Jump to content
The World News Media

scholar JW

Member
  • Posts

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Confused
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann O Maly
    Well, what took you so long? 2 hours from my old sparring partner on JWD, Alan F who incidentally was forced to concede that there is, in fact, a 'connection' established from the context on page 208. I hope it takes you much less time to discern the nature of the 'connection'!
    Read that paragraph again on p. 367 in Franz's COC , 2nd edn, Sept, 1994 which clearly shows Franz' s agreement with the Society's later published statement in the Proclaimer's book that Brown did, in fact, connect Daniel's 'seven times' with Lukes' Gentile Times in Luke 21:24.
    That is correct, Franz was forced to withdraw his earlier view in harmony with Carl Jonsson's original dogmatic claim, however, this was no doubt due to the fact that I had written to Franz to seek the reason for his change of mind. He had none but simply acknowledged Jonsson's work but it left the impression in my mind that the reason for this change was the simple fact that the said 'scholar' by means of that email had compromised him.
    scholar JW
  2. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Nana Fofana
    Yes, this outlines for the first time within scholarship sound methodology relating to the determination of a precise date for the return of the Jewish Exiles however 538 is an unlikely candidate for the reasons we have explained as to the journey's length and time of travel amongst other unknown specifics which would make 537 BCE the most likely candidate.
    scholar JW
  3. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    Yes Alan, let's get some facts.
    I shan't worry about your early comments on 1914 as these are simply nonsense. As this post is about 607 BCE let us stick to that!
    No, the pivotal date for WT chronology is 539 BCE and not 537 BCE and there is no speculation associated with the calculation of 537 BCE for it is a 'stand alone' date based on the historical events described 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3:1-7.
    The word speculation is defined as: contemplation along with other related meanings such as conjecture but nothing of that sort is present in WT publications discussing the chronology of the Return of the Jewish Exiles. The date 537 BCE is well established historically, biblically and in accordance with sound principles of Chronology. The WT publications clearly outline all of the data associated with this period and a relevant dating is thereby established as outlined. There is nothing 'bogus' or 'fuzzy' here. In fact, even Carl Jonsson has not found any problems with our Methodology  simply proposing 537 or 538 BCE for the Return.In fact, biblical historians leave this matter open by simply either omitting a precise date or giving a suggestive date for the Return.
    Your date of 538 BCE does not fit the evidence and is a poor choice, yes you can make it fit but it is a tight squeeze, for 537 BCE is just a nice fit, comfortable in scope and nature.
    Your claim that Jeremiah's 'seventy years' represents only a period of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East is only partially correct for this period also represents total desolation of Jerusalem and Judah and the Exile for and in Babylon.No other theory than this fits all of the biblical, historical data coincides with secular history namely Josephus and fits well within the OT theological context.
    scholar JW
     
