Jump to content
The World News Media

Ann O'Maly

Member
  • Posts

    839
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Ann O'Maly

  1. The publications may no longer assert that disconfirming secular history is satanic, but the argument is still made that much of the secular history for the NB period is untrustworthy and one is better trusting the Bible's record. There are two problems with this line of reasoning: We are being presented with a false dichotomy - secular history vs. the Bible. The choice is really secular history and the Bible (the two dovetail nicely) vs. Bible interpretation. The Org. relies on 'unreliable' secular history to date and corroborate Bible events in order to build confidence in the reliability of the Bible!
  2. True. If they had submitted to Babylon and paid their dues as they were supposed to, the city would have been left alone. Jer. 27:6-14. -------------------------------------------------- But 597 BCE can be. This is where a dated event in the Bible and the same event dated in the Babylonian Chronicle coincide. The BCE year can be derived from dated astronomical tablets - the same method used for pinning BCE years on kings' reigns, Babylon's fall, and Jerusalem's destruction.
  3. When you trace the evolution of the Org's chronological scheme from its inception, you'll find that there were significant adjustments in response to new interpretational light - most of them being settled (from the Org's standpoint) in the Rutherford era. The historical, archaeological and astronomical evidence for the conventional NB and Persian timeline has been around for well over a century (since the numerous discoveries in the Middle East back in the 19th century). The Org has been alerted to the wider evidence over and over again since Russell's day - you can read the articles retrenching their position in response, a notable example being a series of WT articles in 1922* which included demonizing the counter-evidence, insulting and shouting down the questioners, and accusing them of disloyalty against God and his chosen representative (believed then to be Russell). Periodically since then, WT books and articles have been published trying to overcome the mountains of evidence against the Org's scheme because this issue just keeps on resurfacing - as it will continue to do until they conform to the facts. * May 1 and 15, June 1 and 15 editions
  4. A little like the Bible. All the manuscripts are later copies by unknown scribes; there is clear evidence in some places of redaction; there are transcription errors and linguistic ambiguities here and there. Maybe we should weigh the Bible on the same scales of skepticism?
  5. Do Grayson's revisions impact the NB timeline or not? Either the astronomical data on this tablet is consistent with a particular year or it isn't. I am unaware of whether it has been carbon dated, but the astronomical data represent planetary and lunar observations made in 568-7 BCE. The tablet itself is a copy made in the Seleucid period, evidenced by some of the terminology used and a remark indicating the original had been 'broken.'
  6. Absolutely. This is what they are relying on - readers taking on trust what is being said/written without properly checking - to hoodwink the uninformed. If the article/book looks technical and has lots of footnotes or endnotes, it gives the appearance of being well-researched, truthful, or balanced. But not necessarily so (Hislop's Two Babylons is a prime example). And it isn't always easy getting hold of reference works - especially in these kinds of niche subjects. Thankfully, we have the internet now! Uh oh, that's how I started with this subject many years ago - lots of questions, mostly a spectator in these mind-bendingly involved discussions, limited time, energy and resources as a wife, mother of young children, multiple other responsibilities, etc., etc., but with a burning interest to get to the bottom of all these niggles, lots of scraps of paper with brick diagrams and notes all over the place ... 'Wanting to know' will impel you to build up a decent working knowledge little by little.
  7. You are entitled to be a flat-earther or believe in flying pink unicorns. But it doesn't make your opinions factual. Scrutiny, under the light of objective evidence, will thoroughly debunk those 'entitled' opinions. How do Grayson's revisions, the chronicle's lacunae, and brief highlights of each regnal year affect the neo-Babylonian timeline? Because, this is what we are talking about here - whether chunks of time are missing to the tune of e.g. 20 years (WT) or 200 years (Thompson) - not whether every single thing a king did in his reign was recorded for posterity (even the Gospels aren't the 'complete story' - John 21:25). We CAN establish with 99.9999% certainty that the NB timeline has no 20-year or 200-year chunks of time missing. The diary has been tested. It was dated to a clearly marked regnal year and had 30 or so celestial observations recorded on it. The astronomical data only matches one year: 568-7 BCE. It can be no other. Even if the scribe had written the wrong regnal year or king (he didn't), the astronomical information would still only fit 568-7 BCE. The sky doesn't lie. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm glad you mentioned him. He's one who has NOT read COJ's book, but has independently researched and pieced together a timeline from the archaeological, historical and biblical evidence. Surprise, surprise - his findings for the NB and early Persian periods coincide with the standard, conventional timeline that reputable historians and Bible chronologists use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nothing is wrong with counting back 70 years from 539 or 537 BCE. The problem is assigning events to 609 or 607 BCE that history testifies happened in other years. Watchtower asserts that 609 BCE was when Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar and that 607 BCE was when Jerusalem was destroyed. Archaeological records testify that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even on the throne yet. Another problem is how the '70 years' are understood: As the period of nations' servitude to Babylon (according to Jeremiah)? Or as the duration of Jerusalem' and Judah's being 'desolated, without an inhabitant' (Russell/Barbour's interpretation resulting from putting together two separate ideas)? Yet another problem is insisting the Jews were repatriated in 537 BCE (or previously 536 BCE) despite there being no concrete evidence it was 537 and that a 538 BCE return is not only a viable date but more likely.
