587 BC for Total Dunderheads

by Farkel 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    If you're a dunderhead on Neo-Babylonian history (like me) you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 B.C. comes up. Since I had nothing better to do today, I decided to finally take the time it takes to understand why dub chronology on that date is wrong. This piece of information alone should give you a clue about how bored I am!

    It turns out this stuff is a piece of cake! The tricky part was filtering through the obfuscating WTS comments on the matter, and I won't bother you with that. However, using ONLY comments by the faithful and discrete slavers we can rather easily see that their chronology regarding 607 B.C. is wrong.

    There is really not much to learn here, either: No astronomy, no neo-Babylonian tablets, and no confusing Bible versus will be presented. Just the names of five people with really funny names, and only several quotes from WTS publications will be used. Also, there is no need to quibble over things like regnal years, assession years, cardinal and ordinal numbers, whatever in-the-hell THEY are. Remember, the WTS's claim of 607 B.C. is a full TWENTY years earlier than the accepted date of 586/87 B.C. and all the tinkering with a few months here and few partial year reigns there cannot make up a difference of twenty years.

    Another tricky part to remember is that people were very primitive in those years before Christ came up with a sensible calendar that actually counts FORWARD as you go forward rather than BACKWARD as you go forward. This is known as the "really stupid ancient people RULE." It's a wonder those folks could survive at all.

    Most of what we need is found in a single paragraph of the WTS book "Babylon the Grape Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rocks!" ("Fallen Baby") on page 184 . To keep things simple, I will paraphrase this paragraph, but include the actual paragraph at the end for reference.

    We have to start some 68 years AFTER the date of Jerusalem's fall with a date and event that is agreed upon by both the WTS and secular historians. From this date we will count backward by counting forward using the "really stupid ancient people RULE." That date is 539 B.C., the date that Babylon fell to Cyrus the Mede ("Cy").

    Keep in mind we are trying to find the date Jerusalem fell and the Genital Times began.

    "Fallen Baby" tells us that Nabonidus ("Nabby") was King when Babylon fell in 539 B.C. The WTS book "Aid to Bible Understanding" tells that "Nabby" ruled seventeen years from 556 to 539 B.C.

    We are now back to 556 B.C.

    "Fallen Baby" tells us that before Nabby, Labashi-Marduk ("Laby the Duck") ruled about nine months. It also tell us that before "Laby The Duck," Neriglissar ("Glissy") ruled for four years.

    So if we go backwards 4 years and nine months from 556 B.C. we're now at 560-561 B.C.

    "Fallen Baby" also tells us that before "Glissy", Evil-Merodach ("Evil Duck") ruled for 2 years. We are now back to 562-563 B.C. and to the last year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzer ("Chad").

    On page 1212 of the Aid to Bible Understanding book we are told that "Chad" ruled 43 years.

    562/563 + 43 years = 605/606 BC, the year when "Chad" started ruling Babylon.

    2nd Kings 25:8-10 tells us that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of "Chad's" reign, so if we go forward 19 years from 605/606 B.C. we will have the approximate years of the beginning of the Genital Times.

    Using the "really stupid ancient people RULE" to go forward when you want to go backward we get:

    605/606 B.C. - 19th year of "Chad's" reign = 586/587 B.C!

    That's it! It's that simple.

    Let's summarize:

    "Nabby" ruled Babylon for 17 years from 556 to 539 B.C. Cy messed up Babylon in 539 B.C.

    Before that, "Laby the Duck" ruled for 9 months and "Glissy" ruled for 4 years.

    "Evil Duck" ruled for 2 years.

    "Chad" ruled for 43 years.

    17 years + 9 months + 4 years + 2 years + 43 years = 66 to 67 years.

    Starting at 539 B.C. and going back 66/67 years we arrive at 605/606 B.C. or the start of the reign of "Chad." Remember, none of this would be possible without using the "really stupid ancient people RULE."

    Nineteen years after 605/606 B.C. using this stupid RULE brings us to 586/587 B.C.

    This is so simple that everyone but the Watchtower Society can understand it.

    Oh. Yeah, I did state I was taking a leave from the board. I claim my constitutional right to "Theocratic War Strategy," and these are "critical times hard to deal with," so don't start hazing me. I have Bible-Based(tm) reasons that are irrefutible.

    References:

    Insight on the Scriptures under "Chaldea""

    "Particularly was this domination manifest during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. when Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon."

    Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules, page 184:

    "After reigning but two years King Evil-Merodach was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar. According to the inscriptions that have been found, this usurper of the throne spent most of his time in building operations and reigned four years. When he died, his son Labashi-Marduk, though not yet of age, succeeded him. He was a vicious boy, and within nine months he had his throat cut by an assassin. Nabonidus, who had served as Governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, now took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign till Babylon fell in 539 B.C."

    Aid to Bible Understanding on Nabonidus - P 1195:

    "Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire...On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have rule some seventeen years (556-539 B.C.E.)."

    Farkel

  • patio34
    patio34

    Thanks Farkel for that simplified version of chronology. I particularly enjoyed this analysis:

    It turns out this stuff is a piece of cake! The tricky part was filtering through the obfuscating WTS comments on the matter, and I won't bother you with that. However, using ONLY comments by the faithful and discrete slavers we can rather easily see that their chronology regarding 607 B.C. is wrong.

