Posts by scholar

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

No, the secondary fulfillment does not override the primary one but supplements it as it is the purpose of the dream and Neb's experience in the first place as Neb had to be shown that God's rulership was superior to his. This proves that you cannot separate the two for these are bound up together by means of the expression 'times' and the vocabulary of the Kingdom of God.

There is no inconsistency with Jehovah's selective use of a pagan ruler to enact a prophec tis drama or history in the fulfillment of prophecy for there are numerous precedents for this in the Bible. You state a problem whence there is no problem except in your own mind asa a lack of understanding. Gentile Rulers have been used by Jehovah to execute his authority in certain ways and means in respect particularly to that first Kingdom of God on earth, Jeruslaem which had to be punished many times by pagan rulers. The book of Daniel throughout explains and develoips God's Kingdom by means of the various World Powers and their relationship with the Holy Ones of God. This same theme is tasken up with the book of Revelation. You need to see things as a theological perspective and not bury your pretty self in the mire of higher criticism which has no place for the spiritual.

scholar JW

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

scholar

AllTime Jeff

Post 1620

The Bavylonian records do give any calendrical dates as we know it but simply events linked with a regnal year which allows scholars to determine a date for that event. Those dates are based on scholarly interpretation because there is always some fluidity involved in most cases. The date 607 BCE is calcuable as is 587 or 586 BCE and such calculation has been explained in the Society's publications.

Just because a date is 'popular'does not make it correct for science is full of the 'popular' being consigned to the dustbin of history where such a false chronology belongs. Your research about the importance of Absolute Dates as being unimportant is utter nonsense for any decent textbook shows the necessity of having absolute or astronomically fixed dates as being essential. Scholars do not accept 586 or 587 as a pivotal date because these dates do not have the status required, it is only Carl Jonsson who would like to have it so.

Celebrated WT scholars most certainly can prefer 539 BCE over other dates for three good reasons and these are scholarly status, biblical context and methodology.

You still have not given me the precise calender year for Jerusalem's Fall for it must either 586 or 587 BCE for it cannot be both. You must try again.

scholar JW

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

scholar

Leolaia

Post 13183

Scholar is fully aware of the scholarly discussion on Daniel with its many interpretations by scholars as shown in commentaries, monograghs and published jornal articles. His posts cannot consider every facet of scholarly debate as the objective is to adhere to the points that are raised. All that you do is raise a 'smokescreen' in order to impress and confuse the reader with techical information that is not relevant to the point of discussion at hand.

The Bible clearly discusses the prediction and the fulfillment of Neb's seven year madness and absence from the throne and the Society's publications certainly teach this further we also interpret the 'seven times' as having a greater fulfillemt because this is the obvious intent of the dream in Daniel 4.

However, scholars generally find no support for the above two views simply regarding the dream as legend or court fable so apostaes and higher critics have created a problem for thbemselves. Such ones usually believe in NB chronology as being factual and is the basis for their chronologies but how can such ascheme be trusted when some of the prominent historical details are not considered within the entire framework of NB chronology. Any chronology that omits that biblical history in connection with Neb's reign must be suspect especially when such a chronology is to be compared and preferred over the Bible.'

NB chronology omits any reference to the following:

1. The seventy years

2. Neb's assault and destruction of Jerusalem at the removal of Zedekiah

3. Neb's absence from the throne for seven years

It is true that in the case of the latter point 3 there are comparable stories which support the tradition of this event concerning Neb's temporary demise but the there is no accounting of the seven years within the framework of NB chronology and its internal history. In short, if a chronologist takes the view that the Neb's seven years did not occur at all that means that the literal interpretation of Daniel is false as it did not occur and is unhistorical. If such is the case then the only reasonable interpretation that has any validity is the secondary or major fullfillment as eschatological history.

scholar JW

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

scholar

Mary

Post 10697

One classic argument that supports the fact that Daniel 4 is an antitype and is well connected to Luke 21:24 is the simple fact that most scholars deny the fact of Neb's seven year absence from the throne. Further, there is no record of such a literal fulfillment as history in Neo-Babylonian history nor any account of in Neo-Babyloian chronology. So, this means that such literal fulfillment did not occur according to majority opinion so the only other meaning of the story as it appears in Daniel 4 is that it must be allegorical/methaphorical or have a anti-typical fulfillment alone.

scholar JW

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

scholar

doryakii

Post 621

Your post is utter nonsense.Luke 21:24 refers to a 'trampling' that began in the past with both a present and future verbal aspect however Luke here was not referring to that literal city which of course underwent many such tramplings but the focus is on what that pictured and that was God's Kingdom which would rule at the end of those Gentile Times.

The seven times does not refer to Nebuchadnezzer's seven years of dethronement but rather the period of time whence Go's Jingdom would once again begin to rule over mankind as it had done in the case of literal Jerusalem.

Indeed you can have it both ways because it is the context in this case that sets the parameters of the interpretation and this has been well explained in the WT publications. If you have a better interpretaion of the book of Revelation then let us know.

The 'day' for a 'year' rule has a long tradition and as served biblical hermeneutics very well as a timeless principle so when you have a system of interpretation then you are in a position to be critical of others.

