Posts by scholar

207

Scholar and Fisherman

by Jorden in

scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.

do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?

if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?

scholar

Jeffro

Yeah, don’t bother poor ‘scholar’ with what the Bible actually says. That’s not the JW way.

--

Yeah, don't bother with poor Jeffro with what the Bible says because he does not believe in the Bible.

scholar JW

207

Scholar and Fisherman

by Jorden in

scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.

do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?

if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?

scholar

Jorden

Boy, you quote lotta scripture!!!

scholar JW

207

Scholar and Fisherman

by Jorden in

scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.

do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?

if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?

Before you say the scientific evidence is arguable, there are over 2000 documents from the time that set the dates for the first and second siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, including the destruction of the temple in the second siege. It sets this from both contemporary dating methods as well as astronomical evidence. One thing the Babylonians were good at was keeping track of things, basically a bunch of bureaucrats. If you follow the WTBTS calculations, the sieges and mobilizations of troops from Babylon would’ve had to start before Nebuchadnezzar even started ruling.

--

However, not one of those 2000 tablets mentions or refers to the biblical 70 years.

scholar JW

207

Scholar and Fisherman

by Jorden in

scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.

do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?

if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?

scholar

Jeffro

This word salad in response to a ‘yes or no’ question is reminiscent of the dishonest answer given by Geoffrey Jackson at the Australian royal commissio

--

Which of the two 'word salads' is the better? The said scholar' or Geoffreys'?

scholar JW

207

Scholar and Fisherman

by Jorden in

scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.

do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?

if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?

scholar

Anony Mous

Well, then, here is an argument from the WTBTS own publications:

Babylon fell	"Babylon fell in 539 B.C." Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184	539 B.C.
Plus Nabonidus	"On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some seventeen years(556-539 B.C.E.)." Aid to Bible Understanding - Nabonidus p.1195	17 years
Plus Labashi-Marduk	"Labashi-Marduk ... was a vicious boy, and within nine months he had his throat cut by an assassin." Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184	1 year
Plus Neriglissar	Neriglissar ... reigned four years Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184	4 years
Plus Evil-Merodach	"After reigning but two years King Evil-Merodach was murdered" Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184	2 years
PlusNebuchadnezzar	"Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years" Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2 p.480	43 years
Equals start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign	Calculated by adding above figures	606 B.C.
MinusNebuchadnezzar's 19th year	2 Kings 25:8-9 "And in the ... nineteenth year of King Neb·u·chad·nez´zar ... the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. And he proceeded to burn the house of Jehovah"	19th year
Date for Destruction --- The above list is all very well and good but what about the 70 years historic event that occurred during the NB Period? scholar JW	Therefore calculated as: 587BCE

207

Scholar and Fisherman

by Jorden in

scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.

do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?

if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?

scholar

Jorden

I did not say it was not important, I said it was not debatable because the discrepancy arises on whether the accession or regnal year is being used to count from. But let us not get into discussing that here and focus only on the 3 questions I asked you. That is the reason why I open this new thread.

--

It remains even today a much-vexed problem for Christendom's chronologists.

--

So, what do you say in response to the questions?

---

Your questions are nonsensical!

scholar JW

207

Scholar and Fisherman

by Jorden in

scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.

do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?

if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?

scholar

Jorden

587/596 is not really debatable, the one-year discrepancy comes about based on whether the accession or regnal year is being used to count from. Regardless, as to Bible prophecy and JW's 607 is only important because of their 1914 teaching. That being the case, if all that is said in connection with the 1914 teaching is false then 607 should not matter to JW's--

---

The said scholar disagrees. The debate concerning 586 or 587 BCE is very important especially when WT critics are critical of 607 BCE as an inaccurate date for the Fall of Jerusalem. Chronology if possible demands precision and JW's have for many decades presented to the scholarly community a precise date-607 BCE.

scholar JW

207

Scholar and Fisherman

by Jorden in

scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.

do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?

if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?

scholar

Jorden

I just wanted to ask if you were both current active JW's that believe the JW's beliefs?

--

Yes

--

Do y'all believe the GB are the F&DS?

--

The FDS is a parabolic statement as a part of an eschatological context that has application to all of Jesus' disciples both as a collective - community and as individuals which would include the leadership namely the GB.

--

The 607/ 587 BC or more accurately the 607/587/586 BC debate is very important for it involves Bible Chronology and its relationship to Eschatology and Prophecy. The evidence from both biblical and secular sources such as Jewish history, NB history and chronology including its astronomical records proves that 607 BE is the date for the Fall of Jerusalem during the reigns of the Judean monarch, King Zedekiah and the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar.

scholar JW

362

Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday

by slimboyfat in

for newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?

he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.

the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.

scholar

Jeffro

The sound of desperation as ‘scholar’s’ cognitive dissonance gnaws at him. Newton’s claims about Ptolemy’s supposed unreliability, including when the new year started, aren’t widely accepted. And your cherry picked source is made redundant by Parker and Dubberstein’s tables anyway.

--

The said scholar is quite relaxed and Newton's observation does make the possibility of a New Year beginning in May as shown by means of the lunar eclipse in VAT 4956. PD does not discuss VAT 4956 but Newton does use PD as part of his thesis. The solstice was not observed but calculated thus rendering such an event redundant.

scholar JW

362

Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday

by slimboyfat in

for newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?

he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.

the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.

scholar

Jeffro

This is obviously wrong, because the Babylonian calendar had no mechanism or purpose for years of only 11 months (or 10 if starting from June).

--

You are talking nonsense so you are well advised to read the reference that the said scholar has given to you as Newton's discussion was on the Babylonian Calendar.

scholar JW