Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro 223 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4262

    It is your own work for it is a 'cut and paste job' based on others. Therefore, it is consistent but it is plain dumb and wrong because it does not factor in the biblical 'seventy years'. However, in saying this I will admit that it is the 'prettiest' chart that I have seen.

    All chronologies are manipulated and manufactured because the Bible does not contain a outline of chronology or a list so the chronologist has to interpret and harmonize the regnal data and other historical information and this where methodology is so important. In view of these circumstances, the KISS principle is most useful and this where WT chronology is superior.

    Your listing of these manipulations is bogus:

    • There is an interregnum prior to the official reign of Hoshea- 2Kings 15:30
    • Co-regencies were present during the Divided Monarchy
    • The chronologies of the ANE should be adjusted to harmonize with Bible chronology.
    • The chronoilogy of Uzziah's reign is compatible with other scholars.
    • WT chronology applies a consistent methodology.
    • Some of the Kings were in fact vassals so this must be incorporated in the chronology if required by a regnal datum.
    • Your contrived 'one-year difference is irrelevant because our chronology for the period is purely suggestive not absolute.
    • WT chronology for the period of Daniel is based on history and close attention to the regnal data.
    • WT chronology is faithful to the history and regnal data in the Bible adjusted with the Biblical corrective-seventy years.
    • WT chronology adheres very closely to the entire book of Jeremiah.

    Boy I hoped you would post more so that I could dispense with these as well.

    We never claimed that Stern accepted WT chronology because that is not why he was quoted. What Stern said fundamentally agrees with our take on the state of Judah during the period of Babylonian domination.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    Chronology is all about interpretation and of course so is the Bible.

    Interpretation is certainly involved, but it is not the only thing. When an interpretion is internally contradictory, it can be dismissed as wrong. The Watch Tower Society's interpretation contradicts what the Bible actually says about the '70 years', and it contradicts what is known by all secular sources.

    You ask what is the correct interpretation? The answer is fairly simple. Which system is the simplest, easy to understand?

    The Watch Tower Society's twisted chronology is hardly the 'easiest to understand'. They make stupid claims about a king's 'first' year being when they paid tribute to a particular foreign king. Even worse, they pretend that Nebuchadnezzar's 'first year' is counted from when he conquer's Jerusalem, which has no basis in reality whatsoever. I don't have time to do into the all the elements of the Watch Tower Society's numerology that are downright stupid and hardly 'simple'.

    Which system truly recognizes the historicity of the seventy years?

    The 70 years were a period during which all the nations were subject to Babylon. That period began when Babylon conquered the previous world power, Assyria. Assyria was destroyed in 609BCE. The Medo-Persian Empire became dominant when it conquered Babylon in 539BCE. All secular sources agree with this period. It is 70 years. The Bible says the nations could serve Babylon in their own land during the 70 years and that exile would be a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon.

    Which system provides a consistent or 'cable of chronology going right back to Adam and to Jesus Christ?

    Seriously? There's any number of religious sources that suggest different years for the 'creation of Adam', and any of those 'interpretations' are just 'as valid' as that of the Watch Tower Society. 'Adam' never existed! 'Adam' is a story about a golem adapted from earlier Babylonian stories. If you really want to make 607 sound plausible, you really don't want to open the can of worms about 'Adam' being the 'first human' only 6000 years ago.

    Which system is cognizant of Bible Prophecy and its fulifillment? Which system has practical value for our day explaining the 'times and the season' leading up to 1914, the birth of God's Kingdom and the 'Last Days'.

    'End times' religions always claim that 'Bible prophecies' have 'practical value' for 'our day'. It's their entire basis for scaring people into joining. Charles Taze Russell predicted that Armageddon would begin in October of 1914. It didn't. It wasn't until years later that Rutherford moved the dates for 'God's kingdom' from 1874 to 1914.

    The chronology of Jeffro is simply a copy of others combining his own personal spin being antagonistic to the Witnesses. In short, it is a contrivance designed to mislead and deceive the gullible. He has also a website which seeks further to present his nonsense and his own personal interpretations.

    My material stands on its merits, and I'm more than happy to take comments or questions on its content. However, 'scholar' can only resort to vague childish insults.

