Hi WT,
Regarding my claim that the 480 years in 1 Kings 6:1 is an artificial chronology based on 12 x 40 years, I would like to point out a few problems with your response.
The source says "480 years" yet Brian asserts contrary to what it says. Since when does "480 years" mean 12 generations of 25 years each ?
Actually, when the Bible tells us that there were 12 generations from the Exodus to the building of the Temple that is exactly where I get the 12 generations from. You actually sound as if you think I just pulled that number out of the air, but it has biblical support in 1 Chronicles 6:3-10, tells us that there was 12 generations between Aaron and Azariah who served in Solomon’s Temple, so this is where the 12 generations come from, and we know that 40 years is too long for a generation, 25 is closer, so the hypothesis is quite plausible and has biblical support.
Another clue to the artificiality of the chronology is that there is also another 480 years from the building of the Temple to the return from Exile! 480 years from the Exodus to Solomon’s Temple and exactly 480 years from Solomon’s building of the Temple to the return from exile, the author clearly wanted to place the building of Solomon’s Temple at the centre of Jewish history. But, exactly 480 years, and exactly another 480 years, a little bit too suspicious, real life isn’t as exact as that. BTW, the Bible also tells us that there was 12 generations from Azariah to the return from Exile, (1 Chronicles 6: 11-15; Ezra 3:2) strange that isn’t it?
Answer: When mid-13th century theorists want to change the wording of a text so their theory can remain alive/have Biblical "support".
Answer: I sincerely hope you keep this in mind for two minutes! LOL
Brain admits it says "480 years" but he then subjectively asserts that "480 years" does not mean "480 years". If the text did not mean 480 years then why does it say "480 years?
Because much of the Hebrew Bible is schematic and not to be taken at face value, numbers are also symbolic in the Hebrew Bible. 12 is a recurring number, reflecting the Tribes for example, 40 is a general term for a long period of time, so it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
But, wait a wee second, you are saying we should take the Bible text at face value, if the text did not mean 480 year why does it say 480 years? Well, remember the building of Pithom and Rameses in Exodus 1:11, the cities that Rutherford informs us actually had cities on the sites long before Pithom and Rameses? Well, check your book, does Rutherford claim that the Israelites actually built Avaris, or some city other than Rameses? You do know that the City of Rameses could not have been built before 1320, and more then likely it was after 1290 BCE?
So, if the text did not mean the cities of Pithom and Rameses, why does it say Pithom and Rameses?
Of course this is rhetorical. "480 years" means "480 years" and unless the text provides a basis to interpret the said number differently the text says what it means and means what it says.
The text does provide a basis, it gives 12 generations between the Exodus and the Temple.
The generations of Heman the singer to Korah his patriarchal father CONFIRM and CORROBORATE that the "480 years" of 1Kings 6 is intended to mean "480 years" and not Brian's "12 generations/300 years".
And thus contradicts 1 Chronicles 6:3-10 then, how did you miss that, it is in the same book as Heman’s? You are effectively supporting my claim of an artificial chronology, the 12 generations of priests are there for a reason, and it is not to report an accurate history, or maybe Heman’s genealogy is flawed, how do we verify them?
While Rutherford and Brian ultimately agree that a generation (in this context) is 25 years, the 19 generations of Heman the singer refute mid-13th century.
But the 12 generations of priests support a mid-13th century date.
Rutherford/generations of Heman the singer:
19 x 25 = 475 (1Kings 6:1 = 480 years)
475 is not the same as 480 WT, I hope you aren’t an accountant.
Brian:
12 x 25 = 300 = fictitious number subjectively created with no corroboration from scripture.
Verified by the 12 generations of priest found in scripture, you really should check your facts first before making these absolute claims.
The difference between Rutherford/Heman the singer's 19 generations and Brian's stated 12 generations is 7.
Wait a wee minute WT, you were deriding me for revising the text, and altering it for no reason, yet you are happy for Rutherford to do it.
Look at what Rutherford’s calculations actually come to if we take the Bible at face value. You have 19 generations to Heman, Rutherford is happy to take that from the text, yet he rejects the FACT that the Bible clams that a generation is forty years! Rutherford’s time span should be 19 x 40 years, which is 760 years! Rutherford’s 475 years is blatant revisionism! Double standards WT, if Rutherford wants to take the text at face value then he should at least be consistent, he is more guilty than I am of revisionism.
I forsee no other option of mid-13th century theorists but to arbitrarily ignore the 19 generations of Heman.
There is no need to ignore it, we have a text that informs us that there was 12 generations from the Exodus to Solomon’s Temple.
Heman’s genealogy may have extra generations added for some theological reason, differences in the number of generations are a common feature of the Bible. Look at the generations from Joseph to Joshua there are 12, yet Moses who is a contemporary of Joshua only has 4 generation between him and Joseph’s generation, the genealogies need a lot of research, we have one to support 12 generations between the exodus and Solomon’s Temple, you can reject that if you want, but it is still there in the Bible.
This reckless handling of scripture can provide the basis to evidence any private theory.
Never a truer word has been spoken. Plus, of course, Rutherford’s reckless handling of out-dated hypotheses can also provide a basis for any private theory. If he had the sense to study the forty years of research that went into the subject between the time Hall wrote and the time that Rutherford published then perhaps his extreme prejudice would not be showing through quite so obviously.
Brian.
™ Version 4.2