i decided to take the big gamble today and stopped to visit an elder relative of mine.
the gamble wasn't the visit, but what i did while there.
i am many years da'd, but still have a fairly good relationship with most of my family.
Seymour Butts
WT scholars accept 539 as a pivotal date derived from astrnomical sources but this does not mean that 587 or 586 must be accepted. Using a different methodology namely'exilic', 607 is proven to be the correct date rather than the controversial 586, 587 or 588 for the Fall.
scholarJW
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Leolaia
Yo have completely misread my last post to you. I was simply following your rathjer silly argument about connecting 587 with the seventy years leading to 517. This is impossible because 517 is a nothing date because it was twenty yeras earlier in 537 that the seventy years finished and the exiles returned home in 537. Such facts prove 607 for the Fall and the beginning of the seventy years.
I suspect that you have borrowed your 'case analysis' from the Jonsson hypothesis as found in GTR, 3rd edn., 1998. p. 77, par.1. Jonsson does not like 539 as an Absolute Date preferring that WT scholars should use 587/;586 which is plainly stupid reasoning.for the reasons that I have just outlined namely the impossibility of 517.
If you are so determined for 587 as a absolute date then simply regard the seventy years as a round number with say fifty years of desolation-exile -servitude and end the period with either your 539 as Jonsson prefers or 537, This interpretation will harmonize all of your absolute chronology as based on your regnal methodology.
WT scholars and I follow the exilic methodology which is based on 539 as a pivotal date derived from astronomicl dates. After Cyrus conquered Babylon , he issued the decree in his first year which allowed the exiles to return home in 537 this ending the foretold exile of seventy years. Hence, their exile must have begun in 607 wuth the destruction of the city and temple with the foretold desolation of the land and captivity in 607. This is the exilic methodology.
scholarJW
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Leolaia
You are very astute, the brightest on this board even exceeding the IQ of Alan F. Yes! YEs! YES! The methodology of WT scholars accepts quite gratefully the secular evidence establishing 539 BCE as a pivotal date- astronomically fixed absolute date of 523 BCE and reganl data for the Persian period but rejects the regnal data for the Neo-Babylonian period because it conflicts with our interpretation of the seventy years creating a twenty year gap.
You state that we could just as easily select other alternative absolute or pivotal dates to anchor ones chronology and then add seventy years after 587 for the end of the exile two years after Babylon's fall. But this is incorrect. The maths do not add up. If we add the seventy years after 587 then we get 517 which was some twenty years after the exile finished in 537. Therfore your metholology based on whatever pivotal or absolute date leading to 587 is sabotaged by the seventy years. The Society's methodology based upon a superior absolute date namely the fall of Babylon with a seventy year desolation-exile -servitude is far superior.
The big problem of the 586/587 controversy is one of methodology. WT scholars use the same regnal data mentioned in the Bible as scholars do. Those so called problematic texts which are blamed for this problem are not problematic for WT chronology. It is because your methodology is regnal based and you have to interpret the many technical issues arising out of calendrical chronology that gets you in a mess. A exilic methodol;ogy sweeps over the period like abroad brush covering the historical peaks of biblical history. If one gets down into the valleys then one is dealing with an impossible array of data.WT is a 'birds eye view' of history and thus avoids many difficult problems.
I do not regard the Bible's presentation of history as intractable because of the 586/87 dilemna. WT chronology based on exilic methodology has created a chronology for the Divided Monarchy which well illustrates that the biblical data is knowable and not impossible. The Jonsson hypothesis and it supporters has not yet providee a coherent chronology for this period despite the preponderance of secular evidence.
In short, WT chronology is validated by secular evidence, theology, fulfillment of prophecy, history and is complet for the entire OT period which stands it apart from all other proposed chronologies.
scholar JW
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Alwayshere
Listen here bright boy, Jeremiah 25:11 supports the fact that the land was to be desolated for seventy years because this is the subject of that verse and the immediate context.
.The latter part of the preceeding verse 9 says that the places would be devastated and becoming an object of astonishment. The following verse describes poetically the silence in the land and then in verse 11 there is the land again devastated and secondly an object of astonishment as quoted in verse 9. So, the first part of verse 11 definitely expresses God's judgement against the land which according to the Chronicler and Daniel was in fact seventy years;
The second part of verse 11 then changes subject and refers to servitude to Babylon which would be and was for seventy years. On this basis the facts show that Jeremiah's prophecy indicates that the seventy yeras would be a period of desolation, servitude and exile.
You then refer to 2 Chronicles 36: 20-21: Again this historical account agrees with the prophecy of Jeremiah. These two verses refer toa period of servitude or exile and in verse 21 is a complete statement that the land would be desolated for seventy years whilst keeping sabbaths. So, this account is descriptive of the land as desolation.
