So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander 163 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AlanF

  Poor, poor "scholar". You just have no idea how clueless you are. Yet you have the chutzpah to tell aChristian, "obviously, detail in scholarship is unimportant to you". I will now proceed to show that your concern for detail is nonexistent, that your scholarly ability approximates that of a gnat, and that you have no respect for truth.

  In your last post to aChristian you said:

  : Once again you excell in poor comprehension. You are incorrect in your views of what Jonsson seeks to prove namely that there were tree deporstations based on 2Chronicles 36: 7,10 18. These texts are not clearly referring to the same thing as translated by Jonsson as 'vessels'. The Hebrew word differs in these verses

  Wrong. The word is exactly the same in all three verses. Obviously you failed to look at, or failed to comprehend, the Hebrew text in Green's Interlinear.

  The word in question is keliy. From Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia it looks like this, in 2 Chronicles 36:10:

  According to the The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon this word means "article, utensil, vessel". According to Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, keliy has a wealth of related meanings.

  In 2 Chron. 36:7, 10, 18, the word is used in conjunction with "the house of Jehovah" or "the house of the true God". Thus context alone indicates that the word means exactly the same in all three instances.

  Here are scans from The Interlinear Hebrew Greek English Bible (Jay Green, Vol. II, Associated Publishers and Authors, 1976, pp. 1230-1231) for these verses:

  Clearly, each usage of keliy is exactly the same, except that in verses 7 and 10, prefixes are tacked on in the usual fashion of the Hebrew language.

  Note that in the Hebrew text, Green has for these verses:

  vessels, articles, articles

  Yet in his marginal translation Green has:

  vessels, vessels, vessels

  Now, Green is a very careful translator, and so it is obvious that he considers the words "vessels" and "articles" to be synonymous in these passages.

  On the other hand, The New World Translation has:

  utensils, articles, utensils

  So the NWT's renderings are consistent with Green's renderings only in verse 10. Yet you stupidly commented:

  : that is why in verse 2 the NWT translate it as ' desirable articles' as in agreement with Green's Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament, Vol.2 pp..1230-31.

  Ha! As if the NWT's rendering is conclusive!

  Why Freddie Franz chose to use different words will probably never be known. But it is clear that he violated his own standard of translating. On page 7, in the Introduction, The New World Translation With References states:

  Uniformity of rendering has been maintained by assigning one meaning to each major word and by holding to that meaning as far as the context permits. At times this has imposed a restriction upon word choices, but it aids in cross-reference work and in comparing related texts.

  Unfortunately, it appears that Freddie let his doctrinal biases get in the way of following this rule. Nor does a claim of "different contexts" for verses 7, 10 and 18 hold water: the contexts are identical.

  Now let's take a look at a reference that consistently uses the word "vessels" for keliy:

  From Analytical Key to the Old Testament (John Joseph Owens, Vol. 2, Baker Book House, 1992, pp. 933-935):

  And finally we'll take a look at a reference that consistently uses the word "articles" for keliy:

  From The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament (John R. Kohlenberger, ed., Zondervan, 1987, Vol. Three, pp. 183-185):

  Given the above, it should be clear how stupid and dishonest your comment here is:

  : It is Jonsson who has raised this argument as explained in the first paragragh on page342 but is not supported by careful translation of the Hebrew.

  The references I have cited above prove that a careful translation of the Hebrew fully supports Jonsson's argument, demolishes yours, and proves that the NWT translators did not follow their own rules when doctrinal bias got in the way.

  In view of the above, it is painfully clear, to use your own words, that you are not interested in the facts but in

  : ... the championing of a viewpoint of chronology that you have not fully understood.

  If you are wrong in your understanding of such simple passages as 2 Chron. 36:7, 10, 18, then whatever claims you make about Daniel 1:1 and 2:1 are highly suspect, and whatever research you do on the Divided Monarchy will be useless because it is clear that you have no scholarly skills beyond perhaps photocopying pages from a book you chanced upon.

  Now let's examine the previous post you made to aChristian. You said:

  : Jonsson's discussion is flawed because to give one example the following: Page 341 he presents a chart claiming there were three deportations. What he faild to mention in the example (2) that with Jehoiakim, the 'desirable' (NW) or 'valuable' (NASB) were brought to Babylon. (Verse 10) This is a misrepresentation

  You are breathtakingly stupid! Here is what Jonsson wrote on page 341, verbatim:

  (1) The first time, during Jehoiakim's reign, "some" of the vessels were brought to Babylon. (Verse 7)

  (2) The second time, together with Jehoiachin, the "desirable" (NW) or "valuable" (NASB) vessels were brought to Babylon. (Verse 10)

  (3) The third time, together with Zedekiah, "all" the vessels were brought to Babylon. (Verse 18)

  So, your claim that Jonsson "faild to mention in the example (2) that with Jehoiakim, the 'desirable' (NW) or 'valuable' (NASB) were brought to Babylon" is patently false. You have a terribly severe reading comprehension problem that affects your ability to reason properly.

  : because the NWT has 'desirable articles'. The NWT in the examples (1) and (3) uses utensils.

  What point do you think you're making here? I think you have no idea. Your argument is gibberish but I'll go on, assuming it's not completely so.

  : Clearly, Jonsson argues that those three verses uses vessels to support his claim for three deportations

  So far so good.

  : but the NWT shows

  We have already seen that the NWT is inconsistent. We have also seen that it doesn't matter if the NWT is inconsistent, since the word keliy refers to articles, vessels, and utensils. The translator can take his pick. So the NWT shows nothing.

  : that these verses argue for on;y two deportations with verse 7 and 10 referring to one event at the end of Jehoiakim's reign and kingship.

  Nonsense. Your argument is stupid on two counts: (1) Your argument hinges on your claim that verses 7 and 10 refer to one event, whereas even the NWT's rendering indicates two events by its different renderings ("some of the utensils" and "desirable articles"); and (2) Verses 5-8 explicitly refer to the reign of Jehoiakim, and so, in context, the NWT's reference to "some of the vessels of the house of Jehovah" in verse 7 must refer to a deportation in Jehoiakim's reign; Verses 9-10 explicitly refer to the reign of Jehoiachin, and so, in context, the NWT's reference to "desirable articles of the house of Jehovah" in verse 10 must refer to a deportation in Jehoichin's reign.

  Here is another argument in favor of verse 7 referring to Jehoiakim's reign: Verse 6 states that "against him Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up that he might bind him with two fetters of copper to carry him off to Babylon." Clearly, this never happened, because (1) if Nebuchadnezzar's 'coming up' occurred early in Jehoiakim's reign, as Daniel 1:1 states and as is certain from 2 Kings 24:1, then he couldn't have been carried off to Babylon because we know that he reigned for eleven years; and (2) if Nebuchadnezzar's 'coming up' occurred near the end of Jehoiakim's reign, Jehoiakim was not carried off to Babylon because the 2 Kings 24:6 states that Jehoiakim died before Jehoiachin began to reign, and so he died before Jerusalem was breached and he could be captured. Because verse 7 is intimately connected with the 'coming up' of Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in verse 6, the bringing of "some of the utensils" to Babylon was intimately connected with the 'coming up' of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim, not Jehoiachin. Thus it is clear that verses 7, 10 and 18 describe three cases where temple utensils (or vessels or articles) were brought to Babylon.

  Now, scholar, I will turn your question around on you: "Would you like more? Only two [sic] happy to oblige."

  AlanF

  Edited by - AlanF on 30 January 2003 5:7:31
• 

  AlanF

  Hi Earnest,

  : I was speaking of Strm. Kambys. 400 only and agree with Jonsson that "to fix the date for the fall of Babylon, it is much safer to start with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and count forward, instead of beginning with the reign of Cambyses and counting backward." (GTR, 1998, p.87.)

  Ok, so we agree on that.

  :: It is this gross scholastic dishonesty that you ought to come to grips with, Earnest.

  : I take your point but also consider that the WTS, like Ptolemy, is sometimes right despite scholastic dishonesty.

  Thats true. But not here, not in the details of pre-539 Neo-Babylonian chronology.

  As for Ptolemys alleged dishonesty, youll find that Jonsson points out some recent discussions that show that Newtons charges were not entirely correct. Newton claimed that Ptolemy fabricated virtually all of his observations in order to bolster his mathematical astronomical theory, but it appears that he did not fabricate nearly as much as Newton claimed. The fact is that Ptolemys king list, which is the important piece of evidence here, was not actually compiled by Ptolemy but by many generations of ancient astronomers. Ptolemys particular list just happened to be the one that survived.

