Well if this topic title doesn't bring Lars out of hiding nothing will.
Where has he been recently anyway? Out cursing fig trees & such?
607 BC vs 587 BC: VAT 4956
by Londo111 23 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Jeffro
sir82:
Well if this topic title doesn't bring Lars out of hiding nothing will.
Where has he been recently anyway? Out cursing fig trees & such?He's probably arguing with a fig tree.
-
breakfast of champions
Will check this out later.
-
Londo111
I'm hoping to have Appendix 7b done tonight...this will finish Side 1 of VAT 4956. 7c will be side two.
In the second part, I didn’t concentrate as much about how VAT4956 does not fit with 588 BC because I’m hoping it would be obvious by this point that 588 BC is impossible. And it would make this video twice as long to keep comparing back and forth.
I feel like I'm only scratching the surface on this topic. But I’m hoping that it can nudge people toward doing the Archaeoastronomy research for themselves--perhaps fill in gaps that I missed with thier own videos. If I can do it, so can they.
Many have already seen this, but for those who have not, the following is a stab at a ‘tutorial’ to help people get started with their own research. I’d rather people do the research than just taking my word for it, or anybody else’s for that matte r.
The archaeoastronomy tutorial:
-
Crazyguy
Has the WT done anything to try to discredit the 1700 clay tablets of the Egibi family?
-
Londo111
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prUhQNwoqcQ&list=PLyNx0oM_bmgCUrQ9a8qZ4xY6YrlzNyX-l&index=8
Here is Appendix 7b which examines the rest of Side 1.
-
Jeffro
Crazyguy:
Has the WT done anything to try to discredit the 1700 clay tablets of the Egibi family?
They have never referred to the "Egibi family" by name. Probably because it would make verification easier. However, they have alluded to them and similar records a few times.
*** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology ***
What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period. While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms.Here, they attempt to minimise the significance of the records, omitting the fact that the business records are dated with the year, month, and day, and instead focusing on "historical writings". The fact that the "historical writings" agree with the business records is ignored.
*** it-1 p. 453-454 Chronology ***
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. ... Casual students of ancient history often labor under the misconception that the cuneiform tablets (such as may have been used by Berossus) were always written at the same time or shortly after the events recorded on them. But, aside from the many cuneiform business documents that were truly contemporary, the Babylonian historical texts and even many astronomical texts often give evidence of being of a much later period.Here, the context of the tablets that are contemporary is overshadowed by attempting to cast doubt on other tablets.
*** it-1 p. 458 Chronology ***
Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.)Here, the same sources are considered reliable, in support of the agreed date for the capture of Babylon.
*** w11 11/1 pp. 23-24 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
Business tablets.
What are they? Most business tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period are legal receipts. The tablets were dated to the day, month, and year of the reigning king. For example, one tablet states that a transaction took place on “Nisan, the 27th day, the 11th year of Nebuchadrezzar [also known as Nebuchadnezzar II], king of Babylon.”
When the king died or was removed and a new king came to the throne, the remaining months of that regnal year were considered the accession year of the new ruler. In other words, the transition of one king to the next took place in the same Babylonian calendar year. Accordingly, tablets of the new ruler’s accession year should logically be dated during months after the last month of the former king.
What have experts said? R. H. Sack examined numerous business tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period. In 1972, Sack wrote that new unpublished British Museum texts placed at his disposal “completely upset” previous conclusions regarding the transition of rule from Nebuchadnezzar II to his son Amel-Marduk (also known as Evil-merodach). How so? Sack knew that tablets showed Nebuchadnezzar II to be still ruling in the sixth month of his last (43rd) year. But these newly deciphered tablets from the accession year of the following king, Amel-Marduk, were dated to the fourth and fifth months of what had been assumed to be the same year. Clearly, there was a discrepancy.
What do the documents show? There are further discrepancies in the transition of one king to another. For example, the documents show that Nebuchadnezzar II was still ruling in his tenth month—six months after his successor is assumed to have begun reigning. A similar discrepancy exists with the transition between Amel-Marduk and his successor, Neriglissar.
Why are these discrepancies significant? As mentioned earlier, gaps in the history documented by the Babylonian chronicles suggest that we may not have a continuous chronological record.10 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.The 'examination' of the tablets from the November 2011 issue of The Watchtower attempts to cast doubt on the tablets. They claim that there are discrepancies among the various tablets during the change of a king. They ignore the fact that such discrepancies are usually the result of tablets from further away from the capital city, where people had not yet heard about the changeover to a new king, such that the reign of a previous king can appear to be a few months longer. Also ignored is the known fact that Amel-Marduk attempted to establish his own authority during the latter part of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. R. H. Sack has explicitly stated that he was taken out of context.
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
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.
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 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: “It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.”—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.In the 1981 publication, Let Your Kingdom Come, it was claimed that although the business records do indicate the entire Neo-Babylonian period, they "might" be in error. Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr also indicated that he was taken out of context:
I am dismayed at the use made of.... my chronological lists by the Watch Tower Society. I fear that some earnest folk will reach for any straw to support their already-arrived-at conclusions. This is most certainly a case of doing just that.... there was absolutely no intent to suggest that there was leeway of as much as twenty years for the dates relating to Babylonia and Judah.... the 587-6 date can be off by no more than one year, while the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire.
-
Crazyguy
So again they use the records, tablets, calendars, etc. to prove Babylon was indeed conquered by the Persians in 539 but then turn around and throw doubt of the validity of those same documents for the time and dates of when Jerusalem was destroyed. Typical
-
Witness My Fury
Thanks for this.
Glad Lars isnt here to trash yet another thread....
-
VM44
Could others have ruled between the reigns of these kings? If so, additional years would have to be added to the Neo-Babylonian period.
The Watchtower would have us consider that there are 20 years worth of missing business records?
The November 2011 had just shown that, rather than there being gaps, that the dating of some business tablets overlap two reigns?
How does the possibility of a "gap of years between kings" follow from that?