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.
MrFreeze
Post 85
I am not interested in your personal opinions of me. What I do is my own business. The fact of the matter is that I responded to youir question but typical of apostates who hate the Truth you respond only with a personal attack.For your information secular historians do not agree for a precise date for the Fall so we opt for the Bible which alone supports 607 BCE.
scholar JW
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.
MrFreeze
I think I misunderstood your question. The date of 607 and its precursor 606 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is most definitely well established according to the Biblle and secular history. The corrected date of 607 BCE is validated by the determination of the seventy years of Jeremiah and the simple fact that it also commenced the Gentile Times which expired in 1914 CE. This means that ancient and modern history along with prophecy corroborates the determination of 607 BCE as fully explained by the 'celebrated' WT scholars/
scholar JW
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
.
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.
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
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.
AnnOMaly
Post 1225
Promoting your fanttisies and twisting my comments out of context iare good reasons why you should quit.
scholar JW
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
