Posts by scholar

100

Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze in

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.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1401

'Bunkum' well describes your pitiful efforts in discrediting the validity of 607 BCE.

No, I did not learn of Young's article from COJ but found it from my own research.

Chronology is after all a product of Methodology and Interpretation so any chronology does indeed 'suit a purpose' whatever that may be and that is what all scholars do.

Russell's chronology also included material concerning the Life and Death of our Lord and this chronology has been widely accepted within scholarship. His chronology has not been proved wrong at all but has been confirmed with a little 'fine tuning' to be a correct chronology of both the OT and the NT. Any chronology must be a'work in progress' as is true of all scientiofic knowledge.

scholar JW

106

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

by thraxer68 in

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.

scholar

garyneal

Post 1383

The only indication of this is contained in the context of the previous verses, the reference made later in 29:10 but more importantly it is indicated by the phrase'when the seventy years have been fulfilled".

Nowhere does the Bible state the length of time of the journey home but it certainly indicates that it took some months and that they had returned home by the seventh month of 537 BCE which is also endorsed by scholarship.

The circumstances of the return are more described in the last chapter of 2 Chronicles and the earlier chapters of Ezra and this serves as the basis for the chronology of the Return.

The problem of 609 BCE is that nothing happened in that year, it does not enjoy wide support by scholars for the start of the seventy years and for many other reasons it must be rejected accept for its accuracy as to arithmetic. If you add 539 to 70 then you get a sum of 609.

scholar JW

100

Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze in

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.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1400

You say that 607 BCE is a 'provable falsehood' but how can this be when the computaion of 607 BCE, the events of biblical history are fully described and it has a prophetic outreach prove beyond doubt that this is the only correct and possible date for the Fall. It is only this date that honours Jehovah as the God of True Prophecy.

COJ did not tip me off regarding Young's article because he never said anything to tip me off. He simply included his name in a long list of other names. COJ has never commented about Young's article either in the past or the present.

WT chronology is not contrived to suit some agenda nor has it ever been so contived as you allege. WT chronology was initially presented to focus on Christ's Second Coming and the nRestoration of all things promised by Jehovah God. This chronology has always had as its objective to be faithful and loyal to the Word of God a matter in which secular chronologies are indifferent to this noble and honourable purpose.

scholar JW

106

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

by thraxer68 in

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.

scholar

garyneal

Post 1378

But this is not what Jeremiah 25:12-14 says for the punishment against the King of Babylon, the nation and the land of Chaldea would only commence after the seventy years was fulfilled and this did not occur until the Jewish Exiles returned home in 537 BCE.

Your reading of Jeremiah 29:10 along with how it is more accurately rendered in the NWT is not inconsistent with the fact that by the time that the seventy years had ended right to the very month, the seventh month Ethanim, the Hews were right at home.

Another big problem that mitigates against 539 BCE ehding the seventy years is the problem of what year did the period begin and thus far the debate largely hinges on 609 or 605 but either date creates a number of obstacles rending the situation hopeless.

The proof that the seventy years ended in 537 BCE is found in Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah because of how these men described the nature of the seventy years as a period of desolation-servitude and exile. Josephus also confirmed this viewpoint as history.

Ann O Maly has done no such thing, she offers nothing new and simply rehashes the same tired old arguments that scholar has debunked many times over many years on this forum.

scholar JW

100

Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze in

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.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1394

If Jehovah is not happy with 607 BCE so pray tell what date is he happy with?

Methinks this is no sweeping generalization but an astute observation on the scholarly literature published over many decades for the simple fact is that most modern scholars subscribe to 'higher criticism'.

No baseless assertion is necessary for the events of modern history confirm the fact of the matter.

Delusion not needed but simply the use of a chronology to suit ones own purposes. If I choose to use Babylonian chronology with a slight adjustment of twenty years then I have every right to do so provided I make such methodology apparent to all.

Your chronology does indeed ignore theology and prophecy for one only has to read such presentations of such chronology to see its 'dead-end aspect'. This is nicely confirmed in COJ's criticism of the Gentile Times and his presentation of secular chronology.

WT chronology has indeed a difference of some twenty years when compared to secular chronology but then all chronologies differ from each other and that is to be expected from different chronologies. Further, your chronology is out by far more than one year because if it is compared to others there are rather significant differences.

the date 586 is more widely endorsed by serious scholars than 587 and this is because of the recognition paid to Edwin Thiele who championed 586 rather than the apostate's date of 587.

I did have a debate with COJ some years ago on Channel C regarding 586/587 and he may have made a brief not of Rodger Young's support of 587 but the issue at hand is who first of all introduced the substance of Young's articles which was Methodology and its importance in Chronology and this was first introduced by scholar who first of all raised the imnportance of this which was later confirmed by Young's seminal articles. Take a bow scholar!

scholar JW

106

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

by thraxer68 in

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.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1388

As I have said many times I post to amuse and defend not to convert. But it is you and your supporters that jump to attention when I post.

The two passages where Jeremiah refers to the seventy years of Judah with desolation-exile-servitude are Jeremiah 25:8-11; 29:10.

Exactly and this is what those men did, all referred to Jeremiah's twin prophecies.