    So the decision as to which is correct is one that you must decide.

    My chart is fully consistent with valid interpretations of the Bible, and also compatible with the chronology of contemporary nations. The Watch Tower Society's chronology cannot be reconciled with years assigned by scholars for the reigns of kings of Egypt, Babylon & Assyria, which are consistent with each other and consistent with the kings of Judea as shown in my chart. My chart represents how the bible can be seen as consistent with what actually happened. The Watch Tower Society's chronology regarding the '70 years' is not at all what the Bible actually says about 'serving Babylon' and is squarely based on numerological superstition. In short, if I am right, the Watch Tower Society is wrong; and if I am wrong, the Watch Tower Society is still wrong.

    I have to be elsewhere now, so I will dispense with your latest pathetic response later.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    Scholar, evidently you did not read my post.

    With that said, the average person is not qualified to choose scientifically and or scholasticaly between both views. ALSO, since the Bible is written in a foreign language, the average person is not qualified to understand the Bible. Readng only a translator's interpretation, a version of what the writer meant. I have tried to translate poems from one language to English and it cannot be done without interpreting what I think the author is saying and you loose the poetic flavor. A poem is not meant to be transalted but digested as is. The Bible is written in poetic form.

    Let me cut to the chase here. It is about trust.

    You ask what is the correct interpretation?

    The question was rhetorical. You got to read too. Please read my Post you you.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Fisherman:

    Let me cut to the chase here. It is about trust.

    If you don't trust textual analysis, then you must come back to basic logic. The Watch Tower Society insists on 607BCE to prop up an entirely ridiculous numerological superstition about 1914, and lies about what Charles Taze Russell said prior to 1914. Even if you ignore all the biblical evidence, there is no basis to trust an end-times sect that has lied about its own history.

    Anyway, gotta go.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Fisherman, it would help if you fleshed out your sentence to avoid ambiguity. We can have an opinion (view) about anything. The most testable and solid opinions are those we can check by observation (physical things). For instance, sipping the milky coffee would settle the matter.

    When it comes to the ancients, different sorts of evidence have different weight. Dated, commercial transactions recorded on clay tablets is right up there in credibility. That, and astronomical observations. Those are solid, observable, testable.

    The sort of "evidence" that "scholar" offers is at least three degrees removed, preferring one scholarly opinion over the other.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    gnat again, you said hubby put cream in his coffee. see?

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Nope, not clear at all. Use all your words. I checked the sentence again. I used a qualifier.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    It is your own work for it is a 'cut and paste job' based on others. Therefore, it is consistent but it is plain dumb and wrong because it does not factor in the biblical 'seventy years'.

    My chart very clearly and specifically indicates the biblical ‘seventy years’. No matter how much you ignore it, the Bible indicates quite clearly that the ‘seventy years’ was a period of all the nations serving Babylon, and not a period of Jewish exile. Jeremiah chapter 27 is quite clear that serving Babylon did not mean exile.

    However, in saying this I will admit that it is the 'prettiest' chart that I have seen.

    Idiot.

    All chronologies are manipulated and manufactured because the Bible does not contain a outline of chronology or a list so the chronologist has to interpret and harmonize the regnal data and other historical information and this where methodology is so important. In view of these circumstances, the KISS principle is most useful and this where WT chronology is superior.

    We’ve already been over your distortion of the word manufactured. The Watch Tower Society’s chronology is not compatible with either secular history or the Bible. It is dishonestly manipulated in order to prop up JW’s superstitious numerological end-times beliefs.

    Your listing of these manipulations is bogus:

    I admit that my list of WT manipulations was incomplete. But the list makes the point well enough.

    There is an interregnum prior to the official reign of Hoshea- 2Kings 15:30

    You have no support from any secular source for the claim that Hoshea’s reign was ‘recognised’ at some later point in his reign by becoming a vassal. I have already shown that historians and various biblical commentaries agree that Hoshea’s reign began immediately after Pekah’s. But even the sources that suggest an interregnum say that Hoshea was immediately a vassal to Assyria and that his official reign in Israel began later. That is the exact opposite of what the Watch Tower Society claims.

    Co-regencies were present during the Divided Monarchy

    You seem to have forgotten which chronology you’re defending. Of course there were co-regencies. However, the Watch Tower Society claims that in most cases, there weren’t. Specifically, Insight (volume 1, page 462) claims: “Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency.” However, the Watch Tower Society does also include (only) one coregency for Israel, in addition to the spurious periods prior to Zechariah and Hoshea. Those spurious periods are also indicated in chronologies based on Ussher because the Watch Tower Society’s chronology was based on that Protestant chronology, and subsequently adapted to fit their own end-times agenda. Of course, their entire reason for the Watch Tower Society refusing to acknowledge various co-regencies is their “endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings” with their own numerological superstitions.

    The chronologies of the ANE should be adjusted to harmonize with Bible chronology.

    Aside from the fact that there’s no basis for that claim at all, ‘Bible chronology’ is already completely consistent with the historical records of contemporary nations, as I have already shown. For the period involved, Jewish writings in the Bible are no better or worse than the historical records of other nations. All of them presented historical narratives from the context of their own superstitions, attributing ‘victories’ to their deities and ‘defeats’ to ‘divine punishments’.

    The chronoilogy of Uzziah's reign is compatible with other scholars.

    If you are referring to the Watch Tower Society’s “chronoilogy”, then your assertion is based on no evidence at all. I’m not aware of any scholars that attribute the years 829-778BCE for Uzziah. Beyond that gaping error, general consensus among scholars is that Uzziah’s reign included periods of co-regency that are absent in the WT chronology. Additionally, 2 Kings 15:1 cannot be harmonised with the WT chronology either. Even Insight is forced to speculate wildly about this flaw (volume 2, page 1146): “As this would place the beginning of Uzziah’s rule approximately 12 years after the death of his father, this must refer to his ‘becoming king’ in a special sense. It may be that in the 27th year of King Jeroboam, the two-tribe Judean kingdom was freed from subjection to the northern kingdom, a subjection that perhaps began when Israelite King Jehoash defeated Uzziah’s father Amaziah. (2Ch 25:22-24) So it may be that Uzziah became king a second time in the sense of being free from the domination of Israelite King Jeroboam (II).” (bold formatting added)

    WT chronology applies a consistent methodology.

    No, it doesn’t. As one example, usually the Watch Tower Society interprets years of reign as what they actually are. But when (and only when) this causes very obvious problems with their chronology, they claim the ‘beginning’ of the reign ‘really’ refers to years as a vassal (even though it was common for Judean kings to pay tribute to foreign powers rather than the few instances WT chronology would suggest). And the Watch Tower Society’s baseless interpretation of ‘kingship’ at Daniel 2:1 (that 'all the nations' supposedly became subject to Nebuchadnezzar because he conquered Jerusalem) is even worse not only because it is not a consistent ‘methodology’, but because it is plainly ridiculous and has no basis in reality and plainly contradicts the order of events given by Babylonian chronicles and Josephus.

    Some of the Kings were in fact vassals so this must be incorporated in the chronology if required by a regnal datum.

    Judea was a minor kingdom, and like many minor kingdoms, it frequently paid tribute to other nations. But reigns were not counted from the period of paying tribute. The only time the beginning of a reign is the same as a period of vassalage is when a foreign king specifically put that king in power to replace the previous king, for example as was the case with Jehoiakim (late 609BCE) and Zedekiah (early 597BCE).

    Your contrived 'one-year difference is irrelevant because our chronology for the period is purely suggestive not absolute.

    I have analysed the Watch Tower Society chronology. The reason their dates are given as approximate (or ‘suggestive’) is it is in fact impossible to harmonise what they’ve claimed.

    WT chronology for the period of Daniel is based on history and close attention to the regnal data.

