Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Euphemism

  I'm with Analysis here, Alan... in the excerpt you give above, 2 Chron 36:20 is quoted in full:

  "So he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, . . . And he proceeded to burn the house of the true God and pull down the wall of Jerusalem; . . . Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."-2 Chron. 36:17-23; compare also Daniel 9:1, 2.
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  I read with interest your post and the nonsense by Alan F who provides a dogmatic interpretation concerning 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 which lies outside contemporary biblical scholarship. Thus far ,it is only Jonsson and a couple of SDA scholars that promote such a view. A direct reading of those texts shows that the land lay desolate for seventy years concluding with the decree of Cyrus. Support for this view can be discerned in that recent publication on Late Judean history that I have mentioned. Simply turn to the Scripture index and read how these verses are discusssed I have not found the implied endorsement on this texts by WT critics within the literature because scholars cannot agree as to the beginning and end of the seventy years and that and only that fixes 607. You can have all of the so called seculat evidence which is always subject to revision bu if it conflicts with the direct interpretation othe land being decolate for seventy years then you may as well pu it in the rubbish bin with the Jonsson hypotheisis. Please be in mind that Greg Stafford also showed that that text has an alternative interpretation in his Three Dissertations.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

  '
• 

  Gamaliel

  scholar,

  I read with interest your post...

  Obviously not enough interest to respond to it yet. Let's start somewhere. I'll forget everything I know and follow your lead about what to read first with a completely open mind. I'll let you know when I'm done or ready to post again, and I'll ask questions only if necessary. I have most all of the Society's publications, and I think I know pretty much what is currently taught, and what scriptures are relevant. But you can please correct me where I slip up. I would especially like some suggestion for scholarly work in addition to that, of course. I am only interested in 587/6 vs. 607 based on your statement I'm quoting below. (I don't mean to diminish the importance of AlanF's discussion of Chronicles. I hope it still gets discussed by others in addition to this; I just don't have anything to add to that discussion right now.)

  I want to have a chance to truly and honestly evaluate the evidence we have before us. You made the statement:

  Afterall, [607] is a calculated date based on the evidence of scripture and secular history and if I have to explain that to you then what level of knowledge do you possess.? The society has explained how 607 is calculated and there is not any evidence published by anyone that can diminish its viability. Jonsson like some SDA scholars have tried to do this but their attempts show a lack of logic, are deceitful and dishonest. If you really are dair dinkum then please do the research and I will advise you where necessary.

  I'm ready to do the research, with all potential leaps of logic open to public scrutiny, no deceit and no dishonesty. You said 607 is calculated by secular history and scripture. Let's start there if you wish. Let's assume I'm starting fresh and have no level of knowledge.

  First, what secular history shall I start with?

  Gamaliel
• 

  Winston Smith :>D

  First, what secular history shall I start with?

  Yes, I'd like to see this too, if only to expose my newly freed mind to all of the information that the rest of you here have already been exposed to.

  I think it would be of great benefit for all of us here on the board who have not been exposed to this type of open discussion before regarding 587/607.

  Winston.
• 

  Earnest

  scholar:

  My comments about Wiseman's ability in regard to his skill as a exegete stands.

  Dr. Wiseman certainly does not need the support of an intellectual microbe like me. His record speaks for itself as editor of the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series and author of volume 9 in the series - 1 & 2 Kings - which "includes a passage-by-passage approach to interpreting Kings" and "provides up-to-date commentary that focuses on exegesis of the text". You have clearly never met the man and are quite unaquainted with his biblical work so it would be prudent to inform yourself first before commenting on his ability.

  But all of this does not make him an expert in every field of scholarship does it?

  No. Is anyone an expert in every field of scholarship ? Yet that is what you seem to require before you will accept an endorsement of Jonsson's 'Gentile Times Reconsidered'.

  This conference you have attended is a bit of a worry if in fact these scholars trivialize the date 607 which really differs from the Devil's dates of 587/586 by a mere 20 years.

  Quite possibly they would not have trivialised 607 if I had explained 587/586 were the Devil's dates. But I had not understood that myself. I can quite believe that AlanF is the devil incarnate (for his arguments are quite diabolical) and wouldn't accept what he says at face value. Which is one of the reasons I am attending this conference. These men and women have no bone to pick with the Watchtower Society. They have no stake in preferring one date to another and are remarkably humble in acknowledging what they do and do not know. Yet those to whom I have spoken are unanimous that 607 could not possibly be Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year (2 Kings 25:8). He wasn't even on the throne. There are so many other events, including the destruction of Nineveh and the effective end of the last (native) dynasty of Egypt, that cannot be reconciled with such a date. I hope to devote a post to this once the conference has ended.

  Really, I think someone is pulling your chain.

  As a complete ignoramus in the field of Assyriology I have been treated with great consideration, patience and kindness by all those I have approached with my questions. This is scholarship at its best.

  Earnest
• 

  AlanF

  Thanks for your comments, Gamaliel.

  Oops, Euphemism, I goofed. I've discussed this subject a number of times in the last few weeks and rushed through it early this morning before work. I incorrectly remembered the year of the Watchtower quotation that I wanted, searched the WT-CDROM for entries on 2 Chron. 36:20 and found something that didn't fit. Sorry.

  What I should have posted is an excerpt from the September 15, 1965 Watchtower (p. 568), which really does illustrate my point about the Society's dishonest use of ellipses to cover up an offending Bible passage:

  That the seventy years of desolation were to be ended as a result of Cyrus’ decree is plainly stated at 2 Chronicles 36:20-23:

  "Furthermore, [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, . . . to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, so that he caused a cry to pass through all his kingdom, and also in writing, . . . "

  In place of the ellipses should be: "and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign;" I'll discuss this more below.

  For Analysis and Euphemism:

  The full text of 2 Chronicles 36:20-23 reads, in the New World Translation:

  20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

  22 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, so that he caused a cry to pass through all his kingdom, and also in writing, saying: 23 "This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among YOU of all his people, Jehovah his God be with him. So let him go up.’"

  Note the bolded text above: "and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign". The key word here is "until". If I tell you that I will be in Denver until August 1, 2003, then clearly I do not mean that I will be in Denver after August 1. I mean that on August 1 I will leave Denver, and will not be in Denver after August 1. So the biblical passage in question can be recast: "after the royalty of Persia began to reign, the Jews were no longer servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons."

  Given this, put it together with Jeremiah 25:11, 12. I'll quote 25:8-13 for convenience:

  8 "Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘"For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even sending to Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."’

  12 "‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite. 13 And I will bring in upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it, even all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations."

  According to verse 11, the Jews and surrounding nations would serve the king of Babylon 70 years. According to verse 12, after the 70 years were fulfilled, or completed, God would "call to account against the king of Babylon" by beginning to bring punishments on Babylon.

  When did God begin to "call to account against the king of Babylon"? Obviously when Cyrus' army conquered Babylon and killed its king Belshazzar in 539 B.C. Therefore the 70 years of the Jews' servitude to the king of Babylon "and his sons" (2 Chron. 36:20) ended in 539 B.C. Thus, in 539 B.C., when the royalty of Persia (Cyrus and his appointees) began to reign, the 70 years of servitude prophesied by Jeremiah were ended. That makes perfect sense because the line of kings begun by Nebuchadnezzar ended when Belshazzar was killed and Nabonidus dethroned.

  This absolutely disproves the Watchtower Society's claim that the 70 years were years of desolation that ended in 537 B.C. Given the devastating nature of 2 Chron. 36:20 for the Society's claims, you can see why they used ellipses to block it out from the September 15, 1965 Watchtower article.

  Perhaps with the above clarifications, my post from this morning will make more sense to you.

  AlanF
• 

  Euphemism

  Thanks, AlanF... it's good to know you're human.

  Let me state first of all that I agree that the evidence against 607 is overwhelming; and I also agree with your interpretation of 2 Chron 36:20.

  But just to play devil's advocate here... I seem to recall reading that the Greek word translated 'until' carries the sense of 'up to', but not necessarily 'terminating at'. I don't know whether this is the case for Hebrew or not, but are you certain that the Hebrew preposition here conveys the exact same nuance as the English?
• 

  JT

  I am also quite interested whether the scholars you do refer to support the chronology Jehovah's Witnesses endorse. With this in mind I will be attending the 'International Congress of Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology' in London next week (7-11 July) and hope to discuss this with Abraham Malamat and others. I will certainly let you know.
  

  Earnest

  see i am not into all this DEEP stuff like you guys are ,. but i will concede that there are some DEEEP BOYS out there in the field- and it is guys and gals like Earnest who scare the pants off the boys in writing

  you see the boys in writing know that most jw are like myself a good old society man who simply does what he is told, but it is guys like this who drop a line to bethel asking WHAT WHERE AND HOW

  and the wt knows that the avg jw researches nothing beyond the Wt Index for material generally speaking

  so when they get some letter from some dude like the poster above who can CHALLENGE them toe to toe they hate it

  as the wt once stated - in affect-- _"Brothers don't worry about doing on deep research on matters the boys in writing have done it for you, so just read the publications and rest assured we cked out the ref well"

  smile

  thanks for this most interesting yet DEEP POST
• 

  JT

  This conference you have attended is a bit of a worry if in fact these scholars trivialize the date 607 which really differs from the Devil's dates of 587/586 by a mere 20 years.

  This is up there with the most ironic statements I've ever read around here. If you are being fair then, of course, you might do well to consider the reverse: since 587/6 is only a mere 20 years away from "God's dates" (as the WTS once referred to them before most were changed) then you wouldn't want to trivialize the possibility that 587/6 is correct. Instead, of course, we see you go much further than just trivializing 587/6, but actually demonizing them. That's pure scholarship, like we've never seen! No wonder you never offer any specific ideas against 587/6.

  NOW-- I AM BY NO MEANS the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to this subject, but when a saw a poster who goes by the "Handle/Title" :::: "Scholar" ---call the dates 587/6------- THE DEVILS DATES I knew my boy was trouble as he was attempting to make an argument it sounds like something out of the "Flip Wilson Show" THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT S
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  I am somewhat surprised that you require as to the Society's calculation of 607 when you already claim to have some knowledge of the matter and have the publications at hand. Do not worry about Alan F's nonsense on the preposition 'until' even Jonsson does not take such an approach . My suggestion is to read pp.220-224 and pp.285-288 in GTR, 3rd.edn., 1998. I do not know of any reputable scholar that supports Alan's exegesis of Chronicles.

  You ask for secular history for calculating 607 please note the folowing:

  Fall of Babylon in 539 and 537 for the decree of Cyrus allowing the captives to returning thus ending the seventy years of desolation'

  Hope this helps

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion