Jump to content
The World News Media

Ann O'Maly

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    839

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Ann O'Maly

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    12 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:
    ----[Jw's agree with this Rabbinic interpretation of DanielÂ’s prophecy of “seventy weeks,”  that it equals 490 years.  Should we not be allowed to think that or say that, if we don't agree with all the Rabbinic interpretations of DanielÂ’s prophecy?
     Should all the Rabbis be allowed to agree with each other on this interpretation that seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24 equals 490 years , if they disagree with each other about other interpretations [and boy, do they!] of Daniel and other scriptures?  
    And, if not , have you  informed these Rabbis and others who agree that ,"We cannot accept 490 years as being verified for certain events, while rejecting the dates for other events that have been verified by using the exact same methods and sources that were used to confirm 490 years. This would be an intellectually dishonest approach." ?????    If not, why not?  What R they?   Chopped liver?  Don't they deserve your gentle ministrations as much as we Jws do?]----:o

    490 years hasn't been verified. 490 years is an interpretation based one how one understands the heptads. Seder Olam Rabbah sees them as 'weeks of years' running from the 1st Temple's destruction in 423/2 BCE to the 2nd Temple's destruction in 69/68 CE. As we and Jewish scholars have long known, those dates are incorrect for these two events.

    It would be misleading for, say, a Christian group to claim that Seder Olam Rabbah's understanding of the 490 years verifies their own if the Christian group believed those 490 years pointed to the appearance of Jesus Christ the Messiah. Or, to give another example, claiming certain Bible scholars from centuries past put forward 606 BCE as the beginning of the '70 years' therefore this confirms Barbour and Russell were correct to use the start date of 606 BCE in their own chronological calculations.

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

    I believe it's reasonable to quote a source when the source is correct, and that it's reasonable to not quote a source when the source is not correct.

    Sometimes we mistakenly think a source is incorrect due to our own preconceived ideas or lack of knowledge. Sometimes quoting sources we believe are incorrect is necessary for critical analysis, discussion, or to acknowledge an alternate POV exists.

    4 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

    This 'rule' that you seem to lean on pretty heavily,  "We cannot accept 539 BCE as being verified for certain events, while rejecting the dates for other events that have been verified by using the exact same methods and sources that were used to confirm 539 BCE. This would be an intellectually dishonest approach."  -and with which I confess myself to be unfamiliar [other than seeing your's and JWI's several invocations thereof] seems highly impractical, and not something widely* practiced , or even practicable, in reality?

    Again, the methods and primary sources from which we deduce 539 BCE as being the correct year for Babylon's fall, are the same methods and primary sources from which we deduce 587 BCE as being the correct year for Jerusalem's destruction. I understand your caution and I get that it feels 'wrong' to you. Once you become more familiar with the lines of biblical, chronological and archaeological evidence, you should see how all those lines converge into one inescapable conclusion.

    2 hours ago, Arauna said:

    You're right - I do not care and I have lost interest in reasonings going in circles. 

    This is why I tried to get you to follow a linear track of reasoning instead.

    2 hours ago, Arauna said:

    Even if I bring rock-solid proof 

    I wish you had. It would have been interesting to explore.

    2 hours ago, Arauna said:

    The Babylonian dates have NOT been verified in our previous  discussion and if you accepted those - then my accessment of your honesty is correct. It is synchronized with Egyptian dates - which has severe problems. 

    The Olympiads are more reliable than the Babylonian chronologies and it confirms the death of Cyrus to be 530 BCE.  I mentioned 3 sources if I remember correctly?

    Cyrus ruled Babylon for 9 years according to its sources - so he started rule in 539BCE.... the battle of Opis was just a side issue -  to also give an indication of the timeline when Babylon fell in 539 BCE.... . The Olympic games were held every four years - so the timekeeping was pretty accurate and it was the first reliable timing system instituted for the specific reason of pinpointing historic events in the ancient BCE period.

    The Babylonian data consists of mostly king lists and some were simultaneous ruler ships while other names have not yet been placed - there are many problems..... and there are no dates given so that one can properly synchronize to BCE dates and therefore Egyptian sources are used.

    Well, I can see that the reasoning and information I presented have gone whoosh over your head and you're restating what prompted my questions about whether you really understood how BCE dates are arrived at for Babylonian regnal years and events. Never mind. Maybe one day it'll click. Thank you for responding anyway. :)

    Edit to add: If "there are no dates given so that one can properly synchronize to BCE dates," on what basis do you trust 539 BCE, since it is a date that derives from the Babylonian Nabonidus Chronicle and other Babylonian sources? O.o

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    OK. This line of discussion has been left unfinished ...

    ... so it's probably time to wrap it up.

    @Arauna had expressed her belief that the date 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon was "truly verified." However, she indicated mistrust of Babylonian sources because "their dates are all over the place - not reliable," the reigns are "impossible to correlate," and that the "Persian and Greek sources gets (sic) us to the truth." She cited the battle of Opis as an example of how the date 539 BCE is verified, apparently unaware that the battle was primarily recorded in a Babylonian source. So I was curious to know if she knew how the relative chronologies of the ancient near eastern world were fixed to BCE dating.

    The only answer she could provide were reiterations of what scholarship had already concluded (that Babylon fell in 539 BCE), that Cyrus reigned 9 years and she cited the Olympiad counting system used in some Greek sources. But how do we nail down this data onto a BCE calendar time-line? I asked.

    Maybe Arauna doesn't know, or doesn't care, or knows and won't say. So this is the point I've been leading to:

    We nail down 'floating chronologies' like Babylonian kings' regnal years and Olympiads to the BCE/CE calendar by means of numerous dated Babylonian astronomical observations. The sky is the 'universal clock' I was hinting at. Babylonians were excellent sky-watchers and wanted to understand the motions of celestial objects, so they observed and measured distances and times, and they recorded what they saw. It was vital that they noted down the date for the observations otherwise their records would be useless for researching and calculating periodicities and so on. The year date would be their king's regnal year. Therefore, these dated astronomical tablets are snapshots of time, with celestial configurations often unique to that time period. So, when we combine the data from known kings regnal years with dated astronomical records from the same era, we can derive the BCE years the kings reigned.

    This is the method by which it was deduced that 539 BCE was Nabonidus' 17th year, when the battle of Opis happened, and when Babylon fell to the Persians.

    The same method and same Babylonian astronomical sources yield,

    • 605 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar II's accession
    • 597 BCE as the siege of Jerusalem and Jehoiachin's surrender and exile
    • 587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and Jerusalem's destruction

    We cannot accept 539 BCE as being verified for certain events, while rejecting the dates for other events that have been verified by using the exact same methods and sources that were used to confirm 539 BCE. This would be an intellectually dishonest approach. Counter to what Arauna stated about the unreliability of Babylonian sources to get at the truth about dating Babylon's fall to 539 BCE, we cannot get to the truth about 539 BCE (or the year of Jerusalem's destruction) without Babylonian sources.

     

     

    Watchtower Mis-Quotations

    in Topics

    Posted

    11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

    They had been "helpfully" inserted, since, as one might paraphrase, "EVERYONE knows  the date of  the battle of Carchemish!  605, right? [ Well, no: "wrong", actually.]

    605 BCE is correct, actually.

    11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

    The British Museum  "   "inserts this date to deceitfully condition Jehovah's Witnesses you that 605 B.C.E. is historically accurate."  for the battle of Carchemish.

    605 BCE is historically accurate for the battle of Carchemish.

    11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

    Interestingly, from the 1st time I was directed to the British Museum link, and from that day forward, BM21946 became no longer the featured British Museum exhibit at that link and appears to have moved into the background_ or back room_ of the British Museum website!

    9_9 The British Museum features special exhibitions for limited periods before other special exhibitions replace them. BM 21946 is still prominently and publicly displayed with other tablets, cylinders and stelae of that period in Room 55. You can also go to the 'Collections' part of the website, type in the BM number and see a nice picture and description of it with the correct dates. :)

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    14 hours ago, Arauna said:

    Don't know who wrote the Wikipedia article about David Rohl you are quoting but it is not accurate.  Rohl's dates are closer to the dates given by the Witnesses.  Most atheists say there is no evidence of the exodus in the bible.  Rohl is of the contention that they are looking in the wrong time-line for it because the evidence is there!   Many of these contentious Egyptian chronologists (Rohl included) say the ancient Egyptian history is out by 200 years and closer to the time of Nebuchadnezzar they are out by 20 years. 

    As I said before, Rohl and James both agree with the established neo-Babylonian time-line, which is the one relevant to the 1914 calculation: That means they agree with 605 BCE for the accession of Nebuchadnezzar II and 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    14 hours ago, Arauna said:

    BCE - The Greeks figured time by means of four-year periods called Olympiads, starting from the first Olympiad, calculated as beginning in 776 B.C.E.

    How was it calculated that the beginning of the Olympiads correspond to 776 BCE?

    14 hours ago, Arauna said:

    Additionally, they often identified specific years by referring to the term of office of some particular official. More accurate and more sources than the Babylonian chronology. However, evidence will be stronger if one uses  BOTH  - not just one set of evidences!

    539 BCE is the most accurate date because not only do the Babylonian sources agree but also when one takes the death of Cyrus (confirmed at 530 BCE from many sources.  + 9 years rule -   gives one 539 BCE for fall of Babylon. (battle of Opis given in same year.... so there are many additional  'indications' that this date is good......

    Yes, the regnal years are part of the calculation. But their timelines are hanging mid-air, so-to-speak. So how does one nail down a particular regnal year to a particular BCE year? How is it confirmed Nabonidus' 17th regnal year corresponds to the year 539 BCE?

    If only there was some kind of universal clock to be able to synchronize these different floating chronologies. Do you have any ideas on where such a 'clock' could be found and how these two loose ends can be fixed together?

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    13 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

     

    Will you agree that there is such a person called Belibni? Would you agree that this subking was given his title by “Sennacherib”?  Will you agree that he is one of Merodach-Baladan’s grandson?

     

    There were many persons called 'Belibni.' But, regarding the 'Belibni' who was made Sennacherib's puppet king over Babylon in 703 BCE, where do you get that he was Merodach-Baladan's grandson, and where do get that he was Nebuchadnezzar I's son? Are you suggesting now that Nebuchadnezzar I was Merodach-Baladan's son? O.o

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

    [Wikipedia quote] Similar problems face other attempts to revise secular dating (such as those of Peter James and David Rohl) and mainstream scholarship rejects such approaches. Where and how the Gregorian or Julian calendric differential gets factored in, remains another argument entirely."...

    It should be noted that James's revisions are for years before 950 BCE (the time of Solomon), and Rohl's revisions concern years prior to 664 BCE (Assurbanipal's sacking of Thebes). Both these researchers agree with the established neo-Babylonian chronology of the 7th and 6th centuries BCE - the very chronology that, along with the scriptural evidence, is problematic for 'all aspects of the 1914 doctrine.'

     

    1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

    The cross over with reliance from Persian to Greek to Babylonian is centered with the opposition not being able to answer a simple question on the discrepancy between the Babylonian Historical facts, between Nebuchadnezzar 1 (1125BC toward his supposed chronicled son Belibni of Nubuchadnezzar1 born in 685BC. A 440-year difference.

    The simple answer to the simple question is that Belibni is not recorded as being the son of King Nebuchadnezzar I, so there is no discrepancy. So I'll ask again, what is the source for the information indicating otherwise?

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

    The battle of Opis is insignificant to the argument for the date 539BC.

    Not entirely. The battle occurred in the same year as Cyrus conquering Babylon. @Arauna commented that the year 539 BCE is "the only secular date which is truly verified," and that "you" (whomever she was directing this to) cannot accept that it's "the only secular date which is truly verified" because "you use mainly Babylonian sources to try to verify the date and their dates are all over the place - not reliable" and that Persian and Greek sources are more truthful [Arauna's full quote in context]. It was at this point she mentions the battle of Opis - apparently unaware that the record of this battle is found on a Babylonian source.

    Quote

    Their own historians show Cyrus entered the city of Babylon without incident in OCT of 539BC. Line (17).

    Indeed. However, seeing as Arauna took it on trust that the correct year for both the battle of Opis and Babylon's fall was 539 BCE, even though none of the ancient sources give modern-day BCE dates but have their own methods of keeping track of time (e.g. regnal years and Olympiads), I was wondering if she knew how the BCE dates were arrived at; how we know it was 539 BCE as opposed to, say, 541 BCE or 535 BCE or any other year. I'm still interested in what Arauna has to say about this.

    Regarding your piece about Cyrus and his wife dying and his decree and the Jews' preparation to leave, yadda, yadda - we discussed all that already in another thread which can be summarized in this post.

    Quote

    So, if BM 90920 is in question, then the "rest" of the chronicles are also suspect. Can't pick and chose what one is willing to accept and argue! 

    The Cyrus Cylinder isn't really one of the chronicles - it's classed as a royal inscription. But that nitpicky detail aside, you are quite right! We have to take on board all the evidence and not just the parts we like.

     

    pltamf9y7mfz.jpg

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Arauna said:

    Ok M'dear,

    Thanks Nana for quoting: The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance

    There are many sources which gives the end of Cyrus' rule as 530 BCE. To quote " Insight on the Scriptures:

    "The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.).

    Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14; 

    Cyrus died 530 + 9 year rule over Babylon before he died - he conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Which is also the year for the battle of OPIS according to Babylonian Chronicles. This date is accurate!

    Well, you've just repeated others' conclusions on what the BCE years were. How did these scholars reach those conclusions? What were their sources?

    The Insight book includes a comment that 539 BCE for Babylon's fall can be derived from Ptolemy's canon. But Ptolemy's canon only has a list of kings' regnal years - not BCE dates. The same is true for the Olympiads - they are not BCE dates. How can we tie BCE dates to the regnal years and Olympiads? Do you have any proposals?

    IOW, there is a missing link in the chain of evidence:

    • We have Cyrus' rule over Babylon totaling 9 years;
    • We  have Cyrus' 1st year corresponding to Olympiad 55, Year 1, and his last year corresponding to Olympiad 62, Year 2;
    • We have the battle of Opis and Babylon's fall in Nabonidus' 17th regnal year.

    So how do we convert this data into a BCE calendar time-line?

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Arauna said:

    The reason why you cannot accept 539 BCE as the only secular date which is truly verified is because you use mainly Babylonian sources to try to verify the date and their dates are all over the place - not reliable (reigns which are too long and impossible to correlate etc.)

    The Persian and Greek sources gets us to the truth.  Please look up when the battle of OPIS took place and between who....?  This took place before Cyrus went right into Babylon.

    OK, Arauna, walk me through this. How do you verify that it was indeed 539 BCE when Babylon fell to Persian armies?

    Do you agree with the Babylonian source that the battle of Opis occurred in Nabonidus' 17th year (although the year is actually broken off)?

    Assuming that the missing year is indeed '17' (and there is good reason to believe so from the tablet's format), how do we go about tying Nabonidus' 17th year to a modern calendar year? Do you have any suggestions on how we can do that?

    If you do not believe the Babylonian source about the Opis battle and the fall of Babylon, what alternatives do you propose for establishing 539 BCE as the correct year?

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    @J.R. Ewing

    Quote

    Now according to some 19th century and early 20th century historians

    Who? 

    Quote

    Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar l)

    'Perceived' by whom? When? Reference please.   

    Quote

    Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll) Book of Judith

    The author misidentified the king in the apocryphal story.  

    Quote

    Nabopolassar ll ?

    ?

    Quote

    Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) House of Igibi

    Too little information to go on. Is there a tablet number? Do you have a specific publication in mind where this tablet is discussed.

    Give us something more concrete about your alleged discrepancies and maybe we can help you.

     

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    15 hours ago, Anna said:

    His downfall was not the research, nor his discovery, nor his writing to the society about it, but his hurt ego, and pride that HIS discovery was not recognized.  We all want to be recognized for the effort we put into something, and he had put a lot of effort into it. It doesn’t feel good if someone tells you “you leave the thinking to us and you go and play in the sand”. However if someone tells you that they do not accept your opinion, that they see things differently, then humility should move us to let it go. No point in arguing or forcing our opinion on others. In the end the truth will eventually always come out.  But unfortunately he (COJ) was “trapped by his own cleverness”.

    His 'discovery' was, in fact, what had long been already known and established in ANE and biblical scholarship. His downfall was believing that the Society was interested in the truth of the matter. Unfortunately, the responses from HQ were inadequate, rehashing what had already been questioned or rebutted, and they repeated platitudes and promises to address the evidence - which they didn't do. Instead, they urged him to keep quiet and instigated a nasty smear campaign against him. This is what alienated COJ from the org and caused him so much frustration and hurt.

    'In the end the truth will eventually always come out'? The truth had already come out - several times before COJ's treatise. The truth had been flagged up in Russell's day, in Rutherford's day, and many times since, by those inside the org and by never-been-JWs. Even now, had COJ 'waited on Jehovah' to change matters, he would still be waiting - 40 years later. The ones who first alerted Russell to the errors are long dead now. Could it be that Jehovah has been nudging and jabbing the leaders of His people to make corrections all along, but they've been ignoring Him?

    ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

    in Topics

    Posted

    2 hours ago, bruceq said:

    Daniel did NOT know the interpretation since Daniel said it was hidden in his time and NOT revealed until time of the end.  Dan. 12:4 !!!!!

    In Daniel 4, Daniel said he did know the interpretation of the dream and gave it to the king. Do you not believe him?

    Quote

    How long are the “seven times”? They could not be merely seven years as in Nebuchadnezzar’s case.

    'Times' (iddan) do not necessarily mean years. Cp. Dan. 2:8; 3:5, 15; 7:12. But why could these 'times' not be merely contemporaneous with the historical period? Is there a Scriptural basis for concluding otherwise?

    2 hours ago, bruceq said:

    JESUS indicated the answer when he said that “Jerusalem [a symbol of God’s rulership] will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24)

    Jesus indicated nothing about the '7 times' and made no link with Dan. 4.

    2 hours ago, bruceq said:

    “The appointed times of the nations,” the period during which God allowed his rulership to be “trampled on by the nations,” are the same as the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4. This means that the “seven times” were still under way even when Jesus was on earth.

    'It must be the same.' A mere assertion. Where in Scripture has this conclusion sprung from? Besides, Jesus was speaking in the future tense  - "will be trampled" - i.e. at the time he spoke, what he had in mind hadn't happened yet.

    2 hours ago, bruceq said:

    The Bible provides the way to determine the length of those prophetic “seven times.” It says that three and a half “times” equal 1,260 days, so “seven times” equal twice that number, or 2,520 days. (Revelation 12:6,14) Applying the prophetic rule “a day for a year,” the 2,520 days represent 2,520 years. Therefore, the “seven times,” or 2,520 years, would end in October 1914.—Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6.

    Whoa. We have several knight-jump eisegetical leaps, there. Where is the Scriptural link between the '7 times' of Daniel 4, which Daniel specifically applied to the period of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, and Revelation's '3.5 times' relating to an entirely different apocalyptic vision given about 5 centuries later? And then a random 'day-for-a-year' formula lobbed into the interpretive cauldron - where in Daniel does it say we have to use this for the tree dream?

    So to recap:

    • Daniel knew the interpretation of the tree dream - it wasn't sealed information
    • 'Times' may not mean 'years' anyway, given the word's other usage within the book of Daniel
    • There is no Scriptural prophetic connection between Luke 21:24 and Dan. 4
    • There is no Scriptural basis for applying some 'day-for-a-year' formula to Dan. 4

    And to add to that, the Org has dispensed with typologies that are not explicit in Scripture!

    "Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so." - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015204

    Therefore, as no specific Scriptural basis can be found for interpreting the 'immense tree' in Nebuchadnezzar's dream as the antitype for God's rulership, then we should rightly reject such an application.

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.