A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    Are you saying that Jeremiuah did not preach against Judah but for the nations only.

    Nice attempt at a 'bait and switch' by switching to "only". You said Jeremiah's message was "mainly targeted to Judah", and claimed this is confirmed by the first chapter. You lied.

    Jeffro has simply piggybacked COJ for he may have fooled you but not scholar.

    You have previously said I've put things forward that are not supported by "COJ". You've contradicted yourself. Idiot.

    Methinks the watch illustration is brilliant because it shows how the twenty hap is removed by factoring the seventy years which are missing from the NB chronology and history.

    There are significant problems with the JW chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period beyond just the '20-year gap'. As I've explained elsewhere:

    • 624-621 BCE – BM 21946 provides a continuous year-by-year record of Nebuchadnezzar’s activities up to the eleventh year of his reign, and shows Nebuchadnezzar returning to the ‘Hatti-land’ straight after his enthronement. However, the Watch Tower Society’s chronology has Nebuchadnezzar doing ‘a lot of nothing’ from his enthronement up until 620 BCE.
    • 621 BCE – With the Society’s 20-year ‘adjustment’, Nebuchadnezzar’s 601 BCE attack on Egypt should be moved to 621 BCE. However, 621 BCE falls before their reckoning of when Jehoiakim began paying tribute. This is problematic because Josephus gives the attack on Egypt as the reason for Jehoiakim’s refusal to pay tribute after three years. (“But on the third year, upon hearing that the king of Babylon made an expedition against the Egyptians, he did not pay tribute,” Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, Chapter 6 as quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1964, p. 637.) If the attack on Egypt is placed in 619 BCE, such that the subsequent request for Jehoiakim’s tribute were made on Nebuchadnezzar’s return to Babylon in early 618 BCE, this would mean Jehoiakim’s refusal to pay would fall in the second year of paying tribute rather than the third. This would suggest that the attack on Egypt would have to have been in 618 BCE. However, BM 21946 (rows 5 to 7 on the reverse) places the attack on Egypt in Kislev (December), at the same time the Society says Nebuchadnezzar was laying siege to Jerusalem.
    • 620 BCE – Nebuchadnezzar’s demand for tribute from Jehoiakim in his accession year should be placed in 624 BCE according to the Society’s 20-year gap. However, the Society will not admit there was a siege on Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year, despite both BM 21946 (rows 12 and 13 on the front) and Berossus attesting to his presence in the region to demand tribute in Sebat (February 604 BCE). Instead, it states that Jehoiakim was “compelled” to pay tribute (without acknowledging that this was to curtail a siege) in what they claim was ‘really’ Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘first year of Jehoiakim’s vassalage’, which they place in 620 BCE (Insight, “Babylon”, volume 1, page 238; Daniel’s Prophecy, page 32).
    • 620-618 BCE – The Society’s chronology constrains the period for which Jehoiakim paid tribute from early 620 BCE to mid-618 BCE (about 2.5 years). This contradicts BM 21946 (rows 12, 13, and 15 to 17 on the front, and rows 1 to 5 on the reverse), which places Nebuchadnezzar in the region to exact tributes on various occasions, from his accession year through to his fourth year, which should be 625 BCE (early 624 BCE) until 621 BCE when adjusting for the Society’s 20-year gap. It further contradicts BM 21946 (row 8 on the reverse), which says Nebuchadnezzar stayed in Babylon during his fifth year (620 BCE in the Society’s chronology).
    • 618 BCE – In addition to the problems the Society’s chronology causes regarding the reason for which Jehoiakim refused to pay tribute after three years, it also creates further problems for the timing of events between Jehoiakim’s refusal to pay and the siege that resulted in most of the Jews being exiled to Babylon. 2 Kings 24:2 states that in between these two events, various “marauder bands” of “Chaldeans”, “Syrians”, “Moabites” and “the sons of Ammon” attacked Judah. BM 21946 (rows 9 and 10 on the reverse) states that Nebuchadnezzar sent these “companies” in his sixth year, which should be 619 BCE in the Society’s chronology. However the Society constrains these “marauder bands” to the latter half of 618 BCE—which would be Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year in the Society’s interpretation—when BM 21946 (row 11 on the reverse) says the siege itself took place. In fact, BM 21946 (rows 6 to 10 on the reverse) places three full years between the attack on Egypt and the siege on Jerusalem, but the Society’s chronology forces all these events into late 618 BCE.
    • 609 BCE – The Watch Tower Society says an eighteen month siege against Jerusalem began in December of 609 BCE and ended in 607 BCE. However, because Jeremiah used Tishri-based dating for the reigns of Judaean kings, ‘the tenth month’ (Teveth) of Zedekiah’s ninth year begins at the end of 590 BCE. The siege ended in July of 587 BCE, and therefore lasted about thirty-one months (including a 13th intercalary month during 589BCE).
  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Prove at what time that each of the nation's servitude began and ended in respect to Babylon. Naming a date just cut the mustard.

    Yes such scholars make such a claim for the simple reason that they resent the fact that our writers source their material and use it in a fair and scholarly manner.

    No, they will not be ignored. If they have a legitimate complaint they should write. If readers write to the Society they will not be hounded by elders for elders do not do hounding forwe leave that for the 'dogs'.

    Steinmann excludes 538 therefore it is bogus.

    Jeremiah's principal target audience was Judah see Jer.1:14-19 and secondary audience were the nations.

    Yes you have some things different from Jonsson but very little for it is simply Jonsson revisited with pretty pictures or charts. Would you do some pretty charts for me illustrating Bible chronology?

    All that you present in terms of dates and history can simply be accommodated in the overall framework of NB Chronology and history for the entire nb Period. Such a period parallels the biblical period up to and beyond the Fall with the exception that NB history and chronology omits any reference to the seventy years. A gap of twenty years is noted when you compare both together but when you factor in the seventy years then Bingo you have a perfect synchronism between the two especiall now with the corroboration of the VAT4956. Symmetry at last!

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Prove at what time that each of the nation's servitude began and ended in respect to Babylon.

    Red herring. You know the period of 70 years has a fixed end-point and is of a fixed length. Should I quote the Society's Isaiah publication again for you that says the 70 years represents Babylon's period of domination?

    Naming a date just cut the mustard.

    Did it? Um... ok...

    Yes such scholars make such a claim for the simple reason that they resent the fact that our writers source their material and use it in a fair and scholarly manner.

    What possible motivation would someone have for objecting to their work being used in the manner it was intended? Idiot.

    If readers write to the Society they will not be hounded by elders

    Wrong again. I've seen it happen.

    Such a period parallels the biblical period up to and beyond the Fall with the exception that NB history and chronology omits any reference to the seventy years. A gap of twenty years is noted when you compare both together

    Idiot.

    I've just indicated explicitly where the JW chronology is not consistent with BM 21946 apart from the JW's '20-year gap'.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    All of dates listed above including those from 624 -609 BCE need to adjusted by twenty years as has been done by Bible chronology right up to the end of NB period. This adjustment or fine-tuning is necessary because NB chronology, history and secular records omit any reference to the seventy years. The events that you described under each date are OK broadly speaking. Such dates must be reto=calculated because new research has revised the dating for Nebuchadnezzer's 37 th year by some twenty years which has now been corrected due to the outstanding scholarship of the Nov issues of WT 2011. You gotta luv it! LOL

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    All of dates listed above including those from 624 -609 BCE need to adjusted by twenty years

    Are you thick? The dates I've indicated in JW chronology are even more wrong independently of the '20-year gap'.

    because new research has revised the dating for Nebuchadnezzer's 37 th year by some twenty years

    You mean the anonymous uncited 'researchers' mentioned in the November 2011 Watchtower? Or are you willing to put Furuli's name to it? LOL

    adjusted by twenty years as has been done by Bible chronology right up to the end of NB period

    Um... no... the 20-year gap is ambiguously inserted somewhere between the reigns of Evil-Merodach and Nabonidus, in some unstated hypothetical combination of before, after, between or extensions of the reigns of Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk, not "up to the end of NB period".

    Contemporary Babylonian records prove continuity of the reigns without the 20-year gap.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    The only fixed end point that is provable is that for Judah alone in 537 BCE. You raised the red herring not I. In respect for Tyre all that we can kbow is that it was under Babylon's domination for seventy years. No beginning or end is mentioned.

