scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,055 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  44

  The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  1. does the wts date the end the 70 years as soon as the babylonian exiles returned to the land, or when they started the building of the altar?.

  (ezra 2:68 makes it clear that the returnees arrived early enough for the exiles to be settled in their own towns (verse 70) well before they started to build the altar in the seventh month of an unidentified year (3:1)).. .

  2. why were the returnees frightened of the people around them when they started to build the altar (ezra 3:3)?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 703

  As have already said secular authorities are rather vague about the historicity of the Return so it is not surprising that the articles from the EB are rather fuzzy on the matter. Celebrated WT scholars are not so fuzzy on the subject and in WT literature they have provided an accurate history and chronology of that period. So it is that the Return of the Jews was in Tishri, 537 BCE for this is the most suitable of all other interpretations offered by secular scholars.

  I know that the above is not to your liking but you will find that the situation is the same regardless of what date you prefer. You demand certainty on certain matters and that scholarship cannot provide so you must be content as I am with what we know and what we can know rather than what cannot be known. The Bible, science and history was not designed to meet the demands of the 21st century human whereby we are used to daily newspapers dated accordingly for the scribes in the ancient world wrote for their day and times and not for us today.

  scholar JW
• 
  44

  The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  1. does the wts date the end the 70 years as soon as the babylonian exiles returned to the land, or when they started the building of the altar?.

  (ezra 2:68 makes it clear that the returnees arrived early enough for the exiles to be settled in their own towns (verse 70) well before they started to build the altar in the seventh month of an unidentified year (3:1)).. .

  2. why were the returnees frightened of the people around them when they started to build the altar (ezra 3:3)?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 693

  I have given you the section of material in the Babylon book and you should also consult Ezra 3:1-6 for the timing of the Return.

  scholar JW
• 
  38

  Do the celestial positions on BM 33478 help to prove Artaxerxes I's 20th year was 455 BCE? (For 'scholar')

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is a spin off from this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/182714/4/hubby-is-researching-607.

  background.

  for the past three years, carl jonsson has been critiquing rolf furuli's 'oslo' chronology in an interdisciplinary journal called chronology and catastrophism review.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1118

  On these technical matters I am happy to let Furuli speak on the matter as he has done so well and will continue to do so. I have no interest in your nonsense and opinion.

  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

  Furuli has already dealt with the hard data and his research agrees with the Bible and that is good enough for me. Your so called ;hard data; is simply apostate opinion and I have no interest in your opinion.

  scholar JW
• 
  44

  The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  1. does the wts date the end the 70 years as soon as the babylonian exiles returned to the land, or when they started the building of the altar?.

  (ezra 2:68 makes it clear that the returnees arrived early enough for the exiles to be settled in their own towns (verse 70) well before they started to build the altar in the seventh month of an unidentified year (3:1)).. .

  2. why were the returnees frightened of the people around them when they started to build the altar (ezra 3:3)?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 702

  The Bible is quite specific that the seventy years ended at the beginning of Tishri, 537 BCE whereas their exile in Babylon ended on the specific month of their Return which time is not stated either in the Bible or secdular history. The Babylon book I would have thought is quite specific about these matters including the time to the very month of the beginning of the seventy years in Tishri, 607 BCE.

  Your reconstruction by means of those four points is correct.

  There is no inconsistency because it was the timing and celebration of the festal months in the year 607 and 537 BCE which would have been more important as as Jehovah God was concedrned so the seventy years began right on time, ended right on time spanning the complete period of seventy years in harmony with the cycle of sabbaths.

  Ezra 3:1 does not need to have some sort of official sanction from a secular authority to narrate the significance of the festal month for that month Tishri began with a New Moon which informed the Jews that this sacred month had begun and now it was the time to worship Jehovah rejoicing now at their release to their homelamd.

  There is nothing wrong in a selective quoting of a source for that is the prerogative of the writer but I would be interested in having a copy of that older EB article if you have it to hand. There is again nothing wrong with the use of other secular writers in order to construct chronology or history and this is what the celebrated WT scholars does.

  scholar JW
• 
  38

  Do the celestial positions on BM 33478 help to prove Artaxerxes I's 20th year was 455 BCE? (For 'scholar')

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is a spin off from this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/182714/4/hubby-is-researching-607.

  background.

  for the past three years, carl jonsson has been critiquing rolf furuli's 'oslo' chronology in an interdisciplinary journal called chronology and catastrophism review.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Your comments on Furuli are simply opinion and mishief-making. You clearly like Jomsson unable to work from the primary souces and you are untrained in the field of ancient astronomy so your 'personl research has not been independently teated. When you did canvas your views with Furuli on the Yahoo site you were debunked by Furuli as has Jonsson. Methinks you should stick to domestic duties rather than the heavy world of chronology.

  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 1117

  You too should get real. Because the matter is now in the public domain all the more reason that you should also direct your criticisms to Furuli. Your refusal to do so reveals your true motive is not to educate but to deceive the public. Another piece of apostae mischief making.

  scholar JW
• 
  26

  For your research: Chart for 70 Years for Babylon

  by Lady Liberty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  609- nabopolassars 17th reignal year.

  607- nabopolassars 19th reignal year.

  605- nabopolassars 21st reignal year.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 696

  Step 1. The matter of determining any Absolute Date for the purposes of chronology is simply methodology and it is up to the chronologist or scholar to determine what methodology is to be followed. This expalins why it is that no chronology of the OT is in agreement. Celebrated WT scholars have selected a methodology and that is their prerogative whether others like it or not.

  Step2. The calculation that the Return of the Jews was in Tishri,537 BCE is certainly proven in the WT publications and has the endorsement of not a few scholars. There is nothing 'fuzzy' about the events of that period and in fact it is only in WT publications that carful historical attention is paid to that period from the Fall of Babylon until the Return.

  Step 3. Both Jeremiah and Daniel are in perfect agreement that the seventy years was a period of desolation and they both go further in describing the seventy years as also a period of exile as well servitude to Babylon. Daniel's life experience and career in Babylon testifies to the truth of this matter.

  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 1110

  You seem to avoiding my simple proposal which I believe is the most honest and fair procedure to follow as it keeps all parties honest. If you have a better proposal then I am open to suggestions. Already you have opened a thread on the subject and my simple reponse is no response until you have shown evidence that you have discussed the matter with Furuli.

  scholar JW
• 
  38

  Do the celestial positions on BM 33478 help to prove Artaxerxes I's 20th year was 455 BCE? (For 'scholar')

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is a spin off from this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/182714/4/hubby-is-researching-607.

  background.

  for the past three years, carl jonsson has been critiquing rolf furuli's 'oslo' chronology in an interdisciplinary journal called chronology and catastrophism review.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 113

  Your post of criticism of Furuli is useless unless you have discussed the matter with him first and that is what I have always have asked you to do but you simply refuse. I cannot possible comment on something unless I have both sides of the story and have knowledge of the subject. So, in all honesty I have nothing to say about your criticism.

  scholar JW