MORE!
A detailed examination by W. St. Chad Boscawen, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol VI (1878), p. 1-78. Summary table showing where the Egibi officials fit with the kings' regnal years starts on p. 40.
The EGIBI Family Records WIPESOUT Watchtower 607 B.C.E. Date for GOOD!
by TheSnarkyApologist 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
wha happened?
and we wonder why the Internet scares the crap out of the GB
-
Cadellin
AnnoMaly, you are the best! Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to post these links. Can't wait to go through them!
-
breakfast of champions
Wanted to bump this for anyone interested in how historians use archaeology to establish the chronology of the Neo Babylonian empire. . .
. . . as opposed to the society who fabricates historical "evidence" to support their worldview.
-
Leolaia
This is exactly the kind of point I was making to mP in the other thread. Objectively looking at the preponderance of the evidence together, one can readily conclude decisively that 607 BC cannot be right; there's just too much evidence. You can't cherry-pick the things you like that support your chronology and then dismiss the rest for no other reason than it conflicts with your chronology. That's not how history works. The Society claims that it's just a coincidence and secular records are unreliable. These are records that reflect contemporaneous daily life, from many different quarters (not just the Egibi family), and they all agree on the same "errors". History is about assessing probabilities, and it is the height of bias to prefer an analysis that produces such an implausible mass of coincidental errors to one that makes perfect sense of the preponderance of the evidence. Furuli has supported the Society's chronology in the typical conspiracy-theory way: focusing on the few anomalies and connecting them together to build a case, instead of focusing on where the evidence is in agreement and building a historical reconstruction based on the most reliable evidence and multiple attestation. In order to hold to the Society's chronology, you would have to dismiss massive amounts of evidence that builds a highly consistent picture. In this respect I give credit to JCanon who realizes that such alternative chronologies require an actual conspiracy theory, in this case of faking records in antiquity to make it look like things happened at an earlier time in history. The massive implausibility of such a scheme however remains.
-
Londo111
It would be funny if after tommorow, this is all a moot topic. I guess it's a longshot that the Society will finally side with the evidence, but stranger things have happened.
-
breakfast of champions
^^^^ that would be one hell of an announcement!
-
Londo111
Never mind. LOL.
They cannot be honest about this. To do so is to admit that they are not the "Slave".
-
never a jw
Leolaia,
Objectively looking at the preponderance of the evidence together, one can readily conclude decisively that 607 BC cannot be right; there's just too much evidence. You can't cherry-pick the things you like that support your chronology and then dismiss the rest for no other reason than it conflicts with your chronology. That's not how history works. The Society claims that it's just a coincidence and secular records are unreliable. These are records that reflect contemporaneous daily life, from many different quarters (not just the Egibi family), and they all agree on the same "errors". History is about assessing probabilities, and it is the height of bias to prefer an analysis that produces such an implausible mass of coincidental errors to one that makes perfect sense of the preponderance of the evidence.
I could use the next thirty years of my life researching in your field of study and sharpenning my writing skills, but I could never match the substance and the form of your writing. Thanks. Can I use this paragraph in a letter to some prominents "friends" of a congregation and make it look as my own paragraph by replacing a word with a synonym here and there.
-
Leolaia
Sure. Good luck with things.