scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  89

  Is WTS chronology flawed?

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  jeanV

  Post 175

  It is good that you admit that Jonsson is a mere researcher and not a scholar whereas Furuli is a scholar and his book would be right at home in your library.

  That is sufficient that scholas are plagued by the controversy over 586 or 587 and is a folly of their making for they have not factored in the biblical 'seventy years' thus making a mockery of their chronologies. There is a debate about Neo-Babylonian chronology which has been spearheaded by the celebrated WT scholars and recently further explored by Rolf Furuli.

  If you say that WT discards 90% of ancient history then how is it the case that modern scholarship ignores the historical period of the seventy years which was a momentous period of Jewish and biblical history and how is it the case that the ancient Babylonian scribes incompetently ignored that seventy years and the Egypt's forty year desolation?

  scholar JW
• 
  89

  Is WTS chronology flawed?

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  jeanV

  Post 172

  You have some excellent reference books in your library and Furuli's volumes would be quite at home as these would add an extra dimension because another viewpoint on evaluating the secular evidence would be presented. So, buy the book.

  You cannot make a judgement on Furuli's research just by reading a few comments on the net but you need to read his research on chronology in its entirety and then you can make an informed evaluation. That is why I have closely studied Carl Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered in fact I have his 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition and so I am able to make an informed evaluation of his hypothesis so you should likewise do with Furuli as I have done with Jonsson. I am somewhat puzzled that you have not listed Jonsson's book on your list. Have you read it or are you playing possum with me.

  You cannot make an opinion about Furuli until you have read Furuli and you cannot make any comment about his methodology until you know what his approach is and this is set forth in the Introduction in his first volume. Furuli is more than qualified to write on this topic as he is a Semitic scholar and can assess primary sources. I have studied Jonsson because I have read Jonsson and he is unskilled in the Semitic languages so his approach is unscholarly and shows a biased approach against Bible chronology and the sacred date of 607 BCE.

  I disagree with your comment that scholars are uninterested in the dates for Jerusalem's Fall as the calendrical issues surrounding this event continuously plague scholarship as recent studies show. The very fact that there is such controversy shows that their methodology is hopeless and that is why Furuli's examination of current scholarship is most welcome. Furuli is ln fact looking at those very same tablets and showing that there are significant problems with the traditional chronology.

  I am afraid that when it comes to a toss-up between the Bible and ancient history I will adhere to the superiority of the Bible rather than profane secular history every time and I am sure that Furuli as a honest scholar would agree.

  scholar JW
• 
  89

  Is WTS chronology flawed?

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  stllajwexelder

  No doubt you are referring to 'Questions From Readers' pp.30-1 in the Watchtower, May 1, 2007 issue which refers to 1935 as the time when the heavenly hope ceased for Christians who from that time onward would have the earthly hope as opposed to the heavenly hope. This is not 'new light' as the wiley poztates propose but simply a re-articulation of previous held understanding of the Scriptures. Celebrated WT scholars have never held to a so-called 'flawless chronology because this subject is built on two premises namely methodology and interpretation, both of which are subject to 'fine tuning'. What we do say is that our chronology is wholly biblical and is consistent with the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.In short, our chronology is the most accurate as all of the evidence both secular and biblical clearly proves.

  scholar JW
• 
  89

  Is WTS chronology flawed?

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  jeanV

  post 170

  Post a list of books that you have read on chronology and you should purchase or borrow Furuli's first and his forthcoming second volume;

  scholar JW
• 
  89

  Is WTS chronology flawed?

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  post 1551

  When the going gets tough and you run out of argument then true to form you rely on insults which reflects poorly on your integrity and character. It is insulting to call biblical interpretation 'drivel' and only proves that your interpretation is baseless. Anyway I wish you a happy and safe trip and look forward to our regular jousts;

  scholar JW
• 
  89

  Is WTS chronology flawed?

  by cultswatter in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  jeanV

  post 165

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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