607 (page 12)

scholar

stevenyc

Right on, I agree with you and that is why I have staed long and loud on this board that chronology is about methodology and interpretation in order to construct a viable system of chronology.

The Bible as with secular documents uses a regnal based approach as their chronology in the Ancient World, the difficulty and challenge is to convert the data into our modern calender. Also the biblical data does not always agree with secular data and this the reason for the twenty year gap between the Bible and the Babylonians.

scholar JW

stevenyc

stevenyc
Right on, I agree with you and that is why I have staed long and loud on this board that chronology is about methodology and interpretation in order to construct a viable system of chronology.
The Bible as with secular documents uses a regnal based approach as their chronology in the Ancient World, the difficulty and challenge is to convert the data into our modern calender. Also the biblical data does not always agree with secular data and this the reason for the twenty year gap between the Bible and the Babylonians.
scholar JW

Yes scholar, it is difficult converting the data into our modern calender. This is why, if it was so important to know the date and time of Christs return, I'm sure Jehovah would have made it possible to correctly intemperate the many different outcomes and possibilities WITHOUT the use and 3rd party information. Ultimately you have to look for the drive behind the research. Ask yourself "What is the researchers motive in their path", "What do they get to gain from their results". A true researcher and scholar will only search for understanding, where ever his path takes him. When alteria motives are at work, the testimonies loose their credibility. steve

AuldSoul

For a joker on this board I certainly get your full attention...

Aye. I've heard he swats at the occasional mosquito and fly as well.

M.J.

Celebrated WT scholars have suggested the trek back to Judea from Babylon need only have four months. Advocates of the 538 BCE would have a journey of some days of hours in order for to have been completed within that year.

You didn't read AlanF's post then. If it was 538, there was at least 6 months between Cyrus' conquest and the return.

Lady Liberty

Scholar,

First of all, I would like to refresh your memory of just EXACTLY what the Kingdom Come Book, Appendix does say. It DOES list all the evidences why Secular history and Astronomical Data etc. support 586/587. Then it totally discredits all the reasons it just gave. But NEVER shows ANY evidence as to support 607! Believe me, I have spent over a year on this subject alone! I am VERY familiar with what it says.

Secondly, I would like to address this statement you made to me:

The scriptures in Daniel 1:1 tell us exactly when Daniel and his companions were p[resent in Babylon and that was in the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship which was 617 BCE and not the first year of Nebuchadenezzer's reign. So, you need to get the history right.

The problem with your explanation of Daniel, is that you stop at Daniel 1:1. How do you explain then Daniel 2:1???? Notice the Bible says in the SECOND year of the kingship of (who???) NEBUCHADNEZZAR!! So again...I ask you what is Daniel doing in Babylon with the other Royal Offspring, as well as the utensils from the house of Jehovah in Nebuchadnezzars 2nd reignal year?? And again I ask you, How do you explain Daniel 1:5 where it states that these Royal Offspring needed to be nourished for 3 YEARS, and at the END of these years they could stand before the King. Where were they Scholar?? They were in Babylon. You see, I DO have History right!! And as far as the Elders, your right they don't understand. Because when confronted with these scriptures I am asking you to explain, they have no clue! Furthermore, if the Society had a leg to stand on regading this issue, the would not need to sucumb to deciept when misquoting different authors that they are quoting, to seemingly support their 607 date. When in fact, when examined the references show just the opposite was said. I invite you to compare the Insight book topic Nebuchadnezzar in quoting a A.K. Grayson (who by the way is a expert in Babylonian and Assyrian Chronology) with the actual copy of his book. You will be most suprised, and if you are honest you will admit that the Society was deliberatly being decieptful!

Please see: Insight Vol.2 pg.480 to A.K. Graysons 1975 book Assyrian and Babylonian Chronology pg.100 Also, a interesting side note: According to a recently aired IMAX program on the Solar System, it stated that Babylonian Records are so accurate, that the Scientists today correct computer programs by them.

Lady Liberty

AuldSoul

Um, slight correction there, Lady Liberty...JW literature never mentions the Hillah Stele (Nabon No. 8) in any place, not even by casual indirect reference. They also do not refer to the Egibi documents by name so there can be independent verification of statement.

These two pieces are critical to determining the chronolgy of the region at the time under discussion. The fact that they spend quite a lot of time ripping apart Ptolemy's Canon when it is no longer the primary source for the list of Babylonian kings is egregiously contrary to scholarship of any variety. Contemporary documents now exist that place all the kings in the same order as Ptolemy's Canon and fix, even more accurately, their regnal years.

But "scholar" wants to argue against a source that is only considered a supportive source now. It is odd that he bases his entire argument on pre-1981 data simply because the WT scholars choose to do so.

That is like continuing to perform "Duck and Cover" drills 25 years after the Cuban missile crisis.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

Lady Liberty

Dear AuldSoul,

Thank you for the correction! I continue to learn more on this subject every day! I just cannot understand how anyone could read the Appendix and see any "proof" of 607! Even more amazing to me is how when cornered by the scriptures that all support 586/587, 99% of JWs say the same thing, "But what does it matter?" Anyway, thanks again for pointing to even MORE evidence that the Society dare not touch!

Sincerely,

Lady Liberty

toreador

Scholar wrote:

The Bible as with secular documents uses a regnal based approach as their chronology in the Ancient World, the difficulty and challenge is to convert the data into our modern calender. Also the biblical data does not always agree with secular data and this the reason for the twenty year gap between the Bible and the Babylonians.
scholar JW

Right and that is why God does not expect us to put secular and biblical history together to try to come up with an end time prophecy. It would be ridiculous.

Tor

AuldSoul

My main confusion comes in due to scholar's inference that even an armchair historian would take issue with using 555 BC as an Absolute Date.

The Hillah Stele (Nabon No. 8) notes an order to repair a temple in Harran, states that the order is going out in the first year of Nabonidus, and provides an astronomical observation detailed enough to pinpoint a five day period in the year 555 BC during which the observation could have been made. scholar should have no problem with a document that places Nabonidus' first regnal year in 555 BC, that is the same year given by WT scholars.

I am not sure what his contention is with data from the Hillah Stele, but I imagine it may be that he does not want to accept any Absolute Date that does not originate from counting backwards from 539 BC.

scholar, 539 BC is an Absolute Date only because (1) 555 BC is an Absolute Date, (2) it is the Absolute Date of Nabonidus' first regnal year, and (3) we know the regnal year of Nabonidus in which Babylon fell. I have invited you to establish 539 BC as an Absolute Date by some other means, you have thus far declined to establish the date by any means other than unfounded declaration by WT scholars and Theile. It wasn't arrived at by divine revelation, scholar. Not even WT scholars claim that.

How did 539 BC become set as an Absolute Date? Please, demonstrate your knowledge of the subject, demonstrate your intellectual superiority.

AuldSoul

scholar

stevenyc

Right on. For that reason Jehovah has provided sufficient information in His Word to enable sincere seekers of Truth to know the timing of the Lord's Return and its full significance. Accurate Bible chronology plays an important role in fulfilling this purpose. In this respect there is no need for third party information such as a heavy reliance on secular materials to the exclusion of Bible based evidence.

scholar JW

607

Share this