All-time classic phrase from WT literature re: 607

by comment 3 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • comment
    comment

    From the book "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981), Appendix to Chapter 14, page 186:

    "Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period."

    It's hard to believe that for years as a faithful Witness, I read these lines and simply nodded and read on:

    "From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/86 B.C.E."

    "Might seem"? Hmm. Let's look at those two previous sentences again, this time with key words capitalized:

    "Business tablets: THOUSANDS of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for ALL the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the ACCEPTED CHRONOLOGY of the period."

    "Accepted chronology," of course, means the chronology that virtually everyone except the Society accepts.

    This is the equivalent of a businessman who argues when audited: "Well, yes, it might seem that I have thousands of receipts for my earnings in this year. But actually, even though the date, month and year is indicated on all these thousands of bills, if you'd only look at them with eyes of faith, Mr. IRS Man, you'd realize that they actually come from twenty years ago and I shouldn't have to pay tax on them."

    And the Society admits this in a book they published.

    comment.

  • JT
    JT

    See i got to leave this NET "THANG" alone

    man do you realize i never looked at that statement like that before

    they admit that there are tons of evidence to show the 587 date yet Since Freddy came up with this one we are keeping it regardless of what the evidence says'

    great post

    i learn more each day

  • dungbeetle
    dungbeetle

    Speaking of seeing/not seeing, this is slightly off-topic but along the same line; while researching homeschooling and the Watchtower, I didn't find what I wanted, but found this...

    New World Translation Bible 1961 (the green bible..
    John 1:1 ...and the Word was a god.

    New World Translation Bible 1984 (black/maroon)
    John 1:1 ...and the Word was a god.

    Kingdom Interlinear Translation 1969 (purple)
    John 1:1....and god was the Word. (the literal rendering)

    I hadn't noticed before. (it says 'a' in the English rendering, but still---the Bible writers didn't 'mean what they meant'..)

    In 1975 a crack team of publishers was sentenced to death by a judicial commiteee. They promptly escaped from the cult and now live life on the run. If you have a problem ... and if you can find them ... maybe you can contact the A--postate Team"

  • Larsguy
    Larsguy

    Thanks for posting this information, but I think they have since been more specific about this dismissal in the 'Insight' volume.

    The fact is, though, both the 587 BCE dating and 607BCE dating are part of the revised dating that redates the fall of Babylon in 539BCE. The documents in question, largely from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, by far, are only RELATIVE dated and the only thing significant about them is that the reduced years are missing. Thus these documents don't support ANY specific year.

    In other words, if you have a tablet that says 40 sheep were purchased by the palace from Judahnee on the 5th day of the 8th month of the 12th year of Nebuchadnezzar, that doesn't give you the DATE! That would be like me telling you that somebody bought something from me the 5th year after I graduated from high school and I graduated when I was 18 years old. So what? What year was it? Only if you know my BIRTHDATE could this be a chronological reference. That's why only the ASTRONOMICAL TEXTS are a critical reference to the chronology of the period because they are astronomically fixed to a specific year! You can shuffle the business documents around to any year you want, including the ORIGINAL chronology which supports now that Jerusalem indeed fell in 529BCE.

    But thanks for this reference. It's old though... I'm sure they explain this situation better in the 'Insight' volumes.

    L.G.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit