Posts by scholar

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

notsurewheretogo

Well anyone who relies on interpreting the bible and not actual evidence is the one misled. Most on here now follow the path of looking at the evidence without cognitive dissonance and then conclude.

--

WT Chronology right from its earliest beginnings in 1876 was always based on secular and biblical evidence in fact that early scholarship on Bible Chronology by Charles Russell made a critique of Ussher's Chronology by means of comparison and you cannot do that with evidence.

---

That conclusion is the bible is not a holy book and is wrong in many things thus relying on it to come up with dates is incredibly "un-scholar like".

--

Bible Chronology is based on the Bible and is the Word of God and if you cannot accept this fact then go away.

---

Thank you for admitting your whole point of view on 607 is based on a belief rather than evidence.

--

False. I said no such thing. The date 607 BCE is based on the Bible and accords with secular history- Josephus ancient astronomy- VAT 4956 and NB Chronology corr.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

peacefulpete

Why does everyone seem to want to forget Gedaliah? He was a notable Jew who governed Judah and invited the people to live in security and plant crops? If there was a "starting point" for "empty land" it would have to be after his assassination........just saying.

--

The Bible is the source for Gedaliah and he is also well-discussed in WT Publications. The starting point has nothing to do with Gedaliah but the destruction of Jerusalem with the land becoming desolate which counted from the seventh month in 607 BCE. Jehovah God is the Great Timekeeper and it ended in the same month in 537 BCE- A fixed duration of precisely 70 years!!!

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Splash

So I pointed out that using the Insight chronology (not really my methodology to be fair) of one king after another, using the Insight volume reign lengths, Jerusalem fell in 587BCE.

---

Therein lies your problem because you have chosen a specific methodology that has produced a widely different result. By constructing a scheme of Chronology based on the backward computation of the reigns of the N B Period you get 586/587 for the Fall of Jerusalem base dom material in the Insight volumes. I get that!.

However, if using the same methodology by means of counting back using the regnal data- reigns of the Hebrew Monarchy as published in that same volume then you get 607 BCE. Do you get it?

---

Where do these extra 70 years that you insist on come in, in the Insight books?
I went back and reread them and no kings were missing and there was no mention of dropping in an extra 70 years somewhere or other.

---

Are you now saying that there is no mention of the 70 years in the Insight volumes or in the Bible? The 70 years of desolation and exile are indeed associated with the reigns of Zedekiah, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin in connection with what happened to Jerusalem, its Temple and Land of Judah. In fact, Jeremiah, when first introduces the '70 years as prophecy, was first revealed in King Jehoiakim's 4th year- Jer.25:1 In short, the factoring in of the 70 years as a historical event is the most significant factor when constructing a Chronology for this period of OT history and aits omission into any modern scheme of Chronology renders such a Chronology as false, inaccurate and misleading.

--

Are the Insight books wrong or missing something, because the simple sums from there lead me to 587BCE?

---

The Insight volumes omit nothing and are correct in being faithful to the Bible. What is missing is your thinking, just think about what you are reading.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Beth Sarim

Sometimes it's best for apologists to quit while they're ahead.

---

The said scholar is no quitter.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

ozziepopst

How ya going mate!

Hope you are well and going strong

Talking about age I am approaching 76 years but keeping in reasonable health so far as posting on this forum keeps me mentally fit as I do battle with our critics.

Have a drink on me and Good Health to you

Cheers, scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

joey jojo

Scholar , Im surprised that a man of your massive intellect, superior knowledge and boundless humility has the time to descend to the depths of us ordinary, simple humans and bestow your greatness upon us.

--

The said scholar just loves to help the little people.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Alethia

Not really. VAT4956 can be used to support 587 if you take into account planetary observations such as Saturn for instance.

--

The latest and most recent scholarship on VAT 4956 by means of Rolf Furuli show that this tablet can be interpreted in support of 607 BCE by correcting Neb's 37th year from the traditional 568 BCE to 588 BCE.

---

It seems your whole basis for 607 is your insistence that the bible mentions a 70 year exile?

---

Correct. In addition, the fact that the 70 years is also descriptive of a period of servitude to Babylon and that the Land of Judah was desolate during the Exile of 70 years.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Beth Sarim

The closer you get to 'truth', the angrier the misled become.

--

Are you misled?

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Vanderhoven 7

Babylon fell -- 539 BCE accepted date for the Fall of Babylon

Exile of the Jews - Babylonian or Jewish Exile widely accepted as a historical reality of a fixed and known duration. Not a myth

Return of the Jews - 537 BCE widely accepted as a historical reality. Some scholars date to either 536 or 538 BCE

Length of Exile - 70 years of Jeremiah as stated in the OT for a singular event in time and place

Beginning of Exile - 607 BCE with the Fall of Jerusalem

Exilic Period - 70 years constituted three elements as a period of Exile at Babylon-Desolation of Judah-Serviude at/for Babylon.

QED

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Jeffro

Funny how all the evidence ‘must’ be wrong because of an interpretation that isn’t directly stated anywhere. 🤦‍♂️

--

The joke is on you for has not the said scholar told you over and over again the simple truism: Chronology is based on Interpretation and Methodology!!!

Scholar instructing the ignorant and unlearned.

scholar JW