Posts by aChristian

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Waiting,

Thank you for your help in answering Joseph's objections.

Mike

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph,

It is certainly possible that the writer of Genesis did not record the entire conversation between God and Noah on this subject matter.

Gweedo,

Earlier in this thread I discussed the fact that Bible writers often used universal language to describe nonuniversal events. I gave several examples of their doing so. The literary term for such language is hyperbole. Thec one using such language in such a way is not considered to be either dishonest or inaccurate in his writing. Hyperbole is a widely used literary devise today and it was even more widely used in Bible times.

40

When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy in

there's a very good question to stump a jw(hope i have spelled the place right?!).

it says in my niv study bible it toke place c.609 bc so therefore the fall of jerusalem toke place approxiametly(sic)20 years later according to the bible.. if you say carchemish toke place in 627,`can you provide evidence of this?

' might be a good question to a jw.

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.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Gweedo,

Noah may well have known that there were hills much higher than than the hills in his land outside of his land. However, what Noah knew about the height of hills outside of his own land has nothing to do with the Bible's account of Noah's flood. The account simply tells us that all the highest hills in the land of Noah were covered with water. I believe there were no mountains or even extremely high hills in the land in which Noah then lived. Whether or not Noah knew there were much higher hills in other areas of the earth is beside the point.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph quoted the Bible with God saying the following words to Noah: You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you [Noah and his family] and for them [the pairs of every kind of animal]."

Of course, the bracketed words are not part of the text. The "you" God referred to may have meant all people who Noah thought might end up being on the ark. If that was the case, Noah may have packed tons of extra food. Or, if many people did repent at the last minute, God may have delayed the start of the flood until enough food for all was brought on board. Or, if enough people repented, he may have cancelled the flood altogether, as He cancelled the destruction of Nineveh at the time Jonah served as a preacher of righteousness to that city.

40

When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy in

there's a very good question to stump a jw(hope i have spelled the place right?!).

it says in my niv study bible it toke place c.609 bc so therefore the fall of jerusalem toke place approxiametly(sic)20 years later according to the bible.. if you say carchemish toke place in 627,`can you provide evidence of this?

' might be a good question to a jw.

aChristian

Scholar,

You wrote: I agree with your criticisms of Thiele's use of the non and accession system and the calenders. I would add that his choice of Absolute Dates is all over the place and only adds to the complexity of his hypothesis.

Your last statement makes me wonder how familiar you really are with Theile's work. For he does not, as you seem to suggest, use some dates which historians have firmly established for various events recorded in the histories of ancient Israel and Judah and their neighboring nations, and reject several others. He accepts and uses all such dates, save one.

The only date Thiele rejects is the date 722/1 for the fall of Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel.

The siege of Samaria was begun by Assyria's king, Shalmaneser V in the seventh year of Hoshea and was continued for three years, to the ninth year of Hoshea, at which time the city fell and Israel was taken captive to Assyria. (2 Kings 17:4-6; 18:9-11) However, though the Bible tells us that "Shalmaneser" began the siege of Samaria, it does not personally name "the king of Assyria" who completed Assyria's conquest of Israel. Sargon II succeeded Shalmaneser V to Assyria's throne on Tebeth 12 (the end of December) in 722 BCE. (This date has been fixed by several astronomical observations which are recorded in the historical annals of ancient Assyria.) All historians agree that the Assyrians, like the Babylonians, used a calendar which began with the month of Nisan along with the accession year system of reckoning. As you probably know, in this system of counting the years of a king's rule his first partial year of rule was not counted and his first full calendar year of rule was counted as his "first year" as king. So Sargon's "first year" as king of Assyria began in Nisan of 721 BCE. In the historical annals of Assyria Sargon wrote that he captured Samaria "in my first year of reign." His account of Samaria's fall is very extensive, listing exactly how many people he then took captive, and many other details of his conquest. However, Thiele's chronological reconstruction of the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings does not allow him to accept the claims of Sargon. Because he could only stretch Hoshea's reign to 723 he was forced to call Sargon a liar and say that he must have been taking credit for a conquest that was actually made by his predecessor, Shalmaneser. Thiele's rejection of the date 721 for the fall of Samaria, as it is astronomically recorded in the annals of ancient Assyria, is the only such date that he rejects.

I don't think we should be too tough on Thiele here though. We should remember that some Bible chronologists, whom we both know quite well, reject many more historical realities than Theile did, in order to make their understandings of the scriptures work. Of course, the "Bible chronologists" to whom I here refer all live in Brooklyn, New York.

