Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Alleymom

  I just posted a long list of data from Parker & Dubberstein's Babylonian Chronology and The Cambridge Ancient History over in the K.I.S.S. thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx

  Scholar,

  There are dated cuneiform tablets for each year of each neo-Babylonian king. By looking at the last dated tablet for each king and observing the time which elapsed between that tablet and the first tablet dated to his successor, it is easy to see that the chain is unbroken.

  Furthermore, the WTS agrees with those regnal lengths in the 1965 article I have cited several times previously.

  If you start with the WT's own date of 539 and count backwards through the kings as they are listed in the 1965 WT article, you will arrive at 586/7 for the destruction of Jerusalem.

  The unbroken chain of dated cuneiform tablets shows that there were no other kings, and it also shows that none of the kings reigned longer than the time stated in the 1965 WT article.

  See the other thread for full information.

  Marjorie
• 

  onacruse

  Marjorie, you are really kickin serious booty

  Craig
• 

  Gamaliel

  Alleymom,

  Thanks for all the great information. You have even been thanked in unrelated threads for making this subject simple enough for any "fence-sitter" to see right through it.

  Unfortunatlely, "scholar" will ignore and/or quickly deflect any simple questions and arguments, and this is what I was trying to point out with my "5-simple-question" post that "scholar" has completely ignored, even after a second request. From my short experience with "scholar," he will usually pretend to take on some of the very difficult questions because it's always easier to bluster on a complex issue. Also he seems to need to deal only with those he perceives as the "leaders" of certain ideas. (Jonsson and AlanF, at the moment). It sounds like a David-Goliath Complex (weak JW argument wants to throw rocks at the strength of all the evidence). But it happens to coincide with the propaganda trick of creating repeatable soundbites like "Jonsson Hypothesis" "AlanF's nonsense" etc.

  He'll, of course, disappear from this thread because the heat got turned up a bit to prove whether he actually had anything "scholarly" to offer. Hopefully, true to form, he'll show up in another thread to start the process over again. It's valuable to have people like him around who will inadvertently advertise just how weak the whole 1914 doctrine really is. His pretenses are perfect for making that point.

  Better yet, he brings out people like you, Alleymom, who have even more clearly (and simply) shown how the JWs have resorted to dishonesty, unscholarliness, and disrespect for the Bible in order to salvage what's left of their man-made doctrines.

  Gamaliel
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Your long and tedious replies contribute nothing new to this debate as I am fully aware of all this information thanks. Regarding Daniel 1:1 the translation reads 'kingship' and not 'reign' as in the NWT, There is a big difference between these two words so it can only refer to something significant about his reign namelt that in the course of his kingship, Jehoiakim was vassal to Neb. Remember the total length of his reign was 11 years so what and when was he a vassal to Neb? It could only have been during his last three years of the reign. The Insight volume under Jehoiakim, Vol.1, pp. 1268-69 says: "Since Jehoiakim's revolt against Babylon led to his downfall after about 11 years on the throne , the beginning of his three year vassalage to Babylon must have begun toward the end of his eighth year of rule, or early in 629 BCE. this view is also supported by Josephus as you no doubt are fullaware as you seem such an expert on the subject and having made up your mind on the matter.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  rem

  Perhaps Scholar should provide us his list of Babylonian kings and their dates of reigning. We can compare his and Alleymom's lists to see which one makes more sense with the secular and biblical chronologies.

  rem
• 

  jgnat

  I guess they could, rem, but I doubt Scholar's long and tedious reply would add anything new to the debate.
• 

  rem

  Agreed. I doubt Scholar would be up to the challenge of producing only a list with dates. It might prove to be too embarassing... even for him.

  rem
• 

  Alleymom

  Regarding Daniel 1:1 the translation reads 'kingship' and not 'reign' as in the NWT

  Scholar, several days ago I posted all 91 Bible verses in which the Hebrew word

  tWkl]m

  occurs. I gave you the Strong's reference (#4438) and asked you how the NWT translates that word in the other 90 places in which it occurs.

  Have you ever checked a Hebrew lexicon to see whether the word can possibly mean "vassalage"? Have you had time to read through all 91 Bible verses to see how the word is used in Scripture?

  having made up your mind on the matter

  I am always open to new information and points of view, which is why I took the time to go to the university library and check out your Eliezer Shulman reference.

  I really would like to know how the NWT translates the word the other 90 times it occurs.

  In fact, I think I'll go look up those verses in the NWT right now.

  Peace,Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  I'm having trouble with the formatting. I just want to know, can others see the Hebrew letters in the word I posted in the above message?

  I can see them, but it could be because I have a Hebraica font installed on my word processor.

  M.
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  I did not say that the translation 'kingship' means vassalage at all but the fact is that Jehoiakim was a vassal to Neb. The word kingship suggests vassalage by implication and does just mean reign as a pure chronological datum. In other words one needs to becareful in imputing a chronological datim to this verse as the NWT uses kingship rather than reign.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion