scholar JW
-
Posts
519 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Everything posted by scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool It is not a lie for I am asking you a simple question, a relevant question that you refuse or are unable to answer yet you pretend to be an expert on the Chronology of Cyrus' 1st year. So give the Julian date if you dare! Just read the article provided and the explanation is self-evident. No, for such published works reflect the scholarship of that time. thus, the date for Babylon's Fall was accepted as 538 BCE again reflecting current scholarship of the day. Many scholars of that time failed to account for the zero year problem so it prevailed in the Chronologies of the period. Those scholars simply adopted their schemes of Chronology using different pivotal dates for their respective chronologies so your chart simply reflects the accepted Chronologies of the period accessible by Russell and Barbour. Of course, study of Chronology has evolved from Russell's day and we have currently many different chronologies available today. Providence cannot be excluded as a process of revealing things previously hidden now being revealed and taught by God's people today. You are so stupid you stumble over a typo but you have not answered my earlier question. scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool All that you do is simply quote or borrow from others. Your essay is just a rehash of COJ.'s thesis with nothing new and you still have not answered my question. Have you? scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Utter rubbish. Russell proved himself a competent chronographer. One only has to read his earlier volume later titled Studies in the Scriptures, Study II, 'The Time is at Hand, Vol.2. and for its time it was exceptional as to breadth and in-depth coverage of the subject. His discussion of the date of our Lord's Birth is masterful in scholarship remaining rock solid even up today despite the fact that scholars disagree on the date but many have agreed on that earlier position proposed by Russell and his associates. Well he got the end of the Gentile Times right in 1914 and by the way Alan you still have not answered my simple question seeing as you present yourself as a competent Chronologist. How about it? scholar JW
-
JW Insider So what. it was the Chronology of the times and Bible Chronology was not then yet fully developed and he did not compute the 70 years. scholar JW
-
JW Insider Chronology is not an exact science for it requires methodology and interpretation which is a large room for error and if we wish to construct an authentic Bible Chronology then we must rely on scholars who are attuned to the Spirit, faithfully paying attention to God's Word and in time we now have that Strong Cable of Bible Chronology as with the greatest translation of the Bible ever made -the NWT. Praise the Lord!!! scholar JW
-
JW Insider Well that is good so why are you messing about with stupid NB Chronology a dead end -going nowhere? The claims of NB Chronology as to the reigns of Neb are disproved by that strong cable of Bible Chronology by means of the biblical 70 years. End of story!! The reign of Cyrus with his first regnal year was from 538-537 BCE thus it is easily determined that the Jews returned home in the year 537 BCE as simply and reasonable explained in our publications. Of course, methodology makes this possible but that is simply doing chronology. So what. All that you have done is provided a modern day history of WT chronology and as such as new research becomes available then adjustments or corrections are made and that is simply good scholarship and now we can look back with great wonder and be excited in godly faith in Bible prophecy that we alone possess a Strong Cable of Bible Chronology validated by 4 prophetic witnesses. Josephus stated 70 years, five times and his description matches exactly WT interpretation noted by COJ in his GTR, 3rd. edn, p.298, ftn.29. Further, his sole mention of 50 years is most likely a quote from Berossus who was simply mistaken or Josephus was making an observed point of reference within the 70 year period. Just stick to the Bible and leave the confusion of NB Chronology to the experts such as Furuli and others. scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Don't you love the word 'Providentially' for it shows that the Lord's people truly listen to their God Jehovah and humbly follow the leadings of the Spirit in constructing that Strong Cable of Bible Chronology. By the way have you answered my question to you as you seem to nitpick over a zero year calculation SO HOP TO IT!!!! scholar JW
-
JW Insider The so-called error that Alan F in his ignorance and cannot even give the modern calendation for the first year of Cyrus is simply facile. The above quoted WT article explains the zero-year problem nicely. No doubt if you checked reference works, Bible dictionaries and other works on Chronology of that period then a similar error would have been made. WT scholars one informed of the error made the adjustment establishing by 1963 our superior strong cable of WT chronology. scholar JW
-
