scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alwayshere

  Post 646

  You are smart enough to ask the question then you are smart enough to find the answer. Research WT publications it is so easy.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  The Oracle

  Post 1072

  The date 607 BCE has not been disproved but in fact has been validated by the Bible. To say that the WT is going to abandon 607 BCE sometime soon is just apostate gossip with no foundation in reality. In fact, I could just as say that the world will soon endorse 607 BCE for many good reasons.

  You are correct that scholarship favours 586 rather than the apostate date of 587 BCE so why are not the apostates converting to 586 BCE? Further, 1914 and the Gentile Times are also well founded both biblically and theologically.

  When you fellows have sorted out the 586/587 fiasco then and only then can you worry about the WTS.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 738

  In connection with the seventy years of Zechariah these clearly ended in 537 BCE and not in the second and fourth year of Darius as you claim. It was simply the case that in those years respectively that Zechariah received an angelic visistation. That conversation simply shows that the seventy years rather than being of ongoing duration as some claim it was in fact a reference to those past seventy years whereupon Zechariah was given words of comfort that Jehovah's would be rebuilt. Further, in the fourth year of Darius, Zechariah was again reminded about the annual fastings during that seventy year period during which the Jews were exiled in Babylon whilst the land remained desolate Zechariah and up to the present ( fourth year of Darius) again received words of comfort that true worship would again be restored at Jerusalem.

  Correct, but in the seventy year texts taken as a collective refer to the seventy years as a fibite period of desolation-exile-servitude which could only have ended at the time of the Jews returning home thus ending the exile, servitude in Babylon and repopulating the land. It all fits together like a jigsaw.

  The Absolute Date of 539 BCE is astronomically fixed as well explained in Insight On The Scriptures, 1988, Vol.1.p.353. The WTS has a long tradition of acceptance and use of astronomical evidence ritht up to the days of Charles Russell.

  Tensions between the city and country folk are just a small part of the tapestry of Late Judean history and have no bearing on the theology, history and chronology of that period. Yes, Jehovah's judgement was against Judah, its territory and Jerusalem.

  It is foolish because it is just plain wrong and dumb and goes beyond common-sense.

  The 586/587 debate is most certainly an issue for scholars and it is an issue for those criitics of 607 BCE who nicely ignore the fact that they do not know the precise date for the Fall when they boast that 607 BCE is wrong. Please give me a break from such stupidity. It is best to get your house in order before you attack anothers. No. it is just as incumbent upon you to prove your date as it is to prove ours and we most certainly have proved 607 BCE

  Ezra wrote Chronicles according to scholarship right up to 1968 when dissenting scholars challenged that opinion. Presently as explained in the DOTHB there remains much controversy but for Bible Students and the celebrated WT scholars we see no reason to believe that Ezra was not the Author of Chronicles.

  I would rather use God's Word than historiography to interpret the seventy years. Historiography is simply a tool useful in places but decptive in others.

  Jeremiah did not assign a precise date or event for the beginning of the seventy years but he give a formula and that composition of exile -desolation-servitude constitute markers as to when and how the period is to be chronologically and historically applied.

  There was every need for the land to bereft of animals and humans and that in part was that the land 'could pay off its sabbaths'-2 Chron.36:21. Archaeology is in a state of flux and since the year 2000 scholarship is slowly moving more towards and acknowledgement of 'An Empty Land'.

  The exile-desolation-servitude formula was certainly experienced by Babylon and indeed was characteristic of the history of the Anceient Near History (historiography again) but in the context of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy this was specific to Judah. The formula as applied to Babylon did not commence until after 537 BCE and not before but certainly the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE was foretold by other prophets namely Isaiah and certainly had a 'embryonic' aspect with the prophecy of Jer.25:12 which foretold her destruction.

  Regards

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alwayshere

  Post 645

  What I said was that the seventy years belonged to Judah and that period could only have ended at their Return to their homeland in 537 BCE. It could not have ended in 539 BCE because the Jews were still in Babylon under the control of a new king ruling at Babylon. In short, they were still in exile in Babylon and were still in servitude to Babylon. The very fact that there was a change in rulership at Babylon in 539 BCE had not immediate effect until Cyrus proclaimed his Decree in 538 BCE thus paving their return in 537 BCE.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alwayshere

  Post 644

  Your post is meaningless. The seventy years could not count from 609 BCE because Judah and Babylon were not in any relationship, political, militarial, economic or otherwise. The seventy years could not have ended in 539 BCE for the simple reason is that the Jews were still exiled in Babylon so the only thing that works for you is in the subject of arithmetic: 609-70=539.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  isaacaustin

  Post 4236

  There is indeed a strong exegetical connection between Luke 21 and Daniel 4 and this shown by a common vocabulary and the fact that the focus of the tree dream and the Gentile Times are in connection to Kingship and the city of the King, Jerusalem which typified God's Kingdom. So, there are commonalities in both narratives that link the two but as this is interpretation then the matter must rest with the reader. If you are not convinced then seek a better interpretation and when you find one, let me know.

  The theme of Dan 4 is God's Kingdom, the theme of the book of Daniel is God's Kingdom. the theme of the Old Testament is God's Kingdom, the theme of the New Testament is God's Kingdom. Are you getting the point? This simple fact is acknowleged by many theologians and Bible scholars form all denominations.

  I have no problem with your last comment on the dominance of Babylon for seventy years because Jeremiah clearly knew this for Judah was servient to Babylon, exiled in Babylon leaving a desolated land all under Babylon's dominance for that period of seventy years. Well done!!!!!

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alwayshere

  Post 641

  I agree fully with the forementioned quotation.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Black Sheep

  Post 3680

  I did in fact reply to Alan F's tabulation on various occasions and pointed out to him that his tabulation was based on assumptions and key omissions and therefore it just a simple piece of 'mischief making'. My dealings with him ground to a halt on my part because I felt that his atheism made his opinions worthless because he did not even believe in the things he was writing about.

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 737

  Jeremiah does indeed after discussing the seventy years of Judah's punishment as exile-servitude-desolation describes Babylon's fate which began after Judah's punishment had ended and it could be argued that it began with the Fall of the city in 539 BCE. Jeremiah is not specific about a precise event or date for that prophecy to begin.

  True, Daniel refers to Jerusalem but the city could also represent not only its people but the country in which it was located namely Judah and so what befell the city also affected the people and the territory of Judah.

  The seventy years ended with the Return of the Jews to their cities and territory which included its capital Jerusalem in 537 BCE.

  Ezra wrote the book of Chronicles and in 2 Chronicles 36:21 he does use the expression 'seventy years'.

  Zechariah's 'seventy years' ended with the return of the Jews under Zerubbabel in 537 BCE.

  Judah's punishment ended after sevnty years with the Return from Exile in 537 BCE

  The removal of humans and animals from the land as punishment was for the period of seventy years (607 -537BCE)

  Kind regards

  scholar JW
• 
  160

  Need help disproving 607BCE

  by 2pink in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

  she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

  lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 736

  It is foolish to equate the date and event of the Fall of Jeusalem with the event and date for the Fall of Babylon. Why so? For the simple reason scholars on the basis of available data do not the precise year dated for the Fall of Jeusalem whereas there is certainty as to the date for the Fall of Babylon. When the scholarly community has solved this problem then and only then can change matters. You let me know whether it is 586 or 587 BCE and I will see what I can do for you.

  539 BCE is a pivotal date and like all othe dates it too is 'calculated'. However, scholar prefers the term 'Absolute Date' as a matter of preference. I am very happy with sentimentality and as this sentiment denotes history and history is a basis of faith then I believe I am in good company.

  "A pivotal date is a calender date in history that has a sound basis of acceptance and that corresponds to a specific event recorded in the Bible" says the All Scripture Is Inspired of God And Beneficial, 1990, p.290. The term was developed by the celebrated WT scholars and is a far better term than 'Absolute Date because it describes the status of the event and date rather than its precision. Such a date shares the same property as an Absolute Date inasmuch as both are astronmically fixed as a sound basis of acceptance.

  I have a personal copy of the DOTHB and fully appreciate historiography and history as related to the Bible and I believe that such matters have a direct bearing on chronology and theology. It is for these reasons that validate WT chronology as opposed to other chronologies. In short, one finds that in historiography and history with its development of theology provides a 'ground' for WT Bible chronology.

  If you cannot understand how the term' Absolute Date' can be used rhetorically then I cannot help you , my advice is to meditate on the matter.

  Kind regards

  scholar JW