Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    444

Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. 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.
  2. See the link above in response to the request. They had already been moved over an hour ago.
  3. 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 -- and the biggest opposer of ALL Neo-Babylonian archaeology.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 the authority of secular 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, and 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 help 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.
  6. 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/
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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:
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 . . .
  14. I think it was around 2018 when I read a news report about a meeting of ex-JWs and non-JW relatives of Witnesses. They met somewhere around Seattle. Several of the attendees supposedly gave reports of suicides among disfellowshipped and shunned teenagers. (And I think there were cases of suicides among those who had suffered sexual abuse either in the congregation or from Witness parents.) I'm sure you are right that it was more than just the shunning that drove them to suicide, but they definitely were presenting a pattern that indicated shunning as a key factor. It was likely exaggerated somewhat, but the report indicated that shunning and suicide became kind of a theme, and there were about a dozen such cases mentioned. It's probably a serious enough problem that the WTS is right now trying to address this issue by making changes to the process of disfellowshipping teenagers.
  15. The next king after Evil-Merodach based on business tablets is Neriglissar. His reign lasted 4 years. Giving us the following update for our chart: [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.]
  16. So our simple chart has been updated with the 2 official years of Amel-Marduk. We will abbreviate with E-M after the Bible's transliteration of the name as Evil-Merodach. We have also added some "events" at the top of the chart: the three exiles mentioned by Jeremiah at Nebuchadnezzar's year 7, 18, and 23. Plus Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile, when he was released.
  17. We already spoke about the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign which transitioned to the beginning of Amel-Marduk (Awil-Marduk). For reference we'll put the beginning and ending for Nebuchadnezzar's reign below AND put both the beginning and ending of Amel-Marduk just below it .What we learn from this is that after the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, the accession year was that same 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar and then he had a first official year and a second official year. Amel-Marduk therefore reigned for only 2 years.
  18. There are other publications that discuss business tablets at greater length and are very interesting, but for now we will just use P&D, because that book focuses on the ones that help determine the beginning and ending of each king's reign. Then we can use that data to fill in our "chart." We'll start with Nabopolassar. According to several contemporary inscriptions, and the Babylonian Chronicles themselves, Nabopolassar was the father of Nebuchadnezzar. Pay no attention yet to the BCE years mentioned, this was only to show that we have a clear-cut record of the beginning of his reign, even mentioning the months of the accession year. Now we move on to the end of his reign, just to figure out how many years he ruled: So we already have Nabopolassar ending his reign at his death in "Year 21" which was also therefore the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, such that the official "Year 1" of Nebuchadnezzar started on Nisan 1, "New Year's Day."
  19. It's not just the length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but the length of the reigns of every Babylonian king of this period (technically, the "Neo-Babylonian" period) can be shown by looking at these dated business tablets. These don't contain BCE dates, of course, they just contain the name of the king and what year of his reign it was, along with the month and day. Here's what the WTS publications have said about them: *** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period. And it's not just "thousands." The actual number may approach 100,000. With at least an average of 600 for every year of the Neo-Babylonian kings. Also, "Insight," states that these are not copies, of course. They are true contemporary documents. And they are secular, transactional, and therefore have no religious or ideological axe to grind. *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** . . . the many cuneiform business documents . . . were truly contemporary . . . In fact many of such tablets have been found even going back into the prior Assyrian era. Note this from "Insight:" *** it-1 p. 188 Asenappar *** Ashurbanipal is best known, however, for his literary interests, a unique trait among the formidable Assyrian monarchs. Beginning in 1845 C.E., excavations revealed a great library formed by Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, containing some 22,000 clay tablets and texts. In addition to incantations, prayers, and hymns, the thousands of cuneiform writings include treatises on history, geography, astronomy, mathematical tables, medicine, grammar, as well as business documents involving contracts, sales, and loans. They are viewed as a valuable source of information about Assyria. *** it-1 p. 448 Chronology *** While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. And well into the Persian period, too. The use of clay tablets was not phased out until parchment and paper became more prevalent for business documents. But the clay has the advantage of lasting a few thousand years in dry climates. The point is that there are so many that we can reasonably test the length of any king's reign by looking at the years on the business tablets for any particular king. Even when there are fewer tablets in the Assyrian period, there are enough to draw conclusions. For example: *** w11 10/1 p. 31 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One *** Sin-sharra-ishkun ruled for seven years, and 57 economic tablets of this king are dated from his accession year through year seven So, we'll see what we can learn from them, especially through the Assyrian and Babylonian period.
