scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,119 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  272

  A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

  by Londo111 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is the main series playlist:.

  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

  this is the accompanying video appendix:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  If you are going to rely on Josephus then please explain then in what year did the Exiles Return according to his presentation of matters?

  scholar JW
• 
  272

  A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

  by Londo111 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is the main series playlist:.

  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

  this is the accompanying video appendix:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Absolute Data should have read Absolute Date which is the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.

  Your Blog does not help you. The very fact that you omit any reference to the 586/587 controversy belittles your nonsense for most serious scholarship prefers 586 as you well know.

  scholar JW
• 
  272

  A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

  by Londo111 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is the main series playlist:.

  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

  this is the accompanying video appendix:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Josephus states that the temple foundation was laid in Cyrus' second year then that would nicely coincide

  Jeffro

  The comments of Josephus are not inconsistent with the Return of the Jews by the seventh month in 537 BCE

  scholar JW
• 
  272

  A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

  by Londo111 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is the main series playlist:.

  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

  this is the accompanying video appendix:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  I have some good news for you ! For 607 BCE is a precise calender date for the events surronding the destruction of Jerusalem right down to the very day and month of that year. There is no speculation or circular reasoning regarding the calculation of 607 for it begins with an Absolute Data and relevant scriptural data for the Return of the Jews in 537, the period of exile of seventy years right to the destruction of their land and subsequent deportation to Babylon.

  The change from 536 to 537 was simply bringing into step with modern developments in Chronology from the 1940's. Such new research proves that the celebrated WT scholars were alive and well. Does not this make you swell with pride?

  scholar JW
• 
  272

  A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

  by Londo111 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is the main series playlist:.

  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

  this is the accompanying video appendix:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Londo111

  I am fully aware of Josephu's comment about the fifty years. This can easily be explained either as a textual error, an incorrect quotation of Berossus or that Josephus was observing a fifty year marker for the actual temple within the overall seventy year period. In any event his many other comment about the seventy years agrees fully with WT interpretation.

  Your omitting any refernce to Josephus undermines the credibility of your presentation for he is the only authority of Jewish biblical history outside of the Bible writers.

  scholar JW
• 
  272

  A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

  by Londo111 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is the main series playlist:.

  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

  this is the accompanying video appendix:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  If you are so certain about 587 BCE then why not submit a paper outlining your views so it can be published in the scholarly literature. I am sure that scholars will greatly appreciate your dogmatism. No doubt your dogmatic opinion will impress the scholarly community.

  scholar JW
• 
  272

  A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

  by Londo111 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is the main series playlist:.

  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

  this is the accompanying video appendix:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Londo 111

  I enjoyed your series of videos attempting to refute the validity of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem. No doubt there are some technical errors in your topics but some of which have already been coorected by Jeffro. You have contributed nothing new to this long standing academic debate for all that you have presented is simply a rehash in a pictorial form of Carl Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered. Your arguments against the interpetation of the seventy years as explained by the Witnesses fails on several grounds and have long been debated and refuted on this website over many years. Chronology is very complex and much of which is subject to interpretation and that is why that in many reference works there is single agreed tabulation of OT Chronology and this is especially manifest when it comes to the Divided Monarchy.

  WT chronology as produced by celebrated WT scholars over many decades is superior to all others in that it alone is faithful to the biblical text, biblical theology, secular history, archaeology, historiography and hermeneutics. It particularly has the advantage of its simplicity and rooted in Prophecy. Scholars have and continue to stumble over an interpretation of the seventy years, they cannot agree as to its beginning and end nor its duration and this is where you have a major problem. Carl Jonsson who has researched this subject most thoroughly has not decided whether 605 or 609 BCE is the begiining of the seventy years for either date has the acceptance of some scholars. The seventy years has proven to be one of the most complex and highly disputative subjects in OT history and it is only the Witnesses that have solved the problem with a very simple methodology a prime requisite for any chronologist.

  The ending of the seventy years at Babylon's Fall in 539BCE simply does not work because Jeremiah clearly shows that the seventy years was one of servitude, exile and desolation and these three factors could only conclude at the point of the Exilic Return in 537 BCE. Jeremiah is quite emphatic about the seventy years and it most certainly belonged to Judah and not Babylon as you maintain. The ending of the Exile in 537 BCE is the best candidate for this event according to current scholarship fore 538 BCE is considered to be impossible and 535 and other later dates are simply impossible. Most reference works such as Biblical history, atlasses and scholarly papers in journals tend to favour 537 over any other date.

  However, one of your biggest problems is the fact that even to this day scholars do not know the precise calender year for the Fall whether it is 586 or 587 BCE for the Fall. The scholarly literature has always and continues to this day favour the 586 date as opposed to 587. So this means that any argument against a definite, calculated date such as 607 is superfluous if such critics cannot determine a precise calender date for the Fall. You would need to get this right before saying that 607 is wrong.

  Your presentation lacks substance and suffers from a lack of careful exegesis, it amounts to eisegesis rather than exegesis and simply reflects a biased opinion. Throughout your entire preentation you omit any reference to Josephus who had a lot to say about the seventy years and ALL of his comments support WT Biblical chronology and not that of Neo-Babylonian chronology.

  scholar JW
• 
  248

  H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

  volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

  you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1537

  Your posts amount to nothing more than hysterical ramblings. Furuli has certainly got Hunger, Jonsson and you on the ropes.

  scholar JW
• 
  248

  H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

  volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

  you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1533

  What scholar does is that he engages with critics on the issues, he defends the Truth from all opposition whether it comes from the higher critic or apostate. For example, he wrote to Hunger and received a non-reply, he listed objections and problems caused by Hunger's so-called review of Furuli. Scholar never runs away from a fight which causes much angst for those who oppose our Sacred Teachings.

  scholar JW
• 
  248

  H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

  volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

  you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1531

  At long last you have had your memory refreshed concerning my comments on the English transalation of VAT 4956. Such astonishment on your part is simply apostate desperation, the clutching of straws. There was and remains no need for me to do anything. The Bible alone disproves the chronology based on this document but as research moves ever so slowly then I will continue to do what and when it pleases me not you.

  scholar JW