    There is really not much to learn here, either: No astronomy, no neo-Babylonian tablets, and no confusing Bible versus will be presented. Just the names of five people with really funny names, and only several quotes from WTS publications will be used. Also, there is no need to quibble over things like regnal years, assession years, cardinal and ordinal numbers

    Dubs think the WT is exceptionally scholarly because of the confusion they insert by such things as regnal years, cardinal and ordinal numbers, etc., etc., etc., etc. ad nauseaum. What it does is deliberately bog down the reader with double talk, which, of course, considering the reputed number of lawyers there, makes sense.

    Your post made sense to me and I'll be sure to remember it, should I ever be inclined to discuss it (not likely).

    Pat

  • Nocturne
    Nocturne

    huh....I still don't get it . Just joking....but about a week ago I did the exact same thing researching in the society's own books. It's pretty stupid of them though to keep all the info that proves that the date is not 607, although it is scattered here and there.

  • Sunspot
    Sunspot

    Fark!

    I obviously must have a clinical problem with my eyes-----the moment I begin to read ANYTHING that has to be biblically calculated---my eyes glaze over. It happens time and time again!

    I stunk at math all my life, and REALLY stunk at WTS math whenever it was presented. I DID enjoy though, your remark concerning the "Genital Times", LOL!

    It was nice to have you back---if only for a short time!

    hugs,

    Annie

  • JCanon
    JCanon

    Thanks Farkel! Only problem is that this is not the ONLY reference to this chronology. The problem is not whether a clear chronology comes down to us from the pagan records, but whether those records were revised or not. One indication of revisionism is if there are alternative chronologies with different numbers.

    In the case of the NB period, for instance, Josephus claims that there were 70 years from the last deportation in year 23 of "Chad" until the 1st of Cyrus.

    Sooooo.......where did he get that number? Is it more reliable than the NB records? Etc.

    All you've done is told us what the Persian Period records claim was the chronology. So thanks. If you take their word over Josephus' then that's your choice. Are you qualified to make an academically responsible choice between Josephus and the Persian records? Is anybody?

    So it's not just "Oh yeah, this is what the Persians claim! so chronology closed." The problem is the other chronologies that differ from the Persian dating, including Josephus for one, the Bible for another and even the Persian astronomical texts like the VAT4956 and the SK400 that reflect the 587BCE chronology, but if they were truly resposible would not have references to other dates for the same event in them. The double dating is a dead giveaway the chronology was revised.

    So thanks for giving us the Persian side of the chronology debate. It might be the correct chronology, theoretically, but it's neither Josephus' chronology nor the Bible's. I prefer Josephus and the Bible for my own purposes, but that's me.

    Have a nice day!

    JC

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    annie,

    : the moment I begin to read ANYTHING that has to be biblically calculated---my eyes glaze over. It happens time and time again!

    Yeah. Me too. The WTS likes it that way. Here is the shortest possible math:

    If one can find the year Nebuchadnezzer started his reign, one can find when Jerusalem fell.

    Virtually everyone agrees that 539 B.C. is the date Babylon fell to the Medes. There are 67 years from the start of Nebuchadnezzer's reign to the fall of Babylon. This brings us back to 605/606 B.C. The Bible clearly states that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Neb's reign. This brings us forward to 586/587 B.C.

    How's that for simple?

    Farkel

  • wednesday
    wednesday

    farekel,

    my hubby wants to know this,

    the jews were in bondage to babylon 70 yrs. he says if u go form 539 -(using ancient rule) u get 609-or thereabouts. being off 2 yrs is not bad.

    so he says all the other stufff does not matter.

  • minimus
    minimus

    Oops! I thought JCanon wrote this thread.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    wednesday,

    : the jews were in bondage to babylon 70 yrs. he says if u go form 539 -(using ancient rule) u get 609-or thereabouts. being off 2 yrs is not bad.

    : so he says all the other stiff does not matter.

    Because of the specific claims made by the Watchtower, "being close" only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes. Being off by "only" 2 years trashes the 1914 "invisible reign" doctrine, the 1918 "invisible resurrection" doctrine and most importantly, the 1919 invisible "only we speak for God" doctrine which is the cornerstone of the Watchtower's claim to spiritual knowledge and authority.

    Besides, that the WTS itself uses that same Kingly assession reasoning to "prove" the 607 B.C. date. The only difference is they claim that "Evil Duck" began reigning in 581 B.C., not 562 B.C. as their very own literature shows. This "pushes" back the date of Jerusalem's destruction to make it fit with WTS dogma.

    Your hubby is using a logical fallacy called "special pleading," where he wants us to ignore some faked evidence put forward by the WTS and accept other faked evidence put forward by the WTS.

    A classic example of special pleading is this statement: "Please don't convict me for killing my parents, your Honor. After all, I'm an orphan now."

    Farkel

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    BibleMan,

    : All you've done is told us what the Persian Period records claim was the chronology

    No. All I've told you is what the Watchtower Org. and one scripture which identifies the year in "Chad's" reign that Jerusalem fell tells us.

    Don't stick the Persians with the blame. It's the WATCHTOWER who's done the lying here.

    Farkel

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit