Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    445

Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. I also think of PIMO as the younger ones who sneak the iPhone down low between their knees and begin texting in the middle of a meeting. I ended up driving a couple of them in the back of a pickup truck a couple weeks ago to help a sister with a yard cleanup project. The truck had a backseat where they both sat while I was alone in the front. They didn't realize I could hear them whispering as they also had to whisper rather loudly to hear each other. But other people whispering always perks up my hearing capabilities. One is an MS, the other handles microphones. They are both freshly graduated from HS but were talking about dating girls in their school and not telling them about being JWs. Although I had a feeling (or a hope) that it might have been about their recent past and not the present. But If I snitch to their parents I wouldn't get any help lifting things next week when we do this again. J/K. Actually, I dropped some very general hints to the parent of the MS that we have to watch our young ones closely especially around that age, but probably didn't say enough. Haven't done anything Matthew 18-ish.
  2. I have to point out that your continued insults about me using manipulative language appear to still be empty claims where you make the claim but won't point to any actually manipulative language. Unless of course you just mean that any statements or evidence you don't with to deal with are "manipulating" you towards accepting statements or evidence you don't want to deal with. I've mentioned before that some of your insults that that don't make sense at face value actually do make perfect sense if I consider them to be psychological "projections" of concerns about yourself onto others. There are hundreds of previous examples shown on the forum, but in this case, you've given a couple more. Hopefully you can explain them in a way that doesn't infer your own projections onto others of whatever you feel is more true of yourself. For example: I have often been insulted here for acknowledging [so-called] irrefutable evidence presented by scholars, yet here you say I am choosing NOT to do so. You indicate that I believe Dr. Wiseman is NOT a scholarly authority, even though I am the one who is FULLY accepting what he is saying and yet you are the one REJECTING his chronology. Do you think these insults of yours really make for a mature conversation?
  3. Should be easy to check. Let's see if Dr Wiseman believes that the 18th and 19th years of King Nebuchadnezzar landed in 587 and 586 BCE. I see that he puts Neb's 1st year in 605. So his 18th year would be 605-18=587. So 587 BCE. That would make his 19th year 586 BCE. (605-19=586). So far, Wiseman agrees with the evidenced chronology of Neo-Babylon. Just as I would expect. Also the Bible says that in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year he took exiles from Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.  In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. The 7th year is not missing from the Chronicles. So let's see what year Wiseman thinks that is: So WIseman identifies the 7th year with 598/7 BCE. That would make the 19th year only 12 years later. 598-12=586. So again, Wiseman agrees that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586. The Bible identifies the 19th year with the fall and destruction of Jerusalem. When Wiseman has trouble pinning it down to either Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year, that's not because of the Neo-Babylonian Chronology. It's because of the fact that the Bible presents both of those years: the 18th and the 19th. As you can see from the scriptures from Jeremiah 32 and 2 Kings 25 that I referenced in previous posts. ----- While we're at it, I think you've already noted that he also agrees with 612 BCE for the fall of Nineveh
  4. No. That's completely false. I'm glad you admitted that this is what you were thinking, because it's easy to correct. It's not at all because it is generally accepted. Only because 100% of the Neo-Babylonian astronomical diaries that touch upon Nebuchadnezzar's reign consistently point to 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. (19th if you include counting his accession year.) There are at least EIGHT separate references to his king years. And ALL of them indicate that 587 was his 18th year -- with no exceptions and no inconsistencies. (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . .
  5. For anyone else who is interested, two of Wiseman's books that have been quoted here by George are very relevant to some of these issues. Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum by Wiseman, D. J. (Donald John) Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon by Wiseman, D. J. (Donald John) Both books can be found at archive.org where you only need a free account and can usually check out the books for an hour at a time with no issues. https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofchal0000unse/page/44/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/nebuchadrezzarba0000wise/page/n9/mode/2up You can also find free PDFs of each although I doubt this is a legal way of accessing them. Here's one: https://etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/20337.pdf The actual Babylonian Chronicles in translation are available at livius.org such as the example below: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-3-fall-of-nineveh-chronicle/ There are literally hundreds of fairly relevant documents that show up on JSTOR or specific Biblical/Archaeology/History Journals. I think it's still possible to get a free limited access which gets to many of them, but not all. (It's something they started during COVID.) If anyone finds an article they want from JSTOR, those with access are not supposed to share those articles. But if anyone here needs a specific page copied from one of those articles, I have full access to all JSTOR documents through an alumni account. That account also gets me full access to other academic journals, too, but I won't break the rules by copying more than one page at a time, and only for discussion purposes. This should keep it within "fair use" limits. Examples are: Chronology of the Medes, from the Reign of Deioces to the Reign of Darius, the Son of Hystaspes, or Darius the Mede I. W. Bosanquet In fact, if you can get to the search bar, but can't get to the actual document, that's where I can probably help out. Here's an example showing just the first of 1,399 results for a search on "Chronology of the Fall of Nineveh:"
  6. That's the same thing I always say about 607 BCE. I have no issue with the date at all. In fact, I think it's a fairly good date with which to start the 70 years of Jeremiah 25. It can't be more than a couple of years off. In fact, the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book pretty much indicates that the end of the 70 years of Jeremiah 25 was in 539 when Babylon's power "crumbles." That would start them in 609. But full Persian domination as a world empire might be considered to not have started until Carchemish in 605. 607 is right in the middle, so it seems like a pretty good place to start the '70 years for Babylon' as Jeremiah calls it. *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) . . . since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. I think it's telling that no one seems to like the direct and excellent evidence for identifying the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, but would rather try to mix in the Babylonian Chronicles and various tablets that recount military triumphs. The Bible account makes it clear that it happened in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. So if you don't have a problem with it, which year(s) of Nebuchadnezzar did you think 587/6 BCE was? Which year did you think 606 BCE was?
  7. George88: You told me I was sharing distorted views, and I asked you what they were. You answered with . . . Since I have never said anything about that particular gap between the Babylonian and the Persian empire, who is making the distortion? If it's not me, who were you talking about when you said I was sharing distorted views? Are you saying you have NO examples of views I have distorted, but that you made the claim anyway? This is in full agreement with what I said very early on in the discussion. That when most Witnesses are aware of the direction the evidence leads to, they no longer wish to consider the specifics, and prefer to divert to other types of evidence. It seems like a kind of fear. I don't see a need to fear it. For me, the tradition about chronology that we have latched onto here is not the core of what we stand for as Jehovah's Witnesses. It's fine for any of us to believe it if we wish, but we shouldn't get too attached to it, because it's not the core of our worship, our love for God and neighbor, the ransom, nor does it change anything about the last days or the good news of the Kingdom.
  8. It may very well have been. But if you don't have the Bible to tell you the exact beginning or ending of that event, why don't you go ahead and use what the Bible DOES say? That is, find the BCE equivalent for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. (2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.  He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.
  9. As soon as he answers, or if he decides to ask his question again in the closed club, I'll be happy to participate there. In the meantime, you might want to show exactly which view was distorted. I'm always happy to correct any of my distorted views. But I'll need to know what they are first.
  10. Thanks for admitting that. If one is looking for the date for the destruction of Jerusalem you can therefore ignore the Exile. The Bible never says it started exactly in a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar, and it never says that it ended in exactly a specific year of King Cyrus. The Watchtower claims it was not 539 when he captured Babylon, nor in 538 which was the first year of Cyrus over Babylon, but in 537, and they may have good reasons for interpreting that way. Prior Watchtowers placed Cyrus accession year in 537, and thus put his first year in 536, and used this method. If Russell had used the current Watchtower's methodology of adding several months after the beginning of that first regnal year, they would have been claiming that the Exile ended in 535 BCE. But instead they used the beginning of the first regnal year which they thought at the time was 536. From 536 they counted back 70 years and got 606 as a date for the fall of Jerusalem. But all that is unnecessary and required interpretation instead of methodology. What do we have is the Bible's statement that the destruction and fall of Jerusalem was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. So we can ignore the undefined 70 year exile and just use the Bible's statements. If you want to describe a methodology, just consider the most direct and obvious way to find the 18th and/or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar?
  11. What does it matter what critics say? We should focus on the evidence. As you have shown. Making a dogmatic claim as you just did proves nothing. Just as you cannot prove that the fall didn't happen in 587 BCE.
  12. I'm surprised, but you just pretty much admitted the entire schema and methodology of the Watchtower tradition. As you say, it starts by looking at the secular NB chronology, but determines that, no matter what the NB Chronology says, the fall of Jerusalem must have happened in 607 BCE (else the 1914 prediction fails). So when they see that 607 is 20 years off from the NB Chronology they merely "fine-tune" the entire NB Chronology timeline by adding 20 years. This is exactly correct. Thank you.
  13. Why would anyone want to try something as silly as trying to disprove a negative? That would be like someone asking if you could disprove 587 BCE or disprove 586 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You would look foolish to try. Exactly correct. Thanks. So it meaningless to keep bringing up his name unless one has the motive of trying to attach the label "apostate" to a rehash of research that has been around for over 100 years, completely separate from Witnesses or ex-Witnesses.
  14. The Bible does not give a BCE start date or a BCE end date for the Jewish/Babylonian exile. The Bible, which I consider excellent evidence, says that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. And, fortunately, there is excellent evidence for the BCE date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You can ignore all else, even though the biblical and historical facts ALSO provide excellent and consistent support for the correct BCE dates. Not for me. I couldn't care less whether COJ found no evidence, 17 lines of evidence, or 100 lines. It's not about COJ. And it shouldn't be for anyone else, I'd think. Bringing him up is just a way to say that ONE of the THOUSANDS of persons who support 587/586 is an apostate for having supported it, too. So it's just an easy deflection and diversion that "poisons the well" or attempts the ad hominem. If you could provide a good ad hominem for the other THOUSANDS of people who have carefully looked at the evidence then you might be onto something. But I'd still prefer looking at the evidence and not worry about specific individuals you might like or dislike. If you prefer 586 then say so. If you prefer 587 say so. In the past, just has you are apparently doing here, you always bring up this same argument that because it's either one or the other then it can't be either. To me, that's a very specious argument.
  15. I don't need to compare the two. I am no longer concerned about the methods of either one. I was skeptical when I read COJ; I was skeptical when I read Furuli. I am aware of what you claim was manipulation, and although I found it amazing that experts would write about how much they appreciated COJ's research and how they say it even added to the field, but I am not at all concerned about it. His discovery that the experts agreed with was totally unnecessary to the overall evidence as far as I'm concerned. Attempts to compare or insult one over the other is not my goal at all. I would prefer to have the discussion based solely on evidence without any reference to various individuals and their supposed expertise or authority. You won't see any deflection, only my claim that COJ never used the Babylonian Chronicles to justify 587 over 607 and refute the Watchtower and neither would I try to do that. I actually consider it a deflection to make a request. It's like saying that you must use a yardstick to refute an ink pen. Why would I care. This should be a discussion about evidence, not about whether the Watchtower or any of its followers have changed their view about 607 BCE. As you probably know, the Watchtower itself changed its view about 607 about 80 years ago. Doesn't make the Watchtower "apostate." If that's true, you should be able to name and quote these historians and show the evidence they had. I'm not saying it's impossible. But the current evidence would show they were in error. No. I said he thought that the "seven times" method to reach modern dates like 1914 was inferior to using "God's dates" that proved 1874. Instead of the "seven times" to reach 1914 he thought it was better to start with 1874, a more proven date (by at least half-a-dozen supposedly independent methods) and to count forward for a 40 year harvest. Then when 1913 came around, he said he was quite willing to abandon the entire idea and hope that people 100 years from then would still see some value in what was being preached. Then when the War broke out he held onto 1914 again, but soon move the predictions to 1915 and even up to a later time. The Watchtower even later printed that The Gentile Times Ended in 1915, before going back to 1914. Russell later conceded that everything he had predicted would happen in 1914 might happen several months or even "YEARS" later. It was not as sacrosanct to him as 1874. 1874 was finally dropped under Knorr/Franz in 1943.
  16. Do you know another explanation for why the Watchtower publications present the year 632 instead of 612 as the date for the fall of Nineveh? It's true that the Watchtower never admits the reason they added 20 years to the evidenced date, but they did explain the reason they add 20 years to the 587 date. It's pretty obvious to me that it's for the same reason. You can't change one date without consequences to the surrounding dates. You just have to figure out where you want to start and stop adding the 20 years. That's something the Watchtower publications have NEVER explained. Claiming someone's explanation "lacks comprehension" without being able to say what specifically was wrong gets us nowhere. It's just an insult that might even give credence to a suspicion that the person trying that tactic can't point out where it's illogical. Until you can, I take it as a tacit admission that my explanation might just as easily be correct as incorrect. You can't say you made any point "precisely" in the past either when you never were able to even try to make a vague point, only an insult, or a false claim that someone was relying heavily on a "person." I rely absolutely ZERO on COJ. That would be stupid. I rely only on evidence. The Babylonian Chronicles contain only relative dates. I think we generally already agree on those relative dates. I would never try to prove a BCE date with a relative date. Also your insult about COJ being a regrettable individual for doing just that is a misdirection. I read his book and he NEVER, EVER claims that the Babylonian Chronicles validate 587 over 607. I'm sure you already agree with COJ about the relative dates presented in those Chronicles. If not, you are free to show me where you disagree with the dates provided within those Chronicles. Again, if you can't specifically show where, I have to assume you can't. This is why I say that empty insults don't help us make any progress on the topic. Don't you think there is always a chance that someone might be able to come along and show why these "incorrect perceptions" are incorrect? What you said gives the impression that you are simply afraid of the evidence. If these were my own private beliefs however I would agree. But these are hardly private beliefs. They are based on the difference between what the Watchtower has publicly claimed and what literally HUNDREDS of other publications have already publicly claimed. There is nothing private about it. There should be nothing to hide. Not only that, the Watchtower itself has encouraged the interest in this claim: *** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One *** This is the first of two articles in consecutive issues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarly questions surrounding the date of the destruction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part series presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzled some readers. “According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?” SO WROTE one of our readers. But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people.
  17. No problem. I have found that to be true of most fellow Witnesses when it comes to this topic. It's not comfortable to engage when you know where the evidence is heading. But for others, I will still go ahead and try to respond to your comments about the evidence and questions you have already asked of me.
  18. It absolutely WAS my intention to discuss evidence regarding the 20-year difference that the Watchtower has been forced to add to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology prior to 539 (technically 556, see below). It even goes back further to the dates given to the entire Judean and Israelite kingdom. The most significant of the dates for the Watchtower during this period would be the change from 587 to 607, which is the entire purpose of changing all these other dates you will find specific references for in "Insight" and various other Watchtower articles: The fall of Nineveh (from 612 to 632) The the 14th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 612 to 632) The the 17th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 609 to 629) The death of Josiah (changed from 609 to 629) The 21st year of Nabopolassar (changed from 605 to 625) The last major battle at Carchemish (changed from 605 to 625) The 1st regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 604 to 624) The 7th regnal year "ending" of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 597 to 617) The 19th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 587 to 607) The 43rd regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 562 to 582) Accession year of Evil-Merodach (changed from 562 to 582) Beginning of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 556 to 556) End of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 539 to 539) Note also that, as I mentioned before, these changed dates are directly tied to the Judean (and Israelite) kings, so that the chronology links are changed by 20 years all the way back to David. You can see this in the following Insight quote, that also makes it appear that the most prestigious reference books agree with the Watchtower chronology, even though it's false. Note how the Watchtower adds its changed dates right there within the quotes from Grayson. *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar *** He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2. The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu . . . When you add something to direct quotes and don't clarify or admit that the brackets weren't in the original, it is considered very bad form or even academic dishonesty. The other thing to notice is that the Watchtower publications force the 20-year gap into the smallest possible reigns of only 2 kings Evil-Merodach who reigned only a few months, and Neriglissar who reigned only 4 years. Unfortunately, for the Watchtower's chronology, the greater part of the Neo-Babylonian years from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus are already ruled out by the Bible itself, forcing the Watchtower to try to squeeze that extra 20 years into the most obvious place where it could never fit and would have been the most conspicuous if it actually existed. I think that's very relevant information to start out with for anyone who believes there is any merit to the reasons that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years. (612 to 632 BCE)
  19. If you want to have a serious conversation (and not a "talk show" as a certain V.Putin might call it) then I am quite willing. As long as we continue to discuss evidence rather than personalities and faults and supposed expertise and supposed authority. I don't claim expertise or authority on this topic, but I have long been amazed now at the availability of so much consistent evidence when I used to have the impression that it was all a mess and so much of it contradicted other evidence, and was therefore useless to study. In response to what you say above, I did NOT intend to only mention you. In fact I said: " Pudgy was the one who joined the conversation only to say he wasn't interested in it, and that would therefore include not being interested in facts or evidence about it, one way or another. I usually expect Pudgy to join a conversation like this mostly to make some points about the Democratic Party, and throw in a few memes or cartoons, some of which are his own making and, yes, also to trade insults with you. I have no problem with such additions to topics I have started, but it probably isn't fair to @xero to ask a question and then see most of the responses filled up with unrelated insults. I admit I had you in mind for some of my other observations, based on some of your statements above, but I'm quite willing to start fresh if you wish. And I don't think I am any paragon of virtue in this regard. Look at some of the old "back-and-forth" between me and scholar_jw, or posts referring to Furuli when it comes to this particular topic. I don't control myself very well when I believe I'm seeing academic dishonesty and possibly purposeful diversions and fallacies. In this regard, I understand where you might also be coming from.
  20. I you were directing that statement at me, I am not resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC. It's a fact that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years from 612 to 632 for only ONE purpose: in order to support the change for the fall of Jerusalem by 20 years from 587 to 607. *** it-1 p. 205 Assyria *** The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end. . . . According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) I could be wrong, but so far, every time a Witness brings up the difference between Watchtower chronology and the standard accepted chronology, they are invariably referring to the 20-year gap that the Watchtower chronology creates for itself. @xero can correct me if this is a misconception on my part. Put simply, the Watchtower chronology takes every Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian-era date for which there is archaeological or historical evidence prior to 539 BCE and simply adds 20 years to it. This is only done in order to try to resolve (or even "cover up") the fact that there is excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE but the Watchtower needs it to be 607 BCE. Otherwise they would have to dismiss the idea that the Bible "predicted" 1914. I think the GB will not be able to extricate themselves very easily from this tradition. Even though the Watchtower has claimed that OTHER dates they promoted were even more sure than 1914, they have dropped those dates. Russell indicated that 1874 was more sure and anchored date than 1914 but that date was finally dropped. Rutherford claimed that there was more proof and evidence for 1925 than for 1914, but that date was also dropped. Therefore, the only "sure" date left, then, is 1914 and it would likely be too much of a disappointment for most Witnesses to have to admit we were wrong all along about this supposed "prophecy" -- the only "sure" dated prophecy we have left. Those with good access to that evidence often have trouble knowing what to do with it. So when the topic comes up they try to "run interference" by brining up people instead of evidence. (One person, R.Furuli, as a last resort against the evidence published by COJ, did try to run interference against the evidence itself.) But normally, from those who have tried to understand the evidence, you instantly start seeing phrases about people JWI, xero, COJ (Carl O Jonsson), apostates, rather than any real attempt to present evidence. Did you really think people would fall for the idea that it was Carl Jonsson who "introduced" this nonsense when it was already known by the preponderance of existing evidence since the early 1800's. And now that even more consistent and corroborating evidence has been found, the chronology is now agreed upon by the scholars who have looked into that evidence for over 100 years already. The Watchtower was already commenting on people who wrote to Russell and Rutherford about this same evidence long before COJ was born. So it's not about people and their flaws or even scholars and experts who agree with one another. It's about the evidence. That said, you did make a point or two in this thread about evidence and since some of those points were directed at me personally, so I will respond.
  21. @xero I'd love to respond further because I think there is quite a lot of real evidence that would answer your original question more definitively than you might have expected. I wouldn't mind copying or moving the relevant posts to the closed forum due to the inevitable and constant distractions by those with a different agenda: those who are anxious to make it clear they aren't interested in the topic and/or they aren't interested in relevant facts or evidence, but merely wish to pompously bloviate and criticize the flaws of humans who are supposedly disgruntled (or worse). Of course, you may have had your own reasons for asking this in the open forum, and I respect that. I sometimes prefer the open forum because the ultimate goal of sharing my opinion is the hope (and reward) that even from an unexpected source, someone can come along and prove me wrong or make me think more about where I could learn more. In spite of George88's tactics of running interference and thriving on confrontation and insults, he himself has sometimes offered up links or material that will shed a different light on a topic.
  22. These glaring errors in "enhanced" posts remind me that it is actually quite easy for "AI" scraping tools to even produce false information from wol.jw.org. For example, it's been pointed out several times in these related discussions that the Insight book often quotes a scholarly source but adds brackets within that quote to insert the special Watchtower chronology, which makes it look like scholarly sources had actually supported the special Watchtower chronology instead of the evidenced chronology. This can fool the AI tools. For example:*** it-1 p. 94 Ammonites *** The inscriptions of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III, who ruled in the time of King Jehu (c. 904-877 B.C.E.) of Israel, claim that the forces of “Baʼsa, son of Ruhubi, from Ammon” were among a coalition of kings opposing Assyria in the battle of Karkar. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 279) The quote appears to use the scholarly reference "Ancient Near Eastern Texts" as support for the special Watchtower dates, but that book would reject those dates. This is all the more important when it's done in a section especially concerned with Chronology and dates. *** it-1 p. 190 Ashdod *** A stone prism of Sennacherib of Assyria says that “Mitinti from Ashdod” brought him sumptuous gifts and kissed his feet, and it adds concerning King Hezekiah of Judah (745-717 B.C.E.): “His towns which I had plundered, I took away from his country and gave them (over) to Mitinti, king of Ashdod.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288) Ashdod seems to have been in a weakened state by the time of Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) so that he spoke of “the remnant of Ashdod.” (Jer 25:20) Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in 624 B.C.E. . . . *** it-1 p. 205 Assyria *** The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) . . . According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Note that the last one above even includes the phrase: "brackets and parentheses theirs." Yet the special Watchtower dates 632 BCE and 629 BCE, also in parentheses, are rejected by the reference work in favor of the evidenced dates. *** it-2 pp. 178-179 Kittim *** This is in harmony with the historical evidence for Phoenician colonies in Cyprus at the time of Isaiah’s prophesying (c. 778–a. 732 B.C.E.). An inscription of Sennacherib relates the flight of King Luli of Sidon to the island of Iadnana (Cyprus) as the result of the Assyrian attack. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288) And what about cases where no quote marks are used, as in the reference above. How would "AI" know that dates given are NOT supported by the referenced book, and that even here the special Watchtower chronology has taken the evidenced dates and added 20 years to them without admitting it? Who would know that the following, which make it appear that cuneiform tablets support Watchtower dates, are actually NOT supported by those tablets or the referenced book about such tablets? *** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus *** Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). He was given to literature, art, and religion. In his own inscriptions Nabonidus claims to be of noble descent. A tablet found near ancient Haran gives evidence that Nabonidus’ mother or grandmother was a devotee of the moon-god Sin. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 311, 312) As king, Nabonidus showed great devotion to the worship of the moon-god, both at Haran and at Ur, where this god occupied a dominant position.—PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 324. Cuneiform tablets of the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 617-Nisan 616 B.C.E.) list a certain Nabu-naʼid as the one “who is over the city,” and some historians believe this is the same Nabonidus who later became king. However, this would mean that Nabonidus was a very young man when placed in such administrative position and would make him extremely aged at the fall of Babylon, some 77 years later (539 B.C.E.). Discussing events in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 605-Nisan 604 B.C.E.), the Greek historian Herodotus (I, 74) describes a treaty negotiated between the Lydians and the Medes by one “Labynetus the Babylonian” as mediator. And how would one know in the above reference that 20 years was added to every date EXCEPT 539, which creates a bigger problem for that reference to that claim about Nabonidus being 77 years old? It uses the phrase "some historians believe" and implies therefore that some of them believe he would be 77. This is false, of course. Also if one were to look further into it, they would see an even bigger problem with the same Insight article references to Nabonidus' mother (or grandmother). [She evidently died at 104, but inscriptions for her actually list out the number of years she lived under each Babylonian king, and it happens to perfectly match the evidence from King's Lists, all the contemporary business documents, and "Ptolemy's Canon," VAT 4956, all the astronomical tablets, etc. There are many more of these in Insight, and not just from Pritchard's book. In fact, you can actually backtrack the AI @xero quoted with a likely scrape from Insight here: *** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar *** One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) But it cannot be established whether it relates to the original conquest or a later military action. That's the most likely place from which "AI" misunderstood to create the following: Anyway, this could go on and on. Just shows the danger of reliance on these tools. And there's a good chance it will also be reading what we're writing here. Yikes!
