Dear Scholar,
sorry but it took a long time to reply as I am working on several projects. I hope you are still following the board and will read this post despite KM9/07 ;-)
I tried to obtain Furuli’s books through eisenbrauns but both volumes are out of stock (I guess volume 2 is not published yet).
Anyway, through a friend I received copies of the pages you had mentioned in this thread. As a matter of fact they do not correspond to what I had asked you. I had wished to receive chronology tables from different scholars disagreeing among themselves on the Neo-Babylonian timelines.
Furuli in that specific chapter borrows from Sack that is listing all the historical sources that mention Amel-Marduk.
It is not a list of scholars with different chronologies and I seriously doubt you would find such a list. I haven’t come across it so far and believe me, I am consulting all possible sources. There are of course discussions and debates on the details but not on the main timeline.
Furuli fails to mention (maybe he does it in other parts of the book) that Sack upholds the generally accepted chronology. He also fails to mention that there are explanation for the discrepancies between the historical sources, which are given by Sack (as there are discrepancies between ancient Bible manuscripts, for example).
In the typical WT style (permit me to say that it is not a scholarly approach), Furuli focuses on the discrepancies to try to undermine the whole chronology forgetting that the general picture is quite clear. It is very interesting the efforts he puts in questioning Berossus, while he does not put any effort at all in questioning the later sources and why they differ from Berossus. Would you for example accept whatever is in the Septuagint without checking what does the Masoretic text say and try to understand why there are discrepancies?
With Furulis’ approach you can virtually support any theory, it is sufficient to focus just on what interests you and discard all the rest.
In all honesty Scholar, the more I dig into it there more I see that the WT chronology does not have legs to even stand.
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
jeanV
-
AWAKE&WATCHING
Just marking thread for later.
-
jeanV
I guess scholar is being obedient to KM9/07 QB
-
JCanon
The main point here is that the period of servitude started many years before the destruction of Jerusalem in the reign of Zedekiah. That is inconsistent with the Society's interpretation. Another inconsistency is the statement that dates the end of the 70 years when God "punishes the king of Babylon and his nation". That could only fit the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, not the situation two years later (as the Society has the 70 years running out in 537 BC).
Interesting viewpoint, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. So I won't contradict this interpretation but here are at least two things that others of us would need to resolve to accept this interpertation.
1. For however many interpretations of the 70 years of Jeremiah there are, Josephus also has his own interpertation. Josephus would be one who represented how the Jews themselves applied and interpreted the 70 years. Certainly, if the above interpretation was the correct one, one would think the Jews would have reflected this view in their secular writings. However, that is not the case. In Antiquities 11.1.1 the seventery years of "servitude" associated with Jeremiah's prophecy, is applied to the last deportation, the time when the last "poor ones" were "removed out of the land." Here is that reference:
Ant. 11.1.1 "IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiahthe prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.
Okay. The last deportation was in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 52:30). Now this is what we do when we have two different interpreatations of the 70 years. We simply compare them both to the Bible. It is possible at this point, that both of them can fulfill Jeremiah's prophecy if that prophecy is considered nonspecific or vaguely or loosely expressed; the more loosely expressed the more potential fulfillments. But for all the varying interpretations, JOSEPH, who is a JEWISH historian does refer to Jeremiah's specific 70-year prophecy regarding "servitude" (vs "desolation" here) and he is applying it to the poor people who were last deported in year 23. It was when the last official Jews were deported to Babylon that they were considered to have been completely "removed out of their own land." So you have a whole separate historical and Biblical 70-year interpretation to deal with here, completely independent of any other 70-year interpretation. However, Josephus is significant because he is a secular source of Jewish history and it would relevant how traditional history interpreted their own history and thus their own words. So while we as outsiders and late scholars trying to interpret ancient Jewish meaning might come up with a wide range of plausibles, what the Jews themselves take from this is quite relevant as far as limiting some of the broadness in application; in fact, some might presume that this very specific application would automatically preempt any other interpretation.
However, from a purely academic point of view, before we compare the 509-539 BCE opinion, we would try and see if the 70-year scenario as expressed by Josephus in regard to the last deportation until the release of the Jews is Biblically viable, or how it might be Biblically viable or otherwise find contradiction.
So at the beginning of the day, it really doesn't matter that you can apply by reasonable application of historical coincidence a 70-year period relating to other events than the last deportation. The question is whether or not Josephus' 70 years is compatible with the Bible or not. In other words, Josephus' reference creates an entirely different conversation about the 70 years in its own private room here. At this entry point, it does not necessarily or automatically or need to disqualify or contradict the above interpretation. But, again, of course, what the Jews themselves thought in regarding their own history is always going to be relevant.