  20. Or maybe they all still hate beards, but one of them had to sacrifice his personal preferences to show that the GB will lead by example. Perhaps he drew the "short straw" as they say here. Maybe next time, another one will go without the tie:
  21. Yes. I was just starting another topic on the content of the update. It's an excellent step, imo, too. Edited to add: For now I just decided to post it on an already existing 'Updates' topic.
  22. https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/categories/VODStudio
  23. So, although the Bible does not say that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years, we have been able to surmise this by counting back from the first year of Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach). It turns out that archaeologists have discovered literally thousands of dated tablets from Nebuchadnezzar's reign with an average of hundreds for each and every year. All of them stop at "Nebuchadnezzar Year 43." The evidence is convincing enough that the Insight book makes the following statement: *** it-1 pp. 238-239 Babylon *** One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year . . . Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October . . . and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk. More complete historical information is available for Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar, who were evidently ruling as coregents at the time of Babylon’s fall. it's interesting to look at the archaeological evidence and see how it corroborates the Bible account. (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 . . . The Bible said it was in the year that Awel-Marduk began to reign (i.e., his accession year, not his "first year") that he released Jehoiachin near the end of the twelfth month of that accession year. If the account had claimed that it happened in the sixth month (September/early October) then the account would not fit with archaeology. But it fits well: Note some examples given in P&D (Parker and Dubberstein). Here is some of the tablet evidence for the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the start of Amel-Marduk: [VI/14/43 means the sixth month and 14th day of YEAR 43, (September) and a later one was found dated the 26th of that same sixth month (October).] Then the first tablets for Amel-Marduk begin on that same date of the last one for Nebuchadnezzar VI/26/43 (October 7). Ezekiel counts years from the date of the largest number of exiles taken, in Nebuchadnezzar's 7/8th year, so when Ezekiel mentions the 27th year [of exile] he must be referring to about the 35th year of Nebuchadnezzar. That might be placing this prophecy only about 2 years before the reference to a tablet from his 37th year that refers to a campaign against Egypt. That's the same one that the Insight book mentions (above) for Year 37: (Ezekiel 29:17-19) . . .Now in the 27th year [of exile], in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 18  “Son of man, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon made his army labor greatly against Tyre. Every head became bald, and every shoulder was rubbed bare. But he and his army received no wages for the labor he expended on Tyre. 19  “Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says, ‘Here I am giving the land of Egypt to King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth and take much spoil and plunder from it; and it will become wages for his army.’
  24. So far only two posts have been moved from the topic over here, affecting posts from @George88 and @Pudgy: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90964-bible-related-timelines-supported-by-archaeology-but-without-astronomy/
  25. We have begun the numbers with Josiah, aligning his death at 629 BCE per the WTS dates in light blue, and 609 BCE per the standard dates in light green. *** it-1 p. 418 Carchemish *** Then, after the fall of Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, Pharaoh Necho led his army northward to the aid of the Assyrians. King Josiah of Judah unwisely tried to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo and was killed in the attempt (c. 629 B.C.E.). (2Ch 35:20-24) In 625 B.C.E. a decisive battle was fought at Carchemish We also see that the well-known standard date for the battle of Carchemish is 605 BCE, and the "Insight" book uses the date 625 BCE. Those dates naturally line up together too, and can be traced up to the "accession" year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 4th year of Jehoiakim. And this aligns well with the Bible verse in Jeremiah: (Jeremiah 46:1, 2) . . .This is the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the nations: 2  For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharʹaoh Neʹcho the king of Egypt, who was along the Eu·phraʹtes River and was defeated at Carʹche·mish by King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon in the fourth year of Je·hoiʹa·kim son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah: Up to here, our simple timeline checks out well. While we're here, we might as well address the fall of Nineveh: *** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh *** 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. And of course, the WTS date of 632 for the Fall of Nineveh aligns with the standard date of 612 on the above chart. For reference let's add it, as we now have some non-controversial information from the Insight book that archaeological tablets tell us that the fall of Nineveh was in Nabopolassar's 14th year and the battle of Carchemish was in Nabopolassar's 21st year. We will add them both. Note that the 21st year of Nabopolassar must have been his last because that was also the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar.
×
×
  • 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.