Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  scholar

  Marvin Shilmer

  Thiele in his latest edition omitted the remark" not for historical purposes" and stated that the list of kings was not meant to be complete and that it was a broad chronological scheme only. Such comments do not build confidence in Ptolemy' Canon as a foundation for chronology. WT scholars have proved that there is a twenty year difference between this king-list and biblical chronology reckoned from the allocation of a 70 year period into the period of the Monarchy. Such a 70 year period subverts Theil's reconstruction for that period and Ptolemy's list.

  For such a staunch supporter of Ptolemy, Thiele has introduced into his research a most puzzling and controversial notation. It exposes the fact that Ptolemy's list has limits therefore the chronologist must proceed with caution. Robert Newton exposed Ptolemy as a fraud and said that the kinglists should be rejected even though parts of it were OK namely the Neo-Babylonian section. Here again Newton like Thiele make comments that are ambiguous and simply reflect the fact that theories of men are like a coin hacing two sides.

  For these reasons, WT scholars have determined a methodology that is Bible-based and yields a good result namely a broad feasible chronology that all of the biblical data finds a welcome place to rest. Such a scheme is prophetic in outlook, glorifies the Great Timekeeper and is free from the the theiries of Thiele, Jonsson and Newton.

  scholar emeritus

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  AlanF

  Scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus said:

  : It took a while but you finally posted the relevant pages from Appendix G

  Ah, see! I knew you do it! I just knew that you could type "G" instead of "H" if you really put your mind to it!

  : and so the readers can judge for themselves along with the other material as to whether the Society misrepresented Thiele's notaion.

  As I said, and readers can confirm -- there's nothing to judge. The quotation from Thiele was printed correctly, even though it misrepresented his views.

  : Thus far we can agree on the following;

  : 1. Thiele admits that the historical information in the Canon is incomplete.

  There is no "admission". Your statement is like saying, "NASA admits that it uses gravity to send space probes to the planets." This is a transparent misuse of language to bias your argument.

  : 2. That Ptolemy only inserted those rulers in his list that were suitablle for astronomical purposes.

  Correct.

  : 3. That Ptolemy's Canon is only suitable for astronomical purposes

  Again you tell a blatant lie. Thiele said that the Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical purposes. He said nothing about "only". Why do you continue lying about this? Furthermore, I have repeatedly stated that his saying "primarily" in no way means that the Canon is not suitable for historical purposes. Indeed, the fact that the Canon's dates fully agree with several hundred years' worth of independent historical data proves that it is entirely suitable for historical use. You cannot cite a single date that is incorrect. You have no excuse to continue such lies.

  : 4. That Ptolemy's canon is merely a broad chronological scheme.

  Again you misrepresent Thiele's words. You exceed even the Watchtower Society in a propensity for lying. Thiele said nothing about "merely" -- that is simply your way of minimizing the importance of the Canon.

  : These facts are from Thiele's Note

  No, your points 1, 3 and 4 are misrepresentations of Thiele's note.

  : which was clearly his conviction as confirmed in all three revisions of his major work on chronology. In view of these facts and the fact that the Society has not used Thiele's original quote post 1983 completely clears the Society of any accusation of misrepresentation.

  Nope. The facts clearly show that the Society deliberately misrepresented Thiele.

  : All that the Society did was to simply draw attention to Thiele's summation of the canon and that such canon has inherent limitations.

  Thiele's note contained nothing like what you claim. You and the Society's writers are lousy Christians because you're scholastically dishonest to the point of being pathological liars. You won't find a single reader who accepts your lies.

  AlanF
• 

  toreador

  Alan said about scholar:

  You won't find a single reader who accepts your lies.

  AlanF

  But Alan, I accept them.

  As coming from someone who is delusional.

  Scholar realizes if he accepts he is actually wrong he will end up in the same company as you. And THAT scares the hell out of him.

  Tor
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Let me try again:

  1.Thiele states that the historical information is incomplete.

  2. That Ptolemy only inserted those rulers in his list only suitable for astronomical purposes.

  3.That Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical purposes.

  4.That Ptolemy's Canon is a broad chronological scheme.

  In short, Thiele's criteria or description of the Canon well indicates its limitations, it is not an infallible document and subject to the interpretation of any scholar, scientist or chronologist.

  scholar emeritus

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  Leolaia
• 

  AlanF

  Well there, scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus, you finally managed to get your four points correct. Unfortunately for your defense of Watchtower lies, they don't support your defense in the least.

  : In short, Thiele's criteria or description of the Canon well indicates its limitations, it is not an infallible document

  Indeed, all historical documents have limitations and are not infallible. Duh.

  : and subject to the interpretation of any scholar, scientist or chronologist.

  Wrong. All historical documents must be examined in the context of overall history as determined by a careful consideration of all other available historical documents. Such context determines the reliability of any individual piece of historical evidence. No piece stands entirely on its own. The reliability of documents that are not supported by any other information must be provisional. The reliability of documents that are supported by multiple other sources is much greater. So it is with the reliability of Ptolemy's Canon, whose dates for various kings are supported by a tremendous variety of historical evidence spanning many centuries. As far as I am aware, not a single regnal date in the Canon has been proved wrong. That's not only impressive, but unprecedented in ancient historical documents.

  One cannot just willy-nilly take isolated statements out of context and "interpret" them however one wants. One must take account of an author's overall viewpoint, and if there appears to be any ambiguity or contradiction among his statements, attempt to clear it up before dogmatically assigning a meaning to the isolated statement. This is not only the scholastically honest thing to do, but the smart thing, because when one commits gross scholastic dishonesty -- as the Watchtower has consistently done for more than a hundred years -- one will be called to account. The point is that people are sometimes inconsistent in their writing, or they make outright mistakes, and it is scholastically dishonest to use an author who has made mistakes or has been inconsistent or has made statements that can be argued to be ambiguous, to support a claim that one knows the author does not agree with.

  In particular, Thiele made a number of extremely clear statements in the main text of his book, that Ptolemy's Canon is completely reliable as a historical document. When he later explained that the Canon is not a complete historical account, that is in no sense inconsistent with his earlier statements. Therefore, to claim that his later and limited clarification, in the footnote to Appendix G, was inconsistent with his earlier statements, and can be used to contradict those earlier statements, is grossly dishonest.

  Even you can understand these points, having admitted that the Watchtower Society cannot be trusted.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Precisely my point, all historical documents must be subject to methodology and interpretation which are human activities. Thiele exercises his judgement in connection with Ptolemy's canon and stated his methodology and by means of a Note showed the limitations. Robert Newton also made a careful examination of Ptolemy and made come controversial clams and ambigious claims. WT have long been interested in Ptolemy and have made prudent and cautious rulings on the canon and adopted a methodoly that is not tied to the canon.

  I have proven that the Society merely represented Thieles's Note or proviso on the canon you have not proven otherwise.

  scholar
• 

  GetBusyLiving

  If AlanF didn't seem like such an upstanding guy I would swear the two of you were both in cahoots together to show how stupid the 607 date is via staged internet debates.
• 

  AlanF

  Scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus said:

  : I have proven that the Society merely represented Thieles's Note or proviso on the canon you have not proven otherwise.

  Why do you persist in lying? I've demonstrated -- and Thiele himself complained 30 years ago -- that the Society misrepresented his views. Their use of the quotation was a misrepresentation because it did not accurately reflect Thiele's views -- and they knew it.

  That's the disgusting think about your nasty cult -- JW leaders are pathological liars and train their followers to be the same, as you demonstrate every time you post.

  Oh, by the way, many of Robert Newton's claims about Ptolemy have been proved false.

  AlanF
• 

  BluesBrother

  Thanks Alan, for providing those scans and showing us all the true context of thos remarks. Perhaps I should thank scholar too for provoking the debate which produced the results.

  BTW. Alan's essays are brilliant.