Posts by scholar

103

Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?

by digderidoo in

i have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.

although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.

the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 764

My maths is OK. You have misread what I had written. Scholars and apostates have two big problems. First, despite their claims that Neo-Babylonian chronology is the only reliable system of providing accurate dates they cannot determine the precise calender year for the Fall of Jerusalem. Second, there is a 'Babylonian Gap' of twenty years between the chronology for the period and the Bible when the two chronologies are compared. This 'gap' is observed because of the biblical 'seventy years' and the lack of reliable data for the reigns of the Babylonian kings. Celebrated WT scholars in their wisdom and brilliance have for a long time brought these matters to the attention of scholars.

scholar JW

103

Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?

by digderidoo in

i have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.

although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.

the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".

scholar

dawg

Post 2174

The identity of the 'celebrated WT scholars' is not for you so you should not trouble yourself with such information. I would suggest that you read the Bible and the publications of the FDS.

scholar JW

103

Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?

by digderidoo in

i have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.

although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.

the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".

scholar

BarefootServant

The date of 537 BCE is well attested in scholarship in fact to be more precise it is only the research by the 'celebrated WT scholars that has defined precisely when the Jews returned home. Scholrs are somewhat vague about the precise historical details but generally favour 537 BCE. However, this discussion is about the 'seventy years' so you should stick to the subject at hand.

scholar JW

103

Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?

by digderidoo in

i have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.

although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.

the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".

scholar

digderidoo

Post 849

The data has not been harmonized otherwise scholars would by now have a consistent interpretation of the seventy years. Also, the data is so confusing that scholars cannot agree as to whether the Fall occurred in 586 or 587 BCE. There is a consistent twenty year gap and this problem has not been solved by scholars.

The position of apostates is well known because they prefer the opinions of higher critics and blindly follow chronology developed by SDA's, they offer nothing new because of their failure to listen to Bible prophecy.

Celebrated WT scholars have most cerainly proved beyond any shadow of doubt that 607 BCE was the calender year for the Fall and the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE all because they have payed close attention to that definite historic period of seventy years.

Jer.25:11 simply refers to the simple fact that along with Judah who served Babylon for more than seventy years with other nations who also were brought into Babylon's servitude. Jeremiah specifically referred to a specific seventy year of Jewish exile of all of the nation whilst the entire land was desolate. So, there is no conflict with verse 11 which simply proves that for seventy years Judah would be punished along with other nations.

scholar JW

103

Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?

by digderidoo in

i have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.

although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.

the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".

scholar

digderido

Post 841

It is imposible to reconcile 586/587 BCE with the biblical 'seventy years because the only date that works is 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem. Scholars have for many decades tried to harmonize the data but without any success. Apostates such as Carl Jonsson attempted a similar effort in his Gentile Times Reconsidered but failed misereably. It seems that A@G did not pay attention to this subjects whilst at Gilead because he too has simply repeated old and empty arguments.

Celebrated WT scholars over the last three centuries proved beyond doubt that the seventy years was a period of exile. desolation and serviude running from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE as also attested by all of the OT and Josephus. The theory that A@G and Jonsson proposes that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian domination is simply false and cannot be sustained from scripture for no single scripture or those collected texts can in any way support this singular proposal. All of the 'seventy-year' texts agree that that period was of exile-desolation and servitude. The seventy years did not belong to Babylon but to Judah alone with Babylon being simply the means by which matters were fulfilled as Jeremiah prophesied.

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

Mr Majestic

The case of Jonsson and the Society are indeed poles apart. The Society's role or charter is to promote and provide Bible Education by means of publishing Bibles and Bible-study aids. Their interpretation of the Bible is truly unique for it is Bible-based and where outside research is of value then such research is employed. Jonsson as a former Witness has an 'axe to grind' offering nothing new but a rehash of old criticisms lacking the objectivity and methodology of scholarly research.

The date 607 as a Biblical date is very important to our theologyand the theology of the Bible particularly its eschatology and as for Jonsson it has given him some infamy.

The British Museum is not a proper forum for accurate Bible knowledge so such telephone inquiry would be meaningless for you may just as well contact Oxford or Cambridge University. Such institutions noble as they are simply endorse wordly thinking and ideas and are not places of spirituality.

I disagree with you most strongly that the seven times of Daniel chapter 4 does not have a major fulfillment for the internal evidence proves that it does. Indeed the whole theme of that chapter is the Sovereignty of God as realized by the establishment of a future Kingdom of God. Such is introduced in verse 3, affirmed in verses 17, 25, 32 and concluded by verse 34 as acknowledged by Nebuchadnezzer. In short, this whole chapter develops the coming and establishment of a future, worldwide, permanent rulership. There are other exegetical issues that I could mention that prove that the 'seven times' had more than a literal application to Neb's reign.

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 746

Your best bet is to address your queries to Furuli directly rather than using the Yahoo forum and I amm quite sure he will respond.

Furuli has always invited criticism from his readers particularly competent scholars as he mentions on page 14 of Volume 1.

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 745

Jonsson's book is not research pure and simple but as Gallagher correctly states that it is simply an overview and from my standpoint a bit of 'sult bashing'. Furuli's books are research based raising new questions and seeking a fresh look into current chronologies combined with a radical new hypothesis, oslo chronology.

I telephoned Rolf at his home and asked whether he had received any communication from an Ann O Maly and he said that he hadn't. Further, he will email me a copy of the SDA complimentary letter as soon as he can find it. Further, he informed that his second volume has been reprinted with some corrections and additions expecially in reply to Jonsson's recent critique and he will forward also tho me that attachment. Further, there is published new research on the beginning of the Babylonian New Year which has been a subject of some controversy. This new journal article should be most interesting with regard to Furuli's data have the year beginning in some years early May.

I thank you for the update of Gallagher and now I know who and what I am dealing with.

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 744

I can only quote what Furuli has actually stated and he is quite clear about his qualifications, motivation and methodology and such are fully expalined very clearly in the Introductions in both volumes. Just read what he says. Jonsson has no qualifications or methodology but as the 'reviewer' says "finest overview of NB chronology available...meaningful for the general public". This therefore, is not research. The book is designed to tear down and not build up.

If there is no need for an intermediary then don't complain about any perceived delay but be patient.

Furuli has simply informed me of a written reply from an SDA scholar and so to date I have not received a copy but no doubt this will be forthcoming as he has also informed me that his book has been sent for review by other prominent scholars. All will be revealed in due course. Perhaps you could enlighten all about the status of W. Gallagher? There seems to be a physicist floating around the University of Vienna or Wien. Is he the authority? If so, How is it the case that a scientist did this unusual Review?

Let us see if you can answer these relevant questions seeing that it was you who first promoted this Review.

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 743

Furuli was upfront and honest about his credentials and he acknowlwdges those areas where he lacks expertise as he outlines in his first volume, page 14. His approach has always been linguistical and does not seek to challenge the findings of archaeo-astronomers but is critical of some of their applications on the basis of his linguistic examination of the primary documents. For this he is more than competent. Jonsson on the hand can do none of these things but simply engage in'cult-bashing'.

He outlines his methodology in both volumes and seeks to ask new questions by revisiting old terrain which is the very essence of good scholarship.

It is good that you have asked him questions and you must be patient for the answers for I am confident that he will look after you. If you have any problems then email a list of questions to me so that I can take the matter up with Furuli. Keep your questions short and specific with specific references would help.

Gallagher whoever he or she is, is a 'mystery' person as despite my best efforts I can find any academic position for this person. It has been observed that apostates are noted for conspiracy and the use of writing under a false names and this applies particularly to Jonsson's closest colleagues.

This journal AfO is only published annually and is German so it would be easy to miss out on that Review. The University whereupon I obtained my copy has only recently acquired this volume and it is the latest copy in its holdings even though it is for 2005/1006. Besides how is it then that it has taken you so long to post a refernce to it on this forum?

Methinks that it is you who have lost the plot but unlike you I am far from done.

scholar JW