Jeffro
1039
You said it. Scholar is definitely mentally ill and I have long suspected it. Too bad we should all pray for him and wish him a swift recovery.
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
142
539 BCE
by Zico ina 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.
-
-
-
142
539 BCE
by Zico ina 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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
1038
Ezekiel 40:1 says no such thing, it simply gives the date of a prophetic utterance during the exile and even Josephus quite properly associated the land, the city and the temple with that fixed historical and prophetic period of seventy years. Once again as per usual you talk stupid.
Jeremiah 25:12 most certainly refers to the exile because the prophecy with its fulfillment would be of comfort to those exiles living in Babylon who would be released from Babylon in 537 BCE having witnessed its fall as judgement in 539 BCE. Celebrated WT scholars love facts and in company with all loyal Witness read God's Word daily so they all in concert love the facts and the prophecies in the Bible unlike apostates who prefer higher criticism.
There were no inhabitants in Judah during the exile because the land was totally depopulated and devastated and this once again fulfilled the Law and prophecy and was the will of Jehovah. But the higher critic argues otherwise and tries desperatly to undermine the clear pronouncement of scripture for the ' land waswithout an inhabitant' according to Jeremiah. There was an earlier exile of the higher people some ten years prior to the major exile commensurate with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Your argument to the contrary only seeks to pervert biblical history.
Your so-called superior chronology is simply a Jonsson borrowing and is pure bunkum because it misplaces the seventy years but if you believe it to be so good then send it to Jonsson or have it published in a leading journal. If the Society;s chronology is such a joke then it reflects poorly on the intellect of apostates because many of which once believed in such a chronology such as Jonsson and Franz so the joke is on them. Further, if the chronology is such a joke then why is it that apostates continually ruminate against it and try by desperate means to falsify it. It cannot be that bad because our chronology was very close to depiction of the Divided Monarchy and there is only a twenty year difference for the Neo Babylonian period. A difference of twenty years is small bikkies and can hardly be a joke. What chronology of the many hundreds developed within Christendom over the last centuries would you praise or commend? What dates do you give for Adam's creation or for the appearance of our Lord on earth, birth and death? Pray tell you high-minded one?
Chronicles most emphatically sates in the very next verse, verse 22 in fact that in the first year of Cyrus that Jeremiah's word would be accomplished and so it was not at the apostate date of 539 but the hallowed date of 537 BCE.
There is no confusion over the Hebrew words for these are common terms and Jeremiah by means of metaphors and poetic imagery defined these terms specifically. It is not the astronomical data that creates the twenty years but is the interpretation of the regnal data contained with the astronomical data that causes confusion and the omission of the historic seventy year period that creates an authentic twenty year gap.
Remember the Bible nowhere has a reference ot a fifty year desolation, exile or servitude, such fifty years is simply the invention of the higher critic and the apostate.
scholar JW
-
142
539 BCE
by Zico ina 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.
-
-
scholar
Hoping4Change
1. Sadly I am unable to assist you with the identity and locality of the Celebrated WT scholars for I have asked scholar that very same question and all I get is a deep scowl and groan from his cave so I have learnt that it is best to leave that matter rest.
If you truly need spiritual assistance then you should do the following:
Pray
Read and medidate on God's Word daily
Attend all Christian Meetings
Regularly engage in the field ministry
Seek assistance from your local Elders
Rolf Furuli is certainly a Scholar and as a Witness he would properly be identified as a WT scholar but whether he is of that elite group of scholars centuries old, celebrated WT scholars, I simply cannot say.
2. Biblical or Bible chronology is simply a chronology that is based upon the Bible and contains a tabulation of dates connected to events of the Old and New Testament beginning from the Creation of Adam to the book of Revelation. It owes its genesis to the esteemed work of Archbishop James Ussher whiose chronology was presented as a marginal reference in the King James Version of 1611. In order to reconstruct such a chronology a methodology utilizing secular data is required in order to establish key pivotal dates or formerly Absolute Dates thereupon biblical events and regnal data are employed in the construction of such sacred chronology.
You are correct in saying that secular data is essential but the chronologist wisely ensures that any secular data use must not contradict biblical data for biblical data must have primacy over secular data. In other words, just like salt is used sparingly so secular data or chronology must be used sparingly and not at the expense of raw biblical data.
I hope this information helps
Kind Regards
scholar JW
-
142
539 BCE
by Zico ina 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.
-
-
scholar
drew sagan
That is right for they are the only people doing the Lord's Will and despite their mistakes, Jehovah and Jesus continue to use them and bless them. May the Lord be Praised!
Such people have never been false prophets so your accusation is groundles and niether have they or will be misled by apostate deception as the Jonsson hypothesis.
I post on this forum because it is a public place, scholar the dark one says that he is here because he wishes only to defend WT chronology and other reasons are none of your business.
scholar JW
-
142
539 BCE
by Zico ina 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.
-
-
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 ina 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.
-
-
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 ina 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.
-
-
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 ina 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.
-
-
scholar
Auld Soul
-
142
539 BCE
by Zico ina 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.
-
-
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 ina 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.
-
-
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