scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,054 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  119

  Validity of 607 BCE date

  by stevieb1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

  i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

  if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan Fraud

  Your reply to my assignment for Hilary Step is typical of your closed mind. Yes, I am muddying the waters of an already muddied chronology, but is it not trues that one must stir the muddied water in order for the sediment to fall so that one can see now clearly what the true situation is. I gave that assignment to Hilary, she claims to have an open mind, please why do not encourage her to do such research. Is this what you claimed to have done? If you cannot do it then let other sincere posters have a go.

  It is a pointless exercise to post evidence for 607 on this board if people will not examine it, it is clear that readers have difficulty in understanding what has already been suggested. If you want something from me then I expect something from you. I am rather content to include such material in a thesis on the seventy years as a continuation of my post-graduate studies.

  Your thoughts on the seventy years are simply gibberish, it is a rehash of Jonsson's material as you well know. The seventy years can only be a subject within a academic forum as nothing significant has yet been published. You may bleat and whine as much as you like but I remain unmoved.

  Regarding the king list which you do wish to discuss because you and I know that it destroys the credibility of 586/587. Chronologists when discussing this period of biblical history at least have the intellectual honesty to at least provided such a list as an appendix to their research. Carl who covers this period did not seem to see the need to do this, his hypothesis stands without an historical context notwithstanding his use of neo- Babylonian material . But why?
  when scholars refer to the divided monarchy they draw upon Babylonian sources to locate synchronisms for Judean and Iraelites monarchs. Yet when doing so the data comes out confusing and muddied. You say that bible is at fault, it is wrong, so then you expect me to engage with you in discussing the same date that you already do not accept. What are you an idot, get the methodology right, sought out in your own where you are going. If you do not believe the Bible then you wasting everybodys time. You truly exhibit cultish behaviour in asmuch you have been misled by the Jonsson hypothesis.

  scholar
• 
  119

  Validity of 607 BCE date

  by stevieb1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

  i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

  if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Hilary Step

  Your humble request for evidence for the validity of 607 has deeply moved me, there have been not a few posters on this board who have made a similar request. As I have stated on numerous occasions, this subject is very complex and is open to many interpretations by scholars. Chronology is not an exact science and is dependent upon three factors: methodology, sources and interpretation. In order to understand calculus one must have mastered algebra. Therefore for yourself and other interested persons you would to complete the following assignment before you can possibly understand the evidence that will be made available to you.

  Before beginning the assignment please read the article 'Chronology' as discussed in the Aid and Insight book published by the Society.

  ASSIGNMENT:

  Submit three different lists of the reigns of the Kings in Israel and Judah for the period known as the Divided Monarchy.

  Each source should be identified and you are to complete a short essay explaining what you have learnt form these respective lists. The word length is discretionary.

  In order to complete this assignment you will find the following texts helpful. There is no priority intended in this list.

  1. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings by Edwin R. Thiele Third Edition.

  2. Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olaf Jonsson, Third Edition.

  3.Handbook of Biblical Chronology by Jack Finegan, 1998.

  4. Secrets of the Times by Jeremy Hughes, 1990.

  The readings outlined are comprehensive in that these are drawn from WT sources and other reputable chronolgists. As you are a open minded person I am confident that you will find this assignment both intellectually challenging spiritually refreshing.

  Best wishes

  scholar
• 
  119

  Validity of 607 BCE date

  by stevieb1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

  i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

  if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Your reply to my challenge is just as I expected. You simply cannot deliver despite your claims to have undertaken research concerning the Society's chronology. You are simply a person who has read the Jonssson hypothesis without any original thought of your own. You demonstrate this by your presentation of Jonsson;s interpretation of the seventy years. Scholars would not accept these views because of the complexity of the subject. There is no consensus within scholarship as to how the seventy years should be understood, for this reason I raised the subject of a thesis in order to address this issue'

  The Society has listed the reigns of the kings right back to the early ywenties and in recent times has presented a format wherupon the data can be understood as shown in the Aid book. Such a list is in fact the skeleton of biblical history and if you or your readers cannot see its relevance to Babylonian chronology then you are as ignorant of chronology as the innocent inquirers to this board.