Josephus an historian of some eminence supported these views.

The fifty years of Josephus has been viewed by scholars as a textual error, the other possibility is that he was referring to Berossus on this point or that he was making a observation within the context of the sev enty years whic Josephus describes running from the Fall to the Return.

Give me a break. All of those secular documents make no mention of the seventy years as you well know for if they did you would have used that material.

scholar JW

100

Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze in

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.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1389

Are you saying that Jehovah is not the God of True Prophecy and has no interest in Prophecy or its Revelation?

Read the literature published by apostates, scoffers and higher critics and examine their attitude towards the Bible.

There is nothing erroneous about the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE for the events at that time and since proves the matter.

Yes you can use an imperfect chronology adjusted by twenty years because all chronologies are imperfect or in short, fallible. All of the pieces do indeed fit together and that is why Bible chronology works whereas others fail.

Your chronology trivializes the Bible, ignores prophecy and theology it indeed at the very least has a margin of error of at least one year but it is worse than that because at least twenty years is manifest.

What I am saying is that Young is a scholar who has written ground-breaking articles on the importance of Methodology in the construction of Chronology. His efforts are to be commended but as yet his chronology remains his opinion and his conclusions thereof have not received acclamation from other serious scholars who enjoy the fame of scholarship, widely publihed and recognized.

I beg to differ, it was scholar who first introduced Young on this board and this was before COJ referred to him at Channel C and if my memory is correct it was only the context of COJ mentioning the names of scholars who supported 587 BCE. Scholar was also the first person who introduced the concept of Methodology as a requisite in Chronology and came across Young's articles which elaborated for the first time in scholarship this subject.

scholar JW

106

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

by thraxer68 in

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.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1382

Stubborn Yes, Baloney No. For if it was baloney then nobody would bother with me.My postings over many years with the same and new information and insights have produced an audience. That can not be baloney by any measure.

Jeremiah in his entire prophecy is replete with vivid poetic descriptions of the desolation of Judah, its Temple, its city and the inhabitants. It is the theme of that book and yet you people still do not get it.

Daniel was a contemporary of those events as was Ezekiel, Ezra was a historian. These men knew what was happening, they simply reoded events that have become history. Josephus also an historian of some not supported these views. The evidence is cumulative and holistic in that the seventy years was a definite period of desolation, exile in Babylon, servitude to Babylon from the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return to Jerusalem. When will the pennies drop?

Zechariah the prophet referred twice to that past event and used that as lesson of history as a context for his prophecy just as Daniel did in his prayer recorded in the ninth chapter of his book.

Josephus made one reference to fifty years whereas all of the other reference by him were to seventy years. Either a copyist mistake ot Josephus was referring to a state of obscurity at fifty years within the duration of seventy years. I some how prefer the latter IMHO.

Babylonian history or Chronicles have nothing to say whatsoever about the seventy years. Its silence on this vital piece of Judean and Babylonian history is quite telling.

scholar JW

106

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

by thraxer68 in

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.

scholar

garyneal

Post 1373

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the seventy years ended in 539 BCE. This is simply an interpretation just as it is with the statement that the seventy years ended in 537 BCE for this also is an interpretation. Chronology is about two things: Methodology and Interpretation. The seventy years as to its nature and chronology is also interpretation. Plain and Simple.

Your tabulation of Jeremiah 25 is flawed becuase you must recognize that verses 9-11 is addressed to Judah and verses 12-14 is addressed to Babylon. What these two sections have in common is the seventy years for this is the 'fulcrum' of both sets of prophecies. Also your first section makes no mention of Judah making the theme of that section Babylon as is the case with the second section this is another mistake. Judah and its inhabitants is the subject of the first section and Babylon is the subject of the second section.

Your analysis that the seventy years ended in 539 BCE is read into the text by you and there is nothing in the text that suggest your viewpoint. In fact the text has nothing to say about what the ending of the seventy years as such. We have to read Jeremiah 29:10 which tells us more about the event and timing of the seventy years. Further, Ezra, Daniel , Zechariah and Josephus quite clearly show that the seventy years ended in 537 BCE with the Return from Exile.

scholar JW

100

Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze in

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.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1383

Jehovah is very happy with 607 BCE because it pays attention to prophecy and that is what distinguishes us from apostates, scoffers and higher critics is that they do not value prophecy nor are they lovers of God's Word. The date 607 BCE is correct because it works, it succeeds, it began the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE.

Yes you can use an imperfect chronology for indeed all chronologies are not perfect or infallible for it is simply working with the best data available and with an appropriate methoidology you have BINGO, a chronology.

Yes we use all the of the avaialble data to calculate and validate 607 BCE both in terms of its chronology and its historicity. You must remember that chronology is simply the framework of history so all of the pieces must fit together. Your chronology is flawed on many counts, the methodology is prone to error, it trivializes or ignores the seventy years, indifferent to prophecy and theology and its history is also flawed. The result is no precise calender year for the Fall.

Yes, Young resolved the problem to his satisfaction that 587 BCE was the most likely suspect but even up to the present it has not overtaken 586 BCE championed by more serious scholars. Also, do not forget it was scholar who drew attention to his research on this forum. You should say Thanks, scholar!

scholar JW