by VM44 96 Replies latest watchtower bible
Scholar,
Higher critics and apostates who adhere to the Jonsson hypothesis believe that there is a twenty year gap between secular chronology and WT chronology and thus disproving the validity and integrity of the calcuable date of 607 BCE.
Should that not read 'higher critics, apostates and overwhelming body of professional scholars and experts with no theological agenda.......?"
HS
Hi, Neil ---
Could you please tell me whether or not you believe the following information from the January 1, 1965 WT is accurate?
*** 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.
Thank you!
Marjorie Alley
lol....Marjorie,
I admire this sort of persistence! This must be close to 144,000 times that Scholar has ignored the implication of your very revealing question.
He normally sidesteps questions that make him feel uncomfortable by claiming that person who posed them is an atheist and therefore could not possibly understand the language of faith. He cannot even fall back on that dishonest luxury with you....lol
Kind regards - HS
Does anyone here read Neo-Babylonian, circa 540B.C.E.? --VM44
If any of the dated Babylonian business texts had to do with some of the deported Jews, or with some business dealing with the Babylonian army as it invaded Judah, that would be the final conclusive proof and would end all controversy! --VM44
VM44
Perhaps more to the point you should ask whether Carl Jonsson can translate and comment on the cuneiform script featured in the photo before he can be taken seriously when discussing the matter in his recent GTR!
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
Alleymom
Broadly speaking I exclaim Yes! YES! Why did you appeal to such an older Watchtower for this information? If you are a sincere person why do you not consult the Insight Volumes on information for those Babylonian rulers?
scholar
Hi, Neil --- Could you please tell me whether or not you believe the following information from the January 1, 1965 WT is accurate? *** 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.Thank you!
Marjorie Alley
Scholar replied:
Broadly speaking I exclaim Yes! YES! Why did you appeal to such an older Watchtower for this information? If you are a sincere person why do you not consult the Insight Volumes on information for those Babylonian rulers?
I am a sincere person. And I quoted from the Insight volumes in message #2 of the KISS thread back in 2003.
I did not do so this time because I wanted to know whether you believe the specific information I posted from the January 1, 1965 WT is accurate.
You replied: "Broadly speaking I exclaim Yes! YES!"
I am puzzled by the qualifier you have added. Does "broadly speaking" mean that you agree with most, but not all, of the information?
Is there a statement in that passage with which you disagree? If so, could you please tell me which one? I have numbered the statements for your convenience.
#1 --- Evil-merodach reigned two years #2 --- and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar #3 --- who reigned for four years ... #4 --- [Neriglissar's] underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. #5 --- Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne #6 --- and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.Are all six of these statements true? Thank you, Marjorie Alley
>>> Does anyone here read Neo-Babylonian, circa 540B.C.E.? <<<
I started learning Akkadian last year, but I haven't progressed far enough to be able to help you.
Beginning textbooks work more with the transliterated text than with the cuneiform signs. I do have a cuneiform sign workbook and glossary, but the photo is not large enough or clear enough for me to even take a stab at looking the signs up for you.
Do you have a transliteration or a catalogue number for the tablet? (Or a better photo?)
You didn't say what your question is, but you might try posting your question on the University of Chicago's ANE discussion list.
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ane
Marjorie
Scholar, Maybe you can help me on this. I hope you can. It's been a while since I have studied this subject matter. And I don't have a volume of Insight On The Scriptures available to me right now to look this up. We all understand that Babylon fell in 539 BC. All non-JW historians tell us that Jerusalem fell about 48 years earlier. However, JWs believe this took place not 48 years earlier, but 68 years earlier. To account for these extra 20 years, I believe JWs say that the Babylonian kings who ruled between the time of Jerusalem's fall to Babylon and Babylon's fall to Cyrus actually ruled about 20 years longer than Babylon's historical records are commonly understood to say that they did. To the reign of what king or kings do JWs now assign these extra 20 years? Wherever you assign these extra 20 years, why have no Babylonian business documents been found dated to any of them? Or have they? After all, haven't many such documents been found dated to every year of every known Babylonian king's reign during this time period, as the years of their reigns are now commonly understood? Thanks for your help.
