scholar JW
-
Posts
519 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Everything posted by scholar JW
-
JW Insider Correct! These dates are based on the assumption that the reign of Darius the Mede reign was concurrent with that of Cyrus. However, if Cyrus succeeded Darius during or right after Darius' first year, then the first full year of Cyrus would run from Nisan 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar, 536 BCE., or, about, March 12, 537 BCE, to March 29, 536 BCE,Julian Calendar or March 6, 537 BCE, to March 23, 536 BCE, Gregorian Calendar. The first full year of Darius would be from Nisan 1, 538 BCE to the end of the month of Adar in 537 BCE, or, about, March 24, 538 BCE to March 11, 537 BCE, Julian Calendar or March 18, 538 BCE to March 5, 537 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.- Babylonian Chronology, 626 BC- AD 45, 1942, R.A.Parker and W.H. Dubberstein scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Your answer was incomplete so again try again!!! scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool You have not completed the answer so try again!!! scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool It would appear that you have something to lose, afraid to put your supposed scholarship to the test. If it is so simple as you claim by simply asking Doctor Google then why has not this data been provided in any academic scholarship published or otherwise? scholar JW
-
Ann O' Maly Yes, but I am not the expert on these matters on which I have fully explained. You and Alan F are the experts and even when another person who has a level of expertise such as Rolf Furuli then you ridicule him, go to great lengths to undermine his thesis of which you are entitled to do. If someone of Furuli's scholarship has examined the evidence, tested it, able to translate the primary sources, has others to peer review his research and quotes extensively from leading experts in these fields then a layman like myself can only that the' Work has been done.' Furuli has at the very least able to question the integrity and interpretation of NB Chronology in a scientific way. So, Ann it seems that you cannot provide the answer or you are too scared to consider the matter for the said scholar has something over you like the 'sword of Damocles'. scholar JW
-
Ann O' Maly Just what I expected. You can't be bothered because you cannot perform such a simple task therefore how can anyone take you seriously when you post on subjects that you lack any expertise especially any criticisms of Furuli's scholarship. Furuli has done WT chronology a great service in proving that NB Chronology is unreliable for at least three reasons: 1. Missing 20 years- 568/588 BCE dilemma 2. Missing 7 years regnal vacancy of Neb's Kingship 3. Failure to provide any historicity for the 70 years of Jeremiah 5. Missing 1 Year/s of Darius ' reign prior or commensurate with the 1st year of Cyrus NB Chronology i as with all other secular chronologies are likened to simply a chain or a string of beads, each date being a link or unit in a whole. Whereas, WT Bible Chronology is likened to a cable of interwoven strands of four events each of which lay between two key events in biblical and modern history providing irrefutable proof/ evidence for this scheme of Chronology. scholar JW
- 679 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- neo-babylonian
- chronology
- (and 9 more)
-
Ann O'Maly Seeing that you such an expert on all matters pertaining to the astronomical tablets would you or can you assist with the following question: Regarding the 1st Regnal of full year of Cyrus, How is the beginning and end of that year expressed in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calenders? I have not seen this question addressed in any standard text on Chronology or in any scholarly Journal to date and have put this question to Alan F and JW Insider without any success. The fact of the matter that many consider that WT chronology is in error or simply bunkum according to Alan F so this simple question is a little test if you like in order to properly assess the scholarship of either secular scholars who attempt to disprove the strong cable of Wt Chronology or of WT scholars who have developed that strong cable of WT Chronology over many centuries. By the way, No excuses!!! Awaiting in full expectation scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool No, that is not what i ave said or implied. The simple reading of both of these articles shows that neither of these two scholars support WT Chronology. What I simply tried to show is that in these papers that there are major viewpoints that align with our Chronography such as the facts that the Exile ended not with the fall of Babylon but with the Return and that for the first time in scholarship that the 70 years is related to concepts of captivity, servitude and desolation. That is all!!! So what and scholars are still discussing the same issue today but only WT scholars from the time of Russell have a clear understanding of the subject of the 70 years. Alan stop making a lot of noise and stick to the facts. And aren't you a clever little man!! The said scholar wants to make you work. I have the papers to hand and people can make up their own mind on the matter. Not before Nile's thesis published in May, 2012 Of course, but he relates such to the 70 years Of course,because he does not equate the periods but simply relates such to the 70 years explained in the Abstract. WT scholars have a clear understanding as to the fact that these three elements are not related but are constituents of the 70 year period Read Niles ' paper which explains that there were three concepts that relate to the 70 years COJ like most other scholars only see the 70 years as a period of Babylonian domination and that is where they err. You need to read it again very carefully. "That the seventy years refer to a period of Babylonian supremacy, and not to the period of Jerusalem's desolation". I weep over your stupidity. No it is not just answer the question if you dare. Your paper is contrived for you omit the reign of Darius which falsifies your argument. Scholar believes in hard work and encoutages people to read and think and do the 'hard yards' The very fact that scholar has debated this topic for 20 years proves he is no coward and does not run away for scholar is very strong. No it is not trivial because scholar has a very good reason why he has put this specific question to you but you are too dumb to see why the question is asked but the question remains? Just answer it and if correct then I will award you a gold star. Provei it. Show me one publication that has used 'methodology' in connection with Chronology COJ has never discussed those three terms or concepts relating to the 70 years for he has never or hardly even used the word Exile, not even listed in his subject index .Niles was the first scholar to introduce these three concepts into the scholarly literature. Except for scholar who awaits your technical answer to my technical question. Poor scholar but you forgot point 3 and scholar already now has point 4. The strong Cable of Bible Chronology base on 4 witnesses from the bible. You gotta luv that scholar. scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Read it carefully you clown. Notice the statement according to that reckoning concluding hence forth. Also, the context of that discussion was under the heading Babylonian Chronology. What an idiot!! scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Likewise. You are expelled scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool I fully accept and endorse the Insight commentary. it is your nonsense that I do not accept. i did not create Darius the Mede, you idiot. He is mentioned in Daniel accompanied with a regnal date that cannot be ignored and WT scholars take that historical mention seriously. Your omission of this obvious fact renders your hypothesis sterile. scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool You explain nothing. Never explain the hard questions put to you but simply run away and hide. scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool What a load of bollocks. The precise dating of the first year of Cyrus cannot be precisely known because of Darius' first year which intervened between the time of Babylon's Fall and the Cyrus' first regnal year.