When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  sd-7

  I actually just read that October 1 WT article. It's funny how the kings lists they show side by side demonstrate that 3 out of the 4 sources show practically IDENTICAL years of reigning for the Neo-Babylonian period. The omitting of Labashi-Marduk, who DIDN'T EVEN RULE FOR ONE YEAR, is presented as evidence to suggest that some of the kings lists are unreliable.

  Given that 3 of the 4 lists are nearly the same, and the fourth is probably a scribal error ('40' instead of '4'), is it reasonable to discard all four of them as questionable? Even if we assume one is right and the other three are wrong, or that three are right and one is wrong, NONE of the kings lists comes even remotely close to demonstrating that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year could have been 607 B.C.E. They only served to discredit a small portion of the evidence in favor of 587; they did not provide any tangible proof of 607.

  Proving an opposing view MIGHT be in error is entirely different from proving that your argument is correct. Given the shoddy use of scripture to support their argument, it seems clear that the entire thing is dubious. Curious to see what they'll do for part 2 of this article--probably just take two documents--Str. Kambyses 400 and the Hillah stele, probably--and criticize those, then point out how awesome 'Bible chronology' is. Again.

  Though they use and recognize cuneiform documents that they ADMIT have errors in support of 539 B.C.E., they will reject evidence based on the same reason. Well why not reject 539 B.C.E. too? Oh, right, because then there'll be no evidence at all to tell us when the heck ANY of this stuff happened!

  Yeah. It's easier to just call b.s. on the whole Bible thing and get on with life. But it never ceases to be enjoyable to hang the Watchtower doctrines by the elbows and spend entire days beating them senseless, then pouring water on them, then beating them severely about the head and neck area, then reminding them--with a beating--that the beatings will continue until the quality of their reasoning improves. That's why I do it. It's cathartic!

  --sd-7
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Given that 3 of the 4 lists are nearly the same, and the fourth is probably a scribal error ('40' instead of '4'), is it reasonable to discard all four of them as questionable?

  Added to this, the same p. 29 table makes it appear that Josephus gives only one set of regnal years (the dodgy ones from Antiquities). His later figures in Against Apion which he said agreed with the Jewish histories are, of course, from Berossus and match the first column in the table!

  Curious to see what they'll do for part 2 of this article--probably just take two documents--Str. Kambyses 400 and the Hillah stele, probably--and criticize those, then point out how awesome 'Bible chronology' is. Again.

  Strm. Kambys. 400 - possibly! My money's still on a mention of VAT 4956 and how its lunar data supposedly better fits 588/7 BCE.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I've been interested in anthropolgy for a long time. Since I was in college, almost everything has been updated to the newest view which will change when more data is available.

  Jesus' birth year keeps changing. I'm reading a bio of St. Augustine of Confessions now. He was very popular in his time and remained so to this date. Yet a recent scholar turned all dating assumptions upside dwon --if you agree with the scholar's analysis.

  I suppose showing any Witness date is incorrect challenges their claim to Biblical knowledge and their claim to be the only conduit of the Holy Spirit. How do you convince an active Witness that your date is correct. They will dismiss any secular knowledge.

  Jesus has a beard. Jesus did not have a beard. I saw a chalice with Jesus bearless at the Metropoitan Museum of Art. It did not radiate any aura to my senses. Everyone passed by with glances only while my family was huddled around it in amazement, Jesus has a beard again.

  The UN is vile. Its existence triggers many end time fulfillments. We have ngo membership.

  Patty Hearst shot cops who could have rescued her. Jaycee Dugard never ran home. Elizabeth Smart never bolted. Some people bolted at Jonestown but were gunned down or Kool Aid was poured down their throats against their will. Parents murdered their children with Kool-Aid. Patty Hearst was a Berkeley student and wise of the world. Police expect fire from the people they are rescuing. Cults stop reason.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I've been interested in anthropolgy for a long time. Since I was in college, almost everything has been updated to the newest view which will change when more data is available.

  Jesus' birth year keeps changing. I'm reading a bio of St. Augustine of Confessions now. He was very popular in his time and remained so to this date. Yet a recent scholar turned all dating assumptions upside dwon --if you agree with the scholar's analysis.

