scholar JW
-
Posts
519 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by scholar JW
-
-
Alan de Fool
10 minutes ago, AlanF said:Nonsense. I covered this in an essay written in 1992: https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/part-3-scriptural-arguments.html . The subject is covered elsewhere in that series as well. And of course, I've covered it in numerous online forums since then.
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
1 minute ago, AlanF said:All of this proves what we already know -- Russell was incompetent as a commentator on chronological matters. From his earliest days he used 1914, not 1915, as the end of the Gentile times. The March, 1880 Watch Tower, on page 2, said:
<< "The Times of the gentiles" extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then, but as a "Stone" the kingdom of God is set up "in the days of these (ten gentile) kings," and by consuming them it becomes a universal kingdom -- a "great mountain and fills the whole Earth." >>
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.
15 minutes ago, AlanF said:It was only after about 1904, when many of the dire events Russell had predicted had not materialized, that he began waffling about 1914/1915.
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
13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Your guess is wrong. Even in 1823, John Aquila Brown ran the 2,520 years from 604 B.C. to 1917 A.D. So he knew there was no zero year, and he knew it was Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604 according to the standard NB chronology, not the WTS chronology.
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
4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:There can be only one reason you would try to support the claim that it was providential that the leadings of the Spirit led God's people to make a mistake. Trying to blame a mistake on Jehovah and the leading of the Spirit is hopefully just a matter of you trying to provoke the way an "Internet troll" would, and not your real feelings about Jehovah and the Spirit.
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
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:Yes it does. I agree. That's why I accept 607 as a good date for the beginning of the 70 years, too. And I also agree with you that Cyrus began his reign over Babylon in 539. That's because I see plenty of evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline that puts Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604, and therefore his 18th year in 587, and therefore Nabonidus' first year in 555, and Cyrus' first year in 539, etc.
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!!
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:But I'm sure you know it's not true that "Cyrus began to reign" in 537. And that most scholars actually believe he started his reign in 539, the year of his "accession to the throne" of Babylon, and that 538 was therefore his first "regnal" year. If Cyrus had really begun his accession year in 537, then the Jews, according to the Insight book, could have been back home as late as 1 year and 6 months later, around October 535.
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.
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:For 70 years, the WTS counted back from 1914 and got 606. Then they subtracted 70 from 606 and got 536. Back then some scholars were still saying Cyrus captured Babylon in 537, not 539. So the WTS used 536 as Cyrus' first regnal year, even though that has proven to be two years off (from the date we use now).That means that Cyrus captured Babylon in 537 (also two years off) and would have surely made the proclamation in 536. But that was the old view.
Then there was a change around 1943/44, when the Watchtower finally saw that they had made a mistake in their previously published claims about the zero year. So, per the methodology, they now subtracted 2520 from 1914 correctly and got 607. They subtracted 70 years from 607, and now got 537 as the new date for what had been Cyrus proclamation.
But by then (1943), there was a new problem. The Watchtower had realized that there was no getting around the secular data that Cyrus actually captured Babylon in 539, not 537. So they needed a longer delay to fill in these two years. That's why, for the first time, the WTS began promoting a delay of up to two years after the fall of Babylon before the Jews could return home. Not just when they "could return home," but even adding another few months for preparation and travel, so that the new end date would be after they were back in their own land. When the Jews got back from the Exile wasn't important to the WTS before, only the time of the Proclamation.
That delay was easy to claim, of course: just make sure that we don't think Cyrus announce the proclamation early in 538. (as @Arauna has insisted) The Insight book, for example, speculates that this announcement happened "later in 538" or even "early in 537," so that the Jews wouldn't get back home until around October 537 -- two full years after Cyrus overtook Babylon.
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.
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:Yes, we can all make excuses or speculations about why Josephus finally called it a 50 year period instead of 70, which was always the more common reference to the troubles with Babylon during this period. Yet, 50 perfectly fits the standard NB Chronology, so it's not just a coincidence. "70 years" was the common reference to the period of trouble that had included the loss of the temple. But when one would focus chronologically on just on the actual time when the Temple finally went into obscurity, chronologically it was closer to a 50 year period. (about 587 to 538/7).
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.
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:And we now know it's the opposite. It would have been more accurate to say "and the difficulty with which secular data could be altered --for it would require altering thousands of items-- indicates that it is nearly impossible that one of more of the Neo-Babylonian rulers could have had a longer reign than the "Ptolemaic canon" shows.
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
1 hour ago, AlanF said:<< Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between “B.C.” and “A.D.” Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at “A.D. 1914.”—See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” published by Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1943, page 239. >>
Providentially? LOL! This footnote is pure deception from beginning to end.
