The Watchtower's 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The reason why WT scholars champion 539 BCE as a 'pivotal date' is that it enjoys universal acceptance within scholarship

And it's also a fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE also enjoys universal acceptance within scholarship.

11 hours ago, scholar JW said:

and was a pivotal event in Bible history being fully described as being well placed in the context of the fall of Jerusalem- the end of the Davidic Monarchy.

 And although the event of the fall of Babylon by Cyrus was NOT a fully described in the context of the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Davidic monarchy, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year absolutely WAS described in pretty much exactly those terms.

So, again, I'd have to ask why . . .

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If the astronomical evidence is open to interpretation why do you put faith in 539 as a "pivotal" year?

539 is surely no less open to interpretation than the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. According to your listed criteria, that would make Nebuchadnezzar's reign much more pivotal. Besides the fact that we can double-check the evidence for MANY MORE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign than for Cyrus, and each year strengthens the evidence for all the other years. If a three-fold cord cannot easily be broken, then an eight-fold cord ought to be even stronger than that. 

Since currently we are asked to reject the evidence for all the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign which are MUCH better documented, why don't you just use the Bible's date of Nebuchadnezzar 19th year, and reject the secular date of 539 for Cyrus? Just make the claim that since we KNOW Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is a PIVOTAL year, and that it's even more pivotal than 539 for Cyrus, then just start claiming that Cyrus captured Babylon in 519. You get to keep the 70 year period intact, just as you do now. It's EXACTLY what's being done at the OTHER end. Why does it matter so much which secular date we put faith in and which secular date we dismiss?  

We'd be doing exactly the same thing we are doing now except that we would then be saying that 539 is just a secular date but that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is a Bible date, and that we'll choose the Bible's dates over Secular dates every time.

11 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Only those dates that are synchronized to the Judean Monarch reigns should be used for Chronology.

I'm surprised you even admitted that one. It's an even better criteria for using Nebuchadnezzar's pivotal Bible dates instead of the secular Cyrus 1 date. Several of Nebuchadnezzar's years actually ARE synchronized to the Judean monarchy, yet ZERO of Cyrus' dates are. 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

How did you personally arrive at the conclusion that 539 was indeed the year of Cyrus conquering Babylon?

By reading such explanations in WT publications which are in turn based on scholarship.

That's my point. Most of us (Witnesses) in my experience have never personally arrived at a conclusion about 539 except by simply READING the explanation in WT publications. In your case you also have a lot of books by current scholars on the subject but I think you've already admitted before that EVERY one of them puts the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar within a few months of 587 and 586 BCE. 

And most Witnesses if you ask them will THINK that the explanation about 539 is somehow better and more direct than the ways in which the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are associated with BCE dates. 

The reason I asked how you personally arrived at it was because I figured you might have checked it out for yourself and realized that more recently even the WT publications themselves now ADMIT that the method for figuring out CYRUS' regnal years are indirect and makes use of additional assumptions -- assumptions which are not necessary with much of the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years. 

I'm sure you already know exactly what I'm talking about since you have read the explanations in WT publications. I would be very surprised if you didn't know this already.

Also, almost NO Witnesses I have ever spoken to, with only a very few current exceptions have ever admitted going to the trouble to use an astronomy program to check it out for themselves. As simple as this is to do, and with all the importance so many Witnesses attach to chronology.

I do think it's an indication that there is a real FEAR of what they might find out. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it's FEAR because if we thought we might find out something that might bolster our teaching about 607 we'd be anxious to see for ourselves. We'd be thrilled to see if those claims by Furuli were really true: that the evidence is questionable. Instead, it's easier to have faith in someone who claims that the evidence for all of these dates is open to question. Yet they forget that that this includes 539 which somehow still remains "pivotal." 

Deep down, I'm starting to believe that NO ONE really looks at the evidence, and if anyone knows ANYTHING about the evidence they don't really believe the evidence is going to go our way and that's why we avoid it.

[George88]

36 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

On all these pages where history and dates are discussed, many people are very clearly mentioned with their first and last names and with the names of books, publications, and sources from which they are quoted.
Please, who are the people, by name and surname, who are WT scholars? Let them stand behind their claims with their full name and surname.

Srecko, if you're eager for that information, take the initiative to research it yourself. Let intelligence guide the discussion instead of baseless opinions. Everyone is putting in the effort to research, so get involved and contribute. Otherwise, bring intelligent input to this stagnant discussion. 

