Posts by scholar

40

When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy in

there's a very good question to stump a jw(hope i have spelled the place right?!).

it says in my niv study bible it toke place c.609 bc so therefore the fall of jerusalem toke place approxiametly(sic)20 years later according to the bible.. if you say carchemish toke place in 627,`can you provide evidence of this?

' might be a good question to a jw.

scholar

a Christian

Thanks for your lengthy reply. I believe it is very important to provide a coherent framework for the chronology of the Divided Monarchy. This period is the primary source for our information for understanding OT chronology. The Society has succeeded in demonstating that 390 years accounts for this period as shown by the chart from pages 340-7 in the Aid book. Such interpretation well accords with Jewish tradition as shown in the Socino Commentary on Ezekiel discussed on page 348 in Aid.

Interestingly, an Australian academic and Qumram scholar. Barbara Thiering bases her hypothesis on the mention of the 390 years in the Damascus Document. Although she agrees with most scholars that the 390 years of Ezekiel should be "understood loosely" she applies the 390 years in CD 1:5-6 to historical events after the Fall of Jerusalem.

Such an interpretation was challenged by Isaac Rabinowitz who wrote an article 'A Reconsideration of Damascus and 390 years in the Damascus Documents', JBL 1954 73:11-35. He argued that this 390 years reminscient of Ezekiel 4 is a period applied prior to the Fall of Jerusalem. This view differs somewhat from the application made by Thiering.

In short, any chronology that ignores the implication of the 390 years cannot succeed despite any amount of compelling evidence from secular sources.

scholar BA MA

40

When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy in

there's a very good question to stump a jw(hope i have spelled the place right?!).

it says in my niv study bible it toke place c.609 bc so therefore the fall of jerusalem toke place approxiametly(sic)20 years later according to the bible.. if you say carchemish toke place in 627,`can you provide evidence of this?

' might be a good question to a jw.

scholar

Reborn2002
Hi Jason.
I thank you for your criticism. I posted my last reply somewhat hasitily and did not bother to proofread my reply. I must say that your criticism is in need of a 'tune up'. I think you have mistaken the word'theorem' for the word 'thesis'. I notice that you are a young man of twenty and that you have a degree in business studies. Well done. If you are truly interested in theological matters then my advice to you, from an older man, is to further your studies in this most fascinating subject, theology.

scholar BA MA

40

When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy in

there's a very good question to stump a jw(hope i have spelled the place right?!).

it says in my niv study bible it toke place c.609 bc so therefore the fall of jerusalem toke place approxiametly(sic)20 years later according to the bible.. if you say carchemish toke place in 627,`can you provide evidence of this?

' might be a good question to a jw.

scholar

Alan Fraud

You have the cheek to accuse me of cowardice in not replying to your challenges regarding WT chronology. You have not responded to my challenge that you provide a dating system for the reigns of the Divided Monarchy. You have not or cannot nominate even a system of dating for this period of crucial biblical history and yet you pontificate your knowledge of chronology. Carl Jonsson has not and will not dare to indicate the dating of this period and yet he is most vociferous in his criticism of WT chronology.

You have asked me to respond to your challenge in regard to 2 Chronicles 36:20. My view of this matter is that along with other similar texts pertaining to the seventy years, such exegesis can only be properly explained within a post graduate context. A project that I plan to complete in the near future. If this text is a puzzling to you then let me suggest that you consult the WT Index or read the commentaries at a local theological library.

I do not believe that anything you write in criticism of the Society is sincere. You are a mischevious person whose only intent is to mislead others and to have your own ears tickled.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

1

Scholar,Where are U?

by badboy in

jw
friends

scholar,i have got some question(s) for u. can u explain the first chapter of judges where it says that the israelites took jerusalem killing all its inhabitants but says later they didn't take jerusalem and in kings or samuel says that david took jerusalem.. please explain, scholar.

in man.. distress...in deliverence at hand!,.

(i have forgotten the exact title,but it was published 1975!).

scholar

Badboy

I am here.

Your first question is an easy one. If you are smart enough to ask it then you are smart enough to find the answer. You could try the Watchtower Index for assistance in this matter.

Your second question is best answered by consulting your nearest theological library.

Your third question is answered by the simply fact that the Society's Authorized Version is identical to the other one.

Regards

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

40

When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy in

there's a very good question to stump a jw(hope i have spelled the place right?!).

it says in my niv study bible it toke place c.609 bc so therefore the fall of jerusalem toke place approxiametly(sic)20 years later according to the bible.. if you say carchemish toke place in 627,`can you provide evidence of this?

' might be a good question to a jw.

scholar

Alan Fraud

Your constant attack on the Society's chronology shows your ignorance and lack of appreciation for the complexity of biblical chronology. I have repeatedly said in previous postings that the Society has provided in it publications over many decades considerable evidence or explanations for its chronology for the OT and the NT. Because you have a diffferent interpretation of such matters does not make your views or opinions anymore acceptable than the Society's view.

