scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  22

  Daniel 9:2.... 70 years question

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry to rehash an old topic.. in the first year of his reign, i, daniel, understood from the scriptures, according to the word of the lord given to jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of jerusalem would last seventy years.

  daniel is clearly speaking of jeremiah 25, but here he speaks of the desolation of jerusalem, rather than a babylonian dominance of jeremiah.. so how does daniel fit in with a 587/6 date for the destruction of jerusalem and the dominance of the babylonian empire refered to in jeremiah?.

  paul.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Ann OMaly

  Post 1192

  You are right, my wife thinks that I too am slow and a bit thick.

  Scholar has no interest in responding to Lar's nonsense.

  scholar JW
• 
  22

  Daniel 9:2.... 70 years question

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry to rehash an old topic.. in the first year of his reign, i, daniel, understood from the scriptures, according to the word of the lord given to jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of jerusalem would last seventy years.

  daniel is clearly speaking of jeremiah 25, but here he speaks of the desolation of jerusalem, rather than a babylonian dominance of jeremiah.. so how does daniel fit in with a 587/6 date for the destruction of jerusalem and the dominance of the babylonian empire refered to in jeremiah?.

  paul.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alwayshere

  Post 726

  Your facts are all over the place and shows that you do not understand chronology nor what the WTS has written on the subject. The comment in the Isaiah commentary, Vol.1, p.253 refers to Tyre's period of domination by Babyllon for a period of seventy years. This has no direct bearing on the interpretation of Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy directed to Judah. The only direct implication is one of context wherein Judah along with other nations were to serve Babylon for seventy years and in respect of Judah this was a period of servitude-exile-desolation from the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return.

  The respective reganal years of Nebuchadnezzer is simply explained by the simple fact that Nebuchadnezzer had an accession year followed by his regnal year which accommodates the reference to his 18th and 19th year. This means that there is no problem with his first year or acc. year being counted from 624 BCE and his 18th regnal year ending in 607 BCE. Please consult Insight On the Scriptures, Vol.2. p.481 for a more detailed explanation of the matter.

  Your use of 609 BCE for the beginning of the 70 years is bogus for the simple reason that nothing of historic significance happened in that year that would serve as a time marker for the beginning of that most momentous event in Jewish history, the seventy years.

  scholar JW
• 
  22

  Daniel 9:2.... 70 years question

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry to rehash an old topic.. in the first year of his reign, i, daniel, understood from the scriptures, according to the word of the lord given to jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of jerusalem would last seventy years.

  daniel is clearly speaking of jeremiah 25, but here he speaks of the desolation of jerusalem, rather than a babylonian dominance of jeremiah.. so how does daniel fit in with a 587/6 date for the destruction of jerusalem and the dominance of the babylonian empire refered to in jeremiah?.

  paul.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  digderrido

  Post 1552

  Paul

  Like Daniel who wrote that famous reference in Daniel 9:2 to Jeremiah's prophecies concerning the devastation of Jerusalem and Judah for seventy years in Jeremiah 25: 9-11 and 29:10 you have truly used discernment. Apostates such as Alan Fuerbacher and Carl Jonsson have not shown that same discernment but have peddled the false notion that Daniel's reference only applied to Jeremiah 29:10 where it is further claimed that Daniel was simply referring to the desolations of Jerusalem would only end when the seventy years for Babylon has ceased. Such a mistaken view is simply promoted to support the false dates of 586/587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem according to Neo-Babylonian chronology.

  Therefore on the basis of Daniel 9:2 which provides an additional proof of the fact that the seventy years was a period not of Babylonian domination but rather of a fixed historic period of desolation-servitude-exile provides clear and overwhelming evidence in support of 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem. A clear and accurate understanding of the seventy years is the only reliable method of calculating the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah and not the listing of regnal years for the Neo-Babylonian period which clearly presents a twenty years gap between secular and biblical chronology.

  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

  Leolaia

  Post 13773

  I have already told you that the 'rot'started in 1935 according to DOTHB wherein it dicussess the unity of Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles perhaps we are talking about a different matter.

  I believe that whatever the direction a consensus is moving the fatc of the matter is that scholars are now lookiing more closely at this slice of Judean history and I believe that the research thus far is encouraging for our interpretation of the nature of that period. What has been discovered is the existence of a 'gap' in civilization between the Babylonian destruction and the Persian period according to Stern and Stager. Such a 'gap' proves that the land was completely desolated according Bible prophecy.

  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 739

  1. Hardly, it seems that in reading the literature on this subject it is only the WTS that give a definitive date for the Return in 537 BCE.

  2. Agreed. The Seventy years began right on time to the very month and ended on time at that very month.

  3. Well hope does spring eternal and it is a fine Christian virtue to have. History is always hopeful as it is never complete so scholars and historians have to fill the holes or gaps as it were. In any event there is sufficient evidence for the establishment of 537 BCE which is more secure than any other date offered. The Insight articles certainly prove the matter much better than anything else.

  4. Regardless of politics all of the people were caught up in events beyond their control and were forced to flee the land leaving it completely depopulated in 607 BCE for the countdown of the seventy years.

  5. Jeremiah gave a formula period. It described the nature of the seventy years thus providing clear markers for identifying the beginning and end of the seventy years . As I have argued before it is impossible for the seventy years to end with the Fall of Babylon because the Jews were still exiled.

  6. Yes but is your reading of archaeology current? Does it include current research in the Myth of an Empty Land ?

  7. Historiography as a tool must be used selectively for it is a product of man's thinking and if it contradicts God's Word then it must be abandoned.

  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

  Leolaia

  Post 13769

  I based my comment concerning Ezra's authorship of Chronicles because of the comments on the history of the Chronicler's History Hypothesis in the DOTHB, 2005,p. 157. In the Introduction to this discussion the history this theory when it first began in 1832. Dissenting voices to this theory first appeared in 1935 but it was not until 1968 that substatntial voices against the theory were raised so that the situation changed.

  The literature on this subject is somewhat large emerging first from about the year 2000 and I have not yet caught up with everything published about this subject. What information that I have collected indicates much interest in Judah during the Late Judean period where the Myth of an Empty Land is now the subject of serious debate. I disagree with your opinion that the land was not empty during the Exile and that there is scholarly consensus on the subject. Such academic debate I believe is moving in a direction more in harmony with biblical history and the Society's presentation of matters.

  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

  garyneal

  Post 225

  I turn the question back on you: What will you do when the world realizes that the Witnesses speak the Truth and that 607 BCE is the correct date for the Fall of Jerusalem?

  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 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