JW Insider The year of Babylonian domination is variable but what is more important is the dating of the 70 years and the focus of such domination is the relationship with Judah with the final rebellion which led to the Exile and Captivity in 607 BCE. If you want to play with figres which seems to be your want then if you subtract 70 years from 607 then you get 537 so that in itself speaks volumes. That year was 537 BCE generally accepted by most historians and scholars. The 70 years could only have begum with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE with the land becoming desolated and the people being led off into Exile under Babylonian domination. Nonsense Josephus many times refers to a 70 year period and not 50 which most likely refers to temple in obscurity within the 70 year period or a copyist error or most likely was simply quoting Berossus ' history. Are you an apostate? scholar JW
-
JW Insider You fail understand the point. Rodger Young was the first Chronologist to introduce' methodology. as tool in constructing and resolving chronological problems in the academic literature. If I am wrong then prove it. Yes, I do not his methodology, so What? Again , So what. I am free to agree or disagree am I not? Your comprehension skills are appalling. Again , So what? scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool So you must be the Humpty Dumpty of Secular Chronology scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool More blustering. Just answer a simple question seeing that you unlike everyone else is so competent- the smartest boy in the room . Reminds me of a former prime minister here in Australia and he fell on his sword. For starters you you not believe in those Scriptures and you show little or no interest in exegesis so do the exegesis and then we can talk. scholar JW
-
JW Insider WT has made it simple. I have never seen the figure '88 years' in any of our publications in relation to this matter and does not discuss the specifics of the NB Period for it has no relevance for Bible Chronology. Defined by scholar and Niles and discussed at great length in WT publications. Incorrect. It is true!!. Two historians at least are at one with the ending of the 70 years namely Ezra and Josephus. It was exactly 70 years right to the very day of the month because Jehovah is the great Timekeeper!!! Your latter comments are simply answered by the use of METHODOLOGY. Really? Well last time I checked I found that 607 BCE was the 11 th year of Zedekiah's reign ending with the end of the Judean Monarchy. The gap of 20 years is only present when a comparison is made between two chronologies, one is sacred the other is profane so it is your problem not mine. I know that, tell me something I don't know for this issue perplexed COJ and i answered this perplexity by one word-methodology. I rely on the Biblical record. scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool Hardly irrelevant when I ask you a simple question in relation to your paper, 5 pages of nonsense on the Return. You are the one that is confused just read your rambliings. Go away and good riddance. scholar JW
-
JW Insider Reminder of basic facts: The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology: 1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young 2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis. 3. The first scholar in company with Leonard Tolhurst to have the first translation of the German original into English of the VAT 4956 paper by Ernst Weidner So my time has not been wasted but very fruitful indeed. scholar JW
-
JW Insider That is not the impression that you create on this forum. Remember when someone claims to debunk WT chronology which Alan F does and you appear to be a co-conspirator then that question I have asked is like the sword of Damocles which i will present to any so-called expert. So what! The simple fact that NB Chronology and its History does not account for the 70 years nor does it account for Neb's regnal vacancy. Rubbish, Scholar never runs away but stands firm. I ask questions to show that these so-called experts cannot answer immediate and simple questions on Chronology only known or stated by WT scholars???? Recent example was that Alan F proudly displays his paper refuting 537 BCE but when asked a simple question in relation to the fundamental timing of the first year of Cyrus then the cat got his tongue, he was struck dumb. !!!! scholar JW
-
JW Insider There is simply 70 years proper that is the focus for that is the only period mentioned and it is simple to define where that 70 years fits and that is between the Fall and the Return whereupon on has exactly 70 years between two major historical events. pure and simple. I am not worried at all because when one does compare secular chronology with Bible Chronology yo see a gap of 20 years so that is Ok for need only have to adjust the NB period by 20 years which seems to what the Finnish Chronologist has done verified by his study of the astronomical data as with Furuli. scholar JW
-
JW Insider While we are at it what year ended the Monarchy of Judah with its overthrow by Neb when he destroyed Jerusalem and do you accept the timeline for the Divide monarchy in recent WT publications and if not what chronology for the Divided Monarchy do you accept? scholar JW
-
JW insider Your reply is just what i expected. Seeing that you are so clever and an expert on Chronology would you answer the question I put to Alan F about the precise modern day calendrical datings for the the 'first year of Cyrus' in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calender? scholar JW
-
JW Insider. NB Chronology does not account for the 70 years in any way, shape or form. COJ well demonstrates this fact when he was unable to clearly decide as to whether the 70 year period could begin in either 605 or 609 BCE for either according to his methodology had equal merit. Such confusion within scholarship is highlighted in Nile's Thesis in the Appendix A which for the beginning of the 70 years present three different dates: 612, 609, 605 BCE WT Chronology has no such problem dating the beginning of the Period in Neb's 18th year and Zedekiah's 11 th year as properly calculated as 607 BCE Gibberish or special pleading. Why not just accept the basic historical fact of the 70 years and do not make it so complicated for a complex chronology is a bogus chronology- the Devil's work!! The 70 years was defined period of servitude/domination. exile/captivity. desolation of the land between two clearly defined historical events marked in Bible History to wit: Fall of Jerusalem and the Return to Judah properly fixed. scholar JW
-
JW Insider WT Chronology is likened to a strong cable with its many inter-connecting features unlike the secular chronologies which are simply a chain of connected links or a string of beads. (Refer WT, 15th July, 1922, p.217) Further, it states "In the chronology of present truth there are so many inter-relationships among the dates that it is not a mere string of dates, not a chain, but a cable of strands firmly knit together-a divinely unified system, with most of the dates having such a remarkable relations with others as to stamp the system as not of human origin" (ibid.). In the following paragraph, the article notes the importance to Chronology of a genuine philosophy of history which must be discernible in the chronological system of divine truth (op.cit.). These inter-relations of dates are now termed as parallelisms . This is explained as "Parallel dates are two series of dates a certain number of years apart and marked by events of corresponding character. The intervening period is usually marked by a significant number or years" (ibid. p.219). Major examples of which would be the following examples in the OT and NT: 1. 390 years of the Divided Monarchy- Ezekiel the Prophet 2. 70 years of Judah- Jeremiah the Prophet 3. 70 Weeks of Years - Daniel the prophet 4. 7 Times, Times of the Gentiles- Daniel the Prophet These historical events form part of the tapestry of the Bible what has become known as 'Salvation History' and such parallelisms make up that strong cable of Chronology which is independent of all other secular Chronologies. scholar JW
-
JW Insider Yes, that is correct but we need o be judicious and selective when using such data outside the Bible only using that data that has unanimity with scholarship, derived from an Absolute Date and has full historical support within the Biblical record and only ONE date is necessary and the best candidate by far is the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE wisely adopted by WT scholars. scholar JW
-
JW Insider The so-called evidence for NB Chronology is illusory as it is easily falsified by the simple fact that the NB Period of history makes no account of the 70 years of the Jewish Captivity and Servitude to Babylon made worse when in fact that the Babylonian Power had domination over Palestine for such a lengthy period of time within the entire NB period. There is no such thing as a 'Absolute Chronology' only a 'Relative Chronology' is possible based on a few Absolute Dates. This Bible gives no BC/CE dates and neither does any other chronology. The Bible does not provide astronomical data for very good reasons but does provide a detailed history of the OT period- sufficient data in order to provide a simple but accurate Bible Chronology. Thus, simply put, WT Chronology is a Relative Chronology not an Absolute Chronology sufficient for the dutiful but inquiring Bible Student and Christian who seeks to understand the fulfillment of Bible Prophecy. Well for at least 7 years Neb was absent from the throne so the throne was vacant.Such a vacancy is not mentioned in the NB records which in any terms is a significant omission undermining the accuracy of all of the documents and lines of evidence. It is not for me to try to insert where in Neb's reign these years should be inserted but as you are advocating for the pre-eminence of NB Chronology it is your problem. Regarding iddanim this is a subject of lexical and theological comment but is nicely discussed in WT publications. Regardless of your interpretive solution the fact is that the secular records have no account of it so into the dustbin it goes and let us to stick to God's Word for our Chronology. scholar JW
-
JW Insider I am bedazzled by your scholarship and those pretty bright colours!!! scholar JW
-
Alan F What are you trying to hide. Are you not the expert in Chronology so why can't you answer this simple question or you could ask your fellow critics like JW Insider, COJ or Ann O'Maly? scholar JW