by homme perdu 166 Replies latest watchtower bible
Neil,
BTW Ive rattled my elder study over chronology to the point he actually went on-line and ordered A.K. Graysons' chronology book that is referenced in the Insight Vol. I chronology section. And there it was in black and white a book filled with refutations of the FDS' chronology list. Hmmmmm.
elderwho
The data referring to the reigns of the Neo Babylonian kings using WT chronology is problematic because there is no firm agreement within scholarship as to their reigns. The figures supplied for those rulers agrees with the current position but earlier authorities have different figures. However, if you are happy with the current presentation then that is fine with me, I prefer a chronology that is based on solid biblical and secular evidence as presented by WT chronology. By the way the Society and Furuli use Grayson as an authority in support of a different claim so your elder friend should not be distressed but simply needs to do more research.
scholar
hilary-step
If you wish to believe that Franz and Co. have identified the committe by a mere list of names without supporting evidence then that OK with me. Until I see evidence to the contrary I will continue to affirm that the identity of the committe is unknown and unknowable.
scholar
Marvin Shilmer
I posted a challenge on Channel C asking three specific points which to date no one has supplied answers to those three points and no alternative chronology has been provided by any such WT critics on chronology either.
scholar
The fact is, non-scholar -- as I and others have pointed out to you ad infinitum -- it's impossible to use the Bible to come up with an internally consistent chronology for the Hebrew kings, because the biblical data is hopelessly confused. Good biblical scholars know and admit this, and no amount of sweeping of problematic passages under the rug -- as Fred Franz and company have done -- will change that. "What is bent cannot be made straight", and in this area the Bible is rather bent.
AlanF
EW..But you want it with Neb starting at 624 and are unable to reach 539 with the Societys years of rule.
Because of this fact, the Society has established a shifting numbers game to align 1914 and nothing more.
I prefer a chronology that is based on solid biblical and secular evidence as presented by WT chronology.
If the Societys list is "problematic" what makes it "solid evidence"?
Btw, nowhere does Graysons work "shore up" WT chronology.
By the way the Society and Furuli use Grayson as an authority in support of a different claim so your elder friend should not be distressed but simply needs to do more research.A different claim? Whats that? And why are'nt these kings lists made to be plain and simple and easy to understand for the R/F? Without any reseearch.
Alan F
Pathetic excuses are all that you have despite the fact that WT chronology from earliest times have had no problem in presenting an intelligent, cohererent list of kings for the Divided Monarchy. It is problematic for other scholars because of methodology and failure to take the historicity of the Bible seriously. Besides there are other non-Witness chronologists who make made such a list such as Thiele, Hayes, Hooker, Bright, Cogan and Tadmor.
scholar
THe only reason that I know of for the 1914 chronology to matter in the least is that the JW's base their predictions for armageddon on it. CLEARLY they are WRONG. So what's the point, really?
Non-scholar said:
: Pathetic excuses are all that you have
Not at all. It's provable that the Bible's "chronology" of the Hebrew kings is self-contradictory and inconsistent.
: despite the fact that WT chronology from earliest times have had no problem in presenting an intelligent, cohererent list of kings for the Divided Monarchy.
LOL! They never were able to present such "an intelligent, cohererent list of kings" until the 1940s, when Freddie Franz jettisoned a good bit of the older teachings, swept various problems under the rug, and presented a whitewashed version of "chronology" that simply ignored the problems that real scholars have long been concerned with. Not a single real scholar has accepted Watchtower chronology -- for the simple reason that it's self-inconsistent, fails to account for everything in the Bible, and contradicts known facts.
One example of the incorrect older chronological claims involves the question of whether there was a period of 430 or 530 years in a critical area of their claimed OT chronology. According to Freddie, it was the former number, whereas the Watchtower had been using the latter number until Freddie changed the teaching. Since the chronology was wrong by 100 years -- by the Watchtower Society's own admission in changing it -- your claim is demonstrated to be false. And you know that it's false, which simply proves once again that you're a liar.
: It is problematic for other scholars because of methodology and failure to take the historicity of the Bible seriously.
It is problematic for Watchtower writers because of methodology and failure to take the internal inconsistencies of the Bible seriously.
: Besides there are other non-Witness chronologists who make made such a list such as Thiele, Hayes, Hooker, Bright, Cogan and Tadmor.
I only know about Thiele, and he was honest enough to admit that there were unsolved problems -- which he listed and acknowledged in various works including The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. He still had to jump through hoops to come up with anything resembling a coherent chronology -- and of course, other scholars have pointed out what he couldn't explain and have come to their own conclusions. And of course, almost any of such scholars could point out all sorts of inconsistencies in Watchtower claims.
Sweeping errors under the rug doesn't result in good chronology, non-scholar.
AlanF
"Scholar" knows how to spell pathetic.