Carl Olof Jonsson encountered a significant issue. He posed leading questions to scholars, forcing them to assert that the Watchtower misinterpreted their research. However, the real problem did not lie with the Watchtower's understanding; rather, it stemmed from individuals manipulating the truth for hidden agendas. Consequently, this distortion of facts inevitably clouded the truth.

Please, let the argument continue uninterrupted, if you don't mind.

[George88]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

• 604 as Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, and
• 598 as Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, and
• 591 as Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, and
• 589 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year, and
• 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, and 
• 580 as Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year, and
• 579 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 26th year, and
• 578 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 27th year, and
• 577 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year, and
• 571 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, and

Which tablet mentions this sequence by word? I know the Babylonian Chronicles was cut off in 594 BC. Wasn't King Jeconiah released from prison in the 37th year of exile by Amel-Marduk?

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year .

Could you please specify which tablet you are referring to? Additionally, can you provide an image explicitly mentioning the 587 BC for the destruction of Jerusalem that a scribe specifically included in that tablet, rather than relying on other sources for confirmation, including calculating backward from 568 BC?

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Could you please specify which tablet you are referring to?

Sure. It's not just one tablet. Several different tablets independently validate different years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign with the moon, planets, and/or star positions we can now identify with the particular BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 

Rather than redo all the work again, as I get time I'll probably copy some of my old posts over to here which identify the tablets I used for the calculations.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Additionally, can you provide an image explicitly mentioning the 587 BC for the destruction of Jerusalem that a scribe specifically included in that tablet, rather than relying on other sources for confirmation

As I've pointed out before, there are no extant tablets that we know of explicitly mentioning Jerusalem's destruction in the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Rather, I am relying on another source of information: It's the Bible that speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem occurring in the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .
 (2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan . . . came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down . . .

If you believe the Bible, then you don't need an explicit mention on a Babylonian tablet. You merely need to believe this happened around the 18th and/or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. I believe the Bible's information is sufficient, and I'm happy with it. However, if you wish to also put a BCE date on those years, then you would just need evidence from recorded sun, moon, planet or star positions for ANY particular year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

If you can discover the BCE year for any ONE year of his reign this way, then you also know his 18th year and his 19th year.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

rather than relying on other sources for confirmation, including calculating backward from 568 BC?

It's curious to me that this is not the first time you have mentioned "counting backward from 568 BC." You should know that ZERO of the dates you listed are discovered by calculating backward from 568.

For readers who wonder what this question is all about it comes from the mistaken idea that a certain tablet called VAT 4956 is somehow all-important to those who argue for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE.

That particular tablet refers to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and even Rolf Furuli says that all the planetary references on this tablet definitely refer to 568/7 and no other year as NEB 37- which puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (NEB 18) in 587 BCE, which would destroy the WT claim of 607. Rolf Furuli is confident that the tablet contains information that MUST refer to 568 and NO OTHER possible year, which is what scholars have been saying all along.

He goes so far as to say that the correct information must have been spliced onto the incorrect information and that someone might have forged parts of it, but not all of it, or faked some of the markings on it, or even potentially used saws and sanders to create it -- all things that are obviously impossible when you look at it.

 But he also (inexplicably) claims that the LUNAR positions on that tablet refer to a different year, 20 years later, in support of the WT Chronology. Furuli spent so much time on this ridiculous SPLIT theory that it makes VAT 4956 seem more important than it is. He attempts to create confusion over the LUNAR positions (and makes embarrassingly amateur errors in doing so.) But no one seems to remember that he could NOT create any confusion about the PLANETARY positions. He admits that the planetary positions ultimately support 587/586 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, invalidating the WT claim. 

All this craziness about 568 can make some less-informed Witnesses believe that this particular tablet must be so important that those who still support 586 for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year must have used this "NEB 37" tablet and simply counted backwards to "NEB 19".

Those who think that way probably don't realize that you can actually just toss out this particular tablet VAT 4956 that Furuli focused on, and still find that other independent evidence supports ALL those other years mentioned in the list. Counting backward from 568 was not done for ANY of them. 

[Pudgy]

With all the effort spent here and everywhere else to analyze these dates, and get it right … the point I have missed is “WHY?”.

I think my experiences with “1975” destroyed my faith in reliance on such things, but perhaps I missed something.