    The WT chronology regarding Daniel is an embarrassing sham. It is readily shown to be entirely wrong by comparison of BM 21946 and Josephus. Josephus provides an account of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Antiquities of the Jews, Book X. The context for the time period is provided in Chapter 6, under the heading: “How Nebuchadnezzar, when he had conquered the king of Egypt made an expedition against the Jews, and slew Jehoiakim, and made Jehoiachin his son king”. The section explains, “And when Neco understood the intention of the king of Babylon, and that this expedition was made against him, he did not despise his attempt, but made haste with a great band of men to Euphrates to defend himself from Nebuchadnezzar; and when they had joined battle, he was beaten, and lost many ten thousands [of his soldiers] in the battle.” This is in reference to the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho. Chapter 10 has the heading, “Concerning Daniel and what befell him at Babylon”; it states, “Now two years after the destruction of Egypt, king Nebuchadnezzar saw a wonderful dream,” and continues with the familiar account from Daniel Chapter 2. Two years after the Battle of Carchemish is 603 BCE, which is also the second year of Nebuchadnezzar by Daniel’s reckoning at Daniel 2:1. This cannot be reconciled with the JW chronology. Even more embarrassingly, in the Watch Tower chronology, Nebuchadnezzar learns (supposedly around 614BCE) that Daniel is “ten times better” than ‘all the wise men’ of Babylon, yet when he has his ‘dream’ (supposedly in 606BCE), he doesn’t know Daniel at all. Daniel chapter 1 actually indicates that during Daniel’s ‘three years of training’, he “had understanding in all sorts of visions and dreams”. The plain reading of Daniel chapters 1 and 2 disproves the Watch Tower Society’s jumbled events. Daniel 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar was already king (it was actually still his accession year) when Daniel went to Babylon (early 604BCE, as part of the tribute paid by Jehoiakim), and Daniel 2:1 states that the dream was in Nebuchadnezzar’s second year, which was 603BCE.

    WT chronology is faithful to the history and regnal data in the Bible adjusted with the Biblical corrective-seventy years.

    ‘WT chronology’ is not ‘faithful’ to anything but its own self-serving end-times agenda.

    WT chronology adheres very closely to the entire book of Jeremiah.

    I have already clearly shown that to be a lie. As usual, you make assertions but are unable to actually refer to the source material. The Bible very clearly indicates that the 70 years were a period during which all the nations served Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-12), that the Jews in Jerusalem were already under Babylon's 'yoke' (Jeremiah 27:1-2), that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:8-17), that seventy years ended before the Jews returned to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:10-14). None of those points are compatible with ‘WT chronology’.

    Boy I hoped you would post more so that I could dispense with these as well.

    Your empty assertions have all been shown to be wrong, with specific details.

    We never claimed that Stern accepted WT chronology because that is not why he was quoted. What Stern said fundamentally agrees with our take on the state of Judah during the period of Babylonian domination.

    There's that dishonest use of "we" again. You are just a pawn. You didn't quote Stern in The Watchtower at all. Stern specifically states that Judea was not uninhabited, and he makes no reference to the Watch Tower Society’s alleged ‘70 years of exile’ (which is never stated in the Bible).

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Fisherman:

    With that said, the average person is not qualified to choose scientifically and or scholasticaly between both views. ALSO, since the Bible is written in a foreign language, the average person is not qualified to understand the Bible. Readng only a translator's interpretation, a version of what the writer meant.

    The 'average' person can use tools such as an interlinear and a concordance to get a sense of the actual original meaning of the words used. That is the purpose of such publications. The reader is therefore not at all limited to only "a translator's interpretation". The claim that 'the average person is not qualified to understand the Bible' sounds like something straight out of Middle-Ages Catholocism.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Fisherman

    Post 574

    I did read your post. I would not sell the average person short because the Bible was not written for the intellectuals or the wise but rather for the average Joe who is also humble at heart. Interpretations abound but the true interpretaion is simple and harmonious and is consistent with the basic theme of the Bible which of course is God's Kingdom. True interpretation is a journey, a lifelong journey always mindful of qualities such as integrity, faith, sacrifice and service. It is not just academic pursuit confined to books, scholars and libraries but rather an experience of sacrifice and service.

    It is true that whatever happens or does not happen in 1914 could validate our chronology one way or the other because we live in a time of fulfillment of Bible prophecy so we expects things to change, events to happen.

    Unfortunately I cannot help you any further but to simply add: Keep looking! Keep searching!

    scholar JW

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit