Alan, I had edited out my comments to you very shortly after posting them when I saw you had gone back and read what I posted. I misunderstood you to say that you were probably not going to be reading all of what I wrote but criticizing it anyway. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and for assuming the worst of you. I was half asleep from a long day when I read what you wrote and wrote what I did. Please accept my apology. Several of the things you have said I have found quite valuable. Including some of your comments on my contention that John the baptist must have preached 3 and 1/2 years before Christ's ministry began. I still believe that but my arguments need some adjusting.
I wrote: My study, which I believe is the most thorough ever done on this subject, and which largely agrees with Thiele's work shows that Jerusalem fell in 587 and the kingdom was divided in 935, 348 years earlier, not 390 years earlier as JWs tell us.
You responded: Sounds good to me.
In case you wonder how that can be done, in light of the "390" years referred to in Ezek 4, It is largely done by understanding the "40 year" reign of Solomon really lasted "80 years", as Josephus tells us. His "40" years of rule, as per the Bible, were years in which he ruled over "all Israel", i.e. years of unchallenged rule. If you have time and interest in this subject, I'd appreciate your feedback on what I have written below, as this understanding really amounts to the "linchpin" of my "4000" year chronology. The "390" years of Ezekiel 4 and the "40 years" of Solomon I believe that before we can understand the "390" years of Ezek. 4 we must first understand when the kingdom of Israel was divided into two separate kingdoms. To do this we must study and understand the history of the divided kingdom as recorded in scripture, a task which has perplexed both Bible students and "Bible scholars" for over two thousand years.Many attempts have been made to harmonize all of the apparently conflicting chronological information contained in the books of Kings and Chronicles pertaining to the times the kings of Israel and Judah ruled their kingdoms. I believe that the only people who have ever come close to successfully doing so have been those who have paid very close attention to all of the historical synchronisms contained not just in the Bible, but also in the historical records of Israel's and Judah's contemporary neighboring nations. Anyone who has ever managed to come close to establishing full harmony within the text of scripture on these matters has only been able to do so when they have also accepted and paid close attention to all of the dates which historians now provide to us for all extrabiblical historical synchronisms. Dates such as 853 for the battle of Qarqar, 721 for the fall of Samaria, 701 for Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem, 605 for the battle of Carchemish and 568 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The most well known work on this subject matter is that done by Edwin R. Thiele. It is contained in his book, The Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings.
In his book Thiele maintains that the death of Solomon and the subsequent division of his kingdom into the two separate nations of Israel and Judah took place in 930 BC. Though I do not fully agree with all of Thiele's conclusions I agree with most of them. And I certainly agree with his conclusion that the kingdom could not have been divided much sooner than 930 BC, as some Bible students still believe that it was.
I do, however, slightly disagree with Thiele on the exact date of the schism. I believe the kingdom was split in two in the year 935 BC rather than the year 930 BC as Thiele's work indicates. Why do I believe this? Because Thiele failed to take into account what certainly appears to be a five year overlap, known as a "coregency," between Judah's kings Abijah and Asa. The Bible tells us that Asa's days as king began with "ten years of peace." (2 Chron. 14:1,6) I believe this must refer to his years as sole king following five years as coregent. For the Bible also clearly indicates that the first war during Asa's reign was in his "15th year." (2 Chron.15:10) Thiele tells us, and I agree, that the words of 2 Chron. 15:19, "There was no war until the 35th year of Asa's reign," should be understood as saying, "There was no war until the 35th year (since the division of the kingdom) in Asa's reign." We know this because 1 Kings 15:16 speaks of a war between Asa and Baasha "in the 36th year of Asa's reign," but Baasha's rule ended long before Asa's 36th year. (1 Kings 16:6,8) That being the case, 2 Chron. 15:19 and 1 Kings 15:16 must be referring to the number of years which had then passed from the division of the kingdom. And since Rehoboam, Judah's first king, ruled 17 years and was followed by Abijah who ruled 3 years we see that Asa began to rule 20 years after the schism. And since his first 10 years were years of peace, war must have first broken out between Asa and Baasha some 30 years after the kingdom was divided, not 35 years, unless the "10 years of peace" being referred to were the first 10 years of Asa's sole rule, following a 5 year coregency. I believe had Thiele followed this line of thinking, which he had somewhat begun by discussing these verses, he would have reached the same conclusion I have, that the division of the kingdom must have occurred, not in 930 BC, but five years earlier in 935 BC.
Through my studies I have been able to fully reconcile all apparently contradictory chronological information pertaining to the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings in the books of Kings and Chronicles. However, after doing so I was left with a date of 935 BC for the division of the kingdom. And I was still left without a clear understanding of Ezekiel chapter 4:1-6 which refers to a period of "390" years of "the sin of the house of Israel," a reference which has caused many Bible commentators over the years to conclude that the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom occurred 390 years before Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem. For instance, Matthew Henry's commentary on this part of scripture tells us that "the 390 years" should be reckoned from the "first apostasy under Jeroboam until the destruction of Jerusalem." (By the way, Thiele completely ignored the subject of how we should understand Ezek. 4:1-6.)
Here is how I now understand Ezek. 4:1-6. I believe Josephus was correct when he told us that Solomon ruled for 80 years and died at age 94. (Antiq. 7.8) I believe the Bible credits Solomon with only "40 years" because, as I found in my study of the chronology of the divided kingdom, Bible writers did not count the years of a king's reign following the time the legality of that reign was seriously challenged. Of course, the Bible is also right. Because to rule for 80 years Solomon first had to rule for 40 years. The fact is, what 1 Kings 11:42 actually tells us is that Solomon ruled "over ALL Israel for forty years." This wording certainly leaves open the possibility that Solomon ruled for longer than 40 years, but that his additional years of reign were years in which some residents of Israel rejected him as their king.
I believe that the Bible itself clearly indicates that Solomon ruled for more than 40 years. For if Solomon ruled only 40 years how can we explain the fact that the Bible tells us that Solomon was only a "child" (1 Kings 3:7) when he became king, but also says that his son Rehoboam "was 41 years old when he became king" and that his mother "was an Ammonite"? (2 Chron.12:13) Now unless Solomon fathered a child with an Ammonite woman when he was a young boy, two years before he became king, he must have ruled for more than 40 years. We also know God promised Solomon "a long life." (1 Kings 3:14) Becoming king as a boy and ruling 40 years means Solomon would have died in his 50s, which does not add up to "a long life." A long life in Solomon's day meant the same thing as it does today, 70s, 80s, or even 90s. If Solomon ruled for only 40 years how do we explain these things?
Other factors also point to my acceptance of Josephus chronology of Solomon's reign, including the fact that he never any place else contradicts the chronological information contained in the Old Testament pertaining to the length of the reign of any other Hebrew king by more than one year. This occasional one year difference can be easily accounted for by the fact that either he or his sources were then employing a different system of reckoning, or a different calendar, than that used by the writers of Kings and Chronicles.
I believe the 390 years of the house of Israel's sin began at the end of Solomon's first 40 years as king. I believe it was then that Jeroboam, the man God had previously chosen as the ten-tribe nation of Israel's first king, fled to Egypt following his unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Solomon's government. In Egypt Jeroboam was geographically unable to offer sacrifices to God at Jerusalem's Temple, sacrifices which the Jewish law required to gain God's forgiveness for sin. Since he there was no longer able to offer those sacrifices he no longer was forgiven by God for his sins, including the very serious sin he had just committed against Solomon.
I believe those 390 years of sin continued when, after returning from Egypt to become Israel's first king in 935 BC, Jeroboam successfully persuaded the people who made up his new ten-tribe kingdom to follow his lead in continuing to neglect offering God the sacrifices for their sins which the Jewish Law required in order for them to receive God's forgiveness for their sins. And I believe, since the people living in northern Israel continued to neglect those sacrifices all the way up to the time Babylon began its siege of Jerusalem, the years of "the sin of the house of Israel" continued to be counted by God all the way up until that time. The term "the house of Israel" is used in Ezekiel and elsewhere to refer not just to Jeroboam and the kings who followed him on Israel's throne, but also to all of the apostate spiritual leaders in northern Israel, and in an extended sense to all who their followed their spiritually corrupt lead. This included a very large number of Jews who remained in northern Israel long after the northern kingdom of Israel officially ceased to exist when its capital city, Samaria, was captured by Assyria in 721 BC. (See, for instance, Ezek. 8:6-12; 37:15-23 and Jer. 31:31.)
This understanding requires that we understand Jeroboam to have been "a young man" (Josephus Antiq. 7.8), probably in his early 20s, when he rebelled against Solomon and fled to Egypt, that he was a middle aged man, probably in his early 60s, when he returned home to become northern Israel's first king, and that he was an old man, probably in his early to mid 80s, when he died after ruling for "twenty-two years." (1 Kings 14:20) The Bible tells us that Ahijah the prophet once had no trouble seeing well enough to tear a coat into twelve pieces. This was when he first met Jeroboam, before Jeroboam's flight to Egypt. (1 Kings 11:30) However, it informs us that later on, during Jeroboam's reign as king, "Ahijah could not see. His sight was gone because of his age." (1 Kings 14:4) I believe this is because over 40 years passed between these two events in the life of Ahijah.
This understanding of scripture also requires that we recognize the fact that the "Shishak" to whom Jeroboam fled (1 Kings 11:40) was not the same "Shishak" who plundered Jerusalem's Temple "in Rehoboam's fifth year." (2 Chron. 12:2) I believe Jeroboam fled to Shoshenq I and it was Shoshenq II who later plundered Jerusalem's Temple. Why? Because Egyptian history tells us that Shoshenq I did not rule long enough to have his reign include both of these events which were, according to this understanding, separated by some 45 years. It also tells us that Shoshenq II ruled only about one year. By recognizing Shoshenq II as the Pharaoh who plundered Jerusalem in Rehoboam's 5th year, and having previously established 935 BC as the date when the kingdom was divided, we can date the one year reign of Shoshenq II to 931 BC. Then, following the standard chronology for the history of Egypt's Pharaohs we find that the reign of Shoshenq I began some 55 years earlier, in 986 BC and ended some 21 years later in 965 BC, during which time I believe Shoshenq I gave refuge to Jeroboam who fled to him in 975 BC.
This understanding of Bible chronology and Egyptian history dates the Exodus to 1492/91 BC and tells us that Tuthmosis III was then Egypt's Pharaoh, a Pharaoh who in his 30th year (which would be 1491 BC according to this understanding) "received an ambassador from an unidentified Asiatic land who came to pay him homage." (A History Of Ancient Egypt by Nicholas Grimal, pg. 215) I believe this "ambassador" was Moses who came from Midian. (Ex. 4:19-21) Egyptian history also tells us that eighty years earlier Pharaoh Ahmose was ruling Egypt, the Pharaoh who began a new dynasty after ridding Egypt of the Hyksos kings. Ahmose then would be understood to be the "new king who arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph." (Ex. 1:8) Notice the similarity between the names of Ahmose and Moses. Could Ahmose's daughter have chosen the name she did for her adopted son partly to honor her father?
Now we come to "the sin of the house of Judah." (Ezek. 4:6) I believe the 40 years of "the sin of the house of Judah" began in the 13th year of Josiah (Jer. 25:3), when the people of Judah refused to listen to Jeremiah and to the other prophets God sent to tell them that He would no longer put up with their false worship. I believe the 40 years of "the sin of the house of Judah" ended in "the ninth year of Zedekiah" when Babylon's siege of Jerusalem began. (Jer. 52:4; 2 Kings 25:1) As Jeremiah told the people of Judah, though God had once graciously forgiven all of their sins He had decided to no longer do so. Jeremiah informed them that because they had not listened to God's prophets, which He began sending them "in the thirteenth year of Josiah," God had decided to devote their land to destruction. From the 13th year of Josiah, when God's prophets told the people of Judah His forgiveness for their sins would no longer be given to them if they continued to worship other gods, to the 9th year of Zedekiah, when Babylon's army began its siege of Jerusalem, 40 years (or parts thereof) passed. I believe that this is the 40 years of "the sin of the house of Judah" referred to in Ezek. 4:6 which God counted against Judah. For the Bible is very careful to tell us that it was "in the thirteenth year of Josiah" that God began sending his prophets to urge "the house of Judah" turn away from their false worship and it is very careful to tell us that from "the thirteenth year of Josiah" they had "not listened or paid any attention" to God's prophets. It was this 40 years of continued sin that was responsible for Judah's demise. So it is reasonable to conclude that it was this 40 years of sin that God counted against "the house of Judah" in Ezek. 4:6.
But why did God forgive Judah for so long, and hold only this final 40 year period of their sin against them? And why did God hold all 390 years of the house of Israel's sin against them? The answer is a simple one which I have already alluded to. The people of Judah, aided by their Levite Priests, for the most part, faithfully offered God all the sacrifices His Law required in the way it required them to do so. Because they did so, God forgave them of all of their sins just as He had promised them that He would. Because God forgave their sins up until the 13th year of Josiah he could not count their years of sin before that time against them. Thus God counted only Judah's final 40 years of sin. But He counted all 390 years of "the sin of the house of Israel." For "the house of Israel" had not offered God the sacrifices for their sins which His Law required them to do.
