prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
ozziepost
When you are ready to meet at Moore's then let me know. Your comments about the relevance of a BA shows your ignorance of matters academic. My BA degree consisted of two majors: Religious Studies and Philosophy both Eastern and Western and so my degree carries considerable weight in the field of Theology and other related disciplines.
By the way what degrees have you earned as you seem to proclaim yourself as an expert in such academic matters.?
scholar JW
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
Jeffro
971
There is evidence for the 537 BCE but you choose to ignore it for have you not heard of Ezra and the Cyrus Cylinder? Does not such evidence permit a calculation of the precise year of the return of the Exiles lor does one just guess a year as is the want of apostates. The date of 538 is simply impossible because it does not give sufficient time for the rertuirn unless the Jews travelled by Qantas.
There is no way exegetically to reason that according to Jeremiah 25:12, the seventy years ended in 539 BCE. Have you bothered to check the matter with leading commentaries? The date of 607 is clearly based upon secular evidence because there is evidence for 539, 537 BCE and one could quite properly utilize current whimsical Neo-Babylonioan chronology with the proviso that such a paradigm falls short of twenty years and thus combined with the application of the seventy years provide a correction for the existing data leading to the corrected date of 607 BCE. Nice and easy.....
The twenty year gap is real because there are two competing methodologies for the Fall and there is a difference of twenty years, that is a fact. WT chronology compared with secular chronology yields a twenty year difference. That is a fact. But scholar, clever as he is can use that error as an advantage to support 607 BCE because scholar in his genius recognized that the error occurs because the seventy years is noty factored into the computation. Hence, using the Neo-Babylonian chronology as constructed by the Jonsson hypothesis simply needs fine tuning or correction because the stupid Babylonians ignored the seventy years. So, inserting the seventy years corrects the pagan Babylylonian by some twenty years with a precise date of 607 for the Fall and the 18th regnal year of Neb uchadnezzer. Scholar is brilliant!
Our chronology is based upon a careful understandin g of the theology and history of Jeremiah which is avoided and trivialized by apostates and higher critics. Besides, the said scholar has paid careful attention to leading commentaries on Jeremiah and is fully aware of the issues raised. Have you bothered to consult any commentary on Jeremiah or are you relying relying on your own opinion which is rather foolish and stupid. Jeremiah nowhere indicated that the seventy years had begun prior to the actual Fall of Jerusalem for what Jeremiah simply prophesied that the seventy years would be experienced even when writing to earlier exiles. Jeremiah proves this is the case because the seventy hyears was not just some exile but was a period of desolation of the land and that did not occur until the last year of Zedekiah's reign.
During that period of seventy yhears of exile, servitude and desolation would also see other natiolns come under the domination of Babylon as Jeremiah prophesied. So What?
Ezra clearly states that the seventy years would last until the royalty of Persia began to reign and this was not 539 because in that very same context Ezra explained the matter to the first year of Cyrus when he issued that famous decree which led to imminent ending of that seventy years in 537 BCE. You have been hoodwinked by apostate argument. Daniel and Zechariah both treated the seventy years as a finite historical period which ended with the Return of the Jewry in 537 BCE and other so-called explanations are simply fallacious, disagreeing with both Jeremiah and Ezra.
scholar JW
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
Leolaia
7261
It is just as well Furuli wrote that piece and not that stupid, blithering pseudo- scholar. For this reason Furuli is scholar -emeritus whereas pseudo-scholar is a nobody.
scholar JW
if you can acccurately disprove the mathematics in the following i will be at the local kingdom hall first thing in the morning and ask the elders if i may rejoin them in worship.. here is some information i have compiled regarding what the watchtower has printed in regards to the babylonian kings and how the lengths of their reigns can be calculated to arrive at the date of the destruction of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar.
if you're like me you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 b.c.
as the date for the destruction of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar comes up.
Jeffro
972
The date of 537 is not speculative but based on solid scriptural and secular evidence. Sadly, scholars in writing about this period do no give sufficient attention to ascribing a specific date for the Return but fortunately celebrated WT scholars do and have determined that is 537 BCE.
No, the Jews were at their homes by the seventh month of 537 according to Ezra 3:1 and soon after built an altar by the first day of the seventh month. The second month of the second year saw the foundation of the temple laid and according to Josephus this was the second year of Cyrus which corresponds to 536 BCE: Ezra 3:8.
scholar JW
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
ozziepost
Hey mate if you are intriqued then how do you think I feel? I am somewhat intriqued as to why you are intriqued by Jeremiah. Why do not you hop over to Moore Theological Library and consult the shelf of commentaries on Jeremiah as is my custom. I suggest you begin your reading with the Heremeneia series, WBC series and the ABD series thence all will be revealed.
scholar JW
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
Alan F
4473
It appears that you have stumbled over the expression 'celebrated WT scholars' by denyiong the impossibility of their existence just as you have stumbled over the existence of the NWT Commitee. However, the research and writings of the above has long been published in the publications of the Society and the continuing policy of anonymity ensures that the integrity of the above is preserved. I can help you no further except to say that Holy Spirit plays a most important part but as you are an atheist such a fact would be nonsensical to you.
The writing of the Appendix is more than slick it is brilliant but is no more decptive as you claim than the mush paraded as scholarship in the Jonsson hypothesis.
scholar JW
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
Forscher
You hang on before you make an ass of yourself. Read Furli's website and you will informed about his scholarship, qualifications etc. The man is well qualified in dealing with the primary sources because he is a scholar of those ancient languages. Furuli is skilled with the relevant languages apart from Hebrew and is skilled with the modern European languages so his competence cannot be diminished. Remember that the apostae Jonsson is skilled only in 'cult bashing' not in original scholarship. Furuli is competent with Akkadian so is able to read the cunieform tablets. Jonsson is not.
scholar JW
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
outoftheorg
I accept your criticism but sadly that is the position but these scholars are not hiding because this information has been publihed in the scholarly journal the Watchtower ever since its inception.
scholar JW
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
Jeffro
968
I ate little of Furuli.
There is sufficient evidence for 607 because there is secular evidence for 539 and 537 and 607 is a date derived from biblical sources in harmony with contemporary secular evidence.
There is no biblical evidence for 586 or 587 because of a twenty year gap and the negation of the seventy years by scholars in order to squeeze in 586 or 587. However, there is secular evidence for these competing dates according to current modes of interpretation but there is also much variation in the data so the secular evidence is a 'dog's breakfast' at the moment.
Our chronology is simple and in complete harmony with Jeremiah, his prophetic statements and his overall theology. Your view is incompatible with Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah. If the experts cannot determine 586 or 587 then that means that the methodology is faulty and a fresh approach should be undertaken just as celebrated WT scholars have dolne by using an event-based chronology rather than a regnal- based chronology.
scholar JW
if you can acccurately disprove the mathematics in the following i will be at the local kingdom hall first thing in the morning and ask the elders if i may rejoin them in worship.. here is some information i have compiled regarding what the watchtower has printed in regards to the babylonian kings and how the lengths of their reigns can be calculated to arrive at the date of the destruction of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar.
if you're like me you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 b.c.
as the date for the destruction of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar comes up.
Jeffro
Your reasoning is unsound and rather churlish. It is not scholars that make a big deal out of the problematic 586 or 587 date for the Fall although the problem has caused considerable discussion in the literature. Rather, it is apostates who attack 607 BCE because of its prophetism and they do not wish ascibe any form of truth to any teachings of their former allegiance. Regardless of its implication for so-called prophetic speculation it is the date that celebrated WT scholars have determined from the Scriptures and is in full harmony with secular evidence because it is derived from such evidence.
Regarding 537 for the date of the Return, it is a established date based upon Ezra and Josephus confirms that the temple foundation was laid in 536 which is the second year of Cyrus. Authorities do not quibble over 537 for the Return and apostates share this silence to wit, Jonsson.
scholar JW