There are very few dates in chronology that enjoys unanimity of agreemement amongst scholars. Most dates are subject to a wide range of opinion, nothing is entirely settled. For example, the matter of the seventy years is a cause of considerable difficulty for honest scholars.

My counsel to you is to stick to your engineering, a field in which you you are academically qualifies. Please leave biblical studies and theology to those qualified or go to university and get those qualifications. Perhaps, better still, why dont you attend our meetings at the local Kingdom Hall?

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

40

When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy in

there's a very good question to stump a jw(hope i have spelled the place right?!).

it says in my niv study bible it toke place c.609 bc so therefore the fall of jerusalem toke place approxiametly(sic)20 years later according to the bible.. if you say carchemish toke place in 627,`can you provide evidence of this?

' might be a good question to a jw.

scholar

badboy

The battle at Carchemish took place in 625 BCE whereupon Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho at that place. This event occurred during the fourth year of King Jehoiakim's reign of Judah. Jeremiah 46:2. The following Nisan began Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year as King of Babylon.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

9

Was 587B.C. the first destruction of jerusalem?

by compton in

jw
friends

all the footnotes in most bibles point to this date, as the final fall of jerusalem.

if this is the correct,this date means this is when the 2,520 days of years commenced.

in daniel chapter 4.the seven times.

scholar

compton

It is incorrect to say that 587BCE was the date for the Fall of Jerusalem. The majority of scholars favour the date of 586 BCE for this momentous event in biblical history. However, the Society has determined that in accordance with secular, biblical and prophetic evidence that the date should be 607 BCE which marks the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE. Careful exegesis of the OT reveals the accuracy for 607 rather than the 'dead-end' dates offered by scholars and critics of the Society.

Much information has already been posted on this and other sites but little attention has been given to the theological importance of the Gentile Times doctine. One must remember that scholars are very cautious in being dogmatic about the chronology of this very contentious period of biblical history. Please be assured that 1914 is biblically and theologically sound.

scholar BA MA (Studies in Religion)

13

Jeruselum Destroyed in 607 BCE?

by Pureheart in

jw
friends

i read justhumans response on one of the threads, and he mentioned that jeruselum was not destroyed in 607 bce.

i would like to have more information on this.. pureheart

scholar

Pureheart

There is a sound basis for 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem according to secular history and biblical exegesis. the dates of 586/587 have also their merits, but do not harmonize with an appropriate world view of the biblical narrative. Such dates do not have any prophetic significance in comparison to 607 which marks the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914.

scholar,BA MA [Studies in Religion] USyd.

119

Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 in

jw
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?

scholar

Hilary Step

You talk much about the weight of evidence fo a date in chronology which is rather contradicted by the fact that there is no agreement amongst scholars as to whether 586 or 587 is the correct date. If you have such weight of evidence why can you not account for this discrepancy. What is wrong with your data? You admit quite correctly that such dates have circumstantial evidence, to some degree this also applies to 607. This date is a calcuable date along with the other two dates. All of these dates have common features, in that these dates draw upon scriptural , historical and astronomical data. In short, all of these dates have their respective merits.

In explanation of this point we find that in order to locate 607 one needs an anchor or a pivotal or absolute date. The Fall of Babylon in 539 gives the chronologist a starting point or a foundation. So already this date which enjoys unamity of opinion is the foundation on which subsequent circumstantial and testimonial evidence can be employed. So you see here that already 607 is off to a good start indeed. By the way, as you are fully conversant in such matters could you give a absolute date for 586/7 so that that we can construct together the mountain of evidence for Jerusalem. Let us work together so that all readers on this board can be well educated in such a matter.

working together in umity for Christs'sake

scholar (non, according to Alan Fraud)

119

Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 in

jw
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?

scholar

Hilary Step

You state in your reply that you are already familiar with the books in the reading list that I gave to you. If this is the case then how do you account for the conflicting results by these scholars as to the following point.

1. Difference of Absolute Dates
2. Different date for Jerusalem's Fall 586 0r 587?.
3. Different reigns for the kings of Israel and Judah
As you know these scholars have broadly followed a methodology different to that of the Society, they have employed the same system and sources as Jonsson outlines in his hypothesis. Such reconstruction is supposed to be accurate and factual, yet when it is tested then differnet results occur. Does this not tell you something?

You say that you have read the articles on Chronology in the Aid and Insight book, did you not read therein the evidence for 607? Do you that 607 was conveyed by an angel or written on some gold tablet revealed to Russell or Franz? D id you not read that 607 is a calculated date, that it has a beginning, a transition and a ending?

If you have read what you have claimed to have read then why do you not complete the asssignment that Ihave asked? I have no intention posting on this board esuch evidence for 607 unless I am satisfied that you have an appreciation of chronology'. I does not matter to me one iota whether this is acceptable to you or not because it is obvious that posters on this subject have already unintentionally exposed the invalidity of 586 or 587. Which date is it? Which date do you prefer.? Alan Fraud believes 587, is this your preference?

scholar BA MA