Posts by scholar

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1225

Promoting your fanttisies and twisting my comments out of context iare good reasons why you should quit.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

You are right to say that I should quit this subject for it lie outsisde my expertise and that applies to you as well because you too have no expertise in the matter. Rolf Furuli has researched this subject and shows a modest and cautious use of Newton's findings and that Neo-Babylonian chronology is open to criticism and is not so well-established as previously thought. In any event the NB data proves that there is at least a twenty year gap between the two so one should not preseumptuous about the infallibility of Neo-Babylonian chronology.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1219

The matter as to whether Ptolemy's Canon has been independently verified is a matter of dispute even up to the present according to both critics and supporters of Newton. Newton's thesis created a 'dust storm' and even now 'the dust' has not yet settled on Ptolemy. It is far early for you to claim any victory.

Ptolemy's Canon still remains the 'backbone ' of Neo-Babylonian chronology because as Thiele correctly noted in a earlier edition of his Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings, "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical not historical purposes." So as it stands it provides a wonderful template for all later discoveries pewrtaining to the NB period. Further, as confirmation of the proper status of the Royal Canon as Carl Jonsson prefers to name it. a Dr. Leo Depuydt title his article 'More Valuable Than All Gold': Ptolemy's Canon and Babylonian Chronology' published in the Journal of Cunieform Studies, Vol. 47, 1995, pp.97-117.

scholar JW

112

The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff in

i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

scholar

garyneal

Post 513

The Bible has nothing to do with a king list because it does not supply that data as it does with the Kings of Judah and Israel. Neo-Babylonian chronology has commonly presented a king list by means of Ptolemy's canon but this list does not agree with other ancient historians.

So your problem is first of all is provide a accurate king list that is reliable and trustworthy before you are able to make an criticism of 607 BCE or WT chronology.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1214

I think you are rather foolish in working up a lather over the information that Doug Mason has presented on Newton's book and the various reviews. The fact is that Newton's views on Ptolemy regarding the nature of his observations have found some support but whether Ptolemy was a fraud is a debate that remains unsettled.

Newton does certainly uphold aspects of Neo-Babylonian chronology regarding the reigns of particular kings but how these relate to a chronology is a matter of interpretation for accurate data does not necessarily mean an accurate chronology as Furuli and other scholars have commented. The simple fact is that Newton believed that Ptolemy could not be trusted and that his Canon had to be independently verified.

Chronologists most certainly need Ptolemy as his Canon remains even to this day the 'backbone of Neo-Babylonian chronology. Jonsson would have us believe otherwise expressing the tendency to abandon Ptolemy or at least put him outside. Perhaps, Jonsson like others iare somewhat embarasssed because of Newton's most strident criticism of Ptolemy. Yes there is much material that has been unearthed but much of this needs to be transalated so modesty would caution us to be a little circumspect in this regard.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

Leolaia

Post 13924

I have no information as to Couture's qualifications etc but the very fact that Newton acknowledged Couture's contribution is a significant proof of Couture's scholarship.

scholar JW

18

Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

by Doug Mason in

ric,.

i scanned the few pages i have from newton's 1977 book, "crime of claudius ptolemey", as well as a few explanatory pages.. it's available at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/newton_crime_ptolemy.pdf.

scholar

Doug Mason, Leolaia, AnnOMaly

It must be of much chagrin to WT critics and apostates that Dr Robert Newton in researching for his The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy sought the valuable assistance of a JW, chronologist Philip G. Couture. Do you not think that such a 'celebrated' scholar would be included in that august body of 'celebrated WT scholars?

scholar JW

95

For those who researched 607...

by AwSnap in

jw
friends

did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

scholar

garyoneal

Post 508

Celebrated WT scholars have an interest in all secular sources because these documents are of value and provide much information for all but in terms of constructing an accurate Bible chronology these resources are either unnecessary or of limited value.

scholar JW

112

The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff in

i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

scholar

garyneal

Post 509

If secular chronolgy is so accurate then there not be a one year discrepancy for either we know the precise date for the Fall or we dont' Therefore it is foolish and presumptuous of WT critics to demounce 607 BCE when they cannot be certain on a definite alternative.

The twenty gap occurs because of the difference between the two chronologies caused because one ignores the seventy years and the other uses it.

scholar JW

112

The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff in

i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

scholar

garyneal

Post 507

1. Only 607 BCE is supported by the Bible, 587 BCE is only supported by Neo-Babylonian chronology and a false interpretation of the biblical 70 years.

2. Only 607 BCE is supported by the celebrated WT scholars but has indirect support fro scholars and historians. 587 BCE is supported by apostates and some scholars whereas 586 BCE is universally supported by serious scholars.

What scholars are discovering today is pointing more in the direction of 607 BCE and serious scholars continue to promote 586 rather than 587 BCE so as you correctly say you have one helluva problem.

scholar JW