Scholar pretendus wrote:
: No the application of Ezekiel's '390 years' is not based on Jewish tradition at all but is in agreement with that tradition,
Wrong as usual. The first time that application was used in the modern WTS way was in the 1944 book The Kingdom Is At Hand, in a chart beginning on page 172. However, no explanation was given for anything about Ezekiel 4 -- the dates were simply printed in the chart with no explanation. Russell and his contemporaries specifically rejected that interpretation, but it had been around for many hundreds of years, and these were based themselves on Jewish tradition. So it's obvious that Fred Franz used these traditions in formulating his revision of Russell's chronology.
The first specific justification for applying the 390 years according to Jewish tradition appeared, so far as I'm aware, in the 1969 Aid book under the subject "Chronology". In the Aid book, the only justification given was reference to Jewish tradition and commentators, ranging from the Seder Olam (an anonymous exposition dated to somewhere between about 160 and 250 CE) to various 19th century Jewish commentators. Of course, the problem with relying on Jewish commentators on chronology is that their date system differs from secular dating by nearly two hundred years for the Neo-Babylonian period. Furthermore, strictly applying the basis for all these commentaries (the Seder Olam) to Ezekiel 4 results in a time between the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the fall of the Southern Kingdom of Judah of roughly 50 years, which again differs drastically from secular and Watchtower chronology. So the Society's use of these Jewish traditions is both dishonest and wrong-headed. It amounts to arbitrarily picking and choosing supporting references based only on whether they agree with a pre-determined claim.
: The interpretation of that prophecy has always been explained in WT literature solely within a biblical context.
Whether it was or not is unimportant, because Watchtower interpretations of prophecy are invariably nothing more than the current fancies of current Watchtower leaders, as its literature proves with respect to how Ezekiel 4 is applied to its chronology.
: Thiele's presentation of the Divided Monarchy is not uniformly agreed within scholarship
So what? The Watchtower's "presentation of the Divided Monarchy is not uniformly agreed within scholarship." The point is what arguments hold the most weight.
: and I have presented the facts of the matter some years ago on this forum by means of comparing different chronologies by leading chronologists including Thiele which present different conclusions.
Nonsense. Your "comparing different chronologies" has never amounted to anything more substantive than making a few general claims based on Watchtower literature and claiming divine inspiration for spiritually inebriated Watchtower "scholars". You cannot point to any of your posts that go into the specific comparisons you claim.
: For example, these scholars cannot agree as to which year the Monarchy ceased whether it was 586 BCE or 587 BCE.
So what? Lumping Watchtower writers together with them, according to your logic, means that no one knows the actual date -- 586 or 587 or 606 or 607. So your "logic", as usual, is self-serving and wrong. Second, the only reason for confusion is that the Bible itself dates events regarding the fall of Jerusalem both to the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar. Many scholars have not agreed on how to understand the relevant Bible passages, but again, the most modern scholarship has definitely cleared that up, even though the results have not spread thoroughly around the scholarly community. The appropriate references have been posted on this forum at various times.
: Apostates of course have no chronology for the period of the Divided monarchy so perhaps you shoul d 'put up' or 'shut up'.
There is no such thing as "Apostates" such that every person labeled as such by morons such as yourself has to do any such putting up. I myself accept most of Thiele's work for the period before 587 BCE, although the poster Jeffro claims to have produced a workable one. Furthermore, as Thiele points out, there are certain problems in the Bible chronology that are simply insoluble within Watchtower chronology. This is proved by the complete lack of discussion of these by Watchtower writers, even though we know very well that these men have been very familiar with Thiele's work.
Finally, it should be obvious that a complete chronology of the Jewish kings prior to the Neo-Babylonian period is entirely irrelevant to the question of the validity of secular dating of this period. In fact, in most chronologies, including the Watchtower's, it is the events in Judah in the several decades prior to Jerusalem's fall -- the Neo-Babylonian period -- that are the basis for the preceding period. But you've been told many times before that this is so, and so your bringing up this red herring is yet another instance of thorough scholastic dishonesty.
: Thiele deals with certain problems
Problems that Watchtower writers generally ignore.
: but others he cannot solve
Which ones? You make sweeping claims like this but never back them up with references. Thiele claims to have solved all the problems, so I hazard a guess that you're simply lying and hoping no one will notice.
: because he uses a 'regnal-based' methodologyand hence he falls into a 'pit of confusion'.
Why do you think the regnal dates are in the Bible, you moron? Just to confuse readers with facts? Thiele uses these dates and figures to do a thorough cross check between the chronologies of the kings of Israel and Judah -- something that Watchtower writers often gloss over or "solve" with special pleading or by ignoring them.
: Wisely, the 'celebrated WT cholars have chosen a different methodology- an event- based methodology which eliminates all of such perceived problems. Smart aren't they!
Dishonest pseudo-scholars is what they are, because they gloss over whatever problems they find in their own chronology when possible, and simply ignore problems when they can't come up with "plausible" gobble-de-goop explanations. Explanations of the sort that Fred Franz used to change the 606 date to 607 BCE in 1943/44.
: Yes, you would like the references to the Dead Sea Scrolls and I am able to prov ide this but this surely shows that you do not do enoughg research on matters before you criticize WT scholars. You should know these things if you are that smart and cocky. Has scholar once again, has to hold your hand and guide you and teach you?
Obviously, your bluster is designed to hide the fact that you have no facts to back up your lies.
: You miss the point, I refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls in reference to support the traditional Jewish and current biblical interpretation that Ezekiel's'390 years' applies to the period of the Divided Monarchy.
You again write a blatant lie. You specifically stated that "the Dead Sea Scrolls nicley confirm this exegesis produced by the 'celebrated ones'." You said nothing about supporting Jewish tradition or any "current biblical interpretation" along these lines. And once again, you cannot produce any such interpretation, although I can present commentaries from the 19th and 20th centuries that reject that interpretation and give good reasons for doing so.
So here we have, yet again, scholar pretendus making grandiose claims of support for Watchtower chronology, but being unable to set forth any actual references. I have no doubt this is because he knows that it's extremely likely, based on past experience, that every time he actually presents source references it turns out that the references don't actually support his claims, or even directly contradict them. Such is the lot of the Watchtower apologist.
AlanF