The date of 607 BCE is not determined by counting backwards and this is a rather childish remark. The date is determined by the location of major historical events mentioned in the Bible with accompanying regnal data. It is rather providential that such established chronology fixes the interpretation of prophecy such as the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE.

Jeremiah foretold the seventy years many years prior to Neb coming against Jerusalem and the idea that it refers to the period of 609 BCE until 539 BCE is simply ridiculous and stupid because the land was not desolated nor were all the people exiled at that time You seem to be unsure about the matter because you use the expression 'most likely' which indicates your uncertainty on the matter.

Your historical revisionism does not agree with biblical history and smacks of the higher critic who has no faith or interest in prophecy.

scholar JW

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 959

Anstey wrote a large two volume work on chronology which presented an overview of the science right up to his day however those 'celebrated WT scholars who were associated with the Bible Students were also making major breakthroughs in this fiield becaus eunlike Anstey they paid attention to prophecy. Thus their chronology prove d to be more accurate than others even though in time it needed 'finer tuning'.

The reason why the Society held to the 536 BCE date was the simple fact that it was current opinion and served well for the purpose of determining the Gentile Times which at that time was believed to have begun in 606 BCE. It was not until many decades later that certain methodologies had to be improved along with other technical matters which resulted in the 'fine tuning' of the Bible chronology.

In your dreams because your chronology is full of holes or should I say full of 'gaps'.

scholar JW

54

The Governing Body's REAL critical date

by Doug Mason in

russell taught that 1914 ce would bring in an unprecedented era of peace.

in 1930, rutherford moved russells date of the parousia from 1874 to 1914. .

thus until 1930 not one follower had recognised the currently ascribed significance in heaven to the time that corresponds to 1914 on our earth.

scholar

AllTime Jeff

Post 1548

Wikipedia is hardly a rleliable source of scholarly information for anyone can write and correct articles. All that you have done is simply post populist dates for the Fall which are meaningless. The fact of the matter is that no non-witness scholars can agree on a definite date for the Fall, they simply do not know.

I commend to you the research by the world's most foremost chronologist Edwin W Thiele a SDA scholar now deceased who published Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings which endorses 586 rather than 587 BCE

scholar JW

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

scholar

AllTime Jeff

Post 1556

You have not given me anything, where are the two references? If you want quotes or sources then I recommend you read the two volume work on chronology by Rolf Furuli for starters. However, the best and most reliable work on chronology is the Bible itself so Read the Bible!

You are right in acknowledging the presence of 'fence sitters' and it is for them that I post on this forum.

The evidence for 607 BCE not only comes from the WTS but they derive their interpretation from the Bible and that is the ultimate source and the most reliable one at that and I am more than happy with that salient fact.

The three scholars were not mentioned in relation to 607 BCE and as far as I know they do not support that date , I source them because they have published research on Luke and Lukan eschatology which is very much related in my opinion to the matter of the Gentile Times.

scholar JW

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

scholar

AllTimeJeff

Post 1549

There is no need for any endorsement by scholars or a scholar to support the validity of 607 BCE for it is a fact that scholars have to date no uniform date for the Fall as some say 588, 587 or 586 BCE so there is some fluidity in this matter. The counting backwards is a legitimate method of doing chronology which is in harmony with tabulated events and dates after all chronology is a scheme after all so events are placed in the stream of time so as one can in either direction.

Josephus sets out the history of matters and this supports the historicity of the Bible in connection with the events of the seventy years between the Fall and the Return so it does provide an independent witness of our interpretation of matters.

Chronologists of all persuasions select their own methodology and we have selected ours which provides a chronology consistent with all of the data both secular and biblical. There is no room for cultishness in pursuit of accurate knowledge for we leave that to apostates.

Real scholars even those who rely on the records of Neo-Babylonian chronologies must use Pivotal Dates in order to assign dates to those regnal of king lists. Pivotal or Absolute Dates goes with the terrritory.

It is methodology alone which permits the 'celebrated' WT scholars to select 539 BCE rather than other dates so it comes down to a arbitrary choice of which they are entitled to do.

You give me a challenge but I offer you one. You prove to me as to what precise year Jerusalem fell.

It is no good quoting from Wiki because I can cite numerous scholars who say it was 586 BCE and not 587 BCE for the Fall so you have a big problem.

scholar JW

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

scholar

Mary

Post 10696

The Kingdom of God described in Daniel 4 could not be the Babylonian Kingdom because how could Daniel confess to something that he had already boasted about and his Kingdom was hardly an everlasting kingdom which was also he had to admit. Further, Neb himself referred to that kingdom as 'His kingdom; referring to the Most High God.

You should take advice on the grammatical form of 'will be trampled' so as you can understand the precise verbal aspect of this construction.

Scholar does not deal in crap for he leaves such dirty business to mindless apostates but concentrates on the healthful teaching of God's Word of Truth.

The names of scholars who dicusss the eschatology of Luke are many but I refer you to Robert Maddox, Howard Marshall and C.H.Giblin for starters but I can most certainly expand this list if required.

Your'e outa here so good riddance!

scholar JW