When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy 40 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  aChristian

  Scholar,

  You wrote: [Thiele] discusses many dates but does not offer a single Absolute Date. His discussion is complex in comparison with the Society's wisest choice of the fall of Babylon.

  Of course it is. There are many complex matters which must be dealt with if one hopes to convincingly demonstrate that full harmony actually now exists within the Bible's chronological historical records for the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings. Of course the Society's way of dealing with these things is "less complex". They just start with one date, and count backwards from that one date the various numbers of years the Bible tells us each of Israel's and Judah's kings ruled. Along the way they ignore all extrabiblical synchronisms which are found in the historical records of Israel's and Judah's contemporary neighboring nations. Simple. When even the Bible's own internal synchonisms don't match up with their way of doing things, they say, "We today can't possibly figure all this out exactly because we don't know all that the Bible writers knew when they wrote what they wrote." Simple.

  You wrote: The society's chronology is simple, biblical and straightforward not as complex as you would have us believe.

  I never said it was complex. It is just as you say, simple. It is also simple minded and simply wrong.

  You wrote: Your simplistic understanding of the seventy years is at variance with current scholarship.

  You are certainly not suggesting that the Watchtower's understanding of the "seventy years," which says that they ended in 537 when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon and began in 607 when Jerusalem was destroyed and Judah was desolated by Babylon, is in line with "current scholarship" are you?

  You wrote: In fact it is difficult to find any serious discussion of this subject in current works on chronology. Thiele along with others does not mention it at all.

  Thiele's work dealt only with the assigning of historical dates to the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings. The seventy years has very little if anything to do with the chronology of the Hebrew kings. According to JWs the "seventy years" did not even begin until all of Israel's and Judah's kings no longer reigned.

  You wrote: However, the subject is found in serious journals which I have copies at hand. I suggest that you consult the Excursus;Seventy Years ehich appears in the WBC Jeremiah 26-52, 1995. This article shows what current state of play in regard to this subject.

  I have a copy of Carl Olof Jonssons book which discusses this subject at great length. Can you tell me what is wrong with what his book has to say on this matter, and why I need to seek out more opinions on this issue? I have already studied this subject quite thoroughly and believe I now understand the Bible's "seventy year" prophecies quite well, thank you.

  You wrote: Despite my deep respect for the Jonsson hypothesis and my communications with him by phone and mail, I firmly believe that the Gentile Times doctrine is correct.

  I would be glad to read why you feel that way. You have been asked to explain why you believe the Society's teachings on these matters are correct and you have failed to do so.

  You wrote: The society has demonstrated a tradition of excellence in the field of biblical chronology both in the OT and the NT.

  This statement is ludicrous in the extreme. Besides the fact that their 607 BC date for Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon is rejected by all serious historians and Bible scholars, so is their 455 BC date for the 20th year of Artaxerxes and their 2 BC for the birth of Christ.

  You wrote: Their exegesis of all texts pertaining to the seventy years of desolation for Judah is rock solid.

  So rock solid that you have been totally unable to defend their exegesis of these texts when repeatedly asked to do so.

  You wrote: I have read on the subject of chronology since the early seventies and have read nothing that invalidates the society's interpretation in these matters.

  If the Society's interpretation is so "rock solid" and nothing exists which invalidates it, why do you think that not one single secular historian or nonJW Christian scholar says that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 607 BC?

  You wrote: I have said repeatedly on this site that the society has already published the evidence for all of its claims. Such evidence may not satisfy some but it is ample for those who are sincere and searching for truth.

  I am sincere. But I am not searching for truth. I have found the truth. And I did not find it in the Watchtower organization. There I found much more error than truth. I found the truth in the person of Jesus Christ. (John 14:6)

  Scholar, I entered into this discussion because you told Alan that you would answer his questions when someone who believed as he does about the "seventy years" could explain how we can make sense of the Bible's chronological records of the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings. I wrote a couple long pieces on this subject matter and posted them here for the purpose of sharing with you what I believe is the key to solving this very difficult puzzle. In those pieces I think I demonstrated that someone who has thoroughly studied this area of Bible chronology can believe as Alan does about the "seventy years." This being the case, I believe you should now be true to your word and answer Alan's questions.
• 

  scholar

  a Christian

  You are incorrect in claiming that I have said thatthe Society's interpretation's of the 70 years accords with current scholarship. There is no consensus amonst scholars as to how this period should be understood. The Jonsson hypothesis which is your sole authority on the seventy years is one view amongst many. The society has given a greater prioity to the biblical account in preference to secular records and they are entitled to that view.

  I thought you had an open mind but when I ask you to look at a reference work not published by the society and contains information on this subject, you refuse to consider it. Then you complain when I do not reply with an answer that suits you. A fair minded person would surely consider any information that touches on the subject. The article involved will not stumble you it is only two pages long and is not supportive of my view but illustrates the current state of scholarship on the subject. If you maintain this narrowminded attitude then I can only imagine that your contribution to matters of chronology will be diminished.

  You claimed to have found the truth in the person of Jesus Christ then why do misrepresent what Ihave said previously? I have stated repestedly my position respecting the seventy years and did not promise to discuss this subject on this forum untill I have committed myself to post graduate research in the future. I have simply raised the subject of the Divided Monarchy in order to educate interested parties into the complexity of profane chronology and the simplicity of the society's biblical chronology. This assignment has not yet been accepted

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  AlanF

  Non-scholar's inflated opinion of his own powers of understanding, while sad, is also amusing. He has trouble understanding simple English, so it's no surprise that he can't answer simple Biblical questions. Here's a good example of his mental inadequacy in a dialog with aChristian:

  Non-scholar: Your simplistic understanding of the seventy years is at variance with current scholarship.

  aChristian: You are certainly not suggesting that the Watchtower's understanding of the "seventy years," which says that they ended in 537 when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon and began in 607 when Jerusalem was destroyed and Judah was desolated by Babylon, is in line with "current scholarship" are you?

  Non-scholar: You are incorrect in claiming that I have said that the Society's interpretation's of the 70 years accords with current scholarship.

  The reader will note that aChristian asked a rhetorical question about non-scholar's belief, but non-scholar interpreted that question as a statement of fact regarding aChristian's view of his belief. With such powers of understanding, it's no wonder non-scholar uncritically accepts Watchtower teachings.

  Non-scholar next presents us with a non-sequitur that is completely obvious to anyone who has studied the appropriate literature:

  : There is no consensus amonst scholars as to how this period should be understood.

  True. But much more telling for Watchtower teaching is that there is full consensus that Watchtower teaching is wrong.

  : The Jonsson hypothesis which is your sole authority on the seventy years is one view amongst many.

  This is a misleading statement. Jonsson's primary views represent a consensus of a number of scholars, and in his books he has given plenty of references to their works. Furthermore, neither aChristian's nor my views are what they are based on Jonsson's "authority". They are based on independent study of a good deal of literature, and they are represented well in today's most respected works such as The Cambridge Ancient History. I have in my personal library a good deal of primary literature about the Neo-Babylonian period. Non-scholar is attempting to smear our intellectual capacity by attributing his own sort of uncritical worship of Watchtower leaders to us, as if we bow to any authority. It is extremely difficult for any dyed-in-the-wool Jehovah's Witness to understand how anyone can form his own conclusions apart from some authority figure.

  : The society has given a greater prioity to the biblical account in preference to secular records and they are entitled to that view.

  They're entitled to any wrong view they choose to hold, but in this case they're certainly not giving precedence to the Biblical account. Indeed, they're giving precedence to their own tradition -- a tradition that dates to 1875 and was invented by Nelson Barbour based on earlier incorrect interpretations by Biblical interpreters who were as incompetent as Barbour and Russell in making correct predictions of things to come. One would think that an intelligent person could see that a 100% rate of failure in making predictions based on a theory invalidates the theory.

  : I thought you had an open mind but when I ask you to look at a reference work not published by the society and contains information on this subject, you refuse to consider it.

  What a dork! aChristian wrote: "I have a copy of Carl Olof Jonssons book which discusses this subject at great length. Can you tell me what is wrong with what his book has to say on this matter, and why I need to seek out more opinions on this issue? I have already studied this subject quite thoroughly and believe I now understand the Bible's "seventy year" prophecies quite well, thank you." It should be obvious to anyone with a smidgen of intelligence that aChristian is saying that he has already considered the sort of information in your reference, and is asking why he should go to the trouble of looking up one more reference about something he already knows about. But in you usual dishonest and braindead fashion, instead of providing an answer you provide another excuse why you shouldn't provide an answer.

  : Then you complain when I do not reply with an answer that suits you. A fair minded person would surely consider any information that touches on the subject.

  Fair enough. You provide a full reference for where I can find "Excursus;Seventy Years ehich appears in the WBC Jeremiah 26-52, 1995" and I will obtain it and make it available to aChristian and comment on it.

  : The article involved will not stumble you it is only two pages long and is not supportive of my view but illustrates the current state of scholarship on the subject. If you maintain this narrowminded attitude then I can only imagine that your contribution to matters of chronology will be diminished.

  The ball is in your court.

