607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

However, what if one side of a coin only showed a face without a date, and the other side did?

Fine, but I was making a "coin" more analogous to VAT4956 which has the date on both sides.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

This is why VAT4956 holds little value to the destruction of Jerusalem with the increments of 18-19 years.

"This" is why? I think you should mean the opposite. It's because VAT4956 is not analogous to your undated coin, that VAT4956 holds a very high value in pinpointing an absolute date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year AND Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. And furthermore we have no real question about the actual date that VAT4956 pinpoints for his 29th year, his 5th year, his 35th year, his 37th year, his 8th year, his 1st year, his accession year, etc., because every Babylonian text is dated consistently.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37^th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his father’s kingdom in 605BC.

Since VAT4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568 then it is pinpointing his accession year to be 568+37=605. It is therefore pinpointing his first year to be 604. It is pinpointing all these years:

• Acc  = 605
• 1st  = 604
• 2nd = 603
• 3rd = 602
• 4th = 601
• 5th = 600
• 6th = 599
• 7th = 598
• 8th = 597
• 9th = 596
• 10th = 595
• 11th = 594
• 12th = 593
• 13th = 592
• 14th = 591
• 15th = 590
• 16th = 589
• 17th =  588
• 18th = 587
• 19th = 586
• 20th = 585
•  . . .
• 27th = 578
•  . . .
• 37th = 568

So VAT4956 pinpoints every year of Nebuchadnezzar from his accession to his 37th year.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

That in itself doesn’t discredit 607BC since the beginning siege of Jerusalem started by historical reckoning in 589BC.

Yes. It does discredit 607, because it means that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king in 607. It also means that his 18th year was 587. So it's a matter of whether you believe the Bible when it speaks of the events that took place in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. How could Nebuchadnezzar be in his 18th year two years before he started reigning?

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

This is why, as with any historical evidence, it becomes a matter of scholarly, opinion.

You can't use the expression "This is why" after stating a false or unproven premise. You create a "non sequitur." It's like if you had said you found a documentary showing that World War 2 started in Europe in 1939  while Roosevelt (FDR) was in his second term as U.S. President. And from that documentary, you decide you can make an unproven or false premise that therefore WW2 might have started when Hitler invaded Poland in 1929 which was during Herbert Hoover's presidency. For evidence of this false premise, you claim that it's all a matter of scholarly opinion. In fact, historical evidence is not always a matter of scholarly opinion. You don't need to be a scholar to know that Hoover was president in 1929 and that it had to be Roosevelt who was concurrent with Hitler's rise. You can't just move FDR's presidency back to 1929. There is too much evidence against it no matter what kind of scholar makes the claim.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Meaning, there shouldn’t be more weight placed on the credibility, given by D.J Wiseman or A.K. Grayson by having a different perspective in scholarly chronology than that of a linguist scholar.

This makes no sense. Wiseman and Grayson are both linguistic scholars who have catalogued, translated and published hundreds of Babylonian/Mesopotamian texts from discovered tablets, bricks, temple walls, etc. Furuli, for example, never questioned their scholarship, nor did he make a coherent theory or argument based on linguistic scholarship. His argument is based on trying to denigrate some of the data on the VAT4956 tablet by saying it was tampered with, even though ALL the evidence says otherwise. The rest of his argument is to say that a portion of the lunar data on the VAT4956 tablet is a better fit for a different year, even though the data says otherwise. So he never invokes "linguistic scholarship." He invokes an astronomy program, which he uses inconsistently. He claims NOT to be a professional astronomer, and is therefore invoking AMATEUR status for his claim, not the status of a scholar on which to base his claims.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

What counts, how many of these secular observations can we use to agree with scriptures chronology if it has become that important for any one individual to know.

There has never been a problem on that count. The Babylonian data agrees with the chronology of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah. Individuals might have a specific interpretation that they might WISH had been confirmed by the Babylonian data, but there has never been a contradiction between the Babylonian account and the Bible account. The Babylonian secular data helps to corroborate the Bible account, a fact which can help more people to see the Bible as a trustworthy historical account.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Does that mean Nebuchadnezzar needed to be there for the “destruction of Jerusalem” in 607BC? Scripture tells a different story of how God SENT Judah’s neighboring kingdoms to DESTROY it. But why state “in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time”. Could it be the *scribe* wrote down this evidence years “after” it had occurred?

This proposal is interesting and is quite similar to what has already been presented tentatively by Allen Smith and some other names associated with his accounts. But it tends to start with a date and then tries to match circumstances to that date -- which is backwards. The Bible doesn't just say it was in Nebuchadnezzar's time that Jerusalem was attacked, but it says it was in his 18th year. It says that the siege was about 10 years prior to that. The Bible account even indicates prior incursions and deportations before the siege. Of course, these other accounts associated with Allen Smith have also tentatively raised the possibility that the Bible scribe is making a mistake, having written down this evidence years after it had occurred, and that the years could belong to the father Nabopolassar. The year 607 could have therefore matched the 19th/18th year of Nabopolassar, not Nebuchadnezzar, he has indicated. Of course the entire purpose of this proposal is to save 607 even if it effectively ends the Judean king on the throne shortly after Josiah's death in 609.

