by badboy 40 Replies latest watchtower bible
a Christian
Sorry, I omitted to post this information which well illustrates the problem of understanding the chronology of the Divided Monarchy.
Hayes and Hooker 340 years
Thiele 345
Bright 335
Cogan and Tadmor 342
Society 393
Carl Jonsson Nil
Alan Fraud Nil
Regards
scholar
Scholar,
You wrote: I believe it is very important to provide a coherent framework for the chronology of the Divided Monarchy. ... The Society has succeeded in demonstrating that 390 years accounts for this period as shown by the chart from pages 340-7 in the Aid book.
You are joking aren't you? The only things the Society's chonological charts for this period of time have ever demonstrated is that the Watchtower Society has no idea when exactly the reigns of most of Israel's and Judah's kings began and ended, and how most of the Bible's own synchronisms between the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings should be understood. They admit as much in their more recent publication, Insight On The Scriptures, by saying that their charts are only "meant to provide a helpful outline," are "not intended to be viewed as an absolute chronology," and should only be viewed as "an arrangement that harmonizes reasonably with the biblical record."
You wrote: In short, any chronology that ignores the implication of the 390 years cannot succeed despite any amount of compelling evidence from secular sources.
I agree. But it can just as truthfully be said that any chronology that ignores all of the historical synchronisms contained in the contemporary historical records of Israel's and Judah's neighboring nations, and all of the dates which historians now provide to us for all of these historical synchronisms, cannot succeed despite the fact that it is in some way based on the 390 years referred to in Ezekiel chapter four.
You wrote: I omitted to post this information which well illustrates the problem of understanding the chronology of the Divided Monarchy.
If you had actually read all that I posted earlier you would know that I have no problem understanding the chronology of the divided monarchy. I told you what I believe the solution to this "problem" is, a solution which fully harmonizes all biblical and extrabiblical synchronisms and is also based on the 390 years of Ezekiel chapter four.
By the way, your continuing to refer to Alan as a "Fraud" is most un"Scholar"ly, since you have been unable to demonstrate that anything he wrote is fraudulent. The fact is, everything he wrote is absolutely correct.
Oh, one more thing, the Society assigns 390 years to the period of the divided monarchy, not 393 as you say. The number "393" is the total number of years a person arrives at by simply adding together all of the years of reign which the Bible records for each one of Judah's kings, from Rehoboam to Zedekiah. Since that total is three more than the number "390" mentioned in Ezekiel 4, the Society says there must have been one three year "coregency" between two of Judah's kings. A "coregency" means a period of time when two kings (normally a father and son) jointly ruled their kingdom. But I am sure a scholar like yourself knew that. : ) Sometimes when a coregency occurred the number of years the two kings ruled together was counted by both kings as part of their official total of regnal years. The Society says these "extra" three years were probably the result of a coregency which took place at the end of the reign of Jehoshaphat when his son Jehoram began to rule before his father's death. However, while the Society is forced to acknowledge the fact that coregencies did occur in ancient Israel, due to this three year discrepancy, they ignore much biblical and extrabiblical evidence that clearly indicates that such coregencies were very common in ancient times, and especially so in a nation like northern Israel which had no true royal line, as Judah had in the line of David.
The evidence shows that Israel's kings often appointed their sons as corulers to insure a smooth transition of power upon their deaths. The evidence also shows that Judah's kings also appointed their sons as their coregents much more often than the Society's 390 year chronology for the divided monarchy allows. Often when a king fell ill he would surrender the kingship to his son, not just some of his duties, but the official kingship. His son would actually be crowned king while his father yet lived. You may recall that Solomon was crowned king during the lifetime of David. How much longer David lived and was also considered to be and called "King" by his people the Bible doesn't say. Though it may have been as long as four years, since Solomon did not begin to build the temple until his 4th year as king. God said that construction of the temple could not begin during David's reign since David was a man of war. And it seems unlikely for a number of reasons that Solomon would have waited very long after his father's death before he began to build the temple.
As I said, there is much evidence that many coregencies existed during the reigns of both Judah's and Israel's kings. Certainly enough of them to clearly indicate that the actual total number of years which passed between the death of Solomon and the destruction of Jerusalem was far fewer than the Bible's total of 393 years mentioned earlier, and far fewer than the number "390" which is spoken of in Ezekiel chapter 4. My own work in reconstructing this time period shows that the total number of years which passed from the death of Solomon to the destruction of Jerusalem was 350 years. If you carefully read my first post you will find out where I believe we can locate the other 40 years which bring us to the number "390" referred to in Ezekiel 4.
I do hope you will apologize to Alan, especially if you are unable to defend the Society's chronology by answering the questions he presented you with. Again, as I reminded you earlier, the Bible tells Christians to always be ready to make a defense for our faith to anyone who demands a reason for what we believe.
Mike
a Christian
You claim to have no problem in understanding the problem of the Divided Monarchy. If this is the case then perhaps you could tabulate the reigns of the respective kings of Israel and Judah with a suggested chronology for the beginning and end of each reign. Such a tabulation can then be compared with other historians and chronologists who have published their presentations.
scholar BA MA
As usual, aChristian, I can only admire your efforts to get a braindead JW drone to think. I can't get this particular drone to go beyond drooling on his shirt. Not because he can't do it, but because, being a braindead JW, he doesn't want to. Perhaps by the time this fool dies he'll see the error of his ways, but I wouldn't bet on it.
AlanF
Scholar,
I am now in the process of doing just that. It will be included as part of a larger book I am writing. I suspect that a Scholar such as yourself probably owns a copy of Thiele's standard work on this subject matter. If you do, the dates you will find there are pretty close to my own in most instances. I described earlier Thiele's five year mistake in reckoning the reigns of Judah's Abijah and Asa. Thiele began the reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam in 930 BC. The evidence I presented earlier shows that Thiele should have dated the schism five years earlier, in 935.
All of my dates fully harmonize with all of the biblical and extrabiblical synchronisms we now possess, as well as all of the dates historians now provide us with for various historical events during that time period. They also harmonize with the 390 years of Ezekiel in the manner I have already described. On top of this, my reconstruction reveals that the Bible writers used only one system of reckoning the reigns for Judah's kings and only one system for reckoning the reigns of Israel's kings from start to finish. They did not flip back and forth between accession year and nonaccession year systems. Neither did they change back and forth between "Nisan to Nisan" and "Tishri to Tishri" calendars, as Thiele maintains. My work also shows that the Bible's chronological records are completely free of error. When Thiele couldn't quite figure some things out he was forced to claim otherwise.
By the way, the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar has been astronomically fixed by VAT 4956 as having occurred in 568/7 BC. That means that his 18th and 19th years occurred in 587/6 BC and 586/5 BC. The Bible tells us that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in either his 18th or his 19th year, depending on how one understands the Bible. There is a small bit of controversy here. But historical tablets containing many astronomical observations, as well as a ton of other evidence, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Nebuchadnezzar must have destroyed Jerusalem in either 587 or 586 BC. The only reason the exact date is in any doubt is because of some difficulty in understanding the Bible's own system of reckoning Nebuchadnezzar's reign. (My studies show 587 to be the correct date.)
If you are seriously interested in discussing this subject matter feel free to E mail me. However, if you intend on ignoring all historical realities in an effort to defend the Society's 607 BC date there is no point in our discussing such things.
Alan,
I am the one who is usually amazed at your patience with these people. I would, however, like to see this "scholar" either provide you with answers to your questions or offer you an apology before I discuss any of these things further with him.
a Christian
I look forward to your examining your book when it is published and it is most appropriate that a new look at Thiele's work is done. I agree with your criticisms of Thiele's use of the non and accession system and the calenders. I would add that his choice of Absolute Dates is all over the place and only adds to the complexity of his hypothesis.
I am somewhat saddened by your reaction to the presentation of the chart in the Aid book respecting the reigns of the kings. I would have thought that surely a reasonable person can see that the society has attempted to harmonize the data. I have not seen a better presentation in any work on chronology. If you cannot agree with it then that is fine but please be fair.
I have not responded to Alan's questions because I plan a holistic approach to the seventy years. It is pointless to discuss a single aspect unless the whole is completed otherwise it leads to a treadmill of questions and answers. I believe that such a study should be developed within an academic context, supervised and presented as a thesis/dissertation leading to an award. Also, I believe that Alan is not sincerely interested in such matters as he seems only to be critical of the witnesses.
You say that I should apologize to Alan and that Ishould make a defense of my faith. But the Bible also says not to converse with the fool or cast pearls before swine. You admit that Alan does not believe in the Bible as we do and yet are not the two of us professing a belief in the Lord? I truly wonder about where your loyalty lies?
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
LOL, non-scholar! You're as cowardly and dishonest as the religious leaders you worship.
You stubbornly refuse to understand a simple truth: one disproof of a thesis invalidates the thesis.
AlanF
Scholar,
You wrote: I agree with your criticisms of Thiele's use of the non and accession system and the calenders. I would add that his choice of Absolute Dates is all over the place and only adds to the complexity of his hypothesis.
Your last statement makes me wonder how familiar you really are with Theile's work. For he does not, as you seem to suggest, use some dates which historians have firmly established for various events recorded in the histories of ancient Israel and Judah and their neighboring nations, and reject several others. He accepts and uses all such dates, save one.
The only date Thiele rejects is the date 722/1 for the fall of Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel.
The siege of Samaria was begun by Assyria's king, Shalmaneser V in the seventh year of Hoshea and was continued for three years, to the ninth year of Hoshea, at which time the city fell and Israel was taken captive to Assyria. (2 Kings 17:4-6; 18:9-11) However, though the Bible tells us that "Shalmaneser" began the siege of Samaria, it does not personally name "the king of Assyria" who completed Assyria's conquest of Israel. Sargon II succeeded Shalmaneser V to Assyria's throne on Tebeth 12 (the end of December) in 722 BCE. (This date has been fixed by several astronomical observations which are recorded in the historical annals of ancient Assyria.) All historians agree that the Assyrians, like the Babylonians, used a calendar which began with the month of Nisan along with the accession year system of reckoning. As you probably know, in this system of counting the years of a king's rule his first partial year of rule was not counted and his first full calendar year of rule was counted as his "first year" as king. So Sargon's "first year" as king of Assyria began in Nisan of 721 BCE. In the historical annals of Assyria Sargon wrote that he captured Samaria "in my first year of reign." His account of Samaria's fall is very extensive, listing exactly how many people he then took captive, and many other details of his conquest. However, Thiele's chronological reconstruction of the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings does not allow him to accept the claims of Sargon. Because he could only stretch Hoshea's reign to 723 he was forced to call Sargon a liar and say that he must have been taking credit for a conquest that was actually made by his predecessor, Shalmaneser. Thiele's rejection of the date 721 for the fall of Samaria, as it is astronomically recorded in the annals of ancient Assyria, is the only such date that he rejects.
I don't think we should be too tough on Thiele here though. We should remember that some Bible chronologists, whom we both know quite well, reject many more historical realities than Theile did, in order to make their understandings of the scriptures work. Of course, the "Bible chronologists" to whom I here refer all live in Brooklyn, New York.
You wrote: I am somewhat saddened by your reaction to the presentation of the chart in the Aid book respecting the reigns of the kings. I would have thought that surely a reasonable person can see that the society has attempted to harmonize the data.
I agree the Society has attempted to harmonize the data. But what data? Only the biblical data. They have not made any attempt to also harmonize any of the extrabiblical data pertaining to this time period. That is why I was so critical of their alleged historical reconstruction of this time period. On top of that, they do not even explain how the many apparently contradictory biblical synchronisms between the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings can be understood. Why not? Because they maintain that people living today cannot possibly sort out all of the Bible's apparently contradictory synchronisms. The Watchtower Society now says that, "The ancient inspired writers were dealing with facts and figures well known to them. ... Such is not the case today, and hence we may be satisfied with simply setting out an arrangement which harmonizes reasonably with the biblical record." (Insight, pg. 463)
You wrote: I have not seen a better presentation in any work on chronology.
I have not seen a worse one. First of all, as I pointed out, they flatly reject all help which is now offered by secular historians to help Bible students understand the Bible's historical record for this period of time. Because of the Watchtower Society's need to hold onto their 1914 doctrine, primarily because it supports their claim to having been appointed by Christ "over all his belongings" in 1919, the Society must continue to maintain that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 607 BCE. And because they do, they are compelled to reject all help historians now offer them in understanding the chronological history of the divided kingdom. Why? Because all dates for ancient historical events which historians now provide us with, before the date 539 BCE for Cyrus' conquest of Babylon, clearly conflict with the Watchtower Society's unique 607 BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem.
You wrote: Please be fair.
