Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Alleymom

  Simwitness -- "Language is language."

  On p. 7 of the thread, 18 July, 23:16, Simwitness asked scholar:
  
  Please explain ... How "kingship" is any different than "reign" when the verse says "In the third year of".???

  Sim --

  That's a good question which was never answered.

  Earlier (p. 9, July 25, 00:58) I gave the example of a hypothetical fragment written in Hebrew. Suppose the fragment reads "In the third year of the malkut of King ...." The name of the king is missing.

  Do we translate it: "in the third year of the reign of King ..."

  or do we translate it: "in the third year of the kingship of King ..."

  And is there a difference? If we translate "kingship" will that be implying that the unknown king was a vassal?

  Can we translate this based on language alone? Or do we need to know who the king is?

  If "language is language" I think we ought to be able to translate the fragment even though we don't know who the king is. Don't you agree?

  And doesn't this show that Earnest was right when he said:

  I find his contention that the translation of "malkuth" demonstrates something unusual about Jehoiakim's reign to be as irrelevant as the Seder Olam.
  
  ... Of course, "scholar" is as entitled to his pet theories as anybody else but my opinion is that it has more to do with chasing hares than discussing chronology.
  
  Earnest, p. 9, 25 July, 20:52

  I agree with Earnest. Scholar is chasing hares, not discussing chronology.
  
  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar --

  Isn't it time to put aside all the irrelevant issues of SDA beliefs, alleged differences between "kingship" and "reign", anonymous Jewish commentators, etc., and focus on the chronology?

  The dated cuneiform business and legal tablets establish the beginning and end of each king's reign. The WT accepted those lengths of reign in the 1965 article cited on p. 1, message #2 of the KISS thread.

  If you start with your own date of 539 and count backwards through the kings, you do not arrive at 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem. Your system is internally inconsistent and therefore is fatally flawed.

  Is it your position that there was an unknown neo-Babylon king who is not mentioned anywhere in the thousands of contract tablets or in any of the inscriptions or in the official histories?

  Or is it your position that there was an interregnum period when there was no king? But the tablets are dated successively and show no such gap.

  Or do you suggest that one of the kings reigned for a longer period than is recorded? But then how would you explain that the tablets of the next month (or sometimes the next few days or weeks) show the name of the new king. There is just no room for extra years.

  I can think of no other alternatives than these three. Can anyone else?

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Did anyone with an email address of something like "jwbroadcast2" write to me? I'm sorry, but I deleted it unread because it had a picture attached and I do not know the sender. Please P.M. me if you want to get in touch again.

  (My husband uses this machine for business and he is very particular about having me open mail from unknown senders.)

  Marjorie
• 

  simwitness

  Scholar...
  
  You are the one suggesting that the word has a different meaning here than it does elsewhere. It is up to you to provide evidence to that affect beyond supposition and your "belief". The burden of proof is upon you, not I.
  
  In addition, As Marjorie has already shown, the evidence has already been presented that proves the other point (which is that malkut means kingship or reign, but not vassalage, and that there is atleast one other word that Daniel could have used if he indeed meant vassalage).
  
  You also state:
  SDA chronology has very little in common with WT chronology but is the foundation for the Jonsson hypothesis because of its many exegitical similarities. You express concern about my lack of definition, well, there is not much room for dogmatism in biblical chronology because there is very little consensus about such matters, An example would be that there is no agreement about the seventy years and the date for the fall of Jerusalem. So, you have big problems if ypu reject the straight forward WT chronology.
  
  If there is "no room for dogmatism in biblical chronology", then what business is it of the Watchtower's to require it's members adhere to a chronology that is not supported anywhere but in the watchtowser's literature?
  
  There is agreement, among many, about the fall of Jerusalem, it just doesnt agree with what the Watchtower claims it to be.
  
  I'll admit that I do not know the particulars about the "SDA Chronology", but I do know the roots of the organization, and they are common with the Watchtower's.
  
  Marjorie,
  
  I agree with your statements about "Language is Language"...but then, that's the simple way, isn't it?
  
  
  I'm not a scholar, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  You ask concerning the neo- Babylonian tablets concerning their list of kings and why should we not use these counting back from 539 whether one would arrive at 607. Clearly the answer is no. However that is not the basis of WT chronology as it uses 539 as a fixed date and counting forward to the decree of Cyrus in 537 endind the 70 years of desolation and exile we proceed back to 607. You cannot get anything more simple and is testified by direct reaing of texts.

