Jump to content
The World News Media

607 B.C.E.


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Guest
Guest Allen Smith
Quote

 

JWinsider:That last book of his, the one that finally addresses the chronology question, starts out with these words in the very first sentence of the introduction: "the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C."  There is no more mention of that 538 B.C. date from his first work on Nabonidus, a decade earlier. In fact, he now dates the same period of Nabonidus, not from 555 to 538, but from 556 to 539.

 

So your attempt to imply that his sureness about the date 539 was somehow weakened by his first, older book seems disingenuous. It would be just like saying that the Watchtower doesn't really teach 1914, just because some of the older Watchtower magazines (from 1913 and early 1914) show that Russell had temporarily dropped 1914 and moved his expectations to 1915.

 

This is interesting, and laughable. Your attempt to contradict me, you have agreed with my assertion that secular chronology is riddled with flaws as I stated earlier. So you’re contradicting yourself.

My point has been your emphatic reliance on the year 587BC. If I didn’t know any better, I would say I was in an argument with CARL OLOF JONSSON himself. He made the same undisputable claim your making. It wasn’t necessary if he believed emphatically, that 587BC was the true and correct date? All he wanted was to be emphatic about DISCREDITING the Watchtower after he was DISFELLOWSHIPPED.

1.       Dougherty’s Opinion changed to revise his understanding from 1920 to 1929 about dates and time.

2.       Grayson’s Opinion changed to revise his understanding from 1975 to 2000 about dates and times

3.       Thiele’s Opinion also changed as well as Wiseman. Now McFall agreed with Thiele only until SHE was dismissed from her religious organization, and then her opinion changed was well.

So the only thing that’s left is perception and intellectual dishonesty. Something you have just proven once again. So, nothing is absolute, and all is generated within interpretation.

Even your outlined example of the king’s list shows NAB 43 year reign starting at 605BC, which would be INCORRECT by MANY scholars. If that’s the case, secular overwhelming evidence points to 586BC: 605-19=586. So the modern way of looking at it would be? 586/5BC, not 1 year difference. That would squash the calendar difference, but this wouldn’t explain how there were already Jews being deported.

Now you can argue the calendar difference, but what about the deportation problem before 604BC. So let’s not play games any further. However, your apparent argument is not with past WTS chronology, it is with the revised 2011 chronology, that determines an updated scale from Nabs reign to 625/4BC. And if that’s your hang up, then simply say so. 607BC probability was proven differently in the past, something you have shied away from your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 6.3k
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

[Adding link to 2nd pg of discussion, since my Chrome and Firefox browsers won't link to pg.2 from the "2," "Next" or ">>" links: http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/4416-607-bce/?page=2&am

That's pretty easy to answer. You don't seem to put much reliance in the date 539 BCE, that the Watchtower promotes as the accurate, pivotal point. Yet, the older publications even called this an "abs

Do you attach a commencement date to these events? i.e. When was Jesus enthroned?, When did the last days begin?

Posted Images

  • Member
4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

My point has been your emphatic reliance on the year 587BC.

I don't rely on 587 BCE for anything. For all I know it could have been 586 BCE, or it's even possible -- but not based on any evidence -- that the whole thing is off by 20 years. I don't rely on it for anything, because I trust the scriptures that we should not rely on chronology for anything. If 607 BCE were correct, that would make 539 BCE incorrect, so it doesn't seem to fix anything for us anyway.

But even if 607 BCE were correct-- even though there is no evidence for it, and even though there is overwhelming evidence against it -- I can't see how it should make any difference to any of us who put a higher priority on Jesus' words about the "times and the seasons." It does not belong to us to know anything about the times and seasons as they relate to the last days, or the Messianic kingdom. (Acts 1:7,8) That part is pretty clear to all of us, I think. So I can't help but ask when this Biblical counsel changed? At what point would we stop being discreet and stop following the counsel? It seems we are now being presumptuous to begin claiming that we do know about the times and seasons? To me it has long seemed disrespectful to Jehovah. But again, that's just my own conscience. I'm not afraid to make a defense for my faith, but I'm not telling other people they need to agree.

You are right that even some of the best scholars on this subject have adjusted their dates by about a year for the reigns of some of the Neo-Babylonian kings. This did not happen in 2011, but much closer to 100 years ago. But there are also a few interpretation issues, and errors made by those who looked at the first tablets, and these errors are still being discovered due to the fact that many more people have access to the original tablets, good photographs of them, and a good knowledge of the language. The language issues become slightly clearer all the time with more and more tablets available for translation. (The same thing happens with Bible manuscripts.)

But the thing that is most devastating to those who hope to create uncertainty and doubt by pointing out that scholarship has been "riddled with flaws" on the subject, is the fact that everything discovered over the last 140 years or so continues to strengthen the knowledge of the Neo-Babylonian timeline, not weaken it. It is less and less riddled with flaws as time goes on. And all of the evidence points toward the 587 and 586 dates, and all of it points away from the 607 BCE date.

Everything that tries to emphasize the flaws and fixes is apparently nothing more than the equivalent of disingenuous bluster.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Allen Smith

Finally, something I can agree…upon, that you’re blustering is disingenuous, and that you have no concept with anything relating to chronology just like COJ. Furthermore, you claim, you don’t rely on 587BC, which is EXACTLY what you are doing by making an argument of that secular date. More proof of your disingenuous blustering.

Quote

JWinsider: But the thing that is most devastating to those who hope to create uncertainty and doubt by pointing out that scholarship has been "riddled with flaws" on the subject, is the fact that everything discovered over the last 140 years or so continues to strengthen the knowledge of the Neo-Babylonian timeline, not weaken it. It is less and less riddled with flaws as time goes on. And all of the evidence points toward the 587 and 586 dates, and all of it points away from the 607 BCE date.

I believe I pointed that out. That modern understanding confirms a more reliable way at looking at 607BC probability…sounder. Its people like you that argue the 587BC weakens the WTS stance on the subject. So let’s not change ideology’s midstream to win an argument. A further look at your flip flops, and intellectual dishonesty by first holding 587BC as emphatic, then admit to 586BC.

So don’t minimize the flaws and fixes to further you disingenuous blustering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Allen Smith said:
Quote

JW Insider: . . . everything discovered over the last 140 years or so continues to strengthen the knowledge of the Neo-Babylonian timeline, not weaken it. It is less and less riddled with flaws as time goes on. And all of the evidence points toward the 587 and 586 dates, and all of it points away from the 607 BCE date.

Allen Smith: I believe I pointed that out.

You did? Where did you ever point out that all the evidence points to the 587 and 586 dates, and all of it points away from the 607 BCE date.

If a person is going to be disingenuous in a discussion on this subject, it must be very tempting to pretend to have found a big problem by pointing out the one-year difference between 587 BCE and 586 BCE. You can see from previous comments that it was easy to anticipate that you would likely do this, too. But the Watchtower already pointed out the reason for that difference. Are you really saying that you disagree with the Watchtower on this?

Remember, the Watch Tower publications have said:

*** g72 5/8 p. 28 When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? ***
Jerusalem’s desolation in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year (nineteenth year if counting from his “accession year”) would fall in 586 B.C.E

*** kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** [1981]
The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included). (Jeremiah 52:5, 12, 13, 29) Thus if one accepted the above Neo-Babylonian chronology, the desolation of Jerusalem would have been in the year 587/6 B.C.E.

*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***

Scholars say that all these positions occurred in 568/567 B.C.E., which would make the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, when he destroyed Jerusalem, 587 B.C.E.

I'm sure you picked up on the mistake in the above quotes, but I'm not worried about that. The problem here isn't the secular evidence. It's how you understand the Biblical evidence. The Bible says Jerusalem was destroyed in his 18th year and then it says in his 19th year.

(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) 32 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. 2 At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .

 

(Jeremiah 52:12-14) 12 In the fifth month, on the tenth 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, who was an attendant of the king of Babylon, came into Jerusalem. 13 He burned down the house of Jehovah. 

 

Do you accept that one verse in Jeremiah is true and one verse in Jeremiah is false, or do you accept the Watchtower's explanation that one refers to the regnal year, and one includes the accession year?

If you do accept the Watchtower's explanation, why do you continue to make a big deal out of the fact that some historians or scholars date it as 605-18=587 and some date it as 605-19=586? This is not a secular problem, because the year of Jerusalem's destruction isn't mentioned in any known Babylonian chronicles. Some of the secular historians evidently prefer to see the 19th year of Jeremiah 52 as a 19th regnal year, ignoring the reference in Jeremiah 32.

This is a serious question that I hope you won't evade. Your argument appears to be setting up a foundation for a different method of reaching 607 BCE. Perhaps you are not trying to use 607 BCE as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem, but would still use 607 as the beginning of the 70 years. You might have noticed several months ago over on jw-archive, in a similar conversation, that I never had a problem with this reasoning: 607 to 537 is about as good as 609 to 539, or 608 to 538. The only point of difference is that the 70 years starts with the hegemony of Babylon, just like Jeremiah said it would, rather than the specific removal of the last King on the throne at Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE.

