i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.
something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).
somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.
cynicus
Please be assured that I am well familiar with the publications of Jack Finegan as I have both his latest edition and his earliest edition in my library ot reference works on chronology. Nevertheless, his research is important to any chronologist but the Society's viewpoint is the more accurate as it places a greater priority on the biblical record.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.
something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).
somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.
Gamaliel
I thank you for your post and your concerns for the availability of evidence for 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem. Yes, it is very likely that a scholarly presentation for the historical and biblical validity for 607 will be presented. Rolf Furuli is shortly to publish research on this subject and this should be compared with the Jonsson hypothesis. Your comments about the affect of Jonsson's treatise on those at Bethel are probably correct but do not think for a moment that Brother Franz could not have blown it apart if he felt inclined. Brother Franz was one of the most formidable Bible scholars of the last century and it is difficult to imagine that any person could put something past him. The treatise submitted by Jonsson is simply rubbish and only succeeds in demonstrating the efforts that some will go to to undermine a very accurate methodology for establishing secure biblical dates. There is clear historical and biblical evidence for 607 just as it nicely provides prophetic implications for the Gentile Times concluding in 1914.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.
something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).
somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.
undercover
The presentation of the regnal years for the Divided Monarchy is found in the Aid to Bible Understanding, pp.34-7. You will notice that duration of this period is a shade over 390 years being the figure predicted in Ezekiel's prophecy at ch.4. Present day scholars do not accept this application and so their figures for that period are considerably less. This is a bit of a worry.
I agree with you that the method of chronology should be simple but that is not the case for a 586/587. You cannot beat the Society's calculation for simplicity, 607 is a trusted and historical date will nicely accords with the secular and biblical evidence.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
i remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.
something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).
somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.
undercover
I would like to help you with your query but the your information is rather too vague. You must bear in mind that the Society has published an excellent presentation of the regnal years of the Hebrew kings for Judah and Israel which harmonizes nicely with biblical history. The date of 607 is also confirmed by an appropriate exegesis of Daniel 1:1 and 2:1 despite the nonsense posted by cynicus. Yes, please read Jonsonn's hypothesis in his Gentile Times but I think this will be nicely rebutted by a forthcoming work by Rolf Furuli who is a competent Semitic scholar.
scholar BA MA (Studies in Religion)
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.
Earnest
I thank you for your criticism of my postings. I have said before that I am unskilled in computer word processing as during my tertiary experience all of my assignents were produce on a word processor not a computer and I do not touch type. This year beginning March I wiil be using my computer for writing my assignments and so I hope that my skills will be to your standard. I have endeavoured to cite references properly but have found that none bothers to read them. If a person needs assistance in obtaining a journal article or other material then they can email me and I will oblige with a copy.
However, theological research is hard work, it rquires investment in time and perhaps in the purchasing of books. I am not interested in fast food or making things too easy. This forum is for those who are interested in Bible Research and so it is incumbent on those readers to be able to do some research themselves. In my postings I do give reasonable references but I do not wish to pose and give lengthy replies just to impress others. If ypou want specific information then ask for it or find that information yourself. I have spent years studying chronology and no one was around to hold my hand and so I enjoyed the thrill of the intellectual challenge. You should deprive yourself of similar enjoyment.
enjoy
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
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.
hilary_step
I do not believe that the Society's historicity for the date 607 is uncertain. To the contrary I firmly believe that this date is well established as it is firmly based on biblical and secular evidence. However. I too share your concern because chronology is after all mostly interpretation , it should not become primary doctrine. Therefore, a Christian should be free to exercise one's conscience when it comes to accepting dates and a prophetic interpretation based on such dates.
You have raised the matter of Greg Stafford and I wish to make some pertinent comments. No doubt you are referring to his recently published Three Dissertations which has caused some sensation within the Witness community. Greg asked me prior to the publication of this book for a contribution of an article or treatise on chronology. I responded by forwarding some material to him but was unable to go further owing to my academic studies. He subsequently produced his own anaysis of the Society's chronology in company with other matters. I applaud Greg's courage and his enthusiasm for research and learning however I feel he has been poorly advised by his mentors. Greg lacks experience as he has been in the Truth for a short time and is unable to properly comprehend at this time the theological landscape in which as Christians we all must traverse. Perhaps because I have a Kantian view of Jehovah's organization, years of experience, an intimate association with some of the anointed and a commitment to the academic study of religion, philosophy and theology, my appreciation and faith in Jehovah's arrangements causes me to wonder and to ponder.
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.
Alan F, a Christian and Earnest
I wish to respond to some of your comments in recent days. Firstly, my intention in bringing attention to Jonsson's argument as discussed in his Appendix article on the Three deporatations to Babylon was to highlight his mischevious use of the generic Hebrew word 'keliy'. The fact of the matter is that this word is subject to both idiom and a wide choice of meaning which is dependent on the opinion and interpretation of the translator whatever his religious or theological bias. My beef with Jonsson is that he begins his book with the following intention: "Because of its subject matter, in this book Bible texts are generally quoted from the New World Translation". Why did not Jonsson base his argument regarding the three deporations using the generic word 'vessels' instead of using the words for keliy as rendered in the NWT in 2Chronicles 36:7, 10.18? He chose not to do so because such word choice as utensils and desirable articles would invalidate his argument. But he misleads the reader by quoting the adjective 'desirable' instead of the qualified noun 'articles'. What he should have done was to acknowledge the fact that the NWT along with other translations uses different words for these three verses and that some translations do not follow a consistent pattern in these three verses, the NWT and Green's Interlinear OT are examples of this practice. I believe that to base an argument namely that there were three deportations on a generic word is both foolish and shows poor scholarship.
In my last post I mistakenly referred to the wrong commentary in the WBC series. The correct reference is as follows : 2 KINGS, Vol.13, T.R. Hobbs, p.343 with the heading 'Attack and Deportation (24:1-20). and p.356 with the heading 'Jerusalem Destroyed and Second Deporation ' (25:1-30). I apologize for any confusion.
I applaud Earnest in posting the section from this commentary series on the book of 2 Chronicles as it contains some interesting observations. One of several pertains to the view that the Chronicler was content "to present the themes of exile and tribute that characterize his treatment of the last four kings of Judah" ( p.299. pars.1 and 5). In this, I commend Jonsson for drawing attention to the subject of the tribute in his Appendix, such definitive discussion has not appeared in the Society's literature to my knowledge.
Secondly, this commentator and in agreement with the scholars who wrote the commentary on Jeremiah in the WBC series confirm that there differing opinions about the beginning, lenghth and end of the seventy years. (Note coment p.301,par.4). It would seem that despite Jonsson's research on the seventy years and the so called 'factual evidence ' underpinning his chronology, it has not influenced the scholarly community one iota. One must remember that Jonsson first published in 1983. So. for nearly twenty years his views have not reinterpreted biblical history despite the fact that his views are in some degree consonant with traditional chronology. In short, repecting the Jehoiakim's third year and the subject of the seventy years there remains considerable disagreement.
I am well pleased that Alan F respects Keil's and Delitzsch's Commentary on the Old Testament as in the case of the commentator's comments on the first two verses in Daniel and the first verse of chapter 2, there are some real gems that support the Society's interpretation of those verses.
regards
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
p.
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.
Alan F and a Christian
I wish to respond to your previous comments. You have misunderstood what I meant when I referred to the Hebrew word not being the same in 2 Chronicles 36:7, 10. 18. Of course the Hebrew word keliy appears in each of those verses, but the word as shown by the letters differs. Hence, it is translated by Green as:
Verse 7 And of the vessels Translated as 'some of the vessels'
Verse 10 with the articles Translated with the valuable vessels
Verse 18 And all the articles Translated 'And all the vessels.
The NWT renders it accordingly:
Verse 7. And some of the utensils
Verse 10 with desirables articles
Verse 18 And all the utensils.
This clearly shows that Greens's Interlinear Bible agrees with the scholarly NWT and that the NWT is consistent in applying its own tralslation rule and shows the folly of Jonsson's three stage deportation hypothesis. These texts discuss the booty taken by Nebuchadnezzar. Jonsson makes the claim that the first time some of the vessels were taken. Next, the second time he brought the valuable vessels to Babylon. Finally, that is the third time, all the vessels were taken to Babylon. So, one then must imagine that it took Nebuchadnezzar three times before he got the loot. That stretches the imagination too much. Besides what Jonsson overlooks is that verse 19 says: 'And he proceeded to burn the house of the true God and pull down the wall of Jerusalem; and all its dwelling towers they burned with fire and also ALL ITS DESIRABLE ARTICLES'. NWT, 1984.p.597. Clearly, the NWT is justified in using articles rather than utensils (vessels) becuse it makes a distinction of the booty.
This means that Nebuchadnezzar with the first deporation he brought some utensils and desirable articles along with Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim died during the siege) to Babylon. In the second deportation Nebuchadnezzar brought all of the utensils, and all of the treasures to Babylon. And burnt the remainder of the desirable articles. All of this was accomplished in two deportations. The fact that there were two deportations only and not thre is supported in the form of chapter headings in the Word Biblical Commentsry on 2 Chronicles by Raymond Dillard beginning with the section on chapter 36 in discussing the reigns of those last three Judean kings.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
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.
a Christian
Once again you excell in poor comprehension. You are incorrect in your views of what Jonsson seeks to prove namely that there were tree deporstations based on 2Chronicles 36: 7,10 18. These texts are not clearly referring to the same thing as translated by Jonsson as 'vessels'. The Hebrew word differs in these verses that is why in verse 2 the NWT translate it as ' desirable articles' as in agreement with Green's Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament, Vol.2 pp..1230-31. It is Jonsson who has raised this argument as explained in the first paragragh on page342 but is not supported by careful translation of the Hebrew.
You have also failed to understand the significance of both Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1 despite the clues I have posted to you. Obviously, detail in scholarship is unimportant to you but the championing of a viewpoint of chronology that you have not fully understood. If you are wrong in your understanding of Daniel 1:1 then whateveer research on the Divided Monarchy will be useless.
If you have finished your research then 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 then you had better do it all again.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
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.
a Christian
I cannot agree with your interpretation of Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1 as I believe that such a view is dishonest and not in harmony with biblical history. My chart does present every text that lists thr reigns of Nebuchadnezzar. In total there are seven texts that are synchronistic with Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, You also have overlooked a major exegetical flaw in your interpretation with the above texts. PLEASE COMPARE BOTH TEXTS CAREFULLY.
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, 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 but the NWT shows that these verses argue for on;y two deportations with verse 7 and 10 referring to one event at the end of Jehoiakim's reign and kingship. Would you like more? Only two happy to oblige..
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