  I suppose showing any Witness date is incorrect challenges their claim to Biblical knowledge and their claim to be the only conduit of the Holy Spirit. How do you convince an active Witness that your date is correct. They will dismiss any secular knowledge.

  Jesus has a beard. Jesus did not have a beard. I saw a chalice with Jesus bearless at the Metropoitan Museum of Art. It did not radiate any aura to my senses. Everyone passed by with glances only while my family was huddled around it in amazement, Jesus has a beard again.

  The UN is vile. Its existence triggers many end time fulfillments. We have ngo membership.

  Patty Hearst shot cops who could have rescued her. Jaycee Dugard never ran home. Elizabeth Smart never bolted. Some people bolted at Jonestown but were gunned down or Kool Aid was poured down their throats against their will. Parents murdered their children with Kool-Aid. Patty Hearst was a Berkeley student and wise of the world. Police expect fire from the people they are rescuing. Cults stop reason.
• 

  VM44

  The Watchtower article attempts to cast doubt on the accuracy of Ptolemy.

  This paper from 1878 is important with respects to that question in that it compares the record of Babylonian tablets with the Canon.

  Babylonian Dated Tablets and the Canon of Ptolemy , by W. St. Chad Boscawen, page 1

  Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. VI (1878), By Society of Biblical Archæology (London, England)

  http://books.google.com/books?id=s3cYAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

  Note that this article appeared om 1978, one year before the first issue of The Watch Tower was published!
• 

  VM44

  A newly discovered key to Bible chronology
  By Jacob Schwartz (the younger.), 1888, page 52.

  Among the few chronological documents that have been handed down to us from antiquity, Ptolemy's Canon is unquestionably the most valuable. It gives an unbroken series of kings of Babylon, Persia, Egypt (and the emperors of Rome from Augustus to Antoninus), from the accession of Nabonassar, in B.C. 747, to A.D. 160. The absolute historical accuracy of these tables is guaranteed by a series of eclipses, recorded in Ptolemy's Almagest, which gives the year and day of each reign in which they occurred. Ptolemy's statements have been verified by modern astromers.The recently discovered Egibi contract-tables reckon eighty-three years from the accession of Nebuchadnezzar (B.C. 604) to the first of Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 521) in exact agreement with the Canon, and thus effectually dispose of Bosanquet's theory of chronology, in which Nebuchadnezzar's first year is depressed to B.C. 578. The scheme of Franke Parker, proposing to advance all the reigns of the Persian and Babylonian kings before Artaxerxes II. by at least twenty-one years, has been considered and confuted by Dr. Hincks. With the exception of these two theories, no other attack, of any importance, has every been made on the accuracy of Ptolemy's Canon.

  http://books.google.com/books?id=v0dIAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
• 

  Black Sheep

  The absolute historical accuracy of these tables is guaranteed by a series of eclipses, recorded in Ptolemy's Almagest, which gives the year and day of each reign in which they occurred.

  Dat ol' Satan's a cunnin' bugger alright. Makes a right fool a dem Worldlies.
• 

  VM44

  What the Watchtower is attempting to do is to cast doubt as the the accuracy and reliabity of Ptolemy.

  This is exactly what a lawyer would do in a court of law in trying to discredit the credibility of a witness in the minds of the jury!
• 

  VM44

  Amazon's product description for the Ptolemy's Almagest:

  "Ptolemy's Almagest is one of the most influential scientific works in history. A masterpiece of technical exposition, it was the basic textbook of astronomy for more than a thousand years, and still is the main source for our knowledge of ancient astronomy. This translation, based on the standard Greek text of Heiberg, makes the work accessible to English readers in an intelligible and reliable form. It contains numerous corrections derived from medieval Arabic translations and extensive footnotes that take account of the great progress in understanding the work made in this century, due to the discovery of Babylonian records and other researches. It is designed to stand by itself as an interpretation of the original, but it will also be useful as an aid to reading the Greek text."

  Really, what is the problem with The Watchtower concerning Ptolemy? Do they have a screw loose?
• 

  VM44

  That Ptolemy omits the names of some kings does not appear to change the experts view of him as a reliable source.

  But The Watchtower, because of these omissions, expects the average reader to doubt Ptolemy.

  What is going on here?