Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  setfreefinally

  Scholar said:

  Alan F as usual rants and raves in frustration and one suspects if he had a chance he would be a good book burner. He would destroy all books that clash with his pet theories. Do not give him the keys to the library.

  Actually I think Alan strives very hard to get to the bottom of the issue and strives to give an honest assessment of both sides of an issue. I also appreciate it very much when both parties remain civil with each other and just present the facts and or misconceptions from both sides and let the reader determine what is most accurate way of looking at a point of contention or belief.

  BTW, I did take you up on your offer to read COJ's GTR book. I haven't finished it yet. I realize the both of you have done a lot more research than most of us on this board and I really appreciate hearing from both of you as I can glean important information without having to spend years at the library or spending hundreds of dollars on books.

  SFF
• 

  Alleymom

  The Society's approach is nice and simple and even though it clashes with the problematics of secular chronology, it is sufficient for the genuine Christian to have faith in the fulfillment in the Lord's prophetic word.

  Scholar--

  I'm not quite sure what you mean by the phrase "the problematics of secular chronology." Leaving that aside, the Society's approach certainly does clash with secular chronology; but, more importantly, it clashes with Bible chronology. The Society tries to hide this, but their chronology cannot possible be reconciled with Daniel 1:1. Are you aware of that?

  As you have pointed out (via a rather laborious route --- I can't understand why on earth you recommend books like the Companion Bible and Sequence of Events merely to make the rather obvious point that there are Bible scholars who disagree with the WT's interpretation of the "70 years". <s>! ) there are other interpretations of the 70 years.

  What makes your interpretation any better than the others, especially in light of the fact that other Bible scholars' interpretations of the "70 years for Babylon" mesh very beautifully with the secular chronology and yours does not?

  And if, for some strange reason, we are going to close our eyes to the facts of history and choose a particular religious chronology which does not mesh with secular chronology, why should we choose yours instead of the Rabbinic chronology of the Seder Olam? The Jews have been on the scene a bit longer than the modern descendants of the Russellites. You referred to "the Jewish traditional understanding of the seventy years.based upon Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10; Daniel 9:1,2." The Seder Olam does not mesh with secular chronology and neither does the WT's chronology.

  The Society's approach is nice and simple and even though it clashes with the problematics of secular chronology, it is sufficient for the genuine Christian to have faith in the fulfillment in the Lord's prophetic word.

  Surely you do not mean to say that because I reject your chronology, which clashes with a) secular chronology, b) other Bible scholars' interpretations, and c) orthodox Jewish chronology, I am not a genuine Christian?!

  I do not believe the Lord Jesus returned in 1914. Neither did any of the Bible Students/Russellites believe that for the first fifty years of their existence. They believed Jesus returned in 1874. Were they genuine Christians, in your opinion? Their chronology was wrong. Of course, they did have faith that the Lord will fulfill his prophetic word. But then, I, too believe that He will fulfill his prophetic word. I just don't believe He prophesied in Scripture that He would return in 1914.

  If believing the Lord returned in 1914 is the one distinguishing hallmark of a true Christian, then Russell and all of the original Bible Students were not true Christians. If, on the other hand, having faith that the Lord will fulfill his prophetic word is the hallmark of a genuine Christian, then it doesn't matter whether or not I believe in a different chronology, as long as I believe the Lord will fulfill his word.

  (Scholar, please, please take note -- I do not ask you this in order to have us start pointing fingers at each other and saying,"You're not a genuine Christian." Not at all! I would just like you to stop and consider where your statement leads if you follow it through logically.)

  I do not support its findings because it is at variance with our understanding of this period.

  But by that reasoning, you are bound forever to hold to the current teachings of the Society. Any "new light" would be at variance with your present understanding.

  The early Bible Students believed Christ returned in 1874. If they had been presented with a strange new teaching that he had not really returned at all but would be returning in 1914, wouldn't they have been justified in refusing to support the findings because the new teaching was "at variance" with the understanding of that period?

  However they were not presented with that teaching any time before 1914. In fact, 1914 came and went, and the organization still taught, and the Bible Students still believed, that Christ had come in 1874. They were firmly convinced that this was the chronology taught in the Bible, and they evinced numerous Scriptural "proofs" to back up their beliefs. Even after Christ supposedly returned in 1914, they still kept teaching and believing he had returned in 1874. And, what is more, by your reasoning, they would have been right to reject any new finding that he had really returned in 1914, not in 1874, because that finding would have been at variance with their understanding of the chronology.

  Thoughtfully,
  Marjorie
• 

  AlanF

  To "scholar":

  : I have a personal copies of the Companion Bible and 'The Sequence Of Events In The Old Testament by Eliezer Shulman which was published in 1987 and in English.

  Now that we have that cleared up, I'm glad to note that you finally took the time to get the spelling of Shulman's name right. Now, before you think to complain about minor things like spelling mistakes, note that when a real scholar gives a source reference, he makes sure that the reference is correct so that his readers can check the reference without jumping through hoops. This lack on your part is just one more piece of the overall puzzle that when put together screams "pseudoscholar". But of course, the biggest problem here is your a priori commitment to Watchtower teaching, because no matter what any evidence or reference said, you, as a loyal JW would go along with it.

  : The relevant information is found on page 143 and simply contains a chart illustrating the Jewish traditional understanding of the seventy years.based upon Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10; Daniel 9:1,2. The diagram speaks for itself and in my mind simply illustrates the complexity of the nature, duration and chronology of this critical period of Judean history.

  Yes, it's complex, but the period of Neo-Babylonian history is quite simple, and has been unraveled nicely by modern secular historians and good biblical scholars. The fact that this unraveling also unravels Watchtower claims is your lookout.

  : I do not support its findings because it is at variance with our understanding of this period.

  Fair enough. But you presented the references AS IF they supported your specific claims. You are thoroughly dishonest. It is obvious, from your actions, that this dishonesty works well to impress your fellow JWs. We are not your fellow JWs.

  : The Society's approach is nice and simple

  Nice and simple and wrong. Wrong because it clashes both with the Bible and with secular history. It conflicts with many scriptures and requires others to be interpreted in a ridiculous manner. JWs have no explanations at all for certain scriptures. But you already know all this.

  : and even though it clashes with the problematics of secular chronology, it is sufficient for the genuine Christian to have faith in the fulfillment in the Lord's prophetic word.

  Ah, here's the old JW standby: genuine Christians are those who subscribe to JW claims.

  : Alan F as usual rants and raves in frustration

  I'm not frustrated -- merely amused at you, "scholar". I always enjoy showing an audience how dishonest and dumb a JW apologist can be when he really tries. I just you enough rope, and you do the rest.

  : and one suspects if he had a chance he would be a good book burner. He would destroy all books that clash with his pet theories. Do not give him the keys to the library.

  On the contrary, I have extensive collections of various genres of the ridiculous, such as books by Young-Earth Creationists. I have an extensive collection of JW literature, which has a prominent place in the section of my library labeled, "from Clown Prince Publishers".

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  If you know anything chronology you would appreciate its complexity as shown in the simple fact that there is very little in biblical chronology that is fully agreed upon by current scholarship. There are in fact very few dates that are established and accepted. A very good example is the interpretation of Daniel 1:1 you try that one as an exercise. The reason why I mentioned the Companion Bible and the Sequence book is simply to show that from a simple exegetical viewpoint that there is disagreement about the seventy years whether it supports one postion or another, in other words to put the matter bluntly; no one has a clue about the matter. Even the society's viewpoint is simply that, you have to make a choice as what youwill believe.

  In the final analysis any system of biblical chronology must be built on faith and not the theories ogf higher and modern critics who must bend the rules to fit the facts such as the Thiele and Jonsson hypothesis. I for one believe that the genuine Christian must be loyal first and foremost to God's pprophetic word even though it clashes with current chronology.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  Alleymom

  If you know anything chronology you would appreciate its complexity as shown in the simple fact that there is very little in biblical chronology that is fully agreed upon by current scholarship.

  It is because I do know quite a bit about chronology that I appreciate that there are several dates in Biblical chronology which ARE agreed upon; namely 597, 586/7, and 539. In fact, the WTS itself teaches that scholars agree on the date of 539.
  

  Scholar, don't you believe that current scholarship is fully agreed on the 539 date? This is what the WTS teaches.

  An elder recently gave me an article which says that the WT accepts 539 as the starting point for their calculations precisely because modern scholars agree on this date. The article even says that 539 is an absolute date.

  Watchtower 8/15/1968 p. 490 "The Book of Truthful Historical Dates"
  
  THE ABSOLUTE DATE OF 539 B.C.E
  ...the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars.
  
  Recognized authorities of today accept 539 B.C.E. without any question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great. In addition to the above quotations the following gives a small sampling from books of history representing a cross section of both general reference works and elementary textbooks. These brief quotations also show that this is not a date recently suggested, but one thoroughly investigated and generally accepted for the past sixty years.
  
  ... With the date 539 B.C.E. so firmly fixed and agreed to by so many scholars, we are quite confident where we stand today in relation to the fall of Babylon twenty-five centuries ago. October 6, 1968, will mark 2,506 years since the fall of that third world empire. Other important events which occurred prior to 539 may now be quite accurately dated.
  Study Questions
  
  12. What absolute date do we have in connection with the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus?
  
  18. (a) On what date do some twenty historians and commentators agree? (b) Has this agreement only recently been reached?

  Scholar, do you believe that 539 is a fixed, absolute date, as the WT teaches?

  Do you agree with the statement, "Recognized authorities of today accept 539 B.C.E. without any question"?

  Do you agree that, "Other important events which occurred prior to 539 may now be quite accurately dated."?

  Respectfully,
  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  In the final analysis any system of biblical chronology must be built on faith and not the theories ogf higher and modern critics who must bend the rules to fit the facts such as the Thiele and Jonsson hypothesis.

  Scholar, the WTS has referenced Thiele as an authority. Read the footnote in the following article. If Thiele is someone who "bend[s] the rules to fit the facts," then why did the WT cite him as an authority?
  

  Watchtower 2/1/1955 p. 94 Questions from Readers
  
  In Assyria, Babylon and Persia, when a king first came to the throne, the year was usually called the king’s accession year, and not until the first day of the first month of the next year did the king begin counting events in his own first regnal year.*
  
  The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, by E. R. Thiele, 1951, p. 14.

  In the final analysis any system of biblical chronology must be built on faith

  I thought any system of biblical chronology had to be based on an absolute, fixed date. How do you build a system of chronology on "faith"?

  The 1955 WT article I cited above says:

  "Reliable Bible chronology requires the determination of certain Absolute dates."

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar said:

  A very good example is the interpretation of Daniel 1:1 you try that one as an exercise.

  Okay, I'd be happy to try this as an exercise!

  In a previous post I said that Daniel 1:1 conflicts with WT chronology.

  Here is why I said that.

  Daniel 1:1 " In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it."

  Jeremiah 25:1 "The word that occurred to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah, that is, the first year of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon"

  From these two verses it is clear that:

  Year 4 of Jehoiakim = First Year of Nebuchadnezzar
  Year 3 of Jehoiakim = Year before the first year of Nebuch.

  So Daniel 1:1 tells us that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem the year before he became King of Babylon. As we continue reading in Daniel 1, we find that he took captives, including Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and Daniel. This happened the year before Nebuchadnezzar became King of Babylon.

  Is this what the WT teaches? Do they follow God's inspired word which tells us that Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Daniel, and some other young men were taken captive the year before Nebuchadnezzar became King of Babylon?

  No, the WT denies that this important Bible event occurred at that time!

  "Kingdom Come" p. 188 Appendix to Chapter 14
  
  Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this. More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year and his 23rd year, not his accession year

  The WT claims that Nebuchadnezzar did NOT take captives during his accession year, even though Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 very clearly show that Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, along with other young nobles, were taken captive the year before Nebuchadnezzar became king.

  If the WT does not believe these young Jews were taken captive during Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, as the Bible teaches, when do they believe it took place?

  Watchtower 1/1/1965 p. 10 Does Your Worship to God Come First?HISTORIC EXAMPLEFor a moment let us move farther back into history to 617 B.C.E. In that year Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, took many Israelites captive to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar chose certain ones of the children of Israel, of the royal seed, to get special training in his court. The best ones were selected, the ones with good appearance, those having insight into all wisdom, and being acquainted with knowledge and good discernment. These were to stand in the palace of the king. Instructions were given to teach these young folks the writing and the tongue of the Chaldeans. In order that they might receive good food, "the king appointed a daily allowance from the delicacies of the king and from his drinking wine, even to nourish them for three years, that at the end of these they might stand before the king."—Dan. 1:1-5.

  They teach that this important Bible event occurred in 617 BCE. But what year was that in terms of Nebuchadnezzar's reign?

  Insight, vol. 2 p. 480 NebuchadnezzarNebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.)

  So in the WT's official chronology, the year 617 BCE was Nebuchadnezzar's 7th or 8th year (depending on whether accession or non-accession year dating is used).

  624 = year 0 or year 1
  623 = year 1 or year 2
  622 = year 2 or year 3
  621 = year 3 or year 4
  620 = year 4 or year 5
  619 = year 5 or year 6
  618 = year 6 or year 7
  617 = year 7 or year 8

  Scholar, the Bible teaches that:

  Year 4 of Jehoiakim = First Year of Nebuchadnezzar
  Year 3 of Jehoiakim = Year before the first year of Nebuch.

  Daniel 1:1 says that the young men were taken captive in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim .

  The WT falsely claims:

  1) That Nebuchadnezzar did not take any captives during his accession year
  2) That Daniel and the others were captured during Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year.

  These two WT teachings are in opposition to the Bible chronology of Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1.

  Marjorie
• 

  IslandWoman

  Hi Marjorie,

  So Daniel 1:1 tells us that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem the year before he became King of Babylon. As we continue reading in Daniel 1, we find that he took captives, including Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and Daniel. This happened the year before Nebuchadnezzar became King of Babylon.

  What year did Nebuchadnezzar become King of Babylon?

  Thanks,

  IW
• 

  cynicus

  Hi Alleymom,

  The WBTS has backpeddled on their "dates" and most definetely on their absoluteness. Oooh, they still hold on to 539, that's for sure, but what used to be an "absolute date" in 1969 was changed into "pivotal date" in 1988, yet still "astronomically confirmed", but in the latest editions of their Chronology article (in the Dutch version of Aid to bible understanding [1992] which is similar to the article in Insight [1988]) that last qualification was dropped too. They have discredited and rejected most not to say all archeological and tablet evidence, including the Nabunaid-chronicle [see Awake! 8/15/68 for a different former view], VAT4956, various steles and inscriptions, etc. as not trustworthy, especially when it can be used as supporting 586/587. COJ has at least achieved that change within WBTS chronology, allthough it probably wasn't the one he hoped would happen. The only thing the WBTS still seem to rely on for 539 is SK400. But exactly how they use it is not disclosed, wheras methods to date archeological artefacts, such as astronomical confirmation, works of secular historians, other tablets, etc. are discredited and rejected, as if they didn't use these themselves in dating SK400. It's a dishonest bunch of pseudo-historians and their defenders are possibly worse.

  (c)
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  You ask three questions concerning the validity of 539 and I answer in the affirmative as well explained in WT literature. The Society quotes from Thiele because he was an oustanding chronologist but this not mean that he was infallible and neither is his chronology. Regarding Daniel 1:1 it can be interpreted to pertain to the latter part of his vassalage to Nebuchadnezzer hence the expression kingship rather than reign as put in the NWT. In any event you have your chronology based on secular schema and mine which is based on a biblical schema. Never the twain shall meet.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion