Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,583
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    438

JW Insider last won the day on March 17

JW Insider had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

32,887 profile views
  1. You got me curious, since I honestly had never even skimmed this portion of COJ's book. I noticed in a footnote, on the same page you pointed to , about the famous eight-UK-clergymen December 1917 Manifesto, from their "prophets" conference, was actually in the WTS publications several times. *** nc pp. 20-21 pars. 36-37 When All Nations Collide, Head On, With God *** Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Dr. F. B. Meyer, and six other well-known clergymen of England, issued a Manifesto, which was republished throughout the earth and which declared: 37 “(1) That the present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles. . . . (5) That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the second coming of our Lord, because all nations will then be subject to His rule. . . .”—Current Opinion, for February 1918. I had already seen this same referenced Manifesto about 10 times in different WTS publications. But I had never realized that this was not really about 1914, but was specifically about 1917. I hadn't noticed that the context in the WT about the 2520 years, really had nothing to do with this "Gentile Times" manifesto, because it was really more about the supposed fulfillment of the 1260 days of Revelation 11, which J.A.Brown had predicted 90 years earlier for 1917. (J.A.Brown never connected the 7 times, or 2,520 years, with the Gentile Times.) So I looked up the phrase "present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles" in Google. Mostly it came back with Watchtower Library and jw.org links. And I found a lot of links that showed other religions had used the same Manifesto to show that their prophets were just as good or better (Mormons) and other religions used it to show just how useless and irrelevant those predictions had already become. But the most curious use of the manifesto was from Rutherford, who used it as "proof" that the world noticed the "beginning of the end of the world" in the book "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" in 1920, page 40. Rutherford quoted from the Manifesto, and had only good things to say about these particular preachers. He called them honest and faithful and good, as compared to so many other clergymen: Even then, in 1920, it was rare to hear a good word about another preacher from Rutherford. But did he really think they were good, or did he change his mind about them? A TALE OF TWO FCC's [The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Council of Churches] Well, I checked another link, this time to the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, which printed the entire speech of Rutherford in 1926, here, page 339. The speech follows the same logic and context of the 1920 treatment, still pointing out the Zionist fulfillment of prophecy. But this time he points out that "these distinguished men have vehemently spoken against present truth and the Lord's kingdom." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Federal_Communications_Commission/UAwvAAAAMAAJ His big evidence is that a different group of clergymen, as represented in the Federal Council of Churches in 1919, had made a blasphemous statement about the League of Nations, hoping it represented a means to peace in the world: But, naturally, Rutherford doesn't admit that the Watchtower itself had offered the same optimistic idea about the same League of Nations, following some of the same wording of the FCC: One month after the statement of the FCC in January 1919, the February 15, 1919 Watchtower spoke in similar terms: “We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p.51 [Reprints page 6389].
  2. Understanding historical events involves delving into the past to gain insight into the present. A skilled researcher knows exactly where to find the necessary information, much like navigating by the stars. If the destruction of "Nineveh" occurred in 612 BC, what astronomical evidence supports this event? Then you have references to the destruction of Nineveh in 606 BC and the siege of Nineveh in 635 BC. Either we conduct our own research or acknowledge the flawed nature of JWI's research. It is not possible to have it both ways. You mean that was it; that we got them all? Or that this one (requoted above) is one that you also want moved? It's dated Sunday at ?:18 PM, but ? refers to a different time zone from the one I'm in, so I couldn't tell exactly. And the use of VPN's can throw off the time zone on the time stamp. I didn't move it before because it's on topic and it's not to BTK's question, but I'd still be happy to move it if you wish.
  3. As I said, I'll be happy to move as many or as few as you like. Since you still haven't said which ones specifically, I'll move a few more and you can tell me if there are still others. I went back into the conversation for two weeks, but found that this particular subset of the topic only went back for one week. So I moved more of your conversation with BTK going back one week. The others that still remain here are too tightly integrated into the current conversation. I suppose you could always copy information you presented here and repost it over there under the new topic.