  Jonsson by the way would be unable to provide such a list, at least there have been recent attempts to present the data and they to be congratulated.

  scholar
• 
  119

  Validity of 607 BCE date

  by stevieb1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

  i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

  if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  You give the impression that you are all knowing in matters of biblical chronology and that the society's chronology is bunk. You have a profound influence on the many posters to this board, you are a loyal support of the Jonsson hypothesis, in fact you are a chronologist along with Carl in company with such luminaries as Edwin Thiele and Jame Ussher. I salute you!

  Because you are so learned as it seems in all areas pertaining to the Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses Iwonder if you will indulge me with a simple and lowly challenge. Your attention to this request would completely satisfy me that that you are far superior to me in all matters of scholarship. Never more will I dare to reply on matters chronological on this board.

  THE CHALLENGE:

  you are to post on this board at a time of your convenience and using the expertise of whatever source you so desire including CARL,
  the following:

  A LIST OF THE REIGNS OF THE KINGS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL

  Such a list would demonstrate competence in chronology as has been demonstrated by the society, Thiele and a few other scholars.
  Failure by you to undertake this task will demonstrate to all your incompetence in this field. As I have challenged you first to put up you may wish to challenge me. So be it, but I reserve the right to refrain until you have responded as requested.

  scholar
• 
  119

  Validity of 607 BCE date

  by stevieb1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

  i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

  if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Your opinion that there is no evidence for 607 is plainly stupid. The date is based upon the established fact by means of astronomical records and other secular material for the fall of Babylon. The historic fact of the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland after the 70years is attested to in scripture. Finally, the desolation of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzer is confirmed by scripture and secular history. These facts are not the imagination of the Society. The 'devil is in the detail' and what a complex period of Judean history this is. The plain facts are that this watershed in Jewish history is the the subject of much controversy within contemporary scholarship.

  It is dishonest to say that because the society has a methodology of computing these principal stages of history that differs from other approaches that it is without any foundation. The very fact that scholars cannot agree as to 587 or 586 is cause for grave concern. If the Society is so wrong and if the Jonsson hypothesis is so correct then why if the evidence is so compelling, so abundant and incontrovertible that there exists thi uncertainty. Jonsson asserts 587 over 586 which he triflys deals with this point by means of a footnote 15 on page 293 in his latest work. Interestingly, in his previous supplement to GTR published in 1989, he deals with this difficult issue with 7 pages. Jonsson omits to mention that David Freedman the editor in chief of the Anchor Bible Dictionary has in that reference work, 586 for the Fall of Jerusalem.

  Uncertainty about this matter is also highlighted by the comment made by Prof. Jack Finegan a supporter of 586 that "the highly probable date of the final fall of Jerusalem - July 18, 586 BCE". {Handbook of Biblical Chronology,1998,p.259]

  Jonsson and yourself assert that the discrepency arises from the biblical data with the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzer. This is misleading, your error lies in the assumptions that you have made concerning that data. The relevant texts possess their own integrity but the assumptions made on these texts are entirely speculative.

  Jonsson devotes a considerable portion of his book to an exegesis of the seventy years. He is to be commended for this pioneering attempt as there is a serious lack of scholarship in this regard. His discussion of this period is unsatisfactory but it is a useful analysis. I venture to say that there is need for a thesis to be undertaken on this subject that would need to be far more thorough than what has so far appeared in scholarly journals.

  scholar
• 
  119

  Validity of 607 BCE date

  by stevieb1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

  i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

  if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  bible examiner

  Your hysteria amuses me. Insults are the manifestation of intellectual weakness and ignorance. I have the book Gentile Times Reconsidered and am well familiar with its contents. The book in no way invalidates 607 as you might claim. Jonsson's hypothesis has its weaknesses as shown in his interpretation of the 70 years, and his inability to determine whether 587 0r 586 is correct. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

  scholar
• 
  119

  Validity of 607 BCE date

  by stevieb1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

  i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

  if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  stevieb1

  There is an abundant ecidence for 607 as the biblical date for the Fall of Jerusalem. The Society has published how the date is calculated using ancient and biblical history. Likewise there is evidence for other dates such as 587 or 586. All of these dates have some basis for their calculation, these dates are not some conjecture or something that has been imagined. Such dates are sustained by careful scholarship with biblical interpretation. The difference is the methodology of the chronologist and his choice of historical narrative.

