Jeffro
At least I have read for you have not. You simply reject any evidence or information that disagrees with your preconceived dogma. And you never cite any sources but simply rely on what others have told you to believe.
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
A workman is only as good as his tools, he or she will endeavour to acquire the best and correct tools to do the job. You cannot be competent in chronology unless you have the right tools and can use those tools correctly. I have the best tools for chronology and I have the University training which has taught me how to think critically and to use those tools competently. I suspect you have no tools so you are incompetent in matters of chronology generally speaking. Where you have have only on the one occasion hit the mark then I have commended you for your effort but largely you do not know what you are talking about! Further you have and continue to show a lack of interest in scholarship and that is your big mistake.
I use scholarship to give me context for chronology and as it is a work in progress I note by comparison our chronology with secular chronology, I study the differences, I study the different interpretations of all of the seventy years texts by the use of scholarly articles and commentaries. I have read all of the criticisms of Wt chronology pre COJ and post COJ. After all of this work over many years I form an opinion which I happily debate with whomsoever.
In saying that we possess nutty insane dogma says more of you than of me. This shows that you are biased, obsessed and narrowminded and incompetent in matters of chronology.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Further, I also have in my library the most technical Bible commentaries dealing especially with those books of the Bible that deal with the seventy years such as Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah. I give you list of commentaries that I personally use:
Word Biblical Commentary
Hermenaia
ICC- International Critical Commentary
ABD- Anchor Bible Series
Keil & Delitzch
These represent the leading technical commentaries used universally by scholars. I do not have any Roman Catholic or Jewish commentaries in my possession but have access to such when required.
So scholar has the best of the best and if required I could list all of the journal article titles in my possession which include Journal of Biblical Literature, Journal of Theological Studies, Andrews University Bulletin Series and many others. All together I have to hand up to fifty specialized articles on chronology.
So there!
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Your statement about my refusal to source references is plain dumb and shows that you are on the run, you have been exposed by the said scholar. I read the journals regularly and I have many papers in my files. For example I have all of the journal papers publuished from the 1950' up to the present on the seventy years and that includes the two articles by Winkle. Further, I have a complete collection of papers dealing with chronology by Rodger Young who does not support Wt chronology and these are available for downloading free of charge fro the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society website. I also have many standard reference works on chronology and most papers published on this subject by many other journals. Ann O Maly with whom I have had many pleasant discussions with would corroborate these matters.
I challenge you provide information as what journals you have read in fact yyou probbably have not read a single journal in your life and no copies in your possession for all that you have is the arguments borrowed from Carl Jonsson. You are simply not up to speed.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
No you are wrong. You have continually ignored the facts that all of your arguments have been thoroughly refuted by the said scholar. Scholar has provided refernces to the scholarly literature which you choose to ignore. You are not interested in scholarship but simply seek self promotion.
But at least in one area you agree with WT chronology in the total regnal years for the Divided Monarchy approximating 390 years for this is well shown in your early tabulations for the period of Israelite history. Further, Rodger Young unlike most other chronologists also agrees with such findimgs so we are all together on the same page. Thsi being the case it adds academic credibility to the methodology of WT chronology.
No doubt this news will upset you but if you have a glass of warm milk I am sure you will feel much better or perhaps a good lie down may help relieve the shock of this news.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro I too over many years have posted on this forum pages and pages responding to the drivel that you and others of your ilk have posted. All that Londo has posted is nothing new but pictorial nonsense, a rehash of Jonsson's ideas with pretty pictures and soundtrack. Likewise, readers too are welcome to ask any questions pertaining to this topic. scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Your accusation of circular reasoning is nonsense and insulting but is typical of those who nothing to say and cling to a falsehood and the theories of men. If circular reasoning directs me to the Bible then so be it. I wear it as a badge of honour.
Likewise, there was no significant event in 587 or 586 BCE either. My endpoint of 537 is no more or less speculative than yours because we have to deal with the same body of facts. Your interpretation of Jeremiah 25:12 is simply nonsense, ignoring the context and the theology of Jeremiah.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
I am fully aware of Jonsson's rebuttal and also his reliance on the contribution by Doug Mason. All such material is in my files and i have difficulty in refuting and responding to all of these criticisms.
The only significant event which marked the beginning oif the seventy years was the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE and the only two significant events which climaxed the end of the seventy years was the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE shortly followed by the Return of the Exiles in 537BCE.
Both Jeremiah 29:10 and Jeremiah 25:11-12 are consistent with the simple fact that the seventy years was aperiod of EXILE-SERVITUDE-DESOLATION. Such an interpretation is equally consistent with the other seventy year texts of Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah.
Your research is simply a rehash of Jonsson's views so there is no need to pay any attention to your nonsense.
The chronologies of the Divided monarchy are independent of James Ussher and all such chronologies differ widely, Go and make the relevant comparision!
The 390 year period of regnal lengths of the Divided Monarchy are separate to the issue of dating the precise dates of those kings for it is not so much the lengths that are in dispute because the Bible provides such details. The challenge for the chronologist is to signs respective dates for each reign. Neo-Babylonian chronology is simply 20 years too short because it fails to account for the seventy years hence the Babylonian Gap.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Hi! How are you? Yes I repeated myself and it is my default position because nothing has changed much. Since we spoke last time we have Wt issues on Chronology been published in two issues, Rolf Furuli has revised his thesis with a rebuttal to Hunger, Rodger Young has contributed further articles on chronology pertaining to sabbatical year and Jubilee cycles. Steinemann if my spelling is correct has published a lenghty artcle on the Date of Return wherein he advocates 535 BCE. But overall nothing much else has changed so my overall approach remains the same. There are a couple of minor issues on chronology bubbling away so I will be alert to these matters.
At the moment I am not completely settled, my library is in storage at my residence and when I get somme bookcases in order then I will have immediate access to my papers and books.
Scholars continue to stumble over the years because there remain so many different interpretations and this remains the case right up to the present day. One thing is fairly certain that such scholars do regards the seventy years in the Bible, as one holistic period so that is good start. I am very familiar with Winkle's studies along with all of the others so one has read the literature on the subject then one can form a considered opinion and I have stated mine .
Your comment about 609BCE and Assyria is problematic as a beginning for the seventy years. This simply your opinion of matters. COJ has the same view but he also admits th the possibility of 605 BCE so even here we have opinion. I believe we can do much better for a beginning of the seventy year period.
As for the seventy years of Tyre these represented a period of Babylonian domination which is well explained in our commentary on Isaiah but our conversation concerns the seventy years of Judah a period of servitude-exile-desolation totally different to what befelled Tyre.
I spin out the controversy concerning 586/587 for the simple reason that this proves that the methodology is deficieent and that is reason why Rodger Young wrote his article pleading the solution as 587. So it comes down to methodology. Wt scholars do not have this problem because we apply a different method in calculating relevant dates thus arriving at a precise date 607 BCE for the Fall.
It is correct that the Wt states that secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE but what is not stated is that serious biblical scholars endorse 586 BCE as opposed. Other chronologists have proposed 589 as a suitable candidate. So scholarship is divided on this point.
What is fuzzy about connecting the Fall of Babylon with the end of the seventy years that the Jews were still captive to, for, at , in Babylon after 539. The exile had not ended and the land of Judah was still desolate so the seventy years must have ended after 539 according to the specific words of Jeremiah .
It may come as a surprise to you Ann is that I care not one iota whether Jeffro has read COJ for there were other scholars who wrote similar criticisms of WT chronology long before COJ and Jeffro. Also, i remain unfazed that Wt chronology is not supported by scholarship.
If a published regnal list agrees with that published by WT then that proves that we are doing something right and that we are competent in the field of chronology . You give credit where credit is due and not be churlish about such matters.
scholar JW
-
272
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 inthis is the main series playlist:.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.
this is the accompanying video appendix:.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
On the matter of tabulations of reigns for the Divided Monarchy it is a simple point of fact that there are so many differing tabulations or charts which appear in Bible Dictionaries and other reference works. If Christendom's scholars and chronologists cannot produce a uniformerly accepted scheme then they and its supporters have no business in critizing WT chronology. In other get your house in order first before you throw stones at another. I have in my extensive research library a publication which presents four different charts for the Divided Monarchy all have different regnal lengths and when you total numbers you have widely different totals for the regnal years for those Kings in Israel and Judah.
As a side point one well respected chronologist who has published several articles on chronology in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society over the years and supports 587 for the Fall has produced a king list that nicely agrees with WT chronology having a total number of 390 years. So in so many areas our chronology has support. Further to this our date for the death of Jesus being 33CE long championed since the time of Russell now enjoys widespread scientific support also their has been recent published confirmation for the Date of our lord's birth.
In short our OT chronology along with our NT chronology is well grounded in both past and recent scholarship.
scholar JW