  23. This is another example of "AI enhanced" hallucinations. Whatever source created this response is just so incorrect that I decided to mark each incorrect sentence in red-orange, and each misleading statement in yellow, and each true statement in green. It's pretty obvious that "AI" tools have scraped from conversations about 607, and often pick up mistaken quotes and will now even potentially pick up their own reprinted mistakes and regurgitate them as if those mistakes have now been validated by their use on a forum even such as this one. For a quick explanation of my markup, note the following. Wiseman made good use of the Nabonidus Chronicle but did not rely "heavily" on it for dating purposes -- he states that they are only for relative chronologies -- and therefore he never tried to "establish" a chronology from it or other Babylonian Chronicles. Also Wiseman wrote the book "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings;" He did not "rely" on it. I just googled to see if it was written in 1961 and google's AI responded: Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) by D. J. Wiseman was written in 586. The Chronicles are indeed fragmentary, and do not include the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, but this is irrelevant if we are merely trying to pin a BCE date on his 18th/19th year, which is all that Witnesses are interested in. If the Chronicles were either totally accurate or totally inaccurate about Jerusalem specifically, it wouldn't make an iota of difference to us. All we want to do is know the date for his 18th/19th year. If they are fragmentary but still gave us pertinent information to help us date his 8th year, his 1st year, or his 37th, then that is plenty of information from which to derive his 18th19th year. The relevant period is any one that includes Nebuchadnezzar's reign, therefore the Chronicles are particularly good for the relevant period. There is nothing in the Babylonian Chronicles about the Jews in particular, so there is no information that would show bias towards them. "Dating inconsistencies" are irrelevant because there aren't any. This happens to be one period of ancient history with the most well-documented and testable chronology. If we didn't think we knew better, we'd say that it must have been providentially Jehovah's will that this period was the most well-documented and easily understood, with literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence all pointing to the same BCE dates, and NOT ONE INCONSISTENCY. The only problem is that we as Witnesses REJECT the obvious conclusion of all this evidence. Wisemen never interprets Neb's 37th year as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem as stated above. Wiseman interprets it according to the prevailing evidence, which would therefore point to a 587/586 destruction of Jerusalem. No one believes the VAT 4956 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 37th year, not JWs, not WIseman, not Furuli. Any differences in interpretation over the exact year of Neb's ascension to the throne have no real impact on the dating of his regnal years. All the evidence is very consistent as to how the Babylonians counted ascension years and regnal years. There is no difference in interpretation for Babylonian documents, which are shown to be perfectly consistent throughout the entire period. This might refer to the Bible's inconsistent use "ordinal" vs. "cardinal" counting of regnal years, as explained in our Aid book and Insight book. Archaeological evidence does indeed point to 587/586 for Neb's 19th year, but Wiseman does NOT contradict this evidence. He makes consistent use of the evidence. Lack of independent corroboration weakens the 607 argument? Mostly true, but there is absolutely NO corroboration of the 607 argument to begin with. Much less any additional independent corroboration. There is simply ZERO evidence for the 607 argument, Biblical or otherwise. And the implication about no independent corroboration misses the point that there are SEVERAL INDEPENDENT lines of evidence all consistently pointing to the 587/586 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. Very few really argues that Wiseman has a theological agenda. He does try to support and defend the Bible as history in certain cases of apparent discrepancies. But this has almost no effect on the time period in question. In this case it is those with a traditional Biblical interpretation that goes against evidence who argue against the evidence. There is really no "scholarly" debate at all about the overall time period in question, and especially not about the specific BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This might sound like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but the point is that this period is just too well documented for scholars to debate. Pretend scholars might pretend that it's debatable, and unfortunately their pretensions carry a lot of weight with people who want desperately to believe they are right. It seems that this is because they are in support of a tradition that would create a lot of discomfort to many of us if we had to admit it was a false tradition. Wiseman's presentation of the overall evidence about the years of the Neo-Babylonian period is universally accepted by scholars, because he accepts evidence and does NOT accept the "607 argument" as claimed above. I should mention that a person may be a scholar in a different field and therefore might disagree with scholars in a field that he is not that familiar with. For example, a scholar in the field of Shakespeare Studies might try to find reasons to disagree with a scholar who argues about the Laws of Physics. But if a Shakespeare scholar claims he knows that the speed of light must be closer to 100,000 miles per hour rather than closer to 186,000 miles per second, this doesn't really mean that the "186,000 argument" is not universally accepted by all scholars. As I said, it's hardly worth trying to glean the wheat from the chaff on AI enhanced writing. Hope it helps a bit. I won't even make an attempt to respond to the many glaring errors in G88's recent posts.
  24. If anyone wishes to participate, I'd like to have a more serious discussion about the 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology. There may be several posts already made by @George88 and @scholar JW that are more related to this topic than @xero's topic about the Fall of Nineveh where several of them were, before being moved here. If anyone wants to participate they are welcome of course, and if anyone wants to continue some of the related and unrelated topics back on xero's thread, that's fine too. Unrelated topics here can even be moved over there if that seems OK.
  25. I'm certain that the use of "A.I." "enhanced" writing tools will quickly produce a comedy of errors -- but still mixed in with a lot of true statements here and there. And that it is hardly worth the time and effort to try correcting all the errors and diversions those tools can create.
×
×
  • 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.