Posts by scholar

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

MeanMrMustard

You continue to miss the point. It's a matter of logic. To provide evidence is different than to undermine another's evidence. COJ is providing affirmative evidence.

--

I agree but in the provision of evidence to establish the fact of the matter also by logic would refute or disprove an opposing viewpoint.

---

There's the fallback. In the face of overwhelming non-Biblical evidence *for* 587, its all swept aside because "the Bible says differently". And this brings us back to the grammatical issues you have with the scriptures themselves. The Bible agrees with secular history. You can only get to 70 years of desolation by forcing an ungrammatical, noncontextual reading of the scriptures, pushing it into the shape of your obscure religious framework.

---

The 'overwhelming non-Biblical evidence' for 587 is open to interpretation and on examination is unconvincing and does not prove 587 or 586. The Biblical evidence proves 607 BCE and with 'fine tuning' of the secular evidence can harmonize such 'evidence' with the Biblical evidence. The 70 years of desolation is clearly stated and is consistent with a historical 'Exile' and Servitude to Babylon for such an understanding is established by exegesis.

---

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

joey jojo

o, before designing the programs for the different astronomical charts, all the software engineers from around the world got together in order to create a consiracy just to discredit 607 BCE?

--

Are you joking? What utter nonsense! The fact is that there are different astro programs available and depending on the methodology used different results can be observed. Rolf Furuli describes the astro programs used and a methodology and has produced observations on the data that differ from others. So, what is needed is a level playing field using the same identical programs with an appropriate methodology.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

joey jojo

It all depends on the astro program you use and its methodology otherwise you can get different results such as that done by Dr. Rolf Furuli in his published research using professional software.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

MeanMrMustard

Missed the point completely. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing. Yes, 17 is the number. Yes, they are lines of evidence. The evidence provided isn't against 607 in as much as its for 587. It's an important distinction. There could be a 17 independent lines of evidence *against* 607, and each could arrive at a different date. Each line arguing a different date is a line AGAINST 607. But if all the lines agreed on a single date, that's an entirely different story. It's evidence FOR 587. Yes that disproves 607, by it raises the confidence level for 587 to near certainty.

--

You raised the contention not myself for I simply quoted COJ's statement that he presents 17 lines of evidence that establishes the chronology of the NB Period consequently the dates 586/7BCE as Neb's 18th year are established for the Fall of Jerusalem. Whether COJ has succeeded in this attempt is open to criticism and is refuted by the research of Rolf Furuli. who has shown that the Chronology for the NB Period is short by at least 20 years.

In contrast, rather than relying on the chronology of the NB Period in order to fix a date for the Fall of Jerusalem as is the COJ'S method, WT scholars have used the Bible and the biblical '70 years which clearly established that 607 BCE is the only date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

COJ's use of 17 lines of evidence holistically does not disprove 607 BCE because none of these lines of evidence uses any biblical data or reference and that applies to each one of those lines of evidence.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

MeanMrMustard

Note to reader: "wishy-washy" for scholar means "date I disagree with". Which bring us to this gem of a comment:

--

Perhaps you prefer the expression 'fuzzy' instead of 'wishy-washy'?

--

Note to reader: COJ's book, now in its 4th edition, peer reviewed, doesn't present 17 lines of evidence against 607. It presents 17 lines of evidence, FOR 587, showing how each independent line agrees with the others, ending finally in astronomical calculations, which are very accurate and precise.

--

False. Jonsson in his 4th edition on pp.77, 88 uses the expression: "seventeen different lines of evidence "; 'seventeen different lines of evidence".

Note that not one of these lines of evidence by itself refutes or disproves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.

---

Of course, this has already been done, and he knows it, as his last comment reveals. It's important to note that it's the WT apologist that MUST stick to every point dogmatically, violating grammar, changing plural to singular, mutating servitude into complete desolation, proposing conquest order that contradict the grammar in the verse, and established historical order, independently of any set date.

--

The said scholar simply relies on careful exegesis to prove 607 BCE and refute the dates 586 or 587 and even 588 BCE so you have a big problem here.

---

There is no contradiction between history and the Bible. There is only contradiction between history (and even astromony at this point) and the WT's ungrammatical reading of the scriptures and interpretation of these events.

--

Nonsense. The contradiction is the different interpretations of history and the plain and natural reading of the Bible and the subject of the Exile is a prime example.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Splash

Yet you quote these same, deceived fools when they align with your dogma.

It must be nice to pick and choose your beliefs like a child in a sweet shop.

