Jump to content
The World News Media

scholar JW

Member
  • Content Count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from César Chávez in Archaeological Evidence for 607 BCE   
    Alan F
    Recent scholarship confirms the simple basic fact that the Jewish Exile ended not with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE but with the return of the Jews from Babylon under Cyrus' Decree following the prediction of Jeremiah's prophecy of 70 years. This viewpoint of matters is thematic in an article  by Steven M Bryan to wit "The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' in JBL, vol.137, no.1, 2018, pp.107-26.
    This recent scholarship is a devastating to the COJ  interpretation of the 70 years wholly based on servitude to the Babylonian power ending in 539 BCE.
    Further, other scholarship in the form of a Master of Theology Thesis for the Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012 vindicates the said's scholars view that the 70 years was a period of SERVITUDE-DESOLATION-EXILE as argued on many forums over the last decades. Scholar disagrees with many points in this thesis but its essential theme is well received based on these three principal elements which are equated in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated.
    Scholar continues to instruct Alan F who is a naughty lad.
    scholar JW
     
  2. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from César Chávez in Archaeological Evidence for 607 BCE   
    Alan F
    Actually it's a colloquialism of American, New York region English. Since I grew up there, I use it as a matter of course. From 
    Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  : << US informal
    If you punt on something, you decide not to do or include it:
    We punted on a motion that makes no sense. >>
    Do you need more explanation?
    ---
    Scholar is happy with this explanation
    ----
    The context is the destruction of the Jewish nation and the exiling of most of the people at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. The latter is explicitly stated: "they became servants to him and his sons".
    ----
    You could do a little better and show that you have read the following verses.
    ---
    This is pure gobble-de-goop. You cannot make this nonsense into a clear, rational, logical explanation. Your word salad reminds me of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.
    ---
    Just read vss.21 and 22 and use your common sense
    ----
    We've been over that ad nauseum, and you're wrong on every point: it's perfectly possible for a return in 538, and something like half of all scholars agree -- especially those who have actually considered the material as opposed to those who merely repeat what earlier ones have said.
    ---
    Oh, really!! If it is so plausible or reasonable as known by half of all scholars then How is it that COJ is almost silent on the matter merely citing two authorities by means of a footnote which hardly inspires confidence.
    ---
    The simple fact is that the 70 years ended when, as Jeremiah 25:12 prophesied, Jehovah called to account against the king of Babylon by capturing the city, subjugating Babylonia to the Persians, deposing king Nabonidus and killing king Belshazzar.
    -----
    Absolutely not. Exilic scholars agree that the Exile ended with the Return of the Jews under Cyrus and not with the Fall of babylon which agrees with a careful reading of Jer. 25:12 which proves that the judgement against Babylon occurred only after the Jeremiah's words were fulfilled with the ending of the 70 years at the Return with the desolation of the King, the City and the Land of Chaldea.
    ---
    False. You continue to ignore the whole of Jeremiah chapters 25-27. You refuse even to quote and comment upon the most relevant passages, preferring instead to summarize your own cracked interpretations -- which flatly contradict what the Bible passages actually say, as anyone can see simply by reading them.
    --
    I have quoted the source so that others can read and make their own analysis of COJ's views. There is nothing in Jer. 25-27 that contradicts the view the Exile of 70 years ended with the Return and not at the Fall of Babylon which harmonizes with Josephus and current modern historians.
    ---
    Refuted by dozens of scholars.
    ----
    False. Scholars tend to avoid or ignore the Chronology for a precise date of the Return for it is only celebrated WT scholars that provide the historic specifics for this event being 537 BCE
    ---
    The said "scholar" suffers massively from the Dunning-Kruger effect
    An insult shows that you have lost the argument
    scholar JW
  3. Confused
    scholar JW got a reaction from César Chávez in Furuli's new e-book: "My Beloved Religion - And The Governing Body"   
    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
  4. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in Furuli's new e-book: "My Beloved Religion - And The Governing Body"   
    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
  5. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    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
  6. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    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
  7. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    It does not matter whether Jer. 29:10 is translated either 'for Babylon or 'at Babylon' because both renderings of the Hebrew preposition le can have either meaning. Further, the 'seventy years' was a period of Servitude-Exile-Desolation beginning in 607 BCE with the Fall and ending in 537 BCE with the Return. Thus, the rendering 'at' simply shows the captive Jews exiled in Babylon as the location of their captivity-Exile whereas the rendering 'for' demonstrates the purpose of their Exile as being subject to Babylon- Servitude.
    scholar JW
  8. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from AllenSmith in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    Interesting comment. All that you have done really is simply repeat or rehash the COJ hypothesis which is identical to much earlier criticism of WT Chronology by SDA's from 1958. Yes, the 'shrill' has you running for cover as always hiding behind insults and that is not scholarship.
