Posts by aChristian

18

Need help with the Trinity

by dins in

i have been talking to a coworker of mine about religion and it's been rather interesting; it involves accepting christ into your heart as your saviour.

another thing is the trinity.. is there anything that any of you have found in the bible based on these beliefs.

i keep reading scriptures about god being one, and christ his son but then my coworker insists they are one in the same.. how, if anyway.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses for many years I was, of course, fully opposed to the idea that the God of the Bible was a "Triune" God. For the first couple years after leaving the Witnesses I continued to hold strong anti-Trinity views. Several years ago I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and savior. Afterwards I decided to consider both sides of this issue a little more closely than I had done in the past.

After doing so it wasn't long before I found myself convinced that there is much less spiritually objectionable to the Trinity doctrine than there is to the common alternative. Those who reject the Trinity normally do so because they do not view Jesus Christ as Almighty God or as One Christians should rightly worship. Non-Trinitarians almost always end up viewing Jesus as only "a perfect man" and God's chief angel. Though Christ Himself said we are to "honor the Son just as we honor the Father" (John 5:23), non-Trinitarians never seem to do anything close.

Yet, despite the fact that all non-Trinitarians seemed to give far too little honor to Christ, I had great trouble giving serious consideration to the Trinity doctrine because my mind told me it made absolutely no sense. How could three Divine Beings make up one God? After all, 1+1+1 does not equal 1. I knew that in Kindergarten.

I realize now that I had only one problem in believing that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit could make up one God, or that one God could manifest Himself at different times, and simultaneously, in three different forms. That was my inability to fathom the existence of anything beyond our physical world.

But then I found out something quite interesting. I discovered that scientists now firmly believe that dimensions beyond our four physical dimensions of space and time do indeed exist. For they now tell us that even though we can only directly observe four dimensions, there must somehow, somewhere, exist at least six other dimensions. For, they say, only when we allow for the existence of these extra dimensions, in which forces operate beyond our four dimensional laws of physics, are we able to account for all the properties and principles of "quantum mechanics."

Take, for instance, "string theory." At the very heart of string theory is the proposal that the cosmos experienced a dimensional split at 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang began. At that instant, the ten-dimensional expanding universe split into two pieces: a six-dimensional piece that permanently ceased expanding and never produced matter, and a four dimensional piece that became our dimensions of length, width, height and time. Modern science maintains that only that four dimensional system continued to expand, eventually producing matter and stars. (see Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time, 1988)

Now, since modern science believes in the existence of dimensions beyond the four we experience, it seemed to me that I should be able to believe that God exists both in and beyond the four space time dimensions in which we exist. For if as the Bible says God created our physical universe, He would not be bound by the laws of the physical universe which He had created any more than I would be bound by a cage I made to keep my parakeets in. While my birds would be locked inside the width, height and depth constraints of the cage I made, I would not be so constrained. If as the Bible says God created our physical universe, He would have to be omnipresent. For, if He was not, He would be bound by the width, height and depth constraints of the "cage" He had made. The same goes for other natural laws. If God made them, He must have existed before they were made, and so He would not then have been bound by them. And He would not now be bound by them either, unless He chose to climb inside the "cage" He made, close the door and throw away the key.

I also learned that Einstein proved that time is only a dimension of our physical universe. And that time began when our physical universe began. Thus, if Christ existed "with God" (John1:1) before the creation of our physical universe He must have existed before time began, and His origin can truthfully be said to be "from the days of time indefinite." (Micah 5:2 NWT) Or for those who prefer plain English, "from everlasting," and "from the days of eternity." (KJV, NAS) So, though in one sense God's Son had a beginning, in another sense He did not. For if Jesus Christ has existed since before time began, when did He begin?

It also helped me to remember that Jesus Christ is God's "Only Begotten Son." (John 3:16) To be "begotten," according to both the Biblical and dictionary definitions, means to be produced, not out of nothing, but from a parent's own body. For instance, the Bible tells us that Abraham "begat Isaac" "from his own body." (Gen.15:4; 25:19) And it is widely understood that Isaac pictured Jesus Christ.

Children who are begotten by a human parent, once they are full grown, are also absolutely equal to their parents in every way. In physical stature, in strength, in intelligence, etc. Granted, the child may not have the same position in business or government as his father but, in reality, that child is the parent's equal in every way. I, for instance, will always show my father the special honor a son shows to his father, but at the same time I will always be my father's equal. So, if Jesus Christ was begotten from his Father's own body, so to speak, before time began, he is both eternal (without a beginning in time), as Micah 5:2 says, and his Father's equal, as Philippians 2:6 tells us in most translations of the Bible.

