Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Jeffro wrote:

    'scholar' spouts some more rhetoric claiming that the Watchtower Society places the bible above all else. However, when it's a choice between the bible, and Watchtower doctrine, doctrine wins with them every time.

    No question about that!

    Even in things that really have no impact on what most JWs think of as "core doctrine" the Society sticks to its traditions over what the Bible says. This struck me clearly this past year with respect to the JW teachings about the timing of Genesis 1.

    In the NWT, Genesis 1:1 reads: "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

    The Society claims that this verse allows for the 4.5 billion years that modern scientists have determined is the age of the earth, since it refers to a "beginning" after which six creative days and a rest day followed. But Exodus clearly says different:

    Remembering the sabbath day to hold it sacred, 9 you are to render service and you must do all your work six days. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, you nor your son nor your daughter, your slave man nor your slave girl nor your domestic animal nor your alien resident who is inside your gates. 11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day. That is why Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and proceeded to make it sacred. Exodus 20:8-11

    Six days may work be done, but on the seventh day is a sabbath of complete rest. It is something holy to Jehovah. Anyone doing work on the sabbath day will positively be put to death. 16 And the sons of Israel must keep the sabbath, so as to carry out the sabbath during their generations. It is a covenant to time indefinite. 17 Between me and the sons of Israel it is a sign to time indefinite, because in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and proceeded to refresh himself. Exodus 31:15-17

    Just as the sabbath was the last of seven literal 24-hour days, so must have been the day on which Jehovah rested, and so must have been the other six creative days. No ancient Jew reading these passages would conclude otherwise. Both Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 state clearly that "in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1 mentions "the heavens and the earth" as well, and therefore "the beginning" must have been part of the "six days" of creation.

    Thus, Exodus defines the meaning of Genesis 1:1, against nearly 130 years of Watchtower claims to the contrary. Clearly, the Society rejects the Bible in favor of its tradition.

    Now, some Watchtower apologists might want to argue that the creative days were really 7,000 years long, based on the Society's argument that the seventh, or rest day of Jehovah, appears to be about 7,000 years long according to Watchtower chronology and doctrine. But this does not solve the basic problem, which is that Exodus lumps the creation of the heavens and the earth in with the six days of creation. So if each day were 7,000 years long, and we are now about 6,000 years into the "rest day", "the beginning" must have been about 48,000 years ago. But scientifically this is nonsense. The Watchtower Society realizes this, which is why it adamantly claims that those nasty young-earth creationists are anti-biblical, since they teach that the heavens and the earth were created only some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, based solely on their view of the Bible. In view of Exodus 20 and 31, and Genesis 1, then, who is actually taking the Bible at its word?

    The Society is well aware that a teaching that the earth is only 6,000 or 48,000 years old would bring ridicule upon it -- even and perhaps especially from long-time JWs. It also realizes that both positions are equally ridiculous. So what does it now teach? Nothing specific. It simply claims that "the beginning" was an unknown but long time ago, perhaps the 4.5 billion years assigned by scientists, and that the creative days were "millennia long". But this wording is a total cop-out. Why? Because it doesn't commit to a position. Why is this important to Watchtower leaders? Because they know very well that committing to the scientific position that life has been on the earth for hundreds of millions of years would break the faith in the Society of tens of thousands of older JWs who were brought up on the "7,000 year creative day" nonsense, and they can't afford that. They also know that such committing would be extremely problematic for the hundreds of thousands of young JWs who are well aware from their secular schooling that the universe is billions of years old.

    In this waffling and dishonesty, the Society is exactly like this "scholar pretendus" they've produced -- someone who avoids real argumentation, resorts to pure rhetoric and name-calling or runs away when cornered, fails to answer critics who post impossible questions, and even refuses to quote from the very Bible they claim to revere whenever such direct quotation blows away their claims.

    AlanF

  • jeanV
    jeanV

    scholar,

    In regard to the Neo-Babylonian tabulation it is simply the fact that the data is inconsistent between different authorities so it must be used with extreme caution.

    This is one of the things I reproach to the WTBTS and yourself, you make affirmations without supporting them with evidence. Could you kindly provide some inconsistencies between authorities with regard to neo-babylonian tabulation? I basically got every possible book that deals with the period and have not found any yet. The chronology of the period is definitely fixed.

    The chronology of the Bible is not dependent on secular chronology as you claim but does require a pivotal or Absolute Date in order for us today with our different calender to locate those past events in the stream of time.

    so secular chronology is trustworthy only for a pivotal date? how do you determine that that date is reliable and accurate if you basically discard all the rest? how do you determine which astronomical diaries and business documents can be trusted and which cannot? With your reasoning anything goes really, even the theory of Larsguy about 511bce could make sense.

    The prophecy of the 'seven times' is indeed biblical and is recorded in Daniel 4

    Jeffro replied to this and other claims better than I could ever do.

    Your latter observation is sound because the truth of 607 results in 1914 not 1934

    It was a quotation from WT not my thought Not a very scientific reasoning really.

  • scholar
    scholar

    jeanV

    Dr. Rolf Furuli as a international scholar of Semitic Studies is well qualified to assess the primary evidence regarding Neo-Babylonian chronology and has already published research in his Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews, 2003, Vol.1 which features a tabulation under the heading Table 11 The New Babylonian Kings P.74. This tabulation shows the wide variation of the reigns of those kings. If you have not consulted this reference then I recommend that you do and also obtain when published this year Furuli's second volume dealing with Babylonian chronology.

    The matter of choosing which date serves as a anchor for the purposes of constructing a scheme of chronology and discarding other so-called competing dates amounts to methodology. Every chronologist must employ a methodology for his chronology and this will vary between chronologists. This is why there is such a wide variation of chronologies especially of the OT. The Society guided by celebtayed WT scholars have adopted a specific methodology which for the OT is based upon the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Other chronologists such as the famous Edwin Thiele chose a much earlier date for his scheme despite embracing Neo-Babylonian dates and much evidence from eclipses.

    Jeffro may have replied to the seven times in earlier poistings but I dispute his nonsense at every point because he lacks exegeticals and research skills and is not well read regarding the scholarly literature but you are more than welcome to subscribe to his special pleadings.

    It is quite reasonable to discern on the basis of modern history that 1914 and not 1934 certainly fits the end of the Gentile Times and thus provides additional confirmation of 607 BCE as the beginning of that period. It was certainly scientific for prominent clergyman in 1917 to make a rather similar endorsement.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    1548

    There is nothing in the NIV rendering in 2 Chronicles 36:21 in the edition that I have or the edition quoted by Ross Winkle when he discusses the linguistics of the specific Hebrew parallelism. If your edition of the NIV indicates whether by parenthesis or some other means distinguishes the Jeremiac staement then please elaborate. The NWT's rendering of this passage conforms to the literal Hebrew and is not otherwise disputed by scholars. Your claims to the contrary are simply mischevious.

    It is recognized by scholars that Leviticus was largely sourced by Jeremiah and there is a conjoining of both by the Chronicler. According to the commentaries Leviticus described the state of the land and Jeremiah describes the duration of seventy years and that is how the NIV rendering of these sentences differs from the RSV and the NWT.

    Do your research and do not present sloppy work.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    1547

    The actual setting of Jeremiah 29 is not specified by any date formula so an approximation after 617 BCE with the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah would be appropriate. The text includes a series of oracles addressed to the exiles of the first deportation of 617 BCE and not 595 BCE as you claim which is based on unreliable secular chronology. This chapter omits any reference to Hananiah bit is discussed in the previous chapter 28 which begins with a reference to the beginning of the Zedekiah's reign.

    Jeremiah 25;11 refers to the land, Judah being desolated for seventy years whilst the nations including the Judeans would serve Babylon for seventy yearsin exile.

    Jeremiah 25; 9,14 refer to the fact of that Judah would be devastated by Nebuchadnezzer and that Babylonian World power like Judah before would also receive divine punishment.

    Jeremiah 25:12; Daniel 5;26-31. After the seventy years had ended then Babylon and Chaldea would also be desoloated to time indefinite which began not at her falll as foretold by Daniel but her eventual destruction.

    Jeremiah 25:12 is an oracle addressed to Babylon that after the expiration of that seventy years then she too would go down into destruction.

    Such interpretations are in agreement with all of the other seventy-year texts, Josephus and the whole OT for no other interpretation is admissible.

    Your so-called tabulation is a work of fiction.

    scholar JW

  • jeanV
    jeanV
    features a tabulation under the heading Table 11 The New Babylonian Kings P.74. This tabulation shows the wide variation of the reigns of those kings. If you have not consulted this reference then I recommend that you do and also obtain when published this year Furuli's second volume dealing with Babylonian chronology.

    Could you post a scan of the table?

  • scholar
    scholar

    jeaanV

    post 161

    I do not know to post the tabulation onto this board but sure more computer literate people than me could do so. You stated in an earlier post that you possessed most books on the subject so you should purchase Furuli's first volume and volume 2 when published.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    'scholar', I have previously thoroughly refuted all of your latest drivel.

    I'm going on an overseas holiday, so you are an extraordinarily low priority on the list, so you'll have to refer to previous posts for specific replies.

    Most likely, you will fall back on your usual delusions.

    Do what you like. You're still wrong.

  • jeanV
    jeanV

    scholar,

    maybe you can make it available for dowlonad or send it to me by e-mail. I'll reply to you about Furuli on the other thread open on the same subject.

  • scholar
    scholar

    jeanV

    post 165

    Really the sensible thing for you to do is purchase Furuli's book and read it for you cannot reply to a matter unless you have considered all of the facts and you cannot comment on a book that you have not read.

    scholar JW

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit