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

If you wish to discuss BM21946 then please provide a specific link for all of my documents and papers are in storage.

The date 537 BCE is provable and the proof is outlined in our publications- Refer to Insight volumes under Chronology and Cyrus. Because according to Steinmann is the usual date for those who accept Ezra's chronology as accurate.

Yes 539 BCE is provable and is necessary for Bible chronology and well demonstrated according to methodology.

Daniel 1:1 refers to the vassalage of Jehoiakim' reign as the third year of his kingship. You left a big empty space in your last post or does this illustrate the state of your mind?

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

Jeffr for in any event o

It is not a matter of being thick it is simply a matter of examining your claims with other authorities for in any event your claim that these dates can be more wrong when in fact you already have a much larger problem with the twenty year gap!

I can't put Furuli's name to those researchers because he was not one of them.

The twenty year gap does not exist between any particular reign but is present when you compare the overall NB period with that of the Judean period thus yielding a difference of twenty years for that is the BIG problem.

Continuity of reigns does not solve the dilemna nor does minor technical differences which are open to interpretation such as the reign of Jehoiakim. There are other technical issues with the beginning of Nebuchadnezzer's reign in fact scholarly articles abound with technical issues regarding the whole period which remain the subject of much dispute between scholars.

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

The only fixed end point that is provable is that for Judah alone in 537 BCE. You raised the red herring not I. In respect for Tyre all that we can kbow is that it was under Babylon's domination for seventy years. No beginning or end is mentioned.

If you saw it happen then they must have been naughty.

Regarding the reign of Jehoiakim and the details of when he paid tribute and when he became a vassal king ot Nenuchadnezzer is problematic for Dan.1;1 states that it was in his last three years of his reign that he was a vassal king, this means that his vassalage coomence in his eight year which is confirmed by Josephus and many Jewish commentators.

If you want to debate the historical details of BM 21946 then why don't you provide a transcription of what the document contains then I can compare your comments with Jonsson and Furuli. I am confident that such documents can be harmonized with Bible chronology for if you can do it then so can we.

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

All of dates listed above including those from 624 -609 BCE need to adjusted by twenty years as has been done by Bible chronology right up to the end of NB period. This adjustment or fine-tuning is necessary because NB chronology, history and secular records omit any reference to the seventy years. The events that you described under each date are OK broadly speaking. Such dates must be reto=calculated because new research has revised the dating for Nebuchadnezzer's 37 th year by some twenty years which has now been corrected due to the outstanding scholarship of the Nov issues of WT 2011. You gotta luv it! LOL

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

Prove at what time that each of the nation's servitude began and ended in respect to Babylon. Naming a date just cut the mustard.

Yes such scholars make such a claim for the simple reason that they resent the fact that our writers source their material and use it in a fair and scholarly manner.

No, they will not be ignored. If they have a legitimate complaint they should write. If readers write to the Society they will not be hounded by elders for elders do not do hounding forwe leave that for the 'dogs'.

Steinmann excludes 538 therefore it is bogus.

Jeremiah's principal target audience was Judah see Jer.1:14-19 and secondary audience were the nations.

Yes you have some things different from Jonsson but very little for it is simply Jonsson revisited with pretty pictures or charts. Would you do some pretty charts for me illustrating Bible chronology?

All that you present in terms of dates and history can simply be accommodated in the overall framework of NB Chronology and history for the entire nb Period. Such a period parallels the biblical period up to and beyond the Fall with the exception that NB history and chronology omits any reference to the seventy years. A gap of twenty years is noted when you compare both together but when you factor in the seventy years then Bingo you have a perfect synchronism between the two especiall now with the corroboration of the VAT4956. Symmetry at last!

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

I checked Andrew Steinmann's artcile on the JETS website and he gave his comment on 537 beginning on the last sentence on the first page and concluding on the first line on the second page so I was right after all from memory. Also you did not quote him correctly for he says"the date is usually given as 537BC by those who accept Ezra's chronological statement as accurate but the date is usually offered with some reservation.3".

The footnote 3 only quotes from one scholar Yamauchi who lists it as follows"537?". Steimann quotes quotes from one authority and it is true that many references works assign 537 BC with a ? omitting any reference to 538 or any other candidate. So, 537 is the more acceptable date than any others as suggested by Styeinmann but then he pursues his thesis for another proposed date more in line with his methodology. The point of all of this is that 538 is out of the picture whereas 537 remains in the frame.

As an aside Steinmann has recently a new book on Bible chronology endorsed by Rodger Young. As far as I can see it appears that Steinmann corroborates WT chronology pertaining to the Life of Christ so this is a breakthrough, at the very least until I have set aside time to examine it carefully it appears the case.

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

I have just accessed the link that you supplied and I strongly suspect that I have that article for a cursory reading refreshed my reading. Whatever is claimed about the ins and outs of the astroprograms and the Babylonian records and whether the WT writers misused those sources the fact renains that COJ in his conclusion to the interpretation of the seventy years for it all hangs on that. This being the case I have no need to be competent in matters of astro-astronomy.

Jonsson says in his second article that he had confirmation of the programs from two competent scholars Ann OMaly and Marjorie Alley. As you are now considered to be scholars according to Jonsson would please inform me as to both of your qualifications What are your degrees and where did you both study?

I was correct, Jonsson makes reference to the two rebuttals by Doug Mason who I believe was the first person to publish such rebuttals. Jonsson's attribution to Doug Mason is a bit

Jonsson believes that the researchers who checked the astro programs were in fact singular -one person Furuli not plural of many persons as stated in the WT. Furuli assuired me that this was the case and he was hesitant about their identification. Hence a mystery and scholar loves the mysterious.

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

Are you saying that Jeremiuah did not preach against Judah but for the nations only. Did not I tell you that his target audience was Judah but he also prophesied against the nations. Scholars agree and they use the term OAN in the literature which is a acronym for Oracles Against the Nations. A good example of this is that according to a major biblical commentary -Wprd Biblical Commentary on Jeremiah begins such as subheading from Jeremiah 25:12. discussing under the heading pertaining to Babylon

The NWT illustrate this by beginning verse 12 as a separate paragraph, this mean s that verse 11 and 12 are referring to a different subject: the former for Judah and the latter for Babylon and the other nations in turn.

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

The WtT articles do display sound scholarship with an appropriate List of References. Critics always claim that we misquote such references but when you do the checking one finds that what is sourced is accurate. Anyway if such scholars believe they are misquoted or any reader is not happy then they can always write to the Publisher.

You do not know precisely when the nations stopped serving Babylon and the fact of an eventual demise of Babylon is exactly what Jeremiah prophesied.

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

Thanks for the correction. My papers are boxed so I am quoting from Memory. Well he mentioned 537 so it is given some credibility but his silence on 538 speaks volomes. Why don't you nail your colours to the mast and say what date you prefer. What is more important is your opinion of his conclusions which certainly dont support 538?

WTS are dogmatic about their chronology. They propose certain dates, advocate and promote such dates but this is not dogmatism it is simply promoting a belief system. This indicated that in your opiniont you believe that they are adjusting the beginning of the Gentile Times. They are not!

When you claim that the NB period is fixed they you are moving into dogmatism for this is a stupid claim to make. LOL! Yes it is rather romantic perhaps poetic justice to have the rug pulled from under you by now using NB Chronology to support Bible chronology as now verified in the Nov,15 the WT.

I am having no difficulty with the article so no need to write. Its your problem not mine.

Bible chronology is now fully supported by NB chronology including all 14 lines of evidence all because of the seventy years and VAT 4956. Jeffro has simply piggybacked COJ for he may have fooled you but not scholar. Methinks the watch illustration is brilliant because it shows how the twenty hap is removed by factoring the seventy years which are missing from the NB chronology and history. Touche!

Thanks for the link to his second review for at that earlier time it was not posted. I will check my files to see if in fact I did have it. I will now look at it and save it if needed for later printing. Although at the time he seemed to be supporting the paper by Doug Mason. Some mystery here but I will sort it out eventually and let you know. After all it is bout two years ago.

Well for a person who cant use the tools I am certainly keeping you on the hop.

You ask about the tables I do not have the tools nor the competence to use them for I only have a copy of Oppolzer's Canon of Ecliposes and the Parker and Dubberstein's Babylonian chronology. I am more than happy to defer to other experts. But by the way have you written to Furuli and engaged with him so his alleged errors as I have requested of you over many years. I do know that Furuli does engage with Hunger so I must contact Furuli for a update.

Until you engage with Furuli directly then your criticisms of his work amounts to humbug!

scholar JW