I am being fair.
You wrote: I have not responded to Alan's questions because I plan a holistic approach to the seventy years.
Approach the "seventy years" any way you like. There is absolutely no way that the Society's interpretation of the "seventy years" can be harmonized with all of the biblical data, let alone with all of the extrabiblical data. The passages of scripture which you and Alan have been discussing, which mention a period of "seventy years", are referring to a period of time which began in 609 BCE and ended in 539 BCE. During those seventy years God allowed Babylon to dominate all other nations in its area of the world. End of story. The Watchtower Society's interpretation is wrong. They cling to it only to support their ridiculous and extremely presumptuous claim that Christ appointed them over all his belongings in 1919, and to avoid the extreme humiliation and loss of membership that would certainly come to their organization if they admitted that what they have taught all these years about the year 1914 has been wrong. I know that's a hard thing for you to accept. It was for me to. But it is the truth.
You wrote: I believe that Alan is not sincerely interested in such matters as he seems only to be critical of the witnesses.
As we have noted, Alan is not a Christian. Thus he has little interest in trying to understand all of the Bible, since he believes it is only a collection of very old, totally man made, writings. However, Alan does have an interest in his fellow man. By helping to expose the Watchtower's interpretation of the "seventy years" as bogus he helps set people free from being slaves to dishonest men. Once these people are free, they are then able to really begin following Jesus Christ, rather than serving a group of old men in Brooklyn New York, if that is how they then choose to use their new found freedom. That is how I have chosen to use my freedom. That is how many who learn the truth about "the truth" choose to use theirs. Alan gives me no flack about my being a Christian.
You wrote: You say that I should apologize to Alan and that I should make a defense of my faith. But the Bible also says not to converse with the fool or cast pearls before swine.
I have read nothing foolish in what Alan has written to you. Except maybe some silly name calling which I believe you started. Referring to him as "swine" doesn't help things any. And I don't know what "pearls" you may have to cast in his direction. I have not seen any evidence that you possess any "pearls" of wisdom, at least in regard to the subject matters we have here been discussing.
You wrote: You admit that Alan does not believe in the Bible as we do and yet are not the two of us professing a belief in the Lord? I truly wonder about where your loyalty lies?
My loyalty lies with the truth. I believe so does Alan's. However, partly due to all the lies the Watchtower Society has told over the years in the name of the God of the Bible, Alan no longer believes the Bible contains the truth. Though I don't think he has "closed that door" entirely.
Scholar, where does your loyalty lie? With a bunch of old men who reject any and all evidence that might invalidate their extremely presumptuous claims to speak for God, or with the truth, wherever the truth is found?
Mike
a Christian
I am very well aware of The Absolute Dates that Thiele uses in his hypothesis as he discusses the subject under the heading Chapter Four - The Establisment of an Absolute Date in Hebrew Chronology. In this chapter he discusses many dates but does not offer a single Absolute Date. His discussion is complex in comparison with the Society's wisest choice of the fall of Babylon. The society;s chronology is simple, biblical and straightforward not as complex as you would have us believe.
Your simplistic understanding of the seventy years is at variance with current scholarship. In fact it is difficult to find any serious discussion of this subject in current works on chronology. Thiele along with others does not mention it at all
However, the subject is found in serious journals which I have copies at hand. I suggest that you consult the Excursus;Seventy Years ehich appears in the WBC Jeremiah 26-52, 1995. This article shows what current state of play in regard to this subject.
I have great respect for the secular ancient evidence for these periods and I went to some trouble with the financial assistance of the SDA College at Coooranbong to have translated from German into English, the original article for VAT 4956. So you are quite mistaken to think that I am not capable of thinking outside the square.
Despite my deep respect for the Jonsson hypothesis and my communications with him by phone and mail, I firmly believe that the Gentile Times doctrine is correct. The society has demonstrated a tradition of excellence in the field of biblical chronology both in the OT and the NT. Their exegesis of all texts pertaining to the seventy years of desolation for Judah is rock solid.
I have read on the subject of chronology since the early seventies and have read nothing that invalidates the society's interpretation in these matters. In fact the more one reads and pursues the controversies in chronology one marvels at the simplicity of our understanding. I have said repeatedly on this site that the society has already published the evidence for all of its claims. Such evidence may not satisfy some but it is ample for those who are sincere and searching for truth.
