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

[JW Insider]

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4828-cyrus

On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as "King of Babylon, King of all the Lands."

In fact, the Watchtower quotes this very point:

*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
On page 404 of Volume 4, The Jewish Encyclopedia says: “Cyrus always conformed to the traditions of the thrones he usurped, and, together with his son Cambyses, rendered homage to the native deities. On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as ‘King of Babylon, King of all the Lands.’”

This makes perfect sense according to Babylonian custom, especially considering the Akitu festival which would have been Nisan (March-April) of 538. In other words, as early as possible in 538:

http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub389/entry-5708.html

Gerald A. Larue wrote in “Old Testament Life and Literature”: “The most important religious celebration of Babylon and one that provides a background for understanding II Isaiah was the Akitu festival1 observed annually from the first to twelfth of Nisanu (Hebrew Nisan: March-April). The festal origins may lie in Sumerian times; the rites continued to be observed into the Persian-Greek period. The chief figure in the cult during the Neo-Babylonian era was Marduk, god of Babylon and supreme deity in the empire. His temple, called Esagila ("House of the Uplifted Head"), stood near the great ziggurat. [Source: Gerald A. Larue, “Old Testament Life and Literature," 1968, infidels.org <=>]

The Watchtower that quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia above made use of those same dates to include the following:

*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
If we proceed according to the cuneiform inscriptions, rather than the Bible, we have to take the position that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned concurrently for a time. According to this, the accession year (an incomplete lunar year) of Cyrus as king of Babylon began on October 23 of 539 B.C.E., when he entered the city (by day) after its capture by his troops. Hence his first regnal year (a full lunar year) began on Nisan 1 of 538 B.C.E., or on March 17/18 of 538 B.C.E., Gregorian time.
The cuneiform tablet entitled “Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11” mentions Cyrus’ first regnal year. By this tablet it is calculated that this year began March 17/18, 538 B.C.E., and it ended on March 4/5 of 537 B.C.E., Gregorian time. So Cyrus’ second regnal year began the next day, on March 5/6, 537 B.C.E. In this case Cyrus’ decree must have been made before this latter date that is, late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. See pages 14, 29 of Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, edition of 1956, by Parker and Dubberstein.

These are the same dates given in P&D as referenced in the Watchtower. I agree with them:

• Start of 1st year, Nisan 1, 538 BCE = March 17/18, 538 BCE Gregorian = March 23/24, 538 BCE Julian
• End of 1st year, 1 day before Nisan 1, 537 = March 4/5, 537 BCE Gregorian = March 10/11, 538 BCE Julian

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Imagine that! The Jewish calendar went so far as to name one of their months "Tammuz." That's like Christians using names like Thursday for Thor, Wednesday for Woden, Augustus [Ceasar] for August, etc. In fact, when we say that the Memorial of Jesus' Death is Nisan 14, instead of Abib 14, we are using the Babylonian influenced name for the first month, not the original Hebrew name for the same month, Abib.

As Jehovah’s servants, we are well-informed. We know why we believe and practice certain things and abstain from others. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/gods-love/celebrations-holidays-that-displease-god/

Even so called Bible Scholars in WTJWorg are not well-informed or purposely circumvent/bypass other evidence or downplay existing information and omit it or misrepresent them. 

Can a student be bigger than a teacher? The average JW does not have the capacity to adequately deal with a wealth of information (like the ones you provided from Insight). Also in some countries JW people have not Insight or other books on own language (Croatian for example).
Only above-average individuals within the JW population can enter the sources (and other books) from which the citation is quoted. To read and connect with understanding. Time and effort are necessary.

Take for example the idea that JW should avoid anything that has “pagan origins”. JW don't celebrate Jesus's  Birthday but have no problem to have weeding rings and celebrate Marriage-day. Weeding rings have some pagan origins and celebrating marriage anniversary gives "glory" to couple of human, not Creator. It is absurd not to celebrate the birth of the man who brought you salvation, but it is quite normal to celebrate the “birth” of marriage. :)))

The official website of the Jewish community in Croatia states that the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed 586 BCE. It is to be expected that Jews know their history better than JW.