The logic and reasoning supporting “overlapping generations” was no help.

ADD is a two edged sword, I have learned.

Tens of thousands of people have been arguing for and against certain dates for at least a century.

WHY is this THAT IMPORTANT?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

WHY is this THAT IMPORTANT?

I think it's important to be able to see the fallacy of relying so much on secular chronology and pretending it's Bible chronology. It's important to see that it's a mistake for Christians to think they have pretentious insight to know about the "times and seasons." If we can see that our supposed Biblical chronology is actually a man-made idol -- a pseudo-chronology -- then we wouldn't keep using it as a means for "bragging rights" about having supposedly predicted something the Watchtower never actually predicted. We wouldn't keep using it as a way to brag about how our special insight into the "times and seasons" proves we have Jehovah's spirit and backing and have had it for over 100 to 150 years. 

For me, I think we need to shift our "bragging rights" away from having made Palestine-Zionist-Times-Rulership vs Gentile-Times-Rulership predictions in advance of 1914, and focus on our real Christian progress in terms of teaching and promoting conduct in response to Jehovah's love, the ransom, and the good news of the kingdom:

(2 Corinthians 1:12) . . .For the thing we boast of is this, our conscience bears witness that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but with God’s undeserved kindness. 

(2 Corinthians 10:3-5) . . .For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, . .

[Pudgy]

Thank you … my sentiments exactly.

That’s why I DON’T care, anymore about dates.

42 is all I need to know.

 

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's my point. Most of us (Witnesses) in my experience have never personally arrived at a conclusion about 539 except by simply READING the explanation in WT publications. In your case you also have a lot of books by current scholars on the subject but I think you've already admitted before that EVERY one of them puts the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar within a few months of 587 and 586 BCE. 

Correct, most if not all past and current reference books on Bible Chronology most support 586 BCE and 587 BCE as a contender for the Fall of Jerusalem.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And most Witnesses if you ask them will THINK that the explanation about 539 is somehow better and more direct than the ways in which the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are associated with BCE dates. 

Correct because 539 BC has universal acceptance as a date for the fall of Babylon and the WT explanation for its computation is both immediate and simple.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The reason I asked how you personally arrived at it was because I figured you might have checked it out for yourself and realized that more recently even the WT publications themselves now ADMIT that the method for figuring out CYRUS' regnal years are indirect and makes use of additional assumptions -- assumptions which are not necessary with much of the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years. 

Bible Chronology should be simple and easily understood and that is why WT Bible Chronology is more credible than secular NB Chronology as it has an inbuilt complexity that has caused innumerable problems as it is based on regnal years which is its focus. WT chronology is based more on events in Bible history than regnal years. Of course, the latter has its due place in the construction of any scheme of Chronology but it does create many assumptions which of course are part and parcel of any Chronology for have I not said that Chronology is about interpretation and methodology.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm sure you already know exactly what I'm talking about since you have read the explanations in WT publications. I would be very surprised if you didn't know this already.

Correct!

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, almost NO Witnesses I have ever spoken to, with only a very few current exceptions have ever admitted going to the trouble to use an astronomy program to check it out for themselves. As simple as this is to do, and with all the importance so many Witnesses attach to chronology.

Guilty as charged for even though I have such programs on my computer I have not used them because I do not know how to use such programs relying on others with some caution.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I do think it's an indication that there is a real FEAR of what they might find out. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it's FEAR because if we thought we might find out something that might bolster our teaching about 607 we'd be anxious to see for ourselves. We'd be thrilled to see if those claims by Furuli were really true: that the evidence is questionable. Instead, it's easier to have faith in someone who claims that the evidence for all of these dates is open to question. Yet they forget that that this includes 539 which somehow still remains "pivotal." 

I disagree that knowledge and use of such programs are not necessary for an understanding of Bible Chronology for a knowledge of history is far more important and in this regard, WT publications have served us very well. It is my opinion that the use of astro programs is best left to experts as these can become very problematic. I do not believe that we have cause to fear from such programs. Furuli's claims should be tested along with all other hypotheses so only time will tell but there remains sufficient biblical, secular and historical evidence to validate 607 BCE for the Fall.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Deep down, I'm starting to believe that NO ONE really looks at the evidence, and if anyone knows ANYTHING about the evidence they don't really believe the evidence is going to go our way and that's why we avoid it.