Another thing I kept in mind was that our fathers are three dimensional physical people. As such they occupy only a few cubic feet of space. As their sons, begotten from their bodies, we too are three dimensional people who occupy only a few cubic feet of space. For fathers who beget sons always do so "after their own kind," so to speak. Now the Bible tells us that God is not a three dimensional being occupying only a few cubic feet of space. The Bible indicates God is omnipresent. He exists everywhere at the same time. So, if Christ was begotten from God's own body, so to speak, and "after his kind," so to speak, He too would have God's own omnipresent nature.

When I was born the cord connecting my mother and I was cut. At that time I was no longer physically a part of either one of my parents. We soon became even more "disconnected" when I was placed in the hospital nursery fifty feet down the hall. Right now I might be in New York and both my parents might be thousands of miles away from me in California. But if God begat a Son after His own kind, so to speak, He and His Son would both be of the same substance, and thus both omnipresent. If this is so, it becomes very difficult to think of them as two separate Spirit Beings. And since they both have and send forth the same Holy Spirit, as Scripture says they do, from their mutual omnipresent position, it is not difficult to think of God as "three in one." In fact it then becomes more difficult to think of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as separate entities.

I am now convinced that all the Scriptures pertaining to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to their Deity, can only be understood and fully harmonized by someone who does not attempt to put the God of the Bible into some kind of four dimensional box.

I believe my feelings in this regard are signs of spiritual growth.

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

aChristian

This discussion has at times gotten pretty technical. So, for the benefit of the average reader it may be best to get back to discussing some of the more basic problems with the JW "Daniel 4 = 1914" interpretation.

JW's currently maintain that Christ returned invisibly in the year 1914. They believe this to be so based upon their understanding of the fourth chapter of Daniel. However, their interpretation of Daniel chapter 4 has more holes than a 500 pound block of Swiss cheese. Here are some of the "holes."

The Society's interpretation maintains that Nebuchadnezzar was removed from Babylon's throne for 7 years. And that those 7 years were "prophetic years" of 360 days each, totaling 2,520 days. And they say that each of those 2,520 days was meant to picture an ordinary "non-prophetic" solar year of 365.2425 days each. And they say that this prophecy was meant to indicate that the time of Christ's return can be determined by counting forward in time 2,520 years from the time of Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon, which they say occurred in the year 607 BC.

This understanding is based on a long series of highly questionable assumptions. And if any one of those assumptions is wrong, then so is the whole interpretation.

First, the history of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is very well documented in the scriptures and in extrabiblical sources. A thorough review of all of this information shows that it is impossible to find a period of 7 years within his reign of 43 years when Nebuchadnezzar was absent from his throne or inactive as ruler. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that the "7 times" could have referred to a period of 7 years.

Second, the idea that the "times" which were really years referred to "prophetic years" of 360 days each is based on the belief that the "1260 days" spoken of in Rev. 12:6 are equated with the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12:14. This is not necessarily so. ( For instance, the 1260 days in Rev. 12:6 may have referred to the time when Christianity was protected after the time of Christ's ascension and before the time the Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles in 36 AD. Then, when the good news began to be preached to all national groups Christianity took off, as though it had wings of eagles, and was thereafter protected for a second longer period of time. This second period of protection was the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12:14. This "3 1/2 times" would then be understood to be the period of time from 36 AD until the time of Christ's return.) Since some interpretations of Rev. 12, such as this one, say that the "1260 days" and the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12 do not refer to the same period of time, it is only an assumption and quite likely a wrong one, that the concept of a 360 day "prophetic year" even exists in the Bible.

Third, it seems contradictory that each of the 360 days in each of these 7 "prophetic years" was meant to picture a solar year containing 365.2425 days, even if we were on sound footing so far which we are not. For if days were meant to be understood as years, then it would follow that days in prophetic years ought to be understood as an equal number of "prophetic years," not an equal number of solar years.

Fourth, even if Christ did have in mind a period of 2,520 years when he referred to "the times of the Gentiles," the idea that such a period of time was meant to be counted from the time of Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon is itself highly questionable. For instance, why would it not have begun to be counted when Nebuchadnezzar took king Jehoiachin as his prisoner to Babylon and then appointed a man of his own choosing, Zedekiah, to act as his servant while occupying Jerusalem's throne?

Fifth, and one of the biggest "holes" in this piece of "Swiss cheese" is that it is internally inconsistent with both Daniel and Revelation. The Watchtower's interpretation of Daniel 4 tells us that its "7 times" = 2,520 years. We are told the cryptic word "times" clearly indicates a greater meaning than just "7 years." But when the term "3 and 1/2 times" (half of 7 times) is used in both Daniel and Revelation (Dan. 7:25; Rev.12:14) the Watchtower does not say those "3 and 1/2 times" = 1,260 years, half of 2,520 years. To do so would certainly be consistent with their Daniel 4 interpretation. But no, the Watchtower does not do something so obviously sensible. Instead they tell us that when the term "3 and 1/2 times" appears in the Bible it simply means 3 and 1/2 years and nothing more.

And, sixth, as has been discussed here many times, the historical and biblical evidence is overwhelming that Jerusalem was not destroyed by Babylon in 607 BC. Rather, as all history books tell us, that event took place in 587/6 BC.

One final important point that should be made is that Daniel chapter 4 does not need any interpretation by us today. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream and asked Daniel to interpret it, which he did quite well in verses 20-28. The interpretation Daniel gave seemed quite thorough, and it said nothing about the year 1914. Neither is there any place else in the Bible which indicates that Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream was either incorrect or incomplete. Thus, there exists no reason to believe that God intended for us to understand Nebuchadnezzar's dream any differently than Daniel interpreted it.

This it not to say that a secondary, larger fulfillment of Nebuchadnezzar's dream may not be possible. But if there really is a secondary, larger fulfillment of Daniel 4, the correct understanding of it might be totally different from the one JW's have suggested. And since Daniel himself interpreted the dream and he did not indicate that there existed a then unexplained secondary, larger fulfillment of that dream, how can we say for sure that there is one? And even if there is one, how can we say for sure what it is?

Now JW's all say the larger fulfillment seems obvious to them. But I believe that if it does, it is only because their thinking has been conditioned to understand Daniel 4 in the way they now do. To illustrate this point, I'll here suggest another possibility that could just as well be the real "greater fulfillment" of Daniel 4, if indeed there is one. ( I could suggest several interpretations which all make just as much sense as the Watchtower's interpretation. But, for now, to make my point I'll offer just one.)

Satan the devil was pictured by that tree. Like that Daniel 4 tree, Satan's rule and influence fills the whole earth. And like that tree, the Bible tells us that Satan's rule and influence will one day be cut down and bound. The tree in Daniel 4 was bound with metal bands. Satan will be bound with metal "chains." That Nebuchadnezzar was used to play the small scale role of Satan seems quite fitting. Nebuchadnezzar was, after all, a king who had persecuted and enslaved God's people. The tree was banded for "7 times." Satan will be chained for 1,000 years. How do "7 times" equal 1,000 years? As the Watchtower has done, we will speculate that it is God's intention to restore earth to a paradise 7,000 years after Adam's rebellion in Eden. So, everything in this speculative interpretation is based on this speculative 7,000 year period of time. Since 7 X ("7 times") 1,000 years = 7,000 years, the "7 times" spoken of in Daniel chapter 4 should be understood to equal 1,000 years. After those 1,000 years have passed Satan will be released from his chains just as the tree was unbanded. Then, just as Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged God's sovereignty after 7 times had passed over him, Satan will be forced to bend his knee to God before he is finally destroyed. For as the Bible says, "Every knee will bow." (In the initial small "scale fulfillment" of this interpretation of Daniel 4 Nebuchadnezzar was removed from his throne for 1,000 days, a day for each year of the "large scale" fulfillment. History does allow Nebuchadnezzar a 1,000 day absence from his throne but not a 7 year absence.)

The point is, with a little imagination, we can come up with many other possible "larger" fulfillment's of Daniel chapter 4, all of them just as good if not better, than the Watchtower's interpretation. But since Daniel already gave us the correct interpretation of the prophecy, and since nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that there is, in fact, another correct interpretation of it, we cannot say for sure that there is one, or if there is one, what exactly it is.

Clearly, the Watchtower's 1914 doctrine is not Bible interpretation. It is Bible manipulation.

Edited by - aChristian on 4 February 2003 20:57:22

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

aChristian

Alan,

Thank you for saving me a lot of time. Had you not replied to Scholar's post (I here use "post" in place of a far less charitable word, for as Earnest has reminded me my handle demands that I treat Scholar kindly) I probably would have succumbed to the temptation to go one more round with him. But I doubt I would have done so as well, and certainly not as thoroughly, as you just did. You are truly an amazing man. If by chance the Pope ever reads some of the discussions you have had with people such as Scholar on this board he may just consider making you a Saint. For you certainly have the patience of one.

