Jump to content
The World News Media

scholar JW

Member
  • Content Count

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by scholar JW

  1. A masterful refutation of the 586/587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem calling it out as a lie, a distraction from the correct date of 607 BCE championed by Jehovah's Witnesses. A recognition of the simple facts that there was the Exile and that it was of 70 years all based on a simple direct reading of key biblical texts. This young guy shows critical thinking at its best on this most contentious issue. scholar JW emeritus
  2. Alan de Fool Do not forget about the 3 year vassalage to Neb towards the end of Jehoiakim's reign!!!! scholar JW
  3. Alan de Fool The reign of Jehoiakim is well explained in WT publications and the Biblical record so the facts are clearly established for all to read. Jehoiakim had only one reign of 11 years and for the last three years of that reign which was as a kingship or vassalage to Neb. becoming a stumbling block for scholars and for COJ who attempts to address this issue in his GTR, 4th edn., pp.335-39. Pastor Russell first addressed this issue back in 1896 with an extensive article refuting the false Chronologies of Mr. Dimbleby and Mr. Totten who like others attempted to begin the 70 yea
  4. Alan de Fool Total relevant. Would you like me to formally open Case File No:#607539537? scholar JW
  5. Alan de Fool Which included a three year vassalage to Neb. for the latter part of his overall reign of 11 years confirming that strong cable of WT Bible Chronology. scholar JW
  6. Alan de Fool Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years which included a vassalage/'kingship' to Neb for the last three years of his reign as King of Judah. scholar JW
  7. JW Insider/Outsider As long as you understand the difference between these two disciplines. You have just started so finish reading the entire book. I know what it is as I have studied it at University as one of the post-graduate Units. COJ's treatise is not historiography as it simply a criticism of WT Chronology and the Gentile Times. COJ is not a scholar and has not undertaken academic work at a University therefor his treatise must be judged on its own merit and has not committed to any proper exegeis of the 70 year textual corpus. I can see this by your lac
  8. JW Insider/Outsider Furuli showed otherwise and has provided the explanation that you seek. That strong cable of WT Chronology based on 4 prophetic witnesses is not reliant on such ancient artifacts susceptible to interpretation and fail to properly account for Neb's missing 7 years of regnal vacancy and the notorious 20 year gap and Jeremiah's 70 years. Yes, you need imagination when trying to interpret the so-called 17 lines of secular evidence and trying to harmonize secular chronology with that strong cable of WT Chronology. The gap is an historical reality
  9. JW Insider My suggestion, plain and simple is just read Albertz and form your own opinion of his historiography just as i have done!!! Really i could not less about what you think. No, it is not . Historical writing of history is not the same thing as historiography I have done a post graduate course in Historiography and COJ does not present any such historiography in his tratise, GTR. I do not care if you mistrust me for you have deviated from the true faith by your endorsement of NB Chronology, a mere string of beads over that strong cable of WT Bible
  10. JW Insider You simply 'cherry pick' statements from Albertz's book without taking the time to read it as you probably have not got a copy of his book so i would read it then you can be critical of my comments on his book for that would be the honest thing for you to do. The simple fact is that for Albertz there was only ONE Exile proper or exilic era and that it can be dated from the Fall of Jerusalem from 587/586 BCE until the return of the Exiles under Cyrus in his first year-538 BCE according to the primary sources (Refer pp. 2, 121) I would recommend that you also read the
  11. Alan de Fool I never claimed that Rainer Albertz supports WT Chronology and Chronology is not the subject of his Historiography. Deportations by definition do not constitute an exile but are indeed a consituent part of an exile so there were deportaions in Israelite history but in terms of OT Historiography and the Biblical record there was only one exile and that is thematic of Albertz's book which of course you have not read right through as scholar has done. If there were 4 exiles proper then the title of Albertz's book is misleading for the author continuously refers to th
  12. Ann O'Maly Thanks but i will stick to those 4 lines of evidence in support of that strong cable of WT Bible Chronology. scholar JW
  13. Ann O'Maly Well said OK. Exilic era-exilic period. Same thing with the common factor of the singular, ONE Read that paragraph again but carefully and spot the difference between the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom. File Case No: #607539537 scholar JW
  14. Alan de Fool Best not to us Wikipedia as a reliable or trustworthy source and I do commend you for consulting Literature Review. Please not that WT does not use Wikepedia as a matter of course. scholar JW
  15. Read the book, the entire book and do not 'cherry pick', leave the 'cherries' for scholar to eat. Notice the 'singular expression 'exile' and the 'exilic period'. There were many deportations but only ONE Exile. One period of exile means ONE EXILE. You dope!! I repeat, Albertz lists deportations but only ONE EXILE. The said scholar rests his exilic case NO. 607539537 scholar JW
  16. Such folly sort reminds one of the words of the wise contained in Proverbs 18:13 "When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating". scholar JW
  17. Alan de Fool Indeed. It was the WT scholars who used Albertz's expression of 'catastrophe in the Introduction to those recent WT articles on Chronology as noted by my friend Doug Mason. Such a catastrophe aptly describes the ONE Exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return lasting 70 years. You are still hung up on WT referencing and the sourcing of such references and this is because you have not studied the Humanities!! scholar JW
  18. JW Insider No this is the case with Exilic scholars. I rest my case because it is well established on the facts of the case and on OT Historiography , a term not found in COJ' s hypothesis nor found in other critics of WT chronology. You are the one being deceived by apostate propaganda!! scholar JW
  19. Ann O'Maly Well done for posting this page from Albertz's book. You will notice that this scholar throughout this book that there was only ONE Exile-the Babylonian Exile, "the end of Israel's history" according to the books of Kings. For this and many other reasons Exilic scholars when writing up the Historiography of the OT divide the History of Israel into three periods: 'preexilic. exilic and post exilic periods (Refer p.1) and Albertz titled his book not as the 'Exiles of Israel' but the singular-'ISRAEL IN EXILE'. I rest my case. scholar JW
  20. JW Insider That is your opinion of my postings but you are so wrong but that is a matter for you. Rainer Albertz wrote some 460 pages but makes the position perfectly clear that there was only one Exile which he termed as a' catastrophe'. I rest my case. Honest-hearted ones can easily see through your deception as you clearly reject our sacred Bible Chronology well presented in WT publications but again this is a matter for you. scholar JW
  21. Alan de Fool Just remember how much the said scholar has taught and instructed you over many matters of Chronology over these last 20 years and the contributions that the said scholar has made to the scholarship of Chronology and to the simple fact of referring you to the latest information from scholarship on this subject. You feed and are nourished by the teat of scholar. scholar JW
  22. JW Insider There is not one Chronology but several Chronologies for the Israelite period of the OT. There is for the Neo-Babylonian period, one Chronology. No. For it is you like most other scholars regard the NB Chronology as Absolute, making it appear as infallible unable to be challenged by another competitor which of course has been the traditional Bible Chronology. So, if we assess matters by this standard then it is demanded that solid evidence be provided for solid claims and that is why for such a significant event in OT history such as the fall of Jerusalem a precise o
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.