Hello to all, any of you have the topic over "Chronology", from the book "Aid to Bible Understanding" ( perhaps on his original edition of 1971) in the form of a PDF file, or another format? I´m in the corroboration of excerpts of Ray Franz´s Book and Carls Olof Johnson´s Book, when they speak on the real and original text of the "Aid" book, and what was his real content, all this, BEFORE of the problems of 1975-1980. Thanks
Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971
by poki 7 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
Doug Mason
Boy, does that bring back some memories!
I remember going to libraries and such, looking at the originals of the books that were being cited by the "Chronology" article in the Aid book, only to find that the author had misrepresented and selectively quoted his sources. For example, he quoted Pritchard's book about the Adda Guppi stele, but he mentioned only part of the information available in that book. You can imagine how I felt about the "chronology" author's deceptions!
The current book is no better, in that it is only a watering down of the Aid article and does not declare the complete information contained in its sources.
This experience also makes me completely wary of the wallpaper of words put out by JCanon, and deters me from bothering to verify whether his citations are complete or accurate.
Doug
-
JCanon
The current book is no better, in that it is only a watering down of the Aid article and does not declare the complete information contained in its sources.
All the amateur chronologists say that and sweep the details under the rug as if everything is resolved. Fact is, whether the intent was to make excuses for the secular challenges or not, there were some great arguments made in the "Aid" Book that still are good arguments now. And in a way, the "Insight" update has also contributed positively on the pro-Biblical side of things.
On another level, COJ is far more deceptive and manipulative of details than the WTS ever was. Which is another reality in the debate here. That is, usually, including myself, everyone has their own chronology agenda in mind and they bring to the table those facts that support that agenda, while they bash or discredit others who disagree with them. COJ runs from criticism (he refuses to discuss chronology with me any more) just like the WTS does by forbidding members to talk with "apostates." So it's different sides of the same coin. As long as you're discussing a topic with someone who is dumb about that topic, you automatically seem persuasive and intelligent. If someone smart gets into the details, then the name calling starts.
So here's what good about the "Aid" Book with regard to chronology that I benefited from.
1. I believe in page 330 they showed a graphic of Xerxes with Darius accompanied by a quote from an archaeologist whose opinion it was that Xerxes and Darius were actually co-rulers. That one little thing brought out by them, which is necessary for their 10-year adjustment in the Persian Period to bring 455 BCE back to year 20th of Artaxerxes, led me directly to discovering that Xerxes and Artaxerxes, Longimanus were the same king. Few discuss this, and I hvae all the evidence I need now to prove it.
2. The "Aid" Book was great in presenting the basic nature of ancient history as far as chronology is concerned, with the concepts of "relative" and "absolute" chronology. That is a guidepost I continue to need when dealing with chronology.
Finally, in all fairness to COJ, he absolutely is more honest and accurate than the WTS on some other points, like when Daniel came into Babylon in the accession year of Artaxerxes rather than as the WTS claims by playing with the concepts of the rulership years. It's a big mess. Also, COJ brings, indeed, a lot of direct extant texts dealing with chronology that can rarely be found under one cover. But its not completely effective in proving anything because often it is irrelevant. Case in point, as the "Insight" and I believe the "Aid" Book point out, the all-important VAT4956. The WTS claims because it is a late-dated text, over 200 years after the fact (568 vs 320? BCE) that the "historical" information in the text is inaccurate. That is, indeed when the astronomical information was copied onto a new text it was accurately copied for that particular year, but "year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar" was an updated application for that year and not the original king ruling that year. That is absolutely a valid argument, Thus the VAT4956 can be dismissed as a fraudulent or revised text automatically. The WTS is polite in suggesting that the reflection may have simply been due to normal error over time and not direct revisionism or fraud (as I do) but still, the point is made. Anybody can change the king's name on an astronomical text 200 years later if they want to, in order to try and change the chronology.
So you've got pros and cons on both sides of the chronology fence when it comes to COJ, Franz and the WTS' encyclopaedia dealing with chronology in the "Aid" and "Insight" books. Finally, COJ does get a lot of mileage from the "Insight" volume because it introduces the astronomical text, the "Strm. Kambyses 400" (SK400), which the WTS uses to help establish the 607 BCE chronology, while dismissing in the VAT4956, when in fact, both have the same problem of belonging to a time 200 years after the fact. COJ is absolutely right that if you are going to use the SK400 to support chronology from an astronomical point of view, then one would think the VAT4956 would be just as supportive, only since the VAT4956 doesn't support the WTS' chronology with respect to 607 BCE, they dismiss the text as being post-dated. Now that is a good argument, but the same could likewise be applied to the SK400.
The "Aid" Book is still a great thesis to begin learning about chronology, but by all means COJ's GT3 is also a very important chronology resource.
JCanon
-
James Free
Yes JCanon, but COJ does not claim to be Christ as you do, so whatever he says immediately is more credible.
-
JCanon
Yes JCanon, but COJ does not claim to be Christ as you do, so whatever he says immediately is more credible.
It's only more credibile IN CASE I'm not really JC. Something for me to know and for you to find out... Whether somone can count correctly are not isn't always related to how they are dressed. JC
-
Doug Mason
Analysis of any system must separate "process" from "content". The former considers the way something is done, and the latter looks at the information that is carried.
My criticism of the "chronology" article in the AID book focused on the dishonest processes that the author followed, including: cited sentences are half-quoted; parts of referenced information is cited while embarrassing parts are kept from the trusting reader.
These processes are deceptive, and are typical of the organization's material.
I doubt the genuineness of anyone who defends such tactics, and makes me think they stoop to similar tactics.
Doug -
justhuman
I need to get one of this at ebay