     
  4. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    No! The Jewish captives were not released in 539 BCE but remained captive in Babylon until released by Cyrus in 537 BCE. This fact is proven by 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 wherein Jehovah declared that it was in the 'first year of Cyrus the Persian that the captives would be released and his 'first year' was 538/537BCE.
    According to the Chronicler vs.21 clearly quotes Jeremiah's prophecy about the 'land paying off its sabbaths' which was a requisite component of the 'seventy years' period as the land had to remain desolate for 70 years as stated. In order for the land to repay its sabbaths it had to remain infertile, desolate for a fixed pre-determined period of time -seventy years. Nothing of any historical consequence occurred in 609 BCE as Babylon had by that time reached at any stage of political hegemony as Egypt remained the dominant player at that time in the region. The seventy years could not have begun in 609 BCE for the simple reason there was no suitable event that would warrant the status of a terminus a quo. 
    Daniel in ch.9 vs.2 simply affirms the ongoing fulfilment of the seventy years as a period of desolation of both Jerusalem and Judah. He made this observation during the 'first year of Darius' which began after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE proving that even at that late hour the 'seventy years' had not then expired.
    Jeremiah 29:10 simply affirms the fact that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Jewish nation and its land as a period of servitude to Babylon whilst exiled in or at Babylon.
    Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation whilst the land was desolate. During this period other surrounding nations roundabout would also experience servitude, brought under Babylonian domination as in the case of Tyre, Egypt and others.
    All of the 'seventy year' textual corpus proves that the 'seventy years was a definite historic period of servitude to Babylon, an exile in Babylon with a desolated land running from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE which harmonizes well with the many accounts of the Jewish historian, Josephus.
    scholar JW
  5. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    Again you misrepresent the facts for nowhere did the Society in the quotation on page 134 of the Proclaimers book use the word 'equate' but used the word 'connect' which is not synonymic. Brown simply connects these two time periods simply on the basis that the 'seven times' would be the 'Gentile Times' as part of the signs of his second coming which also would include his second judgement etc..(Eventide , 1823, vol.2.p.208) The Proclaimers  book on p.134 simply stated the fact of the connection between the two time periods contra Jonsson who had asserted the contrary. How then as you claim that Brown equated the two periods when in fact he interprets both periods differently throughout his treatise and the Society did not 'equate' these either but simply affirmed the connection which is clearly understood by any unbiased reader.
    The Society in its publication did not explain the connection but simply affirmed it, Brown, on the other hand, connected the two contextually by means of two successive paragraphs, one with the former 'seven times' and in the next, by a quotation of Lule 21;24. Further, the link between the two time periods is part of the' signs of his second coming'.
    There you have it in a 'nutshell'. No need for 'gobble-de-goop'.
    scholar JW
     
  6. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Nana Fontana
    Thank you for the source but is typical of how this subject is treated in the literature. You should note that there is no specific date given for the Return despite the clear historical facts presented by the Chronicler.
    scholar JW
  7. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    Yes Alan, let's get some facts.
    I shan't worry about your early comments on 1914 as these are simply nonsense. As this post is about 607 BCE let us stick to that!
    No, the pivotal date for WT chronology is 539 BCE and not 537 BCE and there is no speculation associated with the calculation of 537 BCE for it is a 'stand alone' date based on the historical events described 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3:1-7.
    The word speculation is defined as: contemplation along with other related meanings such as conjecture but nothing of that sort is present in WT publications discussing the chronology of the Return of the Jewish Exiles. The date 537 BCE is well established historically, biblically and in accordance with sound principles of Chronology. The WT publications clearly outline all of the data associated with this period and a relevant dating is thereby established as outlined. There is nothing 'bogus' or 'fuzzy' here. In fact, even Carl Jonsson has not found any problems with our Methodology  simply proposing 537 or 538 BCE for the Return.In fact, biblical historians leave this matter open by simply either omitting a precise date or giving a suggestive date for the Return.
    Your date of 538 BCE does not fit the evidence and is a poor choice, yes you can make it fit but it is a tight squeeze, for 537 BCE is just a nice fit, comfortable in scope and nature.
    Your claim that Jeremiah's 'seventy years' represents only a period of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East is only partially correct for this period also represents total desolation of Jerusalem and Judah and the Exile for and in Babylon.No other theory than this fits all of the biblical, historical data coincides with secular history namely Josephus and fits well within the OT theological context.
    scholar JW
     
     
  8. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann
    I have made clear my position so the ball is in your court.
    scholar JW
  9. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann
    It is all very simple. Carl Jonsson in his early editions of his GTR, 1983/86  p. 21 stated that John Aquila Brown "He did not associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24". Jonsson provided no support for this opinion and in his later editions, 3rd in 1998 and the 4th edn. in 2004 he stated: "Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2520 years with the Gentile  Times of Luke 21:24".
    So, I would have thought with this history of matters the onus of proof lies not with the Society because they had simply made a correct observation based on a careful reading of Brown's entire work and possibly in refutation of Jonsson's original claim but with Jonsson himself to 'set matters straight'. In view of this, you can either write to Bethel for the specific page as I had done or you can write to Jonsson for a copy.
    The very fact that you have sat on your hands for the last two decades and not satisfied yourself as to the integrity of the matter is quite telling thus it is left to others on this forum to make a judgement about your own motivation and bias.
    scholar JW
     
