H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  just n from bethel

  Yep - what Billy said. The WT wants 607 to just go away. Other than a brief mention here or there, it hardly gets discussed in new material anymore. Heck the new DVD just showed the GB stating that WT/IBSA were already chosen by God in 1916 - a date that was just arbitrarily selected and not tied to any chronology.

  They hate it that Scholar and Furuli continue to bring up a subject that they just want to fade away into the background, like 1975 and other botched doctrine.

  Fortunately, Scholar continues to keep threads like these going, year after year, approaching a decade now. Imagine what it's like to directly defy God's instructions through His appointed channel,by coming here for 10 years! That's some serious cognitive dissonance.

  The good news is that by his bringing up the subject and constantly failing at defending his favorite historical date of 607, he assists many lurkers. Who knows how many have realized how batshit crazy a religion is to claim that tens of thousands of documents, 100% of respected historians, 100% of archeologists, and just about anyone that has a brain - that every piece of evidence is wrong, solely because it makes Franz/WT look bad.

  Here's the fact, scholar has helped more people leave the religion than any of us could ever do. For that, Scholar, we thank you. Please keep posting and don't worry if you don't know what you're talking about. Just post away - the more that see your replies, the more that will drop this religion like a dead fish.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  justn,

  Billy would like to remind justn that it's also extremely non-convincing when scholar refers to scholar in the third person. Billy always wins arguments by referring to Billy as Billy... not.

  Frankly, when he calls himself "scholar" I envision him as winning an argument by kicking himself in the balls.
• 

  just n from bethel

  Here is an artistic depiction of Scholar's methodology in arguing for 607:

  Video
• 

  thetrueone

  

  This clay tablet is a Babylonian chronicle recording events from 605-594BC. It was first translated in 1956 and is now in the British Museum. The cuneiform text on this clay tablet tells, among other things, 3 main events:

  1. The Battle of Carchemish (famous battle for world supremacy where Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeated Pharoah Necho of Egypt, 605 BC.),

  2. The accession to the throne of Nebuchadnezzar II, the Chaldean, and

  3. The capture of Jerusalem on the 16th of March, 598 BC.

  We are going to compare the record of this Babylonian clay tablet, as translated into English by scholars, with the account recorded in the Bible. About the capture of Jerusalem the clay tablet reads:

  "In the seventh month (of Nebuchadnezzar-599 BC.) in the month Chislev (Nov/Dec) the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid seige to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month of Adara ( 16th of March) he conquered the city and took the king (Jehoiachin) prisoner. He installed in his place a king (Zedekiah) of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent (them) forth to Babylon."

  And now we will look at the record of the Babylonian invasion in the Bible’s Book of II Kings and compare the two:

  II Kings 24:7-17 "And the king of Egypt did not come out of his land anymore, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook ofEgypt to the River Euphrates. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother's name was Nehushtathe daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, as his servants were besieging it.

  Then Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his servants, his princes, and his officers went out to the king of Babylon; and the king of Babylon, in the eighth year of his reign, took him prisoner. And he carried out from there all the treasures of the house of the LORD and the treasures of the king's house, and he cut in pieces all the articles of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD, as the LORD had said. Also he carried into captivity all Jerusalem: all the captains and all the mighty men of valor, ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths. None remained except the poorest people of the land.

  And he carried Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. The king's mother, the king's wives, his officers, and the mighty of the land he carried into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. All the valiant men, seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths, one thousand, all who were strong and fit for war, these the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. Then the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah."
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi Billy,

  You asked:

  Has the Watchtower ever published or publicly endorsed Furuli's speculations? Or is Furuli an "independent thinker", running ahead of "Jehovah's organization" trying to bring fame to himself instead of honoring the Governing Body of the Faithful Slave?

  I doubt that the WTS would have initially commissioned this book, so I figure that Furuli embarked on this project off his own bat. However, as I said on p. 5 of this thread,

  "... the WTS, when responding to enquiries about Babylonian chronology and the 607 issue, recommends the book that is dishing out even more misinformation about it than they are. ... And if my intel is sound, the 'Oslo chronology' is being or, at least, has been promoted on JW Bible tours of the British Museum."

  Here's evidence of the first part of my statement. Below is the last page of what appears to be a standard WTS letter response to questions about '607/587' (the entire letter can be read HERE). You'll see on this occasion there's a plug for Furuli's books at the end.

  
• 

  Dutch-scientist

  WTS loves to tell again and again the story of Belshazzar but making an complete mess with Nebukadnessar.

  Does the WTS know the difference between being an King or (entrusted) having kingship.

  Like Nebukadnessar he fight at Carchemisch agianst Farao Necho. At that time he has the kingship because his father has healthy problems.

  After his father died what was after the battle he did go to babylon and then he was made to an official King of Babylon.
• 

  thetrueone

  Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus , who after ruling only three years, went to the oasis of Tayma and devoted himself to the worship of the moon god, Sin . He made Belshazzar co-regent in 553 B.C., leaving him in charge of Babylon's defense. [1]

  In 540 B.C. Nabonidus returned from Tayma, hoping to defend his kingdom from the Persians who were planning to advance on Babylon. Belshazzar was positioned in the city of Babylon to hold the capital, while Nabonidus marched his troops north to meet Cyrus . On October 10, 539 B.C. Nabonidus surrendered and fled from Cyrus. Two days later the Persian armies overthrew the city of Babylon.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Once again I am reminded why I keep coming bcak to this site - great thread
• 

  Dutch-scientist

  Hi thetrueone,

  I know this story well. My point is that Belshazzar was no King only he received some kingship from his Father. So thats why Belshassar is not on a king list.

  As example I try to say before Nebukadnessar was official King he won a battle agianst Egypt and make Jehoiakim as vassal king probaly take daniel and others with him. ( 3rd or 4th reign year of Jehoiakim )Then he heard that his father died and then Nebukadnessar go back to babylon and after two weeks when he arrived he was made a king of Babylon.

  So we might believed that daniel wrote his book with the counting method from Babylon. This means after his 3 years education think he learned the method.

  If we look at Daniel 1: no reign year was mentioned of Nebukadnessar but only from jehoiakim 3rd year. So Nebukadnessar was named King but not crowned yet.