ITHINKISEE Update 8/14/2005: Where my wife and I stand now.

by ithinkisee 20 Replies latest members private

• 

  ithinkisee

  Basically we stand at the place most do in this conversation when it first comes up:

  Secular history vs. Reliable Bible Chronology.

  • I point out that the Society selectively uses things like Nabonidus Chronicle, as proof of 539 as a pivotal date, but deny it when it comes to 586. Why would they do that? Once they say that 539 is a pivotal date it makes it that much easier to date the existing lines of evidence - evidence they try to refute - anyways.
  • I point out that while it is true almost all historical documents and artifacts have flaws (including the bible), they are almost ALL unanimous when it comes to this era of Babylonian rule. And these lines of evidence are often completely independant of each other, like Egyptian Records, Lunar Records, Astronomical Records - separate from all the cuneiforms and royal inscriptions. On top of that are the thousands of business documents that span the entire neo-babylonian era (also before and after). There is no 20 year gap.
  • I point out how the Kingdom Come book actually admits that these business documents support Ptolemy, Nabonidus Chronicle, and others - and how the Kingdom COme book after that says "but this doesn't mean more information might come up in the future to prove 607" and how illogical that sounds.
  • I point out that Egypt and Babylon were bitter enemies, but their history during this period of time actually synch up perfectly - and historians have determined the reigns of Pharoahs at this time and their reigns also synch up perfectly - but they don't if Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign was 607 like the Society claims.
  • In more general terms, I also mentioned that it seems the Society is trying to say the evidence is weak for 586 - even though it really isn't - and you won't know until you look at the evidence. (I'm still working on how to walk through this kind of evidence with her - suggestions would be most helpful ... )
  • She seems to think there is some pre-Neo-Babylonian pivotal date that accounts for the 18-20 year gap. Though she hasn't presented this pivotal date to me yet. So I even mentioned how it seems all the Society has done is grab 607 BC and started to count backwards.

  In all honesty I "think" she actually sees it but won't believe it because the Society has obviously spent ALOT of time protecting their chronology by muddying the waters. She still talks about what congregation we'll go to when we move to North Carolina, so I know I am still a LONG WAY from the point of getting her to think for herself.

  But in regards to the points I made above, I do have a few questions:

  • Does the Society have anything they call "pivotal" dates prior to the Neo-Babylonian era they try to use to account for the 20-year gap?
  • I would really like to knock it home with a good scriptural discussion. What would you say are the top 3-5 scriptures that could refute the Society's criteria for the 70 years? Any brief descriptions helping to clarify each scripture would also be most helpful.

  Sometimes I am starting to think maybe this was the wrong way to go ... since the Society has invested SO MUCH into this chronology and make themselves sound REAL SMART to people who just don't know any better and don't have the time to do simple fact-checking (like most JWs).

  It's almost like the Society says, "Okay ... so you wanna play the secular chronology game? Alright ... we'll play but YOU'LL be sorry! We're gonna muddy the waters so quick you won't know which way is up or down."

  -ithinkisee
• 

  Legolas

  Have you ever read this: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gentile2.htm

  Or this: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev1.htm

  Or this: http://www.jwfiles.com/607v587/index.htm
• 

  ithinkisee

  Additionally, my wife claims that Edward Thiele, who wrote the book "Mysterious Numbers of Hebrew Kings" is not a valid source of information because it was published by a college instead of a book publisher so it achieved a "doctrinal" status and is not accepted on the merit of it's contents - which are inaccurate which is evidenced by the multiple revisions of the book since it was originally published!

  WTF? Where is she getting this information?

  Help!

  -ithinkisee
• 

  ithinkisee

  bttt
• 

  Alleymom

  IthinkIsee ---

  How does your wife explain the fact that no Jewish scholars accept the WTS's chronology?

  For instance, if you go to Amazon.com and go to the page for The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 1, Introduction: The Persian Period, you will see that Amazon allows you to search inside the book. You can do multiple searches and click on the results.

  The date given for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 B.C.E.

  See, for instance:

  --- FRONT FLAP

  --- p. 60 "... after the capture of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E."

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  
  Here's a scan of the "Babylonian Exile" article from the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, R.J. Zwi Werblowsku, Geoffrey Wigofer, eds., 1997.

  http://www.strike9.com/alleymom/Babylonian-Exile---ODJR.jpg

  Today is Tisha b'Av, (9th of Av), the day on which Jews all over the world observe a fast in memory of the destructions of the first and second temples.

  I can confidently say that out of the many, many millions of Jews all over the world who are observing this fast, there is not ONE single Jewish rabbi or scholar who believes the Temple was destroyed in 607 B.C.E.

  Anyone who holds to the WTS's date of 607 BCE is saying that every single Jew in the entire world is wrong.

  http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayd.htm

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  IthinkIsee ---

  If your wife searches on "Tisha b'av" she will many, many Jewish sites which discuss the dates when the First and Second Temples were destroyed.

  I want to emphasize --- if she were to read every one of the thousands of sites out there, I am positive that she would not find one single one which agrees with the WTS.

  What she would find is that the vast majority list 586 or 587 BCE. Some of the orthodox sites post the date in terms of the rabbinic dating system found in the Seder Olam. These sites will list the destruction of the first Temple as occurring in year 3338 from Creation, which equates to 422 BCE.

  Modern Jewish scholars do not accept the Seder Olam dates. Earnest and I once had a discussion about a book which discusses these differences. I can give you the reference, if you are interested.

  However, the important point is that no Jewish scholar or rabbi accepts the WTS's chronology.

  I want to repeat what I said in the previous post:

  Anyone who holds to the WTS's date of 607 BCE is saying that every single Jew in the entire world is wrong.

  Marjorie
• 

  ithinkisee

  Thanks all ... I think those Jewish links might help too.

  Also, I was at the Sunday meeting today and I was flipping through the appendix of my NWT reference bible, and I noticed the Appendix on "The Divine Name In The Greek Scriptures".

  They quote a guy that "proposes" a theory that the divine name was omitted from the Greek scriptures:

  Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, ???? (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate [abbreviation for Ky´ri·os, "Lord"]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself."

  and then they end with:

  We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a "theory," rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts.

  I thought it might be interesting to note as a "side point" that the Society leaps at a "theory" from University of Georgia as leverage to say ... this is not just theory ... this is FACT. I might ask ... how can the Society ignore literally THOUSANDS of LINES of evidence that show without question the date of the Fall of Jerusalem and the Temple ... and take a theory from a college professor as leverage that it is OK to add Jehovah back to the Greek scriptures.

  Yes, it is a sidepoint, but I thought it might be a nice appeal to logic.

  -ithinkisee
• 

  Alleymom

  IthinkIsee--

  Their use of the George Howard article is a story in and of itself. I will give you a link to something I wrote about this awhile ago.

  Meanwhile, if you are thinking about having your wife look at Jewish sources, here are some excerpts from articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is in the public domain, and which is available online at www.jewishencyclopedia.com.

  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=110&letter=A&search=Jerusalem"Ab, Ninth of" – article in the Jewish Encyclopedia
  
  
  
  

  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=242&letter=J&search=Jerusalem

  "Jerusalem" – article in the Jewish Encyclopedia
  
  Taken by Nebuchadnezzar.
  
  In the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon made his first invasion into Palestine. There is no trace of a siege of Jerusalem at this time; but some of the Temple vessels were carried off (ib. xxxvi. 7). In 597 B.C., however, an encircling wall was built by the invaders, and the city invested. At the time of Jehoiachin (Jer. lii. 6) famine raged in the city. The rebellion of Zedekiah caused a second invasion in 587; and after a siege of a year and a half Jerusalem was taken on the ninth day of the fourth month (Ab), 586. The beauty and the strength of the city were destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar's general, Nebuzar-adan, burned the Temple, carrying away all the brass and the vessels; he burned also the king's palace and the larger houses of the city. The walls were razed, and a large number of the inhabitants (10,000, according to II Kings xxiv. 14) were deported and settled in various parts of Babylon; a number probably at Nippur, to judge from the names found by Hilprecht in the business documents of that city ("P. E. F. S." 1898, pp. 54, 137; Batten, "Ezra and Nehemiah," p. 57, in "S. B. O. T."). Even before this the city must have been depleted through the flight of many to Egypt (Jer. xlii. et seq.). The seat of government was removed to Mizpah (II Kings xxv. 23; Jer. xli. 1 et seq.).

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  ITHINKISEE ---

  Here is a link which will take you to a discussion I had about the George Howard article(s) in October, 2004.

  http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=153917.2&nav=messages&webtag=ws-religion#a2

  Message #2 (which is where this link should take you) is from an active JW who is using the George Howard article you cited.

  Check out messages #2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10.

  Marjorie