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. The N-B secular chronology is probably based on a 30,000 point theory. When I was at the British Museum last year, I asked how many different clay cuneiform documents exist that can help us to reconstruct the Neo-Babylonian period. The number 30,000 came up a couple of times. This is a good portion of the clay documents mentioned here on their site. They claim about 50,000 items in their own Neo-Babylonian collection. Iraq has at least 10,000 more. Studying cuneiform tablets The department’s collection of cuneiform tablets is among the most important in the world. It contains approximately 130,000 texts and fragments and is perhaps the largest collection outside of Iraq. It can be separated into the following main groups (all numbers below are approximate): Early Dynastic (c.3200–2500 BC) - 500 items from Ur, Fara Old Akkadian (c. 2500–2200 BC) 150 items Ur III (c. 2200–2000 BC) - 30,000 items from Lagash, Umma, Ur, Drehem Old Assyrian (c. nineteenth–eighteenth centuries BC) - 700 items from Anatolia Old Babylonian (c. 1900–1650 BC) - 20,000 items from Sippar, Ur, Larsa, Uruk, Kutalla, Kisurra non-Mesopotamian - 400 items including Alalakh in Syria, Amarna in Egypt, Elamite texts from Iran and Hittite texts from Anatolia Neo-Assyrian (first millennium BC) - 25,000 items from Kuyunjik, Nimrud Neo-Babylonian (first millennium BC) - 50,000 items from Sippar, Babylon, Borsippa, Uruk, Larsa, Ur, Kutalla.
  2. So what did the "Prophetic Times" of December 1870, published by Seiss, actually say? It mentioned several dates because one of the points was that the 2520 years as a punishment for Israel could be thought of as having many different start dates, due to the fact that there are several important times mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles when Jehovah spoke of a time of special punishment relative to the kings of Israel or Judah. But of all these dates in the 1700's through the 1900's, the others were mentioned only an average of about 1.5 times each. But 1914 is mentioned SIX times in the article. The two columns in the first image represent 606 as the time when Nebuchadnezzar takes Daniel, in approximately his accession year, which was usually considered to be 605, not 606: Notice that he is generally a year off from the commonly accepted secular dates: The following are more copy-and-paste excerpts where 1914 was under discussions.
  3. Thanks for providing this. In fact, this entire question, as worded, was what I was originally going to discuss with @Nana Fofana in response to this particular post of hers, so I'll go ahead and do that now: @Nana Fofana, First of all it should be obvious that this debate has gone on much longer than 41 years. Among Watchtower readers alone, it has gone on for over 100 years as you can see above. In the May 15, 1922 Watchtower, Rutherford was still dealing with the same issue about the 19 to 20 year "gap" in the Watchtower chronology that does not exist in the actual Biblical or secular evidence. Note this from page 147, which are the opening words in the article called "Chronology:" "WE HAVE no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. Some claim to have found new light in connection with the period of "seventy years of desolation'' and Israel's captivity in Babylon, and are zealously seeking to make others believe that Brother Russell was in error." Of course, the article goes on to use as its primary proof that Russell (the one and only faithful and discreet slave) had God's approval and therefore would not have been wrong about this chronology. Still, it does offer a few additional reasons why these dates are correct: "SOUGHT TO DISCREDIT BIBLE . . . The worldly-wise have always disliked the Bible . . . The adversary [Satan] has always endeavored to deceive people. No doubt he has had much to do towards causing the confusion in the historical records of ancient history." [Always trying to put the argument into a polemic light, so that it appears that whoever is asking is some kind of "Devil" or antagonist to the truth, or an apostate. Some things never change.] "Practically all agree that B. C. 536 was 'the first year of Cyrus'" [Not a true statement at the time, nor when Russell stated the same, nor is it true today.] "There is no contention about the first year of Cyrus being B. C. 536." [This was also not a true statement, of course.] "The Bible locates the time definitely as 3522 A. M. ( 606 B. C.), the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Secular historians vary considerably." [This was also a false statement, of course.] "We find the Jews still under the yoke of Babylon, bringing the date down 12 years later, or to 442 B.C. This would make a period of 94 years after the return of borne in 536 B.C. If we add the 70 years to that we have a total of at least 164 years, 606 to 442 B.C. under the king of Babylon." [Obviously false about the king of Babylon and the dates, but it was a way of avoiding the possibility that the 70 years applied to the kingdom of Babylon, as stated in Jeremiah.] "UNRELIABLE SECULAR CHRONOLOGY How can this be harmonized with secular chronology, which states that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in 606 B.C., reigned 43 years, and died in 561 B.C.? We are not called upon to harmonize the Bible with secular chronology any more than we are expected to harmonize the gospel of the Bible with secular creeds." [Notice that Rutherford does not seem to notice that he is relying on secular chronology for his dates, too.] Recapitulating then, the Bible record is conclusive that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar synchronizes with the fourth year of king Jehoiakim, which was the year 3503 A. M. or 625 B. C. [Of course there is nothing "conclusive" here, only evidence that Rutherford wants to use a different secular date than the secular date supported by evidence.] And of course, the main point of the argument is really about Russell, even though it adds some new dates that Russell hadn't mentioned, but which were promoted as supposedly clear and obvious extensions of Russell's original chronology: "STAMPED WITH GOD'S APPROVAL It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? . . . it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914." With this in mind, notice how important it must have been to position any questioning of the chronology as angry and prideful Satan-like questioning against a humble and thoughtful Biblical position that had Jehovah's stamp of approval. This is merely a way to "tickle the ears" so that people think they are hearing a "pattern of healthful words." Note how antagonistic the questioner is meant to sound when in the question to Russell the question was characterized like this: "Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light and that you and all DAWN readers have been 'all wrong,' walking in darkness?" But the actual arguments had been presented in the same scholarly works that Barbour and Russell had depended on, without any antagonism towards those who had used wrong evidence for their dates. There were many different ways of attaching a chronology to the Bible prophecies and Russell himself had admitted this in the past. Some Bible commentators had been discussing these types of discrepencies since the 1850's and 1860's. But it clearly served a purpose to try to present the questioner as antagonistic toward not just Russell, but all people who considered themselves to be seekers of truth and light. Rutherford did the same thing as you can see in his article. Yet, ironically, the words turned out NOT to be true, even though it was Satan who was behind the questioning and Jehovah who had given his stamp of approval. In spite of this everything that had been said about 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925 - beyond any possibility of erasure - had to be "erased." This includes even what was being said about 1914 at this time. It turned out NOT to be the time of violence and chaos that had been predicted. It turned out NOT to be the time that resulted in the end of the Gentile domination over the Jewish nation as predicted. None of what was predicted for 1914 turned out to be true.
  4. The following are excerpts taken from posts that were moved because most of the post was about another topic. I'm repeating the points back here that do belong under this topic: To which AlanF already responded: Wrong. Egyptian history has some issues, but almost all historians agree that it's basically sound. According to who? As has been repeatedly pointed out, exactly the same evidence that Mommy Watch Tower cites in support of 538 also supports 587/586 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, as well as many other historical events in Neo-Babylon history that Mommy disagrees with. The only reason the WTS sticks with 607 is that its entire religious structure would collapse without 1914. Remember that the idea was first put forth in 1875 by Nelson Barbour, a "Second Adventist" prophetic speculator most of whose doctrinal claims the WTS has rejected. And even then, Barbour and C. T. Russell claimed, not 607 as their magic date, but 606 BCE. And the WTS stuck with this 606 date until 1943/1944! The 607 date is disproved by copious amounts of evidence. All told, 587 for Jerusalem's destruction stands up to all tests, secular and biblical. AlanF ------------------------------
  5. For @Arauna, @James Thomas Rook Jr., @TrueTomHarley, @AlanF, I should let you know that a few more posts were just moved over to the thread linked below. They were more about "evolution" etc, than about this particular topic. I'll copy back some portions of those posts that were appropriate to this 607 topic. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51784-monkeys-typewriters-and-evolution/ Â Â