Scholar,

At this point I think you owe it to the readers of this thread to answer the question which Hillary has posed to you on more than one occasion. I think that question went something like this: Since the historicity of the Society's 607 B.C.E. date for Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon is far from certain, do you feel it is right for the Society to demand that all Jehovah's Witnesses shun anyone who openly doubts the accuracy of that date, and the prophetic interpretations which are built upon it?

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

aChristian

Alan,

Referring to "Scholar" you wrote: When in the past on a number of occasions Ive asked him to discuss the notion of the royalty of Persia in 2 Chron. 36:20, he has refused. Instead he has demanded that before he will consider this passage, I must present a complete and consistent chronology of the entire Jewish period up until the destruction of Jerusalem.

Don't bother. Scholar has just raised the bar. When I mentioned earlier that I had recently completed just such a chronology, Scholar's response was that it could not possibly be an accurate one unless it showed the time of the divided monarchy to be 390 years. Why? Obviously because the Watchtower's interpretation of Ezekiel 4 says it was 390 years.

Scholar,

If the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Ezek. 4 is a correct one, why has it never been able to produce a 390 year long chronology of this time period which harmonizes all biblical synchronisms between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah? Certainly, if this period of time was really 390 years long they, or a scholar like yourself, should have been able to produce such a chronology. Especially since they, and you I suspect, feel no obligation to pay attention to any of the various synchronisms between the Jewish kings and the kings of their neighboring nations which appear in the historical records of those nations, and which have been confidently assigned B.C. dates by modern historians. Not to mention the fact that they, and you I suspect, in putting together such a chronology would probably feel no obligation to also harmonize the several "variant" synchonisms which are contained in the LXX and in the works of Josephus. Again I ask you, If this period of time was really 390 years long, why have proponents of the 390 year divided monarchy belief never been able produce a chronology which even harmonizes just the biblical synchronisms over such a period of time?

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

aChristian

Scholar,

You wrote: you excell in poor comprehension.

You then wrote: please give a figure for the total years for the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. This wil put your so called harmony to the test, if it falls too short of 390 years ...

In my last post I wrote: Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and Jeroboam began to rule his new ten tribe kingdom in northern Israel in 935 B.C.

Now, since I assume you are able to subtract 587 from 935 and come up with a remainder of 348, you have just demonstrated that you are the one who "excels in poor comprehension."

By the way, the Hebrew word in question is the same in all three instances. Green assigns the same Strong's reference number, 3627, to this word in all three verses. Your implication that the translators of the NWT were more "careful" than the translators of other versions of the Bible is quite humorous. They were only "careful" to never miss an opportunity to distort the scriptures for the purpose of supporting their teachings.

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

aChristian

Earnest,

You edited away your criticism of me before I had a chance to read it. I admit to being a bit hard on "Scholar" at times. But sometimes we just have to call a spade a spade.

You should enjoy Jonsson's book. If there is anything in it that you have a problem with feel free to write the author. He will most likely be glad to help you. Carl and I have corresponded fairly regularly for about ten years now, both by snail mail and E mail, often at great length, on a variety of subjects. He's a great guy. He is also a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

You made reference to "the mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings." As you probably know, that is the title of a book by Edwin R. Thiele which contains his reconstruction of the chronology of the divided kingdom. His book contains much information that is of interest to students of both history and scripture, and much that is of great use to Bible chronologists. However, in it he admitted that he was unable to establish full harmony between all of the apparently conflicting chronological information pertaining to this era that is found in the Bible and in the historical records of ancient Israel's and Judah's neighboring nations. He tried his best to do so but in the end he ended up saying that the Bible itself contains several errors and that there are other errors in some of this time period's major secular records. By taking such a position, in my opinion, Thiele showed himself to be not altogether different from the Watchtower Society. Like the Society, rather than admit that some of his understandings of scripture and history might be in error he said that some of the historical records must be in error.

For instance, Thiele rejected Sargon's claim in the Khorsbad texts to have been ruling as king during the final days of Assyria's siege of Samaria. Thiele also failed to harmonize several pieces of chronological information pertaining to this era that apparently conflict with the Masoretic Text which are found in the works of Josephus, and several other apparent contradictions that are found in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

I have recently finished my reconstruction of the divided monarchy. Believe it or not, I was able to establish full harmony between all biblical and extrabiblical historical information pertaining to the number of years each of Israel's and Judah's kings reigned and pertaining to the times of their accessions, including all "variant" information that is found in the LXX and in Josephus. Unlike Thiele I did so using only one calendar and one system of reckoning for all of the reigns of the kings of Israel. And I did so using only one calendar and one system of reckoning for all of the reigns of the kings of Judah. (I believe the biblical record contains only a couple of variations from this system of reckoning. They exist due to the author's unusual frame of reference and apply only to some events which occurred near the end Judah's history. These few understandable variances are discussed in Jonsson's book.) I found I was only able to reconcile all of this often apparently contradictory information by accepting as fully accurate all of the dates for major events during this era which modern historians now provide us.

I intend to publish my work in book form in the near future. Hey, I've spent years on this. I've got to make a few bucks. But for now I'll give you this much. Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and Jeroboam began to rule his new ten tribe kingdom in northern Israel in 935 B.C.

If you want to one day fully understand all of "the mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings" the best advise I can give you is this. Rather than viewing the historians who provide us with dates for major historical events which are recorded in the scriptures as your enemies, view them as your friends.

Edited by - aChristian on 29 January 2003 0:8:20

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

aChristian

Alan,

What you say is true enough to sometimes make me wish I'd chosen a different handle.

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

aChristian

Scholar,

I hope I have the wisdom to ignore any posts of yours in the future. For there really seems to be no point in responding to what you write. My responses only succeed in enticing you to provide this forum with more evidence of your total disregard for the truth, your poor reading comprehension skills, and your equally poor writing skills.

You wrote: Jonsson's discussion is flawed because to give one example the following: Page 341 he presents a chart claiming there were three deportations. What he faild to mention in the example (2) that with Jehoiakim, ...

In Jonsson's "example (2)" on page 341 he is discussing Jehoiachin, not "Jehoiakim" as you assert. I considered forgiving this error of yours. After all, the two names are quite similar and are thus very easily transposed. However, as I read the rest of your response I decided not to be so kind. For after doing so, and after recalling many of your previous posts, I concluded that your careless transposition of the names of these two kings should be taken for what it is, another example of how you continually sully the word "Scholar" by using it to refer to yourself in all of your posts.

You continued: with Jehoiakim [actually Jehoiachin], the 'desirable' (NW) or 'valuable' (NASB) were brought to Babylon. (Verse 10) This is a misrepresentation because the NWT has 'desirable articles'. The NWT in the examples (1) and (3) uses utensils. Clearly, Jonsson argues that those three verses uses vessels to support his claim for three deportations

So what if the NWT uses the word "articles" in verse 10, and the word "vessels" in the other two verses? The "articles" being spoken of in verse 10 are the "desirable articles of the house of Jehovah," are they not? Just as verse 7 is referring to "some of the utensils of the house of Jehovah," and just as Verse 18 is referring to "all of the utensils of the house of the true God." All three of these verses are clearly referring to things that were taken from Jerusalem's temple, are they not? Besides the fact is, regardless of how the NWT translates verse 10, the Hebrew word translated as "articles" by the NWT in verse 10 is the same Hebrew word it translates as "utensils" in verses 7 and 18. The same Hebrew word appears in all three places. That's why the NIV and the NAS translate it consistently as "articles" in all three verses and why the KJV translates it consistently as "vessels" in all three verses. Jonsson's argument that the contents of 2 Chron. 36:7,10,18 provide evidence which strongly supports a natural reading of Daniel 1:1 remains. The fact that the NWT translates the same Hebrew word as "articles" in verse 10 and as "utensils" in verses 7 and 18 is totally irrelevant to his argument.

As expected, I have found your criticisms of Jonsson's work to be totally without merit.

You wrote: but the NWT shows that these verses argue for only two deportations with verse 7 and 10 referring to one event at the end of Jehoiakim's reign and kingship.

If you are going to attempt to defend the teaching of the Watchtower organization you should first learn what they are. The Watchtower teaches that verses 7 and 10 refer to one event at the end of Jehoiachin's reign, not at the end of "Jehoiakim's" reign. Now, I suppose you might again just be confusing these two similar names. However, if you are, I see no point in spending any more of my time trying to figure out what it is you might actually mean by what you actually write.

You wrote: Would you like more? Only two [your spelling] happy to oblige..

No, thank you. I've had my fill of Watchtower style "scholarship" for today. Sometimes the quality of what you and other Watchtower defenders write is so poor that I wonder if you might really just be a bunch of "apostates" trying to make the Watchtower organization and its defenders look foolish. If that's who you are and what you're doing, please save us both some time. Stop making posts in "defense" of the Watchtower. For you can believe me when I tell you, the Watchtower Society and its defenders need no help at all in looking foolish.

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

aChristian

Scholar,

You wrote: I set out on paper a chart containing dates (secular and Society's), reigns for Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar ...

You may want to enter the portion of your chart containing the Society's dates for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in a contest for works of science fiction. It might just win a prize. For "no date in ancient history is more firmly established than" the date of Nebuchadnezzar's accession in 605 B.C. ( Quoted from Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Jack Finegan, 1998 )

You wrote: I have found that the Society's explanation to be accurate and that there is no contradiction between Dan.1:1 and 2:1.

I agree that there is no contradiction between Daniel 1:1 and 2:1. Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in his accession year, which corresponded to Jehoiakim's third year. As verses 3, 4 and 5 indicate, Daniel and some other young Israelite men were then taken as captives to Babylon where they were trained to serve the king for a period of three years. Daniel 2:1 indicates that Daniel began his service to Nebuchadnezzar in his second year as king. The Jews often used "inclusive reckoning" when counting the passage of time, counting parts of years in their year counts. Using such reckoning Daniel would have counted Nebuchadnezzar's accession year as the first year of his training, Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year as the second year of his training, and Nebuchadnezzar's second regnal year as the third year of his training. There is no contradiction in the scriptures on this matter.

Neither is there any reason for the Society to say that these verses mean anything different from what they plainly state. Other than the fact that what they plainly state causes problems for the Society's explanation of the Bible's "seventy years" prophecies, the Society's unique 607 date for the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and, most importantly to them, their teaching that Christ returned in 1914 and, in 1919, appointed the men who run the Watchtower Society over all his belongings.

You wrote: Jonsson's thesis contains a few errors of fact, assumptions and poor scholarship.

I will be very surprised to see you post any examples of what you allege. Your posts seldom contain any real substance. This one certainly did not.

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

aChristian

Earnest,

You more than once stated that Daniel was in training for "three full years." However, the text does not actually say such a thing. Many examples could be provided to you from the Bible where partial days, months and years were referred to by Bible writers in a way which could easily lead one to believe that the text is referring to a complete period of time rather than a partial one. One example that comes quickly to my mind is our being told that Jesus would be in the tomb for "three days and three nights." Now, that certainly sounds like seventy-two hours. However, nearly everyone agrees that Jesus was not entombed for such a period of time. For a variety of reasons. One of which is that elsewhere the Bible itself tells us that Christ was resurrected "on the third day." That being the case, we know that what Bible writers meant was that Christ would be in the tomb for parts of three days. If you need more examples of this being a common form of counting the passage of time by Bible writers let me know.

With this in mind, if Daniel was brought to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, which historical records preserved by Josephus together with Daniel's own words as understood by most Bible readers seem to indicate, then Daniel would have counted Nebuchadnezzar's accession year as the first year of his training. He would have then counted Nebuchadnezzar's first official regnal year as his second year of training. And he would have counted whatever portion of Nebuchadnezzar's second official regnal year had passed before he was called before the king as his third year of training.

You have, it seems, correctly sensed that I have little respect for the Watchtower Society's published understandings of Bible chronology. Though your understanding of the verses we have been discussing is no doubt a genuine one, I do not believe the Watchtower Society's is. For there is a ton of evidence, both biblical and extrabiblical, which we have not yet discussed which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Watchtower's teachings must be in error on how the Bible should be understood in this matter. The Watchtower Society is fully aware of all of this evidence. You certainly appear not to be. That being the case, I will advise you as Alan has. If you really want to come to a fully informed conclusion on this subject matter you should read Carl Olof Jonsson's book, "The Gentile Times Reconsidered." For I doubt that there is anything related to this subject matter that we could discuss here that is not dealt with there in much greater depth than anyone will be able to do here.

So far as your comment that you do not believe Daniel would have used the Babylonian accession year system of reckoning to count the years of a Judean king's reign, I think you may be forgetting something. When in Dan. 1:1 Daniel referred to "the third year of Jehoiakim," which I believe the Bible refers to elsewhere as his "fourth year," Daniel did so after serving as an official of the Babylonian government for well over fifty years. Remember, Daniel wrote the first chapter of his book after "the first year of King Cyrus." (Dan.1:21)

Edited by - aChristian on 19 January 2003 1:5:46