2. The second problem for some of us, related to Josephus and 2 Chronicles that talks about seventy years of sabbath rest for the land is the clear chronological contradiction between the Bible and the NB records. That is, if you establish a 70-year period from year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus, then the actual relative chronology of the NB is 26 years longer and the current timeline. That simply means either the Jews or the Babylonians revised their chronology. At this point we can confirm by the VAT4956 that it was the Babylonian chronology that was revised by the Persians in order to expand the Persian Period. Besides confirming revisionism of astronomical texts, the VAT4956 hides the original chronology for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511 BCE. So 511 BCE for the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar would be the critical secular reference we would now use to test Jeremiah's 70-year application in regard to the 1st of Cyrus as far as RELATIVE chronology goes. But interestingly the 511 BCE also affects ABSOLUTE dating.
In the meantime, just in passing, the critical Babylonian records, which are first the Babylonian Chronicle, the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Cyrus Cylinder all are known to be "copies" (and thus revisions) coming out of the late Persian Period. The Babylonian Chronicle itself records when it was copied in year 22 of Darius (a Persian king).
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/cyrusnabcomp.JPG (Cuneiform writing comparison, Cyrus-Nabonidus cylinders)
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/cyrusnabcomp.JPG (Babylonian Chronicle writing style)
SO, before we can now look at the 509-539 BCE theory, you have to deal with whether or not the Persians indeed revised the timeline; which we have proof that they did, in which case the "relative chronology" of those 70 years would need to be coordinated with the corrected timeline. Some don't won't to bother going there, but it is of note that the 509-539 BCE timeline is relevant to the current timeline which some, as myself consider both revised and non-Biblical. Josephus' chronology of the 70 years, however, that begin in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar and end in the 1st of Cyrus is possible and correct based upon the "corrected" chronology and timeline.
So that's the other problem with the 509-539 BCE application. It only works with the popular NB records which would be the "last" NB records and if there were revisions, obviously, the revised records. In the meantime, since 1947 and the return of the Jews to Palestine that year, that date can be used to retrocalculate every major Biblical event, including the 1st of Cyrus, the Exodus, etc.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/jcovwk1996G.GIF (Jewish Covenant Week)
So some of us Biblical chronologists sort of never really get out of the room dealing with the Josephus reference and the alternative Biblical timeline necessary to reflect and support the 70-year period beginning with the last deportation to ever really address the 509-539 BCE chronology. We're aware it's there and glad it works out for those who believe in it, but it never really gets to come across our table. So, therefore, my rebuttal argument would simply be that you have more than one choice here in working out the 70 years, depending upon various takes on the actual NB and Persian timeline issues themselves. But in passing, the 509-539 BCE theory hangs entirely upon whether or not the current popular timeline can be maintained in the face of revisionist challenges. Which it cannot, obviously.
I wrote a study research guide for anyone if they wish to consider what is now in place that supports/confirms the corrected timeline based upon astronomical coordination. It supports the 1st of Cyrus actually occurring in 455 BCE, which is easily coordinated with the Bible's 70 weeks prophecy that begins "when the word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem" and so this corrected timeline is perfectly compatible with the Bible as well as the 1947 return of the Jews.
Thus conclusions and concepts about the 70 years is complex and ultimately entirely based on other contingencies, including which NB timeline you decide to use. Thus the only truly releveant point is you have more than one choice that might work depending upon your other conclusions.
Personally, I follow Martin Anstey, who in his 1913 "Romance of Bible Chronology" presumed that the Persian Period was 82 years too long when compared with strict Biblical chronology where the 1st of Cyrus fulfills the 70 weeks prophecy. I investigated this further myself with all the new archaeological and astronomical text evidence and was able to comfortably remove the extra 82 years from the timeline to my own satisfaction and thus allow the infinitely better application of the 70 weeks prophecy to when the Jews first began to rebuild in the 1st of Cyrus compared to the awkward 52-year wall repairs Nehemiah did in the 20th of Artaxerxes.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
PERSPECTIVE CONTEXT: What you have to realize once you introduce Josephus' interpretation that 70 years began with the last deportation and ended in the 1st of Cyrus, that whether or not that fits the Biblical reference, you have an alternative secular reference in conflict with the NB timeline. Again, this interpretation of the 70 years requires a 26-year longer NB Period, which drawns into question NB text revisionism, which becomes an immediately viable consideration once you find out the surviving "Babylonian" texts as noted above were late Persian Period documents, not original ones, and that alone, in the absence of the originals is suspect for revisionism. So the 70-year discussion game that is played by the "scholars" with newcomers and inquirers is HOW MUCH YOU DON'T KNOW. If you're not well informed then lots of theories can work out. Once you look at ALL the issues, then a definitive explanation is not so obvious and you have several options to choose from. Then it will be up to you to decide which one works best for you. But know that the Jews have their own specific concept of precisely when Jeremiah's 70 years is applied, relevant to the last deportation.
JC
-
freydi
Of course the wt chronology is flawed as are many of their other speculations. To answer the question though, one has to begin with disproving Biblical records starting with Adam, rather than relying on unreliable secular history that is the result of many false speculations, adjustment of facts, and bags of crumbling rocks. There appears to be a copyist 100 year flaw at 1Kings 6:1. As for the wt chronology, it's their theology that's wrong which makes their chronology wrong.
-
JCanon
Hello cultswatter:
Historians agree that Jerusalem was invaded by Babylon in 586/587BCE.
Please note this is only generally true and is irrelevant after the discovery of the 511 BCE dating in the VAT4956. Thus two critical challenges before we get to the 70-year issue affect this for chronologists and Bible scholars:
1. The 70 weeks prophecy that some clearly understand must be fulfilled by Cyrus, linking Jesus' baptism in 29 CE to 455 BCE. This is a non-negotiable point for some and thus immediately the Bible would be seen in contradiction with the current NB timeline that would date the Jews return in 537 BCE. This was focussed on Martin Anstey in his 1913 "Romance of Bible Chronology" where he surmised an 82-year discrepancy between Persian dates and the Bible for the 1st of Cyrus. So before you even get to 70-year issues, you have to address whether or not the Bible challenges and contradicts the current timeline.
2. The recent advent of astronomy programs that uses computers to quickly calculate ancient astronomy events has led to a second look at some of the ancient astronomical texts relating to the NB Period. Note that the two most significant texts are the VAT4956 and the Strm. Kambyses 400. For instance, when Professor Robert Newton completely dismissed Ptolemy's amalest (i.e."Ptolemy's canon") in his Crimes Against Claudius Ptolemy where he calls Ptolemy "the most successful fraud in the history of science" redeems as credible the NB timeline by two critical texts outside Ptolemy's canon. Those two critical NB text references were the VAT4956 and the SK400. So from the very beginning these two texts become critical references in the discussion. Adding more leverage is the fact that out of all the astronomical texts that the WTS dismisses (i.e. the VAT4956, the assyrian eponym eclipse dated to 763 BCE, etc.) it does sport the SK400 as a good reference for dating the return of the Jews from Babylon in 537 BCE. However, this was before both texts were critically recharted using modern astronomy programs. What was discovered was that the "errors" already noted in the text, were not really "errors" at all, but pointed to other dates. The problem there is, that both of them point to the same dating for the rule of Nebuchadnezzar! So the presumption of "coincidence" is not an option. Essentially, the cryptic dating match in the SK400 for two eclipses occurring the same year that are an error for 523 BCE for "year 7" of Kambyses point to a "year 7" scenario in 541 BCE. Two errors in the VAT4956 in lines 3 and 14, again "errors" for 568 BCE, are precise matches for 511 BCE, year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. Of course, if this actually represents the original year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, which clearly it would in a double-dated text like this, then year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar would fall in 541 BCE, the "year 7" scneario of the SK400. So at this point, anyone following Martin Anstey or anyone else needing a confirmation for 455 BCE as the 1st of Cyrus has it. It's indisputable. It remains an option regardless of whether there is a conensus on it or not. It at some point, academically, thus has already redated and corrected the NB Period. The only argument standing in the way is where to put the extra 82 years from the expanded Persian Period. Well, that has been done as well, which was not that difficult once you see where the weaknesses are.
