Posts by scholar

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

Farkel

You ask for name and academic credentials. No problem, I have already identified myself by name unlike yourself which appears you hide under a pseudonym. I obtained my Bachelor of Arts degree majoring in Religious Studies and Philosophy at Deakin University in Victoria. After that I I completed my Master of Arts degree in Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney in New South Wales. This year I am enrolled in a Honours program in Philosophical Studies at Deakin after which I hope to enroll in doctoral program post 2004. Do you require my SID number and copies of the relative testamurs?

Now that you have blown your whistle, how about listing your academic qualifications?

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

Alan F

Carl Jonsson in his Gentile Times Reconsidered has stated that he has nothing further to say on that subject and that he would use Internet forums if further discussion is needed. If this the end of the matter then perhaps it is time to produce new research on the Divided Monarchy as discussed by Edwin Thiele in his magnum opus -The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Perhaps, you and Carl collaborate in producing a revision of that work under the title which may Ibe so bold to suggest, to wit: THE MYSTERIOUS NUMBERS OF THE HEBREW KINGS - RECONSIDERED.

Please, you must do a better exegesis of Jeremiah 25:11-12. What has been attempted thus far is simply pathetic.

Best wishes

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

hilary_step

So we now have this new rule for the Fall of Ferusalem do we? THE SECULAR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE RULE, How ingenious.By such application of this rule many Christians who walk by faith would be troubled by the fact that many of the Biblical events are just stories. If this rule is so illustrious and confirmatory then how is that that you cannot determine the PRECISE date for Jerusalem, 586 or 587. You must remember that the Bible is not just the province of scholars but the populace who walk by faith and not absolute knowledge.

In the matter of reconstructing biblical history it is not just the weight of secular evidence that is important but the interpretation of that evidence but also the interpretation of the biblical narrative. A good example of this is the problematic period of the seventy years whereupon there is no secular weight of evidence.

Have you done your regnal list for the Divided Monarchy yet?

Regards

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

undercover

You ask that I supply secular evidence for 607 BC. I have not had difficulty in finding such evidence in the WT publications. So what is your problem? Poor literacy or comprehension? Such publications have discussed the matter in much detail so what is missing?

You tell me what evidence you are seeking and I will try to help. However, at this point no clay tablet has been found that has 607 inscribed upon it. Is this what you are seeking?

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

onacruse

You make some startling claims about the nature of the NT corpus. It is true that NT is christogically focussed but it also contains eschatology. Such s subject embraces the Society's teaching of the Gentile Times as shown by its reference in the writings of prominent theologians. This is shown in Lukan studies considering the eschaton in Luke 21:24.

You should read the following:

The Theology of St. Luke by Hans Conzelmann. 1966

St. Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History by Helmut Flender,1967

Enjoy

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

City Fan

Herein are a couple of references:

Chronological And Background Charts Of The Old Testament, John H. Walton 1994, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp.30-31.

Excursus 'Seventy Years' in the Word Biblical Commentary, Jeremiah 26-52, Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise , Thomas G. Smothers, Word Books. Dallas, Texas, 1995, Vol.27, pp. 73-75.

These materials should occupy you for awhile

Enjoy

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

City Fan

I cannot cite any modern reference work that gives 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem. However, all is not lost. What I can do is supply many refernces in the scholarly literature which highlight the confused chronology for the Divided Monarchy ending with the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 or was it 587? In addition, the literature shows that there is considerable confusion as to the subject of the seventy years.

Methinks the wise will stick to 607 as it avoids many problems and confusion.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

Xander

I do not believe that the Society's application of 1914 is incorrect or that the foundation date for the Gentile Times is unreliable or without solid evidence. The dates of 586/587 are based on secular/historical evidence but 607 is also reckoned on similar evidence. It all comes down to,hermeneutics. One must decide what methodology and biblical exgesis for that historical period is reasonable. For myself, the choice of 607 is a useful date as it provides a starting point for the prophetic period of the Gentile Times.

It seems that supporters for 586/587 have been seduced by the writings of Raymond Franz and the Jonsson hypothesis but it is far better to critically examine these writings before making claims about the validity of 607 and 1914.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

39

How to help a JW using 607, 1914 stuff.

by apocalypse in

the following information was prepared for the benefit of those who are endeavoring to assist a close friend or relative who is a jehovahs witness.

it is intended to aid a person who wishes to, in a non-confrontational manner, approach the vital foundational issue with respect to the primary doctrine of jehovahs witnesses.

it can be done without the recipient of the information even becoming aware of your intentions.

scholar

Shakita

You have mistakenly used Jeremiah 25: 11 without mentioning the next verse 12. These two texts are somewhat problematic for the claim that the seventy years is only applicable to servitude. In fact, these two texts are undermine the Jonsson hypothesis because the emhasis of seventy years and its context are clearly not identical. This is why a major commentary gives a different context between verse 11 and verse 12..

Scholars have no consensus about how the seventy years is to be understood, The Society has its interpretation and Jonssson has his own viiew of servitude. Scholars do not agree as to whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 despite the supposedly overwhelming secular evidence. Methinks the smart money is on 607, it is evidentiary, consistent with biblical history and leads to the prophetic date of 1914.

scholar BA MA Stidies in Religion.

39

How to help a JW using 607, 1914 stuff.

by apocalypse in

the following information was prepared for the benefit of those who are endeavoring to assist a close friend or relative who is a jehovahs witness.

it is intended to aid a person who wishes to, in a non-confrontational manner, approach the vital foundational issue with respect to the primary doctrine of jehovahs witnesses.

it can be done without the recipient of the information even becoming aware of your intentions.

scholar

apcocalypse

Your claims about 607 not being the date for Jerusalem's Fall and the inaccuracy of WT chronology are ludicrous. There is sufficient evidence for establishing the validity for 607. You need to be certain that your exegesis of the relevant scriptural accounts for the seventy years is consistent and reliable because the weakest link in the Jonsson hypothesis is his interpretation of the seventy years. It is obvious that you are simply repeating Jonsson's claims without thinking through matters yourself.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion, University of Sydney