johnny cip...It was already brought out on the first page of this thread that the Jewish calendar was lunisolar and fixed by the timing of the seaons, so that is not a valid argument. Only the Islamic calendar is strictly lunar.
Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?
by Inquisitor 86 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
a Christian
Leolaia,
Again, thank you for your thorough and very well reasoned reply.
You wrote: Of course, the idea that "God allowed some parts of the Bible to be lost or corrupted" is ... not the only way one could construe God's agency on the life of the text. One could just as easily believe that God played a role in modifying the original text in its transmission, as part of a continuing revelation of God.
Interesting thought, though I get the idea that in offering this suggestion you are only playing "devil's advocate" and that you ascribe to neither school of thought. If I am right, can you tell me what if any "Bible" do you accept as being at least in some way specially "inspired" by God (or do you)? Do you consider yourself to be only a Bible student and a Bible critic or do you also consider yourself to be a Christian? If you do, how you manage to accept the fantastic story of Christ as told only in the pages of the New Testament if you believe that the words which convey this story to us might be in error?
-
a Christian
Leolaia, You wrote: Jubilees was not dependent on the LXX per se, as it utilized the Hebrew text directly. The witness to Cainan in Jubilees is evidence that this name was already in the Hebrew prior to its rendering in the Greek LXX. Hmmm. This is not a convincing argument. We have no way of knowing what was and what was not in the Hebrew text that was in front of the author of Jubilees. He may have simply added his "Cainan" material as if he were consulting a Hebrew text after being influenced by the LXX. Or, probably a more likely scenario, he may have then been reading a corrupted Hebrew text containing this second "Cainan" - the same text which was also improperly relied upon by the translators of the LXX. So far as your contention that "the structure of the genealogy itself supports the view that 'Cainan' is original to the genealogy" due to the fact that without this second "Cainan" there are only 76 generations from Adam to Jesus, counting Adam as #1 and Jesus as #76. First of all, who ever said that there had to have been 77 generations from Adam to Jesus? Maybe if the number was 70 (as in the "70 weeks" prophecy) the argument would be a bit more persuasive. But let's say this bit of "Bible numerology" is a correct understanding of Scripture. To arrive at "77" without this dubious second "Cainan" all we have to do is count Adam's father - "God" Himself - as listed in Luke 3:37 as #1 and we are back again to 77.
-
hillary_step
A Christian,
HS, You wrote: rather than facing the facts, many religionists fall back on the notion of "divine preservation".
I wonder what facts you feel I have not faced. That the Bible cannot possibly be anything more than a very ordinary collection of books just because it can be shown that those books have not all been perfectly preserved over the last 3,500 years?The facts that I am alluding to are the ones that I have been alluding to throughout this thread and that is that the Bible can be shown to be unreliable over matters of science, history and chronology. I also made note that many Christians only accept the fact that the Bible has not been "preserved", (and I deliberately leave out the usage of the word "perfectly" as used by yourself as it seems to intimate that the imperfections are slight when they are not), when all else fails.
Very few serious students of the scriptures believe that the Bible, as we now have it, contains perfectly preserved copies of all of the Bible writers' original written works. Rather most Christians believe as I do, that God saw to it to preserve all parts of the Bible that he considered to be essential for our salvation and important for our enlightenment.
Though I do not consider that a God had any responsibility in writing or preserving the Bible, I largely agree with you and have already made this point. The Bible is a book of "faith" and not a book that can be relied on historically, scientifically or chronologically. If that is what you are in essence stating, then we have found common ground.
What I find intellectually dishonest is the way that many Christians defend for example chronological details of the Bible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and when evidence comes home to roost they fall back on the "divine preservation" clause.
When it comes to matters such as inspired this discussion regarding Cainan, the Bible cannot be "half" reliable, it is either reliable or it is not. My argument is that if the Bible is not accurate over matters of geneology as Leo has shown, then I am suggesting that it would be a major breakthrough in "faith" when a person actually admits that over measurable issues the Bible cannot be relied on, but over unmeasurable ones such as "faith" it may.
Correct me if I am wrong. But It seems your understanding of the "facts" appears in your words, "... the Bible [is] a book of 'faith' but flawed when it comes to matters of history and science, and therefore not the literal and unimpeachable word of any God." If that is how you view the Bible it is certainly an understandable opinion. It is one I would now hold myself, especially when it comes to "matters of history," if not for the fact that my recent exhaustive studies into this subject matter have left me with exactly the opposite opinion.
I am intrigued A Christian. tell me more.
HS
-
Leolaia
I'll get to your questions later tonight....
