Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  That's right, not one of those 22 scholars affirmed 607. Boy, was I unhappy about that but what to do. I simply comforted myself with a glass of Jim Bean and said to myself: May Jehovah be praised for raising up WT scholars who are smarter than those Christendom's scholars and those wiley poztates. And to think that these scholars cannot bridge that one year of complexity for they have hung themselves up on higher criticism, if they only would listen to the FDS.

  lol.....Well, I salute your good nature and humor Neil.

  Who knows, one day in a fit of hedonistic courage on your part we might even share a drink together. Who knows again, the WTS might one day take a leaf from the SDA handbook, grow up and stop its cultic methodology of demonizing those who question its theology.

  Let us drink to that day.

  Kind regards - HS
• 

  Alleymom

  Response to Scholar's post #581

  [...] it was only just a few months earlier that another study was published in the journal Biblica by Michael Avioz on the same subject of 'When Was the First Temple Destroyed, According to the Bible'. The author of this study concludes that "It seems that the contradiction between the books of Kings and Jeremiah regarding the date of the First Temple's destruction cannot be resolved either by textual emendation or by chronological sol.utions'

  Neil --

  You left out the final two sentences of Avioz's concluding paragraph.

  It seems that the contradiction between the books of Kings and Jeremiah regarding the date of the First Temple's destruction cannot be resolved either by textual emendation or by chronological solutions. We hold that there is no point in trying to harmonize these contradictory dates, and that only one of the dates should be regarded as ancient. This date, according to our view, is the tenth of Ab, as is written in Jeremiah 52 Michael Avioz. "When Was the First Temple Destroyed, According to the Bible?" Biblica 84 (2003) 562-565
  
  

  http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibli84.html

  Marjorie
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Reply to gibberish 4086

  I am not interested in posting a refutation point by point of Younger's thesis as I am not familiar with the technique he uses nor I suspect are other scholars and chronologists but I would much rather dance with you than with Younger. The focus of Younger's article was indeed methodology as illustrated by the technique he then uses in connection of establishing a more precise date for the Fall. This third article needs to read against the backdrop of his two previous arrticles which are about methodology and interpretation.

  Those eleven scholars have told me that those other scholars who prefer 587 should be placed in a lunatic assylum so that is there problem not mine. WT scholars have no problems. We are part of a happy and united throng.

  Here again you quote opinion as fact, Younger seeks to harmonize the scriptural data but other scholars would disagree with his results as shown byt the fact that this matter is currently being debated with no final oucomes. It would seem that this is one problem that will never be solved unless scholars change their methodology and take not of the seventy years.

  As usual I have to baby you and hold your hand. The jounal Biblica is available online and you only need to key in 2003. However, let me warn you that if you wish to go down the road of solving the knotty problem of 586/7 you will need to much further reading of the subject, do not rely just on the most recent articles because this subjject has more needles than a porcupine. Perhaps when you have finished this as a project then have it published in a journal or include it as an addendum to Jonsson's GTR.

  scholar JW
• 

  Alleymom

  Neil --

  Have you actually read Avioz's article?

  It starts out " When was the first Temple destroyed, according to the Bible? We find two contradictory answers to this question, one in 2 Kgs 25,7-8, and the other in Jer 52,12. "

  He then quotes those two passages:

  Jer 52,12-13 In the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month,
  which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadrezzar,
  king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan ... burned the house

  2 Kgs 25,8-9

  In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month,
  which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar,
  king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan ... burned the house

  Neil, the article is about whether the Temple was destroyed on the tenth day of the month or the seventh day of the month.

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Response to Scholar's message #587 to Alan ---

  As usual I have to baby you and hold your hand. The jounal Biblica is available online and you only need to key in 2003. However, let me warn you that if you wish to go down the road of solving the knotty problem of 586/7 you will need to much further reading of the subject, do not rely just on the most recent articles because this subjject has more needles than a porcupine.

  Since the Biblica article is talking about whether the Temple was destroyed on the seventh day of the month or the tenth day of the month, then, yes, I would agree that one would have to do further reading if one had any interest in the 586/7 problem.

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar
  Post 587 of 587

  A special number, to be sure!
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Indeed I have, for it is one of the most recent articles focussing on the time of the Fall in company with a plethora of articles over the years concerning the timing of this most significant event. It well illustrates the fact that the chronology od this single event is very complex because of the many issues concerning calenders. If you turn to page 2 under the heading 2. Chronological solutions, you will notice that the crux of the matter concerns differing calendrical systems which goes to the heart of the 586/587 debate. So, this article is not just about months but has a much broader context.

  My purpose in citing this article is not to debate these issues because IMHO they are irrelevant. WT chronology is not affected by the controversies of men for it simply flies above the surface easily arring at point A to point B. Anyway, Enjoy!

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Response to 587

  Marjorie

  Boy, you are a sharp one. Even I did not notice that. I wonder if Alan noticed that too for it just goes to show that life is full of coincidences. Perhaps, it proves that even though I am a devotee of 607, I have a equal fascination with 587, Ah, it is time to meet with Jim Bean methinks.

  Regards

  scholar
• 

  Alleymom

  Response to Scholar

  :If you turn to page 2 under the heading 2. Chronological solutions, you will notice that the crux of the matter concerns differing calendrical systems which goes to the heart of the 586/587 debate.

  2 . Chronological SolutionsSome scholars, who dealt with the chronology of the monarchic period, recorded both of the dates mentioned without coming down on one side or the other 4 .
  
  Other scholars suggest solving the contradiction between Kings and Jeremiah by positing that the chronologies used in the two books differ: according to one chronological system the year began at Nisan while according to the other system at Tishri 5 . These scholars dealt primarily with the differences between Kings and Jeremiah in regard to the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25,8; Jer 52,29), but did not discuss the contradictory dates of the Temple's destruction.
  
  4 See the bibliography cited in D.J.A. CLINES, "Regnal Year Reckoning in the Last Years of the Kingdom of Judah", On the Way to the Postmodern. Old Testament Essays 1967-1998 (JSOTSS 292; Sheffield 1998) I, 395-425. See also G. GALIL, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (Leiden ? New York 1996) 118, 158.
  
  5 For bibliography see CLINES, "Regnal Year".

  Neil,

  He's saying that the other scholars listed in these bibliographies were concerned with the apparent contradiction between 2 Kings 25:8 and Jer. 52:29 ("nineteenth year" vs. "eighteenth year") rather than the apparent contradiction between 2 kings 25:8 and Jer. 52:12 ("seventh day" vs. "tenth day").
  
  Avioz is interested in the question of which day the temple was destroyed on, not which year.

  Note his summary of the article:

  This article deals with the contradiction between 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 52 regarding the date on which the First Temple was destroyed. Comparing the descriptions of the destruction in Kings and in Jeremiah shows that the two descriptions were borrowed from a common third source. In our view, this common third source is better preserved in Jeremiah 52 than in 2 Kings 25. We therefore deduce that Jeremiah 52 preserves the more exact date of the Temple's destruction: the tenth of Ab.

  He doesn't even mention 586 or 587 in the summary, because that's not what his article is about. His article is about whether the Temple was destroyed on the tenth of Ab or the seventh of Ab.

  Incidentally, can you tell me what the WTS position is on that question? Thank you.

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  :If you turn to page 2 under the heading 2. Chronological solutions,

  BTW, heading 2, "Chronological Solutions," starts on page 562, not page 2.