  8. Photo by Steve Bronstein, an advertising photographer. https://stevebronstein.com/Portfolio/9/caption He describes how he designed/produced the shot. (Psst, it's photographic art - not real.)
  9. His dates do not agree with the archaeological and historical evidence. He believes Azariah reigned during the 605 - 586 BCE period, that Josiah died in 412 BCE, and he dates Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar to 390 BCE. So no, he does not stick to the biblical and archaeological evidence in their entirety but makes up his own timeline according to his biases and presuppositions.
  10. Re: quote box below reproducing article from w11, 11/1. 1. The article didn't disclose who the 'researchers' were so readers could check their work for themselves (a peculiar omission given the article's writer(s) had gone to great pains to reference other academic sources). 2. The article's claim that "all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E." is demonstrably false. Do an internet search for more details. Also see one past discussion from this forum: LINK
  11. However, COJ, Doug Mason and Max Hatton do stick to the biblical and archaeological evidence in their entirety. You are entitled to your opinion, though.
  12. I already said that I was tipped off about Young's articles by you. You, however, learned of them by Carl Jonsson during a discussion with him in c. 2004, were you not?
  13. @Foreigner - I was commenting on the book you quoted. The author wants to make radical changes to biblical chronology which means the established, historically-verified 7th-6th century dating for the last Judahite kings and the neo-Babylonian empire goes bye-bye. It's a poor resource to cite.
  14. Huh? Anyway, who introduced you to Young's Decision Tables methodology in the first place? Think carefully before you answer and be honest.
  15. Oh Lordy, another ANE chronology revisionist. He wants to re-date VAT 4956 to 364 BCE, wipe out two whole Egyptian dynasties and drastically reduce the NB and Persian timelines. Smh.
  16. You are, then, embarrassed about the Bible's testimony, since as you very well know, the difference in date derives from the Bible dating Jerusalem's destruction to both the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. For readers that are unaware, cp. 2 Ki. 25:8-10 and Jer. 52:12-14 (a repeat of the 2 Kings passage) with Jer. 52:29. Cue Rodger Young's research (yes, yes, Neil, I got that tip from you - let's get that out of the way to avoid one of your boast-fests).
  17. This statement ... ... is considerably different to ... So we agree now that Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho appointed Jehoiakim in Jehoahaz's stead (2 Kings 23:30-35). Josiah died in 609 BCE. Regarding Jehoahaz's and Jehoiakim's succession, you said: "There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC." Therefore, you must be arguing that Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim ascended the throne before their father died. Or do you have a different scenario? On what basis do you 'not doubt' that R. Franz and Jonsson were directly influenced by Hatton?
  18. That's not what you initially said, contributing to the confusion. You mean, BEFORE Josiah died? Raymond Franz said that while he was researching the Aid book, he couldn't find evidence for 607 BCE being the destruction of Jerusalem so worked on undermining the evidence for 587/6 BCE instead. Jonsson did his own independent research and submitted it to Watchtower HQ. It was then that R. Franz became aware of just how bogus the WT chronology for the NB era was. Â
  19. @Anna - No. The date 539 BCE is derived from the very same historical sources as 587 BCE. There is the Babylonian Chronicle that indicates Babylon fell in Nabonidus' 17th year. How can we pin a BCE date to Nabonidus' 17th year? Babylonian astronomical tablets, that's how - by using the ancient sky clock. The astronomical record on VAT 4956 gives an anchor point for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year being none other than 568-7 BCE. There are other astronomical anchor points too - one of which is dated to Cambyses' 7th year (522-1 BCE). The method is, once we find out how many years kings ruled (evidenced from other historical data), to count forwards or backwards accordingly. And so, we arrive at 539 BCE for Babylon's conquest and 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar when he destroyed Jerusalem (Jer. 52:29).
  20. You're referring to Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim? Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho hauled off Jehoahaz to Egypt and appointed Jehoiakim in Jehoahaz's stead (2 Kings 23:30-35). Your chart is confusing. Honestly, the plentiful information supports only one theory, and the data on VAT 4956 belongs only to 568/7 BCE.
  21. Ah ha. That explains the subsequent bout of verbal ... um ... outpourings. Yes, it is impressive ... but for all the wrong reasons. Â
  22. Another very helpful non-JW/Bible-believing discussion from a respected journal for @Anna: JEREMIAH'S SEVENTY YEARS FOR BABYLON: A RE-ASSESSMENT PART I: THE SCRIPTURAL DATA JEREMIAH'S SEVENTY YEARS FOR BABYLON: A RE-ASSESSMENT PART II: THE HISTORICAL DATA
×
×
  • 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.