So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander 163 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Hi Earnest,

    Thanks for your answers. As usual they're full of information, and I'm learning from them.

    I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about Russell's motives for using the KJV rendering for Acts 13:20.

    : The selection for Acts 13:20 is identified with {D}- a very high degree of doubt.

    Ok, now I see.

    : My answer must be "no" because the word "until" indicates that when Fujitsu bought the division your brothers were no longer employees of IBM's hard drive design division.

    That's my point.

    : Actually, that would still allow them to be employed by IBM in some other division although that is not the natural and obvious sense of the statement. But you ask could your statement "in any way be taken to allow" that they remain employees of IBM so my final answer must be "yes".

    I should have asked more precisely, "... could my statement in any way be taken to allow that my brothers were employed by IBM's hard drive division after Fujitsu took over?" because that is what I meant. Given that, I hope that your final answer to my modified question would be "no" because that's in line with your first "no".

    So here is my point: 2 Chronicles 36:20 states (NWT): "Furthermore, he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign." According to this scripture, until what event did the Jewish captives remain servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons? In what year did that event occur? Note the parallel with my hypothetical question.

    When you give the obvious answers, I'll tie them in with other scriptures and quit playing games.

    AlanF

  • scholar
    scholar

    hilary-step

    You are probably correct that the SECULAR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE favours 586/587 but this view is something I have recognized in many of my earlier postings. The simple fact of the matter is that I believe in the BIBLICAL WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE which favours 607. I also understand that secular chronology is far too complex and uncertain which leads to many conflicting opinions amongst scholars despite the fact that there are many astronomical fixed dates . Whereupon, there are very few biblical dates if any, apart from the Fall of Babylon that enjoys complete consensus. The calculation of 607 is well based on historical evidence as you well know and provides an immediate and direct coputation to the Fall of Jerusalem.

    In contrast, Jewish biblical chronology is very complex and also suffers the major difficulty of wide opinion. This is well highlighted in the study by Jewish chronoligist Eliexer Shulman in his 'The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament', 1987. This publication presents three seventy year periods, each of which has a different beginning and end. Namely:

    Seventy years of the kingdom of Babylon

    Seventy years of the Babylonian Exile

    Seventy years of Jeruslalem's desolation

    I will be replying to the other postings

    Regards

    scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Scholar,

    Thank you for your prompt reply to my post.

    You note :

    You are probably correct that the SECULAR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE favours 586/587 but this view is something I have recognized in many of my earlier postings. The simple fact of the matter is that I believe in the BIBLICAL WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE which favours 607. I also understand that secular chronology is far too complex and uncertain which leads to many conflicting opinions amongst scholars despite the fact that there are many astronomical fixed dates .

    Given the admitted dichotomy of opinions over the actual date of the fall of Jerusalem, and the fact that no accurate date is available for this event, and that the secular and biblical evidence may not agree, I need to ask two important questions of you or any other WTS apologist :

    Is it morally and ethically honest to ask six million people to alter the pattern of their lives, often in ways that effect the health and well-being of that person and their families, based on a tenuous and still unverified date in mans past history?

    Is it morally and ethically justifiable to shun those who have concluded that due to the uncertainty in verifying the timelines required to adhere to WTS doctrines, they no longer feel able to place the gift of their trust in WTS chronology?

    Best regards - HS

    Edited by - hillary_step on 7 January 2003 12:22:46

  • scholar
    scholar

    To all chronologists

    I have just been advised that a new first volume on secular chronology and the Bible by Rolf Furuli will be published this coming spring. Orders cand be taken now. I will post the URL when I return home from work today.

    scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    It always amuses me when a JW apologist publishes a book as the only people who seem to read them are seasoned 'apostates' or trembling feeelance JW researchers, who are generally far too frightened to discuss what they are learning lest they usurp the authority of the 'janitors made good' and subsequently receive a visit from an elder - who incidentally last picked up his Bible for real research in 1914.

    Ask the average JW who Rolf Furuli is and they would probably identify the triple-chinned owner of the sleazy diner frequented by them on Saturday morning Service.

    HS

    Edited by - hillary_step on 7 January 2003 15:38:36

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Rolf Furuli has been caught in scholarly dishonesty in the past. Once of that is all it takes for me. Why is it that dubs are generally the ones caught in lies and can't be trusted to keep their word like Furuli has done in the past?

    Farkel

  • Gerard
    Gerard

    It all started when Russel smoked an extra kilo of heroin and pretended to use pyramid measurements for Biblical interpretation:

    *** Thy Kingdom Come (copyright 1891) (1904 edition -- Millennial Dawn, vol 3) p.342 ***
    [Note: not available on 1993/1995/1999 CD-ROM]

    So, then, if we measure backward down the "First Ascending Passage" to its junction with the "Entrance Passage," we shall have a fixed date to mark upon the downward passage. This measure is 1542 inches, and indicates the year B.C. 1542, as the date at that point. Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years from the above date, B.C. 1542. This calculation shows AD. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1874 years AD. equals 3416 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1874 was the chronological beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation -- no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject...

    *** Thy Kingdom Come (copyright 1891) (1910 edition -- Studies In The Scriptures, vol. 3) p.342 ***
    [Note: not available on 1993/1995/1999 CD-ROM]

    So, then, if we measure backward down the "First Ascending Passage" to its junction with the "Entrance Passage," we shall have a fixed date to mark upon the downward passage. This measure is 1542 inches, and indicates the year B.C. 1542, as the date at that point. Then measuring down the "Entrance Passage" from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the "Pit," representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, B.C. 1542. This calculation shows AD. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1915 years AD. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation -- no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this "Witness" fully corroborates the' Bible testimony on this subject...

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Hi Alan,

    Let the games resume.

    So here is my point: 2 Chronicles 36:20 states (NWT): "Furthermore, he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign." According to this scripture, until what event did the Jewish captives remain servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons? In what year did that event occur? Note the parallel with my hypothetical question.

    What is this anyway...a Watchtower Study ? Read the question, read the answer...oh well, done it often enough so I won't quibble now.

    The Jewish captives remained servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign (or, came to power). As verse 22 then speaks of the first year of Cyrus king of Persia that would be the year they ended their servitude to Nebuchadnezzar. There seems to be a consensus that this was in 539 B.C.E.

    Farkel:

    Rolf Furuli has been caught in scholarly dishonesty in the past.

    I do not doubt your word on this but wonder if you could be more specific as it has the appearance of mud-slinging without any tangible mud. Thanks.

    Earnest

    Edited by - Earnest on 9 January 2003 0:7:8

  • D8TA
    D8TA

    A Rolf Furuli link about this "new chronology" opinion:

    http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/oslo_chronology.htm

    Nope...can't say it proves or disproves: 586/587 or 607. It's been called a "different" approach", in other words, an "opinion". Try again.

    I like the end of this though:

    A word of caution

    Ancient history cannot be proven, because there are no living informants. Any attempt to make a chronological scheme of the kings of ancient nations is tentative. The Oslo chronology does not claim to represent the final word of the matter, but it represents a new approach to chronology. It does not generally challenge the interpretations and datings of astronomical tablets by experts such as Sachs, Hunger, Watson, and Steel, but it questions the origin and quality of the tablets, thus scrutinizing the connection between the dates and regnal year of real kings. Its advantage is that the cuneiform data are not seen through the glasses of the traditional chronology, but the evidence of each tablet is presented in its own right. It is also an advantage that published cuneiform sources are much more numerous and complete than was the case 50 years ago when Parker and Dubberstein did their work. The real importance of the Oslo chronology, therefore, is not that it has established the only true chronology, but that it has demonstrated that the accepted chronology, based on P&D is not the only true chronology.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Earnest,

    http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Stewart_Heinz.htm

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/f01.html

    http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/stewart.htm

    -----------------

    Or this little gem:

    Rolf Furuli ([email protected])
    Thu, 01 May 1997 22:02:10 +0000

    A CORRECTION

    Reading my previous posting in this thread I discovered that
    I had copied and sent an unfinished draft which stated the
    opposite of what was intended (I sometimes write two
    onesided drafts and afterwards weave them together). I did
    not intend to suggest that all Greek perfects are
    imperfective, which of course is impossible; but that
    some/many are. Below is the correct text. Please discard my
    previous posting!

    -----------------

    Um, so he writes two drafts that contradict each other, and then somehow "weave" them together, even though they contradict each other, but in this case he's not trying to "weave" anything. He's pleaing for someone to discard one of his writings which was the "opposite" of what was "intended," even though HE wrote it!

    This sounds to me like he's dodging and weaving.

    http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-03/1065.html

    Farkel

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit