Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  pennycandy

  Scholar said, "586, 587 and 607 are derived or calcuable dates and are not based on any existing, direct secular evidence."

  Below is a list of direct secular evidence that points to 586/587 BCE as the date for the overthrow of Jerusalem.

  Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the Uruk kinglist, the Royal Canon, Nabon. No. 18 and Nabon. No. 8 (the Hillah stele), Nabon. H 1, B (the Adad-guppi' stele), many legal documents from each year of the Neo-Babylonian period, lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1417, lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1419, lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1420, lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1421, astronomical diary VAT 4956, astronomical diary B.M. 32312, Saturn tablet B.M. 76738+76813.

  These are a FEW of the items that are accepted by experts in the field as direct evidence of 586/587 as the date for the overthrow of Jerusalem, and are considered to prove that date as absolute.

  I think this is an example of the kind of evidence people on this forum are looking for when they ask you for proof of the 607 date.

  PennyCandy
• 

  steve2

  Scholar, sadly your "scholarly" credentials and methodology are not valued on this forum. Who knows but that you might be able to publish a supportive article or two in the worldly media and the brothers in Brooklyn will rush to quote from it? This may just be the real beginning for you. I can see it now: The year is 2012 with less than two years to go before the 100th anniversary of 1914, and a new governing body member is announced who goes under the psuedonym "Scholar". Long live the Watchtower chronology! Let it survive and let Scholar trumpet its accuracy!
• 

  scholar

  pennycandy

  None of the secular souces you have quoted directly prove 586 or 587, In order to derive the dates 586 or 587 one needs to calculate from the data contained in those documents. I repeat there is no direct or immediate secular evidence that connects the Fall of Jerusalem with the specific reign of Neb or Zedekiah. It is only the biblical data that provides the specific data for that event namely the Fall of Jerusalem.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  outbutnotdown

  Scholar,

  Where in the Bible is 607 B.C.E mentioned? Not only do you avoid questions other than what you want to answer but your answers are only what you want to hear.

  What about the Asian disaster and it's relation to the 1914 prophecy? Are you waiting for the WTBTS to tell you what the answer should be? You shouldn't have suggested to people here, who in contrast to your opinion, look at what happened in Asia as a very sad event.

  Brad
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  It is only the biblical data that provides the specific data for that event namely the Fall of Jerusalem

  The point is Scholar, that all secular evidence supports the 586/587 date and goes against the 607 date. So all those documents and tablets mentioned by Pennycandy discount 607 as a possible date for the destruction of the temple.

  Your right, only the bible gives the regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar for this event. But being the bible, it doesn't say which calendar to use, Jewish or Babylonian, so that we cannot be certain whether it was 586BC or 587BC.

  Myself and several other posters have been over these points with you time and time again. Are you simply trying to catch out newbies to the subject with your limited knowledge?

  CF.
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  Pennycandy mentioned LBAT 1420, so I'll explain to you how we can date the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar using just one eclipse record of the dozens recorded in it.

  Cuneiform tablet BM 38462 (=LBAT 1420) reports lunar eclipses for almost every year from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar II (604/603 BC) to his 29th year (576/575 BC).

  The following information on lines 16-18 of the first side of the tablet gives eclipse data for year 17 of Nebuchadnezzar: Lunar Eclipse, Obv. II, 16-18: BC 587 Jan 08 (mag. = 1.80) [Obv. II, 16?-18?; trans Huber p15] [Nebuchadnezzar II, year] 17, month IV (eclipse) passed. [Month X] 13, morning watch(?) 1 beru 5 U[S] (= 35 deg) [before sunrise?] it set totally [eclipsed].

  Notes: Although the interval to which the measurement of 35 deg refers is broken away, it can confidently be restored as ?before sunrise?. The characteristic style of BM 38462 is to cite the time interval measured after sunset or before sunrise near the start of a record. Since the moon set eclipsed, it is clear that the 35 deg cannot have been measured after sunset. It was a total eclipse.

  The eclipse referenced earlier in the record as occurring in month IV, Duzu, would have been the lunar eclipse of July 15, 588BC.
  To see if any other year matches this record we need to find an eclipse in month IV, Duzu, followed by a total lunar eclipse in month IX or X, which sets totally eclipsed. (Lunar eclipses follow 5 or 6 months after a previous one)

  There are, in fact, no total lunar eclipses that set eclipsed in months IX or X in the years 625 BC to 500 BC. There are two in month XI, Shabatu, that set eclipsed, February 19, 580BC and February 10, 533BC, both of which follow an eclipse in month V. These obviously do not match the record.

  The only match to BM 38462 Obv II, 16-18 is the total lunar eclipse of 08 January 587BC.
  Therefore 13 Tebetu, year 17 Nebuchadnezzar = 07/08 January 587 BC.

  Nebuchadnezzar year 17 = 588 BC ? 587 BC, and so his 7th year would be 598 BC - 597 BC.

  Now if there is uncertainty about the exact year of the destruction of the temple, there is absolute certainty about the first capture of Jerusalem. According to the Babylonian Chronicles it was in his seventh year that Nebuchadrezzar called out his army, marched to Khatti and besieged the city of Judah. ?On the second day of Adar he captured the city and seized its king.? He then appointed Mattaniah (Zedekiah) as regent instead of the captured Jehoiachin.The 2nd of Adar (Addaru) in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year was 16th March 597 BC.

  There are also more than a dozen other observations and even more predictions on this tablet that can only refer to one specific year. This is the kind of secular evidence used to date the first capture of Jerusalem as 16th March 597 BC and the destruction as 586/587 BC.

  CF.
• 

  steve2

  The pleading baselessness of the 607 date exposes the Watchtower Society as a false religion. It's Biblical "authority" stands or falls on the 1914 doctrine. "Scholar" cannot adduce one authority or source outside of the Watchtower Society who supports 607. The Watchtower simply crumbles in the face of the historical record and attempts to prop up the doctrine have the effect of paper mache in a rain storm: A gooey mess crying out for independent corroboration. In a few years time, 1914 will simply fade from doctrinal view, and people given to "significant" dates on calendars will seize upon another "significant" date and the scholastic dishonesty and urgent messages will start all over again.
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  The secular records present information that requires interpretation of that one can be certain. However, majority opinion does not guarantee certainty despite the appeal or relevance of the evidence. The history of science bears testimony to this when theories held by many need to be revised or discarded. That is why in respect to chronology the FDS has shown a bias towards the biblical record over above that of secular records. The FDS is alone in this matter and so the date of 607 is peculiar to us but so are many of our beliefs and mission. But one should not be surprised as Our Lord and his disciples were distinct in their beliefs and mission from the world. Perhaps it is our distinctive and traditional chronology that bears a mute testimony to the true Church or true religion.Rolf Furuli's current research shows that there is a need to challenge the dating and interpretation of these materials so we should be prudent in making strong claims about scholarly opinion.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  outbutnotdown

  Scholar,

  Your last post seems to suggest that the WTBTS and other scholars have a different opinion on 607. Since neither can be proven to be 100% correct, the WTBTS is sticking with 607.

  They used to believe that the universe was created in 42,000 years as well. They held fast to that belief until the rest of the world and even their own followers began to realize that it was silly to believe such a thing. Isn't the 607 thing potentially just the same thing?

  I think what people are saying to you is that 607 can't be changed because it would ruin their 1914 date. Before the 2520 year interpretation, the 1914 date was originally arrived at with the Great Pyramid calculation. Most importantly, 1914 makes sense to JW's because of course when Satan was thrown out of Heaven, at Christ's enthronement, the world was thrown into chaos.

  The importance of the 607 date pales in comparison to the BIGGER reason that the JW's stick to 1914, IMO.

  Brad
• 

  Unfettered

  Scholar,

  Domo aregato mista roboto... DOMO... domo... DOMO... domo (doing the robot dance)