scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  106

  Help with another 607 vs 587 question............

  by thraxer68 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.

  can someone maybe explain that a little?

  if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1367

  Your hypothesis fails because Jeremiah's words at Jeremiah 29:10 simply admonish those exiles of the first deportation to simply settle down, have their babies until the foreordained prophetic period of seventy years would be fulfilled. At that time the seventy years had not then commenced because the land was not desolated until Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE in accordance with Jeremiah's prophecy at Jer. 25:9-11. Such prophecy and history definitely proves in spite of the protests of apostates, those naughty apostates, that the seventy years was a period of servitude, exile and desolation of Judah and all of its citizens.

  scholar JW
• 
  106

  Help with another 607 vs 587 question............

  by thraxer68 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.

  can someone maybe explain that a little?

  if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  thraxer68

  Jeremiah's words as recorded in ch.29 were addressed to the Jewish Exiles in Babylon who were part of that first deportation to Babylon hence suich words of comfort must have been written prior to the Fall and the commencement of the seventy years of Exile-Servitude-Exile. Jeremiah simply informed those earlier exiles that they had to remian in or at Bablon until that ordained period of seventy years had expired.

  The translation of Jeremiah 29;10 with that controversial phrase ' at Babylon' is consistent with the context of the chapter and Hebrew grammar. Some scholars prefer 'for Babylon' and this too is permissible for it along with 'at Babylon' proves that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Desolation-Servitude.

  scholar JW
• 
  100

  Where did 607 come from?

  by MrFreeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  okay so we've obviously established on this board that 607 is not the correct date that babylon destroyed jerusalem.

  even before 1914 came around, the bible students still thought 1914 would be a pivital date.

  the only way they can gain that info is from the 7 times or w/e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  MrFreeze

  Post 71

  We owe a great debt to the 'celbrated' WT scholars who have given to the world of mankind a very accurate Bible chronology which champions the correct date of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem which falsifies the impossible and incorrect dates of 586, 587 and others for the Fall of Jerusalem. You ask concerning the origin of 607 BCE?

  The corrected or adjusted date of 607 BCE was first published in 1944 in the publication The Kingdom Is At Hand which nicely brought Biblical scholarship up to date. No doubt one of the influences for such an adjustment in Bible chronology was brought about by advancing research in Babylonian chronology by such eminent scholars as Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein who published their Babylonian Chronology 626 BC - AD 45in 1942. This period of the forties was groundbreaking in various fields of Bible schoilarship and along with further insights into biblical revelation led to many refinements in not just chronology but also translation of the Bible along with eschatiology.

  scholar JW
• 
  15

  607 - New 'Apostate' Light

  by sweet pea in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  thanks to frank kavelin for looking at the old well worn subject from a completely different perspective.. enjoy!.

  http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/chronology/607-bce-the-bible-or-the-formula.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  sweet pea

  Post 1154

  Scholar has responded to Kavelin's nonsense with a brief comment. The fact of the matter is that the calculated date of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is very well established in accordance with the Bible but also secular evidence despite the feigned protestations of apostaes and higher critics. Kavelin's perspective is neither new or fresh but is simply a rehash of the 'Jonsson' nonsense.

  scholar JW
• 
  18

  Re: Newton's 1977 book on Ptolemy

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1222

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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