Posts by scholar

54

Fact Jews Returned In 538 BC Kills Off Watchtower Chronology

by AlanF in

the watchtower society's 1914 chronology hinges on a dicey chain of claims.

if any of these claims is wrong, then the chain is broken and watchtower chronology collapses.

along with it goes the entire belief structure built on it, including most importantly the claim of the leaders of jehovah's witnesses to have been specially appointed in 1919 by god over "all christ's belongings" on earth.

scholar

Alan F

There is no hypocrisy at all because celebrated WT scholars are merely stating the generally accepted fact that the Return happened in 537 BCE or in other words this observation of the biblical and secular evidence reflects current and past knowledge. What you claim is rather an extreme and fanatical view of simple biblical and secular facts that cannot be construed your dogmatic position. I know that your view would not be accepted by any serious-minded scholar because of the simple onservation that the year of the Return is of minimal importance but the fact of the Return is of significant historical and theological significance.

The calculation of 537 BCE is not based upon speculation at all but on biblical and seclar evidence and these relevant facts are presented in WT publications over many decades. Jonsson himself acknowledges this because he offers no substantive criticism of the this date and its determination. Josephus has offers nothing that disproves that 537 BCE is the year for the Return and neither does Ezra.

The facts that you say are incontrovertible are such only to youand like-minded apostates and are viewed somewhat differently by scholars. You really need to run your hypothesis past your guru Jonsson and see if he will include this new material in a future edition of his GTR for it to have any merit at all.

What you need to understand first before tabulating the data is that there is considerable debate about when the first year of Cyrus should commence but in either event celebrated WT scholars have reconciled such views so that the Exiles returned home by the seventh month of 537BCE which recognizes the Finegan observation that the first year of Cyrus began 538/537 BCE.

If you wish to examine the acceptance of 537 by the scholarly community then is amply demonstrated by using Google and you will have all the information you need.

scholar JW

54

Fact Jews Returned In 538 BC Kills Off Watchtower Chronology

by AlanF in

the watchtower society's 1914 chronology hinges on a dicey chain of claims.

if any of these claims is wrong, then the chain is broken and watchtower chronology collapses.

along with it goes the entire belief structure built on it, including most importantly the claim of the leaders of jehovah's witnesses to have been specially appointed in 1919 by god over "all christ's belongings" on earth.

scholar

Alan F

4623

Your dogmatic and grandiose opinion that 538 is the only date for the Return does not agree with the rather modest claims about 538 presented by Jonsson by means of a footnote which is based on only two scholarly sources. These scholars do not share your dogmatism about this matter. In fact, scholars scholars are not concerned about the precise date for the Return but merely focus on year of Cyrus' Decree which is widely held to be 538 with the Return following that.

Have you presented your new theory about hte matter with all of your 'startling evidence' for the approval of your guru Jonsson yet?

I challenge you present definite scholarly opinion that supports 538 and not 537 for the Return and further if you search 537 by means of google you will notice that there is a general acceptance for 537 rather 538. So much for your childish nonsense.

scholar JW

54

Fact Jews Returned In 538 BC Kills Off Watchtower Chronology

by AlanF in

the watchtower society's 1914 chronology hinges on a dicey chain of claims.

if any of these claims is wrong, then the chain is broken and watchtower chronology collapses.

along with it goes the entire belief structure built on it, including most importantly the claim of the leaders of jehovah's witnesses to have been specially appointed in 1919 by god over "all christ's belongings" on earth.

scholar

Alan F

4617

If you say that Carl Jonsson believes that 538 BCE is the only possible date for the Return then prove it for Jonsson nowhere in his GTR has stated this matter as dogmatically as you have. Jonsson does not share your dogmatic opinion and niether do modern scholars.

I challenge you to provide confirmation of your special little theory by other scholars or other reference works because all that you have is a personal opinion or preference which is meaningless. There would be some scholars who argue for 538 and there would also be others who prefer 537 BCE so where does this leave your little pet theory.

scholar JW

54

Fact Jews Returned In 538 BC Kills Off Watchtower Chronology

by AlanF in

the watchtower society's 1914 chronology hinges on a dicey chain of claims.

if any of these claims is wrong, then the chain is broken and watchtower chronology collapses.

along with it goes the entire belief structure built on it, including most importantly the claim of the leaders of jehovah's witnesses to have been specially appointed in 1919 by god over "all christ's belongings" on earth.

scholar

Alan F

4611

What you post regarding 538 as being the only possible date for the Return is utter nonsense. For starters what you should do is run your theory past your guru Carl Jonsson and see if he agrees with your opinion. Have you done this? Because if your claim is correct then how is it that Jonsson does not adopt such a dogmatic approach? Why is it also the case that scholars do not share your dogmatic enthusiasm for 538 BCE for the Return? What you have posted is sheer nonsense and your interpretation of the biblical and secular evidence is simply that for if you have something worthwhile then submit it to the scholarly community by means of a journal artlcle as celebrated WT scholars have done.

scholar JW

601

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

by Swamboozled in

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

scholar

Alan F

4563

Correct and that is why in Finegan's Table as quoted previously shows Cyrus' first year from 538/537 BCE in short it either began in either 538 or 537BCE as noted in the Insight book. It certainly did not begin in either January of 538 or January 537 but simply began and ran within that period 538-537 BCE. My tabulation simply began with the first month of Nisan, March/ April in 538 BCE thus having the seventh month falling in 537 BCE.

