Oh scholar, only Ad Hominem attacks ??
Bye
Charles
When did Battle of Carchemish take place?
by badboy 40 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AlanF
Oh,oh. Poor "scholar" finally manages a pretense of a reply. What's got into you man? Trouble with your woman making you stay up late?
Ok, let's provide a challenge. You give a clear explanation of 2 Chronicles 36:20 and show just how it was that the Jews remained servants of Nebuchadnezzar and his sons beyond the year 539 B.C.E. Of course, you can't. Furthermore, you can't show how the "king of Babylon", meaning of course, Nebuchadnezzar and his sons, managed to remain the captor of the Jews after the Babylonian empire was put to nothing in 539 B.C.E. This lack obviously kills the Watchtower Society's claim that the Jews were in servitude to the "king of Babylon" any time after 539 B.C.E., which clobbers their notion of "70 years of captivity" beginning in 607 B.C.E. and a host of other unscriptural notions besides that.
So let's see you dance, "scholar".
AlanF
-
Hmmm
Please leave biblical studies and theology to those qualified or go to university and get those qualifications
Well, this leaves the society out.
Hmmm
-
Reborn2002
"Scholar"-
My counsel to you is to stick to your engineering, a field in which you you are academically qualifies. Please leave biblical studies and theology to those qualified or go to university and get those qualifications.
For allegedly possessing a BA and MA in Religion, your grammar and sentence structure are in dire need of improvement. How did you manage to successfully complete theorem and dissertation when you have difficulty forming a legible sentence? (smirk)PERSONAL WEBPAGE-
http://www.geocities.com/latinloverchicago/Jason1.html
FREELANCE ARTWORK FOR SALE-
http://www.geocities.com/latinloverchicago/JasonArtwork1.html -
scholar
Alan Fraud
You have the cheek to accuse me of cowardice in not replying to your challenges regarding WT chronology. You have not responded to my challenge that you provide a dating system for the reigns of the Divided Monarchy. You have not or cannot nominate even a system of dating for this period of crucial biblical history and yet you pontificate your knowledge of chronology. Carl Jonsson has not and will not dare to indicate the dating of this period and yet he is most vociferous in his criticism of WT chronology.
You have asked me to respond to your challenge in regard to 2 Chronicles 36:20. My view of this matter is that along with other similar texts pertaining to the seventy years, such exegesis can only be properly explained within a post graduate context. A project that I plan to complete in the near future. If this text is a puzzling to you then let me suggest that you consult the WT Index or read the commentaries at a local theological library.
I do not believe that anything you write in criticism of the Society is sincere. You are a mischevious person whose only intent is to mislead others and to have your own ears tickled.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
-
scholar
Reborn2002
Hi Jason.
I thank you for your criticism. I posted my last reply somewhat hasitily and did not bother to proofread my reply. I must say that your criticism is in need of a 'tune up'. I think you have mistaken the word'theorem' for the word 'thesis'. I notice that you are a young man of twenty and that you have a degree in business studies. Well done. If you are truly interested in theological matters then my advice to you, from an older man, is to further your studies in this most fascinating subject, theology.scholar BA MA
-
aChristian
Scholar,
I think you are being very unfair to Alan. He is asking you one rather simple question. You are saying, in effect, that you will not answer his question unless he first answers what amounts to a hundred very difficult ones.
I believe you are also being unfair to Carl Olof Jonsson on this matter. I have corresponded with Carl on the subject to which you here refer at some length. Carl's position on this matter is that, since the Bible itself does not tell us the method or methods its writers used in recording the chronological histories of the kings of Israel and Judah, no one can say with any certainty exactly how all of the apparently conflicting chronological information contained in the books of Kings and Chronicles can be harmonized. Of course he is correct.
Several attempts to make sense out of all the chronological information given to us by the writers of these Old Testament history books have been made over the years. The only ones who have ever come close to harmonizing all the Bible tells us about when the kings of Israel and Judah reigned have been men who have paid very close attention to all of the historical synchronisms contained in the contemporary historical records of Israel's and Judah's neighboring nations. Anyone who has ever managed to come close to demonstrating full harmony within the text of scripture on these matters has only been able to do so when they have also accepted all of the dates which historians now provide to us for all of these historical synchronisms. Dates such as 853 for the battle of Qarqar, 722 for the fall of Samaria, 701 for Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem in the 14th year of Hezakiah, 605 for the battle of Carchemish and 568 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The Watchtower Society has rejected all of these dates in order to hold onto their 607/1914/Daniel 4 interpretation. By doing so, they have been unable to reconstruct the chronological histories of the Hebrew kings in a way that comes anywhere close to harmonizing the Bible's many apparently contradictory statements pertaining to when exactly all of Israel's and Judah's kings began and ended their reigns.
As I said, Carl and I have discussed several aspects of this subject matter at some length. Quite a while back we discussed the Watchtower Society's contention that the 390 years of "the sin of the house of Israel" spoken of in Ezekiel chapter 4 clearly dated the division of the kingdom 390 years before the fall of Jerusalem. In doing so Carl told me that, since this understanding cannot possibly be reconciled with all of the available biblical and extrabiblical chronological information pertaining to the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings, it cannot be a correct understanding. He pointed out that scholars such as Edwin R. Thiele have shown that the facts of history and scripture can only be harmonized when we understand that the division of the kingdom occurred in about 930 BC. Though Thiele's work is not by any means perfect, the historical information it provides clearly shows the kingdom could not have been divided any earlier than 935 BC.
I say 935 vs. Thiele's 930 because Thiele failed to take into account what certainly appears to be a five year overlap, i.e. coregency, between Judah's Abijah and Asa. Though Thiele alluded to it himself he failed then to deal with it. The Bible tells us that Asa's days as king began with "ten years of peace." (2 Chron. 14:1,6) I believe this must refer to his years as sole king following five years as coregent. For the Bible also clearly indicates that the first war during Asa's reign was in his "15th year." (2 Chron.15:10) Thiele tells us, and I agree, that the words of 2 Chron15:19, "there was no war until the 35th year of Asa's reign," should be understood as saying "There was no war until the 35th year (since the division of the kingdom) in Asa's reign." We know this because 1 Kings 15:16 speaks of a war between Asa and Baasha "in the 36th year of Asa's reign," but Baasha's rule ended long before Asa's 36th year. (1 Kings 16:6,8) That being the case, 2 Chron. 15:19 and 1 Kings 15:16 must be referring to the number of years which had then passed from the division of the kingdom. And since Rehoboam, Judah's first king, ruled 17 years and was followed by Abijah who ruled 3 years we see that Asa began to rule 20 years after the schism. And since his first 10 years were years of peace, war must have first broken out between Asa and Baasha some 30 years after the kingdom was divided, not 35 years, unless the "10 years of peace" being referred to were the first 10 years of Asa's sole rule, following a 5 year coregency. I believe had Thiele followed this line of thinking, which he had begun in discussing these verses, he would have reached the same conclusion I have, that the division of the kingdom must have occurred, not in 930 BC, but five years earlier in 935 BC.
Through my studies I have been able to fully reconcile all apparently contradictory chronological information pertaining to the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings in the books of Kings and Chronicles. However, after doing so I was left with a date of 935 BC for the division of the kingdom. And I was still left without a clear understanding of Ezekiel chapter 4. (By the way, Thiele completely ignored the problem of how we should understand Ezek. 4.) Carl offered me the suggestion that those 390 years might be understood to be "years of punishment" for Israel. And if we date the division of the kingdom as taking place in about 929 BC, We can understand that Israel's years of punishment then began, and we can understand that those years of punishment ended 390 years later when Babylon was overthrown in 539 BC.
But this did not seem like a satisfactory explanation to me. First, how was Israel punished for those entire 390 years? Second, to be consistent, Judah's 40 years of "sin" spoken by Ezekiel must then also be read as years of "punishment." So, to what 40 year period of punishment for Judah was God referring? And third, and probably most important, Ezekiel speaks of years of "sin" not "punishment" for sin.
Here is how I now sort this problem out. A solution I have discussed with Carl and which he says is quite possibly the correct solution. I believe Josephus was correct when he told us that Solomon ruled for 80 years and died at age 94. (Antiq. 7.8) I believe the Bible credits Solomon with only "40 years" because, as I found in my study of the chronology of the divided kingdom, Bible writers did not count the years of a king's reign following the time the legality of that reign was seriously challenged. Of course, the Bible is also right. Because to rule for 80 years Solomon first had to rule for 40 years. The Bible itself clearly indicates that Solomon ruled for more than 40 years. For instance, it tells us Solomon was only "a boy" when he became king and it tells us his son Rehoboam was 41 when he followed his father on the throne. It also tells us that Rehoboam's mother was an Ammonite. Now unless Solomon married an Ammonite woman when he was only a boy Solomon must have ruled for more than 40 years. We also know God promised Solomon a long life. Becoming king as a boy and ruling 40 years means Solomon would have died in his 50s, which does not add up to a long life. As Carl pointed out in TGTR, a long life in Bible times meant the same thing as it does today, 70s, 80s, or even 90s. Other factors also point to my acceptance of Josephus on this matter including the fact that he never any place else contradicts the chronological information contained in the Old Testament pertaining to the length of the reign of any other Hebrew king by more than one year. This occasional one year difference can be easily accounted for by the fact that either he or his sources were then employing a different system of reckoning than that used in Kings and Chronicles.
I believe the 390 years of the house of Israel's sin began at the end of Solomon's first 40 years as king. I believe it was then that Jeroboam, the man God had previously chosen as the ten-tribe nation of Israel's first king, fled to Egypt following his unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Solomon's government. In Egypt Jeroboam was geographically unable to offer sacrifices to God at Jerusalem's Temple, sacrifices which the Jewish law required to gain God's forgiveness for sin. Since he there was no longer able to offer those sacrifices he no longer was forgiven by God for his sins, including the very serious sin he had just committed against Solomon.
And I believe those 390 years of sin continued when, after returning from Egypt to become Israel's first king in 935 BC, Jeroboam successfully persuaded the people in his new ten-tribe kingdom to follow his lead in continuing to neglect offering God the sacrifices for their sins which God's laws required in order for them to receive His forgiveness for those sins. And I believe, since the people of northern Israel continued to neglect those sacrifices all the way up to the time Babylon began its siege of Jerusalem, the years of the house of Israel's sin continued to be counted by God all the way up until that time. I think we discussed before how the term "house of Israel" was used by God to refer not just to Jeroboam and the kings who followed him on Israel's throne, but to also refer to all of the spiritual descendants of those kings, including the Jewish people who remained in northern Israel long after Samaria was captured by Assyria. See, for instance, Ezek. 8:6-12,17; 37:15-23 and Jer.31:31.
Now we come to "the sin of the house of Judah." I believe the 40 years of "the sin of the house of Judah" began in the 13th year of Josiah (Jer. 25:3), when God began to send his prophet Jeremiah and other prophets to Judah to warn them of the fact that his forgiveness for their serving other gods had run out. And I believe they ended 40 years later in the 9th year of Zedekiah (Jer. 52:4; 2 Kings 25:1) when Babylon's siege of Jerusalem began. As Jeremiah 25, beginning in verse 3 informs us, God had graciously forgiven Judah's sins up until that time. But Jeremiah told the people of Judah that God had decided He would no longer do so. Jeremiah told them that God had, from that time forward, decided to devote their land to destruction. From the 13th year of Josiah, when God's prophets told Judah His forgiveness for their sins would no longer be given to them, to the 9th year of Zedekiah, when Babylon's armies began their siege of Jerusalem, 40 years (or parts thereof) passed. I am convinced that this is the 40 years of "the sin of the house of Judah" which God counted against Judah. For the Bible is very careful to tell us that it was "in the 13th year of Josiah" that God had decided he would no longer forgive "the sin of the house of Judah."
But why did God forgive Judah for so long, and hold only this final 40 year period of their sin against them? And why did God hold all 390 years of the house of Israel's sin against them? The answer is a simple one which I have already alluded to. The people of Judah, aided by their Levite Priests, for the most part, faithfully offered God all the sacrifices His law required in the way it required them to do so. Because they did so, God overlooked their sins just as He had promised them He would. Because God forgave their sins up until the 13th year of Josiah he could not count their years of sin before that time against them. Thus God counted only Judah's final 40 years of sin. But He counted all 390 years of "the sin of the house of Israel." For "the house of Israel" had not offered God the sacrifices for their sins which His law required them to do.
There is even a lesson for us here. God will as He has promised, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, completely overlook our many years of sin and not count them against us. But even this forgiveness of His has limits. We cannot use the undeserved kindness of God, which Christ bought for us with His own blood, as an excuse to go on living immoral lives. The people of the house of Judah did that. And "40 years" before Babylon besieged Jerusalem the forgiveness God had for so long given them, a forgiveness bought by the blood of bulls and goats, ran out.
Of course this understanding requires that we understand Jeroboam to have been "a young man" ( Josephus Antiq. 7.8 ), probably in his early 20s, when he rebelled against Solomon and fled to Egypt, that he was a middle aged man, probably in his early 60s, when he returned home to become northern Israel's first king, and that he was an old man, probably in his early to mid 80s, when he died after ruling for "22 years." - The Bible tells us that Ahijah the prophet once had no trouble seeing well enough to tear a coat into twelve pieces. This was when he first met Jeroboam, before Jeroboam's flight to Egypt.(1 Kings 11:30) However, it informs us that later on, during Jeroboam's reign as king, "Ahijah could not see. His sight was gone because of his age."(1 Kings 14:4) I believe this is because over 40 years passed between these two events in the life of Ahijah.
This understanding of scripture also requires that we recognize the fact that the "Shishak" to whom Jeroboam fled (1 Kings 11:40) was not the same "Shishak" who plundered Jerusalem's Temple "in Rehoboam's 5th year". (2 Chron. 12:2) I believe Jeroboam fled to Shoshenq I and it was Shoshenq II who later plundered Jerusalem's Temple. Why? Because Egyptian history tells us that Shoshenq I did not rule long enough to have his reign include both of these events which were, according to this understanding, separated by some 45 years. It also tells us that Shoshenq II ruled only about one year. By recognizing Shoshenq II as the Pharaoh who plundered Jerusalem in Rehoboam's 5th year, and having previously established 935 BC as the date when the kingdom was divided, we can date the one year reign of Shoshenq II to 931 BC. Then, following the standard chronology for the history of Egypt's Pharaohs we find that the reign of Shoshenq I began some 55 years earlier, in 986 BC and ended some 21 years later in 965 BC, during which time I believe Shoshenq I gave refuge to Jeroboam who fled to him in 975 BC.
This understanding of Bible chronology and Egyptian history also dates the Exodus to 1491 BC and tells us that Tuthmosis III was then Egypt's Pharaoh. A Pharaoh who, in his 30th year,( which would be 1491 BC according to this understanding ) "received an ambassador from an unidentified Asiatic land who came to pay him homage." ( A History Of Ancient Egypt by Nicholas Grimal, pg. 215 ) I believe this was probably Moses. Egyptian history also tells us that eighty years earlier Pharaoh Ahmose was ruling Egypt, the Pharaoh who began a new dynasty after ridding Egypt of the Hyksos kings. Ahmose then would be understood to be the "new king who arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph." (Ex. 1:8) Notice the similarity between the names of Ahmose and Moses. Could Ahmose's daughter have chosen the name she did for her adopted son partly to honor her father?
I could go on with all of this. There is of course much more interesting information here. But I've probably already written way to much. As you can see, you've asked Alan a much more complex question than he has asked you. Besides, you and I and Carl all believe that the Bible is God's word. Alan does not. So Alan could simply answer your question by saying that the Bible's historical records of the Hebrew kings are full of errors. That is how most nonbelievers respond to the challange you have made to Alan. You, however, as a Christian, are the one who should be willing to defend your beliefs "to anyone who demands a reason for the hope that you have." (1 Pet. 3:15)
Mike
-
AlanF
Non-scholar, your reply is as laughable as always. As with all JWs your excuse for an answer consists of nothing but excuses why you should not answer. Let me illustrate:
Suppose that "Jehovah's organization" decides that, based on its interpretation of newspaper accounts, the Titanic sank in 1892, not 1912. It sets forth a bunch of quotations extracted in its usual dishonest fashion from various sources that sort of point to 1892. I come along and present actual newspaper articles from 1912 that prove unequivocally that the sinking was a current event in 1912. You come along and dismiss those newspapers, making excuses like this: "You have to be a post-graduate student in late-19th and early-20th-century history to properly understand those newsspaper accounts. Moreover, before I'll try to deal with these accounts, I require you to provide me with a completely documented list of every vessel that sank in the world during the previous 200 years." Obviously your excuses would be ridiculous, and so are the similar excuses you make about the history of the period pertaining to the 70 years of Jeremiah.
Let's make it clear to our readers once again. 2 Chronicles 36:20 states unequivocally that the Jews who were not killed during Jerusalem's destruction in 587 B.C.E. were hauled off to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar and "were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia." (NASB) Because the kingdom of Persia began to rule over Babylon in late 539 B.C.E., when Cyrus' forces overran Babylon and killed its reigning king Belshazzar (who was probably Nebuchadnezzar's grandson) and dethroned its main king Nabonidus, the Jews were no longer servants "to him and his sons" after that date. End of story. That completely destroys Watchtower chronology for the period prior to the overthrow of Babylon because it hinges on the claim that the Jews were captives of the king of Babylon until 537 B.C.E. It is obvious that the Watchtower Society and you reject the Bible's clear statements.
That WTS chronology is bogus is further proved by Jeremiah 25:11, 12, which state concerning the Jews and the nations round about that "these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years" and state that God said clearly that "when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation." Because Babylon and its king were obviously punished in 539 B.C.E. by being killed and overthrown, the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah obviously ran out then -- not in 537 B.C.E. as the Watchtower Society claims. Because Watchtower chronology hinges entirely on the claim that these 70 years ended in 537 B.C.E., it is obviously bogus.
Finally let's see what another prophecy of Jeremiah indicates. God said in Jeremiah 27:6, 7: "Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and I have given him also the wild animals of the field to serve him. All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings will make him their servant." When did these "many nations and great kings" begin to make Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings, including Belshazzar and Nabonidus, their servant? Obviously in 539 B.C.E. At that date "the time of his own land" came, and therefore after that time "all the nations" no longer served "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon" and "his son and his grandson". Again we have a direct Biblical statement indicating a date by when the 70 years would have been completed. Because the Watchtower Society itself agrees that these events occurred in 539 B.C.E., logically it must also agree that the Bible's words that the 70 years must have run out at that time are true.
Note that 2 Chronicles 36:20, Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and Jeremiah 27:6, 7 are completely consistent with one another. Moreover, the Watchtower Society has never provided a reasonable explanation of the latter two passages, nor any commentary whatsoever on 2 Chronicles 36:20.
So here we have in you, non-scholar, a good example of how Jehovah's Witnesses argue about their bogus doctrines. They know perfectly well that they can't straightforwardly present biblical and/or secular information to prove their claims, and so they do everything they can to avoid presenting it. Instead they give all sorts of excuses why they can't, and claims about why their critics are missing the point, and why their critics are ignorant, and why their critics are missing the point that only "Jehovah's anointed" in the form of Watchtower leaders should be listened to, and they use every sort of ad hominem to hide the fact that they're not actually giving answers. In short, they display classic cultish behavior.
Now let's apply the above information to your comments and see how perfectly you fit the mold of an excusogetical cultist:
: You have the cheek to accuse me of cowardice in not replying to your challenges regarding WT chronology.
Indeed I have such cheek, and a lot more besides. You have never given an answer -- only excuses as to why you should not give one.
: You have not responded to my challenge that you provide a dating system for the reigns of the Divided Monarchy. You have not or cannot nominate even a system of dating for this period of crucial biblical history
I don't need to provide one, and your demand is nothing but a straw man and an excuse. First, it would be like your demanding that I provide a complete, documented list of every maritime disaster for the last couple of hundred years in order to prove that the Titanic sunk not in 1892 but in 1912. Second, as I've shown many times, including in the above discussion, the Bible makes direct statements that prove that Watchtower chronology is based on several wrong ideas. A single sound exception proves a claim wrong, and when the Bible itself provides the exception to a Watchtower claim, then it is hypocritical for a claimed Bible believer to reject the exception. Third, good scholars like Edwin Thiele have given workable approximations to a decent chronology within the limits of the admittedly contradictory biblical evidence for the period.
: and yet you pontificate your knowledge of chronology.
Not at all. All I'm doing is providing clear Biblical statements that prove Watchtower chronology wrong. These are so obviously clear that one doesn't need to be a scholar in Neo-Babylonian chronology to see it.
: Carl Jonsson has not and will not dare to indicate the dating of this period and yet he is most vociferous in his criticism of WT chronology.
Your regular straw man pops up again.
A few comments are in order. First, you make much of needing to have a degree in religious studies in order to understand this material. Yet you know perfectly well that not a single person who had such a degree had a hand in coming up with the bogus Watchtower chronology, nor does anyone in Bethel today have such a degree. If you disagree, then name someone and give their qualifications. Second, the chronology of the Divided Kingdom that Watchtower publications present is extremely misleading, in that it ignores serious problems with Biblical statements that various eminent scholars are not able to agree on. Watchtowerites simply declare that their ideas are correct and ignore the problems. Naturally, since WTS leaders claim virtual direct inspiration, they don't trouble the flock with these problems by explaining them in a publication and presenting the evidence for why they decided on a particular interpretation and why competing interpretations are wrong. Edwin Thiele is a fine example of an honest scholar who presents such evidence so that readers can follow his reasoning, but the arrogant Watchtower leaders don't want their flock to understand their reasoning but only to blindly accept it.
: You have asked me to respond to your challenge in regard to 2 Chronicles 36:20. My view of this matter is that along with other similar texts pertaining to the seventy years, such exegesis can only be properly explained within a post graduate context.
Nonsense. The Bible is easily understandable to common people. One doesn't need a post-graduate degree to understand 2 Chronicles 36:20. It's as simple as can be: when the royalty of Persia began to rule in 539 B.C.E., the Jews were no longer captives of Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings. Period. Thus, the 70 years of servitude by the Jews and nations round about to the Babylonians ended then, and not two years later as the Watchtower Society claims. This kills the 607 date for the destruction of Jerusalem, the 1914 calculation, the claim that God's Kingdom began ruling in heaven in 1914, and the claim of JW leaders to have been specially appointed a prophetic 3 1/2 years later, in 1919, to an exclusive position of spiritual authority over "God's household". Thus it is easy to see how Watchtower claims are nothing but a circular house of cards: their claim to be correct about their Neo-Babylonian chronology rests exclusively on their claim to spiritual authority, which rests firmly on their chronology. Pull out one card and the whole thing collapses.
: A project that I plan to complete in the near future.
Planning and doing are rather different things. If you had anything, you wouldn't be giving only excuses.
: If this text is a puzzling to you then let me suggest that you consult the WT Index or read the commentaries at a local theological library.
The text is not puzzling -- it's amazingly clear. The Watchtower Society has entirely failed to comment on the meaning of this text. Various commentaries give various views, none of which support Watchtower views. In any case, because the Bible itself is so clear, nothing more is needed.
Watchtower chronology can be compared to young-earth creationism. A great deal of information disproves both, but the supporters of both come up with all sorts of disconnected, ad hoc excuses as to why other views are wrong. They never manage to come up with a clear, consistent whole that accounts for all the data and explains why competing ideas are wrong. Both systems rest mainly on the claims of certain key men that their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. Both reject with hardly any comment other reasonable interpretations that exist. Both are fairy tales.
: I do not believe that anything you write in criticism of the Society is sincere. You are a mischevious person whose only intent is to mislead others and to have your own ears tickled.
A classic JW ad hominem that is without real content. Readers can tell who is telling the truth. I've provided real Bible passages along with sound explanations. You've provided nothing but excuses. Carl Jonsson has provided massive studies on both the Bible and the secular evidence, while the Watchtower Society has given bits of evidence that not only are rejected by scholars, but whose best effort, in the 1981 book Let Your Kingdom Come, contains deliberate misstatements and leaves out crucial evidence. Who then, is attempting to mislead?
: scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
Is the Watchtower Society giving degrees now? Surely you don't think anyone believes you're doing anything more than reading WTS literature to get your ideas on Bible chronology! This should be easy to prove: Where are/did you get your degrees and where are you studying now? I'll bet you can't answer.
AlanF
-
aChristian
Hey, where's YouKnow when this subject matter is being discussed? As I recall, he said a couple of years ago that he was "soon" going to be writing a formal defense of the Watchtower's 607 date. What ever happened to that? Silly question.
-
scholar
a Christian
Thanks for your lengthy reply. I believe it is very important to provide a coherent framework for the chronology of the Divided Monarchy. This period is the primary source for our information for understanding OT chronology. The Society has succeeded in demonstating that 390 years accounts for this period as shown by the chart from pages 340-7 in the Aid book. Such interpretation well accords with Jewish tradition as shown in the Socino Commentary on Ezekiel discussed on page 348 in Aid.
Interestingly, an Australian academic and Qumram scholar. Barbara Thiering bases her hypothesis on the mention of the 390 years in the Damascus Document. Although she agrees with most scholars that the 390 years of Ezekiel should be "understood loosely" she applies the 390 years in CD 1:5-6 to historical events after the Fall of Jerusalem.
Such an interpretation was challenged by Isaac Rabinowitz who wrote an article 'A Reconsideration of Damascus and 390 years in the Damascus Documents', JBL 1954 73:11-35. He argued that this 390 years reminscient of Ezekiel 4 is a period applied prior to the Fall of Jerusalem. This view differs somewhat from the application made by Thiering.
In short, any chronology that ignores the implication of the 390 years cannot succeed despite any amount of compelling evidence from secular sources.
scholar BA MA