You wrote: I am somewhat saddened by your reaction to the presentation of the chart in the Aid book respecting the reigns of the kings. I would have thought that surely a reasonable person can see that the society has attempted to harmonize the data.

I agree the Society has attempted to harmonize the data. But what data? Only the biblical data. They have not made any attempt to also harmonize any of the extrabiblical data pertaining to this time period. That is why I was so critical of their alleged historical reconstruction of this time period. On top of that, they do not even explain how the many apparently contradictory biblical synchronisms between the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings can be understood. Why not? Because they maintain that people living today cannot possibly sort out all of the Bible's apparently contradictory synchronisms. The Watchtower Society now says that, "The ancient inspired writers were dealing with facts and figures well known to them. ... Such is not the case today, and hence we may be satisfied with simply setting out an arrangement which harmonizes reasonably with the biblical record." (Insight, pg. 463)

You wrote: I have not seen a better presentation in any work on chronology.

I have not seen a worse one. First of all, as I pointed out, they flatly reject all help which is now offered by secular historians to help Bible students understand the Bible's historical record for this period of time. Because of the Watchtower Society's need to hold onto their 1914 doctrine, primarily because it supports their claim to having been appointed by Christ "over all his belongings" in 1919, the Society must continue to maintain that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 607 BCE. And because they do, they are compelled to reject all help historians now offer them in understanding the chronological history of the divided kingdom. Why? Because all dates for ancient historical events which historians now provide us with, before the date 539 BCE for Cyrus' conquest of Babylon, clearly conflict with the Watchtower Society's unique 607 BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem.

You wrote: Please be fair.

I am being fair.

You wrote: I have not responded to Alan's questions because I plan a holistic approach to the seventy years.

Approach the "seventy years" any way you like. There is absolutely no way that the Society's interpretation of the "seventy years" can be harmonized with all of the biblical data, let alone with all of the extrabiblical data. The passages of scripture which you and Alan have been discussing, which mention a period of "seventy years", are referring to a period of time which began in 609 BCE and ended in 539 BCE. During those seventy years God allowed Babylon to dominate all other nations in its area of the world. End of story. The Watchtower Society's interpretation is wrong. They cling to it only to support their ridiculous and extremely presumptuous claim that Christ appointed them over all his belongings in 1919, and to avoid the extreme humiliation and loss of membership that would certainly come to their organization if they admitted that what they have taught all these years about the year 1914 has been wrong. I know that's a hard thing for you to accept. It was for me to. But it is the truth.

You wrote: I believe that Alan is not sincerely interested in such matters as he seems only to be critical of the witnesses.

As we have noted, Alan is not a Christian. Thus he has little interest in trying to understand all of the Bible, since he believes it is only a collection of very old, totally man made, writings. However, Alan does have an interest in his fellow man. By helping to expose the Watchtower's interpretation of the "seventy years" as bogus he helps set people free from being slaves to dishonest men. Once these people are free, they are then able to really begin following Jesus Christ, rather than serving a group of old men in Brooklyn New York, if that is how they then choose to use their new found freedom. That is how I have chosen to use my freedom. That is how many who learn the truth about "the truth" choose to use theirs. Alan gives me no flack about my being a Christian.

You wrote: You say that I should apologize to Alan and that I should make a defense of my faith. But the Bible also says not to converse with the fool or cast pearls before swine.

I have read nothing foolish in what Alan has written to you. Except maybe some silly name calling which I believe you started. Referring to him as "swine" doesn't help things any. And I don't know what "pearls" you may have to cast in his direction. I have not seen any evidence that you possess any "pearls" of wisdom, at least in regard to the subject matters we have here been discussing.

You wrote: You admit that Alan does not believe in the Bible as we do and yet are not the two of us professing a belief in the Lord? I truly wonder about where your loyalty lies?

My loyalty lies with the truth. I believe so does Alan's. However, partly due to all the lies the Watchtower Society has told over the years in the name of the God of the Bible, Alan no longer believes the Bible contains the truth. Though I don't think he has "closed that door" entirely.

Scholar, where does your loyalty lie? With a bunch of old men who reject any and all evidence that might invalidate their extremely presumptuous claims to speak for God, or with the truth, wherever the truth is found?

Mike

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph,

Your response is about what I expected. You change the subject. I didn't say that God has never brought a judgement upon a group of people without giving them a chance to repent. I said, "The Bible calls Noah 'a preacher of righteousness.'" And I said, "Any message of 'righteousness' that God's prophets have ever 'preached' has been one in which wrong doers were urged to repent."

The passage you quoted in 1 Samuel tells us how God ordered Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites. It does not tell us that God appointed Saul to act as a "preacher of righteousness" before that destruction took place.

I'm curious. Is your entire life now devoted to tearing apart the Bible and doing everything you can to destroy people's faith in God? Or is that now just your favorite hobby?

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

The Watchtower Society dates Noah's flood to 2370 B.C.E. They do this by following Bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 B.C.E., their date for Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem. However, as we know, the Society's date for that event is in error. All serious historians date that event to 587/6 B.C.E. Using that date as our starting point, and following the same Bible chronology used by the Society and others, we wind up with a 2350 B.C.E. date for Noah's flood.

I find this quite interesting because a recent article published at space.com, a highly credible web site, discusses in some detail the theory that the meteor, which created the large crater recently discovered in southern Iraq, caused a catastrophic flood in that part of the world only a few thousand years ago. It also mentions the fact that recent studies of tree rings strongly suggest that a major, short term, climate altering event, such as a large meteor impact or series of such impacts, appears to have occurred in .... guess what year. Yup, "2350 BC".

By the way, the article dates the account of the deluge found in "The Epic of Gilgamesh," which many Bible critics say was the basis of the Bible's flood account, to "circa 2200 BC." That's one hundred and fifty years AFTER Bible chronology, and these new tree ring studies, indicate Noah's flood occurred.

The article, entitled "Comets, Meteors & Myth: New Evidence for Toppled Civilizations and Biblical Tales" may be read at this Web address: http://space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/comet_bronzeage_011113-1.html

A map at this link shows the location of the alleged "meteor crater": http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/564185/posts

A London Telegraph article, complete with a picture of the alleged "meteor crater" may be seen here: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F11%2F04%2Fwmet04.xml

Some interesting excerpts:

The draining of the region, as part of Saddam's campaign against the Marsh Arabs, has since caused the lake to recede, revealing a ring-like ridge inside the larger bowl-like depression - a classic feature of meteor impact craters.

The crater also appears to be, in geological terms, very recent. Dr Master said: "The sediments in this region are very young, so whatever caused the crater-like structure, it must have happened within the past 6,000 years."

Reporting his finding in the latest issue of the journal Meteoritics & Planetary Science, Dr Master suggests that a recent meteor impact is the most plausible explanation for the structure.

A date of around 2300 BC for the impact may also cast new light on the legend of Gilgamesh, dating from the same period. The legend talks of "the Seven Judges of Hell", who raised their torches, lighting the land with flame, and a storm that turned day into night, "smashed the land like a cup", and flooded the area.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

aChristian

Joseph,

As usual, you make the Bible say something it does not say.

You wrote: Genesis (see below) makes it clear that God told Noah he was going to kill "all" the people besides Noah and his family. ...he told Noah to provide food for the animals and for Noah and his family, period.

However, the Bible verses you quoted to support your contention say this: "So GOD said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people..."

Obviously when God said that He was going to put an end to "all people" He did not mean literally "all" people. For, as we know, He certainly intended for Noah to survive the flood. So, when he said "all people" He must have meant "all people" outside of the ark. This means that "all" who came inside the ark would not perish in the flood. Your contention that God never intended for Noah to give anyone in his land a chance to repent and take refuge in the ark flatly contradicts what the Bible clearly implies in this story, especially when we remember that the Bible calls Noah "a preacher of righteousness." Any message of "righteousness" that God's prophets have ever preached has been one in which wrong doers were urged to repent.

Had some people repented at the last minute I'm sure God would have allowed Noah a bit more time to bring some more food on board.

40

When did Battle of Carchemish take place?

by badboy in

there's a very good question to stump a jw(hope i have spelled the place right?!).

it says in my niv study bible it toke place c.609 bc so therefore the fall of jerusalem toke place approxiametly(sic)20 years later according to the bible.. if you say carchemish toke place in 627,`can you provide evidence of this?

' might be a good question to a jw.

aChristian

Alan,

I am the one who is usually amazed at your patience with these people. I would, however, like to see this "scholar" either provide you with answers to your questions or offer you an apology before I discuss any of these things further with him.