  : 'scholar' has pointed out that Jonsson's hypothesis is one of several

  But its not merely Jonssons hypothesis. The very best of todays scholars support the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology. Ive checked this in a number of publications, including The Cambridge Ancient History and Jack Finegans Handbook of Bible Chronology. Dont fall into the trap of JW apologists You cant trust what an apostate says! The fact is that Jonsson is classified as an apostate merely for disagreeing publicly with a Watchtower doctrine. This produces a catch-22 situation for anyone who disagrees: If you disagree and shut up, nothing will change and youll be left alone and the Society will not have to answer your arguments; if you disagree and make it known, again nothing will change but youll be booted out for apostasy (disagreement with Gods organization) and the Society still will not answer your arguments. These people want it both ways. Surely you can see how dishonest and unfair this is.

  : and I don't think we should limit our study simply to avoid agreement with any aspect of WTS chronology.

  Agreed. What specifically did you have in mind? I think you already understand that neither I nor aChristian nor Carl Jonsson will refuse to deal with any argument offered by the Watchtower or even by its most moronic apologists such as scholar.

  I should point out that scholar is a very good example of what an honest scholar should not be. When in the past on a number of occasions Ive asked him to discuss the notion of the royalty of Persia in 2 Chron. 36:20, he has refused. Instead he has demanded that before he will consider this passage, I must present a complete and consistent chronology of the entire Jewish period up until the destruction of Jerusalem. He knows very well that this has nothing at all to do with 36:20, but he knows that it gives him (in his own mind) and excuse not to deal with a major problem. This is crass scholastic dishonesty.

  AlanF
• 

  Gerard

  Impresive research from some of you. The Watchtower apologists frame their arguments in such a manner (intentionally or not) that it appears that someone could arrive at the same belief as official Watchtower doctrine through independent study. But is that possible? Is it possible to come to what the Watchtower calls "the truth" independently of the publications produced by the Watchtower? To ask it another way, from the Watchtower's official position, can the study of New Testament Greek grammar and syntax bring someone's beliefs in line with existing Watchtower doctrine? After examining several Watchtower publications, it would appear that it would be impossible for a person studying the Greek New Testament apart from Watchtower helps to come up with a faith that matches the Watchtower's "truth". The teaching depends on the interpretations.

  Gerry
• 

  RubaDub

  Things definitely went awry after John wrote the book of Revelations and then later signed the Magna Carta.

  History has never been the same since.

  *****Rub a Dub

  Edited by - RubaDub on 30 January 2003 15:15:36
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello,

  Something far more disturbing than 'Scholar's' chronological and theological meandering is his consistent refusal to attend the problem as to what right the WTS has to enforce on pains of shunning, its adherents belief in a certain Biblical date that by no means fulfills the required weight of evidence historically. Given that most people are not historians when they are introduced to the WTS and that they are then simply told that the 607BCE date is the only choice in the matter, is this simply not arrogant dishonesty at its extreme. To then move one step further onto thin ice, is it not then sheer bullying that the WTS then demands that all its adherents accept this date without question, not even harboring 'private thoughts' about it, on pains of a brutal regime of shunning?

  I call on Scholar once again to at least attempt to answer my oft stated question, which has actually nothing to do with dates, but everything to do with honor, honesty and truth.

  No person knows the exact date of the fall of Jerusalem though the secular weight of evidence as of todays date seems to indicate that it fell around the years BCE586/7. Until any weight of evidence exists to overturn this view, can you offer the readers of this Board good reason why they should alter the pattern of their lives to suit the interpretations of some researchers, such as WTS researchers who feel that not only is the conventional date incorrect but that the date that they have fallen upon indicates that we are living close to Har-Mageddon, the culmination of all things? Scholars rely on weight of evidence, not personal convenience, or Bible-code type games to draw conclusions

  Best regards - HS
• 

  AlanF

  : ... can you offer the readers of this Board good reason why they should alter the pattern of their lives to suit the interpretations of some researchers ...?

  Of course: God's spokesmen say we should.

  And of course, we must not talk about the fact that the claim of these "spokesmen" to speak for God hinges entirely on their chronology being right. Among other things.

  AlanF
• 

  aChristian

  Alan,

  Referring to "Scholar" you wrote: When in the past on a number of occasions Ive asked him to discuss the notion of the royalty of Persia in 2 Chron. 36:20, he has refused. Instead he has demanded that before he will consider this passage, I must present a complete and consistent chronology of the entire Jewish period up until the destruction of Jerusalem.

  Don't bother. Scholar has just raised the bar. When I mentioned earlier that I had recently completed just such a chronology, Scholar's response was that it could not possibly be an accurate one unless it showed the time of the divided monarchy to be 390 years. Why? Obviously because the Watchtower's interpretation of Ezekiel 4 says it was 390 years.

  Scholar,

  If the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Ezek. 4 is a correct one, why has it never been able to produce a 390 year long chronology of this time period which harmonizes all biblical synchronisms between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah? Certainly, if this period of time was really 390 years long they, or a scholar like yourself, should have been able to produce such a chronology. Especially since they, and you I suspect, feel no obligation to pay attention to any of the various synchronisms between the Jewish kings and the kings of their neighboring nations which appear in the historical records of those nations, and which have been confidently assigned B.C. dates by modern historians. Not to mention the fact that they, and you I suspect, in putting together such a chronology would probably feel no obligation to also harmonize the several "variant" synchonisms which are contained in the LXX and in the works of Josephus. Again I ask you, If this period of time was really 390 years long, why have proponents of the 390 year divided monarchy belief never been able produce a chronology which even harmonizes just the biblical synchronisms over such a period of time?
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello Alan,

  And of course, we must not talk about the fact that the claim of these "spokesmen" to speak for God hinges entirely on their chronology being right. Among other things.

  Interestingly the 'spokesmen' that I have had dealings with seem to know less about Biblical chronology than the girl who experiences an orgasm washing her hair on that appalling advertisment on the TV.

  When I once raised the issue of the tenous 607BCE date with a very senior 'spokesman' he refused to discuss the subject. His only comment was that 'We only truly understand these things after they have been fulfilled and anyway the visible sign we see is clear evidence that the system of things is ending and this is far more important than history lessons!'.

  Anyway, despite the Squalor, this thread made a very interesting read.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  AlanF

  Hillary_Step said:

  : Interestingly the 'spokesmen' that I have had dealings with seem to know less about Biblical chronology than the girl who experiences an orgasm washing her hair on that appalling advertisment on the TV.

  They don't need to. They have flunkies who do their thinking for them on this subject. Of course, the flunkies better not disagree with tradition.

  : When I once raised the issue of the tenous 607BCE date with a very senior 'spokesman' he refused to discuss the subject. His only comment was that 'We only truly understand these things after they have been fulfilled

  A typical copout.

  : and anyway the visible sign we see is clear evidence that the system of things is ending and this is far more important than history lessons!'.

  Standard nonsensical rationalization. The fact is that many people have proved conclusively that this "visible sign" is nothing but a figment of the imagination of Watchtower leaders. In terms of the claimed "signs" in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, earthquakes are no worse than they've always been in terms of intensity and frequency (even WTS writers now grudginly admit this) and they kill less than 1/3 the number of people on a per-capita basis as they did 300 years ago; famine and pestilence kill far less people both in absolute terms and on a per-capita basis than they did even 100 years ago, and war kills about the same percentage as it has during the last half-millennium. The fact that population has exploded during the 20th century proves that such traditional massive killers of humans are not operating on the scale they did before 1914. The Society pretty much knows this, and so it has taken to wimpy rationalizations like, "Jesus said there would be earthquakes, and we see earthquakes." As if people didn't see earthquakes until 1914! Such stupidity is like claiming that the grass being green and the sky being blue are "signs".

  : Anyway, despite the Squalor,

  A good name!

  : this thread made a very interesting read.

  Glad you liked it. We must get together some time.

  AlanF
• 

  Earnest

  aChristian:

  Thank you for your words of wisdom in approaching biblical chronology. Rest assured that I am quite amenable to the various dates that we have been given by historians unless there is good reason for doubt. And I certainly do not include personal convenience or Bible-code type games as good reason. On the other hand I am also aware that historians are humans too, and they can have their own agenda as to how history should be interpreted. But that shouldn't normally affect the dates themselves. I trust you will let us know when you do publish your work so we can devote a thread to your conclusions. Seriously, I am sure many (including myself) will be interested to read it.