  4. As an aside, note that the entire relative timeline from the beginning of Neo-Babylonian to the Persian empire can easily be figured out without any reference to astronomy or even BCE dates. The whole reason the WTS makes such a big deal out of our "traditional" date for the destruction of Jerusalem is based on a relative chronology from 539, not an absolute chronology of the time period. So a relative chronology is all one needs to debunk it. You don't even need to know if 539 was correct or not. You don't need BCE dates at all. Just the widely available archaeology without any need for software or assumptions about any potential copyist's errors, eclipses, planetary positions. The contemporary business documents alone are more than enough to debunk the WTS chronology. And there are tens of thousands of those stone "witnesses" all consistently pointing to the same timeline. That's why the great emphasis in the WTS publications to constantly sow seeds of doubt about those tablets. I think that, as a group, the WTS is the biggest opposer of the tablets.
  5. Imagine, then, that approved association with Jehovah's people MUST include acceptance of a mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology!! *** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? . . .That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. *** w83 1/1 p. 12 par. 5 The Kingdom Issue to the Fore! *** Properly, then, the ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold today. Rather than: (2 Timothy 3:15-17) . . .. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
  6. Exactly on each point!!! Now imagine Jehovah telling a "faitfhul slave" or pre-cursor of that "faithful slave" that the only way Jesus is going to distinguish between the 5 wise virgins and the 5 foolish virgins (in our time period) is based on their acceptance of a specific mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology. And it's a chronology that started out as: Oh look how great Ptolemy is; all astronomers agree that his dates are perfectly well-established! Which soon turned into: Look how terrible Ptolemy is; his chronology is suspect because he gives different dates than the ones we need prior to 539. Let's go so far as to highlight a book that calls him a "criminal." Which turned to: Oh look how great the Nabonidus Chronicle is; it proves that Cyrus overtook him in his 17th year. Which turned to: Oh wait, let's stop mentioning the Nabonidus Chronicle; turns out that the number 17 was added by expert secular authorities, and that the same chronicle links him directly to the full length of Neriglissar's reign, which is the one tiny window of vulnerability we still need to raise suspicion about a possible 20 year gap!! Which turned to: Oh look how great Strm. Cambyses is, it tells us directly that 539 is the only absolute date in ancient history!! Which turned to: Whoops! Now we have to admit that this only works if we accept on authority of experts to correct numerous known mistakes and copyist errors on that same tablet, the astronomical tablets' understanding and ancient tablet methods for measurements of two eclipses, the authority of modern experts to date those eclipses taking into account the slowdown of the earth by about 16,000 seconds, and a non-contemporary King's list (like Ptolemy's) that is assumed to be correct, and some secular business contract tablets that establish the length of the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses, (and which we reject when used elsewhere) and some [hi]stories by much later Greek historians that we don't really trust on most other matters. Which turned to: Look how great the Olympiad dating system is; if we accept that it has been properly tied to the current BC/AD eras, it appears to tells us that the dates for Cyrus are accurate. Which turns to: Oh wait! We reject the same Olympiad dating system even from much more recent times when it conflicts with our theory of Artaxerxes which we would like to say is 10 years off.
  7. Sure. I moved the "discrepancy-related" posts between you and @BTK59 going back to Wednesday because this was when the topic of discrepancies came up most directly. If I have moved too many or not enough, just let me know. Also, here on this topic, I have left @xero's question to you under this topic here that he started, and your response to it, even though it was based originally on that same back-and-forth between George88 and BTK59. Let me know. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90970-uncovering-discrepancies-in-secular-history/
  8. This topic starts out with posts between @BTK59 and @George88 from the "Nineveh 612" topic. The request to me was to move a couple of posts that were not directly relate to "Nineveh 612." I will likely get some further clarification on which exact posts I should move here because it seems there may be more than two.
  9. So even without checking out any astronomy, just from the tablets alone, we would get exactly the same as "Ptolemy's Canon." We'd get the same length and order of all the kings' reigns.
  10. There is a long inscription attributed to (actually in honor of) Nabonidus' mother, which honors her long life of about 102 to 104 years of age. It says about her life: From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, when I was born, until the 42nd year of Ashurbanipal, the 3rd year of his son Ashur-etil-ili, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Merodach, the 4th year of Neriglissar, during (all) these 95 years in which I visited the temple of the great godhead Sin, king of all the gods in heaven and in the nether world, he looked with favor upon my pious good works and listened to my prayers, accepted my vows. .. He [the moon god Sin] added (to my life) many days (and) years of happiness and kept me alive from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 9th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son whom I bore, (i.e.) one hundred and four happy years (spent) in that piety which Sin, the king of all gods, has planted in my heart’. . . . The ninth year: . . . On the fifth day of the month Nisan the queen mother died in Dur-karashu which (is on) the bank of the Euphrates upstream from Sippar. Therefore, the inscription says: Ashurbanipal reigned 42 years, Ashuretilili reigned 3 years, Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, Awel-Merodach reigned 2 years, Neriglissar reigned 4 years, Nabonidus followed Neriglissar and the queen mother died in his 9th year. This matches the various other contemporary or near-contemporary sources for the lengths of the reign of each king:
  11. It's true that there are tens of thousands of these business tablets, and tablets have been found for every year of the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings. And it's usually on the order of hundreds of them for each year of each king. This means that there are thousands of such tablets covering exactly: 21 years for Nabopolassar 43 years for Nebuchadnezzar 2 years for Evil-Merodach 4 years for Neriglissar 2 months for Labashi-Marduk 17 years for Nabonidus But that doesn't necessarily mean they we have put them in the right order. Without any knowledge of the astronomy tablets, how would contemporary documents show which kings ruled before and after each other? For one thing we have the interlocking dates. The months of the accession year of one king cannot overlap with the last months of the last year of the previous king. But there was an exception to this with those two months of Labashi-Marduk who appears not to have been fully accepted as king in all parts of Babylonia, while Nabonidus was already a contender immediately after Neriglissar's death. There is another exception of a month or so, evidently, when Nebuchadnezzar's son, Evil-Merodach, was already taking over for his father in Nebuchadnezzar's final dying months. It's also conceivable that slight overlaps could happen when the year is already named for the previous king, and the new king is not fully established among royal contenders. We also have inscriptions where Nebuchadnezzar more than once calls himself the son of his father Nabopolassar, and inscriptions where Evil-Merodach calls himself the son of Nebuchadnezzar: *** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach *** There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: “Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.” And inscriptions where Nabonidus calls himself the "ambassador of Nebuchadnezzar." As it turns out, the tablets themselves leave us with many different ways to link from one King to the next. They often reference prior years in contracts regarding loans and interest. The Egibi business entity provides a completely independent link of "presidents" of their banking/real estate company that perfectly matches and supports the order of the kings presented above. And of course, the surviving portions of the Babylonian Chronicles provide a year by year reference that includes the transitions between most of these kings. I'd like to present a few of these "interlocking" tablets that determine the order of the kings, but there is another archaeological discovery that manages the interlocking of these kings in just one inscription . . . next.
  12. In the chart, I will put the BCE years back for reference, with a small word of explanation. The light-green BCE timeline represents the standard timeline, and the light-blue (teal-colored) timeline represents the WTS publications timeline. From 556 BCE onward, however, the WTS publications accept the standard timeline, because the Nabonidus Chronicle has been used as verification of the accepted 539 date for Cyrus. *** ad p. 1197 Nabonidus *** the Nabonidus Chronicle covers events in the period from at least 556 to about the start of 521 B.C.E. But the WTS chronology still remains unique for up to the 4-year reign of Neriglissar, because the dates for Evil-Merodach are tied to the chronology that the WTS gives to Nebuchadnezzar. This leaves 3 to 4 years in the WTS chronology that have not been addressed, and are left blank below. (Although see the last note, about Cyrus, below.) Notes: *** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach *** The Babylonian king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 B.C.E. *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin *** About 32 years later, evidently in 580 B.C.E., Jehoiachin was released from prison by Nebuchadnezzar’s successor Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk) and given a position of favor above all the other captive kings. Thereafter he ate at Evil-merodach’s table and received a daily allowance.—2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34. Babylonian administrative documents have been found listing rations for Jehoiachin and five of his sons. The following article was a bit confusing, but I don't think it counts for the WTS acceptance of the standard chronology, although it doesn't question the fact that a tablet dated to the 33rd year of Nebuchadnezzar is dated 572 BCE. In Watchtower chronology this would be adjusted to 592 BCE. *** mrt article 11 par. 2 Is the Bible’s Depiction of the Jewish Exile in Babylon Accurate? *** Researchers have analyzed over 100 clay tablets that appear to be from ancient Babylon or nearby. The tablets show that many Jewish exiles maintained their cultural and religious identity while peacefully submitting to Babylonian rule. The tablets, dated from 572 to 477 B.C.E., include rental agreements, business ventures, promissory notes, and other financial records. “These documents,” says one reference work, “provide glimpses into the lives of ordinary people in a rural setting: they till the land and build houses, pay taxes, and render services to the king.” Wikipedia presents the following about the tablets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yahudu_Tablets The earliest document in the collection dates back to 572 BCE, about 15 years after the destruction of the Temple, during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.[6] The most recent tablet dates back to 477 BCE, during the reign of Xerxes I, about 60 years after the Return to Zion began and about 20 years before the rise of Ezra the Scribe. Note regarding Cyrus in WTS publications: *** it-1 p. 454 Chronology *** 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.) The acceptance of this particular part of the Olympiad data indicates that the standard chronology is accepted all the way back to 560 BCE, which would close up those 3 years currently left blank in the chart. It does not mean that the reign of Neriglissar is 100% accepted per the tablets however, because these 3 or 4 years still represent the unaddressed period of time in which WTS chronology proposes 23 or 24 years instead of 3 or 4.
  13. Nabonidus, or Nabunaid. But we also see another problem here. Those two months of Labashi-Marduk overlap with Nabunaid. This also happened with some Assyrian kings and has caused a lot of confusion in trying to make sure the order of kings is known or whether there were multiple claimants to the throne at the same time, or even co-rulers. During the time of civil war in Assyria, and the Babylonian ascendancy, there were multiple issues regarding who was the legitimate king during a few years. The Babylonian chronicles claim there was no legitimate king in the year between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar, for example. in this case, other histories have helped to clear up the confusion. And for year-to-year calendar purposes, we would not have included Labashi-Marduk anyway because he never had an official "Year 1." The end of the reign of Nabonidus is fairly well-known because he was king when his co-regent Belshazzar was in Babylon at the time Cyrus conquered Babylon. So he reigned 17 years. There is one tablet that evidently was reported to contain a reference to an 18th year of his reign, but the same tablet is dated at the top to the the 17th year. So we might have a scribal error. Or it was misread by the person who published the tablet. I don't know about this one, but I have seen that some are hard to read. There is another one dated to one day after Cyrus conquered Babylon, and is explained by P&D as follows: With this information we can safely add the 17 years of Nabonidus to the chart.
  14. Now we have one of the most interesting features of the Babylonian system of keeping track of years. Based on the tablets, it was very early after the New Year started on Nisannu 1 that Neriglissar evidently died. Note that the last tablet that P&D knew about when producing this book on Babylonian chronolgy was Nisannu the 2nd. [edited: after this first version of P&D another tablet was published showing Nisannu the 6th of this fourth and last year of his reign.] The next king, Labashi-Marduk, reigned for as little as one to two months, from at least the middle of the second month to the middle of the third month. The tablets noting him as king are only for his "accesssion" year. He never made it to an official "Year 1." [Edited to add, since the first publication of P&D, another tablet was published that showed Labashi-Marduk's first known tablet as the Nisannu the 23rd, so it was parts of 3 months, not just 2 months.] So how is this year counted in the calendar? Because the previous king made it to the New Year, he is "credited" with this particular year in the "count of years." It doesn't mean that you won't find Labashi-Marduk in a king's list somewhere, but you should not find him in a year-by-year "calendar count." Even if 10 kings had ruled for a few days each this year, this year "counted" for Neriglissar. So we don't really update the next year in the chart with his name. We shouldn't, or else the count of years will be off. The next year must only count for a king who is reigning on Nisannu the 1st. And that would be . . .
×
×
  • 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.