  : You claimed to have found the truth in the person of Jesus Christ then why do misrepresent what Ihave said previously?

  He didn't. You just don't understand simple English. Worse, you're too proud to admit it, which your subsequent responses will show.

  : I have stated repestedly my position respecting the seventy years and did not promise to discuss this subject on this forum untill I have committed myself to post graduate research in the future.

  Uh huh. Which in practice allows you to defer giving an answer indefinitely. Just like the Watchtower Society has failed to comment on 2 Chronicles 36:20, and has given a completely laughable comment in a 1979 Watchtower on Jeremiah 25:12.

  This abject failure to deal with Biblical facts is nicely illustrated by what happened with a pro-JW website called "Jehovah's Witnesses: Setting the Record Straight". It existed for several years and had an extensive section on Watchtower chronology which defended the standard Watchtower views. However, the discussions reflected only what had already appeared in Watchtower literature. Apparently the site owners recognized that Jeremiah 25:12 was a serious problem for them, and they put up a notice saying that they would soon put up a discussion of it. That notice stayed put for about three years and no discussion ever appeared. Nor did the website ever mention the problems produced by 2 Chronicles 36:20. Today the website seems to have been taken offline.

  : I have simply raised the subject of the Divided Monarchy in order to educate interested parties into the complexity of profane chronology and the simplicity of the society's biblical chronology. This assignment has not yet been accepted

  No, you've introduced that irrelevant subject so as to give yourself a typically-JW excuse as to why you need not deal with an irrefutable Biblical fact, namely, that several scriptures singly and in concert completely destroy the Watchtower's Neo-Babylonian chronology, and along with it the claims of JW leaders to be divinely directed. The latter is what you cannot deal with, because acknowledging it would require you to admit that a good deal of what you've been believing for a long time is just plain nonsense.

  : scholar BA MA Studies in [Watchtower] Religion

  is more like it.

  AlanF
• 

  herbert

  scholar (or is it, perhaps, "skolar");

  You stated:

  I have not responded to Alan's questions because I plan a holistic approach to the seventy years. It is pointless to discuss a single aspect unless the whole is completed otherwise it leads to a treadmill of questions and answers.

  The simple question is WHY? After all, the WTS has taught for years that its chronology is not only correct but has also been revealed to them by God. It has not adopted a "holistic" approach whereas Jonsson and others clearly have.

  If the WTS cannot answer the questions raised - and they certainly cannot, otherwise they would have - then why do you think that you can outdo God's channel. Your "holistic" approach promise is no more than dishonest dissembling.

  All you are doing is hiding behind your purported degrees hoping that JWs will do the usual thing - comfort themselves that while they cannot understand it, someone can.

  Face it "scholar," no honest scholar would behave as you do. You would have the skin stripped from your bones at a meeting of true academic experts and you know it. What's more, your writing "abilites" and debating methods demonstrate that perhaps, you are mistaking "scholar" with "schoolchild."

  In any event, you show yourself to be a typical dishonest defender of this Kult's Krazy Khronology.

  herbert
• 

  aChristian

  Scholar,

  You wrote: You are incorrect in claiming that I have said that the Society's interpretation's of the 70 years accords with current scholarship.

  I never claimed you had said that. I merely asked (notice the question mark at the end of my sentence) if you were suggesting that the Watchtower's understanding of the "seventy years" is in line with current scholarship. I guess your answer is that you were not.

  You wrote: The Jonsson hypothesis which is your sole authority on the seventy years is one view amongst many. The society has given a greater priority to the biblical account in preference to secular records and they are entitled to that view.

  Baloney! "The Jonsson hypothesis," as you call it, fully fits all of the biblical data pertaining to the "seventy years." The Watchtower Society's interpretation does not. To make their interpretation work the Society has to either totally ignore or totally twist many passages of scripture. For instance, in Dan1:1 the Society's interpretation compels them to say that "the third year of Jehoiakim" does not really mean "the third year of Jehoiakim." And in Daniel 2:1 their interpretation forces them to say that "the second year of Nebuchadnezzar" does not really mean "the second year of Nebuchadnezzar." To make their interpretation work they have been forced to come up with far fetched explanations of why Daniel wrote one thing when, according to them, he really meant something all together different. These are just two examples which show that the Watchtower's interpretation shows far less respect for the biblical account than "the Jonsson hypothesis," as you call it. There are many others. Alan listed some, which you have been unable to respond to. Watchtower supporters never are. They always say they will do so later and never do.

  You wrote: I thought you had an open mind but when I ask you to look at a reference work not published by the society and contains information on this subject, you refuse to consider it.

  I didn't refuse to. I just said I saw no need to. I have studied this subject matter quite thoroughly. I believe I understand it quite well. I am not the one who is unable to answer questions concerning it. I don't have to read various articles to believe that there are others in this world who, like the Watchtower Society, are also still confused about how the Bible's "seventy years" prophecies should be understood.

  You wrote: You claimed to have found the truth in the person of Jesus Christ then why do misrepresent what I have said previously?

  I don't think I did.

  You wrote: I have stated repeatedly my position respecting the seventy years and did not promise to discuss this subject on this forum until I have committed myself to post graduate research in the future. I have simply raised the subject of the Divided Monarchy in order to educate interested parties into the complexity of profane chronology.

  Your comparison of the difficulty in understanding the Bible's "seventy years" prophecies to the difficulties in sorting out all biblical and extrabiblical synchonisms pertaining to the period of the divided monarchy seems to me to be a mere diversionary tactic, employed to excuse yourself from defending the Society's teachings on this matter. I believe you have used this tactic because you know full well, at least on some level, that their teachings cannot be defended. Of course, as has already been pointed out to you, the chronology of the divided monarchy really has nothing to do with the 'seventy years." It is also not a fair comparison. It is like comparing the difficulty of assembling a young child's five piece jigsaw puzzle to the difficulty of assembling a 5000 piece, two sided, jigsaw puzzle.

  Lastly, you again commended "the simplicity of the society's biblical chronology." So I will once again point out to you that the reason the Society's so-called "biblical" chronology is so "simple" is that they simply ignore all biblical and extrabiblical evidence which conflicts with their interpretations of scripture, evidence which all real Bible scholars know they must take into consideration.

  I see why Alan has gotten so frustrated with you. You don't seem to really want to discuss these issues. You only seem to be here to defend the Society without having to really "defend" the Society. Why you feel the need to do this I can only guess. Probably for the same reasons most JWs have so much trouble admitting to themselves that they have wasted so many years of their lives following dishonest men, and not God.
• 

  scholar

  a Christian
  
  The seventy years is a subject that scholars have a number of opinions as to its place in the history of Israel. The Jonsson hypothesis is simply one amongst many. This is well illustrated in the article I have asked you to read. It states: "None of the OT occurrences, however, designates the precise dates (ie. regnal years) for the beginning and ending of the seventy year span". - Excursus: Seventy Years in Jeremiah 26-52, WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY, Vol.27, Gerald L.Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers, 1995. Word Books: Dallas, Texas. The article discusses various opinions as to when this period applies. Therefore these scriptures that mention the seventy years must be interpreted in order for these texts to have any historical meaning.

  Further, I refer you to an article 'JEREMIAH'S SEVENTY YEARS FOR BABYLON: A RE-ASSESSMENT PART 1: THE SCRIPTURAL DATA' The author Ross E. Winkle states: "The reason for a reappraisal of the four above -mentioned closely related texts relating to the Babylonian captivity is the continued variety of interpretations given them by scholars. These interpretations basically fall inot three categories: 1. the seventy years represent literal exact time; 2. the seventy years represent symbolic time; and 3. the seventy years, while neither exact nor symbolic, give an approximate chronological framework for historical events. Even within each of these categories, however there is a variety of opinions as to what constitutes the correct interpretation." Andrew University Seminary Studies, 1987,Vol.25, No.2, p.201.

  Now you can appreciate why I have said that such a subject should be addressed at a post graduate level.

  Enjoy

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  Faithful2Jah

  Scholar: I think Alan F pointed out earlier that everyone agrees with what you just pointed out. Namely, that not all Bible scholars completely agree on how all the Bible's various 70 year prophecies should be understood. But he also pointed out that all Bible scholars do agree that the society's interpretation of those prophecies is wrong. This can be seen by the fact that not one Christian or Jewish Bible scholar (outside of the Patterson cult compound) dates the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon to 607 BCE.

  What is your point in making all these posts? Are you trying to convince any JWs here that only a "sort of inspired" JW Governing Body member, or someone who holds a Doctor of Divinity degree, can possibly understand the Bible's 70 year prophecies? And since no JW here will ever be either of those things, they can do nothing else but trust the society in these matters? Is that your point? I think it must be. Because in all you have written that is the only thought you have here conveyed.

  Or maybe you are really an enemy of the Watchtower Society. And your point in being here is to make all supporters of the Watchtower look like cowards and fools. If that has been your point, you have certainly made it quite well.
• 

  badboy

  Scholar is obviously not a scholar because he hasn't answered my Scholar where are U? post so Alan F ,would U like to answer the Question asked on that post?
• 

  BroMac

  this is great

  Bump Bump Bump
• 

  BroMac

  AlanF=Legend