I think this is one area where the Bible and secular history agree. However, neither the Bible nor secular history agree with the WT's version of the NeoBabylonian era.
Atheists = Win.
Theists = Win.
WT = Massive fail.
MeanMrMustard
Doesn't 607 prove the Bible false?
by garbonzo 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
thetrueone
Since 1914 was such a pivotal important date by the IBSA prior to J Rutherford taking over the reins, it was
crucially important for him to continue on with this date (year) as a means to sustain the publics attention as
well the remaining members of the IBSA.
Of course under critical scrutiny it can be seen that 607 is indeed wrong and the WTS. has shown they are quite apt to continuing on
with this misleading lie. As to reverse this assertion would ruin their own viable proclamation of god guiding this organization as well ruin
their own End Times doctrine that helps to support the proliferation of the organization's literature.
607 and 1914 were both used essentially as marketing strategies for the WTS. Corporation, neither are substantiated or confirmed
in the bible.
-
jwfacts
The Bible is full of numerical symbolisation. There is no reason to think the 70 years must be literal.
-
thetrueone
Doesn't 607 prove the Bible false?
No it proves the WTS. Corporation false and its doctrines !
It also proves that religious charlatans will try and use whatever they can to attract the publics attention
in selling their goods.
Hows that Harold Camping fellow doing by the way ?
He pulled in hundreds of thousands of tax free US bucks selling his Bullshit tripe.
I bet he's doing quite alright
-
glenster
The Bible agrees wih secular evidence about the seige of Jerusalem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28587_BC%29A basic God philosophy and faith understood as such can be reconciled with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Adler#GodWithout butting heads over interpretations and preferences, you can't prove
faith understood as such and keeping up to speed with the known things is false,
only not preferred. Still, by either choice, proven wrong could include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_historyFaith not understood as such, so messing with the known and violating
separation of church and state or ethics about slavery, women, homosexuality,
etc. Then again,- by what interpretation--conservative or liberal (I'd recommmend liberal),
literal or allegorical, literalism or understanding the Bible as useful for
faith matters but not inerrant (harder to do with common Muslim understanding
of the Qur'an, for comparison), aspects of the Bible understood to represent
the thoughts of the culture or God's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Significance_in_Islam- by what understanding of God's prerogative?
Etc. But the fall of Jerusalem, no. Certain Republicans running for
president to the side, I'd worry more about many Muslims view of the Qur'an and
those issues. And nobody's basing it on the fall of Jerusalem.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-18-2011/scorn-in-the-u-s-a-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism -
Larsinger58
The Persians revised their chronology, claiming Xerxes was a different king than Artaxerxes I. This was to fool the Greeks. When this worked, the Persians tried to add extra years to their timeline. In the process, they stole some of the years from the NB kings, namely 26 years. So the revised timeline shows the NB Period some 26 years shorter than what the Bible says.
So first off, you must correct the timeline that was revised. Fortunately, we are able to do this with the VAT4956 which hides the true date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II in Lines 3 and 14, confirming 511 BCE as the true, original year. It is quite ingenius to "hide in plain sight" the truth in the midst of the fabrication. Now for those who can't follow this double-dating in an astrotext, that's okay. The impact is simply that if 511 BCE were actually the true original year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, then his 23rd year, the year of the last deportation, would fall in 525 BCE. If the 70 years of "servitude" began at that time and ended the 1st of Cyrus, then the first of Cyrus originally fell in 455 BCE. That's a critical Biblical reference for those like Martin Anstey and others who had long surmised that the "70 weeks" prophecy must be fulfilled in the 1st of Cyrus when the Jews first began to rebuild. He observed, in that case, that the Persians must have added 82 fake years to their timeline. They did: 1 year to Kambyses, 30 years to both Darius I and Artaxerxes II, and the entire 21-year rule of Xerxes which is part of the 41-year rule of "Artaxerxes I" since they were the same king.