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
51 minutes ago, JW Insider said:December 1, 1912. Page 377-8. Reprints page 514
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
22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:And I'm sure you won't see it. But all you have to do is take the date that the Insight book gives for the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (625) and subtract it from the last year of "Babylonian domination" which is considered to be the same as the first two years of Persian domination (537 BCE). Do the math: 625 minus 537 equals 88 years. Yet those Insight articles on Carchemish, Josiah, Necho(h), Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakim, etc., all showed that Babylonian domination began early in Nebuchadnezzar's reign (and obviously lasted until Cyrus). Here's another
*** it-1 p. 1186 Image ***
The image obviously relates to domination of the earth and Jehovah God’s purpose regarding such domination. This is made clear in Daniel’s inspired interpretation. The golden head represented Nebuchadnezzar, the one who, by divine permission, had gained power as the dominant world ruler . . .Since the other body parts represented kingdoms, the head evidently represented the dynasty of Babylonian kings from Nebuchadnezzar down till Babylon’s fall in the time of King Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar.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.
26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:I think most all historians are in agreement about the ending of a fulfillment of 70 years. Ezra says it ended when the sons of Persia began to reign. But the devastations and desolations began as soon as Babylon became dominant. Starting in the third year of Jehoiakim.
(2 Chronicles 36:20) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign,
Ezra contradicts the Watchtower by saying that it was when the kingdom of Persia began to reign. Not a year and a half or two later, as the Watchtower claims.
That year was 537 BCE generally accepted by most historians and scholars.
27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Also, Jeremiah's 70 years were fulfilled by some who were taken in the third year of Jehoiakim and some who were taken 5 years after Jerusalem was destroyed, with the major exile taking place about 10 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. The Insight book says that the third year of Jehoiakim was 626 [i.e., 4th year 625]. That's almost 20 years before Jerusalem was destroyed.
*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
The fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) saw Nebuchadnezzar defeat Pharaoh Necho in a battle over the domination of Syria-Palestine. The battle took place at CarchemishThe 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.
29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:And of course, if you accept 539 as the time of Cyrus' domination, then you are accepting evidence that the temple was destroyed about 50 years earlier than 539, not 70 years. So you have this same problem repeated that you are putting a 88 to 90 year domination for Babylon, when Jeremiah gave it 70 years
Nonsense
30 minutes ago, JW Insider said:And your claim that Josephus definitively and explicitly gave "Cyrus" 70 years since the full destruction of Jerusalem is also wrong, as has been pointed out already. Even Furuli admitted that the final word of Josephus on this was not "seventy" but "fifty" which is in line with the standard chronology. Even the JW defending site, "Setting the Record Straight" admits that the final word of Josephus was 50 not 70 which means that the first desolations upon Jerusalem/Judea perhaps even some temple tribute (Daniel 1:1-2) started 20 years prior, as Daniel and Berossus indicate:
In Against Apion however, Josephus first wrote "seventy" in Book I, Chapter 19 §132,ftn5 but just two chapters later in the same book he wrote "fifty" (Book I, Chapter 21 §154ftn6)! . . .Perhaps he was aware of secular chronology leaving only fifty years for the desolation, and was pandering to both biblical and secular chronology. As to the reliability of this "fifty years" anomaly, on page 71 of Rolf Furuli's book Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jewsftn7 we find: "Some manuscripts of Josephus give a different number than 50 years here [in Against Apion I, 21 §154], but both Eusebius and Syncellus in their quotes from Josephus use 50."
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
6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:But neither you nor Rodger Young were the first to introduce the role of Methodology. Besides, you reject most of what Rodger Young says, and you especially reject his chronology. In fact, the very 1922 Watchtower you referenced before showed clearly that the Watchtower used a methodology that proved that Watchtower chronology had "Proof of Divine Origin." That methodology was the 1,845 year parallel dispensations. And the second methodology was to count 2,520 years backward from 1914 and then attach an assumed "nearby" event to whatever date was derived. (In 1943/1944 a similar exercise had to be repeated when the zero year "controversy" was settled. Counting backwards from 1914 gave a new and different date for the same assumed "nearby" event. It was accepted as if it had been the same date all along because the methodology didn't actually care what the date was, only that it could be subtracted from 1914.)
But if you look up "methodology"+"chronology"+"Babylon" on Google Books you get several books from the 1800's with articles on the methodology for studying Babylonian, Assyrian and Bible chronology.
Even the papers by Steele show the sophisticated use of methodology by Babylonian mathematician/astrologers.
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?
10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:And just like with Rodger Young, you reject both of these people's conclusions anyway. You promoted exactly the opposite of what Niles promotes. You say that these are all the same concept combined in the same time period. He says they are all completely different concepts that must be placed in three separate time periods.
It really does look like we are approaching that point when you merely repeat what has already been proven wrong.