Or are Jews also inclined to revise their past like WTJWorg? 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

e) 180 elephants

180 / 360° =0,5 * 30 =  15°

:)) Right?

Don't ask me why 0,5*30 is necessary formula to get 15!! :))

[Ann O'Maly]

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Just proves, you and Jwinsider continue to be idiots. Was I referring to a particular ideology? But nice try, confuse and evade.

Incorrect. That was not one of the multiple choice options. Try again.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Is all of this supposed to be proving something about 1914 ? 

If so what exactly please ? 

We already know that the Kingdom existed whilst Jesus Christ was here on earth and we already know that HE had been given all Authority after His resurrection in 33 C .E. 

So what exactly is the point of this  43 page discussion ? 

[Anna]

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It was already answered, by AlanF, and I will go ahead and answer it again in my next post

Thanks. I started following this thread and then was away for a few days and got so behind that I stopped. As you probably realise, I have yet to properly research this whole topic, it's been on the back burner for a few years now and every time I intend to start something pops up and then I don't get back around to it. Then when I'm ready once more, so much time has passed that I have to start all over again and so round and round it goes. I saw you mention to someone that the whole thing could be figured out in less than a day. This is proof that I must be dumb and need an"explanation for dummies" like the type they do on YouTube, with diagrams and cute pictures 😂

I would not expect something like that from you since you are well above that. Perhaps if you viewed me as your 6 year old grandchild it might work 😁

As you say, most Witnesses haven't personally researched the 1914 topic, and rely on WT articles such as this one: 

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20141001/gods-kingdom-prophecy-1/

Which is supposed to illustrate a "typical" conversation someone might have with a householder, NOT! Not anyone I know.

When one reads both part one and two it makes sense, (to me) so perhaps in another topic one could use these two articles and insert critiques? (In another color). 

 

 

[JW Insider]

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

When one reads both part one and two it makes sense, (to me) so perhaps in another topic one could use these two articles and insert critiques? (In another color). 

You are right that this would best be done in another topic. This one was originally intended for just a discussion of the accuracy of the secular evidence, and 1914 becomes a discussion of Biblical interpretation mixed up with secular evidence. But, of course, 1914 is the subtext of 607, 539, the seventy years, etc. To most Witnesses it is the only reason to look trust secular chronology at all, just so we can get to 539 -> 537 -> 607 -> 1914.  And, of course, reject all other points of the same secular chronology -- even the parts that got us to 539 in the first place.

I'll be happy to start a new topic. But it doesn't mean this one is finished. There are still several pieces of evidence to test the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.

[ComfortMyPeople]

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'll be happy to start a new topic. But it doesn't mean this one is finished. There are still several pieces of evidence to test the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.

Oh my!

Let no one think, not for a moment, that I understand not a small part of what is said, although I see it very interesting.

[Ann O'Maly]

4 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Correct, your argument about the "15 degrees" that you couldn't seem to find support for can be found as far back as 1642 AD. ...

Your answer is still incorrect. (Hint: Divide 360 by 12.)

[Anna]

42 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'll be happy to start a new topic

If you want, I'll  start it...

43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But it doesn't mean this one is finished. There are still several pieces of evidence to test the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.

Of course!

[JW Insider]

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

58 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But it doesn't mean this one is finished. There are still several pieces of evidence to test . . .

Of course!

I literally only added that, not for your benefit of course, but because I assumed that persons like CC or "scholar JW" would accuse me of trying to change the subject. Looks like CC took the bait anyway. So predictable.

But I'll go ahead and start the new topic right now. And we might even discuss hidden text below the surface.

44 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

you are like JWinsider, trying to evade by changing the subject.

And it's also predictable that CC will now create a post in which he accuses me of being predictable. So predictable

[Srecko Sostar]

58 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Then you are as ignorant as your apostate friends here.

No, no Cesar. I would put, all this about us, people and our faiths and our hopes and our beliefs and our disappointments in few words:

We all are fragile.