Jump to content
The World News Media

scholar JW

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    519

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by scholar JW

  1. scholar JW
    JW Insider So it seems that you too have not been careful enough in referring to those missing pages of GTR for it seems that the only legitimate or authentic copy is that of 390 pages only of the 4th edn. Revised and Expanded, 2004. scholar JW
  2. scholar JW
    Ann WT scholars term 539 BCE a 'Pivotal Date' because such a benchmark or anchor point serves to bring the Biblical Count of Time in years into our modern day calender. Such a date must have a sound basis for acceptance and corresponds with a particular event recorded in the Bible, thus from this date one can now figure backwards and forward and assign calender dates to other Biblical events. The date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is a most worthy candidate don't you think? Yes, as you have explained 539 BCE is a derived/calcuable date as are most other dates in our modern calender, a few are astronomically fixed but still have to be inserted into a Relative scheme of Chronology which requires interpretation and methodology. Whether this now establishes a Absolute Chronology is a matter of debate. but not according to COJ'S thesis. Your comments regarding 597 BE as a Pivotal Date having in my opinion, equal status with 539 BCE is problematic. Certainly as with all other dates established astronomically throughout the Neo-Babylonian Period could be classed as 'pivotal' because it is assumed that the Chronology of this Period is absolute according to COJ'S thesis. However, I do not know of any Chronologist that uses 597 BCE as a Pivotal Point so if this is the case then Why is it so? .in fact. many leading Chronologists including Edwin Thiele uses as pivotal dates or absolute dates those that belong outside the Neo-Babylonian Period. Why is this so? is highly contentious or problematic and this for me is highlighted by COJ'S treatment of this date in his GTR. Similarly, COJ argues strenuously for the candidacy of 587 BCE rather than 539 BCE based mainly upon VAT 4956 but Rolf Furuli's research that this too is a 'can of worms', controversial at least.There are at least 5 good reasons based secular evidence for 539 BCE and only 2 good reasons for 587 /597 BCE so on the basis of these criteria 539 BCE gets the Prize. scholar JW
  3. scholar JW
    JW Insider Where are those pages from pp.506 onwards from GTR. online ? I cannot locate such a section of 130 pages. There is a supplement on Luke 21:24 which I have had already'. scholar JW
  4. scholar JW
    JW Insider Yes, I have spent time discussing Jonsson's research on the JWD forum for some decades and this is because of its impact on the JW community and its significance to WT Chronology. i can see that it has made a huge impact on your faith as a Witness and has certainly undermined your belief in our Chronology. Certainly, I should have paid more attention to the General Index for its location but as I was looking for a specific context for 597 BCE and the Chronicle I simply did not find it where I expected to be and as I was in a hurry posted accordingly. Indeed,, I have read Jonsson's work over the years and have even an autographed copy of his 3rd edition so have no fear on that score. You seem to misunderstand my point about 597 BCE in the context of Jonsson's discussion of it and you go on to post relevant parts of the discussion in his GTR. The point I am making is that Jonsson does not consider 597 BCE to be a Absolute Date having similar status to 539 BCE which is the pivotal date for WT Chronology. Jonsson has a stronger preference for 587 BCE and in this regard I believe he errs. Your claim that the entire period of Neo-Babylonian Chronology is pivotal is nonsense and Jonsson errs in this by treating this period as Absolute Chronology because the evidence is lacking. Scholars are free to term it 'absolute' if they wish but claiming it as such does not make it so especially when the period ignores the seventy years a significant historic period within the NB Period. There also remains the missing 'twenty years' which is unaccounted for in NB Chronology so it is far from perfect.You must remember that Chronology is about interpretation and that nicely explains the many issues that arose in the early and later history of the WTS. I will examine those additional pages available online if I have not already done so in the past as I have so many files that I need to take time to review what I have on hand. scholar JW
  5. scholar JW
    JW Insider The date for the acc. year of Nebuchadrezzar is in dispute because it needs to put back twenty years to 624 BCE. scholar JW
  6. scholar JW
    Insider JW Thank you for the correction and the relevant page numbers for BM 21946. I cannot find it listed in the General Index which some mention in that place would have been expected. Perhaps what I meant to say is that Jonsson fails to discuss this tablet in connection with the date 597 BCE and Neb's 7/8th yr in connection with that date or his seventh years according to the Chronicle as to its elevation of status in Chronology. What is puzzling is that Jonsson's treatment of this event and the date 597 BCE should warrant such to be considered to be a Pivotal or Absolute Date when in fact WT Chronology places the same features in 617 BCE My remarks about this are made in the context as to whether 597 BCE can have the same status in scholarship as 539 BCE and I would argue most definitely not. My copy of GTR is the 4th edn. and it does not exceed p.390. From whence do pages 506, 512, 514 and 515? Are these later pages on the online edition at his website? scholar JW
  7. scholar JW
    Ann You claim that 597 BCE can be a Pivotal date similar to that of 539 BCE but such a claim is nonsense. COJ makes scarce mention of it in his GTR even though he quotes from Prof. Campbell on 597 BCE regarded it "as one of the very few secure dates in the whole chronological repertoire". -GTR, 4th edn. p.293. Jonsson gives the following data pertaining to this date as Neb's 7th year with the Second Deportation of the Jews with Jehoiakim to Babylon along with BM 21946 with three biblical references. Thiele omits any reference to it as an Absolute Date and Jonsson fails to discuss BM 21946. This date 597 BCE is very problematic for a very number of reasons and one only has to survey the numerous technical issues that have arisen over that event for that years would make it impossible for it to be a candidate as a Absolute or Pivotal Date for the purpose of OT Chronology. scholar JW
  8. scholar JW
    JW Insider It is you who is guilty of 'sleight of hand'. The acc. year of Cyrus is not in dispute for it is a date universally recognized dating the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The issue of the date for the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18th/19th years come down to the same methodology, one recognizes the acc. year principle and the other, the regnal year principle. WT Scholars have no problem with applying this principle to the regnal data for Neb's reign so as to fix a precise date as 607 BCE and not 586, 587, 588 etc. Why??? scholar JW
  9. scholar JW
    Anna You must not conflate the two dates 539 BCE and 587?BCE as to having the same accuracy. This would be a serious mistake.. The date 539 BCE is a Pivotal Date for the purpose of Chronology whereas 587 BCE is not and cannot be.such a candidate. Thus a different Methodology must be used by the Chronologist. The simple fact is that 539 BCE is universally accepted by scholars for the Fall of Babylon but there is no such consensus for a date for the Fall of Jerusalem so obviously, both events must be treated differently according to all available evidence. Therefore, this means that even 607 BCE cannot be treated as a Pivotal Date for it does not enjoy the same status as 539 BCE. It all comes down to simplicity and honesty and for this reason, 607 BCE is the only accurate date for the Fall of Jerusalem. scholar JW
  10. scholar JW
    Anna I enjoyed reading your comments and I agree with many of your observations and sentiments. Chronology is indeed hard work and beyond the capacity of most brothers and sisters not so much intellectually but that of resources. The beauty of WT Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism. It took COJ seven years to research and prepare a treatise to refute our Chronology but I believe he failed miserably. I do not believe that our wondrous Chronology has a 'Archille's heel' by means of 607 BCE because it is based on solid Biblical evidence such as the '70 years', a firm Pivotal Date-539 BCE and has a meaningful prophetic outcome, 1914 CE the time of the Great War. It is no 'dead end 'date such as 586 or 587 BCE. In short, the beauty of our Chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and defensible going right back to Adam, the first Man. It works whereas others fail! scholar JW
  11. scholar JW
    Ann Indeed! I had forgotten about ChannelC. I believe I posted there for a time and I think it was the only site that COJ posted but I cannot recall Young's articles coming up for discussion but I surrender to your recall on these matters. scholar JW
  12. scholar JW
    Ann already said that I was tipped off about Young's articles by you. You, however, learned of them by Carl Jonsson during a discussion with him in c. 2004, were you not? ................... I do not believe so because I cannot recall any discussion or what type it would have been because COJ did not engage in online forums. Further, he makes no reference to Young's articles in his writings at that time. scholar JW
  13. scholar JW
    JW Insider Boy, you know how to make a long-winded post! I have no interest in posting a new topic but am content in sticking to the topic of 607 BCE. By the way, a sense of humour develops when one encounters the desperation of critics of WT Chronology. It is good that you have now been introduced to the value of METHODOLOGY and that you are now familiar with the controversy over 586/7 BCE through the prism of Rodger Young's efforts to resolve the problem. Yes Luke used a methodology insconstructing his history as recorded in his Gospel likewise WT scholars have developed a methodology which constructs a simple scheme based mainly on the Bible. I am glad that you have read all of Young's articles and that you fully understand his use of Decision Tables/Analysis. Now can you tell me on the basis of acquiring such new understanding do you agree with Young that Jerusalem fell in the fourth month, 587 BCE ? Now if you do agree with this date can you explain why it is the case that scholars from all disciplines still adhere to 586 BCE since March, 2004 which is when Young's research was published? Why Rodger Young does not endorse 607 BCE is beyond me because I have not encountered in his many papers any discussion of the biblical 'seventy years' according to my memory but Ii could reexamine his papers to check. The date 607 BCE is not based on pseudo archaeology as you claim in fact it is consistent with the finds of modern archaeology as demonstrated by Avraham Faust's Judah In the Neo-Babylonian Period:The Archaeology of Desolation, 2012, Society of Biblical Literature. Methodology permits one to accept one date, 539 BCE and reject another such as 586/7 and determine 607 BCE for Neb's 18 th regnal year.. The nature of the audience that reads this online debate does not trouble me a bit because I have dealt with far more devious foes on the other forum over many years. The date for the fall of Samaria is not the issue for the moment so let us stick with 607 BCE. I am sure that WT knows of Rodger Young as they do keep abreast of recent trends in biblical scholarship.Your statement that "WTS lacks methodology" Is nonsense and your following comment borders on hysteria. The WTS has explained in its publications the methodology for calculating 607 BCE and if you cannot see that then you have no business discussing this subject because your ignorance shows. Ann O Maly does not need to identify the problem for it has been clearly identified by many Chronologists but because of faulty methodolgies, the problem remains even to the present day. The biblical regnal data is not at fault but our understanding of the calendrical systems is incomplete so hypotheses and different methodologies have to be employed to try to resolve the problem. WT Chronologies because of a superior methodology are not beset by these difficulties and that is why we can be secure in the knowledge that 607 is correct. The biblical date is not inconsistent, it is our interpretation of the biblical data that is the problem. Let us get get one thing straight. You, Ann o Maly and others would not be debating WT Chronology if it was not for the pioneering wresearch of Carl O Jonsson so skip the pretence that somehow you and others could have originated such challenging ideas. Jonsson's methodology is clearly set out and so is ours and one sees the Babylonian Gap of twenty years because of his failure to properly interpret the seventy years and putting too much faith in the imperfect NB Period over the Bible. So now you are unsure about whether it is 587 or 586 BCE seeming to edge more to 586 yet you the hide to be so dogmatic about the error of 607 BCE Your last statement baffles me. I simply realized that having exposed to myself to much of the literature on Chronology and the debate pver 607 BCE that Chronology was all about Methodology and Interpretation. scholar JW
  14. scholar JW
    Foreigner You ask for my opinion about the book Why The Bible Is Historically Accurate , 2006, 2nd edn. by a Darren Thompson. I have not heard of this book and I would have to read it entirely rather than comment on a single page however interesting it may appear, I sourced the book from Amazon Books and I am not impressed by it at this stage. from how it is promoted.. I would question its scholarship and that of the Author. scholar JW.
  15. scholar JW
    Ann Huh! No one introduced me to the subject of Methodology in Young's earliest articles for that is something that I realized myself However it is possible that someone first mentioned Rodger Young on the JWD forum.Perhaps it was you? I cannot recall anyone going into any depth regarding the use of Decision Tables which is nonsense anyway in trying to resolve the 586/7 dilemma. scholar JW
  16. scholar JW
    JW Insider I believed I fared very well on the JWD forum over a period of many years but if you do not share my opinion then that is fine because I am not interested in convincing anyone about WT chronology just simply to defend it and in that regard, I have been successful. Don't you think? You misread things perhaps due to your anxiety to be right and overzealous in trying to discredit WT Chronology. Rodger Young was the first scholar to introduce Methodology as a term of nomenclature in Chronology published in the scholarly literature. However, the said 'scholar' first applied the term to Chronology in his defence of WT Chronology published on the JWD forum. Rodger Young does not support 607 but 587 as a revision to Thielean Chronology. What you fail to mention is Young's use Of Decision Tables or Analysis in order to solve the problems associated with 587 and 586. Try explaining that to this audience. Must keep things simple!!! You talk utter nonsense when you seek to superimpose WT Chronology onto Youg's conclusion 6. on p. 38 in his 2004 study. What he is talking about here concerns a summary of his findings regarding the calendrical issues surrounding the resolution of the 586/7 BCE dilemma and has absolutely nothing to do with our Chronology and 607 BCE. Honesty would compel you to post conclusion 7 on p.38 and also the very first paragraph on p.21 which sets out the purpose and conclusion of his study.. You should be ashamed of yourself. In fact one of the reasons why I was the first scholar to introduce the term 'methodology' into the subject of Chronology long prior to 2004 was the fact that Carl Jonsson in his initial treatise stumbled over the WTS use of 539 BCE and not then using secular data to establish their OT chronology. Prior to 2000, I was in the process of doing a thesis for my Honours Degree and one of the compulsory Units was on Methodology so at that time I knew of its importance in academic research so I realized that this was the solution to Jonsson's problem along with many other inquirers so I adopted the formula that Chronology was about Methodology and Interpretation as the two essentials tools for the constructing a scheme of Chronology.. So, do not come with the nonsense about 539 BCE!! scholar JW
  17. scholar JW
    Foreigner The sources that you list a part of a Chronologist's toolkit and were and continue to be used by WT scholars and all other scholars who wish to interpret or construct a scheme of Chronology which Thiele and Mc Fall. scholar JW
  18. scholar JW
    Hi Ann I am proud of the Bible's testimony, the difference between the two dates is based on the supposedly conflicting dates for Neb's regnal years in connection with the Fall of Jerusalem. WT scholars have not been troubled by this supposed anomaly because we are able to assign a precise date for the event whereas most if not all other scholars are perplexed. The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young which followed from observations made by Neil Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum. scholar JW
  19. scholar JW
    Anne I agree with you. There is no evidence that Max Hatton had any influence on either Raymond Franz' research or that of Carl Jonsson for both carried out their own independent research. scholar JW
  20. scholar JW
    Foreigner Yes the distribution of those earlier treatises was restricted or limited to a few as this was pre-Internet. However, during those decades a Pastor Bruce Price again in Australia and a SDA waged a war if you like against WT Chronology and circulated the magazine Witness which was for SDA scholars, pastors and ministers again a limited distribution. Further, he published a fictional account centred in a rural setting which narrated the conversion of a Witness couple to Adventism through the prism of Chronology. scholar JW
  21. scholar JW
    J W Insider Thiele's scholarship on the Divided Monarchy is weakened by the simple fact that he overlooked the 70 years or believed that this period had no bearing on his thesis. This is my personal opinion of matters. Common sense would dictate that if you are trying to harmonize the regnal years of the Divided Monarchy both in the case of Israel and then Judah any historic period that was synchronized to any of the reigns of the Monarchy and NB Chronology would be very important.. The 70 years of Tyre come within the scope or province of Jer. 25:9,11, 22. For Tyre the 70 years represented a undetermined period of domination or servitude to Babylon as also prophesied by Isaiah in ch. 23. Edwin Thiele is regarded by Christendom's Chronologists as the Chronologist par excellence . However, what is embarrassing for critics of WT Chronology is that they do not know the precise year that Jerusalem was destroyed whether it 586, the Thielean sate or 587 BCE which is the preferred of apostates following on the heels of Carl Jonsson and others of his ilk. In contrast WT Chronologists have thoughtfully determined 607 BCE as the precise date for that epochal event. scholar JW
  22. scholar JW
    Foreigner The facts are that Raymond Franz had already carried out research in WT Chronology and this published in the Aid book 1969, 1971, later Carl Jonsson in Sweden conducted his own independent research and submitted his treatise to Brooklyn in 1977. Long before this, Max Hatton in Australia conducted his own research during the sixties and was probably influenced by the research of a G. Rogerson in Australia who produced a treatise on the subject of some 60 pages. It would seem that the first or earliest criticisms of WT Chronology originated in Australia influenced by at that time scholarly research beginning in the forties carried out by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.scholars.in the USA. scholar JW
  23. scholar JW
    JW Insider Another point about Thiele who is long deceased is that in his seminal writings he makes no mention of the 70 years, completely missing from his majestic MNHK.an important slice of the history of the very period that Thiele engaged with in his theses. scholar JW
  24. scholar JW
    JW Insider Max Hatton became a Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventists, he is rather aged now and not sure whether he is still alive. He last resided in Newcastle, NSW and if alive possibly blind. Max Hatton wrote several articles on Chronology which I have in my files and one thing that struck me was his independent dating of the 70 years from normal Adventist orthodoxy. My conclusion was and still is that Scholarship broadly speaking is all at sea when it comes to the seventy years. They do not have a clue!! scholar JW
  25. scholar JW
    JW Insider The use of Ptolemy comes down as with all other sources to Methodology. Scholars are free to cherry pick facts from sources in order to construct a scheme of Chronology because this is what. they do and explains why there are so many different OT Chronologies right down to the present day. Ptolemy's Canon is of value to the Historian and the Chronologist and should not be ignored but Edwin Thiele had a realistic and honest view about the Canon for he stated "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete listof all of the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available". Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings, 1965, pp.216-7 scholar JW
×
×
  • 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.