WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed

VM44

Concerning VAT 4956 the article says "Clearly, much of the astonomical data in VAT 4956 fits the year 588 B.C.E as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II." (page 27).

How can the Watchtower author use the word "clearly" in his article when the details of the analysis made by some unnammed researchers are omitted and only the conclusions of the analysis are presented?

Nothing is "clear" at all about article's conclusions concerning VAT 4956.

The omissions make what the article says about VAT 4956 meaningless!

AnnOMaly

p. 25, 28:

Even if an eclipse did occur on a certain date, does this mean that the historical information the writer of the tablet assigns to that date is accurate? Not necessarily. Scholar R. J. van der Spek explains: "The compilers were astrologers, not historians." He describes sections of the tablets that contain historical records as "more or less casual," and he warns that such historical information must "be used with caution." 15
15. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, "The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History," by R. J. van der Spek, pages 94, 102.

Please note that p. 102 is blank. Oopsie. Who didn't check that?

wannabefree

I don't know how the writing department works, but if the person assigned the task of researching these two articles has a conscience, I don't see how he could not have been affected by this assignment ... unless it was written by Furuli himself. Whoever did the writing and/or research has to know that resources were taken out of context.

Earlier this year, if I recall correctly, there was a poster that came on here and said he worked in the department that made the new videos and he had to leave Bethel because he couldn't stomach the way it offered a less than honest account of the Organization's history. How could the researchers of this article not be affected?

Cadellin

Alleymom, you rock! Thanks so much! And thanks to all of you who are working to expose this canard...

No Room For George

I don't know how the writing department works, but if the person assigned the task of researching these two articles has a conscience, I don't see how he could not have been affected by this assignment ... unless it was written by Furuli himself. Whoever did the writing and/or research has to know that resources were taken out of context.

Earlier this year, if I recall correctly, there was a poster that came on here and said he worked in the department that made the new videos and he had to leave Bethel because he couldn't stomach the way it offered a less than honest account of the Organization's history. How could the researchers of this article not be affected?

The same way Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl could be or not be affected. Ideology can make people do all sorts of unscrupulous things on behalf of The Cause.

Doug Mason

The Watchtower , November 1, 2011, page 22 states:

“The Bible says that the Jewish captives were to be exiled in Babylon ‘until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORDspoken by Jeremiah.’

“When were they released? In ‘the first [regnal] year of Cyrus king of Persia.’ (2 Chronicles 36:21, 22, New International Version) Biblical and secular history agree that this exile in Babylon ended after Cyrus conquered Babylon and freed the Jews, who returned to Jerusalem in 537 B.C.E. Since the Bible explicitly says that the exile lasted for 70 years, it must have begun in 607 B.C.E.”

-----------

2 Chronicles in the NIV actually states:

“The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.

“In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: ”.

-----------

So the Bible does not say, as the article falsely asserts, “the Jewish captives were to be exiled in Babylon” . The Bible’s words actually are: “all the time of its desolation it rested ”.

The NIV says that the rest ended when the seventy years ended, but it does not say that the “rest” lasted for seventy years, only that the land’s rest ended at the same time that the seventy years ended.

The seventy years ended when Cyrus dethroned the Babylonian kingdom. The seventy years was a period of servitude by several nations to Babylon, so their servitude ended when Babylon no longer reigned as the region’s super power. The WTS confuses the issue by associating the Seventy Years with the destruction of Jerusalem.

It is impossible for anyone, including the WTS, to show which year the first Jews returned. The article simply makes a bald unsubstantiated assertion that it happened in 537 BCE. They need another article where they prove that date.

The Bible does NOT say the exile lasted for 70 years. Jeremiah, who is the source, very clearly states that the 70 years was a period of servitude by several nations to the region’s super power, without any need for a destruction of any city, including Jerusalem.

Nowhere does the Bible state: “this is the moment that the Seventy Years started”. Nor does the Bible state: “this is the moment that the Seventy Years ended”. The Bible writers were not concerned.

The WTS starts the period with the entry into Egypt by the murderers of Gedaliah, saying that the WTS requires the land to be devoid of inhabitants. However, the WTS does not end the period with the entry of people from Babylon. Instead, it waits until they have returned to their respective towns, settled down, and then walked all the way to Jerusalem, set up an altar and dedicated it.

Doug

WontLeave

Once again, I believe there is a subversive group at Bethel who fly this stuff under the radar of the GB. The doddering old fools are so completely enraptured with their self-idolatry, they don't even see the damage over-the-top articles can have. The powers that be are so over-the-top themselves, they see the crazy talk in some of these red-flag-raising articles as perfectly okay. I believe certain WT writers are taking advantage of this self-delusion and messiah complex to warn people in the WBTS's own literature, and the egomaniacal old nutters don't even notice. When JWs really say what they believe, it scares people away; and that's exactly what some of these articles do. The fact that this one is in the public edition is the cool part. Usually, the really cultish stuff is saved for the people who can be coerced into buying it.

LostGeneration

I wonder if you are on to something there WontLeave. I can't image that the editorial review process is very stringent from the top. Just take a red pen and mark a thing or two to make it look like you read through the article and are some sort of "editor"

I love it how their stuff gets published on the site and within two days the "real editors" at JWN here have torn it to shreds with actual research.

00DAD

wannabefree pointed out the Footnote on page 24 admits that the business tablets provide a complete record to 587, yet they cast doubt in the paragraph.

Could others have ruled
between the reigns of these kings? If so, additional
years would have to be added to
the Neo-Babylonian period. Therefore, neither
the Babylonian chronicles nor the business
tablets provide a basis to establish with
certainty that Jerusalem was destroyed in
587 B.C.E.

Now I'm thinking about the "logic" here: Could ... If so, ... Therefore ...

Yeah, that's right, let's base all our life decisions on this kind of "logic"!

I don't think so!!!

drewcoul

I am not an astronomer, in fact, I have never had much of an interest in it, but what I read of the link to Olof Johnsson is amazing.

IMHO, this type of article is one that has been specifically assigned by the GB. Either there is rumor going around the organization about the flaws in the 607 doctrine, especially with 2014 getting so close, and the GB needs to shore up support for their doctrine, or, they decided to reinvestigate it, much like Fred Franz assigned Ray Franz to do in '78 or so, and whoever investigated came up with this absurd explanation so they wouldn't rock the boat by telling the GB the truth.