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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 566

I would be most happy to meet you face to face at time and place of mutual convenience so as to discuss your claim of my' inability to provide any support for the WT's position'.

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.

As said or meant to have said that Babylonian records do not give calendrical dates for those events an dneither does the Bible so the chronologist must assign dates according to our modern reckoning.

The confusion as to what precise year should be reckoned for the Fall of Jerusalem is often blamed on the biblical data but the celebrated WT scholars have always been fully aware of the 19th and 18th years of Nebuchadnezzer and also the difference between regnal and accession year method of dating. Further, they are also aware of the difference between calendrical systems either dating from the Spring or the Autumn. However, taking all of these factors into account as carefully explained in the All Scripture Inspired of God and Beneficial, 1963, pp.277-383. these scholars have quite successfully unlike modern scholars to determine a precise calender year for the Fall which is 607 BCE.

Scholar has no problem and never has had any problem in defending and expalining the validity of 607 BCE and has done just that on this forum for the last eight years and will continue to do despite the vehement attack by apostates.

Scholar is untroubled by your adherence to a problematic 587/586 BCE date for the Fall and is fully aware of your sources but these sources are not from the Bible and it is the Bible alone that determines Bible-based chronology.

You ask for names of those non JW scholars who support 607 BCE:

Jerry Leslie

Julian T Gray

Paul S Johnson

Morton Edgar

Charles f Redeker

I hope this helps.

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 10713

That's right scholarship does not treat Neb's seven year experience as literal history and this is a big problem for those supporters of NB chronology and for those who argue against a major fulfillment of Dan 4. It all boils down to credibility a word unfamiliar to apostates.

There is no need for any extravagant claim about this matter for all you need to do to understand the said scholar's observation is to simply read the literature.

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

isaacaustin

Post 1608

Indeed there is everything in Luke to prove its connection with Daniel 4 namely the use of 'times', Jerusalem and its 'being trampled' and the period of the Gentile Times. It is all there in the mix.

Daniel 4 id not only about Neb's experience for seven years but more to the point it is about seven times of Gentile Rulership at the expense of God's Kingdom which is the focal point of that prophetic drama.

The 'day for a year' is indeed a Bible rule of interpretation proved also by its long tradition amongst Biblical and Jewish interpreters.

You miss the point, chronology is all about doing just that: counting back and with prophecy counting forward.

Jeremiah foretold seventy years of servitude-desolation-exile whilst under Babylonian domination you are only seeing part of the story. Dating the period from 609 BCE is simply a guess propounded by apostates with little support from scholars. Also, nothing of any significance occurred in that year so your proposal is dumb.

Your proposed 609-539 BCE period and your proposed 586/587 BCE conflicts with the Bible on numerous grounds and it most certainly conflicts with our wondrous Bible chronology developed by those 'celebrated WT scholars.

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 961

Robert Young's article only established what he believed the year to be according to his own selected methodology but 586 BCE still remains the preferred choice of serious scholars.

Do not forget from where it was that you first learnt of that seminal article and it was from your mighty scholar.

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 960

No desperation was needed because those Bible Students were people of faith and had faith in Bible prophecy and the Lord's Return. Do you share such a faith in God's Promises? Their predictions and prophesying about 1914 were vindicated by the facts of modern and eschatological history. For many decades 606 BCE served its purpose and with Providence certain adjustments have been made much to the celebration of our now wondrous Bible chronology, a Jewel in the Crown so to speascholar.

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 13180

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