Posts by scholar

71

Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 in

does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?

as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm

scholar

Alan F

Thiele's claim that Ptolemy was an historian is inconsistent with Thiele's comment that the Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical purposes not historical purposes. How then does Ptolemy declare any historicity when the Canon omits those kings whose reigns were of little astronomical significance. For this reason Martin Anstey in his Romance of Bible Chronology, 1913 said of Ptolemy on page 41:" He writes no history. He merely gives a list of names and figures. He is not an historian vouching for the truth of facts of which he has personal knowledge, but the contriver of a scheme filling up gaps in the history he has received, and dating events by means of astronomical computations". So much for Thiele's claim that Ptolemy was an historian.

You did in fact in a previous post on this subject state that Parker & Dubberstein's Babylonian Chronology eliminated the need of Ptolemy's Canon but I showed in my last post that in fact that the basis of their Chronology was in fact Ptolemy's canon with classical sources.

The facts are quite clear that the Aid book merely represented Thiele's admission that the Ptolemy was not an historian and that his canon was not to be regarded as historical. If you have a beef about this article in the Aid book then why do not you ask Raymonf Franz about the alleged misrepresentation? Did not Franz claim to be the author of that particulat article on Chronology in the Aid book?

scholar

71

Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 in

does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?

as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm

scholar

Alan F

Thiele in his MNHK relied primarily on two sources for his reconstruction of the Divided Monarchy, namely the Assyrian king lists and Ptolemy's Canon as stated in his 2nd edn., p.45. He simply used Parker & Dubberstein to provide dates in the Julian calender as noted on page 168. to assist in the presenting of his data. So Thiele was primarily dependent on Ptolemy and the Assyrian king lists and that is why his Note is so relevant in drawing attention to the fact that Ptolemy was not an historian and that his king list was not primarily for historical purposes.

Further, Parker & Dubberstein's Babylonian Chronology did not eliminate the need for Ptolemy's Canon as you stupidly claim. The very basis of their Babylonian Chronolgy was Ptolemy's Canon. Note what these scholars in the opening sentence under the heading Chapter II - KING'S REIGNS:

"The general basis for the chronology of the period here treated is furnished by the Ptolemaic Canon, with help from classical sources".BC,1971,p.10. So, this publication is heavily dependent upon Ptolemy's Canon as was the work of Thiele. For these reasons one can easily see the relevance of Ptolemy's Canon to these scholars and why Thieles's frank admission regarding Ptolemy's historicicty or lack thereof was pertinent to the discussion of the Canon in the Aid book.

scholar

71

Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 in

does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?

as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm

scholar

Alan F

The crux of the matter is why did Thiele say what he did in his Note? What was the purpose of that Note? What new or additional imformation did Thiele find necessary to draw th the readers attention? The point that Thiele wanted to convey to the reader or you could cpnsider it as a READER ALERT NOTICE was the simple fact that Ptolemy was not an historian and that the above king list was not prepared primarily for historical purposes. In context. the Aid book was simply discussing Ptolemy's canon citically with the observation based on Thiele/s research, that Ptolemy was not an historian.

Thiele's observation reflects his dependence on Ptolemy for his chronology and Thiele used that same methodology right through fis first to his third edition, 1951-1983. The Aid book was punlished in 1969 and was replaced by the Insight publication 1988 wherein a much more abbreviated discussion of Ptolemy is presented. Also, the Insight book acknowledges more modern sources for secular chronology other than Ptolemy/ canon.

The Aid book written during the Thielean era reflects that scholarship at that time was focussed for the purposes of chronology towards Ptolemy's canon. Currently, scholarship acknowleges that there are many other sources for Babylonian chronology.

In short, the Aid book and Thiele's book were products of the times which reflected the continued importance of Ptolemy relative to biblical chronology. These sources quite correctly drew attention to the correct substance of Ptolemy's Canon, astronomy not history.

scholar

71

Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 in

does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?

as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm

scholar

Alan F

On the basis that the Society maded a direct quote and referenced it then it is impossible to argue that the Society is guilty of misrepresentation. The Aid book on page 327 under the herading Ptolem's canon has one paragragh which factually presents the situation then the next paragraph simply states that Ptolemy was not and historian but is known primarily as an astronomer and geographer.

Then to prove this point the Aid writer simply quotes Thiele in support of the fact that Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for historical porposes. So this can hardly be misrepresentation. The Aid book simply addresses the fact that Ptolemy was not a historian and thus his canon was not prepared for historical purposes.

scholar

71

Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 in

does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?

as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm

scholar

Alan F

Well then you explain Thiele's Note. Why did he say what he did? His comment surely would indicate that Ptolemy's Canon has limits or is qualified in some way. Perhaps to imform the reader not to think that the canon is infallible or something like that.

I disagree with you that it is in context. It appears as a note to the above list as an appendix and is thus widely separated from the rest of Thiele's comments on Ptolemy. In other words it is right after the end of his book so a reader could simply read the book and miss the note altogether.

scholar

63

607? 587? What does it matter

by IP_SEC in

personally i believe that 607 is not the right date, but here is another point of view.. does 607 or 587 or 609 or 586 or 1914 really matter?

yes but only after you have a pivotal date.

5 starting from the pivotal date.

scholar

Leilaia

It all boils down to what I have repeatedly stated that chronology is all about methofology and interpretation. For this reason WT scholars as with many other such as Edwin Thiele will choose one or more different absolutes on order to construct a chronology.

I beloeve that the Jonsson interpretation of the seventy years is bure bunk as it has has not precise beginning and does provide a seventy year desolation for the land. Our chronology is suprtiot to uours because first itis simple, Second, it is biblical and Thired because tou do not have a chronology. Al that you have is a handful of dates. How pitiful and laughable.

In respects to chronology it is correct to argue that faith and theology have a proper place in the mix as chronology is not an infallible doctrine.

scholar emeritus

71

Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 in

does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?

as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm

scholar

Alan F

It was impossible for the Society to misrepresent Thiele because all that they did was simply to quote exacly Thiele's isolated Note in Appendix G. There was no immediate context for Thiele/s Note. Your claim of misrepresentation might be valid if in fact the Society had used that original Note after a revised Note had appeared. The Society has not used that reference after 1983 when Thiele's final revision was punlished.

I am well aware of criticism of Rogert Newton's hypothesis, in my view one of many points of connection between Thiele and Newton is that both made ambiguous admissions concerning Ptolemy's Canon.

scholar

71

Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 in

does anyone know where is is documented that thiele made the following quotes?

as bible scholar e. r. thiele said about a watchtower article on chronology, "it reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/6040/kc.htm

scholar

Alan F

Precisely my point, all historical documents must be subject to methodology and interpretation which are human activities. Thiele exercises his judgement in connection with Ptolemy's canon and stated his methodology and by means of a Note showed the limitations. Robert Newton also made a careful examination of Ptolemy and made come controversial clams and ambigious claims. WT have long been interested in Ptolemy and have made prudent and cautious rulings on the canon and adopted a methodoly that is not tied to the canon.

I have proven that the Society merely represented Thieles's Note or proviso on the canon you have not proven otherwise.

scholar

42

How does the Society refute the 607/1914 discrepancy?

by ithinkisee in

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx

i loooove this simple 607 bce explanation by alleymom.

(thank you if you are reading.

scholar

City Fan

Your reply was typical of apostate thinking, avoiding the hard issues by focussing purely on trying to undermine our biblical chronology. I set out seven examples which illustrate that secular chronology is far from perfect and that there are issues that scholars dispute. In other words, issues where more than solution is held.

WT chronology to quote that emenent chrounologist Edwin Thiele "is a broad chronological scheme" which allows all the biblical and some secular data to be allocated therein. Apostates do possess such a scheme . Why do not you post a chronology of the OT? You cannot because you have done but in many reference works such a chart or list is available.

scholar emeritus

BA MA Studies in Religion

42

How does the Society refute the 607/1914 discrepancy?

by ithinkisee in

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx

i loooove this simple 607 bce explanation by alleymom.

(thank you if you are reading.

scholar

ithinkisee

The only discrepancy exists between those who advocate the impossible dates of 588, 587 or 586 for the Fall of Jerusalem or Jehovah's Witnesses who advocate the biblically calculated date of 607.

When you see your friend make sure that you tell him that despite the weight of secular evidence scholars cannot agree on the following:

1. A precise calender date for the Fall of Jerusalem

2. A definite calender year for the beginning and end of the seventy years

3. The length of the seventy years and whether it is literal or symbolic

4. The end of the Assyrian World Power

5. A king list for the Divided Monarchy

6. The historical value or merit of Ptolemy's Canon

7. A Absolute Date for securing pivotal dates for the Old Testament

This confused state of affairs befalls those who prefer the secular evidence over the biblical evidence.

scholar emeritus

BA MA Studies in Religion