Basically and quite quickly, the Bible itself limits the rule of Darius I to just 6 years and establishes the "accession year" of Artaxerxes I the same 6th year via Ezra 6:14,15. That dismisses 30 years right off the bat. Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, obviously, so that alleviates another 21 years. So really you only have to use secular research to remove another 31 years, which obviously show up in the reign of the longest ruling king, Artaxexes II, who ruled 47 years. But his physician and Greek historian Ktesias claims he served him for 17 years. This allows us to remove 30 years from the reign of Artaxerxes II and reduce it to just 17 years. That leaves just 1 year which we convert during the reign of Kambyses from a sole-rule to a co-rule year. So we're done. Greek chronology timeline repercussions when we do this? How about this. When the Peloponnesian War broke out, Plato was consulted to help solve a famous math problem. He delegated that prolem to Archytas who resolved the problem. So it seems well established historically Plato's connection with this famous problem. Turns out Plato was born in 428 BCE and the current dating for that war begins in 431 BCE, 3 years before he was born! Thus, when the Greek timeline is reduced by the corrected timeline, the impact on this Greek historical scenario is that instead of Plato not having been born yet when he was consulted on this problem, he's 25 years of age when he's consulted. So YES, reducing the Greco-Persian Period does have an impact on the Greek timeline events for sure. But you see where this is going. It corrects the old disruptions, it doesn't create new ones.
So again, it's how informed you want to be. How much you want to deal with reality or go along with the gullible crowd. How much faith you have in the Bible's own history and timeline and prophecies. Depending on when you get off that ladder of higher standards will determine what options you have as far as any Biblical historical issue. But if you hang in there for critical Biblical timeline applications and the latest in astronomical research then the NB Period will self-correct and align with the Bible's dating and you'll be happy.
The 587 BCE fall of Jerusalem is part of the revised chronology and thus is a fake date, at least for some of us who have researched this.
My prediction, especially since we have a new RC14 dating method that now coordinates with the lower Bible timeline (455 BCE chronology) that the scholars will eventually get around to seeing the revisions as apparent and unavoiable, then 455 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus willl gain in popularlity. Already followers of Anstey and preterist ignore the current timeline and date the 1st of Cyrus around 455 BCE. The Jews have always claimed the Persian Period was too long and had too many kings, and JWs, except for the pivotal date of "539 BCE" basically has contradicted every other historical date, they claim based on the Bible as well, with their own timeline.
So there are lots of opinions out there. Lots of theories. But at the end of the day the VAT4956 is a critical reference to the current 587 BCE timeline, which is completely dismissed as a fraudulent document just by the presence of double-dating of any kind. The fact that the 511 BCE dating aligns with the 455 BCE chronology, though, essentially explains it all. There is just no way an adequately "informed" person can relate to the 587 BCE dating in any way outside of hefty laughter. Ignoring revisionists theoris isn't the same as dismissing them, however, unfortuantely.
Best rgards.
JC
Note, out of context this might mean nothing. But it merely demonstrates the two "errors" in the VAT4956 describe specific lunar positions for 511 BCE. 511 BCE is the Biblical year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar when 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus. The chart simply demonstrates the astronomical reference. The significance of the matching time is relevant to location, that is, simply that the same location is used for both references, showing the consistency of the observation from a specific location and how it would be measured by the Babylonians. Once the double-dating in the text is established as "intentional" and not spontaneous or coincidental then the cryptic dating is presumed to be the original dating in a revised chronology and thus the 511 BCE reference in the VAT4956 is considered a more critical challenge from a secular source of the Bible's chronology than the 587 BCE, which the double-dating in the VAT4956 dismisses as revised. Thus the 587 BCE date is no longer on the table. When 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar is applied to the relative Bible timeline then 455 BCE gets confirmed as the 1st of Cyrus. That is, when 511 BCE dates year 37, the last deportation in year 23 falls in 525 BCE. Per Josephus and the Jews this is when the 70 years began and ended in teh 1st of Cyrus. 70 years after 525 BCE falls in 455 BCE. So without even opening the Bible based upon a comparison of the VAT4956 and Josephus you end up with 455 BCE as the 1st of Cyrus. 455 BCE is the critically understood and obvious date that begins the 70 weeks prophecy. So basically we're done. Again, the only thing left would be the hard work of reducing the Persian Period by 82 years but that turns out an easy task and that has likewise been already researched. So 587 BCE is out of touch and out of date in every way at this point. It's just a joke date. Whenever I hear 587 BCE it's hard for me not to break out in a panic laughter.... It's a propagandist, anti-Christian, anti-Biblical date of the anti-Biblical secular historians. It's not that hard to figure out why there is a discrepancy (I did it!), it's just that it's not that "politically correct", likely because it is clear the Jews never lost track of the original timeline but apparently have not been that straightforward with Christians on sharing that information. It opens up a whole can of worms as to who knew when and who helped to suppress this information, with the Pope even involved. Sooo, for those who have worked out their personal scenarios of the 70 years while ignoring all the other issues invovled is irresponsible at this point and certainly not of serious concern.
JC
-
freydi
Thanks for that post JC. During the last days the Bible warns of strong delusions that would deceive even the elect. Matt 24:24. The 587 date I believe to be one of them. Br Russell was right. The apostate wt's light is dark and getting darker, even though they don't subscribe to 587. But if that 480 years in 1Kings 6 should be 580, then 2513(the period from Adam to the Exodus) plus 580 + 429(513-84 years already into the period of the Kings) + 606 + 1872 = 6000 years. Another confirmation that 587 is a red herring!
-
freydi
Like I said, it's their theology that's flawed.
A Bethelite's Viewpoint On The Recent Organization Changes.
http://governingbodyletters.blogspot.com...ecent.html
To me the most obvious reason has nothing to do with control, or money. It has everything to do with the serious shortage of qualified brothers who can (or who are willing to) be used. I have been involved in the organization for 40 yrs and I have never seen the level of apathy and disillusionment among those serving in some capacity in this organization. There are three main reasons for this: 1) burnout, 2) lack of urgency/belief that the GT or armageddon is near, and 3) steady erosion of faith in the organization.
Burnout is rampant within the ranks of the servant bodies worldwide as fewer and fewer brothers are willing to serve and make the extraordinary sacrifices asked of them by the organization. Elders and servants are "stepping down" at an unprecedented rate. Finding a willing replacement has become next to impossible leaving those few loyal brothers completely overwhelmed as they struggle to handle all the congregation responsibilities which, of course, include conducting book studies and giving public talks. This has been a growing trend within the organization for some time, but it has all of the sudden become especially pronounced and is nearing crisis proportions.
The other issue is that more and more of those serving are realizing that the Armageddon may not be as close as it was once thought and any sense of urgency has waned considerably. The "generation" definition change in 1995 was the first real "alert" that something was amiss. Then you add in that the number of memorial partakers has actually increased (9,105 in 2007 compared to 9,081 in 1984), plus the recent change in the understanding of the "sealing" of the annointed (thought to have been completed in the 1930's, but apparently is not yet completed). What has happened is that in the minds of many serving, the "end" is suddenly a ways off in the distance somewhere. Less and less of those serving believe that it will happen in their lifetime and they had better do something to prepare themselves for a longer stay in this system.
Finally, more and more of those serving are wising up to the cultish ways of organization and they are no longer just accepting things and "waiting on Jehovah." In the past, the organization could successfully overcome any credibility issues due to failed prophesies or waffeling doctrines by writing a WT article or Question from Readers and it was just accepted. There was no discussion, no forum to question or examine what was printed, and of course, who had the time or the resources anyway. This is not the case now, however. The internet has changed everything. Anything about the organization can and is being discussed and not just anonymously online. These discussions are being carried back to the congregations, in field service car groups, and as a result the organization has (and continues to suffer) a tremendous loss of credibility among even those serving. The pedophile cover up and the scandalous UN association is becoming more widely known everyday. The legal and money problems of the WTBS, the blood issue, disfellowshipping, and other non-scriptural mandates of the organization are being questioned and being discussed.
The powers-that-be know that without willing elders & servants this organization is truly doomed. So, don't read into the "high price of gas" or the "we know that families are struggling and we want to add no further burden" horsesh*t explaination for these changes. And it ain't about control or money per se. Make no mistake, it's all about trying to stop the mass exodus of servants who are either burnout, disillusioned, and/or have lost the faith. Why do you think they have invited all the elders to the "pump me up" sessions in Patterson?
Expect more changes to come and soon. This is just the beginning - trust me. -
mkr32208
Yeah well when JC starts weighing in it's time for all sane people to jump ship...
-
freydi
There has always been an open conspiracy to label people who possess truth.
"In reality, an "apostate" is just a former member of the Watchtower religion, one who now disagrees with the teachings of the Watchtower Society. While I had pondered many times why these persons were to be feared and hated so, why they warranted such slander on the part of the Society, how their "lies" and "poison" could be so potent as to deceive us who had "the truth", I now realized the simple answer. The so-called apostates were telling the truth! They were telling the truth, and in this they had the power to bring down the entire house of cards that is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society......Is Watchtower "truth" so weak that it can not stand up to a lie? Remind yourself that light has naught to fear from darkness; rather, it is the darkness that must flee the light."
http://www.geocities.com/thewatchtowerstudy/purpose.htm