  6. We already spoke of John Aquila Brown, and his dates in 584 AD, 622 AD, 1453 AD, 1844 AD, 1873 AD, 1917 AD. Five of the key time spans in Brown's chronology were: 457 BC to 1843 AD (2300 days) 584 AD to 1844 AD, (1260 days) 622 AD to 1873 AD, (1290 days) 622 AD to 1917 AD, (1335 days) 604 BC to 1917 AD, (2520 days) Brown promoted pieces of this particular chronology starting around 1810 to 1827, including 604-1917 in "Even-Tide" (1823). Of course, days were always turned into years, a longstanding practice with a Biblical precedent already stated for periods of 40 days and 390 days. Charles Taze Russell. Starting in the 1870's and throughout his lifetime, Russell promoted a similar set of dates. These were the same dates, of course, that N. H. Barbour promoted. Also note that several of these dates sometimes varied by about a year: 1799/1798 AD, 1914/1915 AD. These dates were promoted through the Watch Tower's wide distribution of Russell's books which continued until the early 1930's: 454 BC to 1846 AD (2300 days) - Russell is 3 years different from Brown 539 AD to 1799 AD, (1260 days) - 539 AD*, not a BC date; unrelated to Cyrus) 539 AD to 1829 AD, (1290 days) - Russell says 1829 was the prophesied start of "Millerites"** 539 AD to 1874 AD, (1335 days) - when Jesus returned; start of "parousia" 606 BC to 1914 AD, (2520 days) - Russell is 3 years different from Brown * 539 AD was considered the beginning of Roman Catholic papal rule. From "Thy Kingdom Come" [Millennial Dawn, Studies in the Scriptures], Vol 3, page 81, 82: It proves that the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom in A.D. 539 was, as clearly indicated by the prophetic measure (1260 years), the exact point of time when this desolating and, in the sight of God, abominable system was "set up." . . . in the short space of fifty years from its small beginning, A.D. 539. We may therefore feel assured that the 1260 years, or three and a half times, of papal dominion, are well and clearly marked at both ends. ** From "Thy Kingdom Come" [Millennial Dawn, Studies in the Scriptures], Vol 3, page 86, 87: But the "Miller movement" was more than this: it was the beginning of the right understanding of Daniel's visions, and at the right time to fit the prophecy. Mr. Miller's application of the three and a half times (1260 years) was practically the same as that we have just given, but he made the mistake of not starting the 1290 and 1335 periods at the same point. Had he done so he would have been right. On the contrary, he started them thirty years sooner--about 509 instead of 539, which ended the 1335 days in 1844, instead of 1874. It was, nevertheless, the beginning of the right understanding of the prophecy; for, after all, the 1260 period, which he saw correctly, was the key; and the preaching of this truth . . .
  7. If anyone is looking for good links (mostly Google Books) to the Joseph Seiss books I mentioned, the following is a link with about a dozen of his books on it. He wrote even more than those listed. He even contributed articles in the Watch Tower magazine, including two printed in 1905. His book "The Last Times" (1856) is quoted with the very first issue of the Watch Tower, July 1, 1879 (supplement) . http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Seiss%2C Joseph A. (Joseph Augustus)%2C 1823-1904 The book on Napolean is not included in the list because it wasn't written by Seiss, and only references works by Seiss: https://books.google.com/books?id=33Za05MXtpQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false I won't link to the racist book because it is merely a response to Seiss, (Seiss was not the racist.) But it does have some useful info about the monthly periodical "The Prophetic Times" attached below. I have also attached an ad from the Napolean book:
  8. So I'll start with the paragraph in the "Proclaimers" book, highlighting a sentence I just looked into last night: *** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth *** As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. The surrounding paragraphs will offer additional details we can get to later, and we've already discussed a small portion of this quote about John Aquila Brown elsewhere. In reading a book by Joseph Seiss last night, I thought this was the book that the paragraph intended. ("A Miracle in Stone") I realized it wasn't, when that book didn't mention 1914 (but the book still could have been hinting at it, or a date very close to it). So I went back and read portions of his "Lectures on the Apocalypse," and another very strange book that ties Astrology (Zodiac) to the Gospel. I got closer, I thought, with "The Last Times" and "Parable of the Ten Virgins" but still no 1914. (The "Proclaimers" book didn't include the resource, just the hints.) Through Google searches with his name and "Philadelphia" I found a few more items. I wasted some time with a book called: "Luis Napoleon the Destined Monarch of the World and...the Battle of Armageddon" which I saved for quoting a couple points in this topic. Next, Google pointed me to a very racist book from the early 1870's on the status of the "Negro" by "Ariel." That book proved valuable, however, in pointing me to "The Prophetic Times." You can find it here: https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QafJbQ6pCmDNcBvzoMYqXTueLwyuFnEGGCrD6NdXl9F4iVgY1ECNIypPpMkQGVhioTyZqn_BiCKv3P_aGj2SvJyCCH2k_WrZob3PZMpiOr96QhjrIuWh-eBBfW53xAmWPXa1FWHEsemWxZEm9fd2S6ULix_ETXqIMVIv6uSAtfhKdTWxct7YHmpsP7LefUhQj8PK-y_CbsI4GRE32SWs5JPoaQyzXwC8nOgpvP6wr1CK9bgFMRA4YDtQep0FPBJBapGIozDM The December 1870 issue had it. I'll discuss later. In the meantime, I decided that it was actually Seiss who seems to have had the most influence on Russell from the perspective of all the multiple angles on the chronology doctrines.
  9. Why another topic about 1914 and 607? Because we could use a topic where we can all agree a little more easily. Seriously. In this topic, we don't need to worry about whether 607 is correct, or 1914 is correct. No one needs to say why it does or doesn't make sense to them. Let's just see if we can review the possible and probable sources that were influential, and ultimately resulted in 607 and 1914 being accepted as a Bible-based fulfillment of prophecy. No one needs to jump from another thread about 607 and Biblical evidence over to this one. In fact, I just read a couple of books last night for the first time, and I had some questions that I couldn't find an answer to, and hoped that someone from that other thread, or anyone really, might have run across the resources that might have answered the questions. I'm reading one more book first, and don't think I'll finish it tonight, so consider this topic to be kind of a placeholder for a couple days. So this is the purpose of the three current threads: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/5510-607-bce-is-it-biblically-supported/ a place to discuss mostly the Scriptural evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51655-607-bce-is-there-any-secular-support-for-the-watch-towers-view/ a place to discuss mostly the Secular evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. And this current one: a place to discuss the sources that were influential in the WTS accepting the 607 date as part of the 1914 doctrine. One place to start is with a couple sentences in the "Proclaimers" book (next post). I personally intend to avoid a certain book by COJ for this topic, to avoid unnecessary controversy, although anyone should feel free to use any resources from anywhere they wish, as long as it appears to be a statement of fact. Again, this is not about questioning the correctness of the doctrine.
  10. The October 1904 Watchtower, page 296 [Reprints p.3437] included the following as a Question from a Reader. Note especially the first line of the answer: THE TIME OF HARVEST. AUTHOR of MILLENNIAL DAWN and Editor of ZION'S WATCH TOWER:-- Dear Sir,--. . . Now if this, the common reckoning, be correct, it would make the Times of the Gentiles to begin nineteen years later than you estimate, namely, in B.C. 587, instead of B.C. 606;--and this in turn would make those times end nineteen years later than you have reckoned,--in October, A.D. 1933, instead of October, 1914. What do you say to this? . . . * * * We reply that there are too many ifs in the proposition, and that they are all abundantly contradicted by facts and Scripture, and are therefore not worthy the slightest consideration.
  11. I have to agree. It's very clear that @scholar JW has been dishonest. Based on a long record of his dishonesty, it does not look promising that he will come clean any time soon. Yet it is clear, too, that he is merely trying to express the Watch Tower Society's position. I think this makes it clear why the WTS has nearly always avoided the evidence, sometimes by misrepresenting the evidence, but usually by just ignoring the evidence. The WTS makes similar bald assertions without ever allowing the evidence to be close enough or clear enough to make a true comparison.
  12. That's true, and we should be glad of it. But you are also talking about a record of what has been said on the forum(s). Remember "evidence"? This isn't the first time you got an idea that was never true, and then even when you quoted the supposed evidence that you still it thought meant one thing, and it turned out that it meant something else entirely, sometimes the very opposite of what you were claiming.
  13. I think you should read what I said again, unless this just another example of blame-shifting or projection. My point was that you seemed to have been exploiting the word "own." As you appear to now admit. You at least understand that it is possible to "exploit" the word. That was my point.
  14. I didn't say I couldn't remember stating this. I said I never stated it. I couldn't have stated it because it is not a true statement.
  15. I am having enough trouble typing without the direct use of the letter c x z or the Shift keys. Workarounds are tedious. I vaguely recall that I sometimes cannot get a requote to work correctly, and have gone in and edited the HTML by pressing a button called "Source" on the edit bar. One problem is that the software makes a quick simplification to unrecognized paragraph styles which can result in losing the content, especially if you just typed it on another source, like an electronic notebook or word processor, and then try to copy and paste it to here. I notice that this also happens if I am in the middle of a bulleted item like this: sample bulleted item And when I try to enter text after the second bullet that I am copying and pasting from somewhere, it shows up just fine but then disappears as soon as I hit "Enter." I assume, again, that the HTML underneath is being rewritten because the closing portion has not been written out correctly, such as a <p> and the closing </p> for the end of that paragraph's "style" The same must be happening with the <li> for a bulleted list and a mixup with a closing </li> (or <ol>). If the formatting code "behind the text" is malformed, an entire block of text will disappear. I find that if I do a quick Enter, Enter, or close out the bullet manually toggling off the formatting icon for bulleted text, that my text will appear just fine. All I have to do then is go back up and close out the extra paragraph break so that the space between paragraphs is not too great.
  16. Thanks. That's exactly my point. You can insert information in brackets, but it should be related to the meaning in any of the source material you are using. One or two mistakes will happen now and then, but consistent misuse gives the impression that you are trying to give a false impression.
  17. Not always. Which is why you will often see phrases like "brackets ours" "brackets theirs" "brackets in the original" "brackets not in the original." It is fairly consistent, and I have no problem with the specific use of brackets in a quotation that are added and will assume they were not part of the original. But if they are not part of the original they should be understood as having the equivalent meaning of the original source, found in the context, but not part of the quote. An example could be: "The apostle [Paul] mentioned Babylon in his letter." One would surely expect that somewhere in the context of the original source, that Paul was the apostle mentioned and not, for example, the apostle Peter. If there can be any doubt that the bracketed material is not somewhere referenced as such in the source material, then the explanations about whether it was in the original or not are worthless: USA usage rarely uses curly braces/brackets.
  18. The point of writing on this kind of topic is for clarification. These were only a few examples of literally 2,500+ times when a secular date was used that differed from the evidence for that secular date with no explanation as to why. If you had always read that the Battle of Hastings was in 1066, what would you think if you read a new set of history books that always said it was 1046, but with no explanation? In some cases this new date was seemingly listed to be even more accurate by saying it was was October 14, 1046. Then in an attempt to show that there is scholarly backup for the 1046 date, a source is quoted that shows that, yes, it happened on October 14, but it put 1046 in brackets, even though the scholarly book said 1066 elsewhere. In cases like this, especially if there is a pattern that can be confusing, it is important to clarify that this set of brackets was not in the original. The following is from a book on an unrelated topic, but it speaks to the same types of things that might need academic clarification: And this of course goes both ways, especially if it is something that should be clarified:
  19. Hope you don't mind, @scholar JW, I deleted the comments that didn't work, including responses to it.
  20. Allen, Imagine there are 100 people in a room and 98 of them say 2+2=4. Two of them say 2+2=5. Who are the opposers? It's not the 98 who are "opposers." It's the two people claiming they have their own "good" reasons to say that 2+2=5, and it might even be a belief that stands alongside some of the best beliefs one can imagine. Still, if they continue to insist that 2+2=5 then those two persons are the more natural opposers. They are the ones who oppose mountains of overwhelming evidence. Sure, the 98 would "oppose" the idea that 2+2=5, but the more natural "opposers" are the two who oppose the facts and evidence. Another thing is this idea of "their OWN secular history." It's another sign of not thinking clearly. Secular history and the evidence for it is not something that belongs to the people you oppose. It's not their OWN secular history. You are merely referring to the facts and the weight of the evidence available to all of us, you and me, and billions of other people. It would be more accurate to say that you oppose people who try to sync the secular evidence to Bible chronology. But, of course, this doesn't make sense because both 539 and 607 are secular dates that you and other opposers of the evidence have tried to sync to a version of Bible chronology. It's a legitimate concern to wonder whether you can sync the non-Biblical chronological evidence with the Biblical chronological evidence. If you can't then you might consider the following options: there might be something wrong with your understanding or interpretation of the Bible, or the Bible is wrong, or there might be something wrong with your understanding of the secular evidence, or the secular evidence is wrong, or it is some combination of the four possibilities above. As you know, Thiele for example, did a pretty thorough job matching up the kings of Israel with the kings of Judah with the secular chronology of Assyria, Egypt and Babylon. But he finally got to a couple points where he just said that the Bible must have it wrong. McFall and others take another pass at it, some in defense of the Bible and some in defense of secular evidence. (And some just to improve Thiele's work, in any way they still can.) But after finding a solution to 99% of the issues, there is a controversy over this 1% that is still unsolved. It feeds a conflict that the secular data is somehow the enemy of the Bible data. Now, any time someone comes up with something that seems to fit a Bible interpretation, they can now get support for it by just claiming that "opposers" to their interpretation are taking the secular data over the Bible. They have made use of a ready-made propaganda tool. Bible vs. Secular. Just by approaching the problem this way, it's obvious who is going to win among Bible believers. But what happens when those Bible believers look into the data and evidence for themselves and find that there is no conflict at all? In this case the Bible believers are very happy that the secular data corroborates the Bible data. No problem. But what happens to that key interpretation that was set up as a supposed conflict to the secular data? What if they built a life or religion around that interpretation? They have a couple of choices. They can look at the data and be honest and humble about it and explain that the evidence doesn't seem to support their interpretation. But this doesn't mean they are immediately required to change their belief. They might be able to admit the strength of the opposing data, but still go through each and every bit of it and still explain why they think their interpretation supersedes the data. This might end up being right or wrong, and honest people would appreciate being given the opportunity to make up their own mind. They might still consider the interpretational theory as a strong possibility. At least it's a more honest way to deal with it. But what would you think if you saw them do the following? Perhaps they avoid most of the data, avoid trying to explain the differences, and try to keep other people from seeing the data, even pretending that experts agree with them about the data. Any books or websites that consider the data are presented as apostate, poison, cancerous, "spiritually pornography," etc. They can pretend that they have explained all the opposing data by misrepresenting that data. Perhaps there are 12 strong pieces of data and one of them has a weak point, and they deal only with that one weak point and hope no one notices that they ignored or misrepresented the other 11. They can find unrelated quotes that people have said about different sets of data and hope that their listeners don't notice it was unrelated. They can use two sets of scales to be able to utilize pieces of the evidence that they accept, without explaining why those pieces are any better or worse than the pieces they reject.
  21. In addition to @scholar JW's infamous attempts, I have to mention again that the "Insight" book and other Watch Tower publications have also done something just like it many times, even adding bracketed secular dates of their own choosing to contexts discussing secular chronology which are in complete disagreement with the dates the Watch Tower has added: *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar *** 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; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. *** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath *** According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, Zedekiah and other captives were taken to Riblah . . . *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin *** It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102) *** it-2 p. 359 Medes, Media *** Following the Median capture of Asshur in Nabopolassar’s 12th year (634 B.C.E.), Cyaxares (called Ú-ma-kis-tar in the Babylonian records) met with Nabopolassar by the captured city, and they “made an entente cordiale.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 93) *** it-2 p. 410 Minni *** . According to a Babylonian chronicle, in his tenth year of reign (636 B.C.E.) Nabopolassar “captured the Manneans who had come to their (i.e. the Assyrians’) aid.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 91) *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar *** But a mere three months and ten days thereafter the reign of the new king ended when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (in the month of Adar [February-March] during Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year [ending in Nisan 617 B.C.E.], according to the Babylonian Chronicles). A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) *** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh *** With reference to Nineveh, a Babylonian chronicle reports: “They carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple (and) [turned] the city into a ruin heap.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 94; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 958) To this day Nineveh is a desolate waste, and in the spring, flocks graze near or atop the mound of Kuyunjik. Date of Nineveh’s Fall. Though effaced from the extant cuneiform tablet that relates the fall of Nineveh, the date for this event, the 14th year of Nabopolassar, can be supplied from the context. It is also possible to place the destruction of Nineveh in the framework of Bible chronology. According to a Babylonian chronicle, the Egyptians were defeated at Carchemish in the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign. The Bible shows this to have taken place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign or in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2) Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E. It was almost as if there was a Watch Tower policy stating that whenever a book is quoted that gives evidence of secular chronology, it is almost always necessary to make it look like it supports Watch Tower chronology even when anyone who reads the books in question can easily see that they do not.
  22. @Nana Fofana, This was addressed to you, @Nana Fofana, but with reference to my own discussions with @AllenSmith on this forum and jw-archive before this one going back 3 years. @Anna has already counseled me on my habit of responding to posts meant for other people, but I think I should make another exception here. I do happen to know all those discussions quite well, and I can tell you with assurance that AllenSmith is playing a deceitful game with you here, as he tries to do with everyone, Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike. By purposely not being clear, he attempts a kind of plausible deniability each time he is caught. @Arauna pegged him perfectly, if inadvertently, when she said the following in this thread, referring to someone else. And again, referring to someone else she said the following, which perfectly describes someone who does not care for real scholarship even if one professes it. She also mentions one who won't show the reasonableness to look at all aspects of a subject, and who always goes back to her old arguments even if good arguments are given. AllenSmith has, indeed, "posed a new theory." He has spoken about it, given several details of it here, and even mentioned here that he has had such a theory published by a ghostwriter for reasons he stated, just two weeks ago. You can reconstruct some of this thesis by statements that AllenSmith has made about it himself in the last three years. But it is better to ask him of course because there are some seeming contradictions and I'm sure there is much more to the thesis than the portions he has revealed so far. If he is willing to explain further, I'm sure you will see that it is an interesting theory, but it is also pretty clear that most JWs would see it as doing exactly what AllenSmith has called "deceptive:" I don't consider his theory deceptive at all, but if he is willing to explain it, I do believe you will see that it contradicts too many Biblical facts. For example, potentially equating Nebuchadnezzar II with Nabopolassar, and making "Nebuchadnezzar the Great" the same as Nebuchadnezzar III might have some coincidental support here and there in later works. (AllenSmith has pointed to the book of Judith and its references to "Nebuchadnezzar" and also a 19th century "typo" in a scholarly work.) But it is not directly evidenced in any contemporary Babylonian artifacts. Also, what does AllenSmith do with the Bible's data that Evil-Merodach followed Nebuchadnezzar in the 37th year of Jehoicachin's exile? This is a fact that perfectly fits the "secular" and "Biblical" evidence, but not AllenSmith's thesis. (Jeremiah 52:31) Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah and brought him out of prison. You would have to drastically shorten the reign of "Nebuchadnezzar the Great." This might clarify why AllenSmith tries to discredit the contract tablets, especially the Egibi tablets, too. That's because the Egibi tablets agree with the Biblical chronology, but not the Watchtower chronology or AllenSmith's proposal. As Insight says: *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. By the way, much better examples of this kind of "deceptive spin" in linking WT chronology with secular chronology were found in the first few posts by @scholar JW in this thread, and which matched the first arguments he put forward in a previous thread, too. Here's an example. See if you can see it:
  23. Excellent! I think so, too. Of course, there is much more to say on the topic of the intersections between Mosaic Law and other ancient legal codes. I was surprised at the level of literary agreement with the LH and related written codes. It's a little off-topic, but it appears to reach even beyond the actual content of the laws themselves (expected?), but to the style (expected?), structure (expected?) and even to the Epilogue and Prologue found in Exodus (unexpected!) For myself, I don't think going much deeper is very useful right now, but the book and journal article I quoted from are easy to find if anyone wants to look into it more. I'll get back to this topic in a few days.
  24. Thanks, AlanF, for starting the new topic. Unfortunately, when I move older posts to that thread, the software here credits the author of the new thread with whoever has the oldest post, currently TTH. I moved the most appropriate posts over but there will always be a few that are a mix between both topics, and it's easy to make a mistake. Also, a few posts about making a new thread were just deleted since they will not make much sense now. Note: @Arauna, you responded to a post above about Allen as if it were about AlanF and related it to the atheism/evolution material, so I moved it over to the "new" topic linked below. The "new" topic now goes back to about January 5 with all the old posts added: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51784-monkeys-typewriters-and-evolution/
×
×
  • 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.