by AuldSoul 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Dear Auldsoul...
Seems as though the cat has their tongue!! I just wanted to say, I appreciate how hard all of you..Leolia, Alan.and others.. work to show the facts. Whenever Scholar, thirdwittness.. haven't any answers, they just ignore the question. But by doing so, they show all who are lurking they cannot bring all the facts into harmony. Anyway.. thanks for all your hard work you put into defending the "truth"!
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
Hey AuldSoul,
I think the article thirdwitness was referring to was in the Feb 1 1969 WT (pg.89 in the bound volume). I had to search for paragraphs with Nabonidus + mother + grandmother to find it. Like you said, if you did the search based on the term Harran Stele or the other variants you listed, you get squat. Makes us rightly question the intellectual honesty of their scholarship when they try to play it both ways, trying to cover up damaging material and also feigning being open about the material. I'll post the relevant material below as a ..helpful ...gesture to thirdwitness.
***
w69 2/1 p. 89 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? ***What is thought to be a memorial tablet written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological data for this period, but many portions of the text have been damaged, leaving much to the ingenuity and conjecture of historians. The reader can appreciate how fragmentary the text is by ignoring the bracketed material in the following translation of one section of this memorial—material that represents modern attempts at restoring the missing, damaged or illegible portions:.
"[During the time from Ashurbanipal], the king of Assyria, [in] whose [rule] I was born—(to wit): [21 years] under Ashurbanipal, [4 years under Ashur]etillu-ilani, his son, [21 years under Nabopola]ssar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, [2 years under Ewil-Merodach], 4 years under Neriglissar, [in summa 95 yea]rs, [the god was away] till Sin, the king of the gods, [remembered the temple] . . . of his [great] godhead, his clouded face [shone up], [and he listened] to my prayers, [forgot] the angry command [which he had given, and decided to return t]o the temple é-hul-hul, the temple, [the mansion,] his heart’s delight. [With regard to his impending return to] the [temp]le, Sin, the king of [the gods, said (to me)]: ‘Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son [of my womb] [shall] make [me] en[ter/sit down (again)] in (to) the temple é-hul-hul!’ I care[fully] obeyed the orders which [Sin], the king of the gods, had pronounced (and therefore) I did see myself (how) Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the offspring of my womb, reinstalled completely the forgotten rites of Sin, . . . "
Farther along in the text Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) is represented as crediting Sin with granting her long life "from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 6th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son of my womb, (that is) for 104 happy years, . . . "—Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312.
From this very incomplete inscription it can be seen that the only figures actually given are the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and 4 years of Neriglissar’s reign. As to this latter monarch, the text does not necessarily limit his reign to four years; rather it tells of something that happened in his fourth year. How far within the reign of Ashurbanipal the life of Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) began is not stated, so that we are left in the dark as to the commencement and the close of the "104 happy years." Nor is there any information as to the lengths of the reigns of Ashur-etillu-ilani, Nabopolassar and Evil-merodach. And there is no mention of Labashi-Marduk, now generally acknowledged by historians as reigning between Neriglissar and Nabonidus.
It will be noted, too, that the conjectured numbers of years, inserted by modern historians on the basis of Ptolemy’s canon, when added to the "6th year of Nabonidus," give a total of 100 or 101 years, and not the 104 years mentioned in the text itself. So this fragmentary record provides scant information for the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period.
Thanks for the search, Midget-Sasquatch! It still doesn't point out any inconsistencies, which was thirdwitness' contention. And it ignores the duplicate copy of the monument (dated to the same time) found later which filled in many of the "blanks" the WTS mentioned.
Either way, the point I referenced (the event occurring in the 16th year of Nabopolassar) is not a "blank" on either copy and this was the ONLY point I referenced from the piece.
This point verifies that 54 years prior to Nabonidus' 1st regnal year (555 BC) (per the Hillah Stele) was Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year (per the Adda-Guppi Stele). Giving us 609 BC as a starting point, being Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year. The WTS accepts (without argument) the terminus of the Neo-Babylonian period as 539 BC.
From this point in the logic forward, simple math tells us that our fixed time frame within which all Neo-Babylonian kings and their reigns MUST fit can be no greater than 71 years between Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year and the fall of the Babylonian empire. 43 of those years are Nebuchadnezzar's (per the WTS examination of the Adda-Guppi Stele). At least 4 belong to Neriglissar (per the WTS examination of the Adda-Guppi Stele). 17 years, from 555 BC to 539 BC belongs to Nabonidus (per the Hillah Stele and every available record of Babylon's fall). Nabopolassar admittedly had no more than 21 years which would fiercely throw off the WTS chronology, so 21-16 = 5 years of the 71 that belonged to Nabopolassar.
What does that total? 43 + 5 + 17 + 4 = 69 years. Which leaves only 2 years unaccounted for. How many years does secular history assign to Evil-Merodach? 2 years. How many are distributed to Labashi-Marduk? 0 years. There is no 20 year gap, all 71 years allowed by the reasoning on the first page of this thread are perfectly accounted for within two or three contemporary Neo-Babylonian artifacts.
There is an extra 20 years crammed into WTS chronology that history says could NOT POSSIBLY have happened, for which 20 years the WTS cannot account, and about which 20 years they know they are playing falsely with available secular data. I really don't see how the reasoning can be logically assaulted. But I am happy to take on anyone who believes it can.
Another thing I noted from the article you found, Midget-Sasquatch, is that once again, the WTS deceptively appeals to Ptolemy's Canon as a secular proof text supposedly superior in evidenciary weight to contemporary sources. This is patently untrue. To insinuate this as truth is intentionally deceptive, they know better.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Another outright deception from the quote Midget-Sasquatch found:
From the dates assigned by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society for the reign of Nabonidus, we can count backward 104 years from his 6th regnal year and arrive at the year of birth for Adda-Guppi.
As has already been demonstrated, the years of her life from the 16th regnal year of Nabopolassar down to her 104th year are accounted for. To insert 20 extra years into this woman's life, between the 16th year of Nabopolassar and the 6th regnal year of Nabonidus (which is where the Watchtower Society places the extra 20 years) would equate to aging her to 124 years of age by Nabonidus' 6th regnal year.
Likely? For an Assyrian woman born in the 7th Century BC? No, not really even possible. Especially when she specified her age for us in the 6th regnal year of her son.
Every which way they turn, the Governing Body digs their hole deeper. Fortunately, their adherents prefer darkness (and even call it "light") and to revel in their "enlightened" moldy old doctrines.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
bttt
Oh dear - does this mean no 607 and so no 1914 and so no FDS ?
bttt
Oh dear - does this mean no 607 and so no 1914 and so no FDS ?
Egads! Say it isn't so! Excellent critique/analysis of the WT's claims AuldSoul.
Here it sits, without response from those who can but parrot their Gods in Brooklyn. Tsk.
AuldSoul
No thirdwhitless or scholar pretendus??? Why aren't they here proving you wrong?
