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

  kid-A

  To be sure when I attend the Convention next weekend I will heartily embrace the resolution when it is proposed for adoption for already my lungs are ready for a loud acclamation on my part. However, I do not know what scholar will do, he may not be present as he has no interest in petty theatrics or meaningless behaviour. He only exists for 607 BCE, 1914, WT Chronology and the Gentile Times. What an abhorrent creature he is for I tell him repeatedly to GET A LIFE! That scholar, the oracle does his own thing and I will be glad to be rid of him'

  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

  Leolaia

  7710

  I believe my reply to Marjorie was appropriate for I acknowledged that there is a considerable secular for the two year reign of Evil-Merodach but it must be put on record that according to Josephus there is disharmony over the length of that reign. Josephus is the principal source for Berossus and Berossus in turn is a primary cource for Neo- Babylonian chronology so this means that Josephus' data should at least not be ignored. However, notwithstanding the debate over the role of Josephus and such secular chronology, celebrated WT scholars have raised a much more serious threat to the foundation of Neo-Babylonian chronology namely the biblical 'seventy years' which proves a twenty year gap between NB chronology and pure biblical chronology using similar data.

  Whatever the status of writers and the period in which they lived it would be highly desirable to have the original documents or autographs but sadly this is not the case with chronology either biblical or secular and so scholars have use what is available. For example, in respect of Neo- Babylonian chronology based upon the Chronicles, the reigns of Nebuchadnezzer, Awel-Marduk, Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk are noted with an asterisk indicating that the regnal data is ob tained not from those Chronicles but from Berossus and Ptolemy ( Jonsson, 1998, p.117, Table 3). This is a circular argument which Furuli in his scholarly work warns about the danger of cicularity in the reconstruction of chronology (Furuli,2003, p.23).

  You have gone to great trouble in trying to impress me with the data from Josephus and the Business Tablets but I am fully aware of the evidence and I do not need any reminders from you on this account. Impressive as such data may be it pales into insignifance when compared with the biblical data for the seventy years which fulfilled prophecy. I am far more impressed with matters spiritual than wordly matters of business, the making of money. Jehovah's intervention in history is far more important to lovers of God and the Bible then the making of filthy riches which is the prime concern of apostates having no spirituality.

  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

  Auld Soul

  3827

  Celebrated WT scholars have no interest in trying to synchronize or harmonize biblical chronology with 607 BCE for the Fall with Neo-Babylonian chronology with its omission of the biblical 'seventy years'.

  All of the biblical texts relating to the seventy years namely Chronicles, Jeremiah, Daniel and Zechariah are unambiguous about the fact that this was a definite historical period of desolation, exile and servitude. Certainly there are many interpretations of the seventy years and these are usually presented in a small number of scholarly journals over the last fifty years but when one carefully surveys these articles, commentaries and the Jonsson nonsense one can only conclude that the 'celebrated' have got it right, 100%. This is the reason why I post on this board to defend a clear biblical teaching.

  Chronicles most definitely connects the fulfillment of the seventy years with a desolate land and its keeping sabbaths throughout the duration of that period. It ended not as the aposates errroneously claim in 539 BCE but the verses in context clearly state at the first year of Cyrus in 537 BCE. The period of the land lying desolate could not be fifty years because nowhere does the Bible make such a statement. The fifty years is simply a stooge invented by apostates to give some credibility to a flawed Neo- Babyloian chronology, it is simply a substitute to overide or camouflage the twenty year gap between sacred biblical chronology and pagan secular chronology.

  Frankly, it is dishonest of you to argue that the Judah lay desolate for fifty years when the Bible writers were most emphatic that it was seventy. Such reasoning proves that apostates and WT critics are desperate in tryng to disprove WT biblical chronology but their efforts such as the pathetic Jonsson nonsense are doomed to failure.

  Frankly, I am not interested in your pathetic games for scholar deals with facts, history and chronology and he will not stoop to such infantile nonsense.

  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

  Auld Soul
• 
  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

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  You made several postings on the subject of Evil-Merodach or Awel-Marduk so I will respond to them all in total. I will respond also to the other nutters who have made a vain contribution after I have dealt with the issues you have raised. Posts 959-967:

  1. It is correct to say that 1965 WT in stating that the reign of Evil-Merodach was 2 years is possibly incorrect for reliable confirmation as to the length is lacking. Scholarship at that time was that his reign was of two years and this remains the case up to the present because of the cunieform evidence. However, Josephus an ancient Jewish historian claimed 18 years for this ruler so there is some conflict here. Perhaps, the writer of that article had not properly consulted the celebrated WT scholars for information pertaining to Josephus. Whatever the case, scholar, WT writers, celebrated WT scholars, Governing Body and the FDS are not infallible and make mistakes unlike aposates and higher critics who are infallible and are 'of the gods'!