So we have the critical secular source we need to correct the "absolute" and "relative" chronology for the NB Period and give us the true date for the fall of Jerusalem, which is neither 607 BCE nor 587 BCE, both based on the revised timeline, but 529 BCE confirmed by the VAT4956. Thinking otherwise at this point is simply reflecting incompetence.
When the VAT4956 dates year 1 of Cyrus to 455 BCE, it reflects the Bible's true timeline as well. So it's a done deal.
Be smart. Look at ALL the arguments in place regarding the "70 weeks" prophecy and the chronology of the NB Period. Additionally, what we have now in place is C14 from the City of David, Rehov and Jericho that shows the popular timeline based on the revised chronology is too early. So that's something new? Details?
Well, for instance, Shishak's invasion assigned to destructive level City IV of Rehov dates that event c. 871 BCE usi ng advanced C14 techniques. That event per the secular timeline dates Shishak's invasion to 925 BCE. That represents a 54-year gap. Thus the C14 suggests Shishak's invasion is dated some 54 years too early. But this is based on a single solar eclipse dated to the month of Simanu that historians and archaeologists presume to be a match for 763 BCE. It is, but only loosely. A better match for that eclipse event is 709 BCE. When 709 BCE is used to date the entire Assyrian Period then Shishak gets dated down by 54 years to 871 BCE. That is: 763 - 709 = 54 years. So when the Assyrian Period eclipse is corrected to 709 BCE, then Shishak's invasion gets dated to 871 BCE, which is precisely the dating you get from C14. So now you have C14 now coming in to conrfirm the Bible's true timelline, but also the distortion created by the expansion of the Persian period by 82 years and the reduction of the NB Period by 26, creating a net distortion for C14 dating of approximately 54 years. 82 - 26 = 56 years.
SUMMARY: So what do we have here? We have those with "insight" who have corrected the timeline secularly and confirmed the true Biblical timeline wherein all the Biblical references work out and are confirmed by secular references, including C14, astronomoical texts like the VAT4956, etc. On the other side of the room we have those who are ill-informed about the details of Bible and secular history and who try to draw conclusions based on a very narrow range of references and so their errors persist. Bottom line is, if you do not date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and go from there, you are not discussing Bible chronology, you are only discussing revised secular chronology.
LS
-
Larsinger58
Try and get this straight. The 70 years are 70 years of SERVITUDE of the last deportees. The last deportees were deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II, some 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem in year 19.
Between year 19 and 20, Gedaliah was appointed as governor over the poor people who were left in the land. A plot to kill Gedaliah developed in year 20 after the scattered Jews were enticed to return to Jerusalem and harvest summer crops. After Gedaliah was killed in the 7th month, the remnant of Jews fled down to Egypt and refused to return. In year 23, as prophesied, Jehovah sent Nebuchadnezzar to kill off the majority of those people, with only a small remnant returning to Judea that same year. That means Judea was still inhabited and thus not "desolated" up until year 23. That same year those few Jews were deported to Babylon which began their seventy years of servitude to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" which included Darius the Mede, who was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Only when the "royalty of PERSIA" began to rule were the 70 years to end. The "royalty of PERSIA" did not begin when the Medo-Persians under Darius the Mede took over the rule of Babylon. That is when the "royalty of the MEDES" began to rule. That is why the Bible makes a clear distinction between "Darius the MEDE" and "Cyrus the Persian." After six years of rule by Darius the Mede, he abdictates his throne to Cyrus and Cyrus becomes king over the entire Medo-Persian empire. It is at this point that Cyrus then begins to release the captives.
But none of the above makes any sense if you maintain the revised timeline. You have to correct the timeline, which you can do using the VAT4956 if you wish. The VAT4956 dates year 37 to 511 BCE as the original date, which means year 23, the last deportation falls in 525 BCE. 70 years later dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE. We all know the "70 weeks" prophecy begins in 455 BCE, so the VAT4956 confirms that Cyrus must fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy as to when it begins. Bottom line is that the NB Period is 26 years longer in the Bible than in the revised Babylonian records, and the Persian Period is 82 years shorter. It is quite easy to see where to correct this timeline if one wishes to investigate further.
"Absolute dating" is different from "relative dating." What is nice about the VAT4956 is that it provides us the absolute dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511 BCE. But it also confirms the "relative chronology" as represented by Josephus and the Bible that shows a 70-year period from the year 23 of Neb-II down to the 1st of Cyrus.
So in the end, those who love the Bible and thus who love TRUTH, now have the TRUTH. For those incapable of dealing with the hard truth. Too bad for them. We "who have insight" are enjoying how Bible truth and Bible history unfold in the context of secular history and also reflects the truth.
LS
-
thetrueone
The REAL reason the JWS have their dates wrong and they are indeed false prophets
The 1914 Chronology
by James White
A. Establishing an Ancient Date 1. Fixed Dates
2. King List
3. Cuneiform Tablets
4. CorrelationB. Astronomical Data
1. VAT 4956
- astronomical observations made during Nebuchadnezzar’ s 37th regnal year - 568/67 B. C. Hence, his first regnal year was spring 604 B. C., or, using Babylonian reckoning, 605/04 B. C., or, in Jewish civil calendar, it was 606/05 B. C., fall to fall.
2. BM n.4. 76-11 - Cambyses 7th regnal year 523/22 B.C. We shall see that Cyrus was enthroned 16 years earlier, 538/37 B. C.
3. Ptolemy’s Alamgest records 19 lunar eclipses. Two are here significant - April 21, 621 B. C., which was in the 5th year of Nabopolassar. Second was 11:00PM, July 16, 523 B. C., the 7th of Cambyses. Note the correlation between VAT 4956 and Almagest:
Eclipse: Nabopolassar’s first year = 626 B.C.
Nabopolassar’s last year = 605 B. C.
VAT 4956: 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar = 568 B. C.
First year of Nebuchadnezzar = 605 B. C.4. Considerations:
Since Cyrus took the throne in 538/37 B. C., the Jews could have settled in Jerusalem by 537/36 B.C. (2 Chronicles 36: 22-23, Ezra 1: 1-3: 6) . Hence, the 70 years, reckoning inclusively, would have begun in 606/05 B.C. fall to fall (Jewish calendar). This has been locked in as Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.C. Establishing a Ring List
1. Nabonidus Stele A -
1906 (Aid, p. 327).
2. Nabonidus Stele B - 1956; also called Harren Stele B.King List: Nabopolassar 21 years
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years
Amel-Marduk 2 years
Neniglissar 4 years
Nabonidus ?D. Cuneiform Tablets
On the basis of’ over 4,000 tablets:
Nabopolassar 21 yrs May 17, 626
- Aug 15, 605
Nebuchadnezzar 43 yrs Sept 7, 605 - Oct 8, 562
Amel-Marduk 2 yrs Oct 8, 562 - Aug 7, 560
Nergal-shar-usur 4 yrs Aug 13, 560 - Apr 16, 556
Labashi-Marduk 2 mos May 3, 556 - Jun 20, 556
Nabunaid 17 yrs May 25,556 - Oct 13, 539
Cyrus 9 yrs Oct 26, 539 - Aug 12, 530
Cambyses 8 yrs Aug 31, 530 - Apr 18, 522E. Correlation:
Nabopolassar 21 yrs 626 - 605 5th yr
- 621/620 AlmagestNebuchadnezzar 43 yrs 605 - 562 37th yr - 568/567 VAT 4956
Evil-Merodach 2 yrs 562 - 560
Neriglissar 2 yrs 560 - 556
Labashi-Marduk 2 mos 556
Nabonidus 17 yrs 556 - 5 39 Cyrus 9 yrs 539 - 530
Cambyses 8 yrs 530 - 522 7th yr - 523/522 Almagest, BM n. 4. 78-11F. Biblical Considerations:
1. Interpreting the 70 years
- Two views:
A. Seventy years began in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th regnal, year when he destroyed Jerusalem, removed Zedekiah, and took the populace captive. 2 Kings 24:18-25:21, 2 Chronicles 36: 11-21.
