scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,119 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alwayshere

  Post 607

  This is simply done because 625 BCE was Neb's accession year followed by 624 BCE as his 1st regnal year counting from Nisan.

  scholar JW
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Ann O Maly

  Post 1107

  The Insight article explains the methodology for using the regnal years, 18th and 19th ending in 607 BCE as the Fall of Jerusalem. You are correct in stating that the Bible does not tellus how to use regnal years and that is why we have the science of chronology which is based on methodology and interpretation.

  Your post 1104 simply prefers 587 BCE but serious scholars prefer 586 BCE so this shows that your methodology is deficient so the smart thing to do is to take notice of the celebrated WT scholars.

  I have followed your debates on this subject with Furuli and Wrench so I have a good idea of your attitude and bias. Furuli will be forwarding the articles from the Catastrophism Review which includes Furuli's response to Jonsson and vice versa.

  Your observation on Furuli is misguided and plain wrong because Furuli is a competent scholar who has the ability to work with the primary sources, something that most WT critics cannot do and he has made real holes in the traditional chronology or at least brought the entire edifice under the microscope.

  There is much more to Furuli's thesis than the use of a astro program because Furuli has dealt with the primary source materials firts hand rather than relying on orthodox tyransaltions which is the practice of Jonsson. Furuli told me by phone last night that he in fact is revising his First volume and he has used a astro program which viondicates 455 BCE.

  scholar JW
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1106

  If you had bothered to read the Insight article your would have learnt that 60y BCE was marked by the 11th year of the Zedekiah's reign and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzer's reign if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year. Nebuchadnezzer began his first regnal year in Nisan, 624 BCE preceeded by his accession year in 625 BCE see Insight, p. 480. Thus the matter of the 18th/19th of Nebuchadnezzer is easily resolved by the 'celebrated WT scholars.

  I notice that you conveniently avoided addressing the issue of fixing a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem because you simply do not and cannot know. Your chronology like that of many othersecular chronologies is compromised by methodology and your methodology fails you when you most need it. Our chronology devised by the clebrated WT scholars works because of our methodology and interpretation of the Bible so we know the precise calender year of the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

  It appears that you are having triuble in understanding the terms that scholar invented: Event-based chronology versus Regnal-based chronology. The former term describes the methodology of WT biblical chronology and the latter describes the methodology of most secular chronologies which rely too much on calendation at the expense of accurate history. I can explain this further if you require.

  Regarding the ongoing debate between Furuli and Jonsson typified in the Catastrophism Review website I will phone Furuli this week to get his side of the story as your comments are too biased and useless. Furuli is a very competent scholar and I know from my conversations with him that he is on top of this debate.

  scholar JW
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1105

  Jeremiah clearly indicates that Nebuchadnezzer destroyed Jerusalem in his 18 th year and 19th year or in his 18th regnal year and in his 19th accession year as explained in Insight On The Scriptures, Vol.2. p. 481, see article NEBUCHADBEZZER.

  This means that our chronology as developed by the 'celebrated WT scholars is not dependent on calendrical problems that follow from a 'regnal-based' methodology as opposed to a superior 'event-based methodology. The 18th/19th year problem has and currently causes much vexation for scholars, WT critics and apostates who devilishly try to disprove 607 BCE in favour of the controversial 586/87 BCE scenaio.

  So if you do agree with the above then do not make your problem my problem because the regnal years of ANebuchadnezzer have little do with the determination of 607 BCE as expalined in WT publications.

  Your big problem is how to interpret this regnal data and determine precisely what Year Jerusalem fell in Nebuchadnezzer'e reign, Was it 586 or 587 BCE?

  The foregoing comments renders your chart of mischief useless so there is no need for me to comment on that piece of stupity.

  Regarding your debates with Furuli your comments demean you and are irrelevant because Furuli has always invited constructive criticism and if a competent scholar finds his hypothesis or research in need of improvement or correction then Furuli will listen to this. As far as I know Furuli has not yet received much scholarly review but I will ring him for a update. The only amateur who has responded to Furuli is of course Carl Jonsson but Furuli has dealt with his views competently.

  scholar JW
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1102

  The twenty year gap has been proved by means of biblical chronology and this has been ably researched by Rolf Furuli and invites criticism from all those qualified to do so. I have read with interest your debates with Furuli and others on this subject and at every turn your criticisms have been dealt with. If you are such an authority on the subject then why not have your research published in a respected journal or is it simply fact that you are not a expert in ancient astronomy?

  In regard to the twenty year gap it is what the Bible has to say on this matter is more important than what scientific opinion in the field of ancient astronomy has to say on this matter and that should be the primary focus.

  scholar JW
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1104

  Your comments are ludicrous. When the going gets tough the apostates blame the Bible. You and your cronies have no idea of a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem and until you can establish a precise date then you have no business in dismissing 607 BCE. The celebrated WT scholars have for many decades proved a precise date for the Fall and that is 607 BCE and this has been done using the same biblical data that you are whining about. Do not blame the Bible for your incompetence. When you and others find the correct date then you are in a position to becritical of other proposals.

  By the way serious scholars do not accept 587 BCE but rather prefer 586 BCE so you misrepresent scholarship when you claim that 587 BCE has been established via the secular records. This is utter nonsense as you well know.

  scholar JW

  scholar JW
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Prov1320

  Post 65

  I am not interested in writing up a long list of references or Bibliography or sources because much of what I have stated is well substantiated either in scholarly literature. WT publications. the Bible itself and Josephus. The compiling of such a list of sources is far too time consuming but I am happy to provide such only if it is absolutely if the inquirer has already done some 'legwork' Scholar is not for lazy people and expects others to work hard at chronology as he has done for these past thirty years.

  Much of what I have stated is well known and accepted as common knowledge in ancient history, chronology and archaeology eg, the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the other events are well described in the Bible itself such as Jeremiah, Daniel, Kings etc.

  Point 4 is not about circular reasoning but simply demonstrates that an interpretation can be derived from dated events in biblical history coinciding with the fulfilment of prophecy culminating as a derived date in a modern context. The validity of 1914 is well validated by the foundation of 607 BCE and its attenuating circumstances of the end of Judean Monarchy, the reality of God's Kingdom as described by Daniel and the rise and develoipment of Gentile World Powers.

  scholar JW
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Albert Einstein

  Post 291

  I hope the following reply helps you:

  The only secular historian that supports 607 BCE in a indirect sense is that of the ancient Jewish historian Josephus whose presentation of the seventy years is identical to that of the cedlebrated WT scholars. Rolf Furuli is a modern scholar whose published research on chronology and ancient history supports 607 BCE. However, there is also no modern historian who knows the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem because they all vacillate between 587 or 586 BCE.

  One recently published work on chronology supports 607 BCE and that is Rolf Furuli's volumes on Ancient Chronologies.

  A Babylonian list of rulers and their reigns is fraught with problems so and agreement as to details is impossible but there are many reference works that have various proposals for your attention.

  scholar JW
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  cognac

  Post 2107

  There are a number of things that must be said in relation to the subject of the date 607's accuracy and superiority over the other dates proposed for the Fall of Jerusalem.

  1. The date 607 BCE is a precise calculation for the Fall whereas other dates are imprecise i.e no precise date is agreed. Serious scholars propose 586, apostaes and other WT critics propose 587. So, where we are definite on the matter right to the very month the others are 'fuzzy' on this matter.

  2, The date 607 BCE is based on the historical record of the Bible, utilizes regnal data from secular chronologies and other secular historians such as Josephus.

  3. The date 607 BCE exposes the twenty year gap in Neo-Babylonian chronology as recently proved in the research by Rolf Furuli in his two volume published work on Neo-Babylonian, Persian, Assyrian Chronology.

  4. The date 607 BCE validates the Bible as a book of prophecy in connection with the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE beginning the installation of God's Kingdom in our time.

  5. The date 607 BCE restores and focuses attention on the fulfillment of prophecy in connection with Judah, Jerusalem and its Temple.

  6. The date 607 BCE validates the historicity of the 'seventy years' which in contrast has been 'buried' by secular chronologies.

  7. The date 607 BCE exposes the imperfection of Neo-Babyloian chronology and history/

  8. The date 607 BCE has a simple methodology as to its computation and is firmly based on several lines of evidence:

  The Decree of Cyrus and the Return of the Jews in 537 BCE

  Seventy years of desolation, servitude to Babylonian rule, exile in Babylon all confirmed by Josephus

  Destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzer in his 18th regnal year and in Zedekiah's 11 th regnal year

  These three facts are described in the Bible, confirmed by secular evidence and Josephus agrees with this triangulation of biblical and historical data

  9. The date 607 BCE utilizes a universally agreed absolute date by scholars that is the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE whereas other conflicting secular chronologies have no universal absolute date for their computation.

  10. The date 607 BCE is based on a simple methodology which is an 'event-based' methodology in contast to other secular chronologies which are 'regnal-based creating numerous technical problems of calendation.

  The above list is by no means exhaustive but illustrates the superioity of 607 BCE over all of the other proposed dates of which there are many. Now sit back and watch the 'feathers fly' as the apostates 'beat' themselves over the brilliant scholarship of the 'celebrated WT scholars' whose humble research glorifies Jehovah and His Word and is greatly appreciated by 'scholar'.

  scholar JW
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  cognac

  I am pleased to hear that your hubby is researching 607 BCE and no doubt he will find as I have done ober the last thirty years that this date is absolutelky correct harmonizing with the Bible and secular evidence. However, he needs to be aware of apostate propaganda which has foolishly tried to malign the biblical and secular evidence for this sacred, biblical date. If he has any questions on this matter I am able to help as I have studied this subject most thoroughly.

  scholar JW