- Da. 9:1,2. Thus WT scholars have give two separate dates expressed in terms of the Babylonian, Julian and Gregorian calendars respectively for the first year of Cyrus however which presents the Return of the Jews in the seventh month only in 537 BCE. This is the only possible calculable date for an earlier date of 538 BCE is clearly impossible for it does not account for the short reign of Darius the Mede not does it allow sufficient time for the Proclamation and the Publishing of the Cyrus' Decree throughout the Empire and the very extensive preparations for the Return of the Exiles . Plain common sense trumps 538 BCE every time for this is simply an apostate date!!! scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Coward's reply scholar JW
-
Alan F So then what is fundamentally wrong with the explanation given in the Insight article seeing that it does account for the brief reign of Darius which you do not and does not also occur in the tables in P&D? scholar JW
-
JW Insider It is not a diversion at all but simply a request for those who appear to be or claim to be far more competent in matters of Chronology pertaining to the intricacies of NB Chronology and the use of astro programs. The matter is important because we now have a controversy raised by Alan F in his 5 page paper whether the date of the Return is 538 or 537 . Thus a definite establishment of the 1st year of Cyrus is critical as explained in our publications. I have not found in any published scholarship to date that provides such vital information and the only go to reference work is of Parker and Dubberstein but such a work does not account for Darius' first year as stated in Dan. 9:1. So, such an omission has implications along with Neb's missing 7 years and Jeremiah's 70 years has implications for the integrity of the whole NB Period. scholar JW
-
JW Insider Would you please give the following information for the beginning and end dates for the Cyrus' 1sr full year expressed in the following calenders: Jewish/Hebrew- Babylonian Julian Gregorian Alan F is unable or unwilling to assist in this matter so as you have some competence in reading astro programs your input would be greatly appreciated seeing that the discussion has proceeded to the date of 537 or 538 BCE for the Return. scholar JW
-
JW Insider You seem to be very cluey with these tables so could you give me the Julian and Gregorian calender dates for the first regnal year of Cyrus if you please. Thanks scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Absolutely!! Wrong for we have that strong Cable of Bible Chronology and invisible events do matter. Correct your answer to the first part and attempt the next half of the question if you dare. scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool No you have not made any original contributions to the study of Chronology only parroting COJ's hypothesis. Scholar should quote the Bible when dealing with you but you are not a believer, Are you? Not meant to be an argument but a statement. scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Incorrect. Complete the answer to my question. Great War was an observable sign of the end of the Gentile Times Well it certainly commanded the attention of COJ, the scholarly community and yourself in a lather. The Great War was big enough. Well just answer and complete the question scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Why can't you admit that you cannot answer my simple question despite your superior knowledge in every thing. It would appear that the said scholar has you stumped. Your pathetic excuses doesn't cut it with me. You have been outsmarted and struck dumb!! You only follow the delusions of COJ Finally, At last I get an answer. Why did it take you so long? Now all that remains is that you provide the answer for the Gregorian calender for I am incompetent in this regard so I ask in all humility for your assistance in this matter.Are you sure the above is absolutely correct? I can only just quote scripture but am a master of exegesis. You are the moron Providence - Jehovah's direction on matters is everything but you are not a spiritual person so you have no understanding of such matters. Yes and this was the pivotal date used at that time for Cyrus' Decree which released the Exiles. So are you saying it was not a problem confronted by scholars of that day? No, the Climax book made a simple and honest statement. WT Chronology was clearly adjusted in the mid forties with new research available at that time and became more clearly established in 1963. Nope, NB Chronology has become widely accepted but the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy remains problematic and as a consequence undermines the credibility of NB chronology. Wrong dates is simply doing Chronology hence one must rely on the superiority of God's Word and Providence. I have to use Grammarly which is on my desktop You have attempted half the question which is incorrect. So repeat and answer the rest of the question and double check your authorities or advisors scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool With Chronology no one gets it right in every detail first off for as with all scholarship it is a work in progress. Providence as history shows plays its part too especially with the fulfillment of prophecy interpreted against the background of Bible Chronology now as a strong cable. Where is my answer to my question? scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Exactly, you do not make a point but borrow from others, having nothing original to contribute which proves your ignorance. You do not read current scholarship for it is a stranger to you only relying on the breadcrumbs of your Poppa, COJ. No answer. Why not ask COJ or Ann O Maly ? scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool You cannot answer a simple question but hide behind insults. You coward11 Read his writings and his chronological expertise is well demonstrated unlike you who cannot answer a simple question on Chronology. LOL!!!!! He got the Gentile Times right. Scholarship has verified Russell's contribution of this subject. He got the Gentile Times right unlike that idiot , your mate Sagan Obfuscation at its finest. You cowardly avoid a simple question which your refusal proves your incompetence. scholar JW
