scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,054 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  I don’t see the Watch Tower Society abandoning their 1914 nonsense any time soon, but if they do it will be funny watching ‘scholar’ flounder about pitifully.

  --

  Your imagination exceeds my imagination.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  False equivalence. The Bible contains references to calendar systems, they aren’t ‘alternative methodologies’. Worse still, poor ‘scholar’ doesn’t seem to understand that the ambiguity he asserts would necessarily apply to the WT dating. And even worse, the WT nonsense is based on circular reasoning for their dogmatic selection of 537 BCE as the end of the period (which Russell just as dogmatically said was 536 BCE).

  --

  Indeed it does. The Bible describes at least two calendrical systems, the Sacred calendar beginning in the Spring and the Secular calendar beginning in Autumn. There is no ambiguity in connection with these two systems for the purpose of constructing a modern scheme of Chronology as our system rather uses historical events in connection to regnal data. Confusion abounds with a Chronology that is based on regnal data alone as shone by your contrivance using different calendars in trying to resolve the 586/587 BCE pwoblem. It all comes down to methodology.

  The date 537 BCE for the Return has wide acceptance within scholarship so circular reasoning is unnecessary!

  scholar JW
  
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Sanchy

  Could you please list the the names of these "Celebrated WT Scholars"?

  ---

  The said scholar would like to help you but his understanding is that they wish to remain anonymous akin to the NWT Committee.

  scholar JW

  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  According to your blog 586 BCE is just as feasible as 587 BCE according to your methodology..WT methodology based not on numerous calenders but the Bible proves 607 BCE is the correct date.

  scholar JW
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  As there are no known secular records that provide a specific date for the event, information from the Bible must be used. Whilst one might question the reliability of the Bible, if the details therein are not considered reliable for determining the date of Jerusalem’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, then no specific year can otherwise be asserted with any certainty.

  ---

  Your words not mine as an admission that there can be no certainty about 586 or 587 BCE.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Not just delusional but an outright liar. Pathetic--

  ---,

  That is what you admit in your Blog.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  TO ALL OPPONENTS AND CRITICS OF 607 BCE

  In all of my many decades in the pursuit of scholarship pertaining to 607 BCE whether from scholars or our critics I have not read any scholarship that disproves that 607 BCE was not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem. I have read every piece of literature published in English from the fifties to date and have not found a one, single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE for the Fall.

  My challenge on this forum is for any such opponent or critic to show such proof that 607 BCE is not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem by means of at least one line of evidence. Surely, that is not too much to ask?

  scholar JW
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Ws were saying 606 BCE until 1943 when the finally realised there was no year zero. They refused to change 1914, so they ‘changed’ history instead.

  --

  Chronology as with all science is not static but is ever evolving so no surprises here!

  --

  t really will be funny seeing how ‘scholar’ behaves if they do drop 1914.

  ---

  The evidence for 1914 as with 607 is incontrovertible. Both dates have well withstood the tests of time as strands of that strong cable of Bible Chronology. Scholar is at peace!!!

  ---

  And the correct year consistent with all of the evidence is definitely 587 BCE. Publication of Babylonian records confirmed the correct year decades ago, but various sources continue to simply repeat Thiele’s outdated chronology. No analysis of the records has pointed to 586 BCE in the last half a century.

  --

  I admire your confidence but you yourself on your Blog regarding this controversy admit that we cannot know the precise date of the Fall whether it is 587 or 586 BCE so you have a biggy, big pwoblem here. (mispelling). Thiele remains the go-to source for biblical chronology as shown by its use in the current scholarly literature and academic journals.

  scholar JW
  
  

  
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Phizzy

  Not just Archaeology, but a study of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets establish without doubt that 587 BCE, (or possibly 586 but that is doubtful) IS the date that King Neb. destroyed Jerusalem.

  The Stars do not lie ! Confirmed by NASA too.

  ----

  Utter rubbish. Scholars do not know the precise date for the fall of Jerusalem whether it is 586, 587 or 588 BCE. JW's do know and it is 607 BCE which is incontrovertible. The Babylonian astronomical tablets are hopeless as Rolf Furuli has demonstrated in his research so it is far better to rely on the ancient inspired historical record of the Holy Bible which has its inherent chronology which establishes 607 BCE for the Fall and 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times.

  scholar JW
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  JW GoneBad

  Be honest you're a WT Apologist...the name suits you!🤣

  No way are you a Scholar!

  --

  The said scholar is both. A scholar and a WT Apologist to boot!

  scholar JW

  BA MA BA (Hons. inc) Religious Studies/Philosophy, Philosophy, Studies in Religion, Deakin, University of Sydney