scholar,
as I mentioned in an earlier post about Rolf Furuli, I have a certain admiration for you guys that are doing the work the WTBTS should be doing. It is quite interesting how they stay away from the subject of Chronology. No direct references are made anymore to actual archaeological texts/documents. Just vague statements. Even the last reference to the appendix of Let your Kingdom come (where at least VAT4956, Ptolemy, etc... were mentioned by name) was eliminated with the revised Revelation book. This definitely does not give them any credit about scholarship.
All references about Chronology are now to the Insight book only, where vague statements are made about the evidence against 607.
That having been said, I feel you have a number of problems to solve, which I'll try to list:
I read many of your past comments (also on other boards, like channelC) and find that you, like the WTBTS, lack of concrete arguments. You hang on a couple of Scriptures and reject everything else without giving proper reason for it. The last example is when you say it is impossible to write an accurate Babylonian king list. Given that statement, I would expect a huge debate among scholars about Neo-Babylonian chronology, which is absolutely not the case. So far I could not find one that disagrees with it.
The Bible is not a book about chronology. Its chronology is totally dependent on secular chronology (I wonder why God did not give more chronological details) and, when it presents dates, is far from being perfect. A good number of scriptures need harmonisation as they apparently seem to contradict themselves. Why should it be taken so strictly when talking about the 70 years of desolation?
If it wasn’t for the JW prophecy about the 7 times (which is not directly mentioned in the Bible as a prophecy); would JW’s still be advertising that 607 BCE is the date of Jerusalem destruction?
Besides posting here, I have you seriously challenged scholars about the accepted neo-Babylonian chronology? What was their response?
If you reject about 90% of the accepted secular chronology, insisting on the 70 years of destruction for Jerusalem, on what basis you chose where to start and to end them? Or you want to tell me that what the WTBTS has published on this point corresponds to serious scholarship? w86 11/1 p. 6 A Dream Reveals How Late It Is - When Did the “Seven Times” Really End?
Some people argue that even if the “seven times” are prophetic and even if they last 2,520 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses are still mistaken about the significance of 1914 because they use the wrong starting point. Jerusalem, they claim, was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E., not in 607 B.C.E. If true, this would shift the start of “the time of the end” by some 20 years. However, in 1981 Jehovah’s Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date. (“Let Your Kingdom Come,” pages 127-40, 186-9) Besides, can those trying to rob 1914 of its Biblical significance prove that 1934—or any other year for that matter—has had a more profound, more dramatic, and more spectacular impact upon world history than 1914 did?
Scholarship is about ascertaining facts to establish the truth, not to start from the “truth” and work out the facts in favour of it and reject everything else.
If the WTBTS spreads new light about chronology, you will have to retreat all that you have been saying so far (some people will have to rewrite their websites ), that is why it is generally not appreciated that you make a defence for them
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
jeanV
-
Jeffro
The brilliance of the NWT is shown by its careful rtendering of Jeremiah 29:10 recognizing the simple fact that the simple Hebrew preposition has a wide semantic range and can properly be rendered as 'at' rather than 'for' which is in harmony with the context of Chapter 29 but also the whole book of Jeremiah. The context is clearly addressed to those exiles living in Babylon during the seventy years already commenced.
What wilful deceit 'scholar' attempts! The setting of Jeremiah chapter 29 according to JW chronology is in 615BC (the actual setting was 595BC). Specifically, it was in response to Hananiah's claim that those taken in the same exile as Ezekiel would return in 3 more years. It was quite definitely prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. 'scholar' is an outright liar.
You say the Bible never mentions a period of seventy years of exile my response to this nonsense is that the Bible never mentions a period of seventy years of servitude
Jeremiah 25:11
or that the seventy years refers to a period of Babylonian supremacy
Jeremiah 25:9,14
or that the seventy years when the Babylonian king and his nation were punished that is in 539 BCE
Jeremiah 25:12; Daniel 5:26-31
or that the seventy years of servitude began many years before the destruction of Jerusalem
Jeremiah 25:12. The 70 years was served by "all these nations round about", so the start and end point of the 70 years for all those nations' servitude is static.
All of these conclusions are simply interpretations. Wiley poztates have there own views so do the celebrated WT scholars and so does scholarship.
