Posts by scholar

79

607 date of Jerusalems destruction

by benny in

i am confused about the time scale regarding the year of the destruction of jerusalem.

in the 1st october 2011 watchtower an argument is presented to back up 607 bc but there are so many conflicting arguments that this happened 20 years later according to secular sources.

your thoughts please..

scholar

benny

No need for confusion because 607 BC for the Fall of Jerusalem is correct as the calculation for this date is based on the biblical evidence and with a 'fine tuning' of 20 years can easily be brought into harmony with secular evidence. The simple fact is that there is secular evidence that supports 607 BCE such as the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the Return of the Jewish Exiles in 537 BCE amongst other facts.

The basis for the 607 BCE date is an interpretation of the '70 years of Jeremiah ' and critics of this date must be able to provide a consistent interpretation of this period and therein lies the problem because scholars cannot agree as to the timing and nature of the 70 years. Further, scholars cannot agree or know the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem whether it is 586, 567, 588 etc. thus it is foolish to say that a date is wrong when it cannot be stated what date is correct. Scholars and WT critics need to get their act together and tell the truth about the matter for they are simply deeply confused and divided in contrast to' celebrated' WT scholars.

scholar

18

Watchtower Accused of Intellectual Dishonesty

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

watchtower never learns.. i applaud dr. singh for speaking out and his open letter to watchtower.

http://jwalumni.org/2015/01/17/rama-singh-awake/.

scholar

The accusation of intellectual dishonesty by Rama Singh is simply nonsense. The Awake quotation was perfectly reasonable in keeping with Singh's position as a respected evolutionist and was not quoted out of any context. I have read both Singh's original article 'Darwin's legacy: Why biology is not physics, or why evolution has not become common sense", and his letter to the Editor of Awake and find that his accusations is utterly groundless.

The point of the Awake article was simply to show that not all scientifically minded people believe that Life is the result of Evolution and quotes Singh's article for his observation on this very topic wherein he discusses why it is that Evolution is not even now widely accepted even by 'educated people such as biologists, non biologists and the lay public', p. 870, par.10 and that the opposition to evolution also comes not just from creationists but from a "significant proportion of scientists, especially from the physical and medical sciences, also do not believe in evolution". Singh, p.869, par.6.

Singh in his article laments the simple fact that Evolution has not been explained as well as it should especially to the lay public who do not observe the process in the natural world. He then attempts to explain the so-called facts of Evolution which of course are easily refuted by anyone knowledgeable of the subjects. Nevertheless, I enjoyed his article because someone has finally addressed the issue of Evolution and common sense in that the lay public do not see the process in Nature and that many in the scientific community do not believe in it.

scholar JW

25

Short Online Course (Free) on the Fall and Rise of Jerusalem in 587BCE by Tel Aviv University

by digderidoo in

for those interested in the fall and rise of jerusalem in 587bce tel aviv university are offering a short 6 week online course through coursera in october 2014.. i have done a couple of coursera courses, they are always of the highest quality put together by scholars of whatever the subject matter is about.

universities tend to offer these as tasters and short introductions into their specialities.. you can get the information on the following link the fall and rise of jerusalem | coursera.

emory university are also offering a course through coursera on the bible's prehistory, purpose, and political future starting may 26th the bible's prehistory, purpose, and political future | coursera.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 4024

Indeed for there is always unfinished business with Chronology. I have not forgotten the discussion and I thank you for the reminder. I need to get a copy of Tetley's work on OT Chronology that I have referred to and the reference book for the new course in October.

scholar JW

25

Short Online Course (Free) on the Fall and Rise of Jerusalem in 587BCE by Tel Aviv University

by digderidoo in

for those interested in the fall and rise of jerusalem in 587bce tel aviv university are offering a short 6 week online course through coursera in october 2014.. i have done a couple of coursera courses, they are always of the highest quality put together by scholars of whatever the subject matter is about.

universities tend to offer these as tasters and short introductions into their specialities.. you can get the information on the following link the fall and rise of jerusalem | coursera.

emory university are also offering a course through coursera on the bible's prehistory, purpose, and political future starting may 26th the bible's prehistory, purpose, and political future | coursera.

scholar

Thanks for the information. The course looks good and interesting so I have signed up to begin the course in October. The text book by the instructor looks worth while so will purchase this also.

scholar JW

24

is there any biblical event that has a universally accepted date on which it occurred?

by jeremiah18:5-10 in

i'm intrigued by the whole "bible chronology" topic, but have never really dug into it because to put any of it together you need a historically reliable starting point.

this wasn't a problem as a practicing jw because you just assumed their dates were right.

i would like for someone to give me one event described in the bible that is universally established and accepted historically that i can use as a reliable starting point.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 3904

Thanks. I have not forgotten.

scholar JW

24

is there any biblical event that has a universally accepted date on which it occurred?

by jeremiah18:5-10 in

i'm intrigued by the whole "bible chronology" topic, but have never really dug into it because to put any of it together you need a historically reliable starting point.

this wasn't a problem as a practicing jw because you just assumed their dates were right.

i would like for someone to give me one event described in the bible that is universally established and accepted historically that i can use as a reliable starting point.

scholar

Jeremiah 18:5-10

The only suitable candidate in answer to your question is the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. This date is well cinfirmed by secular chronology and is well documented in the Bible. For these reasons it was chosen by the celebrated WT scholars to be a Absolute or Pivotal Date for dating events for the OT.

Other scholars have and do propose other secular dates as absolute dates but none of these are as solidly based as the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE for it alone ticks all the boxes for the purpose of constructing a Bible Chronology.

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4285

Bully for you for you need to update not but that but also the seventy years, I have my daughter and grandkids over Xmas but will respond to those posts that I have missed when they leave mid this week.

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Fisherman

Post 574

I did read your post. I would not sell the average person short because the Bible was not written for the intellectuals or the wise but rather for the average Joe who is also humble at heart. Interpretations abound but the true interpretaion is simple and harmonious and is consistent with the basic theme of the Bible which of course is God's Kingdom. True interpretation is a journey, a lifelong journey always mindful of qualities such as integrity, faith, sacrifice and service. It is not just academic pursuit confined to books, scholars and libraries but rather an experience of sacrifice and service.

It is true that whatever happens or does not happen in 1914 could validate our chronology one way or the other because we live in a time of fulfillment of Bible prophecy so we expects things to change, events to happen.

Unfortunately I cannot help you any further but to simply add: Keep looking! Keep searching!

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4262

It is your own work for it is a 'cut and paste job' based on others. Therefore, it is consistent but it is plain dumb and wrong because it does not factor in the biblical 'seventy years'. However, in saying this I will admit that it is the 'prettiest' chart that I have seen.

All chronologies are manipulated and manufactured because the Bible does not contain a outline of chronology or a list so the chronologist has to interpret and harmonize the regnal data and other historical information and this where methodology is so important. In view of these circumstances, the KISS principle is most useful and this where WT chronology is superior.

Your listing of these manipulations is bogus:

There is an interregnum prior to the official reign of Hoshea- 2Kings 15:30
Co-regencies were present during the Divided Monarchy
The chronologies of the ANE should be adjusted to harmonize with Bible chronology.
The chronoilogy of Uzziah's reign is compatible with other scholars.
WT chronology applies a consistent methodology.
Some of the Kings were in fact vassals so this must be incorporated in the chronology if required by a regnal datum.
Your contrived 'one-year difference is irrelevant because our chronology for the period is purely suggestive not absolute.
WT chronology for the period of Daniel is based on history and close attention to the regnal data.
WT chronology is faithful to the history and regnal data in the Bible adjusted with the Biblical corrective-seventy years.
WT chronology adheres very closely to the entire book of Jeremiah.

Boy I hoped you would post more so that I could dispense with these as well.

We never claimed that Stern accepted WT chronology because that is not why he was quoted. What Stern said fundamentally agrees with our take on the state of Judah during the period of Babylonian domination.

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Fisherman

Post 566

Chronology is all about interpretation and of course so is the Bible. You ask what is the correct interpretation? The answer is fairly simple. Which system is the simplest, easy to understand? Which system truly recognizes the historicity of the seventy years? Which system provides a consistent or 'cable of chronology going right back to Adam and to Jesus Christ? Which system is cognizant of Bible Prophecy and its fulifillment? Which system has practical value for our day explaining the 'times and the season' leading up to 1914, the birth of God's Kingdom and the 'Last Days'.

The chronology of Jeffro is simply a copy of others combining his own personal spin being antagonistic to the Witnesses. In short, it is a contrivance designed to mislead and deceive the gullible. He has also a website which seeks further to present his nonsense and his own personal interpretations.

So the decision as to which is correct is one that you must decide.

scholar JW