Posts by scholar

78

Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom in

here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.

they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.

to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?

scholar

City Fan

Your interpretation of Zechariah 7:1-5 is preposterous as it is without foundation and contradicts both Scripture and well established history. The Bible indicates quite clearly that the seventy years ran until the royalty of Persia began to reign when in Cyrus first year (537) released the exiles from Babylon. The fact that Darius 1 is ruling at that time establishes that the seventy years had aleady concluded some twenty years earlier when Daniel had correctly discerned in the first year of Darius the Mede that the seventy years had ended (Daniel 9:2).There is nothing in either Zechaiah 1:7,12 and &:1-5 to suppose that the seventy had not concluded but were according to some in continuation, It is ovbviuos that the seventy years referred to belongs to the past and not to the present.

All you are doing is simply rehashing Jonsson who discusses this subject on pp.226-8 in GTR 1998. In response you should read what Rolf Furuli says about this matter in pp.67-9 in his Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews, 2003.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

78

Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom in

here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.

they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.

to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?

scholar

City Fan

The secular records present information that requires interpretation of that one can be certain. However, majority opinion does not guarantee certainty despite the appeal or relevance of the evidence. The history of science bears testimony to this when theories held by many need to be revised or discarded. That is why in respect to chronology the FDS has shown a bias towards the biblical record over above that of secular records. The FDS is alone in this matter and so the date of 607 is peculiar to us but so are many of our beliefs and mission. But one should not be surprised as Our Lord and his disciples were distinct in their beliefs and mission from the world. Perhaps it is our distinctive and traditional chronology that bears a mute testimony to the true Church or true religion.Rolf Furuli's current research shows that there is a need to challenge the dating and interpretation of these materials so we should be prudent in making strong claims about scholarly opinion.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

78

Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom in

here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.

they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.

to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?

scholar

pennycandy

None of the secular souces you have quoted directly prove 586 or 587, In order to derive the dates 586 or 587 one needs to calculate from the data contained in those documents. I repeat there is no direct or immediate secular evidence that connects the Fall of Jerusalem with the specific reign of Neb or Zedekiah. It is only the biblical data that provides the specific data for that event namely the Fall of Jerusalem.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

78

Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom in

here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.

they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.

to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?

scholar

City Fan

I have long stated that 607 is a calcuable date which is derived from 539 and 537 both of which are derived from secular evidence. Similarly, the calender dates of 586 and 587 are also calcuable dates derived from secular evidence..In short, the calender years 586, 587 and 607 are derived or calcuable dates and are not based on any existing, direct secular evidence. For this reason 586 or 587 cannot be Absolute Dates.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

78

Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom in

here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.

they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.

to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?

scholar

City Fan

In order to calculate 607 one needs a pivotal date which is 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. This date is calculated from secular evidence. Such secular evidence is in the form of the Nabonidus Chronicle establishes the day and month of Babylon's Fall. Further, the year is established by a Babylonian clay tablet which provides astronomical data for the seventh year of Cambyses 2 which is the spring of 523BCE. From this one easily arrives at 539 for the accession year for Cyrus 2 preceeding his first year in 538 BCE. More detail could be supplied but I think you get the drift at least I hope so This proves that 607 is a calcuable date and is based upon secular evidence which provides a foundation for the calculation.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

34

Best Bible Translation?

by mywifeisaJW in

my wife has been a jw for about 10 years (we have been married 15 years).

over the years i have tried various strategies to deal with this, which i won't go into here...except that i have agreed to "read the bible" with my wife...and i get to pick the translation.. what translation would be best recommended to help highlight the errors of the nwt and jw thinking in general?

i have seen here that today's english version has been recommended...anything else?

scholar

mywifeisajw

Your wife is a very smart woman because she is already using the most brilliant translation of the Bible namely the NWT. Proof for this superlative comment is founded by the research into modern Bible translations by Jason BeDuhn in his Truth In Translation, 2003. I suggest that you read this book and notice the comparisons of different translations.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

78

Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom in

here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.

they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.

to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?

scholar

City Fan

I have already provided secular evidence for the establishment of 607. Do you think that the Society has made it up? Has not the Society demonstrated the basis for its calculation? i repeat:

1. Fall of Babylon in 539

2. Decree of Cyrus and release of exilles in 537

3. Length of exile and desolation of Judah was 70 years

4. Simple arithmetic calculates from 537 plus 70 years leads us to 607 which is the beginning of the exile and end of the Judean Monarchy. Is there not secular and historical evidence for these historical event

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

78

Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom in

here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.

they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.

to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?

scholar

Unfettered

The truth is that there is much conjecture about the biblical chronology of the Old Testament as shown by numerous dates given for events in biblical history, There is considerable secular evidence available to support WT chronology as shown in the publications for otherwise such a chronology is based on an illusion. I have studied various positions and are familiar with the literature on the subject of the seventy years in particular. The great merit of WT chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and has prophetic significance leading to 1914 as shown by the recent disaster in Asia. In short, our chronology works for Bible students and Christians, all other schemes fail.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

78

Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom in

here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.

they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.

to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?

scholar

Bluegrass Tom

Your research is sloppy and misguided. For starters, the Society is by no means alone in the use of the term 'Absolute Dates' for the purposes of chronology. Christendom's most eminent chronolgist the SDA Edwin Thiele titled one of his chapters in his Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings', 'Absolute Date for the Old Testament'..

Scholars are divided as to whether 586 or 587 should be the calender year for the Fall of Jerusalem and your research should have shown this discrepancy. In my view, the majority opinion within scholarship leans towards 586 rather than 587 which does not concur with the Jonsson hypothesis. The Society's date of 607 is the only possible candidate as I have repeatedly argued as it is in harmony with biblical, historical and secular evidence. Such an established date provides a sound basis for calculating the prophetic year of 1914.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

166

NWT Scholars

by homme perdu in

.

the book, reasoning from the scriptures does not inform the reader on who are the nwt scholars nor their education background.

could someone provide some information concerning the nwt scholars?

scholar

core

I simply ask for an alternative biblical chronology from those critical of WT chronology and none is produced or recommended thus far. That is not too much to ask. No critic has the capacity or courage to produce a chronology which says much about their honesty and integrity. WT chronology has a long and proud history over many centuries which now provides a good foundation for the interpretation of prophecy and eschatology.

The NWT has been peer reviewed and these reviews were first published in the journals by Thomson, Byington, and Metzger and the internet has reviews published from various quarters. So, Jonsson unlike Furuli has not had his book reviewed because it simply a piece of anti-Witness propaganda and not a serious piece of academic research or a work of fiction.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion