Posts by scholar

16

An apparent drift in WTS dates

by Doug Mason in

according to the wts library cdrom, the watchtower, august 1 2005, page 12 provides a table of the kings of judah and israel.. i decided to reproduce the table and add two columns.

my first additional column shows the conventionally accepted date and the second additional column shows the difference between the wtss date and the conventional date for each listed king.. as expected, since the final event listed is the destruction of jerusalem, that difference is about 20 years.

i had expected this difference would be maintained throughout the table.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 426

Have been out of town these last few days so have now the time to post a response. I have your email and will reply to that separately.

The reasons for the divergence between WT/Bible chronology and other systems is simply the fact that Ezekiel provides a prophetic framework of the history of Israel and Judah of 390 years. Therefore, celebrated WT scholars having established a 'pivotal date' simply count back with the regnal data of the kings found in the OT. Other chronologies employ a different methodologies hence producing widely different results. Our approach is simple and that is its strength whereas the others are too complex and fail to inspire confidence. The point of difference would be the choice of the pivotal or Absolute Date and whereas we accept 539 BCE other systems have different dates alltogether.

You are the misconception that there is only one conventional chronology which you have taken from the NIV Bible, this chronology is most likely that of Edwin Thiele but his system is simply one amongst many. So, it is most unwise to compare our chronology with simply numerous systems which in themselves are problematic. All of these fall well short of the '390 years yardstick' so my scholarly advice is to ditch the the other nonsense and utilize WT chronology. I have already given the page number of the cited reference as page 30 and you can obtain this book from Koorong Books at about the princely

sum of ten dollars at time of purchase some years ago.

scholar JW

If you require a detailed explanation of each and every king then you should consult the charts of the Divided Monarchy, pp.340-347 in the publication Aid to Bible Understanding

19

Why is 537BCE important?

by whereami in

in very layman's terms can some help me why this date is important to the jw 607 theory?

i'm trying to show my wife that the wts is wrong on the 607 date.

i told her that no respected scholar agrees with that date.

scholar

onacruse

No leap of faith required here but good old solid exegesis and a strong belief in the authenticity of God's Word over and become the confused nonsense of apostates and higher critics who cannot decide which year Jerusalem fell, when the seventy years began or ended. When you have sorted our your mess then you can properly be in a position to criticize the chronology developed over many centuries by the celebrated WT scholars.

scholar JW

28

NWT translation of Daniel 1:2 and 607

by behemot in

do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.

1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.

has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.

scholar

Auld Soul

Touche! But just think and pause for a moment because you will never know their identity or their qualifications. The mystery remains.

scholar JW

28

NWT translation of Daniel 1:2 and 607

by behemot in

do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.

1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.

has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.

scholar

jayhawk1

Post 3591

In your dreams. Alan F has never won a single point and it was I that trounced him in the discussion of 607 BCE. Perhaps you should read the dialoque more carefully before allowing your emotions to rule your head,

scholar JW

16

An apparent drift in WTS dates

by Doug Mason in

according to the wts library cdrom, the watchtower, august 1 2005, page 12 provides a table of the kings of judah and israel.. i decided to reproduce the table and add two columns.

my first additional column shows the conventionally accepted date and the second additional column shows the difference between the wtss date and the conventional date for each listed king.. as expected, since the final event listed is the destruction of jerusalem, that difference is about 20 years.

i had expected this difference would be maintained throughout the table.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 424

Your question is simply answered. It should come as no surprise that the the missing twenty years is only located within the bounds of the Neo-Babylonian period wherein the last Judean kings reigned and whence the pivotal dates are established then it simply a matter of adding the regnal data over the Monarchic period to determine the approximate years for the respective reigns for Judah and Israel. So. it is the case that the celebrated WT scholars have developed a consistent chronology of the Divided Monarchy that approximates the 390 prophetic period specified by Ezekiel.

However, you err in assuming that the twenty years must govern throughout the period the position of the regnal years rather it is the case that each respective reign is positioned by the scriptural data alone. Further, you are mistaken in using only one column for so called 'conventional dates'. There is no such thing as a tabulation of conventional dates. I assume because of your SDA influence that you adopt the chronology of Edwin Theile but there are equally many other scholars that have their own chronologies for the period so there can be no conventional chronology.

The reason for this is because scholars such as Thiele, Hooker, Hayes, Bright, Cogan and Tadmor and others have foolishly adopted a methodology that creates confusion, contradictions by allegiance to Neo-Babylonian chronology and ignoring the Scriptures such as the historical fact of the seventy years. In illustration of this confusion is shown by conslting the chart ' The Kings of Judah' on page 30 in Chronological And Background Charts of the Old Testament by John H. Walton, 1994, Zondervan Publishing House.

The chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah as presented in the WT publications succeeds where others fail simply because it is simpleand wholly upon history and the Bible. Nothing succeeds more than truth.

scholar JW

28

NWT translation of Daniel 1:2 and 607

by behemot in

do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.

1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.

has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.

scholar

Leolaia and Narkissos

Context is everything. I disagree with you that no element of duration is implied in verse 2 necessitating the rendering 'In time' as specified by the verb yiten, an imperfect form combined with waw. This form can be used to indicate succession such as 'in time' or 'and then' but the context such as verse 1 does indicate duration by the expression "and proceeded to lay seige to it". Hence, it may be the case that NWT as a literal transalation is simply recognizing the context and the precise verbal form is translating accurately the Hebrew.

Thus it is not 'over translating' but simply being the most accurate-brilliant translation ever made and we all can be so ever grateful to the Author of the Holy Scriptures and His Holy Spirit and the 'celebrated WT scholars for making this possible in this most important of times.

scholar JW

19

Why is 537BCE important?

by whereami in

in very layman's terms can some help me why this date is important to the jw 607 theory?

i'm trying to show my wife that the wts is wrong on the 607 date.

i told her that no respected scholar agrees with that date.

scholar

Lady Liberty

Your comments that the Society's use of Grayson's publication by altering ir inserting their dates is somehow dishonest or improper shows that you have know knowledge of academic practice or convention. The Society has done nothing wrong by inserting a different date enclosed within square brackets because this is done to indicate to the reader that a correction or explanation is made. You should consult a Style Manual to verify this and if you are living in the USA then the most popular Style Manual is the Chicago Manual of Style, for authors, editors and copyrighters. The Society as a longtime publicher has also its Syle Manual adopted for its own use which also is the case with most Government department, Institutions such as Universities.

So, as long as the adjusted date is enclosed within square brackets and within the quotation followed bythe source properly referenced then everything is OK.

scholar JW

16

An apparent drift in WTS dates

by Doug Mason in

according to the wts library cdrom, the watchtower, august 1 2005, page 12 provides a table of the kings of judah and israel.. i decided to reproduce the table and add two columns.

my first additional column shows the conventionally accepted date and the second additional column shows the difference between the wtss date and the conventional date for each listed king.. as expected, since the final event listed is the destruction of jerusalem, that difference is about 20 years.

i had expected this difference would be maintained throughout the table.

scholar

Doug Mason

At first glance there is no apparent drift in the chart of dates which simply reproduces the chart of the Kings of Israel and Judah presented in the Insight vol 1, pp.464-466. If you are comparing such a chart with other secular charts then there would be many conflicting differences. Your Word file is inaccessible.

scholar JW

19

Why is 537BCE important?

by whereami in

in very layman's terms can some help me why this date is important to the jw 607 theory?

i'm trying to show my wife that the wts is wrong on the 607 date.

i told her that no respected scholar agrees with that date.

scholar

whereami

You are incorrect in claiming that no 'respected scholars accept 607 BCE for there are many scholars including the 'celebrated WT scholars who do in fact accept that date but have seen to it through the scholarly journal The Watchtower over many decades published the biblical-secular evidence for this date.

The recognition of the fact of 537 BCE for the Return of the Jews proves the validity of 607 BCE because of Jeremiah's 'seventy years' of Exile-Desolation-Servitude. The recognition of this fixed historic period demonstrates the overwhelming fact that 607 BCE is the only possible date. Other proposed dates such as 587 or 586 are impossible because such dates cannot account for the seventy years despite the many crazy interpretations of higher critics and apostates.

scholar JW

28

NWT translation of Daniel 1:2 and 607

by behemot in

do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.

1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.

has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.

scholar

behemot

The answer to your question is simple for it aptly demonstrates the brilliance and superiority of the NWT over all other Bible translations. The pertinent phrase in Daniel 1:2 "In time" renders the literal Hebrew verb "And gave". This verb is the future/imperfect form yiten of the verb natan (give) and when combined with waw properly has the meaning 'and then' or 'in time'. This combination (waw + imperfect=yiqtol) is known as a wayyiqtol. The actual time involved is not specified but is determined by the context which in this case is the preceeding verse one indicating that the action was not immedciate but a succession of events.

Interestingly, celebrated WT scholars have long perceived that the 'third year of Jehoiakim' was not of his reign but of his vassalage which correctly interprets Biblical history. Accurate history means accurate chronology and this perception of matters correctly establishes 607 BCE as the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

scholar JW