     
  10. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann
    It is all very simple. Carl Jonsson in his early editions of his GTR, 1983/86  p. 21 stated that John Aquila Brown "He did not associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24". Jonsson provided no support for this opinion and in his later editions, 3rd in 1998 and the 4th edn. in 2004 he stated: "Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2520 years with the Gentile  Times of Luke 21:24".
    So, I would have thought with this history of matters the onus of proof lies not with the Society because they had simply made a correct observation based on a careful reading of Brown's entire work and possibly in refutation of Jonsson's original claim but with Jonsson himself to 'set matters straight'. In view of this, you can either write to Bethel for the specific page as I had done or you can write to Jonsson for a copy.
    The very fact that you have sat on your hands for the last two decades and not satisfied yourself as to the integrity of the matter is quite telling thus it is left to others on this forum to make a judgement about your own motivation and bias.
    scholar JW
     
     
  11. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann
    You have known about this matter for many years as I had a lengthy discussion about this on the JWD forum and yet during all that time you never bothered to obtain that particular page so I am wondering Why this is so?
    Anna like any Witness can write to Bethel for a copy of the page or obtain a copy through an appropriate library in the country in which she lives. However,t is always preferable to read the entire book in order to get a complete picture and this where COJ got unstuck for he simply confined his reading to selected portions of the book and made a serious historical blunder.
    scholar JW
  12. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    The simple answer is that 539 and 537 BCE are not controversial as there is no contradictory evidence against these two dates whereas 587 is very controversial within scholarship for the following reasons:
    1. Does not account for the biblical 'seventy years' creating a gap of 20 years in the NB Period
    2. Rolf Furuli's research based on VAT 4956 that the Fall of Jerusalem can be adjusted to 607 and not 586/7BCE
    3. Scholars cannot precisely determine whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 BCE
    4. WT scholars as with all other Chronologists use different Methodologies in order to construct a scheme of Chronology so that means that WT scholars looking at all of the available evidence can exercise academic discretion exercising priority/interpretation to the data.
    5. I stand corrected but it is  my opinion that it was Christine Tetley, a NZ scholar who did her Ph.D on the Divided Monarchy or as she terms it the Divided Kingdom-DK, made good use of Methodology in her thesis perhaps the first scholar to introduce such a term into Chronology. I had introduced the term before her or about the same time on a online forum soon after Rodger Young used the term as well. Tetley's thesis is titled The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, 2005, Eisenbraums.
    So in very simple terms the answer in one good word essential in all academic work: METHODOLOGY
    scholar JW
  13. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    The simple answer is that 539 and 537 BCE are not controversial as there is no contradictory evidence against these two dates whereas 587 is very controversial within scholarship for the following reasons:
    1. Does not account for the biblical 'seventy years' creating a gap of 20 years in the NB Period
    2. Rolf Furuli's research based on VAT 4956 that the Fall of Jerusalem can be adjusted to 607 and not 586/7BCE
    3. Scholars cannot precisely determine whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 BCE
    4. WT scholars as with all other Chronologists use different Methodologies in order to construct a scheme of Chronology so that means that WT scholars looking at all of the available evidence can exercise academic discretion exercising priority/interpretation to the data.
    5. I stand corrected but it is  my opinion that it was Christine Tetley, a NZ scholar who did her Ph.D on the Divided Monarchy or as she terms it the Divided Kingdom-DK, made good use of Methodology in her thesis perhaps the first scholar to introduce such a term into Chronology. I had introduced the term before her or about the same time on a online forum soon after Rodger Young used the term as well. Tetley's thesis is titled The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, 2005, Eisenbraums.
    So in very simple terms the answer in one good word essential in all academic work: METHODOLOGY
    scholar JW
  14. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann O Maly
    To all thus interested:
    Would someone please post page 208 of Brown's Eventide and give Ann some peace. I could but am not disposed to at this moment because I am concerned about Ann's postings on this subject and her apparent bias against the WT scholars not wishing to add 'fuel to the fire'.
    scholar JW
  15. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anne O Maly
    Let us be perfectly clear on this matter. I have to hand a large red manilla folder which contains my correspondence both by mail and email to the WT Society in Brooklyn, Carl Jonsson and Raymond Franz all to do with the italicized statement made in the Proclaimers book. I wrote twice to Bethel seeking clarification of this dispute, the first letter, ECE:ECP April 13, 1998 which gave me the source for the quotation and the second letter , ECM:ECH March 11, 1999 came with 2 photocopied pages, p, 135 and 208 from Brown's book along with a photocopy of the title page showing the vol. number and date of publication; vol.2, 1823. It was noted that the connection is found on page 208 wherein the connection is clearly and easily identified. This page contains 2 paragraphs in portion, the first par. mentions the 'seven times' of Daniel and the very next par. contains the quotation of Luke 21:24 so a connection between the two is plain. 
    Previously, I had received from COJ copies of some pages from Brown's book which purported to show the Society's error but these revealed no such thing and that is why I wrote to Bethel. The letter from COJ is dated Jan. 12,1998. Subsequent emails from COJ on this matter showed COJ trying to defend his position quibbling over the nature of the connection but this too was foolishness and I was left wondering about COJ's level of comprehension.
    Further, I had written to both James Penton and Raymond Franz about the matter because they were part of the group of editors who wrote the Foreword to the Gentile Times Reconsidered, first published in 1983. Penton did not reply but Franz did and he simply referred the matter to COJ for comment. Franz had in fact supported the Society's position as shown in his Crisis Of Conscience, 1994, 2nd edn.p.367 yet he in a email dated September 24, 2003 he chastised me and the Society for sloppy research and failing to properly understand Brown's description of the prophetic periods.
    In short, whatever the nature of the connection it is left up to the reader to decide its relationship and I believe that COJ made a serious error in accusing the Society in such a dogmatic way for plainly on that same page 208 .a connection of sorts is plainly evident.
    scholar JW
  16. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    My previous comments on Chronology must be read in context. The subject is complex but beneficial for all as anyone can at least know the dates and how these are determined without being bogged down with technicalities so it is adaptable to one's level of understanding. Dates are not essential for salvation but accurate knowledge leading to Wisdom is a most worthy spiritual pursuit.as I am sure you appreciate.
    I omitted Gerard Gertoux not because he is a competent Chronologist but because his Witness status is uncertain and he has been publicly vague on this point. If I remember correctly he stated that as he was a PhD candidate he did not want his Thesis compromised in any way so has minimized his activity. Perhaps I should have mentioned his name as follows: Gerard Gertoux?
    scholar JW
  17. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anne O Maly
    Let us be perfectly clear on this matter. I have to hand a large red manilla folder which contains my correspondence both by mail and email to the WT Society in Brooklyn, Carl Jonsson and Raymond Franz all to do with the italicized statement made in the Proclaimers book. I wrote twice to Bethel seeking clarification of this dispute, the first letter, ECE:ECP April 13, 1998 which gave me the source for the quotation and the second letter , ECM:ECH March 11, 1999 came with 2 photocopied pages, p, 135 and 208 from Brown's book along with a photocopy of the title page showing the vol. number and date of publication; vol.2, 1823. It was noted that the connection is found on page 208 wherein the connection is clearly and easily identified. This page contains 2 paragraphs in portion, the first par. mentions the 'seven times' of Daniel and the very next par. contains the quotation of Luke 21:24 so a connection between the two is plain. 
    Previously, I had received from COJ copies of some pages from Brown's book which purported to show the Society's error but these revealed no such thing and that is why I wrote to Bethel. The letter from COJ is dated Jan. 12,1998. Subsequent emails from COJ on this matter showed COJ trying to defend his position quibbling over the nature of the connection but this too was foolishness and I was left wondering about COJ's level of comprehension.
    Further, I had written to both James Penton and Raymond Franz about the matter because they were part of the group of editors who wrote the Foreword to the Gentile Times Reconsidered, first published in 1983. Penton did not reply but Franz did and he simply referred the matter to COJ for comment. Franz had in fact supported the Society's position as shown in his Crisis Of Conscience, 1994, 2nd edn.p.367 yet he in a email dated September 24, 2003 he chastised me and the Society for sloppy research and failing to properly understand Brown's description of the prophetic periods.
    In short, whatever the nature of the connection it is left up to the reader to decide its relationship and I believe that COJ made a serious error in accusing the Society in such a dogmatic way for plainly on that same page 208 .a connection of sorts is plainly evident.
    scholar JW
  18. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    I appreciate your comments in your last post on Chronology and particular the attitude of the present day Witnesses to the End. However, I disagree with your comment about the relevance of dates particularly such as the 607/ 587-86BCE controversy and 1914 CE. Although, Chronology should not become an ' Article of Faith' as part of some Creed or as primary doctrine nevertheless there are several good reasons for Christians or Bible Students to be interested and challenged by such an "extremely complex and almost esoteric field" of study(Finegan, Handbook Of Biblical Chronology , 1964, p.v). Jack Finegan lists several reasons for the importance of Dates and Chronology as:
    1. To address the concern to comprehend the whole sweep of God's administration of the world and the world's end.
    2, To demonstrate the high antiquity of biblical traditions over against pagan ones or in short the Sacred versus the Profane.
    3. To show the fulfilment of Bible Prophecy
    4. To determine the date of Church festivals and in our case the date of the Memorial
    These key four points are sourced as follows (op.cit.p.139, pars.230-233)
    scholar JW
    University of Sydney
  19. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    Ppst 1789
    It is not false to claim that evidence supports 607 BCE. The calculation is simple, derived from the biblical data with a well recognized pivotal date and is consistent with the NB period by the simple insertion of 20 years to bring reconcile both schemes of chronology.. You do not like this to be the case because you do not like this methodology but that is your problem not mine. There is inconsistency in WT Chronology just your misreading the WT publications. The Gentile Times is a valid prophetic period long recognized by many Bible Students.
    -------
    The Bible chronology fits the archaeological evidence from NB chronology. There is no evidence for 607. To get anywhere near 607 you have to accept 539, which you have no right to do if you are going to reject 539 by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 607. If you are honest, you are forced to reject 539 if you accept 607. You can't cherry pick a range of dates that are interwoven and interlocked through tens of thousands of tablets and at least 10 other completely independent lines of evidence. You can claim whatever you want, but you'd have to show evidence if you are honest.
    ---------
    Bible Chronology can only fit NB Chronology if the Gap of 20 years is identified and inserted into the period in order to harmonize both systems. There is abundant evidence for 607 BCE and to say otherwise is simply displays ignorance or hubris. The pivotal date or anchor date is essential for any Chronology so we have wisely selected 539 BCE and we have every right to make such a choice because of the Methodology adopted by WT scholars.The matter of 'cherry-picking' dates is your problem, not mine for we have no need for such nonsense.Yes we can all make claims but one must be honest and follow the evidence where it leads, I have done just that and I have determined by means of an examination of all of the facts that 607 BCE is on the money.
    ----
    WT Chronology is indeed anchored to 539 BCE just read our publications. The biblical data makes mention of Neb's 18th and 19th year in connection of the Fall of Jerusalem and we have no difficulty with using both in calculating 607 BCE. In contrast, our critics simply cannot reconcile the 18/19th years thus cannot determine the precise date for the Fall with the vague 586/587 BCE scenario. What a joke!!!
     
