586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed (page 2)

IslandWoman

IslandWoman said:

Alan, please do not address any of my posts. You are a little man, who when called on a point shouts disrespect! Please get out of my face.

IW

AlanF

Fine, IW. But don't go whining about no one replying to your question.

And for the record, you're a small-minded little woman with far too high an opinion of her ability to reason.

AlanF

IslandWoman

Damn you,

Fine, IW. But don't go whining about no one replying to your question.

When I need a reneger and a coward to answer my questions I'll let you know buddy.

And for the record, you're a small-minded little woman with far too high an opinion of her ability to reason.
AlanF

Stop the jackass stupidity you little man. You boy, are looking for meat here, I know it. You hunt and go home hungry. lol

Happy hunting.

IslandWoman

scholar

Alleymom

You have two problems with your KISS chronology.

Firstly where does the 70 years configure in your data?

Secondly, what date marked the Fall of Ferusalem, 586 OR 587?

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

cynicus

You have two problems with your KISS chronology.

I'd say that you, Neil, have two problems with Marjorie's approach. Most people don't have any problem with it at all, so please don't shift the burden of evidence.

Firstly where does the 70 years configure in your data?

It doesn't. Great huh? So we don't need to discuss which 70 years, when they started or whatever. Since she's counting backwards from a WBTS-approved 'pivotal datum' using WTBS-approved regnal lengths it doesn't really matter. Can't you understand that? Or do you indeed believe there was a neo-Babylonian king left out of her counting method, or that one of the regnal lengths isn't correct after all? Please enlighten us with details.

Secondly, what date marked the Fall of Ferusalem, 586 OR 587?

July 18th, 586 B.C. If you need further explanation I refer you to Jack Finegan's excellent Handbook of Biblical Chronology, revised edition, 1999, paragraph 443, page 259; in an earlier post you've acknowledged that you personally own all of Finegans work so you shouldn't even have to go to the library. If you nevertheless prefer a date in 587 B.C. that's fine too, and we can discuss Jer. 52 as much as you want. Yet 607 remains off the scale in all cases.

(c)

City Fan

Scholar

what date marked the Fall of Ferusalem, 586 OR 587?

You've been shown time and time again why this is a non-argument. As a scholar this should be simple to understand. Why do you persist with this rubbish. Who are you trying to convince, us or yourself?

smurfette

Now I know why I always did poorly in math! It was the JW's fault!

As for Ferusalem, I've never heard of the place let alone was aware that it fell.

expatbrit

Just for reference, here are a couple of links to some excellent pages on Shaun's Research on the Watchtower site, which show the Watchtower's shenanigans with dates:

http://www1.tip.nl/%7Et661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm

http://www1.tip.nl/%7Et661020/wtcitaten/part2.htm

http://www1.tip.nl/%7Et661020/wtcitaten/part3.htm

http://www1.tip.nl/%7Et661020/wtcitaten/part4.htm

Expatbrit

expatbrit

arguing about various interpretations of the 70 years is obscuring one simple fact

And there you have it.

Excellent post Alleymom!

Expatbrit

Alleymom

Trouble is, Watchtower inconsistently insinuates that there still must be some missing king or kings between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus, or that the latter's reign was more than 17 years, or both. But they never really discuss such things, probably because they know that it would open a can of worms. "How do you know that there are extra years?" "Well, because we know that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607." Even a lot of braindead JWs would see through that.

Yes, as I said in my second post, they certainly do dance around in many other articles which I did not quote. But the 1965 WT article is fatal to those later arguments.

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

There are no missing kings between

Evil-Merodach/ Neriglissar
Neriglissar/ Labashi-Marduk
Labashi-Marduk/Nabonidus.

and the lengths of reigns are given.

The only possible objections which can be raised to the count-backwards-slowly method are:

1) there were interregnums (years when there was no king)
2) there was at least one unknown Mr. Mystery King
3) some of the kings reigned longer than the stated length

Now I could kiss the KISS approach goodbye and start citing cuneiform tablets which show the interlinks between the various kings, but this is not necessary if you stick with the WT's own statements (from my second post).

They are on record as having given the lengths of reign of each king, and they are on record as having said so-and-so succeeded so-and-so.

They always want to take the date of 539 as their starting point.
Fine, start with 539. Add in the lengths of reign of each king from their own literature, and you arrive at the conventional dating for the destruction of Jerusalem.

It really seems to me that they are hoist with their own petard (Hamlet III, iv).

I have a houseful of books and journal articles and photocopies with which I could argue about all kinds of arcane details, but after having spent many years tutoring and teaching children, I am all too well acquainted with that glazed-eye look.

The average witness at my door would be utterly overwhelmed if I whipped out arguments about astronomical diaries and saros texts and prosopographical evidence.

When I am talking to friends who are into astronomy or chronology of the ANE I can start mentioning Parker & Dubberstein or Hunger or Sachs or Sack and be understood.

But I am looking for a KISS approach to use with the Witnesses I know, and I think I'll give this a try the next time I get a chance. (I bought the 1965 bound volume, by the way.)

Marjorie

586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed

Share this