scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  601

  For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

  by Swamboozled in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

  i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

  http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  4531

  Apostates do not do biblical exegesis very well because they lack a love of God's Word and have a lack of Holy Spirit and lack any Organization or community of united believers and worshippers of the only true God, Jehovah. Such a pathetic response to the 'mind blowing' defense by third witness shows the desperation of apostates who try to undermine the truth of the Bible. This is clearly evident in your approach to the matter of Tyre and the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy in 26:14 wherein the prophet stated plainly that Tyre "never...be rebuilt" (NWT). That prophecy plainly refers to that maritime city of Tyre that existed as an island city up until the conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and is further proved by the remainder verses in that chapter from 15-21.

  In short, although a modern land city of Tyre exists today this fact does not contravene the prophecy of Ezekiel that Tyre which existed back then as an 'island city; remains thus today a devastated place. Prophecy is fulfilled just as God's Word plainly states. Compare Ezekiel 26:4 with verse 14. Nice and easy!

  scholar JW
• 
  601

  For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

  by Swamboozled in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

  i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

  http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  ozziepost

  12864

  You are quite mistaken about any such rendevous for you have not answered my question: Have you been disfellowshipped from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses? If your answer is in the affirmative then such an appointment is impossible but if your answer is negative then such an appointment can be arranged.

  scholar JW
• 
  601

  For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

  by Swamboozled in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

  i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

  http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  ozziepost
• 
  601

  For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

  by Swamboozled in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

  i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

  http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  thirdwitness

  Congratulations. You have made an excellent and brilliant defence of our illustrious and brilliant Bible chronology and the apostates with the foolish and deceptive claims made by Carl Jonsson have been shown as pandering to higher critics who doubt the truth of the Bible, Such deceitful men would rather believe the lie over the clear and historic fact of the seventy years wisely and carefully noticed by the celebrated WT scholars over many centuries.

  I enjoyed the use of the charts explaining in a simple and clear manner why WT biblical chronoilogy is far more accurate and faithful to Jehovah's inspired Word than the secular based Neo-Babylonian chronology. I do not know whether Brother Rolf Furuli is aware of your website and its presentation as I have just recently informed him of Jonsson's website in which he presents a critique of Furuli's recent book.

  It is nice to see that you have demolished the arguments of Alan F regarding Tyre and it is nice to have support from other people who are well qualified in matters of chronology. Keep us the good work as we defend Jehovah's teachings on 607, the seven times and its ending in 1914.

  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

  I am fully aware of textual criticism and I appreciate what tou are trying to argue but the simple fact is that my edition of Josephus by Whiston has the numbers as they are and not what you would wish them to be. Granted I have not bothered to read other editions of Josephus such as the Loeb Library series but that time will come. Also, there is a commentary on Josephus in the process of publication with the first two volumes published by E.J.Brill.

  The fact of the matter is that Josephus in English has the data as I have presented, the numbers are contradictory therefore the evidence is mixed and uncertain and of course disagrees with the Bible history. So whether Josephus is right or wrong it does not matter for the Bible is our basis.

  All the so-called cumulative evidence as currently understood and interpreted goes against the Bible but that is just a ploy of the Devil who seeks to mislead people by being blinded to the truth of Christ's presence. The fact is that the biblical seventy years stands alone and that historic period is absolutely vital for any chronology.

  It is scholar and scholar alone who first originated by means of this board the relationship between methodology and interpretation and soon after Robert Young followed suit with his reappraisal of Thiel's chronology. Scholar was first past the post and he is a winner.

  Jeffro will only read that article if you send it to him but I would then be surprised if he actually 'reads it' as he limits his reading experience.

  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

  ozziepost

  That is fine to meet up at Moores but you have not answered my question: Have you been disfellowshipped from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses?

  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

  ozziepost
• 
  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

  Forget it, Jeffro will not bother to read this article because he has a superior chronology and thus knows more about this than you or Robert Young. Jeffro will not bother even to obtain such an article because when I have tried to get him to research matters further he refuses so you are wasting your time.

  If you have read this article you will notice the salient fact which endorses scholar's policy that chronology is about methodology and interpretation, it is this realization that initiated Young to survey key issues of OT chronology and which he addresses in a couple of articles.

  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

  hilary-step

  Not bothered about this for celebrated WT scholars have long championed biblical chronology with its date of 607. The joke is on the community of scholars because they collectively cannot agree on any chronology at all or in fact any date for either the OT or the NT.

  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

  Alan F

  4513

  You have the facts wrong as usual. It is in fact secular scholar who advocate 586 following on that great chronologist Thiele and it is the religious or evangelkical scholars who push 587 which is the preferred apostate date arising from Carl Jonsson

  scholar JW