    Nonsense, I have spent much time since the early seventies defending WT Chronology so I do not want to be educated by you. I owe my education to WT publications and the research carried out by the Adventists so I have seen both sides of the fence. Have you?
    Now this is a more refreshing attitude. Chronology requires an open mind and it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. However, when you say that WT chronology has no evidence is rather absurd, you are not being honest because you very well know that our Chronology is based on recognized facts, scriptural texts etc and is an established scheme, saying otherwise is simply  showing.stupidity and ignorance. The very simple fact which I have repeated before is that COJ your mentor has devoted his life to this subject indicates the substance thereof.
    An good example where you have not provided evidence is your 538 hypothesis. You claim that the Cyrus' Decree was issued in the first month of his first year and also claim that the Jews returned home in the sixth month of the first year. Now these are assumptions and you have ever right to make such assumptions but please do not present these as historical facts in order to prove a certain theory or thesis. Assumptions have a rightful place in constructing a Chronology because many details are missing both from the Bible and the secular records.
    Now you are being silly because in order to respond to your challenge I would need to read the whole article that is referenced in the Bibliography at the end of the Creation book. You can either post here or email it to me then I will read the entire article and give you my opinion. OK. If I find a mistake then I will 'fess up' to it. No problems!
    You have not given me a full set of evidence but only a theory which contains some facts and some assumptions. It lacks scholarship because it shows no evidence that you researched the matter. You quote no sources, other scholars or commentaries. You have not considered alternative views on the matter. Have you read Thiele on this subject? The latest scholarship on this subject that I have found thus far is that of Steinmann's paper, have you read his paper on this subject? Now I have not even begun to deconstruct your thesis but you have three major problems;
    1. The matter of calendars, which calendar did Ezra use?
    2. Timing, it is difficult nay impossible to believe that all of the events described in Ezra 1;1-3:1 could have occurred in six months. I refer you to Steinmann's article on this very point.
    3. The association/connection between Josephus and Ezra 3;8 is tenuous at best.
    Peer review is reserved only for those in academia and as WT publications are not written for academics but the general public there is no need for such a process. In your case, you propose a novel thesis which you are dogmatic but if you want your audience to take you seriously then why don't you have others-your peers check it over. COJ whom you greatly respect his scholarship would I thought be your first 'port of call' as he has written very little about the Return. As you have stated above if Peer Review is not for amateurs then I can only conclude that your thesis is 'amateurish' so if that is so then you cannot demand of others that it be taken seriously. Got it?
    I have many times. See my above list of three.
    Charts are helpful in that such make plain the printed text. However, if the text or argument contains even one assumption then this conveyed into the chart which can amount to a contrivance of sorts. SDA scholarship is replete with charts and diagrams that does not make the Chronology correct for if you require too many charst then the reader could well think that he is being' conned'. Do you not think that I could make a pretty chart illustrating our computation of 537? Your computer skills are superior to mine so would you please make a nice, pretty chart similar to yours? Please!
    Do it again as I have awarded you a' Fail' mark.
    I will tell you something that I have only recently learnt. This may sound rather odd and strange to you or to our readers and many Witnesses would not understand this comment. To put the matter very simply because it would require much elaboration is that in the defence of WT Chronology it is essential that one considers carefully SDA scholarship on Chronology as both schemes have co-existed together from the forties through to the fifties and beyond.
    JW Insider is simply a 'Johnny come lately' in his field of Chronology for he has much to learn and the said scholar will educate him.
    scholar JW emeritus
  9. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    Perhaps you could say that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship and I am inclined to agree but I will hold you to this comment. Yes, when one rejects this scholarship then it could be argued that one is rejecting the best scholarship so I agree to both statements.