--

No way, Hosea. The said scholar along with the celebrated Wt scholars just use the Bible.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Disillusioned JW

scholar, I disagree with the following comment you made to me. "What you are saying is nonsense. How can you be definite that a definite or precise date such as 607 BCE is wrong when you cannot offer up any other precise alternative?" [Update: Note that on this topic page Jeffro made an excellent rebuttal to you about your argument to me about the dates.] I offered to you an alternative (namely that of biblical scholars) which is precise to within one year and which differs from your date by 20 to 21 years, yet you reject it. Even if every biblical scholar came to agree precisely the year of 578 BCE, (even down to the exact day of that year and even to the exact hour of the day) you would still not accept it as correct. Is that right? So the issue is not really about the minor degree of imprecision of saying "587/586 BCE". Right? The issue really is about you not accepting any date derived from nonbiblical sources which disagrees with dates derived from the WT's (and your) interpretation of the Bible. Right? Yet even the WT's date of 607 B.C.E. relies upon the date of 539 BCE calculated by non-JW biblical scholars from nonbiblical ancient records (since the Bible does not provide any astronomical signs by which people can correlate the year of a biblical king's reign with our modern day calendar). Right?

--

The issue at hand is one of intellectual honesty for you cannot criticize 607 BCE which is a precise date with dates that even though there is a difference of one year is acceptable. You must establish your Chronology then you are in a position to be critical of another Chronology.

The issue at hand is that our Chronology is Bible-based whereas your Chronology is based on secular and pagan sources which contradict the Bible history it is that simple.It is quite acceptable to use 539BCE as a pivotal date even though it is from a secular source as it is our methodology that warrants such a choice otherwise no scheme is possible.

Always be careful of science as it is a human construct prone to error.

--

scholar, if the If the WT has proven the 607 BCE date as you claim, why is it unacceptable by all non-JW scholars of biblical history? Why hasn't the WT managed to persuade a significant number of them? To the biblical scholars and to myself the WT has not proved the 607 BCE as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem.

--

Simple for such fools are misled by the great Deceiver, Satan the Devil and such so-called intellectual ones do not believe the Bible- its History-its Eschatology and Prophecy. I am not interested in whether WT has proved 607 BCE to you but on the basis of my nearly 50 years of research, I have proved 607 BCE beyond any shadow of a doubt. Further, I have debated this issue with the best and brightest on this forum for decades.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Disillusioned JW

scholar which pages of the Insight book are you using for the data of the reigns of the Hebrew Monarachy which add up years from 539 (or 537) B.C.E. to get 607 BCE? Are you referring t the chart which is on pages 404-406 of Insight Volume 1? That chart is counting up (forward in time) from what the Insight book says happened in 1117 BCE. I don't see it counting backward in time from the well established date of 539 B.C.E. Therefore please provide us with more information so I and others can see what you are using to support your claim.

---

Simple for you only have to read what is published in WT publications to understand the methodology used for the scheme for the Divided Monarchy and for the calculation of 607 BCE using the pivotal date of 539 BCE. It is not 'rocket science' that even a layperson can understand both the methodology and the overall scheme of WT chronology. Just use the Insight and Aid publications and the information in the All Scripture Inspired publication.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Jeffro

Argument from ignorance. Even if the exact year were not known it doesn’t mean that whatever nonsense is offered instead must be correct.

--

Nonsense is a two-way street and in your case, it is simply your opinion which is irrelevant.

---

But the exact year is known anyway. It was 587 BCE. No study of the subject in the last 60 years has offered any basis for 586 BCE as the correct year and various studies have specified 587 BCE as the correct year. The fact that some sources simply repeat Thiele’s dating from the 1940s (based on Ussher’s even earlier work) is irrelevant misdirection.

--

Nonsense. The date 586 BCE is the preferred date over 587 BCE but if you believe otherwise then state your sources showing the demise of 586 BCE being replaced by 587 BCE.Prove it otherwise your claim is simply fanciful.

scholar JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

scholar

Disillusioned JW

scholar even if modern biblical scholars (and I) are indefinite as to whether the destruction happened in 587 BCE or 586 BCE they (and I) are definite that it did not happen in 607 BCE. They are in agreement that it definitely did not happen any time before 587 BCE and that it definitely did not happen any time after 586 BCE---

---

What you are saying is nonsense. How can you be definite that a definite or precise date such as 607 BCE is wrong when you cannot offer up any other precise alternative?

---

Chronology is about accuracy or precision and is not about fuzziness. The fact is that based on the Bible, WT scholars over many decades have proven that 607 BCE is the only possible, validated date for the Fall and no other evidence has been found to disprove 607 BCE'

The best attempt to disprove 607 BCE is the scholarship of Carl Olaf Jonsson published as Gentile Times Reconsidered which claims that there 17 lines of evidence that disprove 607 BCE. A scholarly examination of his thesis shows that not one of these lines of evidence disproves 607 BCE so 607 has been held up to scrutiny and has passed with Honours.

scholarJW