scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,055 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  112

  The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

  this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

  i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  garyneal

  Post 507

  1. Only 607 BCE is supported by the Bible, 587 BCE is only supported by Neo-Babylonian chronology and a false interpretation of the biblical 70 years.

  2. Only 607 BCE is supported by the celebrated WT scholars but has indirect support fro scholars and historians. 587 BCE is supported by apostates and some scholars whereas 586 BCE is universally supported by serious scholars.

  What scholars are discovering today is pointing more in the direction of 607 BCE and serious scholars continue to promote 586 rather than 587 BCE so as you correctly say you have one helluva problem.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Garyneal

  Post 500

  Proof for the validity of 607 BCE has always been presented in numerous WT publications so all that I would do is simply present what has already been published and you are quite capable of finding and reading that information yourself. Scholar will help you if you are having some technical problems with the subject.

  You list three aspects of Bible chronology but these were not of my suggestion but of yours for it was you that asked about these matters and I have responded as necessary. These matters are settled by means of the Bible and the presentation of chronology as presented in WT publications and this should be sufficient for you.

  You are correct in that secular scholars do use the Bible, secular sources and scholarship to prove 586 or 587 BCE but the celebrated WT scholars use and can use the same identical information to prove 607 BCE. So you have a big problem here! For equally the facts in support of 607 BCE are available for all to check.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  Post 13913

  It seems that the 'celebrated WT scholars' are an enigma for you but that is just the way it is. Whatever praise or recognition scholar gives to this august body it simply recognizes what Jehovah God is accomplishing through His people and His Organization on earth in these modern times.

  scholar JW
• 
  112

  The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

  this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

  i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  garyneal

  Post 495

  Are you then saying that there are absolutely no facts at all in support of 607 BCE? Are you saying that the calculation of 607 BCE is a figment of imagination? Are you saying that there is no history or prophecy in the Bible? Are you saying that there can be no such thing as a Bible chronology and if that is true then equally 586 or 587 BCE are also imaginary or fictitious dates?

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  garyneal

  Posts 493,497

  I am sorry if you are having trouble with the maths concerning the reigns of Nebuchadnezzer but let me assure you that all that you need is a pen and a piece of paper and simply list each year and count backwards inclusively. If that fails then the next step is to write to Bethel with your difficulty and they will help you. Scholar is simply not interested in doing the work for you because he believes that if you raise the problem then you must solve it. I know that sounds tough but scholar is a tough man.

  In working from 539 BCE to 607 BCE the celebrated WT scholars use the Bible and secular sources combined with the latest and best scholarship yhus proving 537 BCE along with seventy years arriving at 607 BCE

  scholar JW
• 
  112

  The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

  this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

  i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AllTimeJeff

  Post 4286

  Repetition is good as it part of the 'art of teaching'. So scholar is teaching you! You are correct, apostates don't invent any dates at all because all they do is copy others being gullible to boot. Some have even become scholars because of their past experience as Witnesses which has caused them to attain a level of scholarship but their attainment has exposed them to much ridicule and shame from serious scholars.

  For your information scholar loves facts and only deals with facts a fact that you choose to ignore.

  The WT is a reliable source but it is not infallible, humans such as historians and scholars are not reliable or infallible for they are not in possession of Holy Spirit unlike Christ's brothers. But more to the point it is not to men that we should turn for guidance but it is to God and His Word that are truly reliable.

  Scholar is a believing, active JW apologist.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  wobble

  Post 1996

  Your pretentious claim that 'there is no such thing as Bible chronology' is simply absurd and utter nonsense. Perhaps you should inform Professor Jack Finegan who wrote the book titled Handbook Of Biblical Chronology, 1964,1998, Hendrickson Publishers.

  Secular Historians do their very best to give us accurate dates but most if not all ignore the best historical record of all and that is the Bible so their dates are just like your username a 'bit of a wobble'. The wisest course is to pay attention to the historical research by the 'celebrated WT scholars' and everyone would be wiser. A case in point and as you point out correctly is the nomination of the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE as a pivotal date by the celebrated ones. Smart ones aren't they?

  My motive is not to convince others but simply to defend biblical teaching as the Truth.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Farkel

  Post 10275

  Thanks for the compliment!

  scholar JW
• 
  112

  The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

  this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

  i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AllTimeJeff

  Post 4281

  I repeat myself as a way of emphasis but apostates do the very same thing that you accuse me namely the repetition of the same tired old arguments in support of a tired, uselless dates of 586/587, provide no substantive argument in support of their dates but simply an appeal to a false, unreliable chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period.

  Scholar has for these past ten years on this forum provided much detailed proof for 607 BCE and the WT publications have consistently provided all the information necessary. So, the evidence is there for all to read so just open your eyes and mind and just read. Better still just Read the Bible.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  garyneal

  Post 489

  There is no accurate list. Scholarship simply cannot provide a reliable list of kings and their reigns for the Neo-Babylonian period. This is because the data from anceint historians is in conflict.

  The gap of twenty years is proved by the comparison between secular and biblical chronology and is made evident because of the seventy years which is factored into biblical chronology but omitted by secular chronology.

  The acc. year of 624 BCE for Nebuchadnezzer is calculated from the biblical data alone as determined by his destruction of Jerusalem in his 19th year which began the counting of the seventy years.

  scholar JW