    I don't ignore anything. Insults from you do not reflect scholarship.
    It is good that you have considered SDA scholarship and that is my advice to you and I disagree with your statement that such scholarship has debunked WT Chronology. I am familiar with MacCarty's material as I have his treatise to hand.
    No, not just in principle but in practice, that is why Methodology is essential.
    WT Chronology has no need to misrepresent any evidence and I have found no examples of having done so nor have they ignored Bible passages but have evaluated all available evidence. Your presentation of such matters is simply a retelling of the COJ story and that has been falsified by the biblical 'seventy years'.
    We all know about your supposed 'fact checking' it is simply proved to be bogus. There is no need to quote mine the Bible because the texts that we use are exactly the same scriptural texts that feature in COJ. These are few in number and are mainly centered around a few books of the OT relevant to NB Period. You are correct, Ussher's Chronology and WT Chronology are both established schemes of Chronology. Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.
    Any evidence that you have presented is simply a rehash of the COJ story so this is not new and has been dealt with by contrary evidence over the years. It is not evidence that is the problem or that is missing for the problem is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence which you fail to understand.
    'Very likely' does not cut it. You have presented such as a fact in your earlier charts on the JWD FORUM and it has to be so in order for your novel theory to work. The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.
    No, Ezra did not specifically indicate what year the seventy month fell. It could not have been 538 BCE but could only have been 537 for the reasons I have given before and yes they must have arrived prior to that seventh month in order to be settled in their cities. The month of their actual arrival is not stated.
    Your thesis contains both assumptions and interpretation and that is fine so there is no room for dogmatism. OK
    I have already given you three reasons for concern which must be duly recognized but you are free to have an opinion just try to make a better fist of it and pay close attention to what Ezra actually said in Ezra 3:8 and not misinterpret his words in order to harmonize with Josephus' comment.
    Incorrect, if you read what WT publications have written about the Return you will notice that certain assumptions were and are made in order to establish a Chronology for the Return.
    My response is that the quote was used correctly and in context.
    A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.
    Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.
    I have indeed and there is no evidence of any scholarship or research just an interpretation based on a fallacy.
    This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.
    Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible. Thiele does not discuss the Return in his MNHK but in a paper published in February, 1976. Now if you had engaged in proper research in support of your thesis then you would have come across such an article. Good scholarship demands a Literature Review.
    Excellent. Well done so tell me what else did you learn from his article with regard to the Return? Now, Steinmann is a Chronologist who indeed argues 533 which was 5 years after 538 making your theory absurd, impossible. Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.
    True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious
    My concession excluded the time of the Decree and its proclamation which existed prior to.the actual journey preparations and the journey itself.Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.
    Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?
    We agree. But it is you that has excellent reading and comprehension skills for I am but a dummy!!!!
    So this fact should temper your criticism.
    Because of its novelty and any such new thesis is usually accompanied with sound scholarship.
    I will give it careful consideration and would be happy to give a Critical Review..However, please take note of my earlier criticisms and deal with these carefully.
    Sorry to hear that and I hope all goes well with him.
    Case in point is that of WT scholars and the NWT and yes I am an amateur but then so is COJ.
    Correct, amateurs can move scholarship forward and I look forward to your contribution in this area.
    Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement but it still excludes the preparations and the Decree and I only agreed in context with the actual journey itself.
    I agree so let us crank up the scholarship!
    Not so, you try reading the stuff better than chess or a mathematical puzzle.
    I would if I could.
    No not your nonsense but our scheme. Please.
    I have.
    You fail to grasp the matter for my comment has absolutely nothing to do misrepresenting SDA sources which shows that historically SDA scholars were in tandem with WT scholars even though criticism was levelled  from both sides.
    Opinion not fact
    scholar JW emeritus
  10. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    A fool.
    scholar JW emeritus
  11. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    I do not need to challenge you on anything because all that you have written is just a rehash of COJ'S GTR.
    Neither do you. For starters a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem, a precise date of 607 rather than the fuzzy dates of 586, 587, 588....a precise date for the Return, 537 rather than 538, 536, 535? all also fuzzy. A precise chronology of the seventy years and its description etc.
    Well if they have provided a solid date, 607 and it must be solid because why did your guru COJ devote much of his life and his GTR of nearly 400 pages to the subject. Only a fool would devote so much for something so little. Thiele and Young have tackled issues that only arose because of the methodology they have employed.
    So now you are an expert in Decision Analysis and indeed if such an analysis has the solution then how come it has made little impact on scholarship over the last 14 years? We had the final result in 1944 and cried 'Prais Jah!'
    You have explained the reasons but as I have said before nothing has changed within scholarship so the debates continues to rage. I do not ignore the matter because I have had a longtime interest in these debates and try to keep pace with biblical scholarship. Do you?
    Neb's acc year is falsified by the 'seventy years' so must be adjusted some twenty years in order to harmonize with the Bible Chronology.
    It is authority rather than evidence that has always impressed you as shown in your Bio. Evidence and valid arguments can be simplistic because both sides claim to champion such tools rather it comes down to methodology and interpretation.
    How do then do you engage? Have you written to Young and Steinmann about some validation of your 538 BCE thesis? What commentaries have you consulted in relation to your thesis? I have no need to engage with Young at this point in time but I could if necessary.
    Nothing much has changed for if you examine the scholarly literature since 2004 the date 586 continues to have wide support.
    Really, Josephus simply states the Temple's foundation was laid in Cyrus' second year which would have been 536 BCE. Ezra dates the Temple's foundation in the second month not in Cyrus' second year but 'after they came to the house of the true God' which can be interpreted as the year of the Return. You assume that both are synonymous but all that can be said is that both give different time formulas from different perspectives of the same event-foundation of the Temple. We accept the regnal data supplied by Josephus relating to the Fall including the Temple laying in obscurity for fifty years but do you except the many references by Josephus about the nature and timing of the seventy years? Or do you 'cherry pick' Josephus?
    No. It should be 537 + 70= 607
    Just read SDA scholarly literature published since 151 and read Steinmann.
    There is no problem for WT scholars to solve because we simply prioritize the Bible as stated in our publications.
    Look harder! Do I have to hold your hand and give you the specific reference?
    Nonsense. You are quite prepared to acknowledge that scholarship evolves albeit slowly and even those early chronologies that you have tabulated and compare with current knowledge proves this and yet you are not prepared to give WT scholars the same benefit or courtesy. You chided WT on your website Bio for scholastic dishonesty but refuse to look at yourself in the mirror. Give me a break!
    No it does not. I am simply providing a context for the basis of a revised scheme of Chronology published in 1944. The fact is that there was scholarship emerging in relation to Bible Chronology first in 1942 and later in 1944 with Thiele's paper and continued into the fifties.
    Context, Alan, Context. Get it?
    Correct
    A little rhetorical flourish to entertain the reader.
    scholar JW emeritus
  12. Confused
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    What is your problem? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the insertion of our Dates by means of brackets into a specific reference or quotation for the reader can easily see that by means of such a bracket, a insertion of the author's viewpoint or correction is intended. Such an academic convention is in harmony with their 'Style Manual' provided to WT writers and would follow similar style manuals common to other organizations and institutes of higher learning.
    scholar JW emeritus
  13. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    What is your problem? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the insertion of our Dates by means of brackets into a specific reference or quotation for the reader can easily see that by means of such a bracket, a insertion of the author's viewpoint or correction is intended. Such an academic convention is in harmony with their 'Style Manual' provided to WT writers and would follow similar style manuals common to other organizations and institutes of higher learning.
    scholar JW emeritus
  14. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Hi Ann
    I am proud of the Bible's testimony, the difference between the two dates is based on the supposedly conflicting dates for Neb's regnal years in connection with the Fall of Jerusalem. WT scholars have not been troubled by this supposed anomaly because we are able to assign a precise date for the event whereas most if not all other scholars are perplexed. The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young  which followed from observations made by Neil  Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum.
    scholar JW
  15. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Foreigner
    Yes the distribution of those earlier treatises was restricted or limited to a few as this was pre-Internet. However, during those decades a Pastor Bruce Price again in Australia and a SDA waged a war if you like against WT Chronology and circulated the magazine Witness which was for SDA scholars, pastors and ministers again a limited distribution. Further, he published a fictional account centred in a rural setting which narrated the conversion of a Witness couple to Adventism through the prism of Chronology.
    scholar JW
  16. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    The use of Ptolemy comes down as with all other sources to Methodology. Scholars are free to cherry pick facts from sources in order to construct a scheme of Chronology because this is what. they do and explains why there are so many different OT Chronologies right down to the present day. Ptolemy's Canon is of value to the Historian and the Chronologist and should not be ignored but Edwin Thiele had a realistic and honest view about the Canon for he stated "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete listof all of the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available". Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings, 1965, pp.216-7
    scholar JW
  17. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    This response is to your claims about the'' Babylon the Great  ' book and Max Hatton.
    I reject your claim that this book 'makes claims that are shamefully wrong'. The quotation from this book is correct both in fact and in history. Ptolemy's Canon has traditionally drawn much criticism over the centuries and even in Russell's day there was criticism of the Canon in the early WT. In 1913 Martin Anstey published his Romance of Bible Chronology which was a significant piece of scholarship in its time. On pp. 18-21 Anstey makes some criticisms of the Canon and his ability as an historian although a high regard for this work remains. In 1963 the Society published its first major work on Chronology proper in the  All Scripture Is Inspired of God and it explained how the Absolute Date for 539 BCE was determined. It stated that various historical sources including Diodorus,Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy and other Babylonian tablets support 539 BCE when Babylon was overthrown. So it is incorrect to say that we relied only on the Canon for establishing the Absolute Date. We knew even before 1963 that there were significant problems with the traditional Chronology when compared with Bible Chronology because of the 70 years which we had long regarded as period of Desolation of the land of Judah.
    Max Hatton whom I have met in 1983 or thereabouts became a Seventh Day Adventist and was one of the earliest critics of WT Chronology on the world scene and  perhaps was influenced by a thesis written by a resident in Western Australia ,  G. Rogerson who wrote An Examination Of The Year 1914 In The Prophetic interpretation Of The Watchtower Society. I have copies  of all Hatton's correspondence to the Society and would need to compare its contents with Rogerson's treatise I should say rather than a thesis because Hatton spent his earlier days in Perth, Western Australia about that time.. This treatise deals much with the Babyl;on book and its criticism of the Canon. When I met Max at Bondi, Sydney after 1983 Max excitedly told me that he had just received a copy of Edwin Thiele'ds third edition perhaps to put me to shame but I told him that I had in fact already had purchased Thiele's edition so that deflated him somewhat. Edwin Thiele perhaps Christendom's greatest Chronologist was a Seventh Day Adventist . 
    scholar JW
  18. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Insider JW
    You have posted in three parts so I will respond accordingly:
    A debate has two sides with opposing points of view, honesty is required by both parties so I call this a two-way street.
    There is no Gap in the NB Period at this stage of our present knowledge but there is a difference of 19 years. when one compares WT Chronology with NB Chronology. The much earlier  Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules , 1963, p. 138. Rol Furuli in recent times has published extensively on the Chronologies of the Ancient World and his thesis is that the Babylonian Empire should be expanded some 20 Years. In view of these viewpoints and because the NB Period and its appended Chronology omits any mention of the Jeremiah's 70 years a Prophett who was contemporaneous with the NB  Period, a eyewitness 'to boot', I have classified the difference between the two systems as the 'Babylonian Gap'. The 'missing 20 years' I propose could properly be inserted at either two points: Neb's 18th year or his 37 th years and that will harmonize the two dating systems and all is well!!
    Your claim that the methodology used by WT in connection with 537 BCE for the Return of the Exiles is 'fuzzy' is simply nonsense. Our explanation of all of the relevant data and its sources is well discussed in our publications and 537 BCE is well established. You accuse WT of being fuzzy with dates and cite 537 BCE as an example of this but I must remind you that Historians and Scholars are very fuzzy about this event for you cannot find a specific date for the event in the scholarly literature for this is a fact plain and simple. You quibble over the use of language or terms used in the WT publications which express uncertainty or a lack of finality but history is imperfect and there is no room for dogmatism in either history or chronology. Where matters are uncertain then the reader is advised but this not mean that a Chronology in harmony with certain facts cannot be constructed. The question you should be asking yourself is: 'what then is the precise date for the Return of the Jews?' 
