Just because a person goes to school and figures out how to spell the word "flawed" does not make that person a scholar.
Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson
by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Alleymom
City Fan wrote: 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.
The quote City Fan is referring to is: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
I recall the WT publishing a list of the "seven messengers" with Martin Luther listed as one of the seven messengers (Russell, of course, was #7). Considering Luther's emphasis on "sola scriptura" it is ironic that Scholar now falls back on Magisterium. And isn't that what the Society bashes the Roman Catholics for, their view of the Magisterium?
Over in the KISS thread I talked about the poem "The Blind Man and the Elephant". For the first 50 years of their existence, the Bible Students proclaimed that Jesus had returned invisibly in 1874. Russell had numerous "scriptural proofs" for his chronology. They kept on proclaiming that Jesus had returned in 1874 for some years after he supposedly really returned in 1914. It's as if they were saying, "Come see the elephant. Let me be your guide to the elephant." And then, some years later, they started saying, "We were wrong. There was no elephant then, but there is one now. He's been here for a few years, and we just noticed. Come, see the elephant. Let us be your guide to the elephant." Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Why should I accept their appeal to Magisterium when they couldn't even tell whether or not the Lord Jesus had returned? They used "scriptural proofs" the first time, and they are using "scriptural proofs" the second time. Marjorie -
Alleymom
Scholar to Simwitness: There is no room for dogmatism in chronology and you accuse the Society of enforcing such as dogma.
But they have enforced it, haven't they? A while ago I visited a site Mouthy had posted with her audio testimony, and IIRC, she was DF'd because she couldn't accept the 1914 date. (If I am wrong about this, please correct me.)
Aren't there many other instances of people who were DF'd over the chronology?
Marjorie
-
Mr. Kim
Everyone has an idea. How many are truly proven?
A lot of people have viewed this topic. Are questions being raised within the Borg-Org? Are people starting to do SOME thinking?
-
Alleymom
AlanF ---
I was looking at the appendix in Kennedy's article (cited earlier tonight) and he lists all the intercalary months for Nabopolassar. He adds, "There is a complete run of intercalary months from year 19 of Kandalanu through the neo-Babylonian period." p. 222.
I know you are familiar with Parker and Dubberstein's list of intercalary months.
I had a thought, and I wanted to run it by you. Since the data for the intercalary months reflects Babylonian knowledge of the 19-year system (even though the 19-year system was not standardized until later) wouldn't it be impossible to add "missing years" to the regnal years without disrupting the extant pattern of intercalation?
I don't recall seeing this discussed anywhere, but it seems to me that trying to shoehorn in extra years would mess up the known intercalation, just as adding extra years to our calendar would mess up the known leap years.
It's as if a future historian would try to say there should be an extra two years after Carter or an extra year after Reagan, etc. But if the leap years before and after those presidents were known beyond doubt, then trying to add an extra year here or there would mess up the 4-year cycle of leap years.
You can't revise history; it's like trying to force in extra jigsaw pieces to a puzzle which has already been pieced together.
What do you think?
Marjorie
-
scholar
Alleymom
I am fully aware of the abudant material pertaining to Babylonian chronology akin to Jonsson;s 14 line sof evidence. However, this material conflicts with reigns of the Kings for Judah and Israel and the direct scriptural chronology for 607, So you make your choice and I will make mine ut whiuch schema is one to be trusted.
You make much of Daniel 2:1 so I simply state that again the matter of kingship is involved as per the NWT's rendering. You assume incorrectly that the second year of Neb is the second regnal year of Neb. The society in its wisdom along with other authorities view the second year of his kingship pertaining to his domination as a new world ruler over the Davidic kingdom. So, one counts the second year of kingship from the momentous date of 607. Boy, that was not hard to follow was it?
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
-
Alleymom
However, this material conflicts with reigns of the Kings for Judah and Israel
How can the neo-Babylonian material possibly conflict with the reigns of the kings of Israel? Israel had ceased to exist by then. We are only concerned with the last kings of Judah.
Actually, if you want to discuss the destruction of Jerusalem, we are only concerned with the reign of one king: Zedekiah.
you make your choice and I will make mine ut whiuch schema is one to be trusted.
But since this is a discussion forum and you have said that you are a scholar, shouldn't you be willing to explain the reason for your choice?
You assume incorrectly that the second year of Neb is the second regnal year of Neb.
No, no, a thousand times no! You have not followed what I said. For the sake of argument, I was willing to accept YOUR claim that Daniel 1:1 is Neb's 7th year and Daniel 2:1 is Neb's 20th year, even though that is not what the text actually says. My question has been how this fits with the Bible's statements that the boys took a three-year training course.
If Daniel 1:1 refers to Neb's 7th year and Daniel 2:1 refers to his 20th year, and if the boys took a 3-year training course, then please explain:
(Year 7 of Neb) + ( 3-year training) = (Year 20 of Neb.)
Boy, that was not hard to follow was it?
It wasn't hard to follow, but it had nothing at all to do with my question.
Marjorie
-
Alleymom
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.
Scholar,
Now that I have explained to you what it is that I am really asking, could you please, in light of 1 Peter 3:15, answer my question?
And if you don't have an answer, could you please acknowledge that so I don't have to keep wondering what the WT position on this is?
Thank you,
Marjorie -
scholar
Alleymom
I cannot understand your question about the three years of education in relation to the kingships of Jehoiakim and Neb. If you are such an expert on chronology why could you answer that yourself?
Simply speaking, Daniel and the other youths were deported to Babylon in 617 BCE which was the third and last year of Jehoiakim's reign and the seventh regnal year of Neb according to Dan 1:1. Now, Daniel 2:1 refers to Neb's kingship which began in 607 and thus his second year would have been his 20 th regnal year in 605 BCE. So, there is a span of some 12 years between Dan 1:1 and 2:1. During that time Daniel and his companions as youths completed three years of high education. The account does not tell us when the training began and when it finished but there was enough to for the three year process to be concludede so as by the time Neb received his first dream, Daniel was old enough and of sufficient status to be able to interpret that dream.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
-
Earnest
Hi Marjorie,
I can just imagine how pleased you are to find people who are as interested as you are in neo-Babylonian chronolgy. And it must be evident how welcome you are with the abundance of material and clear thinking you bring with you.
You asked about previous discussions on chronology on this forum. The most recent was entitled "So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?" which was started at the end of last year and is linked here. As "scholar" has contributed to most threads on chronology you could also check his post history (here) to identify other threads on the subject.
Thanks for your reference to Mark Mercer's article. I was not familiar with it and will definitely have a look at it this week. By the way, one of the articles he references is "R. Frankena, "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon," OTS 14 (1965): 152". Can you confirm what journal he is referring to? I assume Old Testament Studies but the series I have access to finished in 1956!?
In your post of 01-Aug-03 12:52 to "scholar" you proposed:
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?
A possible alternative seems to me to involve a longer reign for Evil-Merodach than is recorded. An interesting anomaly in Josephus is his account of Evil-Merodach. In Against Apion, 1.20 he says:
[Berosus] says in his third book :-"Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the fore-mentioned wall, fell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissoor, his sister's husband, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two years..."
But in Antiquities of the Jews, 10.11.2 he says:
When Evil-Merodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Neglissar his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life; and after him the succession in the kingdom came to
his son Labosordacus, who continued in it in all but nine months; and when he was dead, it came to Baltasar...I wondered what the cause of this might be and note that the mother of Nabonidus was banished from the court of Evil-Merodach, "or absented herself, no doubt for the reasons, whatever they were, which earned that king an evil repute in the official tradition; this is represented by a stigma in Nabonidus (S.Langdon, VAB. IV, Nabon. no. 8, col. IV, 37 ff.; cf. ANET. p.309) and also by a statement in Josephus (from Berossus) that he ruled 'lawlessly and wantonly'." - The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus, Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, p.70.
This lady was not someone to be messed with. She was the power behind the throne (of Nabonidus). My hypothesis is that after Nabonidus became king the memory of Evil-Merodach was expunged from the records. If this is true it would add on another 20 years to the period (Josephus says 18, the Gemara (Megilah 11b) says 22/23). What do you think?
Earnest