So my mom called me an apostate today

by doublelife 44 Replies latest members private

  • Sam Whiskey
    Sam Whiskey

    The Seventy Years: 609 to 539 BCE

    609- Nabopolassars 17 th reignal year. Babylon was dominating all surrounding nations. See Jer. 25:11, 25:17- 26. 27:6-8, 12-13(All the nations will have to SERVE the king of Babylon seventy years.) The 70 years begin. (Babylonian Chronicle 3- BM 21901)

    607- Nabopolassars 19 th reignal year. Nebuchadnessar was not even in power yet! He was only a crowned prince at this time. (Babylonian Chronicle 4 –BM 22047)

    605- Nabopolassars 21 st reignal year. Battle of Carchemish , between Egypt and Babylon . Nabopolassar dies , and Nebuchadnezar accends the thrown. This is year 0 for Nebuchadnezzars reign. Daniel finds himself exiled to Babylon, as well as the Royal offspring of Jerusalem, the utensils of the house of Jehovah were carried to Babylon . See Daniel 1- 2:1. Jer. 29:1,20 (Babylonian Chronicle 5- BM 21946)

    603- Nebuchadnezzars second reignal year. See. Dan. 2:1

    586/587- Jerusalem burned. Nebuchadnessar s ninteenth reignal year. See Jer. 52:12-16 (There were still lowly ones left remaining in the city.)

    562-End of Nebuchadnezzars reign.

    557-Neriglissar s third reignal year. ( Chronicle 6 –BM 25124)

    556- Nabonidus becomes King. (Nabonidus Chronicle 7- BM35382)

    539- 70 are fullfilled. Nabonidus is King of Babylon at this time. Cyrus overtakes Babylon in one night. Handwriting on the wall. Jews released from servitude. See- Dan. 5:25-26 Jer. 25: 12 ( Nabonidus Chronicle: Chronicle 7-BM 36304)

  • Sam Whiskey
    Sam Whiskey

    My wife is Lady Liberty, she is to credit for compiling this information and the information in my preceding post;

    Just start with Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, and work backward.

    Babylon falls to Cyrus the Persia -- 539 BCE
    Nabonidus -- 17 years
    Labashi-Marduk -- 3 months (WT says less than 9 months)
    Neriglissar -- 4 years
    Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
    Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years

    Nabonidus -- 17 years

    Year 17 = 539 BCE
    16 = 540
    15 = 541
    14 = 542
    13 = 543
    12 = 544
    11 = 545
    10 = 546
    9 = 547
    8 = 548
    7 = 549
    6 = 550
    5 = 551
    4 = 552
    3 = 553
    2 = 554
    1 = 555
    0 = accession year = 556

    Labashi-Marduk -- less than a year
    3 months in 556

    Neriglissar -- 4 years
    4 = 556
    3 = 557
    2 = 558
    1 = 559
    0 = accession year = 560

    Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
    2 = 560
    1 = 561
    0 = accession year = 562

    Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
    43 = 562 BCE
    42 = 563
    41 = 564
    40 = 565
    39 = 566
    38 = 567
    37 = 568
    36 = 569
    35 = 570
    34 = 571
    33 = 572
    32 = 573
    31 = 574
    30 = 575
    29 = 576
    28 = 577
    27 = 578
    26 = 579
    25 = 580
    24 = 581
    23 = 582
    22 = 583
    21 = 584
    20 = 585
    19 = 586 BCE
    18 = 587 BCE

    So Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar.

    Here are the Societies references from the CD-ROM:

    Quotations from WT literature which support the re i gnal lengths for each king listed above

    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

    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 .

  • moshe
    moshe

    I pity the JW's who are just figuring this date stuff out. Good luck with your mother.

  • Scully
    Scully

    What religion was your mom before she was a JW?

    Unless she is a born-in JW, she's an "apostate" too. So was the Apostle Paul. So was the Roman Centurion. So is anyone, any time, anywhere who has ever changed their mind about any belief system. Even if they switched from PC to Mac.