    You seem to 'hung up' on the Zero Year problem which is often raised by apostates but not by serious scholars. The WT has simply explained the anomaly and back then some chronologists possible misunderstood the difference between the Astronomical Year and the Years in the Gregorian Calendar and perhaps many reference works at that time made a similar error but once the error was noted then an adjustment was made fortunately or providentially the integrity of the 1914 CE date was preserved as the beginning of the Gentile Times. End of Part One.
    scholar JW
  19. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider.
    Now I am off the throne and in a relieved state I am ready for battle.. 
    Nebuchadnezzer reigned for 43 years and not 63 years as shown by NB Chronology.Methodology allows one to insert 20 years into the scheme in order to harmonize NB Chronology with Biblical history via the seventy years of Jeremiah unaccounted for in NB Chronology..i have suggested that in Neb's 18th regnal years which of course would expand the the NB Period by 20 years. Now , I hear a very loud voice of protest about such an intrusion but that is not my problem it a problem for those scholars or scribes who compiled the list of reigns in the first place. they should have exercised greater diligence and not been sloppy or careless. They were very naughty.
    Your claim that our theory is impossible is unclear to me because we accept the 43 years of Neb' s reign and have well described how this synchronizes with the reigns of the last Kings of Judah according to the biblical data. If it does not fit certain data from the NB Chronology then that is not my problem. Just make the required adjustment based only on trusted biblical facts . If you have found a problem then why not try to solve it? DO YOU WANT ME TO SOLVE IT FOR YOU. Already, there are other problems in connection with Jehoiakim's reign such as the 'third year of his kingship' in Dan. 1:1. and this is explained in the Insight article under 'Jehoiakim'. You will find the chart for the Reigns of Judah and Israel published in the Aid  book most helpful.
    If you want me to solve your problem then present your question simply and clearly. Just present the facts, skip the references. Chronology is complex enough so simplicity works for me. You got it?  When I get a problem I usually get the solution even though it can be hard work.
    scholar JW
     
  20. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann OMaly
    An update on Jer.25:11: I do not withdraw my comment that nowhere in the OT does the seventy years refers to the nation's servitude to Babylon and in the context of all of the seventy years of Jeremiah's corpus for this applies to Judah alone. However, Jer. 25:11 can be interpreted as it is read so in accordance with the insightful comment in Keil & Delitzch's Commentary On the Old Testament, Vol.8.p.374 it offers this interesting observation on 'these nations'. In short, these peop[es or nations which surrounded Judah would also be desolated and along with Judah would have to serve Babylon. So it could well be argued at the time of Judah' servitude, desolation and exile other nations also experienced that same fury whether at that time or later is unknown so the Babylonish intervention during that time may well have  extended beyond the borders of Judah which raise some additional questions of research. The text in view has a number of interpretations regarding its application to 'these nation's.in the context of the entire chapter. Rolf Furuli has discussed the linguistics of this verse with alternative translations.
    Another interpretation concerns these nations viewed metaphorically or theologically namely with the downfall of Jehovah;s kingship at Jerusalem with the end of the Davidic Monarchy it could be said that all other nations were now subject to Babylonian sovereignty. These are just short comments but nothing obscures the simple fact that Judah served Babylon for 70 years whilst exiled at Babylon leaving behind a devastated and depopulated land of Judah and perhaps beyond its borders. It is amazing how one simple expression opens many other doors for further reflection and research and I thank you for quoting that text.
    scholar JW
     
     
     
     
     
  21. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann O Maly
    I brought Rainer Albertz up because his view on the timing and nature of the Exile agrees with us in many respects but not all
     
    . He begins the Exile not from 609 BCE the choice of many scholars but from the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE but differs from us in that he ends the Exile in 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon.  In that same paragraph on p.2 He begins the Exilic Era from that same event, the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 and ends it in 520 BCE which is OK with me. Also, he dates the seventy years from 587 BCE until 517 and not 609 BCE which supports our view but differs on the endpoint based on his interpretation of the two texts in Zechariah.
    I repeat nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 according to NB Chronology. If there is something then state it but remember it must be of such significance that warrants the beginning of the 70 years.  
