607 BC (page 2)

Unless I am inclined to practice numerology, dates and numbers and inches up the queens chamber passage do not matter. http://www.astrology-numerology.com/numerology.html

The idea that The Bible is a code book that is unlocked by the application of numerology is not a new idea. The lineage to our group of subject is to William Miller of the 1800's.

When the time passed at which the Lord's coming was first expected,--in the spring of 1844,--those who had looked in faith for His appearing were for a season involved in doubt and uncertainty. While the world regarded them as having been utterly defeated and proved to have been cherishing a delusion, their source of consolation was still the word of God. Many continued to search the Scriptures, examining anew the evidences of their faith and carefully studying the prophecies to obtain further light. The Bible testimony in support of their position seemed clear and conclusive. Signs which could not be mistaken pointed to the coming of Christ as near.

CHAPTER 22, Prophecies Fulfilled, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, Ellen G. White http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc22.html

To really understand the current Watch Tower Publishing Corporation, study the second advent movement and the writings of Nelson Barbour and Charles Russell. Biblical events and stories applied to numbers and those numbers applied to apocalyptic verses and those verses applied back to Biblical prophesy and that prophesy applied to current events is how it all works. It has all netted nothing except wealth and power to those publishing the books. The members still wait and work.

I apologize for being pragmatic. Gary

undercover

I know where're ya coming from, Min. Explain to the average dub all the fallacies of the 607 date and they get that glazed over, deer caught in the headlight look. They don't understand how their(the WTS) explanation works, so therefore they aren't going to understand why it doesn't work. Since they are conditioned to accept whatever they are told without question, they will just blink, and zone out until the next meeting when they are told they have the "truth".

But when one of em wakes up and realizes something is amiss, this is excellant material to prove that the JWs are not the one "true" religion and the GB is not God's chosen earthly spokesmen. It's a house of cards just waiting for a breeze.

Hamas

Quick tip

As Simon says, Gentile Times Reconsidered is a very good book.

But, it blows your mind.

sandy

They don't understand how their(the WTS) explanation works, so therefore they aren't going to understand why it doesn't work . Since they are conditioned to accept whatever they are told without question, they will just blink, and zone out until the next meeting when they are told they have the "truth".

true, true, true

RunningMan

A very comprehensive discussion of the evidence is presented at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7831/babylon1.html

and: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7831/babylon2.html

joe_from_kokomo

Well, I have to chime in on this one...

Not all JWs are the same, folks, nor are all of them devoid of an IQ, as many a posting here will atest to. As for me and my family, we were shocked to learn that 607 BCE was a false date, an outright lie. IT WAS THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK FOR US.

And Simon is correct that the book, "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" is an excellent review of the "other side of the story". It is available on Amazon.com, too.

Finally, keep in mind that both volumes of the Isaiah book mention 607 BCE and 1914 in every single damned chapter-some of you who have not attended a book study in a year or two may not be aware of this-so it is relevant and important to any JW with half-a-brain. And I argue that there are more of them than some of you suggest.

Some will always be swayed by the smooth sayings of the FDS, but if the truth about 607 and 1914 were to come to light, it would have a devastating effect on the WTS.

This is ultimately why Carl Olaf Jonsson was disfellowshipped, was it not? At least he alleges this in his GTR book that we are all recommending as required reading on this topic.

Just my two cents...

rocketman

I'm not sure how much it would hurt the WTS. Another thing that we might consider is the tendency for the average jw to simply dismiss disquieting information. That, coupled with a double-speak article or two, just like the case of the "generation" change in 1995 could, I think, easliy keep most jws in the fold.

One must also remember: the jw cares more about keeping friendships and family intact than the fidelity of doctrine. If one has spent years and years building their lives around some belief system, they are generally going to be very reluctant to leave. Joe, you and your family seem to be a courageous exception, as of course are others here as well.

logansrun

Well, I believe Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC. I also believe Columbus discovered America in 1472 ;) hehe Bradley

TheOldHippie

A new book on the ancient chronology, part I, by Furuli, will be out soon. Although people here will disagree with him, it is to be hoped they would do so AFTER having read it, and at least welcome a reply as this one in the 607 / 587 debate. The info on the coming of the book, as given by a friend of mine, states that:

The Oslo chronology versus the chronology of Parker and Dubberstein

The chronology of Parker and Dubberstein has been almost universally accepted for the last fifty years. According to P&D the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar was 605 B.C.E. and his destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 B.C.E. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus occurred in 539, and the Persian empire ended in 331 B.C.E. after the five year reign of Darius III.

For the first time this chronology has been challenged in a scholarly study. The tablets to which P&D refer, have been studied afresh, and an attempt has been made to make a synthesis of all the tablets that contradict the traditional chronology and give a new interpretation to some of the old material.

Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible

Volume I

Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews

This book is based on a study of the data from several thousand cuneiform tablets, including dated contracts and other business documents, and astronomical tablets giving the positions of the heavenly bodies in relation to each other and to the Zodiac in particular years. A careful analysis of relevant texts in Hebrew and Aramaic (the Elephantine Papyri) has been performed. About 400 modern sources have also been used.

Parker and Dubberstein

A study of each cuneiform document used by P&D to show in which regnal years of Babylonian and Persian kings, intercalary months were added, reveals that 49 % of the ”evidence” used by P&D has no real value, in this author’s judgment. A comparison of 1450 cuneiform tablets dated during the reigns of the Persian kings reveals tablets for most of the kings that contradict P&D’s scheme, which was based on the first and last tablets dated to each king. On this basis it is argued that the chronology of P&D should be radically revised.

The chronology of the Persian kings

The most trustworthy cuneiform evidence consists of dated business tablets. These indicate sales, loans, and other transactions and are dated in the day, month, and year of the king who ruled at the time. These dates are clearly unbiased. A comparison of these tablets suggests a different chronology compared with the one advocated by P&D. The business tablets demand that Bardiya (Gaumata, who probably is the ”Artaxerxes” of Ezra 4:23) ruled for 18 months between Cambyses and Darius I. Thus the accession year of Darius I is pushed one year forward. There are strong reasons to believe that Xerxes was co-regent with Darius I for 11 years. Evidence:

1. Tablets are dated to the accession year of Xerxes before the last tablets of the 36th year of Darius I.

2. Drawings and inscriptions make the two equal and give them the same titles.

3. Different titles used by Xerxes after his 11th year.

4. The pattern of intercalary months is the same in the last 11 years of Darius and the first 11 years of Xerxes. The reign of Xerxes is pushed back 10 years (11 years of the co-regency, minus the 1 year of Bardiya). Thus the accession year of Artaxerxes I is taken as 475 B.C.E., ten years before 465, which is advocated by P&D. This means that the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:1) is 455 B.C.E. The business tablets may indicate that Artaxerxes I ruled through his 51st year and a few days into his 52nd year. Thus the reign of Darius II is pushed forward one year (Xerxes II/Sogdianos may have ruled a short time between Artaxerxes I and Darius II).

The absolute chronology based on the positions of the heavenly bodies in the reigns of particular kings.

The glimpse of the Oslo chronology of the Persian kings presented above collide head on both with P&D and with the three so-called ”Saros tablets” which, as far as we can see from their fragmentary condition, present 18-year cycles of eclipse possibilities of the moon, which can be connected with numbered years of Persian kings.

In order to make an absolute chronology on the basis of astronomical diaries, lunar (Saros) tablets and planet tablets, three requirements must be met:

1. The positions of the heavenly bodies must be observed by the eye of a scribe and written down at the same time; and they must not only represent backward calculations made at a much later time.

2. The name of the ruling king must be written on the tablet at the time when the observations are made.

3. Enough observations must be found on the tablet to be able to pinpoint the dates of observation according to the Julian and Gregorian calendar.

As far as the Saros tablets are concerned, only condition 3 is met. The pattern of the eclipses, numbers of regnal years, and abbreviated names of kings (on one of them) help astronomers pinpoint the years of the kings of the Persian empire back to the last part of the reign of Darius I.

It has been known for a long time that the Saros tablets do not contain original observations, but they represent calculations solely based on theory, or on a combination of theory and other tablets containing observations. Thus they indicate that in the 3rd century B.C.E., in the astronomical/historical milieu, a scheme of 18-year Saros cycles connected with a chronology of kings existed, probably going back as far as to the time of Nabonassar (747 B.C.E.) as suggested by other tablets. The important question is: Do these 24 Saros cycles (of which we only have fragments), which cover 432 years from 747 to 315 B.C.E., and which are connected with a chronology of kings, represent reality, or are they as a whole fictional?

If we take the dated business tablets and other material at face value, the answer, as far as the Persian empire is concerned, is that the Saros tables are fictional. Eclipses of the moon occur regularly at 5 or 6 month intervals, and almost the same series of eclipes occur every 223 months (18 years), so the eclipse part of the Saros scheme is real. What is fictional, (a conclusion based on more than one hundred business tablets and ”anomalous” intercalary months from the Persian empire), is the connection between the eclipse cycles of the moon and the succession of kings. P&D took the Saros tablets as proof of their chronology and rejected business tablets which contradicted their chronology, and were not aware of scores of other tablets that speak against their chronology. The Oslo chronology does the very opposite of P&D by taking the business tablets at face value, which forces us to reject the theoretical Saros chronology as a depiction of reality.

The length of the Babylonian exile of the Jews

Language is ambiguous, and many texts can be interpreted in different ways. But a careful linguistic analysis reveals that Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 unambiguously say that Jerusalem was a desolate waste without inhabitants for a full 70 years, while the people were exiled in Babylon. It has been argued that the words of Jeremiah 25:11,12 do not corroborate with the mentioned unambiguous texts. This is wrong, and an analysis of these and other words of Jeremiah show that, while his words are not unambiguous, they can be interpreted as saying the same thing as the unambiguous texts. Daniel and the Chronicler, who personally knew the length of the exile, interpreted the words of Jeremiah as indicating a desolate condition of 70 years. A correct understanding of Hebrew verbs help us to understand that Zechariah 1:12; 7:5 accords with the other passages, definitely stressing the desolate condition of 70 years.

Volume II and the Babylonian chronology

Much research is needed before Volume II is ready for publication, but a few remarks can be made at this point. The chronologies of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia are interdependent as far as the dates of the reigns of the kings are concerned. If, for instance, the accession year of the first New Babylonian king is pushed forward one or two years, the whole New Babylonian dynasty is pushed forward by one or two years. The same is true if one of the kings is pushed one or more years backwards. This is what we may call the ”domino-effect”.

This ”domino-effect” works in another way as well, something that can be seen in connection with the Saros cycles. The Saros scheme with each cycle consisting of 223 lunar months, includes the Persian and New Babylonian kings, and a great number of Assyrian kings. The scheme either represents reality, or it is fictional. If we, on the basis of a great number of dated business tablets, can show that the part of the Saros scheme that includes the Persian kings, is fictional—which I believe we can—then, this has the ”domino effect” in that the same must be true for the the rest of the Saros scheme covering the New Babylonian and Assyrian empires. Thus the whole frame of the New Babylonian chronology of P&D falls apart.

The year 539 B.C.E.is taken in the Oslo chronology as the time when Cyrus conquered Babylon, although there can be some uncertainty with that year, due to the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which is not as good as we would have wished. However, if we accept the year 539 and at the same time accept the unambiguous witness of the Bible, we also must accept that the Babylonian exile began about 70 years before the year 539, and not 49 or 50, which is what B&D allows for. This means that both the Bible and the Oslo chronology of the Persian empire argues against the traditional New Babylonian chronology.

The witness of the cuneiform tablets related to the New Babylonian kings will be thoroughly discussed in Volume II. The astronomical evidence of this period is meager indeed, though specific, and it will be discussed in the light of the three crieteria mentioned above. It is particularly important to come to grips with the astronomical diary VAT 4956. As of present I have reviewed data from about 7.000 business tablets from the New Babylonian Empire. There are so many tablets that are anomalous, from the point of view of the traditional chronology, that the whole scheme of P&D breaks down. Each king seems to have ruled longer than P&D says. This material will be systemized and interpreted. An important question that will be scrutinized is whether one whole Saros period of 18 years somehow was lost in the New Babylonian era in the theoretical Saros schemes that were used in the 3rd century B.C.E., to the effect that the New Babylonian dynasty of kings existed 18 years longer than P&D says. There are several original inscriptions from this period as well, some containing information that is contradicted by others. The result of a study of these will also be presented.

A word of caution

Ancient history cannot be proven, because there are no living informants. Any attempt to make a chronological scheme of the kings of ancient nations is tentative. The Oslo chronology does not claim to represent the final word of the matter, but it represents a new approach to chronology. It does not generally challenge the interpretations and datings of astronomical tablets by experts such as Sachs, Hunger, Watson, and Steel, but it questions the origin and quality of the tablets, thus scrutinizing the connection between the dates and regnal year of real kings. Its advantage is that the cuneiform data are not seen through the glasses of the traditional chronology, but the evidence of each tablet is presented in its own right. It is also an advantage that published cuneiform sources are much more numerous and complete than was the case 50 years ago when Parker and Dubberstein did their work. The real importance of the Oslo chronology, therefore, is not that it has established ”the only true chronology”, but that it has demonstrated that the accepted chronology, based on P&D is not ”the only true chronology”.

607 BC

ballistic

garybuss