  • Sam Whiskey
    Sam Whiskey

    PC to Mac? Now that's an act of apostasy worthy of disfellowshipping. LOL....

  • garyneal
    garyneal
    I pity the JW's who are just figuring this date stuff out. Good luck with your mother.

    I pity JW's even more when they see the facts for themselves and chooses to ignore them. Going to an encyclopedia is the same tactic Jehovah's Witnesses use to prove to outsiders (namely other Christians) that Christ Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. To a JW, anyone after reading the facts in the encyclopedia who continue to dogmatically hold on to 12-25 being Christ's birthday is unreasonable and chooses to ignore facts.

    Well, why can't witnesses take their own advice concerning 607 BCE? Must they continue to be unreasonable and continue to ignore facts?

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan
    She started crying and laying the guilt trip on. She said that since my dad died, he paid for his sins, and he'll probably be resurrected and it would be a shame for him to make it and his daughter doesn't.

    Don't know if this will help you out at all, but this claim is rooted in a pretty blatant misreading of a passage in Romans. It comes from Romans 6:7 which in the NWT states:

    "For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin"

    Reading the verse alone is one thing, reading it in the proper context is another.

    Consequently, what shall we say? Shall we continue in sin, that undeserved kindness may abound? Never may that happen! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, how shall we keep on living any longer in it? Or do YOU not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through our baptism into his death, in order that, just as Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, we also should likewise walk in a newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall certainly also be [united with him in the likeness] of his resurrection; because we know that our old personality was impaled with [him], that our sinful body might be made inactive, that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin. For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin.

    Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more. For [the death] that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time; but [the life] that he lives, he lives with reference to God. Likewise also YOU: reckon yourselves to be dead indeed with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11, emphasis added).

    I don't pretend to know Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. I never studied the complexities of ancient language or the historical interpretations of Christian scripture. However, I think that the context of this text simply could not be any clearer. Why would Paul place a reference to physical, corporeal death smack in the middle of entire argument focused on dying with reference to sin through Christ? The short answer is that he would not.

    Proof again that the NWT is the Watchtower's own worst enemy.

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    Some advice on dates.

    You are arguing with your mother regarding the historical date assigned the fall of Jerusalem over 2,500 years ago. And yet, disagreement on this issue is somehow going to put your relationship with her in turmoil.

    Might as well be a disagreement regarding the possible language traits of extraterrestrials.

    Sit back, relax, and realize that you are dealing with crazy people. There are reasons for the disconnect between you and your mother, and debating this crap won't do you any good. They do not understand "reason". They simply trust in the rhetoric of their religious institution so much that they are willing to go crazy for it.

  • doublelife
    doublelife

    AnnOMaly, thanks for the advise.

    crapola, my dad died just a few months ago. Going through this is so hard because I'm scared my mom will start shunning me once she realizes I'm not going back to the meetings. It'll be like losing both of my parents within one year. But I know my dad no longer believed in the resurrection. Every time he would try to bring religious matters up, my cult self would surface and I'd shut him down because he was da'd.

    thetrueone, thanks. I'll read that link later.

    fluke, thanks.

    Black Sheep, thanks for the suggestions and the chart. And my mom does have the WTCD so she should be able to do all the research.

    jwfacts, I don't like that site either. I haven't read through it yet but I've came across it myself when doing research in the past and ignored it because it just looks sloppy.

  • doublelife
    doublelife

    Sam Whiskey, thanks for all the info and WT references.

    moshe, thanks.

    Scully, I think she was presbyterian. I'm not sure, it started with a 'p' but I know it wasn't pentecostal.

    garyneal, "I pity JW's even more when they see the facts for themselves and chooses to ignore them." I have a feeling that that is going to be my mom.

    drew sagan, I agree on the twisting of that scripture. And I would love to not argue with my mom about this. She's the one calling me and arguing about it. Eventually she'll stop though. And at that point she'll probably stop calling me all together.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit