Posts by scholar

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

Really the sensible thing for you to do is purchase Furuli's book and read it for you cannot reply to a matter unless you have considered all of the facts and you cannot comment on a book that you have not read.

scholar JW

20

Has the WTS ever published a complete list of babylonian kings??

by cultswatter in

lets cut to the chase shall we.

i'm looking for the wts list of babylonian kings and the years they reigned.

evidently the wts discredits any historical list of babylonian kings.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 469

True, Furuli's tabulation could be considered secondary evidence but is drawn from ancient historical sources and as Furuli states in the introduction for the Chapter 4: Old Chronological Accounts Of The New Babylonian Kings the following: "This is important because the modern model of the New Babylonian and Persian chronology was not constructed on the basis of Babylonian sources, but rather on the basis of secondary ot tertiary sources from other places." (Furuli,2003,1:66) One such source id Ptolemy's Canon which admits any reference to the reign of Labashi Marduk.

There is certainly plenty of archaeological evidence availkable but much of it has yet to be deciphered and interpreted by scholars and is a work in progress even though "Of the more than 8000 dated New Babylonian tablets that have been published, most agree with the traditional chronology" (ibid.231).

You arrogantly accuse celebrated WT scholars of 'flawed interpretations' but their critics cannot agree on any definite interpretation for the seventy years which in our opinion falsifies traditional chronology. A careful survey of the literature in published journals on the seventy years and comments in major technical Bible commentaries proves that there is no such definitive interpretation of this biblical period. So your accusation is rather ignorant and foolish.

scholar JW

20

Has the WTS ever published a complete list of babylonian kings??

by cultswatter in

lets cut to the chase shall we.

i'm looking for the wts list of babylonian kings and the years they reigned.

evidently the wts discredits any historical list of babylonian kings.

scholar

cultswatter

post 191

The reason why celebrated WT scholars have not seen to the publishing of the regnal years for the Neo-Babylonian pweriod is because the data is unreliable. Dr. Rolf Furuli presents a table showing the wide variation between reigns presented by different authorities. I refer to his Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews, 2003, Vol.1,p.74, Table 11 The New Babylonian Kings. Enjoy!

In addition, regardless of how secular chronologists evaluate this period there remains the problem of the Babylonian Gap, a term first coined by the said scholar of some twenty years when secular chronology and biblical chronology are compared. This 'gap' is caused because the secular chronology with its reliance upon Babylonian history which fails to account for the seventy year period of the Jews and Judah wherein there was a fixed historic period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation from the Fall (607 BCE) until the Return (537 BCE).

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeaanV

post 161

I do not know to post the tabulation onto this board but sure more computer literate people than me could do so. You stated in an earlier post that you possessed most books on the subject so you should purchase Furuli's first volume and volume 2 when published.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

1547

The actual setting of Jeremiah 29 is not specified by any date formula so an approximation after 617 BCE with the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah would be appropriate. The text includes a series of oracles addressed to the exiles of the first deportation of 617 BCE and not 595 BCE as you claim which is based on unreliable secular chronology. This chapter omits any reference to Hananiah bit is discussed in the previous chapter 28 which begins with a reference to the beginning of the Zedekiah's reign.

Jeremiah 25;11 refers to the land, Judah being desolated for seventy years whilst the nations including the Judeans would serve Babylon for seventy yearsin exile.

Jeremiah 25; 9,14 refer to the fact of that Judah would be devastated by Nebuchadnezzer and that Babylonian World power like Judah before would also receive divine punishment.

Jeremiah 25:12; Daniel 5;26-31. After the seventy years had ended then Babylon and Chaldea would also be desoloated to time indefinite which began not at her falll as foretold by Daniel but her eventual destruction.

Jeremiah 25:12 is an oracle addressed to Babylon that after the expiration of that seventy years then she too would go down into destruction.

Such interpretations are in agreement with all of the other seventy-year texts, Josephus and the whole OT for no other interpretation is admissible.

Your so-called tabulation is a work of fiction.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

1548

There is nothing in the NIV rendering in 2 Chronicles 36:21 in the edition that I have or the edition quoted by Ross Winkle when he discusses the linguistics of the specific Hebrew parallelism. If your edition of the NIV indicates whether by parenthesis or some other means distinguishes the Jeremiac staement then please elaborate. The NWT's rendering of this passage conforms to the literal Hebrew and is not otherwise disputed by scholars. Your claims to the contrary are simply mischevious.

It is recognized by scholars that Leviticus was largely sourced by Jeremiah and there is a conjoining of both by the Chronicler. According to the commentaries Leviticus described the state of the land and Jeremiah describes the duration of seventy years and that is how the NIV rendering of these sentences differs from the RSV and the NWT.

Do your research and do not present sloppy work.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

Dr. Rolf Furuli as a international scholar of Semitic Studies is well qualified to assess the primary evidence regarding Neo-Babylonian chronology and has already published research in his Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews, 2003, Vol.1 which features a tabulation under the heading Table 11 The New Babylonian Kings P.74. This tabulation shows the wide variation of the reigns of those kings. If you have not consulted this reference then I recommend that you do and also obtain when published this year Furuli's second volume dealing with Babylonian chronology.

The matter of choosing which date serves as a anchor for the purposes of constructing a scheme of chronology and discarding other so-called competing dates amounts to methodology. Every chronologist must employ a methodology for his chronology and this will vary between chronologists. This is why there is such a wide variation of chronologies especially of the OT. The Society guided by celebtayed WT scholars have adopted a specific methodology which for the OT is based upon the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Other chronologists such as the famous Edwin Thiele chose a much earlier date for his scheme despite embracing Neo-Babylonian dates and much evidence from eclipses.

Jeffro may have replied to the seven times in earlier poistings but I dispute his nonsense at every point because he lacks exegeticals and research skills and is not well read regarding the scholarly literature but you are more than welcome to subscribe to his special pleadings.

It is quite reasonable to discern on the basis of modern history that 1914 and not 1934 certainly fits the end of the Gentile Times and thus provides additional confirmation of 607 BCE as the beginning of that period. It was certainly scientific for prominent clergyman in 1917 to make a rather similar endorsement.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

The Society's charter promotes Bible education over and above many other subjects which lie outside their primary mission. The magazine Awake is designed to cover a broad range of subjects outside the Bible. In regards to chronology the Society has presented much material over many decades but again as our chronology is wholly Biblical there is no need to explore in depth the secular aspects of chronology for this is adequately covered by scholars. This means that the Society's scholarship is biblical rather than secular and this is where the expertise lies.

Problems:

1. I have posted on this board for many years concentrating on chronology and have always offerred sound argument for my position where necessary. In fact I have developed new ideas for the benefit of all in the course of my postings. The reason why we base our case on a few scriptures is because we believe that the Bible is God's Word and is superior and more trustworthy than the theories of men. In regard to the Neo-Babylonian tabulation it is simply the fact that the data is inconsistent between different authorities so it must be used with extreme caution.

2. The Bible is not a textbook of chronology but it contains detailed history and chronology both for the Old and New Testament so it provides all the data necessary for development of a true Bible chronology. The chronology of the Bible is not dependent on secular chronology as you claim but does require a pivotal or Absolute Date in order for us today with our different calender to locate those past events in the stream of time. The scriptures are quite emphatic that the seventy years was a fixed historic period of exile-servitude and desolation, facts which scholars and wiley poztates are unable to grasp.

3. The prophecy of the 'seven times' is indeed biblical and is recorded in Daniel 4 and has significance for 607 BCE as this date marked the beginning of those prophetic times. Prominent clergymen in 1917 attested to the fact of the Gentile times by listing it in a Manifesto published in London.

4. Yes, I have challenged various SDA advocates of the secular chronology in the context of such ones being critical of our chronology.

5.The Bible alone sets the parameters for our chronology especially in relation to prophecy. Secular evidence is used as long as it does not conflict with the biblical data and that is the sole criterion. Bible first then secular evidence second.

6. Your latter observation is sound because the truth of 607 results in 1914 not 1934 wherein nothing much happened but 1914 is generally conceded by all to most significant so this means that the proof is in the pudding- the eating thereof so 1914 most definitely vindicates the sacred date of 607BCE.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Alan F

4942

Your response to my posts proves the resurrection as you have similar retreated over last several months. You only appear on this board when I post so you pay me the greatest of compliments. The truth of the matter is that I have simply moved house and that is very unsettling and a nuisance. Now down to business.

Your exegesis of 2 Chronicles 36:20 is absurd for the next has nothing to say about Babylon, its last ruler or 539 for that matter. Ezra defines quite clearly in verses 22-23 that it was the first year of Cyrus was when the royalty of Persia began to reign and no other circumstance is possible. Further, the exiles were still captive in Babylon and were still serving a new king of Babylon on and after 539. Also, the land of Judah remained a desolate place in 539 as the exiles had then not yet returned. So, the biblical evidence destroys your specious theory. Josephus on numerous occasions states that the seventy years ran from the Fall to the Return under Cyrus so this supports the Bible and the view of the celebrated WT scholars.

Your special theory that the Jews returned home in 538 BCE is based upon your specific model whereas we have selected a model that gives 537 BCE for the Return so it is simply a matter of modelling based upon how one uses the availkable biblical and secular evidence. The question that you choose to ignore is that if it is the case that the Society is demonstrably wrong regarding 537 BCE for the Return then why is it the case that Jonsson has not throughly exposed such a blatant error? Jonsson is rather cautious in this matter relying on slight evidence from two minor sources by way of a footnote. I put it to you that the 537.BCE model is reasonable and there can be no room for dogmatism. Why is it also the case that amongst many reference works that there is no definite date for the Return of the Exiles? If you are so confident about your model and proposed date of 538 BCE then please alert the world of biblical scholarship to this new light and have it published. Your bald claim of 538 BCE for the Return amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps you should alert Doug Mason to your new light as he posted research on this matter but if my memory serves me correctly I do recall that he proposes an alternative. Must go and check.

You will never see wiley poztates tackle the difficult issues or follow through with thorough research by publishing anything of value to scholarship for all they do is be critical of the ground-breaking research provided by the celebrated WT scholars and the FDS.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

1544

The brilliance of the NWT is shown by its careful rtendering of Jeremiah 29:10 recognizing the simple fact that the simple Hebrew preposition has a wide semantic range and can properly be rendered as 'at' rather than 'for' which is in harmony with the context of Chapter 29 but also the whole book of Jeremiah. The context is clearly addressed to those exiles living in Babylon during the seventy years already commenced.

You say the Bible never mentions a period of seventy years of exile my response to this nonsense is that the Bible never mentions a period of seventy years of servitude or that the seventy years refers to a period of Babylonian supremacy or that the seventy years when the Babylonian king and his nation were punished that is in 539 BCE or that the seventy years of servitude began many years before the destruction of Jerusalem, All of these conclusions are simply interpretations. Wiley poztates have there own views so do the celebrated WT scholars and so does scholarship.

No, I did not lie about a tabulation of the Neo-Babylonian kings being made by my goodself for I could construct any number of models because the date is not consistent thus making any proposed tabulation problematic so why would one bother. The twenty year gap exists because of the seventy year for the Babylonian scribes did not account for it whereas the Jweish scribes faithfully recorded such a fixed historic period.

I repeat you have one bigggggggggg pwoblem.

scholar JW