B. This view also marks the end of the 70 years with the return of the Jews to Jerusalem. However, it marks the beginning in the 4th regnal year of Jehoiakim, corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s first regnal year., 605 B. C. C Daniel 1: 1-6, 2 Kings 24: 1)
. This view also sees Jeremiah 25:12 as significant.
2. Which view fits?
View A: 70 year period: 607
- 537 B. C.
Nebuchadnezzar’ s 19th year: 607 B. C. Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year: 626 B.C.View B:
70 year period: 605 - 537 B.C. (incl) Nebuchadnezzar’ s 19th year: 586 B. C.
Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year: 605 B.C.3. supporting evidence: BM 21946 records:
Nebuchadnezzar conquered “Hatti-land” Sept. 605 B.C.
4th regnal year (601/600) defeated by Egypt
6th regnal year (599/598) quelled rebelling Arabs
Next winter, 598/97, took Jehoiakin (2 Kings 24:14) as well as Ezekiel.
Notice - Nebuchadnezzar was not even king in 607!BM 22047 says that Nabopolassar was king in 607, and that he led a military campaign against “the mountains of Za” in Assyria!
-
designs
607 A.D. Prince Shotoku of Japan appoints Ono no Imoko special envoy to the Sui Court.
-
Larsinger58
#1 The 70 years begin with the LAST DEPORTATION, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. That is confirmed in the Bible and in Josephus. So first off, even if you accepted as a possibility that 539 BCE was the most reliable date in that period, as do JWs, 607 BCE would be year 23. The 19th year would fall in 611 BCE, or year 18 in 612 BCE. So for starters the "relative chronology" of the 70 years of desolation/exile is wrong by 4-5 years. I don't see anyone adding this reference to their discussions though. That's the easiest way to see 607 BCE is wrong for the year Jerusalem fell.
#2 Of course, there is the issue of the absolute chronology. Where the "70 weeks" prophecy points to 455 BCE being the 1st of Cyrus. Also not dkiscussed. Even if you can't seem to agree or accept this application, it needs to be part of the conversation as far as the Bible timeline goes. That is, you have to look at 455 BCE vs 537 BCE being the year the Jews return from Babylon and then compare both to what we have secular.
#3 You've got a double-dated astronomical text, the VAT4956, created during the Seleucid Period when clearly tens of thousands of extant astronomical texts disappeared into thin air. The two references to 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II are in no way isolated or coincidental. That's because when you date year 1 of Cyrus to 455 BCE then go back 70 years to the last deportation, that deportation falls in 525 BCE, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. So? So per that application of Biblical chronology, year 37 would fall in 511 BCE. So all the VAT4956 does is try to hide a secret reference to what the original dating was before it was changed. So this is more than a done deal here. That is, for the informed it's a done deal. For those in denial or who are not as informed, the option of other dates still seem reasonable.
Bottom line, the Biblical date for the fall of Jerusalem is 529 BCE. The Biblical date for the 1st of Cyrus is 455 BCE. If you are discussing any other timeline, it is not relevant to the Bible's history or chronology, so it is simply a moot conversation. Get the Bible's timeline right first, then make comparisons with the secular records, including the VAT4956. Then you are dealing with true historical reality. Plus get past the idea that the pagans would not revise their history. They did it all the time for political reasons. It is academically irresponsible not to consider gentile historical revisionism during this period when you have such direct contradiction with both Josephus and the Bible.
One day I think someone with a degree will decide there is more value in making a buck off of exposing the revisionism and cover-up and the official timeline will be recognized. This apparently is anticipated since I see a lot of historians running for PD (plausible deniability) coverage, like claiming they were too busy or this was not their field of expertise. It's difficult to corner them on this topic. But the Bible says everything said in secret will be shouted from the rooftops at some point, so what is hidden now is now coming into the light. The global internet and new, fresh eyes and minds looking at all of this is what will change things.
LS