Finally broke down and talked to my wife about 607 BC.

by ithinkisee 60 Replies latest members private

• 

  Terry

  Try to get the issue down to JWs vs. the Bible .... which will you choose?

  On this I completely disagree. It is the error I made for years and years and years. The JW's SAY they base their theology on the Bible. That makes the BIBLE (and not their theology) the root.

  You cannot GRANT THEM that foundation or you are dead in the water.

  You cannot stipulate the reliability, accuracy, harmony or integrity of the Bible WITHOUT ESTABLISHING IT FIRST.

  I made no progress at all in detaching myself from Watchtower teachings until I accidentally started examining the whole Bible issue.

  Who wrote it? When? Why? What are the details and how can they be established?

  One book that opened my eyes was by a superbly qualified professor specializing in bible language, hermenutics and interpretation who is a rock-solid believer. He was not setting out to write a book debunking anything. But, he is an HONEST scholar. He tackled the issue of Bible Inerrancy.

  His book is THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE A PLEA FOR REALISM by D.C. Carson

  He discusses the provenance of bible manuscripts and the broken chain of integrity that everywhere bespeaks gaps, errors, guesses, pious frauds, inadvertant and deliberate mischief, etc.

  By the time I finished that book I was shaken if not stirred.

  I followed that book by reading WHO WROTE THE BIBLE by Friedman. That was the one-two punch I needed to make me rethink my absolute certainty about Divine Authorship.

  Doctrines turn on a word very often. We cannot be certain of ANY of the words in the Bible.

  Times, events, people, conversations, instructions are all subject to controversy. NOTHING can be solidly established.

  The only reasonable conclusion is that THE BIBLE IS NOT A RELIABLE text for discovering anything important about life.

  Imagine taking a perscription drug that could kill/cure you because the Pharmacist could not read or understand the perscription slip from the doctor. Imagine the slip copied, recopied, "corrected' by laymen and passed from hand to hand before reaching the Pharmacist.

  WOULD YOU ENTRUST your life to such a flimsy shred of nothing as that?

  NO!

  Well, that is the issue here.

  You can avoid ALL THE OTHER arguments simply by concentrating on the veracity and provenance of the Bible itself.

  Why?

  It is the fundamental foundation.

  T.
• 

  ithinkisee

  Terry,

  How do you suggest I change my argument that the WTS is grossly misapplying prophecy to their own ends, and instead change it to throwing out the whole bible as anything reliable?

  I am open for suggestions that won't undermine any current (seeming) progress.

  -ithinkisee
• 

  ithinkisee

  Ask her how many of the kings (5 in all) during this persion, whos lengths of reign is specifically line out in the Bible. The answer is none! Only two of the 5 kings are mentioned, Nebuchadnessar and Evil-Merodach, and the Bible is not specific on the length of their reigns. The other thre kings in this period, Nabonidus , Labashi-Marduk and Neriglissar aren`t even mentioned. So for the WTs claim to be true, these kings had to rule for 20 years longer than all of secular history says they did, and it still wouldn`t make sense, because that would (probably) disrupt the entire chronology that sets the year of 539.

  Problem is ... it looks like the angle she is taking is that bible chronology is established by the Israelite Kingship. That is the one place I am still cloudy on. I could use some good chronological charts of the Israelite Kings from David forward ... or something.

  Help?

  -ithinkisee
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  ithinkisee,

  i agree. this is a slippery slope. and getting to the root of the problem itself, the inerrancy of the bible, is the quickest route. but this would require a major diversion from your current approach, which has been non confrontational and easy going. if you get into the inerrancy of the bible, and it's secular historicity, then they will just flat out deny what you are saying. at that point you are in all out debate, not discussion.

  on the other hand, doctrinal debate/exposition can work, but it takes a lot of energy and self control, which i can tell you do have. Ray Franz is a good example of this. i personally can't imagine going this route, because if someone is going to leave The Truth, they have to be ready for it themselves. you show a great amount of humanity, generosity and tenacity by going the doctrinal route, considering the probability that she will break out of the org with you.

  you are going to have to eventually get into the secular historicity of the bible, and it's implications, anyways. but i suppose it wouldn't hurt to hash it out with your father in law anyways. the problem is getting them to trust secular history the way they trust the bible. to most dubs, secular history and science = the devil. and this is hard to overcome.

  TS
• 

  ackack

  I would stay completely out of that chronology. Stick to the kings of babylon. Their combined rules (from Neb down) only give you 67 years to work with. This view is completely supported by the wt itself.

  I love the page on quotes that supports this as well as the refutation of the "let your kingdom come book".
• 

  TheListener

  Ithink,

  Do some googling, and you will find that there is a lot of wiggle room with when Saul began ruling as king. It's not a slam dunk date as the WTS shows it. I know one of the latest WTs has a chronology of the Israelite kings in it and I said when it came out (in a separate thread) that all a JW would do is use that to refute 607vs587.

  But, I had this same problem (israelite king reigns being given therefore 607 being right). I searched the web endlessly and realized there isn't a definite Saul kingship starts here date. Perhaps if you get enough evidence of that you can say "oh yea, I thought that was it also, but then I found this..."

  Good luck.

  I have the babylon book at home. If there is a page you need reviewed let me know, but I can't get any info. to you until tomorrow morning. sorry.
• 

  daystar

  How do you suggest I change my argument that the WTS is grossly misapplying prophecy to their own ends, and instead change it to throwing out the whole bible as anything reliable?

  I don't think that you should. Terry's example worked for him because, I think, he was already on the way out and he found that information on his own. When trying to open the eyes of another, though, one must take it slow and not just show opposition to the very foundation of their beliefs... yet. If you do, you risk them reacting quite negatively and perhaps closing their ears and mind to you in this respect.
• 

  TheListener

  Here are some links I found. There is a ton of stuff out there but this is a sampling.

  http://epistle.us/hbarticles/saulsreign.html

  Cut and paste from another link: http://www.gotquestions.org/kings-Israel-Judah.html

  Solomon became king in 971 BC possibly two years before his father David died and reigned until 931 BC. Born of Bathsheba, to whom David had no right, and, though not in line for the succession, yet he was chosen by David, and approved of God, to be David’s successor (1 Chronicles 23:1). Solomon had inherited the throne of the most powerful kingdom then existent. It was an era of peace and prosperity with vast business enterprises and literary attainments. God told Solomon to ask what he would and Solomon asked for wisdom to govern his people. That pleased God and God richly rewarded him with wealth, wisdom, power and the all important appointment of building the Temple (1 Chronicles 28:2-6).

  After the death of Solomon the Kingdom was divided. Ten tribes forming the Northern Kingdom, called Israel; Judah and Benjamin forming the Southern Kingdom called Judah. The date of the division of the Kingdom is approximately 931 BC. The chronology of the period dates are approximate due to the overlapping of reigns, associated sovereignty, intervals of anarchy and parts of years referred to as full years. Some of the reigns were, in part, concurrent. All the kings of Israel served the calf; the worst served Baal. Many of the kings of Judah at least served idols; few served Jehovah faithfully. Some bad kings were partly good; some good kings partly bad. The kings, the dates of their reign and their dispositions are listed below.

  KINGS OF ISRAEL:

  Jeroboam bad 933-911 BC

  Nadab bad 911-910 BC

  Baasha bad 910-887 BC

  Elah bad 887-886 BC

  Zimri bad 886 BC

  Omri extra bad 886-875 BC

  Ahab the worst 875-854 BC

  Ahaziah bad 855-854 BC

  Joram bad mostly 854-843 BC

  Jehu bad mostly 843-816 BC

  Jehoahaz bad 820-804 BC

  Joash bad 806-790 BC

  Jeroboam II bad 790-749 BC

  Zechariah bad 748 BC

  Shallum bad 748 BC

  Menahem bad 748-738 BC

  Pekahiah bad 738-736 BC

  Pekah bad 748-710 BC

  Hoshea bad 730-721 BC

  KINGS OF JUDAH:

  Rehoboam bad mostly 933-916 BC

  Abijah bad mostly 915-913 BC

  Asa GOOD 912-872 BC

  Jehoshaphat GOOD 874-850 BC

  Jehoram bad 850-843 BC

  Ahaziah bad 843 BC

  Athaliah devilish 843-837 BC

  Joash good mostly 843-803 BC

  Amaziah good mostly 803-775 BC

  Uzziah GOOD mostly 787-735 BC

  Jotham GOOD 749-734 BC

  Ahaz wicked 741-726 BC

  Hezekiah THE BEST 726-697 BC

  Manasseh the worst 697-642 BC

  Amon the worst 641-640 BC

  Josiah THE BEST 639-608 BC

  Jehoahaz bad 608 BC

  Jehoiakim wicked 608-597 BC

  Jehoiachin bad 597 BC

  Zedekiah bad 597-586 BC

  NEW ADVENT says this:

  King David

  In the Bible the name David is borne only by the second king of Israel, the great-grandson of Boaz and Ruth (Ruth, iv, 18 sqq.). He was the youngest of the eight sons of Isai, or Jesse (I Kings, xvi, 8; cf. I Par., ii, 13), a small proprietor, of the tribe of Juda, dwelling at Bethlehem, where David was born. Our knowledge of David's life and character is derived exclusively from the pages of Sacred Scripture, viz., I K., xvi; III K., ii; I Par., ii, iii, x-xxix; Ruth, iv, 18-22, and the titles of many Psalms. According to the usual chronology, David was born in 1085 and reigned from 1055 to 1015 B.C. Recent writers have been induced by the Assyrian inscriptions to date his reign from 30 to 50 years later. Within the limits imposed it is impossible to give more than a bare outline of the events of his life and a brief estimate of his character and his significance in the history of the chosen people, as king, psalmist, prophet, and type of the Messias.

  http://victorian.fortunecity.com/kensington/207/israel.html

  http://www.didyouknow.cd/history/bc.htm

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

  Good luck.
• 

  ithinkisee

  I forgot to mention in my UPDATE above that she also said that when she talked to her dad and said it was using the years of the kings of Israel to determine 607 it was because the kingdoms of Babylon and Egypt often exaggerated their writings and so on ... so they had to use Israel kingship to go by for authenticity.

  I said, I thought that too intially ... but the strange thing is that the Egyptian and Babylonian records match up perfectly on this stuff and it seems strange they would team up to exaggerate themselves if they were bitter enemies, don't you think?

  (silence on the other end)

  Also I mentioned that most of the books and archeology websites I visited seem to attest to the fact that they have tons of information on Neo-Babylon rulers so they can pretty much figure out 100% what the lengths of rules are and the years they did rule.

  (more silence)

  Then she changed the subject to our North Carolina property .... and some extended family problems ..... where we laughed at the ridiculousness of it.

  So all still seems temporarily calm.

  I did find a reference in Alan F's refutation of the Let Your Kingdom Come appendix on 607 where it briefly mentions a misquote the Society makes of a Bible Dictionary to support their point.

  I'll be following up on that tonight ... especially if her dad is bringing out that ancient book.

  -ithinkisee
• 

  ithinkisee

  But, I had this same problem (israelite king reigns being given therefore 607 being right). I searched the web endlessly and realized there isn't a definite Saul kingship starts here date. Perhaps if you get enough evidence of that you can say "oh yea, I thought that was it also, but then I found this..."

  If it gets to this (and it likely might) I may try to offhandedly say:

  It seems the Society is taking advantage of some "ambiguity" to promote their chronology. They even ignore clear evidence that 586/87 is the almost unanimously proven date for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

  (JCanon and Scholar ... please stay away ... with all due respect)

  -ithinkisee