scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  79

  607 date of Jerusalems destruction

  by benny in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Earnest

  The matter of the 586/587 BCE is crucial if one wishes to establish an accurate Bible Chronology and especially for those WT critics who are dogmatic in their criticism of 607 BCE. WT scholars use the same regnal data and in this case, we have the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar which would be the acc or regnal years for the breaching of the city's wall synchronized to the 11 th year of Zedekiah. So, the difference is based on the fact of a different calendrical system as most scholars prefer but at what year of the monarch from to count or fix that event in history. In view of the KISS principle, it would be far more simple to adopt the viewpoint of the WT scholars rather than trying to interpret or create a chronology through the prism of different calenders used at that time which makes the matter extremely complicated.

  There is much scholarly literature published on this problem as to what calenders were used at that time as to whether one should count from the Spring or the Autumn which creates a difference of 6 months. In short, this means that because of a different methodology scholars are unable to assign a precise date for the destruction of Jerusalem whereas WT scholars have used a different methodology have been able to assign a definite year namely 607 BCE for that event.

  scholar
• 
  79

  607 date of Jerusalems destruction

  by benny in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Finkelstein

  It is incorrect to say that WTS does not have academically trained Bible scholars for the are many such persons in different parts of the world including yours truly. Additionally, it is incorrect to say that the known historical event of Jerusalem's destruction is 586 BCE whence many scholars claim 587 BCE for that event.

  Certainly, 607 BCE establishes the significance of 1914 but his more due to an act of Divine Providence and Revelation than to any man-made scheme to fit some contrivance. In fact, a study of Theology also confirms many of the basic views of those early Bible Students with the exception of Pyramidology which can be traced to scholarship which existed in Christendom at that time and embraced by those Bible Students which points to the slow emergence of centuries of Darkness.

  scholar
• 
  79

  607 date of Jerusalems destruction

  by benny in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Finkelstein

  No fuzzy dates but precise events with precise dates and simply laid out so that all can understand the significance of the times in which we live today. There is no room for propaganda in Biblical scholarship but historical facts and evidence which validates 607 BCE.

  scholar
• 
  79

  607 date of Jerusalems destruction

  by benny in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Finkelstein

  Jonsson tries to have it both ways in trying to establish both dates of 605 or 609 BCE for the beginning of the seventy years but obviously, it must be one or the other otherwise you end up a fuzzy chronology. In contrast to Jonsson, WT scholars have determined a precise beginning for the seventy years in 607 BCE with a known historical event-Destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple.

  scholar
• 
  79

  607 date of Jerusalems destruction

  by benny in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Bobcat

  Methinks it is you that is in Dreamworld for your advocacy for scholarship that Bible Chronology and Bible History proves to be false and delusional. For starters, such scholarship cannot decide on the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem whether it is 586 or 586 BCE even though COJ prefers 587 but Thiele proposes 586. Big problem here don't you think?

  scholar
• 
  79

  607 date of Jerusalems destruction

  by benny in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Finkelstein

  If what you say above is correct then how is it that Carl Jonsson states that it was 587 and not 586? Confusion abounds!

  Why did Jonsson postulate 609 as opposed to 605 for the beginning of the 70 years?

  scholar
• 
  79

  607 date of Jerusalems destruction

  by benny in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  benny

  Please be aware that Coffy is a 'Johnny come lately' to this debate. Scholar has debated this subject for many years and has been down every road and trail of this vast and complex subject. Suffice to say that there is no broad scholarly support for 607 but there is scholarly support for this date in the scholarship of Rolf Furuli and others.

  Carl Jonsson has written much on this subject but it neglects critical elements such as Theology of the land, accurate Biblical history amongst other matters and much is simply his interpretation of the available evidence.

  scholar
• 
  79

  607 date of Jerusalems destruction

  by benny in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  benny

  I am a great believer in the KISS principle having argued the case for 607 BCE on this forum and others over many years some decades ago. The 70 years can only be interpreted as a definite historical period of Exile in Babylon-Servitude to Babylon and Desolation of Judah beginning in 607 BCE until 537 BCE right to the very seventh month of the year inclusive. Any other theory or hypothesis just does not work despite the very best efforts of WT critics who are all over the place. If you get the 70 years right then all the pieces fit into place as well explained in WT publications over many decades.

  scholar
• 
  79

  607 date of Jerusalems destruction

  by benny in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. jw
  2. 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/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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