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
    Alan F Not necessarily for a deportation can be limited to a few captives with the remaining population left alone. An Exile proper which is only the ONE in the OT as recognized by scholars and historians is the one of the Babylonian captivity ending with the Return. Yes but there is a fundamental difference between the exile of a few such as Ezekiel and Daniel and the EXILE of the nation of Judah. Do you not see the difference, Alan? scholar JW
  2. scholar JW
    Alan F Correction here. many deportations but only one Exile!!! scholar JW
  3. scholar JW
    JW Insider If you accept a typo as a true statement then you are in big trouble. scholar JW
  4. scholar JW
    JW Insider Well you can because of methodology. WT scholar have simply selected only one pivotal date derived from a later Absolute Date and there is nothing wrong with that. Next they use the biblical history along with the regnal data and made a Chronology. So what. The problem with all of these lines of evidence is that none factor the definite historical period of the 70 years so such can not be credible witnesses. Yes this statement sends out a warning that such apparent absolute chronology may not be as absolute as first thought as this was written in 1981 and some decades later comes Rolf Furuli who has confirmed mush of this precautionary statement. Wise words indeed. scholar JW
  5. scholar JW
    JW Insider I do not agree. This comes down to METHODOLOGY and you do not recognize that any Chronologist or scholar in order to construct a Chronology will be selective because all that one has has regnal data as links in a chain , assigned to an historical events and then as a chain of events with dates is described in a modern day calender. This proces requires not only METHODOLOGY but INTERPRETATION Therefore , to speak of an Absolute Chronology is simply mistaken showing ignorance. This scenario is good on paper but not in fact because it ignores several facts namely the three elements of the 70 year period and that the Return of Jews was in the first year of Cyrus.. Why do you not like 607 BCE when it to can easily accommodates the facts? It would simply be a Chronology just like any others. Whatever, Chronology is not just for the experts but for Bible readers so language is essential for there is no place for dogmatism in Chronology. Yes there are witnesses and perhaps the one that gets ignored is the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus who should not be ignored. Such witnesses can be used to also check any interpretation of the data such as how the 70 years was understood by living in earlier times. Agreed. So then how can NB Chronology be falsified and my simple answer is the the 70 years and the Exile these ate the 'two witnesses' so what are your two witnesses'/ Yes if this process works for you. But this process that you propose with its three witnesses has some major difficulties that must be recognized but we will see how it is done. One major problem that is apparent that in the case of your first proposal is the difficulty in deciding 586 or 587. The second with the array of tablets not one of these contains complete historical data and the third has issues over interpretation of the data as per. Furuli. Either way it is difficult so best left alone. scholar JW
  6. scholar JW
    Ann O'Maly No problem at all except in your mind. The matter is settled in the Bible, by celebrated WT scholars making fools of academia. No thanks I will stick to Bible Chronology rather and make you and your cronies look like idiots. scholar JW
  7. scholar JW
    Ann O'Maly I cannot be bothered. My primary focus is on Bible Chronology Does not Furuli's honest admission tell you something? scholar JW
  8. scholar JW
    Ann O'Maly That is simply your opinion on the matter. Furuli's research differs from yours and that remains the problem. It is not against kicking the evidence as you say for i accept the fact of the tablet but it is in the interpreting of the data that remains the issue. It is not out of some fear but simply a recognition that at this stage I am not competent in making any sense of those programs of which there are many which in itself are problematic. Why do not you experts agree on one program cross the board? scholar JW
  9. scholar JW
    Ann O'Maly I would test if I was competent so until i become competent i must rely on those who are competent such as yourself, Alan F, JW Insider, COJ and of course Rolf Furuli and his colleagues. There goes down the credibility and you want me to make sense of it all scholar JW
  10. scholar JW
    Alan F So 605 BCE is now fully established so what about the status of 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon for Neb's accession year is a little fuzzy, biblically speaking. Just give the cataloque numbers It would appear that 597 is a better candidate then 605. How is that? So how does one rank COJ compared to others scholars? So does WtT scholars and Furuli. COJ has not debunked Furuli at all simply responded to Furuli's research and neither have others Indeed. But you forgot the most important word-interpreted scholar JW
  11. scholar JW
    Alan F It is a fine thing that now we have a team of experts who will enlighten us all, fully competent for every good work! scholar JW
  12. scholar JW
    JW Insider OK. Then on that basis and the definition then WT Chronology can also be properly termed an 'Absolute Chronology' Would you not agree? However, the Insight quote begins with "The claim is made" thus this is not a statement of fact but something that is claimed only. It is impossible to create any Absolute Chronology for any period of history , this is simply creating myth and pretentiousness. Furuli's research is not fully complete as many thousands of tablets are yet to be deciphered so scholarship is in a early phase of research. I disagree, very few if any stand alone so circular reasoning alone has all of the pieces fitting together. provide one example where on piece of evidence truly stands alone. Perhaps that is why WT scholars decide on simply one established Absolute Date or pivotal Date for its Chronology and now we a simple Relative Chronology. I agree. Falsification is what true science is about so how then does none falsify NB Chronology? Well said Easier said then done. i still have to understand what I am seeing and try to understand the subject. i am not as smart as you or others so i need something for Dummies or some online tutorial. Or i will just stick to the Bible. Absolutely, and that is what I have been doing my entire life. I could join a local astronomy club or contact the Observatory at Brisbane or university if the facilities for ancient astronomy are available as there are no Witnesses to my knowledge who have such expertise. Ann O Maly could fly over and teach me or Alan F or your good self Are these lines of evidence truly independent?. So we have an established date so why not stick to that as presented in WT publications? Is it not ABSOLUTE enough? scholar JW
  13. scholar JW
    Alan F That is the problem how does a person unfamiliar with astro programs or with ancient astronomy able to make sense of it all for this really is the terrain of experts and certainly Furuli because of his expertise in the language of these clay tablets must surely be allowed to have an opinion. Further, because you say he is wrong does not make it so for that is your opinion. In fact this is rocket science. So what, Bias is part of scholarship so caution must be exercised. Neo-Babylonian Chronology is hardly science so your parallel does not work. Chronology is about methodology and interpretation based on sound history. So now you the expert! LOL. The very fact that there are several astro programs tells me that something is not quite right. It is similar to the number of different king lists for the Divided Monarchy in the OT, so where there is a lack of consensus then one knows something is wrong . That is the problem one has to compare the data based on the programs and then interpret that data with the interpretation of the document. Is it not strange that because Furuli finds something different that happens to fit our Chronology then he is accused of bias to WT chronology but i could say exactly the same thing about the other side fo how do I know that the current interpretation is also not biased towards current NB Chronology? scholar JW
  14. scholar JW
    JW Insider it comes down to authenticity. A sound and accurate Chronology is built on the historical record and if the record omits key facts then such an omission detracts from the integrity of the documents and any chronology based on such documents. None of the documents has any mention of the events of Neb's 18th regnal year and that is crucial because we are talking about an event that happened in that year-the Fall. Chronology employs synchronisms and several are in the biblical record which is not the case with any of the secular documents so such data is essential in constructing a relative chronology. So be it then what are these independent witnesses that can confirm NB Chronology for where i am standing there is no such thing for all of the so-called evidence is all in house. scholar JW
  15. scholar JW
    JW Insider Yes but this is contradicted by the title of the chapter-'The Absolute Chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Era' scholar JW
  16. scholar JW
    JW Insider Although I have these astro programs on my computer I have no competence in using or understanding such highly technical matters so I cannot make any assessment on such matters. I have confidence that Furuli is no fool and is competent in the use of these programs. I am suspicious of others who object to Furuli's findings because of a collective bias which has no place in scholarship. scholar JW
  17. scholar JW
    JW Insider But that is what COJ has done Furuli discusses also the other astronomical diaries as well but his primary focus has been on VAT 4956 which WT scholars claim it as the 'Big one' of secular evidence. But each of these evidences should also stand alone and if not then this gives rise to a much bigger problem of interpretation and methodology if we view the evidence holistically. What Furuli's research demonstrates the need of caution when dealing with these documents so thes may not be as important as we claim or wish to believe as these were designed for different purposes and can only be of relative importance as a secondary source . Yes , your analysis underscores the need of caution when evaluating such complex evidence. This is simply the position of Ann O Maly and again she has an agenda or bias and her research needs to be tested as with all others. scholar JW
  18. scholar JW
    Alan F You claim that 605 BCE is well established for Neb's accession year by means of at least Ptolemy's Canon a comment made by Thiele and two lunar eclipses which you do not give the cataloque number. Next you move onto These two texts must be properly analysed and examined and compared with Furuli's observations about the content of these tablets and interpretation. Next you move onto Neb's seventh year and again this requires careful examination and not just blustering comments which hinder proper discussion. the dates that you give are asserted and not proved even though accepted by the majority of scholars. Before we assign any dates to these events first examine the content of these documents and tablets. Well if it is good enough to bring COJ into the discussion along with Thiele then it is equally proper that we cite WT scholars and Furuli but that will only cloud the issue. First, we must examine the primary evidence from both the secular documents and the biblical record then we proceed to interpretation and consult with others. scholar JW
  19. scholar JW
    Alan F That is a matter of opinion. The fact is that Furuli provides a valuable criticism which is the province of every proper scholar , to question orthodoxy, to ask questions and test the evidence. Are you going to argue that NB Chronology is some sort of Sacred Cow that cannot be challenged , becoming something to further study? You accuse Furuli of incompetence in the use of the astro program but is this more of confirmation of your bias rather than intellectual honesty. scholar JW
  20. scholar JW
    JW Insider But there are pieces that are missing e.g. 1. the missing 7 years of Neb's madness from the throne and 2. No mention of Neb's destruction of Jerusalem in his 18th year for starters. And what are the independent witnesses that you refer? But according to COJ you already have an Absolute Chronology titled as chapter 4 in his latest 4th edn then of course you have the problem of Rolf Furuli whose research undermines any confidence in the correctness of the present scheme of NB Chronology scholar JW
  21. scholar JW
    JW Insider What is of concern to me that there is the danger of circular reasoning. What i am seeking is some external or independent evidence that lies outside NB Chronology that would validate it. Herein lies the problem. A failure to carefully distinguish between these two terms, 'relative' and absolute' because wil confuse the two and believe that what as been constructed becomes a absolute chronology. For NB Chronology to have a useful or practical purpose for Bible Students it must have an interface to OT chronology which can stand alone from NB Chronology as shown by the independent WT chronology which employs identical regnal data for both the Monarchies of Judah, Israel, Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian and Assyrian. Thus interface between these different periods and chronologies is the regnal data. Now of course, we have the additional problem of a lack of consensus with respect to the Divided Monarchy. Thus if we admit to the absoluteness of the NB Period and its Chronology then we have the problem of the INTERFACE between the two- NB Period and OT period. scholar JW scholar JW
  22. scholar JW
    JW Insider Your presentation of NB Chronology is excellent with lovely coloured charts and it appears infallible. How does one test or falsify this scheme of Chronology. Can it now be viewed as an Absolute Chronology and can it now be used to construct a OT Chronology which are legitimate questions? scholar JW
  23. scholar JW
    JW Insider Chronology has nothing to do with Furuli's latest bombshell for his views on WT Biblical Chronology are firm and well established as is mine thus his current stance in some sense creates a distance, a freedom from any alleged bias working as a truly independent scholar working in the pursuit of Truth. scholar JW emeritus
  24. scholar JW
    Hi Ann How are you and I hope you are well. I received from Rolf a free copy of his latest book yesterday morning and I replied to him forthwith with some of my own observations over the last few decades. Like Rolf I share his scholarly endorsement of 607 BCE and the doctrine of the Gentile Times based on Daniel 4 and the Lukan text- Luke 21:24 his now public position certainly adds some validity to the authenticity of the 607 BCE Chronology despite the criticism of current scholarship. Since our many online discussions of 607 BCE in relation to the chronology and nature of the 'seventy years' of Jeremiah a recent published article adds some weight to our current and traditional interpretation of the 70 years as opposed to view of our many critics. The article is titled 'The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' by Steven M Ruse in the Journal Of Biblical Literature, 2018 Vol.137,No.1, pp.107-126. This article is the most recent published article on this subject and has much emphasis on the exilic aspect of the seventy years as opposed to the view of a solely Babylonish servitude or domination of Judah. Enjoy!!!! scholar JW emeritus
  25. scholar JW
    Nana Fofana Despite Alan F's protestations to the contrary I agree with you that Lewontin, an evolutionary zoologist was correctly quoted in both the earlier and recent editions of the marvellous Creation book. He made a simple admission/statement that has come back to haunt him and then he protests about being misquoted. One thing I have found common in all atheistic/evolutionary writings that such cannot igore either theistic or metaphysical terms or language in trying to explain the subject matter. scholar JW emeritus
×
×
  • 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.