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

I am fully aware of Jonsson's rebuttal and also his reliance on the contribution by Doug Mason. All such material is in my files and i have difficulty in refuting and responding to all of these criticisms.

The only significant event which marked the beginning oif the seventy years was the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE and the only two significant events which climaxed the end of the seventy years was the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE shortly followed by the Return of the Exiles in 537BCE.

Both Jeremiah 29:10 and Jeremiah 25:11-12 are consistent with the simple fact that the seventy years was aperiod of EXILE-SERVITUDE-DESOLATION. Such an interpretation is equally consistent with the other seventy year texts of Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah.

Your research is simply a rehash of Jonsson's views so there is no need to pay any attention to your nonsense.

The chronologies of the Divided monarchy are independent of James Ussher and all such chronologies differ widely, Go and make the relevant comparision!

The 390 year period of regnal lengths of the Divided Monarchy are separate to the issue of dating the precise dates of those kings for it is not so much the lengths that are in dispute because the Bible provides such details. The challenge for the chronologist is to signs respective dates for each reign. Neo-Babylonian chronology is simply 20 years too short because it fails to account for the seventy years hence the Babylonian Gap.

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

AnnOMaly

Hi! How are you? Yes I repeated myself and it is my default position because nothing has changed much. Since we spoke last time we have Wt issues on Chronology been published in two issues, Rolf Furuli has revised his thesis with a rebuttal to Hunger, Rodger Young has contributed further articles on chronology pertaining to sabbatical year and Jubilee cycles. Steinemann if my spelling is correct has published a lenghty artcle on the Date of Return wherein he advocates 535 BCE. But overall nothing much else has changed so my overall approach remains the same. There are a couple of minor issues on chronology bubbling away so I will be alert to these matters.

At the moment I am not completely settled, my library is in storage at my residence and when I get somme bookcases in order then I will have immediate access to my papers and books.

Scholars continue to stumble over the years because there remain so many different interpretations and this remains the case right up to the present day. One thing is fairly certain that such scholars do regards the seventy years in the Bible, as one holistic period so that is good start. I am very familiar with Winkle's studies along with all of the others so one has read the literature on the subject then one can form a considered opinion and I have stated mine .

Your comment about 609BCE and Assyria is problematic as a beginning for the seventy years. This simply your opinion of matters. COJ has the same view but he also admits th the possibility of 605 BCE so even here we have opinion. I believe we can do much better for a beginning of the seventy year period.

As for the seventy years of Tyre these represented a period of Babylonian domination which is well explained in our commentary on Isaiah but our conversation concerns the seventy years of Judah a period of servitude-exile-desolation totally different to what befelled Tyre.

I spin out the controversy concerning 586/587 for the simple reason that this proves that the methodology is deficieent and that is reason why Rodger Young wrote his article pleading the solution as 587. So it comes down to methodology. Wt scholars do not have this problem because we apply a different method in calculating relevant dates thus arriving at a precise date 607 BCE for the Fall.

It is correct that the Wt states that secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE but what is not stated is that serious biblical scholars endorse 586 BCE as opposed. Other chronologists have proposed 589 as a suitable candidate. So scholarship is divided on this point.

What is fuzzy about connecting the Fall of Babylon with the end of the seventy years that the Jews were still captive to, for, at , in Babylon after 539. The exile had not ended and the land of Judah was still desolate so the seventy years must have ended after 539 according to the specific words of Jeremiah .

It may come as a surprise to you Ann is that I care not one iota whether Jeffro has read COJ for there were other scholars who wrote similar criticisms of WT chronology long before COJ and Jeffro. Also, i remain unfazed that Wt chronology is not supported by scholarship.

If a published regnal list agrees with that published by WT then that proves that we are doing something right and that we are competent in the field of chronology . You give credit where credit is due and not be churlish about such matters.

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

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