if a jw states that 607 bce is incorrect, how long will it take before the elders announce from the platform to the congregation that the person is "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses"?
.
.
Pawned
The list of dates that I posted are very close together and yet despite the so-called majority evidence scholars cannot determine the precise calender date for Jerusalem's Fall. Yhe date 607 is also calculated from evidence and is a legitimate candidate for that momentous event. It must be sated that chronology is about methidology and interpretation and this is the reason there is much controversy about this matter.
scholar
if a jw states that 607 bce is incorrect, how long will it take before the elders announce from the platform to the congregation that the person is "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses"?
.
.
Alan F
Right, 587 then! Have you convinced the majority of biblical scholars. When will 587 be edorsed by the scholarly community?
scholar
does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?
as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm
Alan F
That is right, you cannot be bothered to seek the facts of a matter but simply rely upon the opinions of others. You now know that Franz claimed responsibility for that information but you stil cannot bring yourself to asking his opinion on the matter. So you blithely run off with your petty story and expect to be taken seriously. You excuse yourself because you now regard it as a trivial question but apostates and Thiele did not regard this matter as trivial because they wetted their pants over it. Perhaps you should practice what you preach :scholastic honesty.
scholar
if a jw states that 607 bce is incorrect, how long will it take before the elders announce from the platform to the congregation that the person is "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses"?
.
.
VM44
Only a fool would reject 607 for another date. Which begs the question as to which date would be a suitable candidate. One has a choice of three dates apart from 607:
1. 588
2. 587
3. 586
4. 587/586
What a choice is there, the smart money is on 607
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?
as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm
Alan F
If you are truly a man of truth and intellectual honesty you would have got to the bottom of the matter first before shooting off your big mouth by accusing the Society of misrepresentation. This accusation has been around for many years, so has Franz and your goodself. Yes Franz is now an old man but I am sure he is not senile and is very much occupoed with his research and studies so it is not too late for you to ask the big question: During the course of writing the article on Chronology, did I misrepresent Thiele's Note in regard to Ptolemy's Canon?
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?
as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm
Alan F
I have proved that the claim that the Society misrepresented Thiele is bogus. Thiele made an honest and truthful statement which will forever haunt him. Ptolemy's Canon can now be properly appraised as an important contribution to our knowledge of astronomy but is of minimal value to the Bible chronolgist.
You show your intellectual cowardice by not confronting the alleged author of that mischevious quote of Thiele, Raymond Franz because you are simply a follower of men not of God and have no love of truth.
Do not worry I will be around to defend The True Religion and God's Organization from your demonic excrement.
scholar emeritus
BA MA Studies in Religion
does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?
as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm
Alan F
You have proved nothing. The Society did not and could not misrepresent Thiele's Note because they simply directly quoted him and his Not was isolated from the body of his work as a simple Note to Ptolemy's List in an Appendix. The fact of the matter is that Ptolemy was not an historian because Thiele noted that Ptolemy's canon was not primarily for historical purposes and omitted those reigns which were of little astronomical significance.
You previously made the point in post 3847 that Parker & Dubberstein's work on Babylonian Chronology eliminated the need for Ptolemy's Canon. This is blatantly falsre because I have already taught you that in fact the above scholars freely attested to the fact that their work was based on Ptolemy's canon along with historical sources combined with further secular materials.
No. I have no vested interest in Raymond Franz or his credibility or in trying to divide your loyalty to him. It was Franz who big notes himself with the view that he was involved with the Aid project and in fact had written the article on Chronology containing that alleged misrepresentation. You are a person that prides yourself on intellectual honesty in fact you have promoted the idea that the Society is intellectually dishonest in the use of secular sources. Why then if you are lover of truth, ask Franz for his comments as to whether he is responsible for that so-called misrepresentation. He has claimed responsibility for his involvement in the Aid book project and the writing of that article, so will he claim responsibility for that alleged misrepresentation?
In the final analysis it is up to the reader to decide whether representation or misrepresentation has occurred in connection with Thiele. I for one firmly believe that Thiele's remark highlights a devastating flaw in Ptolemy's canon.
scholar
i am somewhat shocked right now, although i know i probably should not be, i will explain in this post later.. .
all this information is contained in carl olof jonsson's excellent book, the gentile times reconsidered, 4th edition, pages 122-125.. .
it turns out that throughout the neo-babylonian time frame, a business firm named the sons of egibi conducted business, and left some three or four thousand record tables contained in earthen jars covered with bitumen.. .
VM44
It is not the secular evidence that is the problem for any reconstruction of OT chronology but the interpretation of that material and the assinging of those specific regnal years into our modern calender system. In other words. it is the modern calender years that are open to interpretation. It must be pointed out that the Jonsson hypothesis with its current so called 17 lines of evidence has not yet provided a coherent chronology for the Divided Monarchy and until this is attempted then any amount of secular evidence is irrelevant.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
i am somewhat shocked right now, although i know i probably should not be, i will explain in this post later.. .
all this information is contained in carl olof jonsson's excellent book, the gentile times reconsidered, 4th edition, pages 122-125.. .
it turns out that throughout the neo-babylonian time frame, a business firm named the sons of egibi conducted business, and left some three or four thousand record tables contained in earthen jars covered with bitumen.. .
VM
Alan is probably right. Freddie, the greatest Bible scholar who has ever lived would have investigated such documents and concluded that along with Ptolemy's Canon are Satanic attempts to deceive and mislead the many. The interpretation of such material conflicts with biblical history and chronology and therefore can only be a museum artefact suitable only for the curiosity of scholars.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
there is a geat amount of confusion among early christian trdaition as to when jesus died, some have said about 130 different opinions were held.
the nt doesn't help pin it down as the dating in luke doesn't work.
anyway the tradition that eventually won out was that jesus was baptised about 29/30 and killed 1-3 years later.. on another site someone speculated that it was jewish tradition that indirectly helped establish this timeline.
Leolaia
You are hopelessly confused as to the date of the impalemeny of our Lord. WT scholars competent in chronology have scripturally shwon that Jesus died on Nisan 14 33 A.D. It seems that scholars have found the chronology of our Lord problematic but 33 A.D appears to be the best candidate.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
