scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,125 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  ozziepost

  That is fine to meet up at Moores but you have not answered my question: Have you been disfellowshipped from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses?

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  ozziepost
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  Forget it, Jeffro will not bother to read this article because he has a superior chronology and thus knows more about this than you or Robert Young. Jeffro will not bother even to obtain such an article because when I have tried to get him to research matters further he refuses so you are wasting your time.

  If you have read this article you will notice the salient fact which endorses scholar's policy that chronology is about methodology and interpretation, it is this realization that initiated Young to survey key issues of OT chronology and which he addresses in a couple of articles.

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  hilary-step

  Not bothered about this for celebrated WT scholars have long championed biblical chronology with its date of 607. The joke is on the community of scholars because they collectively cannot agree on any chronology at all or in fact any date for either the OT or the NT.

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  4513

  You have the facts wrong as usual. It is in fact secular scholar who advocate 586 following on that great chronologist Thiele and it is the religious or evangelkical scholars who push 587 which is the preferred apostate date arising from Carl Jonsson

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  1041

  Agreed! Ezekiel 40:1 simply refers to the fact that Ezekiel prophesied in the 25th year of the exile and the 14th year after the city had been struck down. So what?

  I love facts and I love Jeremiah 25:12 because it is my favourite text. I love that scripture. Your interpretation of that text is bogus and nonsense and our interpretation is better than yours.

  There is no need to twist the scripture because they read plainly and simply for Jeremiah consistently states that the land would become a desolated place without an inhabitant and even tells its duration in that state of seventy years and not fifty. The major exile began with the final destruction of the city duriung Neb's 18th year and the last year of Zedekiah when the land was totally emptied. No other interpretation makes sense.

  Further, in Neb's 23 rd year other exiles were taken from other areas outside of Judah so there is no problem here.

  If your chronology is superior to Jonsson then Jonsson would like to know and you will make trouble for yourself with other apostates. Interestingly other scholars using the same secular chronology propose 588 and 589 so the matter is further confused.

  You cast aspersions on other Witnesses becaus ethey do not go outside the square but you forget that scholar has gone outside the square and has been studying chronology and has many books on chron ology not published by the Society since the seventies. This means that scholar is familiar with all aspects of chronology and is well qualified to endorse as accurate that chronology.

  Regarding the twenty year gap during the short Neo- Babylonian period is not of my making but simply comes into existence when the seventy years is fed into the mix. Now if we omit the seventy years then all is well but if we p;ut it in as we must do as it represents a major period of biblical history in that rather short period of Neo-Babyloian history., In fact, from the reign of Nebuchadnezzer to the last king Nabonidus we have a total period of some 66-67 years which is dominated by the lon ger period of sev enty years contemporaneous with that same period. This means that the seventy years demands scholarly acceptance and any attempt to ignore this critical period is dishonest, deceitful scholarship and I condemn all those guilty of such subterfuge.

  How then care there be any other evidence for that period could overide the most outstanding piece of biblical history. The seventy years obliterates totally all other secular evidence of the NB period for the purposes of constructing a chronology. In short, the seventy years makes such so-called evidence farcical and redundant. Jonsson's so called 18 lines of evidence is irrelevant when compared to the historical validity of the biblical seventy years. Therefore, this fact alone ensures the validity of 607 BCE from all other pretenders such as 589, 588, 587, 586 BCE.

  Yes the word that was accomplished in Chronicles was the Return of the Exiles in 537 and not the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and such Return ended that seventy years. So it was that those exiles became servant to Babylon until a new ruler at Babylon namely Cyrus who then released the exiles in 537 BCE. The date of 537 for the return is certainly compatible with known history of that period as most reference works attest, There is no reference publsihed that offers anything other that 537 is the date for the return.

  I do need to grasp at straws because my situation is not desperate for we make our views publicly known and are quite able to public defend such views. The Bible reads plainly and simply on these matters so we have nothing to fear.

  Jeremiah quite clearly refers to the seventy years as a period of desolation, exile and servitude and Josephus also agrees.

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  4512

  Readers on this board will notice that you are nothing but a bluff and your hypothesis for 538 is sheer nonsense because it is simply too short a time. You have provided no proof that 538 was the year for the Return and Josephus does not support your nonsense. I invite other readers to analyze your nonsense and spot the flaws as an academic test, I will respond only after others have read your nonsense and made a definitive comment. Is everyone up for the challenge? Let there be proof for 538 and then this material can be published so as to enlighten the scholarly community and Carl Jonsson.

  Jeffro has had a go so others should likewise follow his fine example.

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Auld Soul

  3830

  Josephus is the major primary source for Berossus and scholars agree that Josephus is the most reliable source for the preserved quotations of Berossus' work (JJonsson, 1998, p.92-3). Both Berossus and Josephus give conflicting numbers for the reigns of some of the kings for the Neo-Babylonian period and I and the celebrated WT scholars share no responsibility for this dilemna. The texts in Chronicles, Daniel and Jeremiah uniformly attest to the simple fact that Judah lay desolate or was devastated for a period of seventy years but if you interpret these texts differently then so be it, Josephus also showed several times that the seventy years was a period of exile, desolation and servitude so Josephus agrees with the celebrated WT scholars and so do I.

  Frankly, I am not interested in your other silly questions because these are insignificant issues when you consider the many difficulties and issues that NB cannot address such as the missing 40 years of Egypt, the twenty year gap problem. the missing seven years of Neb and the omission of the seventy years of Judah. Such omission of these biblical facts proves that the history of the Neo-Babylonian period is deficient and as I have always said: Bad history = Bad chronology.

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  1040

  In no way is the chronology of the Society loosely based upon the Bible and contradictory for these are simply your dishonest claims whern you have nothing to offer as an alternative. You have raised nothing substantial in refuting 607 but have simply copied false ideas from the Jonsson hypothesis.

  scholar JW
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  sceptic 2

  Oh yes it will because there is always a reward for those who loyally support God's Word. I have not buried my head in the sand because I have considered all things, all secular evidence and have concluded that the celebrated WT scholars have produced with Holy Spirit and God's Word a beautiful thing, Bible-based chronology.

  scholar JW