Babylonian Business Records

by VM44 96 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Alwayshere

  wt scholars deal with Bible chronology based on the Bibical data primanily and are not dependent on outside secular evidence apart from determing a absolute or pivotal date.

  Scholar, start at 539 BCE[pivotal date] a date WTS accepts. They also accept 17 years for Nabonidus rule, 4 years for Neriglissar, 2 years for Evil-Merodach and 43 years for Neb.Count backwards from Nabonidus, add 17 to 539=556, add 4 to 556=560, add 2 to 560=562 and add 43 to 562=605. History says Neb. begin to rule in 605. WTS says Neb. begin to rule in 624. If you subtract 43, 2, 4, and 17 from 624 you get 558 but if you subtract these years from 605 you get 539.History is right WTS is wrong. If you add or take away any from these four years you can't get 539 which is accepted for Babylon's fall.
• 

  ellderwho

  Scholar: You ask about the missing twenty years. This period of twenty years is a problem for secular chronologists and to date they cannot find them. WT scholars are not disturbed by this problem because Bible chronology pays scant attention to such materials in reconstructing a useful and validated chronology

  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...........where does it end with you?

  You have no kings list, do you not understand that? You are an embarrassing appologist for the WT.

  Recontructing a useful chronology? Useful to who? "Scant attention" with a "validated chronology" your not making sense dude.

  Does the term oxy-moron ring in your skull at any point of your response?
• 

  Alleymom

  Hi, Scholar ---
  

  I am disappointed with your reply. You did not answer my question.

  Just to recap ---

  I had posted a passage from the WT of January 1, 1965, and asked you if the information was accurate.

  You replied: "Broadly speaking I exclaim Yes! YES!"

  Since you added the qualifier ("broadly speaking"), I was not sure whether or not you were really saying that you did agree that the information in the article was accurate.

  So I wrote back and asked you:

  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?

  Here is your reply:

  Firstly, chronology is about methodology and interpretatation. When it comes to chronology of the Neo- Babyloian dynasty there are some problems. For example, there is a difference of opinion about the reign of Evil Mereodach, According to the Insight and Aid publications, Berossus assigns to him a reign of two years whereas Josephus assigns a reign of eighteen years.
  
  WT scholars deal with Bible chronology based on the Biblical data primarily and are not dependent on outside secular evidence apart from determing a absolute or pivotal date. Such a methodology results in a twenty year shortfall between the sacred and profane chronologies. My response to this dilemna: Too bad!

  You did not answer my question, which was:

  Are all six of these statements true?

  However, if I understand your reply correctly, you seemed to be saying that statement #1 was inaccurate.

  The 1965 WT article said Evil-Merodach reigned two years:

  #1 --- Evil-merodach reigned two years

  As I understand your reply, you seem to be saying that it is incorrect. You seem to be saying that the WT erred in making a definite statement that Evil-Merodach reigned two years.

  Can you please clarify this for me? I want to be sure that I understand your position.

  Thank you.

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  VM44 wrote:

  We need to investigate all the loan documents from the Neo-Babylonian era!

  Loaning money involves interest bering computed, and to compute interest requires knowing the time period for the loan! There are probably many tablets containing loans spanning the reigns of two different kings!

  Do you know how we could find out about such "loan/interest computation" contract documents? Also, translations would be required for them as well.

  These are not items found in the typical library!

  I believe that with enough of these types of doucments, we could end all speculation about the relative chronology and the King's List once and for all.

  Also, tt would also be interesting to see what interest rates were used back then.

  Hi, VM ---

  The thing is, there really isn't any speculation about the relative chronology --- not in scholarly circles, at any rate.

  That is an excellent thought you had regarding the interest calculated on loans over time periods spanning more than one king. And I will look through some of my materials and get back to you on that.

  My initial thought, however, is that if there were such documents available, COJ would certainly know about them and have included them in TGTR.

  Secondly, and more importantly ---- I hate to sound pessimistic, but my reading in cognitive dissonance theory tells me that even if there were additional documents spanning the reigns of several kings, this would still not be conclusive proof to someone who is committed to clinging to a certain idea, no matter what.

  As far as scholars are concerned, the existing evidence is absolutely conclusive.

  You won't find any dissident voices at all --- and, goodness knows, if there were any possibility of reconstructing an alternative chronology, you may be sure that one or more radical young scholars would have seized upon this as a means of carving out a niche for themselves and establishing a name <s>!

