Jump to content
The World News Media

scholar JW

Member
  • Posts

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    It is you who is guilty of 'sleight of hand'. The  acc. year of Cyrus is not in dispute for it is a date universally recognized dating the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The issue of the date for the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18th/19th years come down to the same methodology, one recognizes the acc. year principle and the other, the regnal year principle. WT  Scholars have no problem with applying this principle to the regnal data for Neb's reign so as to fix a precise date as 607 BCE and not 586, 587, 588 etc. Why???
    scholar JW 
  2. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    I enjoyed reading your comments and I agree with many of your observations and sentiments. Chronology is indeed hard work and beyond the capacity of most brothers and sisters not so much intellectually but that of resources. The beauty of WT  Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism. It took COJ seven years to research and prepare a treatise to refute our Chronology but I believe he failed miserably.
    I do not believe that our wondrous Chronology has a 'Archille's heel' by means of 607 BCE because it is based on solid Biblical evidence such as the '70 years', a firm Pivotal Date-539 BCE and has a meaningful prophetic outcome, 1914 CE the time of the Great War. It is no 'dead end 'date such as 586 or 587 BCE. In short, the beauty of our Chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and defensible going right back to Adam, the first Man. It works whereas others fail!
    scholar JW
  3. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    You must not conflate the two dates 539 BCE and 587?BCE as to having the same accuracy. This would be a serious mistake.. The date 539 BCE is a Pivotal Date for the purpose of Chronology whereas 587 BCE is not and cannot be.such a candidate. Thus a different Methodology must be used by the Chronologist. The simple fact is that 539 BCE is universally accepted by scholars for the Fall of Babylon but there is no such consensus for a date for the Fall of Jerusalem so obviously, both events must be treated differently according to all available evidence. Therefore, this means that even 607 BCE cannot be treated as a Pivotal Date for it does not enjoy the same status as 539 BCE. It all comes down to simplicity and honesty and for this reason, 607 BCE is the only accurate date for the Fall of Jerusalem.
    scholar JW
  4. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    I enjoyed reading your comments and I agree with many of your observations and sentiments. Chronology is indeed hard work and beyond the capacity of most brothers and sisters not so much intellectually but that of resources. The beauty of WT  Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism. It took COJ seven years to research and prepare a treatise to refute our Chronology but I believe he failed miserably.
    I do not believe that our wondrous Chronology has a 'Archille's heel' by means of 607 BCE because it is based on solid Biblical evidence such as the '70 years', a firm Pivotal Date-539 BCE and has a meaningful prophetic outcome, 1914 CE the time of the Great War. It is no 'dead end 'date such as 586 or 587 BCE. In short, the beauty of our Chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and defensible going right back to Adam, the first Man. It works whereas others fail!
    scholar JW
  5. Like
    scholar JW reacted to Anna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
    Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
    I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
    I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
    So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
    *
    Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
  6. Thanks
    scholar JW got a reaction from Anna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    The reason why we accept 539 BCE and not 587 Bce even though both dates are derived from similar secular sources but reflect diifferent methodologies in calculating these. The answer is Methodology for WT scholars make a determination based upon the textual, historical, biblical and astronomical sources. All of these things must come together in order for a measure of confidence be assured. It is only very recent times from 2000 that METHODOLOGY has become part of the Chronologist's toolkit in order to solve some of the vexing issues of OT chronology such as the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in either 586 or 587 BCE We have course have long solved this problem by fixing the precise date of 607 BCE because of the 70 years.
    scholar JW
  7. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann
    Indeed! I had forgotten about ChannelC.  I believe I posted there for  a time and I think it was the  only site that COJ  posted but I cannot recall Young's articles coming up for discussion but I surrender to your recall on these matters.
    scholar JW
  8. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from JW Insider in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann
    Indeed! I had forgotten about ChannelC.  I believe I posted there for  a time and I think it was the  only site that COJ  posted but I cannot recall Young's articles coming up for discussion but I surrender to your recall on these matters.
    scholar JW
  9. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from Foreigner in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Foreigner
    You ask for my opinion about the book Why The Bible Is Historically Accurate , 2006, 2nd edn. by a Darren Thompson. I have not heard of this  book and I would have to read it entirely rather than comment on a single page however interesting it may appear, I sourced the book from Amazon Books and I am not impressed by it at this stage. from how it is promoted.. I would question its scholarship and that of the Author.
    scholar JW.
  10. Confused
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    I believed I fared very well on the JWD forum over a period of many years but if you do not share my opinion then that is fine because I am not interested in convincing anyone about WT chronology just simply to defend it and in that regard, I have been successful. Don't you think?
    You misread things perhaps due to your anxiety to be right and overzealous in trying to discredit WT Chronology. Rodger Young was the first scholar to introduce Methodology as a  term of nomenclature in Chronology published in the scholarly literature. However, the said 'scholar' first applied the term to Chronology in his defence of WT Chronology published on the JWD forum. Rodger Young does not support 607 but 587 as a revision to Thielean Chronology. What you fail to mention is Young's use Of Decision Tables or Analysis  in order to solve the problems associated with 587 and 586. Try explaining that to this audience. Must keep things simple!!!
    You talk utter nonsense when you seek to superimpose WT  Chronology onto Youg's conclusion 6. on p. 38 in his 2004 study. What he is talking about here concerns a summary of his findings regarding the calendrical issues surrounding the resolution of the 586/7 BCE dilemma and has absolutely nothing to do with our Chronology and 607 BCE. Honesty would compel you to post conclusion 7 on p.38 and also the very first paragraph on p.21 which sets out the purpose and conclusion of his study.. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    In fact one of the reasons why  I was the first scholar to introduce the term 'methodology' into the subject of Chronology long prior to 2004 was the fact that Carl Jonsson in his initial treatise stumbled over the WTS use of 539 BCE and not then using secular data to establish their OT chronology. Prior to 2000, I was in the process of doing a thesis for my Honours Degree and one of the compulsory Units was on Methodology so at that time I knew of its importance in academic research so I realized that this was the solution to Jonsson's problem along with many other inquirers so I adopted the formula that Chronology was about Methodology and Interpretation as the two essentials tools for the constructing a scheme of Chronology.. So, do not come with the nonsense about 539 BCE!!
    scholar JW
     
  11. 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
  12. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Foreigner
    The sources that you list a part of a Chronologist's toolkit and were and continue to be used by WT scholars and all other scholars who wish to interpret or construct a scheme of Chronology which Thiele and Mc Fall.
    scholar JW
  13. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    J W Insider
    Thiele's scholarship on the Divided Monarchy is weakened by the simple fact that he overlooked the 70 years or believed that this period had no bearing on his thesis. This is my personal opinion of matters. Common sense would dictate that if you are trying to harmonize the regnal years of the Divided Monarchy both in the case of Israel and then Judah any historic period that was synchronized to any of  the reigns of the Monarchy and NB Chronology would be very important..
    The 70 years of Tyre come within the scope or province of Jer. 25:9,11, 22. For Tyre the 70 years represented a undetermined period of  domination or servitude to Babylon as also prophesied by Isaiah in ch. 23.
    Edwin Thiele is regarded by Christendom's Chronologists as the Chronologist par excellence . However, what is embarrassing for critics of WT Chronology is that they do not know the precise year that Jerusalem was destroyed whether it 586, the Thielean sate or 587 BCE which is the preferred of apostates following on the heels of Carl Jonsson and others of his ilk. In contrast WT Chronologists have thoughtfully determined 607 BCE as the precise date for that epochal event. 
    scholar JW
  14. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    Max Hatton became a Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventists, he is rather aged now and not sure whether he is still alive. He last resided in Newcastle, NSW and if alive possibly blind. Max Hatton wrote several articles on Chronology which I have in my files and one thing that struck me was his independent dating of the 70 years from normal Adventist orthodoxy. My conclusion was and still is that Scholarship broadly speaking is all at sea when it comes to the seventy years. They do not have a clue!!
    scholar JW
  15. 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
  16. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from JW Insider in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anne
    I agree with you. There is no evidence that Max Hatton had any influence on either Raymond Franz' research or that of Carl Jonsson for both carried out their own independent research.
    scholar JW
  17. Confused
    scholar JW got a reaction from DefenderOTT in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anne
    I agree with you. There is no evidence that Max Hatton had any influence on either Raymond Franz' research or that of Carl Jonsson for both carried out their own independent research.
    scholar JW
  18. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anne
    I agree with you. There is no evidence that Max Hatton had any influence on either Raymond Franz' research or that of Carl Jonsson for both carried out their own independent research.
    scholar JW
  19. Confused
    scholar JW got a reaction from DefenderOTT in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Foreigner
    The facts are that Raymond Franz had already carried out research in WT Chronology and this published in the Aid book 1969, 1971, later Carl Jonsson in Sweden conducted his own independent research and submitted his treatise to Brooklyn in 1977. Long before this,  Max Hatton in Australia conducted his own research during the sixties and was probably influenced by the research of a G. Rogerson in Australia who produced a treatise on the subject of some 60 pages. It would seem that the  first or earliest criticisms of WT Chronology originated in Australia influenced by at that time scholarly research beginning in the forties carried out by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.scholars.in the USA.
    scholar JW
  20. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    J W Insider
    Thiele's scholarship on the Divided Monarchy is weakened by the simple fact that he overlooked the 70 years or believed that this period had no bearing on his thesis. This is my personal opinion of matters. Common sense would dictate that if you are trying to harmonize the regnal years of the Divided Monarchy both in the case of Israel and then Judah any historic period that was synchronized to any of  the reigns of the Monarchy and NB Chronology would be very important..
    The 70 years of Tyre come within the scope or province of Jer. 25:9,11, 22. For Tyre the 70 years represented a undetermined period of  domination or servitude to Babylon as also prophesied by Isaiah in ch. 23.
    Edwin Thiele is regarded by Christendom's Chronologists as the Chronologist par excellence . However, what is embarrassing for critics of WT Chronology is that they do not know the precise year that Jerusalem was destroyed whether it 586, the Thielean sate or 587 BCE which is the preferred of apostates following on the heels of Carl Jonsson and others of his ilk. In contrast WT Chronologists have thoughtfully determined 607 BCE as the precise date for that epochal event. 
    scholar JW
  21. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    The reason why we accept 539 BCE and not 587 Bce even though both dates are derived from similar secular sources but reflect diifferent methodologies in calculating these. The answer is Methodology for WT scholars make a determination based upon the textual, historical, biblical and astronomical sources. All of these things must come together in order for a measure of confidence be assured. It is only very recent times from 2000 that METHODOLOGY has become part of the Chronologist's toolkit in order to solve some of the vexing issues of OT chronology such as the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in either 586 or 587 BCE We have course have long solved this problem by fixing the precise date of 607 BCE because of the 70 years.
    scholar JW
  22. 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
  23. 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
     
  24. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider.
    Honesty is a two-way street required by both sides in a debate therefore no need for any ;theocratic war strategy..
    If the Gap does not exist then how do you account for the 20 year difference between 586/587 BCE and 607 BCE for the same event? No need for circular reasoning here.
    Chronology is personal because most if not all schemes of Chronology are written up by individuals beginning with James Ussher also such is based on Methodology, personally selected and Interpretation again personally selected.
    If there is no Gap then why or what are we discussing?
    You talk honesty but your following comments replete with many references to earlier WT Publications finally concluding that some dates were or are fuzzy! Yet you begin your diatribe with the astonishing statement that the Babylonian Empire began in 609 BCE. What nonsense for nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 BCE. Carl Jonsson in the 2nd edn of his Gentile Times Reconsidered produced a Chart on p.235. This Chart presents a' fuzzy' statement that the 70 years began with the Assyria crushed with no historical data in support to support this assertion.
    Chronology is not an exact science for it is always a 'work in progress' and is simply a scheme or device that relates history into our modern  day calendation. It is based on  Methodology and Interpretation for these are the 'tools' of the Chronologist and explains why our dates in the past have been adjusted, a feature common to all modern-day chronologies. You only have to compare the different Chronologies for the Divided Monarchy and to examine the conflict over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BEC.
    One thing can be said about our wondrous Bible Chronology there is no room for 'fuzziness' or dogmatism.
    scholar JW
     
  25. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann
    Sitting on the throne gives time to review  another's foolishness and to refute nonsense.
    At least we agree on one thing-It is impressive.
    scholar JW
     
     
     
    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.