SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[AlanF]

27 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I have only said that you are too smart for your own boots. Yes it is negative my comments - because your words are not leading people to jehovah but away from him.....

Again confusing Jehovah with the Watchtower Society.

27 minutes ago, Arauna said:

so you obviously have an ego problem and love for yourself is more important than love for jehovah because you are causing confusion for others.  By the fruits you bear I know you. 

JW Insider, although we disagree about some things, happens to be about most honest JW I've ever come across. Coming from me, that's saying something!

27 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I had a lot of respect for you before but your deviations have become bolder and bolder.  So many teachings that you reject..... which are as clear as daylight. Being "nice" don't make what you say true. 

"Clear as daylight." LOL! LIke teaching that organ transplants are the same as eating organs? Like teaching that "the resurrection of the saints" in 1881 was a fact of history for half the Watchtower's history? Like teaching that Christ returned invisibly in 1874? Like teaching "Armageddon is right around the corner" for decades, despite Jesus' warning in Luke 21:8 not to do that?

I could go on with such examples for a long time, but you get the idea: as claimed "speakers for Jehovah", Watchtower leaders speak with forked tongues: they are false prophets.

In the end, assuming your God actually judges people for their actions, who do you think will fare better: Unthinking, willingly gullible drones? Or people who actually think about what they're taught and make decisions according to their consciences?

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I recently looked at the chronology again.  It cannot fit into the skewed secular dates.

It's Watchtower chronology that skews the biblical and secular dates for that period. Otherwise, the Bible and history fit very well. 

[scholar JW]

Ann O'Maly

24 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

It's Watchtower chronology that skews the biblical and secular dates for that period. Otherwise, the Bible and history fit very well. 

Nonsense. WT Chronology unlike secular NB Chronology is a strong cable of Bible Chronology whereas the latter is simply a chain of events- a string of beads. WT Chronology falsifies secular chronology by means of the 70 years. Further, it shows a twenty year gap between the two chronologies and highlights Neb's missing 'seven years' for starters and shows that the methodology for secular chronology is flawed because of the 586/7 BCE dilemma. Not a pretty picture!!!!!

scholar JW

[Ann O'Maly]

There you go again, Neil. Back in your fantasy world.

[AlanF]

8 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

There you go again, Neil. Back in your fantasy world.

ScholarJW Pretendus continues making the same mistake that most JW apologists do with chronology as well as many other beliefs: they're ass-backwards in their thinking. Since 1914 is all-important, they must perform all sorts of mental gyrations to justify it. Such as claiming that the 70 years is of fundamental importance to both Bible and secular chronology. But the period ONLY has importance to the 1914 chronology and the huge house-of-cards belief structure that rests on it.

And of course, ScholarJW Mendacicus continues lying about "the 586/7 BCE dilemma" when he knows quite well that Rodger Young put that issue to bed back in 2004. He knows this because he's completely unable to refute Young's paper; all he can manage is his usual limp but loudly proclaimed refrain, "It's wrong cuz the 70 years!!!"

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

I have only said that you are too smart for your own boots.

Since love doesn't keep account of the injury and covers a multitude of sins, I will not go back and show you what you have actually said. Besides, I've never wanted to make this into a contest of who is smart or not. I've never claimed to be smarter than you or anyone else here. This just happens to be one of my strong interests -- and of course it's an interest that is recommended in the Watchtower itself. It's easy to make mistakes in this area of study. I've made quite a few while learning and might still be making some. I'm hoping to be corrected where I am making mistakes. But it gets easier, and makes more sense every time I read another book and compare it with the evidence and the appropriate Bible passages.

But I'm sure you'll agree that there's nothing wrong with taking an interest in this topic:

*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. . . .
Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.

The problem, of course, is not just taking an interest, but discovering that the Watchtower's solution produces too many contradictions and cannot be supported without manipulation or rejection of the Biblical and archaeological evidence.

Of course the only right thing to do when one discovers that the evidence leads to a different conclusion is to be quiet and wait on Jehovah. At least that's what I was told even by the persons who first showed me a few pieces of this evidence in 1977 and 1978. If you speak up, you could be disfellowshipped, I was warned. So I stayed pretty quiet about it for more than a third of a century (i.e., 33 years) but I have kept studying about these things off and on.

But my conscience bothered me a bit, because Jehovah is the "God of Truth." (Psalm 31:5) If we see our brother take a false step we shouldn't just ignore it. When I asked about these things with responsible persons in the organization, who I respected, I realized that the only defense was "empty speeches." (Non-answers, avoidance, evasion, misquotes, and very weak or completely unrelated evidence.) Mostly you begin to see that no one really has looked at the evidence. Or, if they are like Furuli, they try to exploit a weakness in one or two tiny pieces of evidence, and won't even admit that their theory is already demolished by 1,000 other bits of independent evidence.

So for me, I must follow my conscience.

(2 Timothy 2:14-18) . . .. 15 Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

JW Insider, although we disagree about some things, happens to be about most honest JW I've ever come across. Coming from me, that's saying something!

Hmmmm. Thanks? Well, that should convince her!  I think she trusts your judgment pretty much the way she judges mine.

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Hmmmm. Thanks? Well, that should convince her!  I think she trusts your judgment on par with how she judges mine.

Well that's her lookout.

[scholar JW]

Ann O'Maly

 

My explanation of the parallelisms is as follows:

1.  The Divided Monarchy is the period of time that the kings of Judah and Israel reigned for a duration of 390 years based on the prophecy of Ezekiel in Ezek.4: 1-13. The period began in 997 BCE  with the splitting of the kingdom of Israel - 1 Ki. 11:43; 12:19,20 and ending in 607 BCE with the removal of King Zedekiah from his throne in the 11th year of his reign and in the 18th year of King Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed Jerusalem in that year- 2 Ki. 25: 8-10; Jer. 52: 12-14. Refer Appendix A6 'Chart: Prophets and Kings of Judah and Israel'. NWT, 2013.

 

2. The 70 years of Jeremiah the prophet is the period of time beginning with the end of the Judean Monarchy, the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, the Exile of all of its population in Servitude to the now dominant World Power, Babylon leaving a totally Desolated Land of Judah in 607 BCE. - Jer. 25: 8-11; 29:10; Da. 9:2; 2 Chron.36: 17-21; Zec.1:12; 7:5. The foretold definite historic period of '70 years' ended with the Return of the Jews under the Decree of King Cyrus of Persia in 537 BCE. Jer. 25:12; 2 Chron.36: 22-23; Ezr.1: 1-4; 3:1.

 

3. The 70 weeks of years of Daniel the prophet is the period of time beginning with the 'issuing of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem' which was in the '20 the year of King Artaxerxes of Persia in 455 BCE. - Da.. 9:25; Neh. 2:1; 5-8 with a duration of 490 years culminating with the appearance of 'the Messiah the Leader' in 29 CE and ending in 36 CE with the admission of Gentiles into the Christian Congregation-spiritual Israel.- Da 9: 25-27; Acts ch10. cf. Da 9: 3-23. Refer, App. 'How Daniel's Prophecy Foretells the Messiah's Arrival' in What Does the Bible Really Teach, 2014, pp. 197-199.

 

4. The Gentile Times or the appointed times of the nations of Daniel the prophet is a period of time beginning with the overthrow of the Judean Monarchy under King Zedekiah with the destruction of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar in 607 BCE with a duration of 2520 years or 'seven times'. Da. 4: 10-17; 20-25  and ended with the installation of Jesus Christ, King of God's Kingdom in 1914 CE. Da. 4: 17; 25-26, 32, 34; Lu 21:24; Da. 7:13-14; Rev. 12:5-12. Refer App.'1914-A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy' in What Does the Bible Really Teach, 2014, pp.215-217.

 

The above referred WT article list four parallelisms but only two are applicable now and it is readily seen that the four parallelisms discussed as above fit the criteria in the WT article. One can easily see the relationships that connect and overlay each of these four major Bible prophecies and that is why all these together as prophecies prove that Jehovah is the Great Timekeeper and that the prophetic Word is made sure. Such four prophecies as many witnesses validate the date of 607 BCE in our wondrous Bible Chronology all based on that theme in God's Word- Kingdom of God binding each of these prophecies together to form that unbreakable 'strong cable of Bible Chronology'.

This is a description of the four parallelisms or the four prophetic witnesses that comprise that strong cable of WT Bible Chronology so this is not fantasy as you claim.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

ScholarJW Pretendus continues making the same mistake that most JW apologists do with chronology as well as many other beliefs: they're ass-backwards in their thinking. Since 1914 is all-important, they must perform all sorts of mental gyrations to justify it. Such as claiming that the 70 years is of fundamental importance to both Bible and secular chronology. But the period ONLY has importance to the 1914 chronology and the huge house-of-cards belief structure that rests on it.

Nope for our Chronology is in harmony with secular chronology albeit a little 'fine tuning' of a corrective of some twenty years. The 70 years is a major piece of Jewish history and those that choose to ignore it do so at expense of sound scholarship.

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

And of course, ScholarJW Mendacicus continues lying about "the 586/7 BCE dilemma" when he knows quite well that Rodger Young put that issue to bed back in 2004. He knows this because he's completely unable to refute Young's paper; all he can manage is his usual limp but loudly proclaimed refrain, "It's wrong cuz the 70 years!!!"

The 586/7 dilemma continues to haunt modern scholarship from the days of Edwin Thiele which was heightened as real conundrum of secular chronology by Rodger Young who has not yet solved the problem and has not yet been solved. Young  of course , ignores the 70 years as does Edwin Thiele and others.

scholar JW

 

[AlanF]

22 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Nope for our Chronology is in harmony with secular chronology albeit a little 'fine tuning' of a corrective of some twenty years. The 70 years is a major piece of Jewish history and those that choose to ignore it do so at expense of sound scholarship.

The 586/7 dilemma continues to haunt modern scholarship from the days of Edwin Thiele which was heightened as real conundrum of secular chronology by Rodger Young who has not yet solved the problem and has not yet been solved. Young  of course , ignores the 70 years as does Edwin Thiele and others.

Yes, please do continue with your lies, as all intelligent readers will become better educated in how not to be scholastically honest.

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Yes, please do continue with your lies, as all intelligent readers will become better educated in how not to be scholastically honest.

The said scholar stands for integrity and truth, qualities that are not of your character!!!

scholar JW

[Ann O'Maly]

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The period began in 997 BCE  with the splitting of the kingdom of Israel

Date is disputed. Other non-WT models are out there that fit the 390 years with the conventional timeline.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The foretold definite historic period of '70 years' ended with the Return of the Jews under the Decree of King Cyrus of Persia in 537 BCE. Jer. 25:12; 2 Chron.36: 22-23; Ezr.1: 1-4; 3:1.

As has been shown ad infinitum, Jer. 25:12 falsifies your claim that the 70 year period of the nations' servitude to Babylon ended with the repatriation of the Jews.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The 70 weeks of years of Daniel

... is another subject beyond the scope of this thread and it similarly involves an erroneous WT starting date.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The Gentile Times or the appointed times of the nations of Daniel ... ... destruction of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar in 607 BCE with a duration of 2520 years or 'seven times'. Da. 4: 10-17; 20-25  and ended with the installation of Jesus Christ, King of God's Kingdom in 1914 CE. Da. 4: 17; 25-26, 32, 34; Lu 21:24; Da. 7:13-14; Rev. 12:5-12. 

Again, WT interpretation of these periods is upended by sound exegesis and by WT following its own new approach regarding types and antitypes:

Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so. - w15 3/15 p. 18

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The 586/7 dilemma continues to haunt modern scholarship from the days of Edwin Thiele which was heightened as real conundrum of secular chronology by Rodger Young who has not yet solved the problem and has not yet been solved. 

Neil, whatever WT fantasies you have swirling around in that stubborn skull of yours, you know what you've just said above isn't true. You know Young's articles well enough and are familiar with his conclusions. Doesn't your conscience prick you when you lie like that, especially when you can be caught out so easily? Have you no shame? Smh. 😦

"In this paper, the method is applied to all Scriptures in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles relating to the date of Jerusalem's fall to Nebuchadnezzar. It is shown that all texts involved are in harmony with themselves and with each other, and the only year possible for Jerusalem's fall is 587 BC."

- http://www.rcyoung.org/papers.html

"The conclusions from the analysis are as follows.

"(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year."

- Young, R.C., 'When Did Jerusalem Fall?', JETS 47/1 (March 2004) 21–3.