In short, both the prophecy of Jeremiah combine these elements of servitude, desolation and exile along with the Chronicler's history combines these same elements of servitude, exile and desolation. Chronicles also shows when the seventy years would end when the royalty of Persia began to reign. So it was under the Persian king Cyrus first regnal year issued that famous decree which freed the exiles allowing them to reoccupy that desolated homeland in 537. These are the biblical facts which remain ignored by apostates and advocates of the Jonsson hypothesis which is in shambles.
scholar JW
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Alan F
Our exilic methodology omits no relevant scriptures, as it incorporates all texts containing specific regnal data. In addition, the principal texts of the 'seventy years' are included for this chronology. Yes, our schronology requires interpretation of scripture but so does any other alternative including the Jonsson hypothesis.
If you believe that some texts are omitted then would you please list these 'missing' texts and I will pass this information information to WT scholars for their edification.
scholar JW
our resident pretend-jw-scholar who calls himself "scholar" enjoys justifying lying and misrepresentation by the watchtower society and himself.
the society, out of one side of its collective mouth, recommends not misrepresenting source references, yet out of the other side, goes ahead and does so without hesitation whenever it is convenient.
the society understands that unfair quoting is dishonest.
Alan F
When the Creator/Creation was first published there was no such thing as the ID movement as it was only in its embryonic stage. Its major proponents were publishing their research for the first time and so as single authors, their books were commented on by the Society as time progressed. Now as a more identifiable novement, the Society may well comment on their theories as appropriate. The Society has no allegiance or connection with these Creation or Design organizations but if their spokesmen have something useful to say regarding the Bible and God's existence then such comments can be utilized by the Society.
Your petty and irrelevant claim that you have found 100 misquotes in the 1985 Creation book is childish and juvenile. It seems to me that this publication has unnerved in its debastating analysis of the Evolution nonsense. All of the sources are as usual are fully correct but I would be the first to admit that many of these authorities would not like their views used to undermine a pet theory.
When is all said and done it is the reader of WT publications that decides whether the information presented is factual and well written and the Society receives many thank you and appreciative letters from the public including many academics so your claims are simply pathetic.
The Society follows it own style of referencing when writing to the general public but if an interested reader requires a fuller reference then a simple letter to the publisher will suffice. We must remember that our publications are multi-lingual and therefore expediency demands that the material be as simple as possible. It is foolish to think that a person in a Third World country is going to take a long trip to the city library and seek a old or the latest published book.
Back to Thiele, the reader alone must determine if Thiele was in fact misrepresented by the Aid article. I believe that his Note is in context with his thesis and is also in context with the Aid article. That is whu you had to dragged kicking and screaming to scan the relevant pages. I am confident that it is only Gruss, Thiel e and Alan F only believe that there is a misrepresentation. The average person uipon seeing the evidence would simply be amused at such controversy. Apostates are very desparate people.
scholarJW
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Alwayshere
True, you have simoly followrd a methodology which from 539 enables one to cakculate the dates for the Babylonian rulers. There is nothing new in this but it is torpedoed by the seventy years. IF the seventy years is factored in there there is a twenty year gap between secular chronology and biblocal chronology. For this reason, WT scholars although using 539 as a pivotal date folllow a different methodology based on the exile rather than a regnal methodology. So we have now two methodologies
Regnal methology for the secular chronology for 586/587
Exiliic methodology for the biblical chronology for 607
scholar JW
our resident pretend-jw-scholar who calls himself "scholar" enjoys justifying lying and misrepresentation by the watchtower society and himself.
the society, out of one side of its collective mouth, recommends not misrepresenting source references, yet out of the other side, goes ahead and does so without hesitation whenever it is convenient.
the society understands that unfair quoting is dishonest.
Spook
You inquire why the Society has not referred to the ID movement in the Creation book. The Society first made mention of one of the earlier founders of the movement, Michael Behe with his Darwin's Black Box in the Awake magazine soon after the book was published and some of the key arguments have appeared in the Creator book. When the Creation-Evolution book was first published there was no such thing as the ID movement as it has only recently appeared. No doubt the Society will refer to these ID proponents when appropriate.
scholar JW
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.. .
Alwayshere
You did not read what I said. Daniel 2: 1 refers to the second year of his kingship NOT his reign so it does date from 624 but rather from 607 whence he became World Ruler by destroying Jerusalem. This interpretaion is recognized by other commentators apart from the Society.
scholar JW
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Leolaia
Chronology is about methodology and interpretataion which I call the Golden Rule of Chronology. You believe in 587 and use a different methodology to calculate it. But 587 cannot be a absolute date or pivital date marking the Fall of Jerusalem because you cannot be definite about whether it should be 586 or 587. You have big problem here my girl.
WT scholars have a different methodology using 539 as a pivotal date derived from a absolute date thus calculating using the biblical history to arrive at 607. This is a much safer route and avoids so many technical problems that continue to confound scholars for this late Judean period.
scholar JW