  AlanF:

  Earnest : I don't think we should limit our study simply to avoid agreement with any aspect of WTS chronology.

  AlanF : Agreed. What specifically did you have in mind?

  When I initially read the chronological texts in Daniel I had the impression that there was more to the reigns of Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar than met the eye. That impression still remains although I am not certain how they should be understood. But whatever my conclusions are they should be considered on their own merits and not be immediately classed as either for or against the WTS. I have to agree it is sometimes difficult to know whether conclusions we reach are by reason or indoctrination, whether we believe because it is true or simply because we want to believe. And presenting our conclusions on a public forum can certainly help us examine ourselves. But truth must remain the criterion by which we measure things, and not acceptance or rejection of WT dogma.

  In this respect I wonder if I may comment on the recent discussion of 2 Chronicles 36: 7,10,18. I am at a bit of a loss to understand the significance of whether the "utensils" of verse 7 are different from the "desirable articles" of verse 10. I cannot see how that affects how many deportations there were. But having said that, I must then say that I do think the distinction in translation of keliy in verse 10 is well-grounded.

  The word keliy itself has a myriad meanings and that is because it can refer to "anything finished, made, produced" (Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, Briggs, 1929, p.479) It can have the meanings of (1) an article or object, especially something of value; (2) a utensil, implement or apparatus including a weapon, an implement of music, a tool, a yoke, sacred utensils; (3) a receptacle such as a sack, a bag, an earthenware cooking pot; and (4) a reed-boat.

  The context in which it is used in 2 Chronicles 36 limits it to a sacred utensil but even that has a wide range. The Lexicon (p.480) has this to say:

  2.f. as general term for utensils and furniture of Solomon's palace [1 Kings 10:21=2 Chronicles 9:20]; especially (very often) of the tabernacle [Exodus 25:9,39; 27:3] (in Hex always P), and temple [1 Kings 7:45,47,48; 2 Kings 12:14]; of both palace and temple [Jeremiah 27:18,19,21]; combinations are utensils of the tabernacle [Exodus 27:19], utensils of the altar [Exodus 38:3], utensils of Jehovah [Isaiah 52:11], utensils of the House of Jehovah [Jeremiah 27:16; 28:3,6; Ezra 1:7], desirable articles of the House of Jehovah [2 Chronicles 36:10], utensils of the House of God [2 Chronicles 28:24,24; 36:18; Nehemiah 13:9; Daniel 1:2], utensils of the Sanctuary [Nehemiah 10:39], utensils of ministry [Numbers 4:12], service utensils [Numbers 4:26; 1 Chronicles 9:28; 28:14,14], utensils of the service of Jehovah's House [1 Chronicles 28:13], equipment [Numbers 4:32]; also holy utensils [1 Kings 8:4; 1 Chronicles 9:29]; of appliances of idol-worship [2 Kings 23:4].

  The NWT pretty much keeps to its standard of "assigning one meaning to each major word and holding to that meaning as far as the context permits". There are instances where a word other than utensils is used. For example, in 1 Kings 10:21 & 2 Chronicles 9:20 it says :

  "And all the drinking vessels [keliy] of King Solomon were of gold, and all the vessels [keliy] of the House of the Forest of Lebanon were of pure gold..."

  Clearly, in this verse the utensils of King Solomon were qualified as being drinking utensils and so it had a more specific meaning than the word had elsewhere. Another interesting verse is Numbers 4:32 which reads :

  "and the pillars of the courtyard round about and their socket pedestals and their tent pins and their tent cords together with all their equipment [keliy] and all their service. And by their names you will assign the equipment [keliy] for which they are obligated, as their load."

  Here again the context demands a meaning that will embrace more than utensils and so 'equipment' is used. Other translations are 'furnishings' (NKJV), 'instruments' (Webster's). Now the difference between 2 Chronicles 36:10 and verses 7 & 18 is that the utensils [keliy] in verse 10 are qualified as being "desirable" [chemdah] whereas those in verses 7 and 18 are not. So a different (but equally correct) word is used to show there is a distinction between the two types of keliy which would not have been as obvious if the same English word had been used.

  I really do not think it was done in order to obfuscate the issue about how many deportations there were. The text seems quite clear without such silly arguments, as you demonstrated to "scholar". But it is equally clear that the writer was making a distinction between keliy and chemdah keliy.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 1 February 2003 3:7:58