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 Agreed, WT scholars have examined all of the evidence both secular-historical-biblical and given the biblical evidence priority thus validating 607 BCE. Nonsense. The Exile it was the most important event in Jewish/Biblical history that any competent chronologist cannot ignore. One can disprove 587 BCE by proving 607 BCE and this is done by means of the Exile of 70 years as simple as that. scholar JW
  2. scholar JW
    JW Insider Why is that silly? Is it not the case that critics of 607 BCE make dogmatic claims that 607 BCE has been disproved by means of several lines of evidence which are claimed to prove 587 or 586 BCE? The simple fact is that it is the biblical-historical-theological fact of the Exile proves 607 BCE as the date for the Fall. I only discuss COJ not because of his status as a former Witness but because he has published research on this subject, made dogmatic claims and has become widely quoted as an authority on this subject. scholar JW
  3. scholar JW
    JW Insider Correct, the Bible does not give a start and end date for the Exile but does give and describes such historical events which can then be dated by a valid scheme of chronology hence we have 607 BCE for its beginning with Neb's 18/19th year and 537 BCE for its end with Cyrus' first year which are proved to be correct. I too, care naught for COJ or any others but only the evidence that the Bible as God's Word contains. I prefer neither but simply point out that scholarship by means of its methodology cannot provide a definite date for the Fall of Jerusalem whereas WTscholars have provided a definite date for the Fall as 607 BCE. scholar JW
  4. scholar JW
    JW Insider is correct here. Bible Chronology must be based on evidence if available but it requires also a methodology and interpretation of any such evidence as Chronology is not an exact science for scholars to agree on only very few dates in history such as the date for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The history of WT Chronology beginning with Russell is most fascinating showing an evolution of dates and events which was more or less finally concluded in the sixties with the publication in 1963, All Scripture is Inspired of God. scholar JW
  5. scholar JW
    The simple fact is that scholars date Nineveh's fall in 612 BCE according to NB Chronology it occurred in the 14th year of King Nabopolassar. However, using the framework of Bible Chronology this event is calculated to have occurred in 632 BCE as explained in Insight, Vol.2, p.505. WT scholars have simply fine-tuned the secular NB Chronology by means of adding 20 years made manifest by the calculation of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem when one compares the two parallel chronologies namely NB Chronology and WT Bible Chronology. scholar JW
  6. scholar JW
    JW Insider That is correct. WT Bible Chronology has indeed adjusted dates before the NB Period using a 20-year gap manifest when comparing WT Chronology with that of NB Chronology and that is what Chronologists do as a matter of course. Such scholars look at the available evidence- secular and biblical evidence combining this with an interpretation and methodology to construct a scheme of Chronology. This is false. There is no excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE as it ignores the biblical and historical facts of the Jewish/Babylonian Exile. 'So-called' excellent evidence is simply a reference to COJ's 'seventeen lines of evidence' which attempts to disprove 607 BCE which has not settled the dilemma of the 586 or 587 BCE as dates for the Fall of Jerusalem. If there is such a body of evidence which disproves 607 BCE then why is it the case that no one can provide one single line of evidence disproving 607 BCE for this has not and cannot be done? The simple fact is that COJ's research over seven years ending in 1975 was simply a rehash of previous research carried out by SDA scholars in Australia from the fifties so it was nothing new for the WT Society from the time of Charles Russell and the early Bible Students had published much material on Chronology which dealt with many of the issues covered by COJ especially regarding the Gentile Times and the nature and chronology of Jeremiah's '70 years'. COJ simply followed the existing interpretation of Chronology accepted by most if not all scholars prior to 1977 and afterwards up to the present day. It can be argued that the 'preponderance of existing evidence can just as easily support 607 BCE simply using 'fine tuning' using the missing 20 years to align secular NB Chronology with Bible Chronology. Jehovah's Witnesses have shown competence in Bible Chronology as demonstrated in WT publications since Russell's time as not only have they determined the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem as 607 BCE but also produced a chronology for all of the Kings of the Divided Monarchy something which COJ never attempted and is necessary to provide and historical context for any dates with that period of Jewish history. Correct! Such evidence in the construction of a scheme of Chronology requires two things: Methodology and Interpretation. WT scholars have a discreet methodology and a biblical interpretation viz. the 70 years and the Exile which proves the validity of 607 BCE for the Fall and thus far has not been disproved by any other scheme of Chronology. scholar JW
  7. scholar JW
    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
  8. scholar JW
    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 lack of faith and belief in our Chronology preferring the views of modern critics and apostates. You show a failure of what Chronology is as a discipline being ignorant of its principles and its methodology. You have not got a clue about Chronology whatever its source or form. The date 607 is well established as part of Biblical Theology and History and it works being calcuable to 1914 which is the poster boy for us living in the last days. Unlike 586 or 587 which are simply 'dead ends' we have a date that is rock solid giving faith in our Heavenly Father who knows the times and the seasons and reveals such matters alone to His servants. scholar JW
  9. scholar JW
    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 when trying to sort out the muddle of NB Chronology and is well supported by the biblical evidence of 70 years along with the other three witnesses unlike the muddle of secular chronology. Finally, some honesty appears on the horizon so you better stick to the Bible and not to COJ's deception- the Devil's work. scholar JW
  10. scholar JW
    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 Chronology.. scholar JW
  11. scholar JW
    Alan de Fool Does this mean that I can now close Case File No. # 607539537? scholar JW
  12. scholar JW
    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 article under CAPTIVITY in Insight and you will notice the more extensive discussion of the Exile proper or the Babylonian Exile which began in 607 BCE until 537 BCE which harmonizes well with Albertz's historiography on the subject of the Exile. I have COJ'S many editions of his GTR and let me assure you it is not historiography and he does not use the term in any definitive way and this a serious failure of his treatise because what undergirds any competent Chronology is Historiography, a sound writing of the History of the period or era. I am not interested in lies or deceit but simply a defence of our wondrous, strong cable of WT Bible Chronology and if this does not meet with your approval then so be it. I am simply educating you that scholarship is a 'work in progress' and I have submitted recent scholars who have written about the 70 years in recent years and how this research supports to some degree our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years You have much more to read some 390 pages to go-rather prophetic, so as with any reading you must form your own understanding of matters. Best Wishes. scholar JW
  13. scholar JW
    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 that exilic era as a descriptor for that one jewish exile of the 6th century BCE. Scholar is quite happy for you to interpret the book as you wish and if you believe there was more than one exile then scholar is not perturbed for the 70 years equates with the Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus as observed by Albertz. scholar JW
  14. scholar JW
    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
  15. scholar JW
    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
  16. scholar JW
    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
  17. scholar JW
    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
  18. scholar JW
    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
  19. scholar JW
    Alan de Fool You have not got the book or read the book. scholar JW
  20. scholar JW
    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
  21. scholar JW
    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
  22. scholar JW
    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
  23. scholar JW
    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
  24. scholar JW
    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
  25. scholar JW
    JW Insider If scholar posts nonsense then why do you respond? 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.