  In short you have a choice of which date that you believe is correct, if prophecy is important then go for the 607 date. This date succeeds because it establishes the Gentile Times concluding in 1914. The other dates of 587/586 are useless in that these are dead ends, going nowhere. However, the value of these dates lies in their approximation of some twenty years which brings us to the biblically reckoned date of 607. You have a choice. The Society has over many decades has demonstrated that their chronology is scholarly, consistent with ancient astronomy and history. This is well demonstrated in their chronology of our Lord Jesus.

  scholar
• 
  15

  Franz 3rd best hebrew scholar in world?

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  recently at my local district convention it was stated by a speaker that he had met someone on the the ministry who had told him that fred ranz was one of the three best hebrew scholars in the world.. this didn't sound true to me for several reasons, but could anyone with knowledge of this suject shed some light on the matter?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  sleepy

  Your comments concerning the opinion that Franz was one of the three best Hebrew scholars in the world is simply that namely opinion and hearsay. The source for this opinion is anonymous and therfore lacks any credibility. One must remember that Fred Franz only received a classical education at university and was self taught in a number of languages, he was used by the Society as its chief writer and Bible scholar. During his lifetime he is not credited with publishing any thing of a scholarly nature so it is difficult to imagine that he attained the status that has been suggested. His biography is completely silent as to any scholarly pretensions only commenting on his education and his childhood experiences.

  Amazing

  You are impressed by the information supplied by Alan F concerning the identity of the NWT commitee and the role played by Fred Franz.
  You err in this respect because it is impossible to know who the commitee was or is. Their identity is unknown and unknowable like the Cloud of Unknowing.

  You mention the appearance of Mantey who resented the Society's use of his Grammar as shown in the video. Mantey showed himself to be a idiot and his appearance and comments sadly detracted from the scholarship he displayed in that text. Any competent scholar of Greek would not be a party to such nonsense.
  
  scholar
  's
• 
  44

  Wrong date

  by tattoogrl333 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello i'm new to the whole jw study thing, but they said it fell in 607 but due to the advice of others here i looked it up.

  i found in 3 encyclopedia's online that it fell in 586. i printed them out and am going to get more.

  i'm going to show the lady i study with, i'm just curious what you think will happen, and if she will try to deny it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  bjc2012

  I disagree with your views on the meaning of trampling in Luke 21: 24 in connection with the Gentile Times. The expression 'estai patoumene' is a future passive participle and literally means 'will be being trampled' which shows that the action had already began and concludes into the future. Theologians recognize that this passage has both eschatological and historiographical significance.

  Alan F

  You claim that "there are no major holes in the Neo-Babylonian chronology. It even fits perfectly with the Bible". This implies that there are minor holes in such chronology. You thus admit that such chronology is fallible and imperfect. If such a chronology is as accurate as you claim, what date do you give for the Fall of Jerusalem and what biblical evidence supports such a claim?

  Further, you assert that JW chronology cannot explain certain Bible passages, which passages are these? What are the most reliable historical sources that you refer to? You make wild exaggerated claims upon a subject that you know nothing about. If you are so smart about this issue then provide the date for Jerusalem's fall and I can add your name to a list of prominent chronologists who cannot agree as to when key events occurred during that crucial period of the Judean Monarchy.

  scholar
• 
  44

  Wrong date

  by tattoogrl333 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello i'm new to the whole jw study thing, but they said it fell in 607 but due to the advice of others here i looked it up.

  i found in 3 encyclopedia's online that it fell in 586. i printed them out and am going to get more.

  i'm going to show the lady i study with, i'm just curious what you think will happen, and if she will try to deny it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  tattoogrl 333

  It is not surprising that you have found a different date of 586 instead of 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem. In point of fact there are very few dates in biblical history that have unaminous support of scholars. You will find that this is the case even with the dates connected with Jesus Christ on earth which occurred six centuries after the the Fall of Jerusalem. Scholars have have no evidence for 586 or 587, but simply base their calculations upon their interpretation on secular chronology which is fraught with difficulties. The date 607 is based also upon interpretation of biblical history but is mor credible as it establishes the beginning of the Gentile Time ending in 1914. In short, 607 works as it establishes prophecy, 586 or 587 are useless dates as these dates are 'dead ends'.

  Bibliclal chronology is not an exact science so I would urge caution before being influenced by those who have no knowledge and appreciation of its complexity. Your teacher no doubt can supply information published by the Society that will facilitate your understanding as to how 607 is calculated. A major flaw in the argument supporting 586 or 587 is that scholars cannot determine exactly what year is correct. This fact alone should cause one to exercise soundness of mind and use one's critical thinking.

  scholar