Posts by scholar

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

No doubt you are referring to 'Questions From Readers' pp.30-1 in the Watchtower, May 1, 2007 issue which refers to 1935 as the time when the heavenly hope ceased for Christians who from that time onward would have the earthly hope as opposed to the heavenly hope. This is not 'new light' as the wiley poztates propose but simply a re-articulation of previous held understanding of the Scriptures. Celebrated WT scholars have never held to a so-called 'flawless chronology because this subject is built on two premises namely methodology and interpretation, both of which are subject to 'fine tuning'. What we do say is that our chronology is wholly biblical and is consistent with the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.In short, our chronology is the most accurate as all of the evidence both secular and biblical clearly proves.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

post 170

Post a list of books that you have read on chronology and you should purchase or borrow Furuli's first and his forthcoming second volume;

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

post 1551

When the going gets tough and you run out of argument then true to form you rely on insults which reflects poorly on your integrity and character. It is insulting to call biblical interpretation 'drivel' and only proves that your interpretation is baseless. Anyway I wish you a happy and safe trip and look forward to our regular jousts;

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

post 165

Really the sensible thing for you to do is purchase Furuli's book and read it for you cannot reply to a matter unless you have considered all of the facts and you cannot comment on a book that you have not read.

scholar JW

20

Has the WTS ever published a complete list of babylonian kings??

by cultswatter in

lets cut to the chase shall we.

i'm looking for the wts list of babylonian kings and the years they reigned.

evidently the wts discredits any historical list of babylonian kings.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 469

True, Furuli's tabulation could be considered secondary evidence but is drawn from ancient historical sources and as Furuli states in the introduction for the Chapter 4: Old Chronological Accounts Of The New Babylonian Kings the following: "This is important because the modern model of the New Babylonian and Persian chronology was not constructed on the basis of Babylonian sources, but rather on the basis of secondary ot tertiary sources from other places." (Furuli,2003,1:66) One such source id Ptolemy's Canon which admits any reference to the reign of Labashi Marduk.

There is certainly plenty of archaeological evidence availkable but much of it has yet to be deciphered and interpreted by scholars and is a work in progress even though "Of the more than 8000 dated New Babylonian tablets that have been published, most agree with the traditional chronology" (ibid.231).

You arrogantly accuse celebrated WT scholars of 'flawed interpretations' but their critics cannot agree on any definite interpretation for the seventy years which in our opinion falsifies traditional chronology. A careful survey of the literature in published journals on the seventy years and comments in major technical Bible commentaries proves that there is no such definitive interpretation of this biblical period. So your accusation is rather ignorant and foolish.

scholar JW

20

Has the WTS ever published a complete list of babylonian kings??

by cultswatter in

lets cut to the chase shall we.

i'm looking for the wts list of babylonian kings and the years they reigned.

evidently the wts discredits any historical list of babylonian kings.

scholar

cultswatter

post 191

The reason why celebrated WT scholars have not seen to the publishing of the regnal years for the Neo-Babylonian pweriod is because the data is unreliable. Dr. Rolf Furuli presents a table showing the wide variation between reigns presented by different authorities. I refer to his Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews, 2003, Vol.1,p.74, Table 11 The New Babylonian Kings. Enjoy!

In addition, regardless of how secular chronologists evaluate this period there remains the problem of the Babylonian Gap, a term first coined by the said scholar of some twenty years when secular chronology and biblical chronology are compared. This 'gap' is caused because the secular chronology with its reliance upon Babylonian history which fails to account for the seventy year period of the Jews and Judah wherein there was a fixed historic period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation from the Fall (607 BCE) until the Return (537 BCE).

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeaanV

post 161

I do not know to post the tabulation onto this board but sure more computer literate people than me could do so. You stated in an earlier post that you possessed most books on the subject so you should purchase Furuli's first volume and volume 2 when published.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

1547

The actual setting of Jeremiah 29 is not specified by any date formula so an approximation after 617 BCE with the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah would be appropriate. The text includes a series of oracles addressed to the exiles of the first deportation of 617 BCE and not 595 BCE as you claim which is based on unreliable secular chronology. This chapter omits any reference to Hananiah bit is discussed in the previous chapter 28 which begins with a reference to the beginning of the Zedekiah's reign.

Jeremiah 25;11 refers to the land, Judah being desolated for seventy years whilst the nations including the Judeans would serve Babylon for seventy yearsin exile.

Jeremiah 25; 9,14 refer to the fact of that Judah would be devastated by Nebuchadnezzer and that Babylonian World power like Judah before would also receive divine punishment.

Jeremiah 25:12; Daniel 5;26-31. After the seventy years had ended then Babylon and Chaldea would also be desoloated to time indefinite which began not at her falll as foretold by Daniel but her eventual destruction.

Jeremiah 25:12 is an oracle addressed to Babylon that after the expiration of that seventy years then she too would go down into destruction.

Such interpretations are in agreement with all of the other seventy-year texts, Josephus and the whole OT for no other interpretation is admissible.

Your so-called tabulation is a work of fiction.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

1548

There is nothing in the NIV rendering in 2 Chronicles 36:21 in the edition that I have or the edition quoted by Ross Winkle when he discusses the linguistics of the specific Hebrew parallelism. If your edition of the NIV indicates whether by parenthesis or some other means distinguishes the Jeremiac staement then please elaborate. The NWT's rendering of this passage conforms to the literal Hebrew and is not otherwise disputed by scholars. Your claims to the contrary are simply mischevious.

It is recognized by scholars that Leviticus was largely sourced by Jeremiah and there is a conjoining of both by the Chronicler. According to the commentaries Leviticus described the state of the land and Jeremiah describes the duration of seventy years and that is how the NIV rendering of these sentences differs from the RSV and the NWT.

Do your research and do not present sloppy work.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

Dr. Rolf Furuli as a international scholar of Semitic Studies is well qualified to assess the primary evidence regarding Neo-Babylonian chronology and has already published research in his Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews, 2003, Vol.1 which features a tabulation under the heading Table 11 The New Babylonian Kings P.74. This tabulation shows the wide variation of the reigns of those kings. If you have not consulted this reference then I recommend that you do and also obtain when published this year Furuli's second volume dealing with Babylonian chronology.

The matter of choosing which date serves as a anchor for the purposes of constructing a scheme of chronology and discarding other so-called competing dates amounts to methodology. Every chronologist must employ a methodology for his chronology and this will vary between chronologists. This is why there is such a wide variation of chronologies especially of the OT. The Society guided by celebtayed WT scholars have adopted a specific methodology which for the OT is based upon the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Other chronologists such as the famous Edwin Thiele chose a much earlier date for his scheme despite embracing Neo-Babylonian dates and much evidence from eclipses.

Jeffro may have replied to the seven times in earlier poistings but I dispute his nonsense at every point because he lacks exegeticals and research skills and is not well read regarding the scholarly literature but you are more than welcome to subscribe to his special pleadings.

It is quite reasonable to discern on the basis of modern history that 1914 and not 1934 certainly fits the end of the Gentile Times and thus provides additional confirmation of 607 BCE as the beginning of that period. It was certainly scientific for prominent clergyman in 1917 to make a rather similar endorsement.

scholar JW