You keep hinting at your disagreements with the Watchtower's method of reaching 607 BCE, but you haven't told us why and how you disagree with the Watchtower. I think you are saying you aren't ready to tell anyone until you get a proofreader and editor. But in the meantime, it's as if you are just playing a game that relies on some obfuscation and vague attacks on people who present standard forms of archaeological evidence. You don't even say what they have done wrong in their presentations, except to agree that they have gotten better over the years as more evidence comes in to strengthen their arguments. I don't see how that helps your position. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 4/1/2016 at 3:03 AM, Jay Witness said:

Is there good support for our use of this [607] year archaeologically and historically speaking?

The short answer is an emphatic 'No!' As has been demonstrated in this thread, there isn't good support for this date biblically either.

On 4/17/2016 at 2:21 PM, JW Insider said:

Your statement that 537 is more viable than 587 is not correct. In fact, accepting 537 for a Jewish restoration on their own land can only be done if you are also accepting 587 as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. 587 is still part of the same chronology as 537.

Also, accepting 537 for a Jewish restoration on their own land relies on nothing more than the Org's speculation about when Cyrus gave his decree. 

*** it-1 p. 417 Captivity ***
Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. (2Ch 36:20, 21; Ezr 1:1-4) 

*** it-1 pp. 568-569 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) This marked the end of the prophesied 70 years of Judah’s desolation that began in the same month, Tishri, of 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:22-26; 2Ch 36:20, 21.

The reasoning behind the assumption that Cyrus gave his decree in the latter part of his first year goes like this:

*** it-1 p. 800 Ezra, Book of ***
Cyrus’ decree must have been issued late in 538 B.C.E. or early in 537 for two reasons. The desolation had to last until the 70th year ended, and the released Israelites would not be expected to travel in the winter rainy season, as would have been the case if the decree had been made a few months earlier. Likely it was issued in the early spring of 537 B.C.E. in order to give the Jews a chance to travel during the dry season, arrive in Jerusalem, and set up the altar on the first day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E., September 29 according to the Gregorian calendar.—Ezr 3:2-6.

IOW, the decree had to have been given then because of the (flawed) interpretation that 70 years must pass from Jerusalem's destruction to the Jews' repatriation. The reasoning is circular and includes a straw man (i.e. Jews not traveling in the winter rainy season). The alternative that Cyrus might have given permission early in his first year, if reckoned from Nisan 538, which would mean the captives traveled during the summer season and been back in their homeland by Tishri 538, is completely missed. Another possibility is that Ezra counted Cyrus' first year as his accession year, in which case, he had from October 539 to March/April 538 to issue the decree with the captives settled in their towns also by Fall 538. Naturally, a 538 repatriation doesn't fit neatly with the Org's preferred chronological scheme, so the Org. won't consider it.

Anyway, the date of 597 BCE is a pivotal date for the siege and surrender of Jerusalem. Both the Bible and Babylonian Chronicles mention it. If one accepts 539 BCE as a true date, which derives from other dates pinpointed astronomically, one can't monkey about with the other key dates from that period since they are also astronomically nailed down from the same corpus of Babylonian texts.

On 4/17/2016 at 2:21 PM, JW Insider said:

So these texts that supposedly "completely upset" previous conclusions  hadn't actually changed a thing.

Some the overlapping tablets referred to in the 2011 WT were either print errors in the (source) publication and were amended long ago, or have damaged and unclear figures which have long been known about. 

 

 

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But in the meantime, it's as if you are just playing a game that relies on some obfuscation and vague attacks on people who present standard forms of archaeological evidence.

You have far more patience with him than I have, JW Insider

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Some the overlapping tablets referred to in the 2011 WT were either print errors in the (source) publication and were amended long ago, or have damaged and unclear figures which have long been known about. 

I wanted to edit and add a picture but it wouldn't let me. Try again:

Overlapping tablet corrections.png

Picture credit: Doug Mason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Allen Smith
Quote

JWinsider: This is a serious question that I hope you won't evade. Your argument appears to be setting up a foundation for a different method of reaching 607 BCE. Perhaps you are not trying to use 607 BCE as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem, but would still use 607 as the beginning of the 70 years. You might have noticed several months ago over on jw-archive, in a similar conversation, that I never had a problem with this reasoning: 607 to 537 is about as good as 609 to 539, or 608 to 538. The only point of difference is that the 70 years starts with the hegemony of Babylon, just like Jeremiah said it would, rather than the specific removal of the last King on the throne at Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE.

 

 

Really, now you changing tactics. You have related a strong opposition to 607BC. Even though the WTS has maintained its stance on the subject, or are they. It’s obviously a starting point.

 

Quote

JWinsider: You keep hinting at your disagreements with the Watchtower's method of reaching 607 BCE, but you haven't told us why and how you disagree with the Watchtower. I think you are saying you aren't ready to tell anyone until you get a proofreader and editor. But in the meantime, it's as if you are just playing a game that relies on some obfuscation and vague attacks on people who present standard forms of archaeological evidence. You don't even say what they have done wrong in their presentations, except to agree that they have gotten better over the years as more evidence comes in to strengthen their arguments. I don't see how that helps your position. 

 

 

Wrong, I have no problems with the WTS and its stance on 607BC. However, I DON’T fall for ignorance and stupidity like accepting anything DOUG MASON, or CARL OLOF JONSSON had to contribute. And what people do WRONG is to rely on others rather than look at the historical evidence for themselves, COMPLETELY.

 

Example “The House of Egibi” Tablets. EX-WITNESSES glorified these tablets as indisputable, when in FACT the original translation, stated NEBUCHADNEZZAR III on 604BC. It was modern historians to think it was an error. Can anyone be 100% sure, or could it be that these business contracts were based on the assumption that NABOPOLASSAR, was mistaken for NEBUCHADNEZZAR II. Variables the WTS has taken into consideration, as did Furuli. So if you take this discrepancy in to consideration with other historical artifacts, then the 19th year of NEB would fall under what? 607BC. Why? Because history has recorded NAB starting point at 626BC. Is this assumption correct? Who knows. But it does make one wonder how many more mistakes were recorded in antiquity.

 

Now am I saying this historical FALLACY is accurate? NO, I’m just suggesting, before you hold something indisputable, all variables need to be considered. Something the WTS has made every effort to accomplish. In my case, its biblical account with what was going on in the Mountains of Zargos up to Urartu, and the surrounding deserts with all intended parties.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Really, now you changing tactics. You have related a strong opposition to 607BC. Even though the WTS has maintained its stance on the subject, or are they. It’s obviously a starting point.

I pointed out where you were wrong, and rather than address the problem with your argument, you have constantly "pivoted" and changed the subject. So, naturally I have to assume that you realize there is no answer that you can give.

It doesn't matter that you continue to claim that everyone else is wrong. The point is that if you can't respond to the argument, then as far as I can tell, you have already conceded that you were wrong, and we can move on to the next point. The fact that you don't admit   your inability to respond is irrelevant. I'm not saying it's irrelevant to everyone. Perhaps you yourself are one of those persons who believes that if you ignore a problem and just change the subject to bring up another point, that this is a way of "winning an argument." There might even be readers of this topic on this forum who get that impression. 

You say I have related a strong opposition to 607 BCE. That's true, in a way. Because all the evidence points away from 607 and towards 587 or 586. But your response here, and many others, shows that you haven't really understood my point. I hate to do this, but it's obvious I need to try to explain again, just in case you really are confused about it and it somehow makes you think I'm changing tactics. So here goes:

--------------------

In fact,  I believe very strongly in 607 BCE. I believe it's a true part of the history that can help us understand what Jeremiah meant he speaks of "70 years for Babylon" to be served by the nations that they would rule over. But is it really all that important to know that one of those 70 years was also known in secular terms, as 607 BCE? Probably not. Yet it's very interesting to learn about it, and to see just how much evidence there is that points to 607 BCE as a part of those 70 years, because it helps us understand that the Bible contains real historical scenarios, and that Jehovah's purpose could be seen to work out through (because of and in spite of) terrible tragedies. Although Nebuchadnezzar was only a prince in 607 BCE and hadn't started his first regnal year, or even his accession year, he was very likely already making a name for himself. This is based on the fact that Babylon was quick to fill the power vacuum after the last Assyrian king in 609 BCE and Nebuchadnezzar was already known as a conquering commander in his father's Babylonian army by the time of the battle of Charchemish in 605 BCE. 

We know that Jeremiah was a contemporary of this situation going on in a "world" that was almost completely overrun by sin against Jehovah by his own people, and by violent and seemingly uncontrollable empires in what was likely the most volatile place in the world at that time. Israel and Judah were always at the conjunction of violent, pagan empires. Yet we have evidence from archaeology dated to the period between about 609 and 539 BCE that confirms the existence of some of the actual people mentioned in Jeremiah, including several events mentioned in Jeremiah. We have Jeremiah prophesying that Babylon would only get 70 years of rule. This type of foreknowledge from Jehovah was the same lesson of Daniel 4: that Jehovah can raise up a kingdom and bring down a kingdom, that to the one whom he wants, he gives it. Jehovah was able to utilize what only seemed uncontrollable.

In fact if we were de-emphasize the specific dates, this is basically the same message that the Watch Tower publications give. So I have no qualms of conscience in tying together what Jeremiah said about Babylon, the "tree dream" of Daniel 4, the foretold punishment on Jerusalem from Leviticus, the tie-ins from Isaiah and Ezekiel, and Ezra, Zechariah, etc.

I would even tie in the fact that Jehovah was able to use Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, and later Rome itself, as "superior authorities" appointed to accomplish his will. The smaller disasters and then the ultimate disaster that befell the entire Jewish system of things, and the Messianic kingly line appeared to be the end for the Jews in a similar way. But that didn't stop Jehovah's purpose to set a king from the line of David back on the throne of the Messianic kingdom. These things also befell Israel as lessons for us today as we also await a restoration of Israel in a spiritual sense -- the New Jerusalem bringing all the benefits, just as originally intended, to all the earth.

Now, I know you don't want a lesson in the spiritual treasures that we can take from the Bible -- certainly not from me, anyway. But I mention them to show that we actually appreciate all that we can learn about this historical time period, and I would certainly want to know that the evidence I am claiming to teach others about is correct. I take it as a serious obligation as I've explained to you and others elsewhere.

I also wanted you to know that I am not really concerned about anyone who simply wishes to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed on that date. Obviously, this is already believed by millions in exactly this way because of the fact that the Watch Tower publications claim the chronology proposed in the publications is exactly right on this subject, and that there are currently no alternative dates for that event that we can accept. As far as I know, everyone involved in producing these publications today is very sincere about the truth of these dates, even 607 BCE. If someone claims to be right, and we trust them, and we have no specific reason to study it ourselves, then we are free to accept it, and I have no interest in trying to change their minds. All of us have every right to accept things without question if we wish, and we have every right to ignore questions if they come up, or simply rely on previously written material in the WTS publications alone if we wish.

But for those of us who use discussion forums like this one, we are sometimes going to be subjected to questions like the one that "Jay Witness" asked at the beginning of this topic. For that reason, I believe we should respond as honestly as we can. I don't think that such questions should be censored or censured. I think we should be willing to deal with any and all evidence that supports our teachings as well as any and all evidence that does not support it.

Also, for those of us who have had Bible studies with persons who ask us personally if we are sure about these dates, what should our response be? Should we be dishonest and say that we are absolutely sure, if we are not? Should we admit that we are not absolutely as sure as the WTS publications suggest that we should be? Should we immediately hand over those Bible Studies to someone else? Should we admit to the elders that we have seen evidence that makes us unsure and turn ourselves in for "apostasy"? Is it really "apostasy" when someone runs across convincing evidence that goes against what we were trying to prove when we began our study of a subject.

I know this appears to belabor a point I brought up before, but what would you have done if the following happened?

Let's say, that in early 1962, the Watchtower was still teaching that the "superior authorities" of Romans 13:1,2 were Jehovah and Jesus Christ. The WTS had previously taught that they were the "civil, governmental authorities" but in 1929, Brother Rutherford had decided to change it so that it could only mean Jesus and Jehovah, and NOT the civil authorities. Not only that, but over the years between 1929 and 1962, this change to "Jehovah and Jesus" was given a lot of importance. It even became explained as the actual fulfillment of at least one specific Bible prophecies. In other words, changing to an explanation that turned out later to be wrong was considered for many years to be a specific fulfillment of prophecy that Jehovah had inspired Bible writers to foretell.

(When the explanation was changed back in 1962, then the explanation for these prophecies had to be changed even though this was a bit embarrassing, and we didn't have new explanations for the fulfillments of those prophecies yet.)

Everything I just said in the last paragraph really happened. But now, here comes some conjecture. Let's say that you were asked to go through files of Rutherford's personal correspondence to produce a chapter in a historical work on JWs that would include information on Rutherford. Again, this is just conjecture and I'm definitely not saying that anything like this ever actually happened. But let's just say that Brother FW Franz had written a letter to Rutherford for clarification because he (Franz) says that all commentaries disagree with the new explanation, that it should be changed back based on the Greek, based on context, based on parallel verses, etc. Let's also conjecture that Rutherford kept a copy of his response to FW Franz that admits that he (Rutherford) realized it was wrong after a second thought, but that it was not a good time to change it back because too much importance had been made of the new explanation: it was already incorporated into one of the Kingdom Songs, it was incorporated into a prophetic explanation, it helped the publishers prioritize obeying God as ruler rather than men during times of persecution, and maybe one other point.

But let's say this letter, or something very much like it, had been found, not in more recent years, but way back in 1960 when we still had the wrong teaching. If you were the one who found it, would you say something to one of your Bible studies? Or to a friend in your congregation? Or even a fellow "elder" in the congregation? ("Elders" were called the "congregation servant" and assistant servants in those days.) I'm guessing that you would know better than to handle it this way. You would probably want to bring it to the attention of F.W.Franz himself to see what had become of this conversation. You would assume that you were missing some part of this correspondence, and that there was a good explanation. But what if Brother Franz just said he always thought he would get to that, but didn't want to do anything about that right now, but maybe in a couple of years. But now wasn't a good time.

You probably know that questions did come in about this explanation of the "superior authorities" and that when it was changed in 1962, we even revised the 1950 songbook for that one song. And we officially changed the explanation of one of the prophecies that had supposedly been fulfilled by it. But what if another couple years went by and nothing had changed? Would you feel any obligation to tell anyone? If you waited 20 years and it bothered your conscience, would you still say nothing. Would it matter? To me, it wouldn't matter too much, because I have no proof that Romans 13 must mean one thing and not another. There are already other scriptures that say we should obey God as ruler rather than men, and others that say to pay back Caesar's things to Caesar. Therefore, there is no basic truth at stake. I'd think I'd be willing to wait, and then maybe, perhaps anonymously, let an appropriate committee or member of the Governing Body know what I had seen 20 years earlier. If Jehovah hadn't seen it necessary to effect a change, who was I to try? Still, at some point I should probably discharge my obligation.

What would change my timeline completely, however, is if someone asked me what I knew about such a letter. Of if a Bible Study asked me what I personally thought about the meaning of Romans 13:1-2. I wouldn't be dogmatic or adamant about my own view, but I might be willing to discuss whatever evidence I had seen in the letter if the circumstances seemed appropriate.

----------------

Back to 607 BCE. For me personally, I see similarities to this conjectural letter that could have cleared up a few problems of doctrine surrounding the idea of "superior authorities." It would bother me if I knew that such questions had come up before and that brothers I knew personally had been trying to give convincing evidence, but just couldn't honestly do it. I could be silent for 15 or 20 years, but sooner or later I think the time would come to speak up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Example “The House of Egibi” Tablets. EX-WITNESSES glorified these tablets as indisputable, when in FACT the original translation, stated NEBUCHADNEZZAR III on 604BC. It was modern historians to think it was an error.

You're not making sense.

To which Egibi tablet are you referring?

Whose original translation?

Nebuchadnezzar III lived in Cambyses' time, not 604 BCE.

The tablet would have just said 'Nebuchadnezzar' without the 'III' bit.

The tablet would have given a regnal year number, not a BC date.

The Egibi archive provides watertight evidence that the conventional neo-Babylonian timeline cannot stretch by an additional 20 years.

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Can anyone be 100% sure, or could it be that these business contracts were based on the assumption that NABOPOLASSAR, was mistaken for NEBUCHADNEZZAR II.

OK, now the confusion is between Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II, not III? 

Are you suggesting that the bank officials didn't know the correct date when they drew up contracts?

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Variables the WTS has taken into consideration, as did Furuli.

Obfuscation, you mean. The 'variables' were more often down to the Org's and Furuli's mistakes and misunderstandings, their creating problems where none existed, or manipulating data to give the appearance that the Org's alternative historical  timeline was credible or better.

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

So if you take this discrepancy in to consideration with other historical artifacts, then the 19th year of NEB would fall under what? 607BC. Why? Because history has recorded NAB starting point at 626BC. Is this assumption correct? Who knows.

Who knows? Archaeologists, cuneiformists, historians and archaeo-astronomers know because they have examined the available, voluminous evidence.

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

But it does make one wonder how many more mistakes were recorded in antiquity.

You haven't detailed one mistake yet.

(Dangit, couldn't help it in the end, JW Insider ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

I’m just suggesting, before you hold something indisputable, all variables need to be considered.

Ah! Maybe you do understand me after all. The WTS hold 607 as indisputable, but all variables need to be considered.

 

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Example “The House of Egibi” Tablets. EX-WITNESSES glorified these tablets as indisputable, when in FACT the original translation, stated NEBUCHADNEZZAR III on 604BC. It was modern historians to think it was an error. Can anyone be 100% sure, or could it be that these business contracts were based on the assumption that NABOPOLASSAR, was mistaken for NEBUCHADNEZZAR II. Variables the WTS has taken into consideration, as did Furuli. So if you take this discrepancy in to consideration with other historical artifacts, then the 19th year of NEB would fall under what? 607BC. Why? Because history has recorded NAB starting point at 626BC. Is this assumption correct? Who knows. But it does make one wonder how many more mistakes were recorded in antiquity.

Amazing! That's a perfect example of the problem with the WTS chronology.

It always surprises me that some of us have become so anxious to defend the WTS that we are ready to throw out the Bible to do it. Why not defend the WTS wherever possible, but not when it means grasping at straws, and especially not when it means that we have to trample on God's word?

You use the example of the Egibi tablets. I believe there are now about 3,000 unique tablets in this collection,  not counting the fact that there are even more pieces and fragments, not counted as separate tablets.

Without a reference to exactly what is on the original Egibi tablets in question (the ones that include information to independently recreate a Neo-Babylonian king list), you correctly point out that the modern, 19th-century translator has marked 'Nebuchadnezzar the Great' as "Nebuchadnezzar III" instead of "Nebuchadnezzar II." This supposedly makes it possible that we don't know who this particular "King Nebuchadnezzar the Great" is. Let's see if there is even the remotest element of truth to that claim.

Without even counting the thousands of contract tablets or the thousands of Egibi tablets, archaeologists had already come to a consensus that the most accurate version of the king list that would fit the known evidence at the time must look like this:

Nabopolassar 21 years (625 - 605 BCE)
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years (604 - 562 BCE)
Awel-Marduk 2 years (561 - 560 BCE)
Neriglissar 4 years (559 - 556 BCE)
Labashi-Marduk 2-3 months ( 556 BCE)
Nabonidus 17 years (555 - 539 BCE)

This is taken from several sources, but overall, it gives precedence to the very probable accuracy of what has been called "Ptolemy's Canon" which provides this same information. The dates in the third column are not part of the so-called Canon, although if any single date in that entire 85 year period that can be confirmed by an astronomical sighting, it would then produce such dates for the entire period. (And, as you know, and as the WTS readily admits, there are dozens of such astronomical sightings firmly linked to specific years in this date range.)

And then we have the consensus created initially from what was already in Doughterty's time (1920's) 2,000 dated tablets, this could have included many of the Egibi tablets, but the entire table below could be confirmed as shown, without them. Since Dougherty's time, thousands more have been discovered and they add to the same evidence, even more firmly.

Nabopolassar 21 years (626/5 - 605 BCE)
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years (605 - 562 BCE)
Awel-Marduk 2 years (562 - 560 BCE)
Neriglissar 4 years (560 - 556 BCE)
Labashi-Marduk a few months ( 556 BCE)
Nabonidus 17 years (556 - 539 BCE)

Again, I'll use Doughterty's original dates in the third column, where he includes those remaining months of each accession year which we should expect NOT to be included in the "Royal Canon"  because that year was already named for the previous king who was already ruling from beginning of each of those same years, which would later become the accession year of the next king. That was the whole reason to use accession years. We find that it is exactly as we would expect

The accession year system allowed the simplicity of working only with true regnal years for counting. They provided:

  • much more accuracy, less confusion and redundancy
  • easier math for bankers
  • easier counting of past years for court historians and chroniclers
  • would allow for more precise astronomical records, that could even result in the ability to "predict" lunar eclipses, use the 18-year Saros cycles, etc.

So most of these one year differences which you have utilized to create uncertainty and doubt, are exactly as we would expect them if they were to be used for accurate historical calendars. You can see they are therefore both correct in the two tables above. 

So now we add the evidence from the Egibi tablets, where there are enough records to recreate the entire lengths rule for most of the kings over a 164 year perod. Here are the ones that are spelled out in the translation work by Pinches. The author is aware back in the 1800's that the years given are estimates, so I won't try to fix them here. (He wrote: "Future researchers and discoveries will doubtless make alterations to the chronology of this period.") Besides, when you weave the additional information about the lengths of the offices held by the heads of this particular Egibi Realtor/Financial Firm, you actually get the exact same dates supported by the Royal Canon ("Ptolemy"), the Uruk king list, the Addad-guppi stele, the thousands of additional contract tablets, and the astronomical diaries. The "kings" of the house of Egibi, actually produces a perfect double-check against the official king list, and merges with it and confirms it perfectly. A ten-fold cord cannot easily be broken.

Nebuchadnezzar III (The Great) 43 years 604
Awel-Marduk 2 years 561
Neriglissar 4 years 558
     
Nabonidus 17 years 554
Cyrus 9 years 537
Cambyses 8 years 528
Bardes (Bardiya) 1 year 520
Nebuchadnezzar IV (pretender) 1-2 year 519
Cambyses (restored) (11th) 518
Darius 1 year 517

But here's the most important point. The mistake that accidentally marks Nebuchadnezzar III instead of Nebuchadnezzar II (The Great) is not even in the tablets. Nebuchadnezzar III was a Babylonian nationalist who tried to reinstate the line of Nabonidus near the end of the life of Cambyses. Bardes himself was also a more successful usurper near the end of the life of Cambyses. Nebuchadnezzar IV might be given 2 years here, when he actually followed in the year after Nebuchadnezzar III, who had tried to do the same thing in the prior year. Only the two of them together covered a two-year period, so the mistake is easy to understand. Ultimately, Darius was able to usurp the throne back and keep full Persian control. (This is similar to what happened in the same area [Iraq] in modern times, when coalitions of invading soldiers left the country and the previous ruling political party has tried to regain legitimacy.)

But the grasping at straws is even more apparent when you realize that the Bible already tells you which king reigned just prior to Awel-Marduk. Obviously it was Nebuchadnezzar, and the Bible also indicates a reign of about 43 years for Nebuchadnezzar. So, no, it is clearly not an indication that Nabopolassar was confused with Nebuchadnezzar II (or vice versa).  You said: "or could it be that these business contracts were based on the assumption that NABOPOLASSAR, was mistaken for NEBUCHADNEZZAR II." The Bible aleady clears up exactly who it is:

(2 Kings 24:8-10) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ne·hushʹta the daughter of El·naʹthan of Jerusalem. 9 He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his father had done. 10 During that time the servants of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city came under siege.

(2 Kings 24:12) 12 King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign.

(Jeremiah 52:28, 29) 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.

(2 Kings 25:8, 9) 8 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. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house. . .

(2 Kings 25:27) 27 And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach [Awul-Marduk] of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah from prison.

Clearly the siege was the one in the 7th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (8th including accession year). The best date that fits all the evidence is 597 BCE. We can check that, knowing that the 37th year would be 36 years after the 1st year. Therefore, 597-36 = 561 BCE. So the chronology that the Bible gives about the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin, in the year that Awul-Marduk became king would be about 561 BCE. You'll notice from the tables above that this is the same date that all the archaeological and historical evidence points to. 

So you noticed that, instead of a mistake made in antiquity, you have CORRECT information from one source (Egibi tablet in this case) with the knowledge that its correctness is supported by literally hundreds of additional sources (hundreds of dated business tablets and a few astronomically dated tablets) and that it also just happens to coincide with supporting information from the Bible itself. All these sources -- including the Bible -- support each other in correctly identifying who this Nebuchadnezzar "III" might be. Yet you think it's appropriate to ask, under these circumstances, if anyone can be 100% sure that maybe Nabopolassar was mistaken for Nebuchadnezzar II. It was such a stretch that you were willing to ignore Biblical information supporting the archaeoloigical evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Allen Smith
Quote

 

JWinsider: Amazing! That's a perfect example of the problem with the WTS chronology.

It always surprises me that some of us have become so anxious to defend the WTS that we are ready to throw out the Bible to do it. Why not defend the WTS wherever possible, but not when it means grasping at straws, and especially not when it means that we have to trample on God's word?

 

Nice try in distorting historical evidence. Just like Carl Olof Jonsson. Maybe from here on end I’ll refer to you as Junior. Secular chronology has many problems when deciding when NEB reign started. The given is 605/4 BCE. Yet even with the business tablets, controversy ensues. History records NEB 1, 2, 3, and 4. So don’t waste my time with your over blown blustering attempt to seem smart.

The WTS holds the correct present understanding with historical chronology. So there’s NO need to defend the WTS from ignorance. That was never my intention, and you know that.

My intention is to EXPOSE apostasy from within, so called active witnesses who find a need to Contradict the WTS and criticize it, as though it was their God given right to do so. The last time I understood scripture, God decides what needs correcting from his people, NOT people like you.

But if you must insist to appease your crony’s. Historically, there are NO official historical evidence from any official government of antiquities. Those thousands of tablets you continue to exaggerate and bluster about are from PRIVATE businesses, or collections (Temples).

EVEN the name Nebuchadnezzar is relevant. What’s the definition? You have history mentioning Nebuchadnezzar as an ASSYRIAN KING. You have learned nothing about honest chronology other than ACCEPT the foolishness of the Doug Manson, and Carl Olof Jonsson’s of this world. Historians really don’t give a hoot one way or another about it. For witnesses, the plague started with Raymond Franz, and others that got UPSET for being passed up for a higher position within the Organization, that’s all. So Satan used the opportunity to discredit the organization. Evidently, it worked with people like you. But for all I know, you’re a disfellowshipped witness pretending to be active.

And until you learn chronology the right way, your interpretation of historical events is your own. Your criticism of the WTS and GB is between you and God. God will decide if we must look at his historical evidence differently from what is stated in scripture. That’s God given Right, NOT yours, or anyone else’s.

So don’t just look at VAT4956, BM21901, IM65066, BM33066, BM22047, BM25127, etc. There’s a sloth of more information that also points to 606BC. And as you hypocritically stated, you have NO problem with 609BC-539BC / 606BC-536BC. Yeah right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • 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.