types.. first, using the kiss method alleymom posted some time back i regressed the accession years of the kings.

  since the hillah stele astronomically confirms the first regnal year of nabonidus in 555 bc, and since the wts unqualifiedly agrees with this date (although they neglect to inform why they agree), nabonidus' accession year was 556 bc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  There is nothing to disprove because Josephus says nothing that contravenes the calculation of 537 BCE for the Return as you well know. The biblical accounts along with Josephus agree that the only possible year for the Return was 537 and not 538 BCE for the latter is simply to early. You need to rethink the calendation for the period because what you have posted is utter nonsense as you well know.

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Zico

  The reason why celebrated WT scholars use 539 BCE as a pivotal date for biblical chronology is because this date is for an historical event that is well established by secular and biblical evidence. This is not the case for all other proposed dates claimed by scholars and apostates. It all boils down to methodology and by adopting a precise methodology, celebrated WT scholars are able to determine a framework odf chronology that alone is faithful to both the biblical and secular data which alone recognizes the importance of the seventy years used to fix the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE and the Return of the Jewish exiles in 537 BCE.

  scholar JW
• 
  28

  The missing 20 years and Jehoiachin's exile

  by AuldSoul in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in my attempt to make this issue as simplified as possible, i have set out to determine exactly wherein the wts' missing 20 years must be found (607 bc versus 587/86 bc).

  i think i have done it, and i would like some confirmation/correction from alleymom, leolaia, narkissos and any others who consider themselves scholarly types.. first, using the kiss method alleymom posted some time back i regressed the accession years of the kings.

  since the hillah stele astronomically confirms the first regnal year of nabonidus in 555 bc, and since the wts unqualifiedly agrees with this date (although they neglect to inform why they agree), nabonidus' accession year was 556 bc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Auld Soul

  Whenever you continue to promote a demonic secular chronology I will continue to promote the true biblical chronology which knocks down such foolish devilish schemes.

  scholar JW
• 
  28

  The missing 20 years and Jehoiachin's exile

  by AuldSoul in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in my attempt to make this issue as simplified as possible, i have set out to determine exactly wherein the wts' missing 20 years must be found (607 bc versus 587/86 bc).

  i think i have done it, and i would like some confirmation/correction from alleymom, leolaia, narkissos and any others who consider themselves scholarly types.. first, using the kiss method alleymom posted some time back i regressed the accession years of the kings.

  since the hillah stele astronomically confirms the first regnal year of nabonidus in 555 bc, and since the wts unqualifiedly agrees with this date (although they neglect to inform why they agree), nabonidus' accession year was 556 bc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Auld Soul

  Your query is an interesting one but completely mistaken because WT chronology as developed by celebrated WT scholars, hereafter termed the 'celebrated' have based their biblical chronology on the historic fact of the biblical 'seventy years' which is overlooked by Neo-Babylonian chronology. This means that the dates for the reign of Nebuchadnezzer is dated from 624 - 582 BCE with the desolating of Jerusalem and the commencement of the seventy years in 607 BCE which was his 18th regnal year. Such an historic insertion unknown to the pagan Babylonian scribes would create a twenty year gap between biblical chronology and pagan chronology which fixes 586/587 for this event.

  Further, the chronology for the following Babylonian rulers in uncertain because in the case of Evil-Merodach there is ambiguity as to the length of his reign whether it was two years or eighteen years however his reign began in 581 BCE and in 580 BCE released Jehoiachin in his 37th year of exile which commenced in 617 BCE. Following from Amel-Marduk' uncertain reign there were the following kings: Neriglisser, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus who began his reign in 556 BCE ending in 539 BCE.

  The Neo-Babylonian chronology is unreliable because it does not give an accurate history of the Nebuchadnezzer period and bad history equals bad chronology. The following historical facts are missing from the Babylonian period but are mentioned in the Old Testament writings:

  1. The seventy years of Judah's subjugation

  2. The seven years of Nebuchadnezzer's madness

  3. The desolation of Egypt for forty years.

  Hence, the missing twenty years is not found during the late Neo-Babylonian period as you allege but in fact were characteristic of Nebuchadnezzer's reign with the Fall of Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year.

  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

  1641

  Your last few posts have explained nothing as I am quite familiar with the line of argument used by apostates in order to uphold their secular chronology. As I have nicely explained you favour a regnal based approch which ignores the biblical 'seventy years' wheras the celebrated WT scholars favour an event based approach which fully utilizes the biblical 'seventy years' and thus fine tunes regnal based chronology eliminating the problematic twenty year gap between sacred chronology and demonic secular chronology.

  Apostates are experts when it comes to the power of the mind, the power of imagination ov er reality because they are victims of their own deceit and treachery having found no true religion to replace the belief system that they abandoned.

  scholar JW