It can save, 607, and therefore save 1914, but at what cost?

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Have you or someone else linked to  something showing Furuli saying this?

Sure. I know that I have already quoted him in a previous conversation on this topic, which I will show below. But I will also clip a picture of the paragraph I am referring to on page 333 of Furuli's book so you can see it for yourself:

On 4/5/2017 at 2:57 AM, JW Insider said:

 . . . Furuli does not say the planetary data is too ambiguous to understand or from which to draw a conclusion. He says they seem to be "calculations for the positions of the planets in 568/67"  (p.333). So, they match 568/67 by Furuli's own admission. He has no choice but to dismiss the planetary data, not because it is ambiguous, but because it is NOT ambiguous. It fits the same year that Furuli (and the Watchtower) have been fighting against for years.

Here's what Furuli says on page 333:

Conclusion
The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of
VAT 4956: The Diary may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern
times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in
modern times; the obverse side was made by the help of a mold, and the signs on the
reverse side and the edges were written by someone. Because of the excellent fit of all 13
lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions
represent observations from that year, and that the original lunar tablet that was copied in
Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary positions are
approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that
they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year
37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from
588/87 and the planetary positions seem to be backward calculations for the positions of
the planets in 568/67.

[Ann O'Maly]

12 hours ago, Foreigner said:

VAT 4956 at “best” confirms the chronicled “besieged of Jerusalem” in an around the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar. ...

... Does it in anyway mention the destruction of Jerusalem BEFORE the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Show me where it claims this extraordinary insight in the tablet!!

Wait, what ...?

Honestly, your whole post is so muddled I don't know what you are trying to argue. 

(Thank you, @JW Insider for responding to the 'tampering' thing, etc.)

[Foreigner]

On 12/24/2017 at 3:48 AM, JW Insider said:

Fine, but I was making a "coin" more analogous to VAT4956 which has the date on both sides.

Sure. Would a coin that had a date on both sides give you an accurate minting date?

On 12/24/2017 at 3:48 AM, JW Insider said:

"This" is why? I think you should mean the opposite.

This is exactly why I shouldn’t mean anything that doesn’t have the possibilities of having many alternative endings. However, this statement implies a heavy-handed use of having another view forced to be accepted.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:48 AM, JW Insider said:

This makes no sense. Wiseman and Grayson are both linguistic scholars

Then with more of a confirmation, scholars view shouldn’t be heightened over one another. The credibility lies with those scholars that can find common ground with scripture, not those that make every attempt to “discredit” scripture.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:48 AM, JW Insider said:

Since VAT4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568 then it is pinpointing his accession year to be 568+37=605. It is therefore pinpointing his first year to be 604. It is pinpointing all these years:

Let’s look at this illustration with the eyes of Carl Olof Jonsson. Where does it in VAT4956 *pinpoint* the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC in this tablet? Remember his argument is precision. Then, it became a relying point for ex-witnesses. His message was lost when he decided to rearrange scripture to fit secular ideology.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:48 AM, JW Insider said:

Yes. It does discredit 607, because it means that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king in 607. It also means that his 18th year was 587.

This implies as far as secular chronology has shown, the dates implied for his reign began in 605BC. Does that in itself mean its absolute? Where should the *faith* of a BIBLE STUDENT reside?

On 12/24/2017 at 3:48 AM, JW Insider said:

The Babylonian secular data helps to corroborate the Bible account, a fact which can help more people to see the Bible as a trustworthy historical account.

If this view is the case, then I hope those that argue against the WT chronology will understand, the Babylonian Chronicle tablets actually “help” to confirm certain pieces of an incomplete puzzle.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:48 AM, JW Insider said:

This proposal is interesting and is quite similar to what has already been presented tentatively by Allen Smith and some other names associated with his accounts. But it tends to start with a date and then tries to match circumstances to that date -- which is backwards.

Then we can agree that the only cost associated with any presentation is the errors of secular scholars that don’t understand scripture. However, what would be another reason for people to call someone King? Seeing past posts for myself. I believe ALLEN SMITH and ALL those numbering accounts, possibly due to deletion as I suspect, was raised as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Sure. Would a coin that had a date on both sides give you an accurate minting date?

Yes. In my imaginary illustration, a coin that had the same date on both sides is giving the accurate minting date on both sides.

That's because I was making an illustration to match VAT 4956 which, on both sides, references the exact date on which the original observations were made. In the case of VAT 4956 it refers specifically to the same date of 568/7 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar on both sides. The coin illustration was not really about coins, of course, it was an illustration about how honest you might consider me to be if I tried to pass off a coin that clearly said 587 as if it were a coin from 607 using the kinds of tactics I described. In real life, of course, an ancient coin cannot contain a B.C. date, and VAT 4956 is not a coin; it's a "text" or "diary" about a couple dozen astronomical observations. In fact, it's a later copy that has at least one minor error in it (which is one day off). 

VAT 4956 has a couple dozen observations on it, and all of them fit a specific year. It just so happens that all the other observations from Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the observations from all other Neo-Babylonian kings give us the same exact date. So we really don't even need VAT 4956 to see the chronology, but it's nice to know that it's further evidence and none of the evidence contradicts any of the other evidence.

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

On 12/24/2017 at 5:48 AM, JW Insider said:

This" is why? I think you should mean the opposite.

This is exactly why I shouldn’t mean anything that doesn’t have the possibilities of having many alternative endings. However, this statement implies a heavy-handed use of having another view forced to be accepted.

You shouldn't say something like 2+1=4; and then "This" is why 2 dogs +1 dog = 4 dogs. It's true you could claim all kinds of possible alternative endings based on the premise that 2+1=4, but I mean that if your premise is unproven or false, then you should do the opposite of drawing a specific conclusion based on such a premise. Saying "this is why" or "therefore, this is true" after an unproven premise is "heavy-handed."

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

On 12/24/2017 at 5:48 AM, JW Insider said:

This makes no sense. Wiseman and Grayson are both linguistic scholars

Then with more of a confirmation, scholars view shouldn’t be heightened over one another. The credibility lies with those scholars that can find common ground with scripture, not those that make every attempt to “discredit” scripture.

This can depend on the topic and the level of experience each scholar has in that particular topic area, whether it's the physics of making clay tablets, experience with hundreds of astronomical readings, Assyrian/Mesopotamian linguistics, paleography, etc. If none of the scholars have made any attempt to "discredit" scripture then this other point about finding "common ground" will be meaningless. Wiseman and Grayson have, evidently without even trying, translated documents of the Neo-Babylonian Empire that just happen to contain evidence for a Babylonian chronology that has a common ground with the scriptures. There is no contradiction between the secular chronology of Babylon and the Scriptures. In fact, it is the Watchtower chronology that creates more problems against the Biblical evidence. In effect, then it is the Watchtower chronology that, by comparison, attempts to "discredit" scripture, although I'm sure it's not on purpose. It's just that a higher priority is given to making 1914 appear to be right, than in being concerned about how the theory tends to contradict scripture. I think past posts in this thread and others on the same topic have already highlighted about 5 ways in which this has happened.

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

On 12/24/2017 at 5:48 AM, JW Insider said:

Since VAT4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568 then it is pinpointing his accession year to be 568+37=605. It is therefore pinpointing his first year to be 604. It is pinpointing all these years:

Let’s look at this illustration with the eyes of Carl Olof Jonsson. Where does it in VAT4956 *pinpoint* the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC in this tablet? Remember his argument is precision. Then, it became a relying point for ex-witnesses. His message was lost when he decided to rearrange scripture to fit secular ideology.

VAT 4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568/7. If you can pinpoint his 37th year then you can pinpoint his 18th to be 587/6, right? If you can pinpoint that my 37th year of life was in 1994, then you can also pinpoint that my 18th year was in 1975, right? If you don't know how to do this, you should admit this right away, and someone can always draw a chart.

So your only question is whether you believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, or his 19th year, or some other year if you prefer. No matter which year you prefer, you can pinpoint it to a calendar year in the same way you can pinpoint his 37th year to be 568/7 from VAT 4956.

Outside of that, why should anyone care what Carl Jonsson says? Why should anyone care what any ex-JWs say? There are probably a MILLION ex-JWs (literally) who don't even know who this Carl Jonsson is, and could rightly care nothing about 607 or 587. What Carl Jonsson says is no different than what every other modern Neo-Babylonian scholar says about Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. It just depends on whether you choose Nebuchadnezzar's year 18 or 19 for the destruction of Jerusalem. Which year do you choose, by the way? For some reason this was a difficult question for 607 promoters when it came up the last few times.

Of course, the reason is obvious why someone should need to try to tie something to a specific person known as an "apostate" even if a million other non-religious persons and all other Neo-Babylonian scholars believe the same thing. Just for fun, everyone should look at a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Notice especially the ones under "Red Herring" and "ad hominem" including these, like, "poisoning the well":

• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
• Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
• Abusive fallacy – a subtype of ad hominem that verbally abuses the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
• Appeal to motive – a subtype of ad hominem that dismisses an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
• Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo) – a subtype of ad hominem where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.
• Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
• Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.
• Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

On 12/24/2017 at 5:48 AM, JW Insider said:

Yes. It does discredit 607, because it means that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king in 607. It also means that his 18th year was 587.

This implies as far as secular chronology has shown, the dates implied for his reign began in 605BC. Does that in itself mean its absolute? Where should the *faith* of a BIBLE STUDENT reside?

Good point. The FAITH of the Bible Student shouldn't depend on secular chronology. Yet, so many Witnesses think that the secular date 607 must somehow be "credited" to be true -- yet 607 is completely dependent on SECULAR chronology. To be sure, it requires that we use secular chronology and then requires that we make a mistake in the way we use it, but we can't get anywhere close to 607 without depending on secular chronology. The Watchtower even uses the premise that 539 is a kind of ABSOLUTE secular date from which we then count 70 years farther back to get the secular date for the time period starting 70 years earlier. Yet, you are right in your implication that no true Bible Student should need such secular dates like 539 and 607 for his faith.

The term "absolute" is used by archaeologists and astronomers who study historical texts like these to describe the ability to tie this entire period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar and down to Cyrus and beyond to specific years or ranges of years in our calendar, such as, 587, 597, 607, 617, 539, 529, etc. They do not use the term "absolute" because we need to put "faith" in it. The Watchower, on the other hand, has used the term "absolute" "reliable" and "pivotal" with respect to such secular dates like 539 with the idea that we should have "faith" in them -- that we have reason to "believe" in them.

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Then we can agree that the only cost associated with any presentation is the errors of secular scholars that don’t understand scripture. However, what would be another reason for people to call someone King?

You or Allen may have to come out of the tentative zone then and just explain clearly what it is you are trying to say. I believe I caught some of it from a set of previous posts, and Allen agreed to that part that I said I understood, but he also said he wasn't ready to present the entire theory yet. I can respect that, but it's not useful to make guesses here, because the entire thing could become a moving target until the theory is "nailed down" so to speak.

It's possible that Allen once thought of "scholar JW" as someone with the background to help validate or invalidate the theory through shared resources. If so, I can see another reason for a further delay. If asked, I'll be glad to see if I can help, as I have offered before. But otherwise I'll have no more to say on those ideas until the theory is spelled out. I should also mention again that I am offering to look up resources, test astronomical data, help look up variations in published translations, or any number of things. And as several others here can attest, I have had such conversations "on the side" completely in private, completely confidentially, without ever publicizing names or any of the content of those conversations. One such side conversation on this forum now contains 203 private posts as of today.

[Foreigner]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. In my imaginary illustration, a coin that had the same date on both sides is giving the accurate minting date on both sides.

That would be the point, wouldn’t it? VAT4956 doesnÂ’t “illustrate” which direction one needs to go with the 18-19 years. It works both ways. Unless, as you stated, one side is only looked at.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You shouldn't say something like 2+1=4; and then "This" is why 2 dogs +1 dog = 4 dogs. It's true you could claim all kinds of possible alternative endings based on the premise that 2+1=4, but I mean that if your premise is unproven or false, then you should do the opposite of drawing a specific conclusion based on such a premise. Saying "this is why" or "therefore, this is true" after an unproven premise is "heavy-handed."

Ironically, I donÂ’t use 4+1=6. You are the one using such supposition to illustrate a formula not indicated by scholars or scripture. My comments are based on scholarly findings and scripture, not conjecture.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This can depend on the topic and the level of experience each scholar has in that particular topic area,

If Furuli expertise lies only with language, then it should be no surprise when he honestly doesn’t descend on an archaeological find. This is where “Theology” comes in. It receives the “best” of ALL expertise within knowledge. But, the BEST expertise comes from bible knowledge. Something, Fred Franz was great at. This would be the “BEST” for a Bible Student to learn.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, the reason is obvious why someone should need to try to tie something to a specific person known as an "apostate"

I agree Disseminations give no value to bible understanding.

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The term "absolute" is used by archaeologists and astronomers who study historical texts like these to describe the ability to tie this entire period

Of course. Then we would have to check how much of Bible understanding a scholar has to give an expert opinion on that subject matter.

Once again, wouldn't this be an attempt to justify how contradictory it would be to place the 18-19 year squarely where secular chronology would wish for it to be. Then we would also have to be satisfied by applying those years in the beginning reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 605-18=587BC, 605-19=586. Where does it indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587BC specifically? VAT4956 605-37=568BC.

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You or Allen may have to come out of the tentative zone then and just explain clearly what it is you are trying to say. I believe I caught some of it from a set of previous posts, and Allen agreed to that part that I said I understood, but he also said he wasn't ready to present the entire theory yet.

Then, does it really matter, who understands what? If secular chronology itself cannot justify its own findings that many people have gone to great lengths by rearranging scripture to meet their understanding and to discredit the WT Chronology? Then you are correct, why should it matter.

I will give you a personal view.

 

Theology works with the Babylonian Chronicle Series as a whole, not just beneficial parts.

T.G. Pinches

L.W. King

C.J. Gadd

S. Smith, probably an ancestor of ALLEN Sorry Allen, just joking!!

D.J. Wiseman

A.K. Grayson.

And since, D.J Wiseman sought to look at the book of Daniel with errors? Then we canÂ’t claim scholars are unbiased and look at scripture in a biased way.

If I mentioned that Abraham Lincoln “in his days” he was opposed, to slavery? Would this be true when he became President in 1861, or the proclamation in 1862-1863, or his ideology in 1854? So, “in his days” it becomes a general supposition, NOT indicative of a *specific* time. Therefore, Scripture would NOT be in error, 2 Kings 24:1, but rather the error would be in the interpretation of the READER.

Babylon Controls Jehoiakim

1: In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets.

At what point do you see King Jeroiakim being *PRESENT* if the destruction of Jerusalem, supposedly when it happened at the point where secular chronology and ex-witnesses imply in 587BC? This is the “pivotal” point in Carl Olof Jonsson’s argument. Why wait 18-19 years to punish the land and people of Judah for the sins of Manasseh. So, let’s continue to use his “pinpoint” ideology on this since King Zedekiah would have been on the throne on 587BC. Secular Chronology uses this text to corroborate the destruction of Jerusalem.

Can we use, this text to prove 598BC when King Jehoiachin was on the throne? According to secular chronology, as BEST we would have to conclude this happening in 605BC, three years later would be 605BC, 604BC, 603BC, or 603/2BC if you prefer.

Now verse two, stipulates God sent Bands of Chaldeans, and bands of Neighboring Kingdom’s to DESTROY the land of JUDAH. Jerusalem would be included. So, if that is the case. The “destruction of Judah (Jerusalem)” would have happened around the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s official reign 605BC, by God’s hand. Then what “destruction of Jerusalem” are scholars referring to in 587BC. Destruction on top of destruction? The land would have already been devastated by God’s judgment. So, 587BC might have included a specific destruction in Jerusalem, just NOT a “Complete” destruction that had already occurred. 2 Kings 25:10, 2 Chronicles 36:19

So, I place my *faith* in scripture, rather than secular chronology. Since secular chronology cannot use scripture to properly align and understand, Bible times.

 

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Well .... after it is all said and done .... and a million words have been used to say it ... this analogy comes to mind .......

Let's call Biblical Chronology "Fahrenheit" .

Lets call Babylonian Chronology "Centigrade".

If we are talking about temperature ...  20 degrees Centigrade  is EXACTLY 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

Where do we have an EXACT match theologically and secularly?

The CORRECT answer should be able to be explained and stated in ONE sentence.

Backup in the second sentence.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

VAT4956 doesn’t “illustrate” which direction one needs to go with the 18-19 years.

It wouldn't, Allen. The astronomer scribes knew the difference between addition and subtraction, having already learned those basic mathematical skills when they were children.

If you are having difficulty with these math concepts, I recommend this website. Then hopefully you'll eventually figure out whether 18 is more or less than 37 and, if you become more advanced with how BCE dating works, which way we should count to get from 568 BCE to 587 BCE.

You're welcome  

[Foreigner]

10 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

Propose an alternate scenario. What would you think if the *name* Nabuchodonosor was also used for the Father, Nabopolassar?

I would have to say, you and I are looking at the same historical "evidence" with an open mind, NOT a closed one that is determined to support inaccurate knowledge of history and scripture.

 

[Arauna]

I have pointed it out before that JWs  establishment of 537BCE is NOT based on the Babylonian chronicles but mostly on Persian sources.  Middle east chronology is synchronized with Egyptology dates - and Egyptology dates are out with 300 years - with less as we get to the Greek Ptolemaic kings. Recently watched an interesting lecture by David Rohl.... fascinating evidence that the exodus did take place ...... if one looks in the right period.

Persian dates are verified by Greek sources and also with Babylonian chronicles.  Persian dates are counted in Olympiads and since the games were held every 4 years they are very reliable. But people on this forum keep on hashing up these Babylonian chronicles of very old king lists as though they were inspired by God! But these ex-witnesses  have an agenda.... this is why they keep rehashing these unreliable old Babylonian king lists.  While these lists are helpful they are not to be trusted as the only source of information. 

Please read the insight book to see where the organization get their dates.  Some of the Babylonian chronicles were copies of copies and written 250 years after Cyrus died. The organization give several good reasons why they do not use the Babylonian chronicles.

The death of Cyrus  is given in Olympiads as 62, year 2. (531/530 B.C.E)  Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a reign of 9 years which substantiates his year of conquest as 539 BCE. (handbook of biblical chronology by Jack Finegan 1964. ) The kings which come AFTER Cyrus are also dated by these same methods and therefore the persian dates of succession are much more reliable. 

Astronomical calculations can also be misleading because the most reliable information is only a 'total' eclipse ... because many eclipses occur in a 50 year period and many are not  properly described - which can be misleading such as in the case with king Ahab.....  Please read this information in the insight as well.  

I fear there are some people here who think that the organization spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the "mistake of 1914" so they can be important..... but I think the shoe is on the other foot.  There are people here who think they are smarter than Jehovah's spirit and smarter than the available written information on the middle east and persian dynasties.  They keep bringing up the same old rehash of these Babylonian dates which I call the typical OCD of those who have lost Jehovah's spirit.

 

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

That would be the point, wouldn’t it? VAT4956 doesn’t “illustrate” which direction one needs to go with the 18-19 years. It works both ways. Unless, as you stated, one side is only looked at.

VAT4956 illustrates exactly what direction one needs to go to get to exactly the 18th and to get to exactly to the 19th year. That's the thing about an astronomical diary that tells you what year aligns to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. From there you know what direction you need to go to reach the 18th and 19th years or any other prior year in his reign. And it does this from the front side. It does this from the back side. And it does this from both sides.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Ironically, I don’t use 4+1=6. You are the one using such supposition to illustrate a formula not indicated by scholars or scripture. My comments are based on scholarly findings and scripture, not conjecture.

If you go back to the post you made here on Saturday, 12/23, the one with the Map of the Ancient Near East, you can see that you went from a mistaken or unproven premise and then said that this [false premise] was why VAT4956 tells us nothing about the 18-19 years, and that VAT4956 can only be used to show what his first (accession) year was. As you said:

On 12/23/2017 at 10:18 PM, Foreigner said:

The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37^th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his father’s kingdom in 605BC.

While it's true that knowing his 37th year was 568 will also tell you that his accession year was 605, it ALSO tells you that:

• his first year was 604 and
• his 18th year was 587 and
• his 19th year was 586 and
• his 36th year was 569 and
• his 35th year was 570.

It pinpoints which year matches every regnal year from 605 to 568. Claiming otherwise is a math mistake just as false as claiming that 4+1=6, or worse, really. It is the same as saying: If 568+37 = 605, then 568+36=0 [nothing] and 568+1=0[nothing] and 568+19=0[nothing]. You made an incorrect conjecture, rather than basing what you said on scholarly findings or scripture or simple math.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

If Furuli expertise lies only with language, then it should be no surprise when he honestly doesn’t descend on an archaeological find. This is where “Theology” comes in. It receives the “best” of ALL expertise within knowledge. But, the BEST expertise comes from bible knowledge. Something, Fred Franz was great at. This would be the “BEST” for a Bible Student to learn.

This is "word salad" with non-sequiturious dressing. 

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The term "absolute" is used by archaeologists and astronomers who study historical texts like these to describe the ability to tie this entire period

Of course. Then we would have to check how much of Bible understanding a scholar has to give an expert opinion on that subject matter.

We can if it will help. But for nearly half its existence the Watchtower, along with educated people like Fred Franz, believed and promoted a "Bible" chronology that we now admit is false. Franz, Russell, Rutherford all had plenty of Bible understanding, yet two of them taught a Bible chronology until they died, that the Watchtower now considers to be false. They used the term "absolute" and "God's dates, not ours" incorrectly. An archaeologist can correctly make use of the term "absolute" even if they are talking about a style of canoe made in New Guinea. They need absolutely no Bible understanding to use the term with its correct scholarly meaning.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Once again, wouldn't this be an attempt to justify how contradictory it would be to place the 18-19 year squarely where secular chronology would wish for it to be. Then we would also have to be satisfied by applying those years in the beginning reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 605-18=587BC, 605-19=586. Where does it indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587BC specifically? VAT4956 605-37=568BC.

Quite the opposite of justifying how contradictory it would be. You are veering off into bad math again. VAT4956 tells you to start . . .

• his 17th year in 588,
• his 18th year in 587
• his 19th year in 586
• his 20th year in 585
• his 27th year in 578
• his 37th year in 568

If you really can't see where it does "indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587 BC specifically," then you shouldn't be  talking about contradictory evidence or what VAT4956 does and does not indicate. Secular chronology does not place the 18th and 19th year where it "wishes."

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Then, does it really matter, who understands what? If secular chronology itself cannot justify its own findings that many people have gone to great lengths by rearranging scripture to meet their understanding and to discredit the WT Chronology? Then you are correct, why should it matter.

More word salad.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

And since, D.J Wiseman sought to look at the book of Daniel with errors? Then we can’t claim scholars are unbiased and look at scripture in a biased way.

This is irrelevant to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Would you say that the Watchtower publications are biased because they look at the books of Kings and Chronicles with errors? Note, how the Insight book inserts the bracketed words "actually, the fifteenth" instead of "the thirty-fifth" year of Asa. If you read "Insight" you will see that it suggests that the Bible contains scribal errors in several other books, too.

*** it-1 p. 184 Asa ***

• So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,”

It is not necessary to read the rest of this post, but it covers not even half of the potential scribal errors that the Watchtower publications have made reference to in the attempt to correct errors in the Bible text. I'm sure you are aware that there is even a chronology "glitch" in the book of Daniel that the Watchtower publications have discussed at length so that the meaning we give this verse is quite different from the actual statements in Daniel.

*** it-1 p. 412 Capital ***

• (1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings 25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits” with “five cubits.”

*** it-1 p. 570 Daleth ***

• The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is considerable similarity between the letters daʹleth [ד] and rehsh [ר], allowing for possible scribal errors in copying. This may account for various differences in spelling, such as that of the “Rodanim” at 1 Chronicles 1:7 and the “Dodanim” at Genesis 10:4.

*** it-1 p. 619 Deuel ***

• In the Masoretic text and the Syriac Peshitta, he is called “Reuel” at Numbers 2:14. This may be due to a scribal error, since the Hebrew letters for “D” and “R” are very similar and the name “Deuel” does, in fact, appear at Numbers 2:14 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, and over a hundred Hebrew manuscripts.

*** it-1 pp. 626-627 Dimon ***

• . . . Dibon did not stand by any large “waters,” it being a considerable distance from the nearest wadi, the Arnon. They suggest, therefore, that Dimon may be a scribal alteration of Madmen, mentioned in Jeremiah’s condemnation of Moab (Jer 48:2), and usually identified with Dimna, about 4 km (2.5 mi) WNW of Rabbath-Moab, on a height dominating the waters of the ʽAin el-Megheisil to the SE.  Both views are conjectural, the latter having in its favor identification with a site associated with waters, which the context seems to require.

*** it-1 p. 706 Elhanan ***

• In 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan is identified as “the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite,” and it is said that he struck down Goliath. However, many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error.

*** it-1 p. 718 Elishama ***

• This Elishama is listed as Elishua in 2 Samuel 5:15, in 1 Chronicles 14:5, and in two Hebrew manuscripts at 1 Chronicles 3:6. Elishua is generally considered to be the correct name, as the name Elishama appears again in 1 Chronicles 3:8 and therefore could easily have crept into verse 6 through a scribal error.

*** it-1 p. 929 Gibeah ***

• The Hebrew spellings of Geba (masculine form of the word meaning “Hill”) and Gibeah (feminine form of the term meaning “Hill”) are almost identical. Many believe that this has resulted in scribal errors in the Masoretic text and therefore recommend changing certain scriptures to read “Geba” instead of “Gibeah,” and vice versa.

*** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***

• This could account for their being called “horsemen” at 2 Samuel 10:18 and “men on foot” at 1 Chronicles 19:18. The difference in the number of Syrian charioteers killed in battle is usually attributed to scribal error, the lower figure of 700 charioteers being considered the correct one.

*** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***

• The variation in the enumeration of these at 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 may have arisen through scribal error. In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps preserves the original reading.

*** it-1 p. 1145 Horse ***

• However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.)

*** it-1 p. 1166 Ibleam ***

• . . . (Jos 21:25) reads “Gath-rimmon” instead of “Bileam” or “Ibleam.” Generally this is attributed to scribal error, “Gath-rimmon,” the name of a city in Dan, probably having been inadvertently repeated from verse 24.

*** it-1 p. 1239 Jaare-oregim ***

• A name appearing only at 2 Samuel 21:19. It is generally believed that scribal error has given rise to this name and that the correct reading is preserved in the parallel text at 1 Chronicles 20:5. “Jaare” is considered to be an alteration of “Jair,” and “oregim” (ʼo·reghimʹ, “weavers” or “loom workers”) is thought to have been copied inadvertently from a line below in the same verse.

*** it-2 p. 87 Johanan ***

• Grandson of Eliashib, the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His being called Jonathan in Nehemiah 12:11 is probably due to a scribal error, as the names “Johanan” and “Jonathan” are very similar in Hebrew.

*** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth ***

• There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four.

*** it-2 p. 177 Kite ***

• The Deuteronomy list contains ra·ʼahʹ in place of da·ʼahʹ, as in Leviticus, but this is considered to be probably due to a scribal substitution of the Hebrew equivalent of “r” (ר) for “d” (ד), the letters being very similar in appearance.

And then there are more complicated errors to deal with when the text that is preferred for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is based on the Masoretic text which makes changes from phrases like "Jehovah cursed" to "Jehovah blessed," and even makes changes like the following one:

*** it-2 p. 307 Manasseh ***

• . A name appearing in the Masoretic text at Judges 18:30, because of scribal modification. The account concerns Danite apostasy, and the New World Translation says that “Jonathan the son of Gershom, Moses’ son, he and his sons became priests to the tribe of the Danites.” (See also AT; Mo; Ro; RS.) Jewish scribes inserted a suspended letter (nun = n) between the first two letters in the original Hebrew name so as to give the reading “Manasseh’s” instead of “Moses’,” doing so out of regard for Moses. The scribes thus sought to hide the reproach or disgrace that might be brought upon the name of Moses because of Jonathan’s action. In addition to the altered Masoretic text, “Manasseh’s” appears in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the Greek Septuagint and in the Syriac Peshitta. However, “Moses’” is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate at Judges 18:30.

*** it-2 p. 349 Mash ***

• At 1 Chronicles 1:17 the Masoretic text reads “Meshech” instead of “Mash.” But this is probably a scribal error since Meshech is listed as a “son” of Japheth.—Ge 10:2; 1Ch 1:5.

*** it-2 p. 396 Michmas(h) ***

• According to 1 Samuel 13:5, the Philistine forces at Michmash included 30,000 war chariots. This number is far greater than that involved in several other military expeditions (compare Jg 4:13; 2Ch 12:2, 3; 14:9), and it is hard to imagine how so many war chariots could have been used in mountainous terrain. For this reason 30,000 is generally viewed as a scribal error. The Syriac Peshitta and the Lagardian edition of the Greek Septuagint read 3,000, and numerous Bible translations follow this rendering. (AT, JB, Mo) However, even lower figures have been suggested.

*** it-2 p. 398 Mijamin ***

• He may have founded the paternal house of Miniamin mentioned at Nehemiah 12:17 (where the name of the head of that house appears to have been an inadvertent scribal omission in the Hebrew text).

 

*** it-2 p. 938 Shuppim ***

• Since the last three characters of his name in Hebrew (Shup·pimʹ) are identical to the last three characters of the previous term (behth ha·ʼasup·pimʹ), scholars suspect that it is a dittograph (an unintentional scribal repetition), therefore, in this verse, not the name of a person.—Compare 1Ch 26:10, 11.

*** it-2 p. 1112 Tob-adonijah ***

• (2Ch 17:7-9) Reference to Adonijah and Tobijah in the same verse leads some scholars to believe this name is a scribal dittograph, that is, an inadvertent repetition.

And of course there are other issues with the variations in manuscripts. The NWT shows "18 years" for both of the following, but several major texts actually show 8 years in 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 18 in 2 Kings 24:8.

• (2 Kings 24:8) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . .
• (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 8 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months and ten days in Jerusalem.

So the Watchtower publications speak very appreciatively of the critical textual studies by scholars that have helped to identify some of these scribal errors and correct them.

*** it-2 p. 313 Manuscripts of the Bible ***

• Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century.

Where possible, the Watchtower publications seek to avoid admitting scribal errors even if we have no better explanation currently:

*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***

• However, there are differences in the numbers given for each family or house, and the individual figures in both listings yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these variations to scribal errors. While this aspect cannot be completely ignored, there are other possible explanations for the differences. It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources.

-----------NOTE------------

For anyone just scanning quickly across this  post and wondering why there is so much about scribal errors here, it's because I'm responding to Foreigner's assertion that if one looks at Scripture as if it might have error in it, then their scholarship cannot be trusted. Yet, there are literally more than a thousand places where the Watchtower believes that errors have crept into the Biblical texts that are relied upon to translate the NWT or any other Bible translation. This is one of the reasons the persons who have worked on scholarly Bible dictionaries and Bible translation itself have expressed appreciation for scholars who have looked into errors and potential errors. The assertion is therefore not true that just because a scholar might look into potential errors that this makes their scholarship automatically unstrustworthy.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I have pointed it out before that JWs  establishment of 537BCE is NOT based on the Babylonian chronicles but mostly on Persian sources.

But you were wrong. Humility and sincerity require that we look at our mistakes and try not to repeat them.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Persian dates are verified by Greek sources and also with Babylonian chronicles.

And Babylonian dates are verified by Greek sources, Persian sources, tens of thousands of clay tablets, and also with Babylonian chronicles. The Babylonian sources are verified in the same way as Persian sources. The weaknesses in these sources affect the Persian rulers in the same way as they affect the Neo-Babylonian rulers. The strengths in these sources do the same.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Persian dates are counted in Olympiads and since the games were held every 4 years they are very reliable.

This is only one of the ways in which Persian dates have been counted. Olympiads is also one of the ways in which we can "reliably" learn that the date for Jerusalem's fall is not the date that the Watchtower has promoted. The Olympiad dating is further evidence to confirm the interlocking dates of the entire period.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

The organization give several good reasons why they do not use the Babylonian chronicles.

The organization uses the Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries and king's lists. The organization relies upon copies of copies of secular sources in order to use secular dates like 539 and 537.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Astronomical calculations can also be misleading because the most reliable information is only a 'total' eclipse ... because many eclipses occur in a 50 year period and many are not  properly described

Quote this

The Watchtower Society relies upon astronomical calculations to get the secular dates that the organization promotes. The problem with the description of eclipses is not related to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I fear there are some people here who think that the organization spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the "mistake of 1914" so they can be important

It's usually true that humility and sincerity are necessary to avoid repeating the same mistakes. If one of the mistakes that is commonly made is to brag about having correctly predicted something decades in advance, but anyone can look up and see that what was predicted decades in advance was something else entirely, then we should look at the motive. I am sure that the "straw man" idea of an organization that "spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the 'mistake of 1914'" is ridiculous. I would guess that as little time as possible is spent thinking about the mistake of 1914. But if we find dishonesty in 100% of the instances where the topic did come up, we have a right to be suspicious of the motives for bringing it up. Just as you and I have a right to be suspicious of the motives of ex-JWs and apostates who bring up the subject when and if they make false claims about it.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

There are people here who think they are smarter than Jehovah's spirit and smarter than the available written information on the middle east and persian dynasties.

I agree that this could be the crux of the problem. I think it should bother us when we see the 607 theory and the 1914 theory produce contradictions in our literature, purposeful mistranslations of the Hebrew and Greek in our own Bibles, and a string of interpretations of related doctrines that rely on the least likely meanings of the Bible text.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

They keep bringing up the same old rehash of these Babylonian dates

Hopefully, we will stop using these Babylonian dates in our literature. Our repeated rehash of these Babylonian dates implies that the Bible is not sufficient, not enough for us to be fully equipped for every good work. The more one looks into the evidence it appears that it is based on a presumptuous and unscriptural agenda. Not of everything, of course, but just a portion of our teachings, that most of us probably no longer consider "core teachings," anyway. We should be humble enough to look at the Bible and the secular evidence we have imposed upon it with an open mind.

I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?