There is a lesson for us here. God will as He has promised, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, completely overlook our many years of sin and not count them against us. But even this forgiveness of His has limits. We cannot use the undeserved kindness of God, which Christ bought for us with His own blood, as an excuse to go on living immoral lives. The people of the house of Judah did that. And 40 years before Babylon besieged Jerusalem the forgiveness God had for so long given them, a forgiveness bought with the blood of bulls and goats, ran out.
Much of what you wrote again critisized the fact that the "400s", which I see in the sun, moon and stars, are not exact 400s. You wrote: your arguments hinge on exact figures ... However, I do not believe they do. For one thing, as I have pointed out, the Bible itself, inspired by God, often uses round numbers. Why then would the same God who often used round numbers in the Bible, find their use unacceptable in communicating with us by other means, especially if they were exact enough to catch the attention of many people? Besides, the connection of the 400s is to the number of years which passed between Adam's creation and Christ's birth. But I do not maintain that Christ was born exactly 4,000 years after Adam's creation. Rather, I maintain that He was born 3,999 years later, in the year 4000 counting the year of Adam's creation as year number 1.
I wrote: and to the fact that we can observe a total eclipse over any one spot on earth "on average about every 400 years"
You responded by quoting other sources which indicate that number is probably closer to 375 years. It well may be. But if it is, it has obviously not stopped some astronomers from seeing the number "400" in that ratio. Besides, I tend to believe how one arrives at this number is a very inexact science. It may have something to do with how precisely someone defines and measures the path of totality. For various astronomical reference works give us various numbers, including some greater than 400. This one for instance tells us that, "For any one location, total eclipses of the sun occur rarely; on average, once every 410 years or so." http://www.krysstal.com/ecintro.html
: You wrote: Surely the Creator, if he really wanted to put physical signs in the sun and moon, could have arranged things such that the moon had a precisely circular orbit around the earth, and the earth-moon system a precisely circular orbit around the sun. And, of course, an exact ratio of 400:1 in diameters and distances -- a ratio that would be perfect, unchanging, to beyond our limits of measurement.
I responded: Yes, He could have. But I think He was precise enough to catch our attention.
You came back: Correction: perhaps precise enough to catch your attention, but not necessarily that of most people. I believe that may be God's intention. He may not now want to hit all unbelievers on the head with a frying pan, so to speak. I wrote: So much so that many astronomers marvel at our earth's sun/moon/400/diameter/distance ratio, which they tell us is responsible for producing total eclipses, calling it "a coincidence unlike anything else in nature," and a "serendipitous relationship unmatched in the solar system."
You responded: True enough, but there are lots of coincidences like that in all sorts of things. None other which creates what is often called, "The greatest spectacle in nature." I wrote: For the number 400 certainly can be viewed as a short form or "sign" form of the number 4,000,
You responded: Sure. But why keep to the base ten numbering system? Why not use base 60, as the Babylonians did? Why not take the square root and round off? Why not divide 40-patterns into 5 x 8 patterns and find all manner of multiples thereof? Where do you stop?
You asked: Why would God use mankind's most popular numerical system (the base 10 numbering system)? I responded: [God] speaks to us in our own language so we can understand him. The base 10 numbering system was almost certainly created by someone counting on his fingers. We have ten fingers. That's most likely why base ten is and always has been the most popular numbering system. I'm sure for that reason God knew it would be and, for that reason, used that numbering system in the Bible and in the sun, moon and stars.
I wrote: And nearly all people today use the base ten numbering system. You responded: Sure, in our modern times. But remember that the "signs in sun, moon and stars", as you've expounded, existed long before humans came on the scene. And the various numerical ratios are ever-changing due to the recession of the moon from the earth, etc. But I believe God can see into the future. So, if He intended for this "sign" to serve as a "sign" only in our day He would certainly have used the base ten system. So far as your statement that, "ratios are ever-changing due to the recession of the moon from the earth, etc.", I'm sure you know that these ratios have not changed in any significant way in the last several thousand years. But even if they had, if the sign was meant to be "seen" only in our day your comment would not be relevant.
I wrote: For Abaddon to have repeatedly called me a liar over this very small difference was ridiculous.
You responded: He didn't. Apparently you've gone back to the relevant posts and cleared this up. No, what I cleared up was my misunderstanding that he was upset because he believed that I had called him a liar, which I did not do and which it turns out he did not say I did. He was upset with me for misunderstanding and misrepresenting something he had written, which I have since apologized for. However, he has repeatedly called me a liar. But that's what I come to expect in such discussions.