Posts by scholar

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 735

As a non-specialist Jonsson cannot deal directly with primary sources so he is reliant on those that can, this means his research is second-hand in nature thus merely continuing the views of others. His so-called research is thus limited, opinionated and does not push scholarship forward. Furuli on the other hand is an authority and can deal with the primary sources which is the hallmark of a 'true scholar' for his latest research is challenging conventional wisdom and invites a fresh appraisal of Neo-Babylonian chronology.

Furuli has informed me of an upcoming review in a leading academic journal by a scholar of great repute so this will be of much interest alongside a pevious view of dubious note.

I have already a copy of the Review in that leading journal by W. Gallagher. That journal in publishing this Review has paid celebrated WT scholars the ultimate compliment because it draws attention to 607 BCE, the Gentile times and 1914. Jonsson has done us a big favour by producing criticism of our chronology which in turn has now acheived academic notoriety by being debated in this journal.

I shall write to Gallagher when I can locate him and the Editor of the Journal giving my views on this Review as soon as practicable.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 731

Yes I noticed the endorsement of Jonsson's work by a scholarly journal but you were very selective in your use of this Review so why do not you post the entire review so that would make the matter fully transparent. I noticed that the reviewer correctly observed that Jonsson is no specialist and therefore he cannot work with the primary sources. Furuli, on the other hand is competent in this respect and so it will be interesting to see if a review of Furuli's research will be published in this journal.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

digderido

Celebrated WT scholars have certainly got it right about 607 BCE being the only possible calcuable date for the Fall of Jerusalem, The other pretenders promoted by wordly scholars and apostates simply either ignore the biblical 'seventy years' or have developed a chronology for that period that lacks a common consensus. In short, this amounts to a pandering to the 'higher critic'. Further, our understanding of the seventy years agrees totally with that of Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian who also interpreted the period as one of servitude-desolation-exile from the Fall to the Return.

The methodology used by our 'celebrated' scholars conforms to the KISS principle and is faithful to the Bible.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

beavis

Post 23

The date 607 BCE is not impossible as you claim for in fact it is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem that is in harmony with the Bible, ancient history and secular evidence. It is correct that modern scholars and historians do not support this date but such authorities also do not believe the Bible and herein lies the problem. It is either the Bible or the theories of men. One poster has suggested that you comsult the research of Carl Jonsson who argues against 607 but I suggest that you read the research of Rolf Furuli who has published two volumes on ancient chronologies and the Bible so that you have a complete picture of the conflict.

scholar JW

221

Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA

by V in

scholar

boyzone

Post 53

My response:

Request for a Sign; The fact that a Sign was asked could show that the disciples understood that the Parousia would be invisible because it was a state of affairs that could not be observed. Earlier, Jesus had told the them the the coming of the Kingdom of God would not be with striking observablenesss. Luke 17:20 Therefore having this statement in the back of their minds they used parousia instead of coming as the question. Jesus' reply indicates that that presence would need to be discerned and was likened to the Days of Noah. You cite Acts 1:6 but this was to do with another completely different question as to whether Jesus would restore the kingdom to Israel which has nothing at all to do with His parousia.

Presence over a period of time. Jesus did in fact compare His parousia to the Days of Noah leading right up to and including the Deluge. This confirmation is in the beginning and end of that pericoipe on the Flood. Just slowly ever so slowly read the text out aloud. He does not compare it to the Flood alone for that is simply false. The next verse opens with tote'then' so his mention of the two men and women pertain to an event at the conclusion of the parousia.

Preseence required discernment. Jesus provides clear markers that indicate that the parousia was something that had to be discerned. First, he likened to the flashings of lightnings from East to West that indicate the comprehensiveness of the parousia and second that it was compared to the Days of Noah. Finally, the exhortation to his disciplles to Keep on the watch. Further, contextual proofs could be provided but these three facts should be sufficient.

The quotation of Adolf Deismann's comment on Parousia or Parusia does not help your argument in fact the opposite is true for there is no evidence anywhere in the literature both Ancient and Modern that would any other meaning for parousia than 'presence'.

scholar JW

221

Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA

by V in

scholar

Mary

Post 9272

I am not resposnsible fo how the word parousia is treated in the Lexica. Indeed other secondary meanings are given and examples are presented in accordance with this in the Lexicons for that is what Lexicons do. However, the primary focus of the celebrated WT scholars is the use of this word in the Christian Greek Scriptures and there is sufficient eveidence therein to conclusively prove that parousia means ;presence' and 'presence' alone. The noun occurs 24 times in the NT and the verbal form also occurs 24 times so there is sufficient usuage for deteremining its meaning.How it is used in other sources such as the LXX and extrabiblical sources is important and interesting but not essential in determings its use by Matthew. The context of Matthew, use in the rest of the NT, its literal meaning and that of the lexica are quite sufficient. Thank you.

scholar JW

73

The 70 years of devastation--as revealed by the Bible

by AddaGirl in

watchtower teachings say this period is from 607 bce to 537 bce.

most of the documentation relating to the seventy years indicates that period to be 609 bce to 539 bce, the rule of the babylonian empire.

i wrote to headquarters, because as a bible study student i knew i could ask questions about certain doctrines that those baptized cannot without consequence and some of the information i received from them was very helpful especially when it was used to verify the chronology of the kings of judah and israel through the bible.. the bible says there are actually (2) 70-year periods.. the first being one of servitude to the babylonians of both israel & judah from 609 bce to 539 bce.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 488

Nice to have you back on board. Sorry to hear the sad news about your dear wife and I trust that all will go well with you in this time of trial.

As I have argued several times on this board, Chronology is all about methodology and interpretation so many many if not all date cannot be ever 'proved' regardless of the skill of the chronologist. At best, one can only demonstrate by reason dates for specific events in a chronology. No date for the Return can be proved in the absolute sense but upon a carful examination of the Scriptures and secular history the date 537 BCE is the most proovable date.

The date of the Return indeed is the only possible date to end the seventy year period as descibed by Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezra. The other candidate, 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is impossible for the very simple amongst many others that the Jews were still Babylon at that time and the land was still desolate at that time.

You raise the matter of inclusive reckoning but if we subtract the period from the precise month namely Tishri, 607 until Tishri, 537 BCE we get 70 full years as required by the Bible writers and in harmony with Josephus.

scholar JW

221

Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA

by V in

scholar

jgnat

Post 14699

From the time of her earliest posts Leolaia has always showed a preference for extrabiblical and extracanonical sources and she repeats this same methodology in her critique of the Parousia and Generation. My preference on the other hand is to regard the Bible as the primary source and all others that may be used as simply secondary sources. Leolaia and I follow different methodologies and this produces different results. Further, I take notice of current scholarship by reading technical commentaries and leading scholarly journals so that I can be on top of the subject matter.

scholar JW

221

Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA

by V in

scholar

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

If you do not believe in the existence of the 'celebrated' WT scholars then that is your problem for I care not a wit. My supply of spiritual food is well met by the meetings and literature published by FDS. If I need extra sustenance then I consuly my theological library or a local theological library for that extra spice or nutrient. Information provided by apostates has limited value being full of poison so one needs to treat that as a chemist would in handling a poisonous or dangerous product. Handle with care.

scholar JW

221

Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA

by V in

scholar

boyzone

Scholar makes no mistakes on this matter and niether does the FDS and its 'celebrated' WT scholars. Fine tuning or adjustments in the pursuit of scholarship and the spiritual nourishment of the Lord's people ia all that is necessary.

The notion of invisibility is wholly ensconsed to the Olivet Discourse and the Synoptics. A little common sense and reason also has much merit. No one knows what was in the minds of those few disciples on the mountain. All that we can know for certainty was the question put to Jesus and Jesus' answer to hHis disciples. The context of the narrative and the vocabulary are all part of the understanding of the nature of the Parousia and the Generation. If the Parousia was momentary or the last event as alleged by Leolaia then Why did the disciples use parousia rather than coming.? If 'coming' was meant then Why was that word not used for it is there in Greek? These are questions that Reason demands of an explanation. So your argument is nonsensical.

The necessity of a sign would indicate that the presence could escape their notice and if it required special insight and was over a long period of time then the presence must logically be invisible. So, in short, I have provided three basic facts that prove the invisibility of the presence.

1. Request for a Sign

2. Presence over a long period of time shown by comparison with the Days of Noah

3. Presence required discernment by the disciples.

scholar JW