    Simplicity is everything in science otherwise you have gobblygook. The WT publications have explained to its readers the different dating systems, counting methodology, time units, different calenders etc.which any half decent work on Chronology would do. There is no need to bluster as all of these matters are explained in full and simply so that the reader can work out the matters himself.
     
    It is a matter of competence and by means of our tabulation of the Divided Monarchy, we can prove that we have used the biblical data correctly for most other scholars present widely different schemes for the Divided Monarchy. If a scholar cannot get this right then how can one be trusted with a much shorter period =NB Period which in fact overlaps the latter phase of the Divided Monarchy. Also problematic is a simple fact that there is a missing 20 years found when one compares both periods of history.
    The date 607 is well established despite your protestations to the contrary. The evidence has long been presented simply in our publications easily understood by the reader. The Gentile Times was mentioned by Jesus and its period expired in 1914 and was recognized by leading clergy who equated the fact of the matter to the events of Jerusalem in 1917. However, Bible Students correctly applied those 'times' to the Kingdom of Heaven when in fact about that time of 1914, German theologians had casted the Kingdom in an eschatological context which of course can be associated with 1914 and its significance both to modern history but to Bible Prophecy as discussed by Daniel and later cited by our Lord Jesus. Interestingly, John Aquila Brown had first linked the words of our Master and Saviour in Luke 21;24 with the 'seven times' of Daniel ch.4.which is the basis of our doctrine today. You are correct the Bible does not refer to 'seven Gentile Times' but to the Lukan 'Gentile Times' which is equated to the Danielic 'seven times'.
     
    The capture of Jerusalem in 1917 had nothing to do with the outworking of the Gentile Times for it had expired three years earlier but it was the interpretation of many prominent clergy
     
    is  that it was recognized by some clergy  the validity of the Gentile Times doctrine even if not fully understood as was the case of the early Bible Students.
    Jesu s' words make it perfectly that the Gentile Times had begun much earlier according to Daniel's prophecy as shown by the Greek tense of the verb used by Him. The date 607 BCE does not represent pseudo archaeology but in fact harmonizes well with modern biblical archaeology especially in reference to the 'Myth of the Empty Land' hypothesis.
    Our wondrous Cable of Chronology is valid and accurate well supported in the fulfilment of Bible Prophecy. It anchors the Parousia which began in 1914 CE as we patiently heed the coming of sweet Jesus our beloved Lord and Master who during His Parousia beginning in the celebrated year of 1914 has overseen the work of the true Church during the time of Harvest.
    scholar JW
    Please pardon any scripting or posting errors
  20. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    Well, I did say that Chronology is 'extremely complex subject so it is not surprising that only a very few Witnesses would be competent in explaining 607 and 1914. In fact, amongst the entire worldwide brotherhood there are possibly only two brothers who have publicly demonstrated competence in Chronology and these brothers are Rolf Furuli in Norway and Neil Mc Fadzen from Australia.
    scholar JW
     
  21. Like
    scholar JW reacted to Anna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    I think you might be coming to rash conclusions when you say those trying to disprove 1914 are doing so only to discredit the Slave. I am not saying no one does that, but I feel that those who honestly try to understand WT dates, and then find these dates faulty, do it the other way around. They begin to distrust the Slave on the evidence of their findings. Please don't attack me for saying this as I myself have not found proof for 607 or 587 either way. I am in a completely privileged neutral zone. I am neither for nor against. One thing I have noticed though, and excuse me if I am wrong,  (I may have missed your other posts), but it seems you have not presented any solid counter argument  against  587, only your feelings in that it's like "running after fluff", and criticism and motives of those who present arguments against 607. What you say would not stand up in a trial at all.  It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground....
    I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this at all.
    What I find fascinating, and puzzling at the same time though, is how some friends will immediately class others as defectors if they do not believe in 607 or 1914. To give an example, on another forum, one poster made the comment that we should be wary of this one particular JW scholar because he does not support 607. Why it is so imperative to you and others, that in order to belong to this NATION, one has to believe in some specific date? In practical terms, what on earth is the saving attribute of a date? Yes, I know it was supposed to be the establishment of God's kingdom, which is the instrument by which all things will be reconciled to God, but come on, are we to be SO fixated on a date where believing in it or not is the difference between being saved or damned? God's kingdom will accomplish all those things regardless of the date it is established, won't it? As was pointed out quite clearly in the 2017 convention video, we are dedicated to Jehovah God, not a date! Surely a date has no baring on your sentiments above about the NATION ?

    I think that if beginning today, the Slave never mentioned the dates 607 or 1914  again, but merely the destruction of Jerusalem, and  God's Kingdom, no one would be upset and think we have gone apostate. Probably no one but a few who are keyed in, and those at Bethel, would even notice. In fact, the new generation of Witnesses as I have observed does not even believe Armageddon will come any time soon. (I have heard some young ones speculate around 50 years). And the generation who believed their children would not grow up in this system, but who have grand children now, have reconciled themselves with the possibility that they will die before Armageddon comes. I think this is good. Because remember, we serve Jehovah, not a date. Abraham never saw the complete fulfillment of the promise made to him either, what makes us think we have to? Don't get me wrong, it would be nice of course, but I refuse to get anxious  for a date, or even an approximate time period. You have probably seen me quote a father talking to his daughter saying "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime but lead your life as if it will come tomorrow". The father is long dead, and the daughter possibly too, as she was born in 1923. You can read her life story in  w04 12.1 Trusting in Jehovah’s Loving Care.
    In any case, all this talk about the gentile times calculations are not something Russell came up with. The originator of these calculations was William Miller of the second Adventists. (of course there were others even before him, but Russell associated with Miller). So if we go and dig down to the grass roots, to find the beginning of this idea,  really, we have William Miller to thank for it. But I'm not quite comfortable with that thought. I'm not comfortable with the thought that 1914 evolved from one of the branches of Christendom!

    Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

    I am sure you will agree that because the Bible gives us some numbers and a chronology, it has forever been the quest of believing mankind since the death of Christ, to crack the code of His promised second coming. Especially with the beginning of Adventist movements folks have been trying to figure out the key to WHEN. Russell and his associates were also interested in when. As you probably know, Russell even used the Pyramids to try to calculate Christ's second coming. So the whole period of the Second Awakening revival was focused on figuring all this out. And from that fertile ground came OUR "magical" dates. In fact if you look,  there have been and are "magical" dates floating around all the time:
    Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
     
     
  22. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    Post 1786
    There is much in what you say that I believe to be utter nonsense. Your views on how the FDS treats 607 BCE and its importance generally are eccentric, to say the least. WT Chronology has been consistent with its value not only in Bible Chronology but also in terms of its significance to Bible Prophecy and Theology.for after all, it introduced the 'Gentile Times'.
    The evidence for 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Exile is well established not only from the biblical perspective and its chronological data but also from NB Chronology with a little 'fine tuning'because of a shortfall or 'Gap' of twenty years. There have over many decades attempts made by our critics, some have become apostates to discredit our wondrous Chronology for such attempts began in the early sixties culminating in COJ's Gentile Times Reconsidered first published in 1983. I have examined all of these materials over the years and found these to be wanting, failing to properly recognize the 'seventy years of Jeremiah as a definite historic period of desolation of Judah, exile in/for Babylon and servitude to Babylon.
    Further, our Chronology is suitably anchored to the well established pivotal date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon thus giving this scheme much scholarly credence whereas most other schemes are based on Absolute Dates that lie outside the NB Period. This Chronology facilitates the counting backwards to Adam in 4026 BCE whereas other schemes fail to address these matters for various reasons with the exception mainly of James Ussher who provided a traditional base for our Chronology.
    WT Chronology has the added strength of its simplicity and avoids much of the technical issues of Calendation that prevents many schemes from positing fixed dates for various biblical events, the best example of such confusion is the 587/86 BCE controversy which remains unresolved to this day. Also, there are many different dates assigned to the reigns of the Divided Monarchy which Edwin Thiele devoted much of his scholarship to resolve which again highlights the importance of Methodology. In contrast, our Chronology has a scheme for the Divided Monarchy that is workable and intelligible, first published in 1944 in The Kingdom Is At Hand .
    The well-established date 607 BCE secures the modern date 1914 CE as the time of the birth of God's Kingdom which contextualizes the subject eschatologically in harmony with the view of prominent German Theologians in the earlier part of the 20th century who pioneered scholarship about the Kingdom. The date 1914 according to historians is the most celebrated date in our modern history and providentially it marked the end of the Gentile times again a subject on which Christendom's most prominent Clergy fixated on especially with the capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 CE.
    The 'eschatological hope' of Jehovah's Witnesses is well amplified in Early Christian Historiography especially pertaining to the Lukan writings of Luke and Acts as according to Prof. Gary Trompf who writes much on Retributive Justice discussed throughout the biblical narrative. Such recent studies in Historiography, in my opinion, undergird our interpretation of the Danielic and Lukan descriptions of the 'seven times'-'Gentile Times' beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 1914 CE. In short, our Chronology has no 'dead ends' it is prophetic, build faith, adds life and flesh to biblical history. It alone works whereas all other schemes fail.
    scholar JW
  23. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    Post 1786
    There is much in what you say that I believe to be utter nonsense. Your views on how the FDS treats 607 BCE and its importance generally are eccentric, to say the least. WT Chronology has been consistent with its value not only in Bible Chronology but also in terms of its significance to Bible Prophecy and Theology.for after all, it introduced the 'Gentile Times'.
    The evidence for 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Exile is well established not only from the biblical perspective and its chronological data but also from NB Chronology with a little 'fine tuning'because of a shortfall or 'Gap' of twenty years. There have over many decades attempts made by our critics, some have become apostates to discredit our wondrous Chronology for such attempts began in the early sixties culminating in COJ's Gentile Times Reconsidered first published in 1983. I have examined all of these materials over the years and found these to be wanting, failing to properly recognize the 'seventy years of Jeremiah as a definite historic period of desolation of Judah, exile in/for Babylon and servitude to Babylon.
    Further, our Chronology is suitably anchored to the well established pivotal date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon thus giving this scheme much scholarly credence whereas most other schemes are based on Absolute Dates that lie outside the NB Period. This Chronology facilitates the counting backwards to Adam in 4026 BCE whereas other schemes fail to address these matters for various reasons with the exception mainly of James Ussher who provided a traditional base for our Chronology.
    WT Chronology has the added strength of its simplicity and avoids much of the technical issues of Calendation that prevents many schemes from positing fixed dates for various biblical events, the best example of such confusion is the 587/86 BCE controversy which remains unresolved to this day. Also, there are many different dates assigned to the reigns of the Divided Monarchy which Edwin Thiele devoted much of his scholarship to resolve which again highlights the importance of Methodology. In contrast, our Chronology has a scheme for the Divided Monarchy that is workable and intelligible, first published in 1944 in The Kingdom Is At Hand .
    The well-established date 607 BCE secures the modern date 1914 CE as the time of the birth of God's Kingdom which contextualizes the subject eschatologically in harmony with the view of prominent German Theologians in the earlier part of the 20th century who pioneered scholarship about the Kingdom. The date 1914 according to historians is the most celebrated date in our modern history and providentially it marked the end of the Gentile times again a subject on which Christendom's most prominent Clergy fixated on especially with the capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 CE.
    The 'eschatological hope' of Jehovah's Witnesses is well amplified in Early Christian Historiography especially pertaining to the Lukan writings of Luke and Acts as according to Prof. Gary Trompf who writes much on Retributive Justice discussed throughout the biblical narrative. Such recent studies in Historiography, in my opinion, undergird our interpretation of the Danielic and Lukan descriptions of the 'seven times'-'Gentile Times' beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 1914 CE. In short, our Chronology has no 'dead ends' it is prophetic, build faith, adds life and flesh to biblical history. It alone works whereas all other schemes fail.
    scholar JW
  24. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Alithís Gnosis in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    COJ most certainly advocates that the whole Neo-Babylonian Period is one of an Absolute Chronology discussing 17 lines of evidence in support of his thesis. His treatment of 597 BCE does not instil any confidence that this date should be treated as a pivotal date in comparison to that of 539 BCE. In the General Index under the heading 'Dates, specific'597BCE he simply states:'deportation of Jehoiachin, 293,294'. Now, when one reads these two pages have little comment on 597 BCE simply stating another's opinion that this date was one of the very few secure dates. the footnote 15 on p. 293 refers the reader elsewhere in GTR to Appendix 5, pp.335-49.
    It is in this section that complexity reigns regarding 597 BCE.regarding the synchronism between the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles at this point: In particular Jonsson only introduces BM 21946 which pertain to Neb's 'seventh year during the reign of Jehoiachin' on page 342 and attempts to reconcile this Dan 1:1 with the 'third year of Jehoiakim'  based on his own interpretation of Jehoiakim's vassalage as discussed in par.3, p.343. By introducing Dan 1;1 Into the mix raises much complexity concerning the reign of Jehoiakim and his vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar thus making 597BCE as a pivotal date ridiculous and unwise.
    scholar JW
  25. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    Where are those pages from pp.506 onwards from GTR. online ? I cannot locate such a section of 130 pages. There is a supplement on Luke 21:24 which I have had already'.
    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.