  I do not give a hoot about reconciling the secular data or Jonsson's flawed 14 lines of so called evidence. You have to decide what to accept and what is most credible. The Bible or secular chronology. The wise and smart Christian will always put God's Word first.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  scholar

  simwitness

  I repeat malkut does not mean vassalage as I have already stated and at last ypu agree that it can mean kingship. Because of what we know about the kingship of Jehoiakim as recored in the Bible and Josephus, it is obvious that vassalage were an important feature of his kingship or reign. Got it!

  There is no room for dogmatism in chronology and you accuse the Society of enforcing such as dogma. That is contrary to my observation but please keep in mind that the Church has authority in such matters as its teachings are based upon three elements: Bible, Tradition and Magisterium or Governing Body with its Faithful and Discreet Slave. So if it does make doctines or teachings for the faithful then it is doing so under the guidance and soirit direction of the our Lord and Saviour. Jesus Cjrist. Amen.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  rem

  This is what Scholar would have said in Galileo's day:

  I do not give a hoot about reconciling the observable evidence or Galileo's flawed calculations. You have to decide what to accept and what is most credible. The Bible or objective evidence. The wise and smart Christian will always put God's Word first and accept that it is the Sun that moves, and not the Earth.

  rem
• 

  Alleymom

  You ask concerning the neo- Babylonian tablets concerning their list of kings

  No, I didn't. I am NOT talking about "king lists".

  Most people don't understand that there are different types of tablets, different genres, if you will.

  There are histories, such as the Babylonian Chronicles.
  There are inscriptions.
  There are astronomical and mathematical texts.
  There are stamped clay bricks used in buildings.
  
  
  But what I am talking about are the thousands of mundane tablets which deal with ordinary, everyday life. Just as we all have piles of dated documents around our own homes, the neo-Babylonians had dated records of their ordinary transactions.
  
  Bills of sale, invoices, promissory notes, letters about dividing inheritances, bookkeeping accounts of cattle herds, etc. etc. Just boring, everyday activities, but because they were recorded on clay tablets, they have been preserved in the tens of thousands. These tablets do not have lists of kings. They are simply everyday documents dated to the month, day, and year of the current king.

  And we have dated tablets for each year of each king. I was just looking over my files, and the records for Nabopolassar alone go on for page after page after page.

  The evidence is so conclusive and so overwhelming that I can only think that perhaps you have never spent time looking at the texts of the actual tablets. If you have confined your research on chronology to secondary and tertiary sources, that may be why you just don't seem to grasp the sheer volume of data which we have.

  If you refuse to accept the conventional chronology's list of kings and regnal lengths, then, logically, you must be positing a) an unknown king or kings, b) interregnum years, or c) additional years for one of the known kings.

  It is interesting, however, that the WT is on record for accepting the known kings with their immediate successors and with the conventional regnal lengths. Do you consider the WT to have erred when it published that information?

  For anyone who cares, the article I was looking at is D.A. Kennedy, "Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of Early neo-Babylonian Society. Part II: A Survey of Babylonian texts, 626 - 605 BC, " Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2, 1986, pp. 172 - 244.

  The list of published dated tablets for Nabopolassar extends from p. 178 - p. 214 in Kennedy's article.

  I do not give a hoot about reconciling the secular data or Jonsson's flawed 14 lines of so called evidence. You have to decide what to accept and what is most credible. The Bible or secular chronology. The wise and smart Christian will always put God's Word first.

  This has nothing to do with Jonsson. Academic journal articles do not include him in their footnotes. He has done an outstanding job of collating and summarizing the data, but he is not proposing any new hypothesis.
  
  And, again, you are simply deluding yourself if you think there is a dichotomy between the Bible and secular chronology. Don't you realize that "real" history and Bible history agree?

  The conventional chronology is in complete harmony with the Bible, whereas the WT chronology is at odds with the Bible. To take one example, you cannot reconcile Daniel 2:1 and the three years training, can you? I have asked and asked you to explain how year 7 + 3-years-training = year 20. Since you have failed to respond, I can only assume that you do not have an answer.

  Marjorie
• 

  City Fan

  the Church has authority in such matters as its teachings are based upon three elements: Bible, Tradition and Magisterium or Governing Body with its Faithful and Discreet Slave

  Scholar's posts amuse and annoy me at the same time. This last quote though has convinced me that he is simply taking the mickey.
• 

  City Fan

  By the way Marjorie your posts in this and the KISS thread have been excellent. I've enjoyed reading every single post. Please keep up the good work.