BORG OFF
Scholar is not a troll for you only have to ask Doug Mason!!!!!
scholar
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
154
Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters
by Lobsto ina month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
-
-
-
154
Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters
by Lobsto ina month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
-
-
scholar
Lobsto
In your letter to the Society, you that regarding the beginning of the Monarchy with the reign of David that the starting date is different from any other scholarly source and that our dates for the Kings of Israel and Judah are off by several decades from what is academically accepted. In this, you are quite mistaken for there is simply no scholarly consensus for the reigns of the Divided Monarchy and for the date of David's reign.
For example, in the Chronological And Background Charts Of The Old Testament, 1994 by John H. Walton, pp.30-31 he presents tabulations by six prominent OT historians: Hayes & Hooker, Thiele, Bright and Tadman & Cogan who list heir own dates for each of the reigns and for each king the dates vary considerably. The total reigns for Judah are tabulated as follows:
Hayes&Hooker 340 years, Thiele- 345, Bright- 335, Cogan & Tadmor- 342
In contrast, WT scholars have given 390 years for the total reign for Judah and this is in accord with Jewish tradition and the prophecy of Ezekiel. One critic of WT chronology made a similar determination even though he does not accept 607 BCE. What this means that WT scholars have demonstrated over many decades competence in matters of Chronology and therefore in the matter of 607 BCE one can be very confident in the Methodology chosen by WT scholars over many decades.
scholar
-
154
Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters
by Lobsto ina month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
-
-
scholar
.Doug Mason
How are you, my dear friend?
You are correct in that 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is a calculated date calculated from secular tablets hence properly considered by Chronologists as a Pivotal or Absolute Date and is accepted by the 'celebrated WT scholars'. COJ considers 568 BCE as an Absolute Date but this has been seriously challenged by Rolf Furuli and is not listed by the world's most prominent Chronologist, Edwin Thiele thus scholars have not accorded the same status as an Absolute Date to 568 BCE as they have accorded to 539 BCE.
Regarding your previous comments on 537 BCE for the Return of the Jewish Exiles it must be stated that what event marked the beginning of the 70 years was not the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. the fifth month but the evacuation from Judah in the seventh month, 607 BCE, both events occurred in the same calender year of 607 BCE
Scholarship has no problem with 537 BCE for the Return of the Jews because it well accords with both the textual and historical data and is the suggested date in much of the literature. COJ had no problems with 537 BCE as he dealt with the matter by means of a footnote reference.
Blessings
scholar
-
154
Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters
by Lobsto ina month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
-
-
scholar
Lobsto
Other posters have encouraged you to read Carl O. Jonsson's book refuting WT Chronology, Gentile Times Reconsidered in order to assist your understanding of the subject. However, you should be aware of the following problems with Jonsson's thesis which include the following:
1. When did the seventy years begin? COJ discusses both dates 605 and 609 BCE for the beginning but there are inherent problems with either date.
2. What was the actual length of the period? COJ is uncertain on this point either it was literally 70 years, a round number or 66 years.
3. When did the 70 years end? COJ states that the period ended with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCEbut again there are problems with this interpretation as it clashes with the direct testimony of the prophets who lived at that time
4. Why is it that despite the so-called accuracy of Neo-Babylonian Chronology there is no agreement within current scholarship about the precise calender year for the Fall of Jerusalem namely 586 0r 587 BCE. COJ favours 587 BCE but most leading scholars prefer 586 BCE.
Enjoy!!!
scholar
-
154
Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters
by Lobsto ina month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
-
-
scholar
Lobsto
The Society's reply to your query is accurate and excellent as it provides a well-constructed overview of our wondrous Bible Chronology. The simple fact is that the key to arriving at a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem is based on a correct interpretation of Jeremiah's 'seventy years' and this was a period of Exile to, for, at Babylon-Desolation of Judah and Servitude to Babylon. Simply put the Exile ended in 537 BCE and counting backwards 70 years fixes 607 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the seventy years. Granted there are other methodologies that present a different date either 586 or 587 BCE which lacks the precision of 607 BCE which is the only date that is in harmony with all of the biblical and secular data.
scholar
-
79
607 date of Jerusalems destruction
by benny ini 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
Finkelstein
Archaeological findings plus biblical chronology both support 586 BCE as Jerusalem's final destruction
Archaeology does not account for the 70 years period and neither does secular chronology.
Daniel provides a historical basis for the determination of 539 BCE -The Fall of Babylon accepted by all Chronologists so Daniel, the book is hardly mythology.
scholar -
79
607 date of Jerusalems destruction
by benny ini 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
Finkelstein
Your point?
scholar
-
79
607 date of Jerusalems destruction
by benny ini 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
Finkelstein
Scholar believes in 607 because that is what the Bible supports and indicates and is validated by secular evidence which can be fine-tuned or adjusted in order to overcome the 20-year gap between NB Chronology and Bible Chronology.
The dates 586 or 587 dates are impossible and fraudulent as both these dates do not consider the 70 years of desolation, exile and servitude which began in Neb's 18 th regnal /19th acc. years synchronised to Zedekiah's 11th year in Judah. QED
scholar
-
79
607 date of Jerusalems destruction
by benny ini 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
coffy
Incorrect. The date 607 is based on biblical and secular evidence and is in harmony with Biblical Theology. There is always a danger in accepting without criticism of academic consensus.
scholar
-
79
607 date of Jerusalems destruction
by benny ini 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
Finkelstein
The WTS's dating chronology such as it was established is really set upon theological interpretation, being 70 years of desolation prior to Cyrus overtaking Babylon in 539 BCE.
True to some extent. The correct understanding of the 70 year period is crucial for not only WT Chronology but also any Chronology that is to be based on the Bible or OT.
There is certainly a Gap of at least 20 Years but the Bible is quite clear that the seventy years was that and not 47 years so one should misrepresent history in that way.
scholar
The fact is there is a discrepancy of about 21 years, confirmed from archaeological findings, which confirms that the desolation was only about 47 years after the final destruction of Jerusalem ( 586 - 539 = 47 ) give or take a couple of years of flexibility to when the Jews actually returned to Jerusalem