  2. Celebrated WT scholars are quite happy to accept that scholarship endorses by means of cunieform tablets and other documents that EM' s reign was of two years but it also must be recognized that Berossus gives differing figures for the Neo-Babylonian period and so does Josephus. Josephus does provide primary evidence for Josephus and however you view Josephus does give conflicting data for the NB period.

  3. To demonstrate how shonky Neo-Babylonian chronology I draw your attention to the following facts:

  Berossus assigns for Nabopolassar a reign of 29 years rather than the traditional reign of 21 years, Josephus gives him a reign of 21 years.

  Berossus assigns for EVIL-Merodach a reign of 18 years which differs from the traditional chronology and Josephus which give a reign of 2 years.

  Whiston in his discussion of the chronology of Josephus that Josephus determined that 40 years for Neriglissar and that the reign of Evil-Merodach ought to have 22 years rather than 2 in the Canon and those instead of the 18 in our copies of Josephus.

  We see then that from Josephus there is much confusion as to the reigns of certain rulers of the Neo-Babylonian period and that is why celebrated WT scholars largely reject the evidence as currently understood by modern scholars.

  Regardless of these facts what is more important is the testimony of the Bible and the Bible refers to a definite historic period of seventy years which is unaccounted for in the Babylonian history and cunieform tablets. Such a period proves a twenty year gap that cannot be reconciled with current king-lists so the celebrated base biblical chronology on this solid historical fact despite the so-called overwhelming evidence of the pagans who did bother to give any account of the Jewish exile in Babylonia. This latter fact demands an explanation.

  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

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  The cunieform tablets presently as understood assign two years for Evil-Merodach but the historian Josephus contradicts such testimony. I and the celebrated WT scholars cannot be held responsible for this contradiction for it simnply shows that secular evidence can be unreliable as it plainly is in this case.

  It is not a matter of a mistake for the earlier WT simply repeated current knowledge of the Babylonian period but with the advent of more detailed bibl,ical research it is simply drawn to the attention of Bible students what the position actually is. We can be ever grateful for such illustrious and careful research by the 'celebrated' ones. There is a fact that in the case of this Babylonian ruler that is reign is subject to some uncertainty.

  As I have said many times bad history equals bad chronology and there are many examples where current scholarship shows bad history. The best example of this is the subject of the seventy years by current scholarship which is sadly ignored or at best trivialized.

  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

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  Josephus who is the only source for the claim of Berossus that Evil-Merdoch's reign was two years also stated that the reign was eighteen years which creates a difference of sixteen years at least. You should consult the later refernces on Evil Merodach in the Aid and Insight publications because they were written after the 1965 WT which simply repeated a common viewpoint but was further clarified from 1969 forward with the Aid research.

  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

  Auld Soul

  3818

  Well methodology is different and it is the choice of the 'celebrated ones' but in reality is really the choice of many Bible Students who have a preferred loyalty to God's Word over and above that of wordly thinking which seeks to undermine that selfsame Word of truth.

  Secular chronologists also seek to use selected facts to prove their point of view and ignore other facts because these would contradict a 'pet theory'. Apostates follow the same erroneous course when they abandon the Bible and prefer higher criticism. The celebrated have as their right to acknowledge and accept the regnal years of the Babylonians when such years are confirmed or viable but where the data is faulty or suspect then an appropriate methodology must be employed in order to seek out the good from the bad. This chronology is a mixture of the 'good, bad. and the ugly' so the celebrated must use discretion with such secular data.

  You ask certain questions about the data and I am happy to deal with those points you have raised but can you explain the following:

  1. Seven missing years of Nebuchadnezzer's madness.

  2. Twenty year gap between biblical and Neo-Babylonian chronology

  3. Egypt's missing forty years of desolation

  4. The difference of sixteen years in the reign of Amel -Marduk

  5. Seventy years of Judean captivity missing from the Babylonian Annals

  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

  Lady Liberty

  You ask sincerely why is it the case that scholar only concerns himself with matters pertaining only to chronology. It is surely the case that scholar could engage with many other topics such as those you have mentioned and from time to time the foresaid scholar will intrude and make comments on such issues. However, scholar has spent much time and effort in matters of a scholarly nature and chronology is the most controversial and important as it contibuted to the Brooklyn apostasy in the 1980's. Scholar of course has opinions on all and on each and every one of such controversial topics but as he loves chronology and is the most simplest of topics, he feels more at home with such a topic that demands intellectual riguer.

  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

  1028

  The reference in the Insight volume is correct and provides a reasonable account of an histoical event which could only have been realized in 537 BCE. Your only objection to this account is the faulty premise that somehow the seventy years began with nations serving under Babylon from 609 BCE followed by the exile beginning in 598, the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 and the return in 538 BCE. Such proposed dates are open to serious challenges on all fronts, celebrated WT scholars have determined different dates for these principal events derived from the recogntion of the historicity of the seventy years.

  scholar JW