Again , So what. I am free to agree or disagree am I not?
Your comprehension skills are appalling.
12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:That's great. Sprichts du? Ausgezeichnet! One of those old books from the 1890's on historical and chronological methodology was by Revere F. Weidner, but I don't have time to see if he was related to Ernst F. Weidner. But again, you don't accept the astronomical analysis found in that same paper anyway:
Again , So what?
scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool
10 minutes ago, AlanF said:So says the Elmer Fudd of Bible chronology.
So you must be the Humpty Dumpty of Secular Chronology
scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool
16 minutes ago, AlanF said:Your usual meaningless gibberish. Since the dates are given in Julian calendar dates, and other systems such as Gregorian dating is trivially derived, there is nothing to do here.
Of course, for someone who admittedly is so incompetent that he does not know how to copy/paste on his computer, perhaps such matters are rocket science.
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.
18 minutes ago, AlanF said:And I must point out for the thousandth time: You refuse to quote Scripture because you're afraid of what the actual words mean.
When someone else quotes Scripture you completely ignore the text and dismiss what it says.
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
1 minute ago, JW Insider said:I didn't make it complicated. I merely showed how the Watchtower has made it complicated by using an 88 year period of Babylonian domination. The NB and Bible chronology makes it simple: 70 years easily fits in a period of about 70 to 73 years. No complications!
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.
4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:"Defined?" By whom? Can you find a scripture that indicates that the fall of Jerusalem was the beginning of a period of exile? Does this mean no one was made captive or exiled before or after? Was no one made to serve or be dominated before or after? Why does Ezekiel not count time from this same event, then, but counts time from a clearly defined event a decade earlier?
Defined by scholar and Niles and discussed at great length in WT publications.
5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:And for that matter, even if true, you also can't find a scripture that says it was the "Return" which was the "defined" historical event that ended the 70 years. The Bible says it was the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus, or perhaps the proclamation that they could return. Yet, you say it has "exactly" 70 years. And the same methodology and evidence by which you accept the dates for Cyrus are the same ones you reject. You can't use the words "exactly" when you have arbitrarily adjusted the same Cyrus evidence by 20 years. You claim the Cyrus evidence is exact but then reject that same Cyrus evidence when you want it to be 20 years off for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
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.
9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:I have no problem with the Watchtower's presentation of the monarchies in its relative chronology. Also, as I've said before, I have no axe to grind for any particular BCE date anyway. I have no belief system riding on any ideologies connected. I think the Insight book puts it best:
*** it-1 pp. 462-463 Chronology ***
From 997 B.C.E. to desolation of Jerusalem. ... Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency. ...
The chart is not intended to be viewed as an absolute chronology but, rather, as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms. . . .and hence we may be satisfied with simply setting out an arrangement that harmonizes reasonably with the Biblical record.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.
12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Odd. You say you don't see a problem because, after all, it's only a gap of 20 years. Yet you reject a set of dates for the 70 years because it might be off by as many as 3 or 4 years. Also, your claim that it is only off by 20 years is meaningless, because you no longer have any anchor date to start with. You can't reject the methodology and evidence that gives you Cyrus in 539 and still say you accept 539. You reject 539 the second you reject 587 as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
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.
14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:This is why I don't think you would ever dare answer those questions I asked, even though the answer is mostly right there in the Watchtower publications. Right there in the "Insight" book. That's because if you answered them, you would realize that the evidence for 539 is the same evidence for the entire NB chronology. If you reject any part of the NB chronology, you just rejected 539. Those questions in case you forgot, were:
I know that, tell me something I don't know for this issue perplexed COJ and i answered this perplexity by one word-methodology.
16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Do you know what king list the WTS relies upon to know where Cyrus fits in the timeline? Do we know which royal chronicles the WTS relies upon to identify when Cyrus ruled? Do we know which astronomical positions in ancient diaries that the WTS relies upon to put a BCE date on the accession year of Cyrus?
I rely on the Biblical record.
scholar JW
-
Alan de Fool
2 minutes ago, AlanF said:Rubbish! I already told you: your questions were completely irrelevant to Neo-Babylonian chronology, and all of us already know the answers. You're dissembling to try to confuse the dummies on this forum.
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:
4 minutes ago, scholar JW said:12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out.
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
1 minute ago, JW Insider said:I have never claimed to be clever or expert on Chronology. In fact, I have probably made a lot of mistakes on this very thread/topic. I keep catching my own typos. I don't have no interest in whatever this was you are talking about with AlanF.
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.
4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:I noticed something when I went back and read some of your own postings on forums going back for nearly 20 years. You get involved in many of them, and very quickly just start repeating the same things over and over, like: "NB Chronology can't be trusted because it doesn't account for the 70 years." After that's been shown not to be the case, you don't respond to the argument but simply fall back on repeating the phrase like that over and over.
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.
7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out.
So, no, I don't care about an unrelated question right now. But I do hope that doesn't mean you are leaving soon. We're just getting started.
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
2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:But it obviously does. It doesn't give 88 years like the WTS wants, and it doesn't give just 50 years (as Josephus finally corrected the period from the fall of Jerusalem to Cyrus). As you indicate, the standard NB Chronology gives a period that scholars and Bible students can begin from about 612, 609, or 605 at the latest, with 609 between them. The Bible ends that period with Cyrus, and that date is admitted, by the WTS to be 539, relying on the same secular chronology. The first is 73 years and the last is 66 years. 609 as a solution would be exactly 70 years. If you see a problem with being able to fulfill "70 years" in a period of about 66, 70, or 73 years then there is no reason to discuss this "70 years." It seems very specious and disingenuous to say that 70 years cannot be 70 years.
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.
4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Wait! You were worried about a range of dates from 66 to 73 making a huge problem for secular chronology. That's only 3 or 4 years off at most. And they average about 70 years. Yet you claim the WT chronology has no problem by creating a date that contradicts their own sources for BCE dates by about 20 years!
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.
17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:It would be falsified from the standpoint of accepting the Biblical evidence if it showed that the period of Babylonian domination was shorter than 70 years and therefore could not accommodate 70 years of Babylonian domination of all these nations around them:
(Jeremiah 25:11) . . .and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’
Fortunately, the NB Chronology allows for the right amount of years, 70 years of domination from the time of finally overtaking Assyria right up to the time of Babylon being overtaken by Persia.
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
25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Of course, Jeremiah's word would be falsified from the standpoint of accepting Watchtower evidence if that period of 70 years of domination was extended to add another 15 to 20 years of domination. In other words, if Nebuchadnezzar was already 20 years into the period of Babylonian domination of all these nations, and then got another 70 years after his 19th year (as the Watchtower claims) then that would be closer to 88 years of Babylonian domination. In other words, the Watchtower counts Babylonian domination from supposedly 625 BCE to 537 BCE, or 88 years. Claiming 88 years of Babylonian domination makes Jeremiah out to be a liar when he said that "these nations" will have to serve the king of Babylon for only 70 years.
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!!
27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:Yes. Since it is supposed to be only 70 years, it would indeed be made worse if in fact the Babylonian Power had domination over Palestine for nearly a 90 year period as the Watchtower claims.
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
8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:But we need to go outside the Bible, to rely on secular evidence, in order to pinpoint the "BCE" year get dates for kings like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus?
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
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:I've seen people react like this when they realize the evidence is rubbish, and exactly the same way when they realize the evidence is too strong. You've probably experienced the same.
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.
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:The Biblical "70 years" period fits perfectly well. I'm willing to stipulate 607 to 537 as one of the four strongest candidates. I believe you still accept those dates, too. Besides, the 70 years is from another relative timeline, not an absolute one. The Bible gives no BCE/CE dates, and doesn't attempt to describe eclipses and astronomical observations so that one may turn the Bible's relative chronology into an absolute chronology. So you have nothing to worry about unless you intend to rely on secular dating to prove a specifically interpreted Biblical timeline.
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.
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:Are you so reliant on the Babylonian evidence that you can't believe that 7 of those 43 years could have been spent in madness? Did you expect a record of this madness in their Chronicles? Perhaps CC gave you the answer when he noted that Nebuchadnezzar didn't actually have to be at every battle fought in his name. Or perhaps, if you are not willing to propose that it was any of the 43 years credited to his reign, you could propose where the additional 7 years might fit. Or perhaps you could stop insisting that the Aramaic "iddan" refers only to literal "YEARS." Even its usage in the Bible is not always a reference to literal years. For Bible commentators it might be noteworthy that Daniel 4 speaks in terms of literal months from the time of the dream to it's fulfillment, but reverts to this more nebulous word "iddan" which can refer to different time periods for the fulfillment. What if it means "seasons" here? What if it means "weeks"? Besides, the Chronicles do contain long gaps without crediting anything specific to Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps it's mostly allegorical, and therefore about the complete term of his reign from the time of the dream at which time he recognized some of his own madness and beastliness. After all, that's the way the Watchtower mostly treats it anyway, as an allegory of some other time period unrelated to Nebuchadnezzar.
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.
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:But here's another possible (but highly improbable) solution. Take it for what it's worth because it's my "personal" solution, purely speculative, and I've never seen it supported anywhere. But at least it gives you a full seven literal years:
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
29 minutes ago, AlanF said:You can barely read, but enough to find them for yourself. Quit being so lazy.
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
SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)
in Topics
Posted
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