The scriptures cannot be interpreted any differently than what you are rejecting.
No, I did not lie about a tabulation of the Neo-Babylonian kings being made by my goodself for I could construct any number of models because the date is not consistent thus making any proposed tabulation problematic so why would one bother. The twenty year gap exists because of the seventy year for the Babylonian scribes did not account for it whereas the Jweish scribes faithfully recorded such a fixed historic period.
Whatever your inability may be, I have constructed a tabulation that is completely consistent with the scriptures for not only the Neo-Babylonian period, but also the entire divided kingdom, confirmed by Josephus' indepedant account.
-
Jeffro
Your accusation that the NWT's rendering of 2 Chronicles 36:21is badly punctuated andnot honestly presented is plainly false. The rendering of the NWT is in agreement with RSV which reads similarly. Your statement that the sentence attributed to Jeremiah is shown parenthetically in the NIV is not shown in my NIV Study Bible, 1995 nor is it presented in parenthgesis in the NIV edition cited by Ross Winkle in his journal article on the seventy years published in 1987. So, what NIV edition are you using in order to support your accusation?
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of 'parenthetical'. A 'parenthetical' statement does not necessitate 'parentheses'; it can indicate any phrase that is offset in the grammar as incidental or not directly pertinent to the main part of the sentence. The wording in the NIV separates the wording about the sabbaths because they are not part of what Jeremiah prophesied.
Commentators agree that the Jeremiah sentence is a citation of Jeremiah 25:11; 29:10 conjoined with Lev 26:34 so the rendering as it appears is valid unless you can demonstrate that the Chronicler was mistaken on this matter.Therefore there is no need of any parenthesis in this text as you demand because the only Bible that I am aware that has such parenthesis is a Swedish translation published 1917.
The verse does reference Jeremiah and Leviticus, but they are separate references. You continue to ignore the fact that the reference to Leviticus is not something prophesied by Jeremiah.
-
AlanF
scholar pretendus wrote:
: Your response to my posts proves the resurrection as you have similar retreated over last several months. You only appear on this board when I post so you pay me the greatest of compliments.
LOL! You do have an oversized view of your importance.
Actually, I looked at this board for the first time in some months because of the thread on the Watchtower's out-of-court settlement with a group of child abuse victims. I just happened upon this thread and couldn't resist posting for the benefit of readers who don't know how thoroughly dishonest you are.
: The truth of the matter is that I have simply moved house and that is very unsettling and a nuisance.
I guess nine months of settling is a reasonable amount.
Let's now look at your usual methods of exposition, which are centered on lies and simply ignoring the facts.
Lie # 1:
: Your exegesis of 2 Chronicles 36:20 is absurd for the next has nothing to say about Babylon,
Nebuchadnezzar "carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon". 2 Chron. 36:20
Lie # 2:
: its last ruler
The Jews "came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign." 2 Chron. 36:20
This passage clearly states that the Jews were servants of Nebuchadnezzar and his sons -- i.e., the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar -- until the royalty of Persia began to reign. Obviously, when that dynasty ended, they were no longer servants to it.
: or 539 for that matter.
Not directly, but since Cyrus the Persian began to reign in 539 B.C.E., the date is clearly implied.
Lie # 3:
: Ezra defines quite clearly in verses 22-23 that it was the first year of Cyrus was when the royalty of Persia began to reign and no other circumstance is possible.
Those verses say nothing of the kind. They merely state that in Cyrus' 1st year, Cyrus issued an edict releasing the Jews. Note:
And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, so that he caused a cry to pass through all his kingdom, and also in writing, saying: 23 "This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, Jehovah his God be with him. So let him go up.’" 2 Chron. 36:22-23
A non-sequitur:
: Further, the exiles were still captive in Babylon and were still serving a new king of Babylon on and after 539.
So what? 2 Chronicles 36 speaks about the Jews being captive to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons. When that dynasty was no more, the Jews were no longer captive to them. Cyrus was certainly not in this dynasty.
Another non-sequitur:
: Also, the land of Judah remained a desolate place in 539 as the exiles had then not yet returned.
Duh.
Lie # 4:
: So, the biblical evidence destroys your specious theory.
LOL! As usual, you think that lies and dishonest use of non-sequiturs make valid arguments.
Lie # 5 (this is a lie by omission of critically relevant data):
: Josephus on numerous occasions states that the seventy years ran from the Fall to the Return under Cyrus so this supports the Bible and the view of the celebrated WT scholars.
Nonsense. We've been through this numerous times. When Josephus talks about 70 years of exile or captivity, he also provides other details -- details which show that his comments about 70 years are hopelessly confused because they contradict both what the Bible says actually happened and what a good deal of secular history shows happened. But as usual, in your thoroughly dishonest way, you neglect to mention that in his last work, Against Apion, Josephus clearly states that the Temple was devastated for 50 years -- not 70 -- and he quotes figures on regnal lengths of various kings from the Babylonian historian Berossus and from Phoenician records to back it up. These figures add up to very close to 50 years.
: Your special theory that the Jews returned home in 538 BCE
This is not just my special theory. A number of commentators support this date, and I've listed them in previous posts. Either your memory is defective, or you're deliberately ignoring this.
: is based upon your specific model
A model based on specific statements by Ezra and Josephus. A model completely in accord with available historical records.
: whereas we have selected a model that gives 537 BCE for the Return
A model based on pure speculation, with no historical records or even valid argumentation to back it up. A model contradicted by the historical records I've elucidated.
: so it is simply a matter of modelling based upon how one uses the availkable biblical and secular evidence.
Bingo! And when a model ignores historical evidence, and is contradicted by that evidence, it is obviously invalid.
Face it, Neil. The Society's claims about 537 are based on nothing more than its need to retain the 1914 date.
One of scholar pretendus' usual red herrings:
: The question that you choose to ignore is that if it is the case that the Society is demonstrably wrong regarding 537 BCE for the Return then why is it the case that Jonsson has not throughly exposed such a blatant error? Jonsson is rather cautious in this matter relying on slight evidence from two minor sources by way of a footnote.
Let me point out some facts: (1) Jonsson's views are irrelevant. (2) Jonsson was unaware of the connection between Josephus' statement that the Temple's foundations were laid in Cyrus' 2nd year (which ran spring to spring, 537 to 536 B.C.E.) and the material in Ezra 1 and 3, as I've pointed out in my post http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/118291/1.ashx . In fact, I pointed out this connection to him last year, so obviously he could not have included it in his books.
: I put it to you that the 537.BCE model is reasonable and there can be no room for dogmatism.
In view of the material in Josephus and Ezra, it is most certainly unreasonable. Any model that contradicts reasonable historical material is at best suspect. Models that are fully in line with all known historical material are obviously better than models that are not -- especially models whose only cause for existence is to support sectarian dogma such as the 1914 date.
: Why is it also the case that amongst many reference works that there is no definite date for the Return of the Exiles?
The date has long been the subject of discussion and speculation, to be sure. It is also a very minor point to historians. But I have not read any discussions of the connection between Josephus' statement that the Temple's foundation was laid in Cyrus' 2nd year and the statements in Ezra 1 and 3. So I suspect that this is a new piece of information.
: If you are so confident about your model and proposed date of 538 BCE then please alert the world of biblical scholarship to this new light and have it published.
Why should I bother? This is yet another red herring, by the way, because even if 100 scholars agreed with my arguments here, you'd still reject them based on your blind loyalty to Watchtower leaders.
Lie # 6:
: Your bald claim of 538 BCE for the Return amounts to intellectual dishonesty.
Setting forth solid quotations from the Bible and from Josephus that prove this date is in no sense a bald claim. Therefore your claims are deliberate lies.
What is a bald claim is the Society's claim that the Jews returned in 537 B.C.E. You will not find anything other than pure speculation in its literature. Readers can look up the material for themselves. Readers will note that you, scholar pretendus, will not present any arguments in favor of 537 -- which proves that it is your claim that is bald.
: Perhaps you should alert Doug Mason to your new light as he posted research on this matter but if my memory serves me correctly I do recall that he proposes an alternative. Must go and check.
If you provide references to his posts, I will look at them.
: You will never see wiley poztates tackle the difficult issues or follow through with thorough research by publishing anything of value to scholarship for all they do is be critical of the ground-breaking research provided by the celebrated WT scholars and the FDS.
LOL! Actually this criticism applies in spades to the Watchtower Society. All of its material is self-published, and one can write anything one likes in self-published and unreviewed literature. The Society's writers ('celebrated scholars'?) have always carefully avoided publishing in peer-reviewed scholarly journals precisely because they know they'll get their collective 'scholarly' asses whipped in public. So once again, scholar pretendus, your hypocrisy is palpable.
AlanF
-
Liberty
Watch Tower apologists like Scholar can play numbers games all day to get to 1914. In the end however, we all have the right to ask a big SO WHAT? It is quite clear from the passage of time since 1914 that Christ was NOT enthroned and does not rule "invisibly" since nothing has changed and ALL the "spirit directed" predictions of the Watch Tower have turned out to be FALSE.
Why would Jesus bother to be "enthroned" and then do NOTHING for nearly 100 years??? The whole JW chronology crumbles based on the passage of time over the last century ALONE. The secular evidence which contradicts the Watch Tower's date for the Jews' return from captivity are just added bonuses showing why NOTHING the Watch Tower predicts EVER comes true simply because it was never true in the first place.. The Watch Tower dates are meaningless, not because apostates and secular humanists say so but because REALITY says so by the WTS's own time-expired limits.
Why would Jehovah select them as the "only true relgion" in 1919 since ALL their predictions up to that point had failed and they still celebrated "pagan" holidays and used the cross just like all the other churches of Christendom? The Watch Tower's claims of authority are a joke all tied to FALSE dates. It is clear as day. The whole Watch Tower movement is based upon lie after lie and failed date upon failed date.
-
Jeffro
Watch Tower apologists like Scholar can play numbers games all day to get to 1914. In the end however, we all have the right to ask a big SO WHAT? It is quite clear from the passage of time since 1914 that Christ was NOT enthroned and does not rule "invisibly" since nothing has changed and ALL the "spirit directed" predictions of the Watch Tower have turned out to be FALSE.
Of course 'scholar' thinks that because WWI happened in 1914, that it proves they're right. And of course, that is absolute drivel, because their interpretation requires that Christ's enthronement occurred in October of 1914, and that Satan was thrown out after that, and after that, there would be woe for the earth. 'scholar' and his cronies are completely and utterly wrong.
-
drew sagan
Liberty,
You hit it dead on. It is one hell of an argument just to get us to 1914, let alone all of the other fairy tales the watchtower likes to attach to it. -
anakolouthos
Been enjoying your chronology threads of late, cultswatter. Just adding some of the info to my research files. I have a lot to mull over...
-
scholar
jeanV
The Society's charter promotes Bible education over and above many other subjects which lie outside their primary mission. The magazine Awake is designed to cover a broad range of subjects outside the Bible. In regards to chronology the Society has presented much material over many decades but again as our chronology is wholly Biblical there is no need to explore in depth the secular aspects of chronology for this is adequately covered by scholars. This means that the Society's scholarship is biblical rather than secular and this is where the expertise lies.
Problems:
1. I have posted on this board for many years concentrating on chronology and have always offerred sound argument for my position where necessary. In fact I have developed new ideas for the benefit of all in the course of my postings. The reason why we base our case on a few scriptures is because we believe that the Bible is God's Word and is superior and more trustworthy than the theories of men. In regard to the Neo-Babylonian tabulation it is simply the fact that the data is inconsistent between different authorities so it must be used with extreme caution.
2. The Bible is not a textbook of chronology but it contains detailed history and chronology both for the Old and New Testament so it provides all the data necessary for development of a true Bible chronology. The chronology of the Bible is not dependent on secular chronology as you claim but does require a pivotal or Absolute Date in order for us today with our different calender to locate those past events in the stream of time. The scriptures are quite emphatic that the seventy years was a fixed historic period of exile-servitude and desolation, facts which scholars and wiley poztates are unable to grasp.
3. The prophecy of the 'seven times' is indeed biblical and is recorded in Daniel 4 and has significance for 607 BCE as this date marked the beginning of those prophetic times. Prominent clergymen in 1917 attested to the fact of the Gentile times by listing it in a Manifesto published in London.
4. Yes, I have challenged various SDA advocates of the secular chronology in the context of such ones being critical of our chronology.
5.The Bible alone sets the parameters for our chronology especially in relation to prophecy. Secular evidence is used as long as it does not conflict with the biblical data and that is the sole criterion. Bible first then secular evidence second.
6. Your latter observation is sound because the truth of 607 results in 1914 not 1934 wherein nothing much happened but 1914 is generally conceded by all to most significant so this means that the proof is in the pudding- the eating thereof so 1914 most definitely vindicates the sacred date of 607BCE.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
'scholar' spouts some more rhetoric claiming that the Watchtower Society places the bible above all else. However, when it's a choice between the bible, and Watchtower doctrine, doctrine wins with them every time.
Daniel chapter 4: Daniel provides an interpretation regarding only Nebuchadnezzar, and that fulfilment is detailed in the chapter. No other fulfilment is implied. Yet, without any legitimate basis, the Watchtower Society states that there is definitely another fulfilment.
They interpret the meaning of 'removal of the turban' at Ezekiel 21:25-27 as the end of the kingship of Judah, however the verse is directed to Israel, not Judah. Ezekiel 37:15-23 indicate that at the time the two weren't considered one nation, and Ezekiel 4:5 indicates that the judgement of Israel was still ongoing and did not end at the end of the Israelite kingship.
Luke 21:24 indicates that 'the appointed times of the nations' was a yet future event, using a Greek word that can only be referred to a future event, and is the same Greek word used elsewhere in the same sentence that also only refer to future events but precede the 'appointed times of the nations'.
Jeremiah 25:11 plainly states that the 70 years were of "all these nations round about" serving Babylon, however the Watchtower Society contends that this really means 70 years of Jewish exile.
Jeremiah 25:12 states that when the 70 years have finished, Babylon would be 'called to account'. Daniel 5:26-31 explicitly indicates both the numbering of Babylon's rule, and the calling to account of its king. The Watchtower Society denies the obvious connection and contends that the 70 years during which nations would serve Babylon continued after the Medo-Persians took over (though the Medes were included in the list of nations that would serve Babylon during the 70 years [Jeremiah 25:25]).
An honest analytical comparison of Daniel 1:1-3 and 2 Kings 24:1 can be used to promote the bible's accuracy in the face of a seeming contradiction (Daniel uses the accession-year system, Jeremiah doesn't), however the Watchtower Society distorts the timing of events in the book of Daniel, with no scriptural or historical basis whatsoever.
Jeremiah 29:10 involves Jeremiah's refutation of Hananiah's claim that the Jews would only be exiled in Babylon for 3 years. It is directed to the exiles taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year, in the 4th year of that exile (Jeremiah 28:1), several years before the 70 years had begun according to JW chronology. The Watchtower Society inserts the word "at" (ignoring the context of Jeremiah 25:12) instead of "for" (as used in most translations, and in agreement with Jeremiah 25:11-12) before the word Babylon. This is completely illogical, as the supposed period had not yet even begun, and would be either meaningless or misleading to the recipients of Jeremiah's letter (Jeremiah 29:1).
Daniel 9:2 indicates that at the end of 70 years, Jerusalem's devastations would be completed. The Watchtower Society distorts this into a 70-year period of devastation, which they further distort by insisting that the period was also of complete depopulation, with no support from the scriptures.
2 Chronicles 36:17-23 states that Babylon's 70 years end when the Persians take over, and also mentions that the land paid of its sabbaths. Paying off sabbaths is a reference to Leviticus 26:34-35, however the NWT is written to imply that the paying off of sabbaths is part of what Jeremiah prophesied (some other bible translations also do this). The passage is also interpreted by the Watchtower Society to indicate the end of the 70 years in 537BC, in contradiction of Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31 (which both place the end of the 70 years at Babylon's fall in 539BC), and Ezra 3:8 (which places the return of the Jews in 538BC).
Zechariah 1:12 employs a rhetorical question asked in frustration about a (different) period of 70 years that was still ongoing at the time. The Watchtower Society implies that it refers to Babylon's 70 years, and ignores the rhetorical phrasing.
Zechariah 7:3 speaks of men asking if fasting should end because it was now the fourth year of Darius, being 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and death of Gedaliah, the end of the period indicated at Zechariah 1:12. The Watchtower ignores the context of the verse, and contends that the period ended 20 years prior, but was still ongoing.
The Watchtower Society putting the bible above all else? I don't think so!