  Marjorie
• 

  AlanF

  Alleymom, it's pretty obvious that unscholar does not know what his position is. That's because the Watchtower has made incompatible statements, and he doesn't know which to choose to believe. Same as with the "Pivitol Date Stuff" thread. It was pointed out that a statement in current Watchtower literature supports the fact that Zech 5 speaks of a 70-year period as continuing in the days of the speaker, whereas other Watchtower claims imply that the period had ended 20 years earlier. And of course, unscholar's and Rolf Furuli's claims hinge on the latter claim. So what is a Watchtower drone to do when his Mommy tells him one thing at one time, and something quite different at another? Easy. Try not to talk about it. It's really confusing!

  AlanF
• 

  peacefulpete

  Any discussion about the 70 years should include the fact that 70 was in all likelyhood intended to be symbolic or approximate. The Babylonian inscription of Esarhaddon for example parallels the OT in that 70 years of desolation as a punishment of the gods was declared upon Babylon!!. Sennacharib's sacking of Babylon was seen as a result of the anger of Marduke who decreed "70" years but then later had compassion and after 11 years allowed her to be restored. "70" likely had cultic significance to the priesthoods in Babylon and Judah. All reference works I have seen recognize the period between the sacking of Jerusalem and the Cyrus release of the Jewish elite to have been 49-50 years as Josephus said. The author of the book of Daniel also understood this to have been 7 weeks (49 years) long.
• 

  ozziepost

  You ask about the missing twenty years. This period of twenty years is a problem for secular chronologists and to date they cannot find them. WT scholars are not disturbed by this problem because Bible chronology pays scant attention to such materials in reconstructing a useful and validated chronology.Even though the business documents are impressive, the data presented therein still needs to be made useful so calender years are ascribed to them by interpretion. These tablets do not contain modern calender years.

  And....?????????? I'm sorryy but I don't find this very persuasive, if at all. What is your point?
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  What I am trying to say is that the historical sources and all of the documentary materials pertaining to the Neo-Babylonian period present a twenty year difference between the secular and Bible chronology. The Jonsson hypothesis as published in the Gentile Times Reconsidered does a excellent job in collating all of the evidence which as I understand from the authoe himself amounts to seventeen lines of evidence. However this evidence is subject to a correct methodology and interpretation and it is to this task that Witness scholar Rolf Furuli is applying himself to. Jehovah's Witnesses are fully cognizant of all of these matters and are deeply interested in such research but one must remember that these texts, clay tablets, histories are not infallible or inspired of God. It is the Bible alone that is true and inspired of God and it is to the historical record, king lists, prophecy contained in the Sacred Writings that should be sole arbiter in chronology.

  WT scholars from the time of Russell have long championed Bible chronology with a interpretation of the seventy years which provides a simple and direct chronology for all of the major events in the OT. I firmly believe that Holy Spirit has revealed to His people a correct chronology which is the bedrock of Bible prophecy. If such a chronology clashes with the secular chronology accepted by the scholarly community then that is too bad. I believe that in so many other areas of scholarship that the Witnesses will be vindicated in their position on 607 and the seventy years.

  My postings on chronology are not to convert you or anyone else but simply to provide a defence of our position according to my time and personal circumstances. Whenever I make a contribution on this subject I am bombarded by sarcasm and have to contend with multiple points and multiple posts much of the opposition manifests a fear or desperation because a lone voice simply offers a different perspective. Please be assured that I will continue to post on this board on chronology and that I am up to speed with current scholarship on this subject and that I amm very familiar with the Jonsson hypothesis which I totally reject. It is impossible but a clever piece of deception.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  I do not need you or anyone else on this board to enlighten me on the cumulative effect of the business documents and all of the other fourteen-seventeen lines of evidence in support of the traditional acceptance of the Neo-Babylonian period. I have at this moment and at my very elbow a opened copy of Jonsson's GTR wherein he devotes two chapters outlining his views. The evidence is compelling, overwjelming, cumulative, logical, reasonable but NOT INFALLIBLE and cannot be compared to the biblical data.

  The Bible chronology based on its historical worldview presents a twenty year gap and that remains a conumdrum so I will place my faith on the inspired Word of God frather than the theories of men. Regardles of how impressive the evidence it remains subservient to methodology and interpretation so this somewhat diminishes IMHO the pile of evidence to a little pile of evidence.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  AloneinOh

  Regardles of how impressive the evidence it remains subservient to methodology and interpretation so this somewhat diminishes IMHO the pile of evidence to a little pile of evidence.

  So then you agree? Our "little pile of evidence" is bigger than your pile of no evidence. At least you finally admit it.

  Keep up the good work though......I haven't laughed this hard in years.