Posts by scholar

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jer2527

Daniel was not taken to Babylon in 607 BC.

He was taken there in 605 BC.

He was taken there in 605 BC because the Jews refused to serve the King of Babylon from 609 BC and instead had made or had tried to make an alliance with Egypt, so Babylon came, gave them a slap and 'took spoil' putting them in their place, Daniel being part of this spoil.

--

Incorrect. Daniel along with King Jehoiakim of Judah and others were deported to Babylon in 597 BCE and not 605 BCE as shown in Dan.1:1.as Nebuchadnezzer came up against Judah for the first time because of Jehoiakim's rebellion.

---

Daniel 2:1 In the second year of his kingship, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had a number of dreams, and he was so agitated that he could not sleep.

Nebuchadnezzars 1st year was 605 BC - when Daniel was taken.

Nebuchadnezzars 2nd year was 604 BC

Nebuchadnezzars 19th year was 586 BC, when Jerusalem was finally destroyed:

2 Kings 25:8-10 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard.

Previous to this, Nebuchadnezzars again HAD to came to Jerusalem because it had still not properly subjected itself after the slap of 605 BC. This time, a great many were further taken captive. This occured in 697 BC.

This additional, larger exile, occurred, according to Jeremiah, in Nebuchadnezzars 8th year or 605 - 8 = 697 BC.

--

Your Chronology for Neb's reign needs to be adjusted to 20 years in order for it to synchronize with Bible Chronology which is far superior to NB Chronology.

---

This additional, larger exile, occurred, according to Jeremiah, in Nebuchadnezzars 8th year or 605 - 8 = 697 BC.

2 Kings 24:12 King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign.

2 Kings 24:14 He took into exile all Jerusalem, all the princes, all the mighty warriors, and every craftsman and metalworker—he took 10,000 into exile. No one was left behind except the poorest people of the land.

That the exile began, WAY BEFORE THE CITY FELL, can be seen from examining Ezekiel's later words:

Ezekiel 40:1 In the 25th year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the 14th year after the city had fallen, on that very day the hand of Jehovah was upon me, and he took me to the city.

The 25th year of exile is refering to the big one which occured in 597 BC

25 years after this was 597 - 25 = 572 BC where Ezekiel receives the temple vision.

NOTE THAT THIS IS 14 YEARS AFTER THE FALL OF THE CITY.

572 + 14 = 586 BC

JERUSALEM FELL IN 586 BC

----

Incorrect for your Chronology has a shortfall or gap of 20 years and thus needs to 'fine-tuned' in order for it to synchronize with Bible-based Chronology. Jeffro would not be happy that you state that Jerusalem fell in 586 BCE and not 587 BCE so you have a big problem with this date.

--

THE JEWS WERE HANDED OVER TO SERVE BABYLON FROM 609 BC

Because they refused to subject, this ended up in exile 1, a small one, this taking place in 605 BC - where Daniel was taken captive.

A larger exile in 697 BC

Then in Jerusalem's destruction in 586 BC

ALL THIS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SUBJECT FROM 609 BC

Jeremiah 25:11, 12 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.

Some people just cannot listen and instead chose suffering...

--

The Exile began with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple with the total deportation of its population in 607 BCE and lasted for 70 years however there was adeportation of Jewry some ten years earlier but this was not the Exile.

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jeffro

Already provided link to information that more than adequately shows 607 nonsense to be wrong.

--

Everything but a single line of evidence to disprove 607 BCE?

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jeffro

You keep rattling off that nonsense, but 607 has been thoroughly debunked from every angle. You aren’t making any sense. It’s like you’re objecting to the fact that there’s not just exactly one problem with i

--

Well if it has been so thoroughly debunked as you claim then you should have no pwoblem in providing one line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE. Stop the obfuscation and special pleading.

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jeffro

It’s like he’s never actually read the Bible.

--

The difference between you and scholar is that scholar actually believes the Bible.

---

Notice how the apologist avoids quoting the relevant scriptures.

--

Scholar does quote scriptures where required and simply uses the same texts that you do.

--

Your website includes full quotes of supporting scriptures.

--

So does WT publications including the said scholar but it is the interpretation of those texts that is imp[ortant not the quoting of them.

Regarding your website about 607 BCE if it is a suitable resource then why not provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jefffro

Back in reality there isn’t a single scripture that even mentions 70 years of exile.

--

Correct,. Not that exact expression but the 70 years are discussed or mean an exile:

The Bible says 70 years was a period of all the nations serving Babylon which means an Exile.

that nations could avoid exile by serving Babylon willingly, that Babylon was called to account when 70 years ended which again describes an Exile.

that 70 years ended when Persia began to reign which marked the end of the Exile.

and that attention was given to the Jews’ return after the 70 years ended such ending refers to the end of the Exile.

scholar JW

43

Did Jesus Die On a Stake or a Cross?

by Sea Breeze in

dominic enyart exposes watchtower deception regarding their demonization of the cross.

information packed.

interesting take on paganism as well.

scholar

PioneerSchmioner

The matter of whether Jesus died on a stake or cross can only be determined by the eyewitness testimony of those present at that time as recorded by the Gospel writers who all stated that it was a stauros which means a stake or pole. These facts are primary evidence and the use of some graffiti dated to the end of the First century proves nothing for there is simply no evidence that Jesus was hung on a two-pieces of timber placed at a right angle namely a cross.

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

resolute Bandicoot

So you can't have 1914 without 607 and the second fulfilment of the 7 times was an anti typical fulfilment. Did the society not push antitypes under the old light carpet sometime back? In doing so how did they not dynamite the foundation of their own authority?

--

Correct, 1914 CE depends on 607 BCE and the second fulfilment of the 7 times is well supported by exegesis of Dan 4 and Luke 21:24. Such a viewpoint is not an antitype but a larger fulfilment of a prophecy and thus entirely justified based on the biblical evidence.

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jeffro

I have not asserted any unique or novel claim about the correct date of the solstice.

--

Yes, and neither have you published a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE!!!

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jeffro

That is a lie you need to tell yourself but I actually understand the dating system very well.

---

Self-praise is no recommendation. If you are such an expert then please provide specific information on that solstice or other that you have published.

scholar JW

43

Did Jesus Die On a Stake or a Cross?

by Sea Breeze in

dominic enyart exposes watchtower deception regarding their demonization of the cross.

information packed.

interesting take on paganism as well.

scholar

PioneerSchmioneer

I actually studied Samuelsson's thesis and sat in on what turned out to be an overblown reaction to his work that ended up being AP getting "egg on their face," so to speak.

---

I am somewhat surprised by this comment as one reviewer stated in a Book Review of Samuelsson's thesis "His work is not to be ignored, despite the criticisms I have made. It is a valuable contribution to the debate".

--

The work is a philosophical work not an etymological one (based on the science of language). It is not a critical theory nor does he claim it to be. He does suggest that religion and iconography more than language has more to do with what people know about the crucifixion, and this has shaped what people know about what the gospels say about the event.

--

I disagree that this thesis is 'a philosophical work not an etymological one'. Samuelsson clearly states in his methodology that his research is philological and its introductory section discusses the role of lexicography in its treatment of stauros and other related terms.

--

In making any review of published scholarship it is an academic practice to consider literature or book reviews published in academic journals and one such review by John Granger Cook among others is worthy of attention.

scholar JW