I noticed that you did not comment as to Jonsson is not critical of 537 and the Society's methodology and is not dogmatic as you are for 538 BCE. Perhaps this silence or omission proves that it is you that is foolish.

scholar JW

601

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

by Swamboozled in

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

scholar

Alan F

4563

601

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

by Swamboozled in

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

scholar

Jayhawk1

1858

You ask about the names of the celebrated WT scholars. I, too have asked that same very question so when I find the answer I will let you know.

scholar JW

601

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

by Swamboozled in

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

scholar

Leolaia

7775

I did enjoy the pretty picture of modern Tyre that you posted for my benefit and I am overjoyed that you kindly thought of me. However, what you have presented merely shows some remains of the ancient Tyre which of course has not been rebuilt as it is still there as it was. All that has happened over the centuries is the building of a new Tyre which exists in a modern form today but the ancient city of Tyre has not been rebuilt it remains as it was, strfipped of its former glory. So, the existence of the ancient city and the modern city today clearly proves the fulfillment of Ezekiel's words that Tyre, that Phoenician will never be rebuilt.

scholar JW

601

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

by Swamboozled in

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

scholar

Alan F

4557

I do not accept your tabulation or your methodology The first year of Cyrus is given by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 1998, p.180, Table 88 as 538/537 BCE. Therefore, that first year was evenly divided or lay equally between the 538 and 537, this means that the seventh month would fall not on the side of 538 but as the beginning of 537 BCE.

Celebrated WT scholars have said in former times that "Whether the time of their arrival and resettlement there be reckoned as in the first or second full year of Cyrus' reign makes no difference. In either case, as above shown, Cyrus' decree and the Jew's resettlement could both be in 537 BCE".

If the Society's presentation of matters is impossible as you argur then how is that this is the first time that such claims have been raised? Carl Jonsson who is very familiar with calendation would seized upon such a blatant error if in fatc such an error is made. Even in Jonsson's recent fourth edition of his GTR he is not critical of the Society's explanation of 537 BCE as the year of the Return. Jonsson in the footnote 2 on page 90 states "The context seems to imply that this was still in the "first year of Cyrus". Most authorities, therefore, conclude that this was in the autumn of 538 BCE and not in 537 BCE as the Society insists". However, Jonsson cites two authorities in support of this view but a close reading of that material does not clarify the matter greatly.

If you have conclusive proof that you are right and that 537 BCE is utterly and postively wrong then write to the Society and put your view forward or further prepare and submit an article to some scholarly journal in order that all scholars can know for certainty the precise year for the Return.

scholar JW

601

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

by Swamboozled in

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

scholar

Alan F

4542

You have certainly given me the coordinates for the modern city of Tyre which is the middle of the sandbar and that is most helpful but is this to be taken the eact site of the ancient city? If not then supply the precise coordinates for that ancient Phoenecian city of Tyre "never to be rebuilt". If you can do this then I can supply such enlightenment with a leading archaeological society indicating the source, Alan Feuerbacher that this is really the case. Because if your claim is valid that ancient Tyre is now rebuilt then it now must exist can can now be properly identified.

You say that the present island city as it stands today inhabited with numerous dwellings is in fact ancient Tyre but id I went there there today and as I stand on that piece of land with an archaeologist at hand, could it then be said that now I am standing on ancient Tyre because it is now rebuilt? Your account of matters does not square with what is presented in archaeological reports because it is common knowledge that the remnants of the ancient city are submerged.

Your tabulation of the months for the ist Year of Cyrus from Nisan 538 to Adar 537 is incorrect and does not agree with my tabulation. Both our tabulations agree up to the seventh month Tishr, September/October which you show as a continuation of the 538 year. However, this is incorrect because the year runs not from January to December as per our modern calendation but from Nisan- April May through to Adar- February/March. This means that at Tishri in the 538-537 cycle as the first year of Cyrus, as the seventh month was the beginning of 537 which continued as such until the following Adar which introduced the second year of Cyrus from Nisan 536 to Adar 535.

Your error is that of calendation in that tou mistakenly are substituting the calenders, the old with the new, the Babylonian with the Gregorian. The correct procedure is to follow the Babylonian/ Jewish Calender converting the months into our calender.

scholar JW