Posts by scholar

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Well he certainly does not support 538 but at least he admits to the acceptance of 537 BCE. I am simply quoting what he has said in a single sentence.

Thank you for your offer of help with regard to astro programs but Furuli is an expert so I am to rely on his expertise.you have not corresponded with Furuli directly but you had some communication with him on a website but it all seemed to evaporate into nothing. It is some time since i lloked at the website so perhaps yopu can refresh me so I can have a peep. Well if you have aproblem with Furuli's last revision then you should contact him.

It appear that you choose to ignore my question regarding your qualifications so I would take it that you have no qualifications so I see no purpose in taking any notice of your pretensions of scholarship and your criticism of Furuli is dismissed.

I cannot help you with the identity and qualifications of the celebrated WT scholars for that remains a mystery as with the researchers that confirmed the data pertaining to VAT 4956.

Let me assure that Furuli is not one of those researchers because I asked him personally but he would reveal their identity to me. Intriquing is it not? No doubt those articles were inspired by Furuli's research becaus ehe had forwarded several copies to Bethel. The sources used for those articles was correct and proper and I do not believe that there are any concerns. What guiles you people is that the Society was able to use these sources competently notwithstanding the fact that the writers of those articles were not happy about it. I say too bad, too bad. The Watchtower articles were simple and clear and covered the whole landscape accurately.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

Spoonfeeding suggests 'pap' are you feeding me pap or milk. Unfortunately I cannot print out the contents of your blog for critical examination but it seems that there is nothing new or original.

The date is provable certainly enough for any reasonable person but if you require more proof then you should worry about your date 538BCE. Some sources give 538 BCE but I bet such sources do not give a full explanation but simply pluck a figure out of the air . What probably happens is that the Return of Exiles begins in 538 but ends in 537 so your authorities simply focus on the start of the Return as 538 and leave it at that and that is fine with me.

No I think it is you that cannot come to grips with 'methodology' for possible the word is too big for you.

Your chart appeared on my browser but I would like to print out your blog so can you construct a PDF file for printing as I do not want to back and forwards.I do not know why I cannot print off the screen as I am able to do with most pages. Have you enabled a lock on ypour blog. I notice in the pages that you have a problem with Jesus as a real historical person so what is your position. Further what is your position on the Bible anyway?

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

Your pretty charts have just now appeared all that we need is a transcription of BM21956. Your charts are problematic because it shows a one year difference beteen the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim synchronized with the 0yr and first year of Nebuchadnezzer. So which is it? Daniel and Jeremiah differ with the beginning of the Neb's reign for you assume that the third year of Daniel is the same as the fourth year according to Jeremiah. Rather Daniel is referring to his third year iof Kingship and not his third regnal year.

You have a nother problem in that you do not know what calendation Jeremiah used so your little pretty chart is not new because scholars have laboured over this problem for decades. Remember when it comes to chronology simplicity always triumphs saves one from getting bogged down in endless technicalities. Your presentation well illustrates the importance of methodology. Your method simply fails for Bible chronology skips over these issues and solves the problem.

I do not know the names of those researchers so I cannot help you. I do not believe it is the most significant point for it is just a small part of the most significant matter in that specific article. Overall the most significant matter is the seventy years.

The other authorities that I refer to are Furuli and Jonsson along with others.I do not consider you to be an authority just a hanger on. I never said that the twenty gap was consistent with other authorities but is only manifest by a comparison as I have explained.

The twenty year gap occurs when you add the total length of the Babylonian dynasty and compare that witht Bible chronology. Whether there are other gaps within the NB period is something which Furuli has investigated and discussed so there is a potential for a much larger gap but for the moment the status quo proves a twenty year gap at the present. Have you read Furuli if not then you should because he has investigated with much thoroughness.

I correct dilemma to dilemna for I do not bother to spell check on these posts. Thanks!

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

If you wish to discuss BM21946 then please provide a specific link for all of my documents and papers are in storage.

The date 537 BCE is provable and the proof is outlined in our publications- Refer to Insight volumes under Chronology and Cyrus. Because according to Steinmann is the usual date for those who accept Ezra's chronology as accurate.

Yes 539 BCE is provable and is necessary for Bible chronology and well demonstrated according to methodology.

Daniel 1:1 refers to the vassalage of Jehoiakim' reign as the third year of his kingship. You left a big empty space in your last post or does this illustrate the state of your mind?

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffr for in any event o

It is not a matter of being thick it is simply a matter of examining your claims with other authorities for in any event your claim that these dates can be more wrong when in fact you already have a much larger problem with the twenty year gap!

I can't put Furuli's name to those researchers because he was not one of them.

The twenty year gap does not exist between any particular reign but is present when you compare the overall NB period with that of the Judean period thus yielding a difference of twenty years for that is the BIG problem.

Continuity of reigns does not solve the dilemna nor does minor technical differences which are open to interpretation such as the reign of Jehoiakim. There are other technical issues with the beginning of Nebuchadnezzer's reign in fact scholarly articles abound with technical issues regarding the whole period which remain the subject of much dispute between scholars.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

The only fixed end point that is provable is that for Judah alone in 537 BCE. You raised the red herring not I. In respect for Tyre all that we can kbow is that it was under Babylon's domination for seventy years. No beginning or end is mentioned.

If you saw it happen then they must have been naughty.

Regarding the reign of Jehoiakim and the details of when he paid tribute and when he became a vassal king ot Nenuchadnezzer is problematic for Dan.1;1 states that it was in his last three years of his reign that he was a vassal king, this means that his vassalage coomence in his eight year which is confirmed by Josephus and many Jewish commentators.

If you want to debate the historical details of BM 21946 then why don't you provide a transcription of what the document contains then I can compare your comments with Jonsson and Furuli. I am confident that such documents can be harmonized with Bible chronology for if you can do it then so can we.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

All of dates listed above including those from 624 -609 BCE need to adjusted by twenty years as has been done by Bible chronology right up to the end of NB period. This adjustment or fine-tuning is necessary because NB chronology, history and secular records omit any reference to the seventy years. The events that you described under each date are OK broadly speaking. Such dates must be reto=calculated because new research has revised the dating for Nebuchadnezzer's 37 th year by some twenty years which has now been corrected due to the outstanding scholarship of the Nov issues of WT 2011. You gotta luv it! LOL

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Jeffro

Prove at what time that each of the nation's servitude began and ended in respect to Babylon. Naming a date just cut the mustard.

Yes such scholars make such a claim for the simple reason that they resent the fact that our writers source their material and use it in a fair and scholarly manner.

No, they will not be ignored. If they have a legitimate complaint they should write. If readers write to the Society they will not be hounded by elders for elders do not do hounding forwe leave that for the 'dogs'.

Steinmann excludes 538 therefore it is bogus.

Jeremiah's principal target audience was Judah see Jer.1:14-19 and secondary audience were the nations.

Yes you have some things different from Jonsson but very little for it is simply Jonsson revisited with pretty pictures or charts. Would you do some pretty charts for me illustrating Bible chronology?

All that you present in terms of dates and history can simply be accommodated in the overall framework of NB Chronology and history for the entire nb Period. Such a period parallels the biblical period up to and beyond the Fall with the exception that NB history and chronology omits any reference to the seventy years. A gap of twenty years is noted when you compare both together but when you factor in the seventy years then Bingo you have a perfect synchronism between the two especiall now with the corroboration of the VAT4956. Symmetry at last!

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

AnnOMaly

I checked Andrew Steinmann's artcile on the JETS website and he gave his comment on 537 beginning on the last sentence on the first page and concluding on the first line on the second page so I was right after all from memory. Also you did not quote him correctly for he says"the date is usually given as 537BC by those who accept Ezra's chronological statement as accurate but the date is usually offered with some reservation.3".

The footnote 3 only quotes from one scholar Yamauchi who lists it as follows"537?". Steimann quotes quotes from one authority and it is true that many references works assign 537 BC with a ? omitting any reference to 538 or any other candidate. So, 537 is the more acceptable date than any others as suggested by Styeinmann but then he pursues his thesis for another proposed date more in line with his methodology. The point of all of this is that 538 is out of the picture whereas 537 remains in the frame.

As an aside Steinmann has recently a new book on Bible chronology endorsed by Rodger Young. As far as I can see it appears that Steinmann corroborates WT chronology pertaining to the Life of Christ so this is a breakthrough, at the very least until I have set aside time to examine it carefully it appears the case.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

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

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

AnnOMaly

I have just accessed the link that you supplied and I strongly suspect that I have that article for a cursory reading refreshed my reading. Whatever is claimed about the ins and outs of the astroprograms and the Babylonian records and whether the WT writers misused those sources the fact renains that COJ in his conclusion to the interpretation of the seventy years for it all hangs on that. This being the case I have no need to be competent in matters of astro-astronomy.

Jonsson says in his second article that he had confirmation of the programs from two competent scholars Ann OMaly and Marjorie Alley. As you are now considered to be scholars according to Jonsson would please inform me as to both of your qualifications What are your degrees and where did you both study?

I was correct, Jonsson makes reference to the two rebuttals by Doug Mason who I believe was the first person to publish such rebuttals. Jonsson's attribution to Doug Mason is a bit

Jonsson believes that the researchers who checked the astro programs were in fact singular -one person Furuli not plural of many persons as stated in the WT. Furuli assuired me that this was the case and he was hesitant about their identification. Hence a mystery and scholar loves the mysterious.

scholar JW