    If you saw it happen then they must have been naughty.

    Regarding the reign of Jehoiakim and the details of when he paid tribute and when he became a vassal king ot Nenuchadnezzer is problematic for Dan.1;1 states that it was in his last three years of his reign that he was a vassal king, this means that his vassalage coomence in his eight year which is confirmed by Josephus and many Jewish commentators.

    If you want to debate the historical details of BM 21946 then why don't you provide a transcription of what the document contains then I can compare your comments with Jonsson and Furuli. I am confident that such documents can be harmonized with Bible chronology for if you can do it then so can we.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    The only fixed end point that is provable is that for Judah alone in 537 BCE.

    No, it's already been established that you can't prove 537. However, the fall of Babylon in 539 is not only provable, but also required for your chronology. Idiot.

    If you saw it happen then they must have been naughty.

    Idiot.

    Regarding the reign of Jehoiakim and the details of when he paid tribute and when he became a vassal king ot Nenuchadnezzer is problematic for Dan.1;1 states that it was in his last three years of his reign that he was a vassal king, this means that his vassalage coomence in his eight year which is confirmed by Josephus and many Jewish commentators.

    Liar. Daniel 1:1 says nothing at all about vassalage or the "last three years" of anything:

    In the third year of the kingship of Je·hoi′a·kim the king of Judah, Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it.

    If you want to debate the historical details of BM 21946 then why don't you provide a transcription of what the document contains then I can compare your comments with Jonsson and Furuli. I am confident that such documents can be harmonized with Bible chronology for if you can do it then so can we.

    Already linked in previous post.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffr for in any event o

    It is not a matter of being thick it is simply a matter of examining your claims with other authorities for in any event your claim that these dates can be more wrong when in fact you already have a much larger problem with the twenty year gap!

    I can't put Furuli's name to those researchers because he was not one of them.

    The twenty year gap does not exist between any particular reign but is present when you compare the overall NB period with that of the Judean period thus yielding a difference of twenty years for that is the BIG problem.

    Continuity of reigns does not solve the dilemna nor does minor technical differences which are open to interpretation such as the reign of Jehoiakim. There are other technical issues with the beginning of Nebuchadnezzer's reign in fact scholarly articles abound with technical issues regarding the whole period which remain the subject of much dispute between scholars.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    Jeffr for in any event o

    Hmmm...

    I can't put Furuli's name to those researchers because he was not one of them.

    So who were they? Surely a "scholarly" article would provide a source for the most significant part of its claims.

    It is not a matter of being thick it is simply a matter of examining your claims with other authorities for in any event your claim that these dates can be more wrong when in fact you already have a much larger problem with the twenty year gap!

    Um... nice run-on sentence. The "other authorities" are consistent with what I've said. The "twenty year gap" is not consistent with the "other authorities". Take your own advice. Idiot.

    The twenty year gap does not exist between any particular reign but is present when you compare the overall NB period with that of the Judean period thus yielding a difference of twenty years for

    Seriously?! Do you ever read back what you've written? I provided all the possible combinations for where the Watch Tower Society might place its hypothetical 20 years ("between the reigns of Evil-Merodach and Nabonidus, in some unstated hypothetical combination of before, after, between or extensions of the reigns of Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk"). Are you claiming there was no Babylonian king during the magical 20 years?

    Continuity of reigns does not solve the dilemna nor does minor technical differences which are open to interpretation such as the reign of Jehoiakim.

    Wrong. I've already shown that the period is entirely resolved, and records of the continuous reigns completely disprove the supposed 'twenty year gap'. And you may need to learn the definition (and spelling) of the word dilemma.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    If you wish to discuss BM21946 then please provide a specific link for all of my documents and papers are in storage.

    The date 537 BCE is provable and the proof is outlined in our publications- Refer to Insight volumes under Chronology and Cyrus. Because according to Steinmann is the usual date for those who accept Ezra's chronology as accurate.

    Yes 539 BCE is provable and is necessary for Bible chronology and well demonstrated according to methodology.

    Daniel 1:1 refers to the vassalage of Jehoiakim' reign as the third year of his kingship. You left a big empty space in your last post or does this illustrate the state of your mind?

    scholar JW

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit