Posts by scholar

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

On the matter of tabulations of reigns for the Divided Monarchy it is a simple point of fact that there are so many differing tabulations or charts which appear in Bible Dictionaries and other reference works. If Christendom's scholars and chronologists cannot produce a uniformerly accepted scheme then they and its supporters have no business in critizing WT chronology. In other get your house in order first before you throw stones at another. I have in my extensive research library a publication which presents four different charts for the Divided Monarchy all have different regnal lengths and when you total numbers you have widely different totals for the regnal years for those Kings in Israel and Judah.

As a side point one well respected chronologist who has published several articles on chronology in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society over the years and supports 587 for the Fall has produced a king list that nicely agrees with WT chronology having a total number of 390 years. So in so many areas our chronology has support. Further to this our date for the death of Jesus being 33CE long championed since the time of Russell now enjoys widespread scientific support also their has been recent published confirmation for the Date of our lord's birth.

In short our OT chronology along with our NT chronology is well grounded in both past and recent scholarship.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

When I have in the past given you sources you express no interest in them as you tremendous self belief in your own ideas. If you manifested a genuine disposition in this matter then these would have been provided so do not whinge and whine about it. You ask about a chart for the Divided Monarchy but the only one that I respect is that published by the WT Society and you have that in the Insight book which you are very keen to use.

I have nothing to fear from you or your supporters on this forum concerning our chronology. I believe its is firmly established and is entirely defensible. Falsifiable yes indeed but you and your ilk have tried but failed. Carl Jonsson tried to do this with his Gentile Times Reconsidered with its four edditions and this material has failed to impress or convince scholar who has debated such matters pointy by point over these many years.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

Yes the date 538 is impossible because the timeframe is too short for the many events that are described in the first year of Cyrus. One recent scholar who has published on this subject discounts 538 but admits to the plausibility of 537 as a possible candidate and after a lengthy exposition on the subject comes out in favour of a later date which from was 535 BCE.

I have never maintained the view that scholarship supports our chronology. It does not. What scholarship has shown and does show that these dates are controversial with no agreement such as 586 vs 587, the seventy years, date of the Return etc. I appeal to scholarship in order to highlight the simple fact that the claim that WT chronology is so implausible and cannot be right is simply false because there is no universal agreement on chronology. All OT chronology is subject to opinion and interpretation and our chronology is just as credible and valid as any other scheme. Our chronology is simple and Bible based and nothing can detract from that.

The other major problem with your 538 proposal is that you have no ringing endorsement from Carl Jonsson who merely assigns this matter to a footnote in his GTR. His silence or reticience on this speaks volumes.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

Why don't you post a list of sources that nominate 537 BCE for their surely must be at least one other source out there apart from us?

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

What a nice little list you have presented. So is one to now surmise that scholarship is now saying that 538 BCE is the official date for the Return. Can now from this list have it positively established that 538 BCE is the precise date. If this is the case then why is it not the case that such research has not yet appeared in the scholarly literature? All that you have done is simply cherry picked or someone else a fearsome poster has provided you this information. In order to impress scholar you must quote much better sources, sources that simply dont give a date but explain why a date is selected above and beyoud other dates.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

Our interpretation is based on Scripture and harmonizes well with the historical evidence, it is simple and not convoluted. Your hypothesis which has some agreement with scholars is based on higher criticism which denies the Bible as God's Word. I would rather have a belief system that has the approval of God than a belief system that is based on human reasoning.

My experience with you in the past is that you have no interest in what is published in academia so it is fruitless in supplying details about what current scholarship is sayiong about the date for the Return and just to muddy the waters for you, the date which has been proposed is 535 BCErather than 538 BCE.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

We simply do not know the precise timing and length of the first return but four months would have to have a been a minimum. We do not know the month in which they left Babylon nor do we know the precise month when the proclamation was made. What has been established is that this Decree of Cyus was a significant event and that its proclamation must be a factor.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

No it is not laughable at all but is simply recognizing the reality of history. History contains specualation, uncertainty, openness to interpretation. The Jews in that time did not have the benefit of a dated, daily newspaper which if they had and if such documents were preserved then we would have some historiucal certainty that my friend is simply impossible. We have to deal and interpret known and knowable facts and all of the evidence points to the 537 as the best date possible.

You mock our interpretation of the seventy years but your interpretation is built on quicksand. You have no starting date for the seventy years, you have a fuzzy date for the ending of the seventy years. Also, you have no agreement for its duration. In fact your interpretation is simply one amongst many and is also all over the place. You do not know the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem whether its 587 0r 586. You may be certain in your own mind about these matters as shown in your blog but outside, within scholarship the real experts on these matters disagree totally. In the final account your opinion carrys no weight at all.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

It is idiotic to compare the two journeys. One trip took four months which included a party of 1000 persons but the former trip was much larger with a more detailed description of the returnees so common sense would indicate that this journey was in fact much larger unless they travelled by rail, ship or plane. Historians discount 538 because of the timing of the Decree, its proclamation, preparations and the journey took quite some time which must have exceeded the parameters of 538 BCE Scholar is not impressed by pretty mischevious diagrams appearing on your blog.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

It is irrelevant to the subject of 537 BCE being the year of the Return as to whether May of 536 BCE can fall on in the second year of Cyrus. What is relevant to this matter is the events that are described in the account of Ezra 1:1-3:1. The simple fact of the matter is that Jews erected the altar with sacrifices in the seventh month in a unspecified year. Later in Ezra 3:8 the foundation of the temple was laid in the second year of their coming to the house of God. in the second month of that year. On the other hand, Josephus gives the second year of Cyrus for the laying of the Temple foundation. It would appear that Ezra is writing about the same event but from a different historical standpoint because the terminology used is not identical. This is a good example that when dealing with different historical sources, interpretation is required. Becausef the data for the same event differs it has no immediate relevance or bearing on determining the precise year when the Exiles returned for if this was the case then the whole matter would have been more clearly established in scholarship and to date this is not the case.

The fact of the matter is that it is not clearly stated the year of the returm but only the month which was the "seventh' month. We know that the Decree was given sometime in Cyrus' first year from Nisan 538 until Nisan 537 BCE so if Ezra used the Spring calender then the Returm must have occurred in the second year of Cyrus. But if Ezra used autumn calender then the seventh month would have fallen within the first year of Cyrus. So we cannot be certain what calender Ezra used in reference to the timing of the Return. Scholars and historians have considered all of these facts and there is a firm view that 538 BCE is highly unlikely because it does not give sufficient time for the Return journey by the Exiles so 537 BCE fits all of the facts nicely.

scholar JW