The challenge for those who support 586 or 587 BCE for the Fall is that there remains no single line of evidence that proves either of these two dates or conversely disproves 607 BCE only many pretensions that there are multiple lines of evidence such as that of COJ. The fact is that there is at least one line of evidence that proves 607 BCE and falsifies 586/587 BCE and that is the biblical-historical-theological fact of the Jewish Exile of 70 years reckoned from 607 BCE with the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return of the Jews in 537 BCE.

scholar JW

[George88]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sure. It's not just one tablet. Several different tablets independently validate different years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign with the moon, planets, and/or star positions we can now identify with the particular BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign

I requested an image displaying the tablets stating it, not you.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As I've pointed out before, there are no extant tablets that we know of explicitly mentioning Jerusalem's destruction in the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Rather, I am relying on another source of information: 

You created a chronological order from secular history, so why not substantiate it. I am still waiting for any present-day tablet suggesting the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, and you have been avoiding the question so far. No, you are merely trying to justify your statements.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's curious to me that this is not the first time you have mentioned "counting backward from 568 BC." You should know that ZERO of the dates you listed are discovered by calculating backward from 568.

You seem to be attempting to manipulate the situation through semantic manipulation, but I understand your intentions. Can you explain the assumption about the apostates in 568 BC, 19 years before 587 BC? The same reasoning applies to 606 BC and beyond. Before you delve into tactics, it's important to note that this isn't about time, but rather about the numerical sequence.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That particular tablet refers to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and even Rolf Furuli says that all the planetary references on this tablet definitely refer to 568/7 and no other year as NEB 37- which puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (NEB 18) in 587 BCE, which would destroy the WT claim of 607. Rolf Furuli is confident that the tablet contains information that MUST refer to 568 and NO OTHER possible year, which is what scholars have been saying all along.

Once more, you're trying to cloud the matter with contradictory statements. Do you support the idea of 568 BC or not? It's fascinating how apostates and scholars have been captivated by the tablet's mention of the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Their interest lies not in what I am saying, but in what this discovery reveals.

Dr. Wiseman acknowledges the other Nebuchadnezzar from 650 BC, despite altering some of his language in previous observations, as he has suddenly aligned with AK Grayson. AK Grayson's observations about Arrkadian word definitions were somewhat inaccurate, potentially due to incomplete writing or broken-off pieces. Consequently, this leaves room for assumptions and interpretations by the researcher.

 

 

[George88]

Here's an alternative to your absolute secular chronology with the observation of NEB-19. A thing to note for both of you who insist on confusing dates to mean whatever you want. People have also changed the language in scripture including the Watchtower. For example, in the King James Version of 2 Chronicles 36:9, the language was changed from 8 to 18. An automatic 10-year difference. Many question the age of Jeconiah as a boy King. Why? Is it farfetched to think there has never been a boy King in ancient times? Is it so, impossible to think, Jeconiah was an interim King (Co-Regent) while King Nebuchadnezzar decided who was to replace King Jehoiakim? When one looks at the birth of Jeconiah in 606/5 BC and subtracts 8 it equals 598/7 BC as indicated in Dr. Wiseman's Babylonian Chronicles.

Given our proximity to the year 605 BC when Nebuchadnezzar took over, by subtracting the 37th year of King Nebuchadnezzar's reign, we land on 568 BC, as indicated by the Astronomical tablet VAT-4956. This tablet also marks the birth of King Jeconiah and his release from prison by Babylonian King Amil-Marduk in the 37th year. (2 Kings 25:27-30) The same tablet from 568 BC serves this purpose, as it contradicts the previous belief that the chronicler was incorrect in stating that Jeconiah was 8 years old at the time.

No! Neither side is correctly addressing chronology with proper research. It would be wrong to keep speculating on assumptions that are not based on facts. It would be incorrect to assume all scribes' biblical or historical thought alike and were seeing the same thing verbatim.

Many things are being overlooked, just like how the non-scholar Carl Olof Jonsson overlooked facts almost 50 years ago. He was wrong then, and he continues to be wrong now. So, he is wrong along with those accepting NEB-19, 568 BC, and 587 BC. It would be incorrect in its current form.

Using VAT-4956 / BM 33041 to support the year 587 BC for the destruction of Jerusalem is a stretch. The tablet's mention of the 37th year does not necessarily correlate with this event, since it could have easily meant just the end of King Zedekiah's reign in 587/6 BC.