-
a Christian
HS, You sound skeptical. As a former JW the subject of Bible chronology (and thus Bible history) always interested me. So for the past several years in my spare time I have been studying the subject matter. As you probably know the most difficult period in Bible chronology is the period of the divided monarchy. Compared to making sense of all that the Bible has to say about this period of Bible history all the rest is child's play. I recently completed my study of the chronology of the divided kingdom and am now in the process of recording the results of my study. I intend to publish my findings in a book which I am now writing. I have tentatively entitled this book, Forty-Two Kings and Two Queens - When They Reigned
( a new understanding of the chronological history of ancient Israel’s royal rulers,
fully harmonizing all highly regarded sacred and secular data ) My work on this matter does just as its subtitle indicates. It establishes full harmony between all of its subject's major extant witnesses. To begin with, while using only one calendar and one system of reckoning for all of the biblically recorded reigns of the kings of Israel, and again only one calendar and one system of reckoning for all of the biblically recorded reigns of the kings (and two queens) of Judah, it demonstrates that all Biblical (Masoretic Text) chronological information speaks in full agreement with itself. My work then goes on to show that nearly all extra-biblical chronological information now in our possession pertaining to this subject matter, both sacred and secular, is not only historically accurate but absolutely necessary for us to accept as such if we are to properly reconstruct the chronological history of the divided kingdom. When I here refer to "nearly all extra-biblical chronological information," I am referring to nearly all of the numerical data pertaining to all of the Hebrew monarchs' reigns and to all synchronisms linking the reigns of the kings of Israel and the monarchs of Judah which are found in non-Masoretic Text sacred documents. This includes nearly all "variant" chronological information found in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), and that which is found in what is commonly referred to as the "Lucianic recension" of the LXX (also called the "Antiochene text"), and that which is contained in the LXX Vaticanus, and that which is found in the works of Josephus, and that which is contained in the Chronicle of Eusebius. When I refer to "nearly all extra-Biblical chronological information," I am also referring to all chronological information which exists in the historical annals of the kings of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia connecting the histories of ancient Israel and Judah with the histories of their ancient neighboring nations. My chronological reconstruction of this time period demonstrates that virtually all of this often apparently contradictory extra-biblical information is, in fact, both totally accurate and fully complimentary to the Bible's own chronological information pertaining to this time period 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 rulers of Israel and Judah ruled their kingdoms. The only people who have ever come close to completely 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 ancient contemporary neighboring nations. They have done so by closely following both the text of scripture and respecting all of the dates which historians now provide to us for various extra biblical 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 study on this subject matter is that done by Edwin R. Thiele. It is contained in his book, The Mysterious Numbers of The Hebrew Kings. I consider my work to be far superior to Thiele's work on this subject matter in many ways. To begin with, it shows that the Bible contains no errors in its chronological data relating to the time of the divided kingdom. (As you probably know, Thiele was forced to conclude otherwise -as it sounds like you have been.) My studies also show all historical information found in the annals of Israel's and Judah's neighboring nations relating to this subject matter to be truthful. (Thiele disputed Sargon's claims to have been on Assyria's throne at the time of Samaria's capture.) My work offers a clear and reasonable interpretation of the "390" year and "40" year periods of time referenced in Ezek. 4:1-6. (Thiele completely ignored this matter. I believe that for any work of this type to be fully credible it must present a clear and convincing explanation of this passage of Scripture, an explanation which is in full agreement with the chronological reconstruction being presented.) My work also fully harmonizes many chronological "problems" ranging from Josephus' crediting Solomon with "80 years" of rule (Antiq. 7.8) to Jeremiah's "false" prophecy that no son of Jehoiakim would sit on the throne of David (Jer.36:30), along with making sense of many other chronological puzzles in between. (Thiele never tackled such problems.) Oh, by the way, the other Hebrew queen to whom I referred earlier - I said there were two and we all know Atheliah - was Maacah who served as her very young grandson Asa's coregent for the first five years of his rule until he was old enough to fully assume his responsibilities. (1 Ki.15:13; 2 Chron.15:16 ) Check the Hebrew. She was "Queen" during this time, not "queen-mother" as most translations tell us. Had Theile recognized this five year coregency, as I have done, he also may have been able to successfully reassemble this jigsaw puzzle. He was very close to doing so. 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 five 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 931/30 BC, but five years earlier in 935 BC. I think I have probably just written more than anyone here has read or cares to read. So I'll stop now. But I will again strongly disagree with your contention that the Bible can not be considered to be the unimpeachable word of God because it is flawed when it comes to matters of history and chronological detail. -
Inquisitor
johnny cip
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there 12 full moons in a year? Not 13? Hence would it be safe to say that you are essentially taking the lifespan years of the patriarchs to mean months? And if such was the case, the WTS already has a ready defense against such an assumption in the Reasoning book p.94.
To be fair to you, I suppose the WTS' response could also be used to counter any suggestion of an alternate calendar.
INQ
-
belbab
.
A Christian (with a capital A)
I have read your post about Forty-Two Kings and Two Queens twice today. I got up out of bed to write a brief reply . The power went out and I lost my post, but I am again writing you a note.
Your belief in the authenticity of the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures, in my opinion, have driven you to succeed in making a break through in synchronizing ancient chronology. Many others with out this certitude have not been able to do this.
Others and the knowledgeable persons posting on this thread will no doubt solidify and verify your calculations or if it does not hold water they will find the leaks. No doubt this thread will explode in the days to come.
I hope to add my slant not only on your point of view, but also on the viewpoints of those who do not hold the convictions that you have.
You have opened the flood gates, hold on, you are in for quite a boat ride.
belbab
-
a Christian
Belbab,
You wrote: You have opened the flood gates, hold on, you are in for quite a boat ride.
That will surprise me. For I believe this subject matter is much too tedious to interest many readers. And the few here who hold some interest in it will find my claim to be too incredible to believe and so will most likely dismiss me as a crackpot. The truth is, not until someone carefully examines my entire chronological reconstruction would they have any reason to believe me. And I am not now inclined to either provide, discuss, or defend every minute detail of my study in this kind of a forum. To do so would be much too time consuming.
I entered these treacherous waters in response to Hillary who told me that part of the reason he does not believe the Bible to be inspired by God is because of its alleged historical and chronological errors. I countered by telling him that part of why I do believe the Bible is inspired by God is because I have found it to contain a total lack of such errors. Since I made that claim I feel I have some obligation to defend it. But I have limited time to do so. So, hopefully, my guess is better than yours in how much interest this discussion will attract.
-
startingover
I have neither the time nor the ability to add to this discussion, other than this:
Believers want me to accept that there is a being who created everything around us. including the vast expanse of the universe, and the best way he could come up with to inform mankind of his wishes was through an instrument such as the bible.
Seriously, you've got to be kidding me.