     
    Jere. 25;11 is problematic for all exegetes because ' these nations are not identified. This could refer to the inhabitants of Judah or it could refer to the peoples of the Babylonian Empire. There are a number of linguistic possibilities and the immediate context which targets Judah alone is the determinant factor.
    No  I have not checked Furuli's hypothesis as to its validity but others have and it has been subject to Peer Review. But boy it is impressive don't you think?
    scholar JW
  22. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    Ann O Maly has kindly posted links to two scholarly articles by Ross Winkle on the Seventy Years. I recommend both articles but please be advised that these are published by a University affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventists. Also, if you choose to examine these articles do not neglect the other major  studies that Winkle references in ftn.1. p.201 of first article-PART 1.
    Methodology:
    1. Read all of the 70 texts and take personal notes on your thoughts
    2. Research WT publications on each of those texts so that you have a firm understanding of the subject
    3. Read Winkle's article again take personal notes or questions
    4. Contact me for any assistance required
    scholar JW
  23. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    I admit to no such thing. Honesty is a two-way street. The simple fact is that NB Chronology as currently presented fails to mention or include the 70 years and its impact on the life and times of its vanquished people and their Land of Judah. the Biblical record contains such a period so when one wishes to construct a scheme based on the Bible then clearly there is a Gap of 20 years. Thus, the NB Period is falsified by this Gap of twenty years so to ignore it is dishonest. The twenty years must be inserted somewhere so that would be at the discretion of the Chronologist and according to his/her Methodology.
    You choose to ignore the Gap along with most if not all other scholars so that is fine with me for in any event Chronology is personal, is individual and this accounts for the many schemes and interpretations at present. Chronology is based on  Methodology and Interpretation which underscores the foregoing.
    The Gap exists when one compares one scheme with another. If you make no comparison then there is no Gap. If you choose to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years then also there is no Gap. You preach Honesty to me and yet you choose to ignore such a major piece of Biblical/Jewish history which was the Exile leaving Judah totally devastated whilst its population was enslaved by a foreign conqueror-Babylon. Whitewashing history is dishonest and trivializing the period by adopting 'fuzzy' beginning, 609 BCE and a 'fuzzy' end, 539 BCE is also dishonest. Perhaps now you should make that insertion at a point of time within the NB Period!!!
    scholar JW
  24. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    The Babylonian Gap of 20 years is proved by comparing that period with the 70 years of biblical history, The Bible specifies the period which was commensurate with the Babylonian Period therefore that Period requires that adjustment. Such a corrective harmonized all of the data allowing an accurate scheme of chronology to be realized
    The scheme of WT chronology.is a valid presentation of all of the evidence and can be tested and has been subject to scholarly inquiry over many decades but recent research has proven its validity such as in the case of Furuli's research into VAT 4956 amongst other things. I am no late entrant into this discussion but remain very comfortable not only with our Chronology but of others and have long debated these matters over decades with many different WT critics.
    You do not need a specific point to insert the twenty years but if you require some specificity I would insert it between the Neb's 18th year and the last year of Nabonidus' reign in 539 BCE for that will do nicely.Honesty requires consideration of all relevant factors so if you ignore the 70 years then your scholarship is compromised. This requires sound methodology and this is plainly evident because all factors are considered even secular evidence where necessary and relevant. There is no room for pretentiousness in Chronology but simply following the evidence where it leads.
    Traditional Chronology ignores the seventy years mostly and where some have included it in their schemes there is a lack of consistency in its timing or its nature is misconstrued eg such lists or schemes end it with the Fall of Babylon and not the Return so this creates many problems. In your last paragraph, I have answered your question in the foregoing: iNSERT the 20 years anywhere between 587/586 and 539 BCE and that will expand the timeline to 607 BCE. QED
    scholar JW
  25. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    Herein I will attempt to answer your questions in your last two posts simply for if you read my responses to Ann and JW Insider these would address your questions in part.
    The two dates of 609 and 605 BCE are used in our publications for different events so it is not the events but the dates that are not recognized in our publications or in WT/ Bible Chronology. Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 which of course lies between these two dates but these events, the battle at Carchemish and Megiddo preceded the Fall thus must be duly corrected or adjusted.
    The dates for those events 629 and 625 now corrected by means of the insertion of the biblical 70 years causing a twenty-year corrective factor.
    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.