The simplest explanation of 607 BCE

by Doug Mason 116 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Dansk

Marjorie's post, contd.........
From WT literature, we have the kings of Babylon and the length of their reigns:Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
Neriglissar -- 4 years
Labashi-Marduk -- assassinated within 9 months
Nabonidus -- 17 years
This agrees with the thousands of cuneiform tablets which show:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
Neriglissar -- 4 years
Labashi-Marduk -- 3 months
Nabonidus -- 17 years
Here are quotations from WT literature showing the lengths of each king's reign:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years
*** w00 5/15 p. 12 Pay Attention to God's Prophetic Word for Our Day ***
Learning that his father, Nabopolassar, had died, this young man named Nebuchadnezzar took the throne in 624 B.C.E. During his 43-year reign...
*** w86 11/1 p. 5 A Dream Reveals How Late It Is ***
Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years (624-581 B.C.E.), this is a reasonable conclusion.
*** dp chap. 7 p. 99 Four Words That Changed the World ***
Proud King Nebuchadnezzar's 43-year reign in Babylon ended with his death in 582 B.C.E.
*** dp chap. 4 pp. 50-51 The Rise and Fall of an Immense Image ***
9 Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 43 years, headed a dynasty that ruled over the Babylonian Empire. It included his son-in-law Nabonidus and his oldest son, Evil-merodach. That dynasty continued for 43 more years, until the death of Nabonidus' son Belshazzar, in 539 B.C.E
*** it-1 pp. 238-239 Babylon ***
Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk.
Evil-Merodach --- 2 years
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year
*** kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy's Canon.
Neriglissar -- 4 years
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law
Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Labashi-Marduk -- less than a year
***dx30-85 Labashi-Marduk ***
LABASHI-MARDUK
king of Babylon: w65 29; bf 183-4
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Nabonidus -- 17 years
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
NABONIDUS
(Nab•o•ni´dus) [from Babylonian meaning "Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted"].
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.).
*** w68 8/15 p. 491 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***
17 Other investigators say this: "The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17* (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles distant."-Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 13.
Footnote
"VII/14/17": The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus' reign.
So there you have it.
If you start with the WTS's own date of 539 for the fall of Babylon and count backwards through the Kings of Babylon for each year of their reigns, you arrive at 586/587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year, when he destroyed Jerusalem.
I think the key quotation is the one from WT 1965 1/1 p. 29 which shows Evil-merodach reigned two years, followed by Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, followed by Labashi-Marduk, who reigned less than 9 months, followed by Nabonidus.
This is an important quotation because it shows the succession of the kings, with no room for an extra king in between, and it also agrees with the conventional chronology's regnal lengths.
Using the WTS's own data for the neo-Babylonian kings and the lengths of their reigns, there is NO ROOM for an extra king or for an extra 20 years.
If you start at 539, the WTS's own date, and count backward according to their own data regarding each king and his reign, you will arrive at 586/587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year, when he destroyed Jerusalem.
I like this approach because it requires no specialized knowledge.
Marjorie Alley
Gill

'Watchtower's Celebrated Scholars!!!' ..........
Now we know that 'Scholar' is just kidding!!!
Mary

scholar said: Celebrated WT scholars
fjtoth
Doug Mason

JW Scholar (if that expression is not an oxymoron),

So you have an MA in “Studies of Religion”. Well done.

It would appear that the course in religion did not provide a comprehensive study of archaeology and anthropology. I would be interested in an outline of the course and information about the institution where you studied, so could I please have the www address where I can get that information. Is it a reputable and recognized institution?

Does your qualification permit you to work as a Minister of Religion in any church?

I would also like to see a scan of your certificate. I know your name and you know my email address. By now, you know that I never reveal personal information.
---------------------------
There is no conflict between the relics left by the ancients and the records that they wrote. All are products of one and the same people. Archaeologists and anthropologists help us understand the records the people produced. These records reflect the immediate hopes and aspirations as well as the social, political and religious environments of the day. They were not written to us but to their immediate audience. To understand what their records meant to them, we need to climb into their life and times, and archaeologists provide the means for doing this. You cripple your thinking with your method of resolving apparent dissonance between their secular and religious records. Just as your understanding should mature from its initial fundamentalism, so your thinking should grow from that of a child to that of a man – Hebrews 5:11-14.

A study of religion does not provide a complete guide to the study of archaeology or secular records, and these are what we have been discussing. Archaeologists do not use Scripture to guide their digging or to interpret their finds. Rather, the archaeologist and the anthropologist use methods applied elsewhere in the world to reconstruct the history of the people, with the Bible rightly viewed an artifact produced by those people.
---------------------------
Why does the WTS hierarchy permit you to undertake such studies with impunity and immunity? The average Witness’s knees shake at the thought of the outcome should they be found talking with an apostate loved one, be it their own child or parent. Why do these families have to be ripped apart while you can swan around and study whatever you like in a non-WTS institution without fear of the consequences?

If any JW is permitted to do the same as you did, I am sure they would like to know how to go about it.

How much did you learn during your studies? How were you able to pass the examinations without compromising your JW beliefs?
---------------------------
Your key hang-ups appear include your term “Biblical chronology” and that the Biblical record has a different source from the other items the ancients left behind.

As a Spin-Doctor for the WTS, you sound like a painter who hides the cracks and holes with wallpaper or a skin of paint. We need FACTS, not “spin”.

Doug
wolkje

Hi Doug,
Thanks for your posts on 607.
There is another point on WT chronology that I would like to ask you. The WT has an unique explanation on the 70 weeks of years in Dan 9. In order to make it fit they put the 20e year of Artaxerxes in 455 BC, but the accepted year is 445 BC. Doesn't that mean that the so called absolute date of 539 BC has to be moved 10 years back? This ofcourse creates a second 10 year gap in the WT chronology apart from the 20 years between 607 en 587. I hope you can comment on that.
Doug Mason

Wolkje,

I am sorry, but I have not researched that date. My focus is in the neo-Babylonian era since it provides the foundation for the WTS's existence.

Too many years ago, I researched the date of Christ's birth, maybe I can locate my papers from those times. From memory, Luke provides chronological information and I have a vague memory of an Absolute Date about that time.

I know that the SDA's rely on 457 BC being Artaxerxes' 20th year, so you could read their material to see the information they rely on. They had a book called something like "The Chronology of Ezra 7" by Horn and Wood. I think you should be able to download a free copy off the www. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong, just that they might provide you with research clues.
<br><br>What does Parker and Dubberstien say? (Has anyone a copy they could scan the Tables from P&D for me?)

I am sorry that I have let you down, but I am never going to say that I know something when I do not. My reserach has never taken me to that part of history.

My very best advice is to read what COJ says:

http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/artaxerxes.htm

Doug
AlanF

Scholar pretendus likes to pretend that Watchtower writers have produced an accurate chronology of the Hebrew kings based purely on the Bible. But that is a JW myth. The chronology of Hebrew kings listed in the Insight book is based fundamentally on speculation.
The 607 BCE date for Jerusalem's destruction is based solidly on the speculation that the Jews returned in 537 BCE, and a lot of other speculations besides.
The 997 BCE date for the beginning of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah is based on the speculative 607 date combined with further speculation that Ezekiel 4:1-8 describes prophetic events that began in 997 BCE and ended in 607 BCE, i.e., that the "390 years" that Ezekiel had to lie on one side began and ended then. What is this speculation based on? The writings of various Jews from about 160 CE through the 19th century.
It's always interesting to do some research into Watchtower claims and find that what one always accepted as a matter of course as a JW is based on speculation and wishful thinking.
AlanF
stillajwexelder

Celebrated WT scholars -- I though they were supposed to follow Jesus' example. He was humble and washed the feet of his disciples. If you truly are a JW , Scholar, this phrase is disgusting. No celebration is allowd. NEWBIES please note - you can check this in WT literature. JWs are supposed to be modest and not celebrated. So please ignore sholars posts as he is disgusting in his idolatorous praise of WT writers.
stillajwexelder

By the way Scholar, since you love JW chronology and are "expert " on it, what do you think of the 1935 change? What is your spin on it?

The simplest explanation of 607 BCE

Share this