Babylonian Business Records

by VM44 96 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ozziepost

  Further, this reference work states that Josephus of the first century BCE also claimed that he quotes from Berossus.

  Josephus wrote in the late first century AD, not a hundred years earlier. Berossus was not a contemporary as you point out, but he was 250 years removed from the N-B period and had direct access to historical records and knew Akkadian, whereas Josephus was about 600 years removed, had only indirect access through Berossus and other intermediate sources, and did not know Akkadian.

  Josephus appears throughout WT publications as a figure of authority, a writer they are continually referirng to, yet never it seems questioning. I've always found it strange that whenever it suits them the writers of WT literature wheel out good old Josephus and selectively quote from what is claimed to be his eye-witness accounts.
• 

  Sheri

  Just thinking what if you "hence counted back 70 years of desolation from the date that the temple was completed 516 which is stated in older WT then you would arrive at 586 B.C.E. Since the jews did not all immediately return and start building, in fact it was quite the opposite, to me the completion of the temple for full service and worship would mean more than the return of some. Just a thought.
• 

  ellderwho

  Neil,

  The evidence is compelling, overwjelming, cumulative, logical, reasonable but NOT INFALLIBLE and cannot be compared to the biblical data.

  Still no kings list.
• 

  a Christian

  Scholar,

  You wrote: The evidence is compelling, overwhelming, cumulative, logical, reasonable but NOT INFALLIBLE and cannot be compared to the biblical data.

  The "compelling, overwhelming, cumulative, logical, reasonable" "evidence" which you refer to does not conflict with the "biblical data." It only conflicts with the Society's self-serving interpretation of the biblical data. A self-serving interpretation which this "compelling, overwhelming, cumulative, logical, reasonable" "evidence" proves must be an incorrect interpretation.

  Scholar, most Christians believe that the Bible itself is infallible. However, they do not believe that human interpretation of the Bible is infallible. And as often as the Watchtower Society has changed its various interpretations of the Bible, you should certainly know that their interpretations are not infallible.
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  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.

  I would not delude yourself into thinking that you are more important than you are.

  It is not so much that you offer a 'lone voice' in defence of WTS doctrine that keeps people on your tail, but it is your singular lack of honesty in dealing with issues and questions that might challenge this doctrine. Regarding the particular doctrine in question here, as I have informed you before I have had an opportunity to discuss with a **very** senior member of the Brooklyn heirarchy who quite easily admitted of its tenuous foundation. His only recourse was to make an appeal to faith rather than chronology, imho a far more honest inclination than defending the indefensible.

  You have in the past, in an uncharacteristically candid moment. admitted to me that you felt the WTS was going beyond its authority in shunning those who openly question the 607BCE-1914CE chronology, which as you know is at the very foundation of all the WTS existence by its own admission.

  Surely you would be much better served using your intellectual talents to protect the numerous innocents whose lives have been damaged by shunning over this doctrine, rather than seeking to perpetuate its very tenous nature. You might perhaps follow the example of your counterpart Carl Jonsson and devote yourself to serving the cause of truth rather than The Truth.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Alleymom

  Neil ---

  Thanks for your reply.

  I firmly believe that Holy Spirit has revealed to His people a correct chronology which is the bedrock of Bible prophecy...

  But what about the passage from the 1965 WT article I have been asking you about?

  Did the Holy Spirit reveal that chronology? Is it completely accurate, or do you have doubts about one or more of the six statements?

  In your first reply to me, you gave a qualified "yes" when I asked whether you believed the information in that article to be accurate. You said, "Broadly speaking I exclaim Yes! YES!"

  But your subsequent replies seem to indicate that you do not necessarily accept the statement about Evil-merodach to be accurate.

  It seems as if you do not want to come right out and say that you have doubts about the accuracy of one (or more) of the six statements in that article.

  But neither are you willing to say that you do accept all six statements as completely accurate.

  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.

  What about the six statements I quoted from the 1965 WT article? Are you willing to defend all six of them?

  Isn't it somewhat ironic, that I, a traditional Christian, am willing to defend the WT's position in that passage, but you, a devout JW, apparently shy away from endorsing it?

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Neil ---

  Regarding the 70 years ---

  You may remember from our previous conversations that I am not an apostate JW. I am a traditional Christian. I love the Lord and turned my life over to him many years ago. I try to serve him each day, and I accept the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God.

  As I read your chronology posts, one of the things I keep noticing is that you consistently characterize those who reject the WT's interpretation of the 70 years as "apostates" or "higher critics".

  You should know from your research that there are many millions of devout Christians (members of conservative Christian churches) who see no contradiction between the Bible and the neo-Babylonian records.

  The way you present it, a Christian has to choose to believe the Bible or choose to believe secular historians and scholars. That is a false dichotomy.

  When I read Jeremiah 29, for instance, what I see is a beautiful declaration of God's unswerving love and purpose for his people Israel (and, by extension, for me, a child of God who has been adopted into God's family through faith in Christ Jesus, my Lord.)

  The exiles in Babylon were distressed and troubled at heart. They wanted to know what they should do. Should they believe the false prophets like Hananiah who were telling the people still in Jerusalem that the bondage would be short-lived, and that the Lord would break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar off the neck of all the nations within two years?

  Jeremiah wrote them a letter of great comfort, assuring them that God loved them and would fulfill his purpose for them.

  "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

  But he told them not to believe the false prophets and diviners who were prophesying lies in God's name.

  Jeremiah told the exiles to build houses and settle down, to plant gardens and eat the produce, to marry and have sons and daughters, and to find wives for their sons and give their daughters in marriage so that they, too, might have sons and daughters.

  He told them this because their exile ---- which had already started --- would last longer than two years.

  "This is what the LORD says: 'When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.' "

  This letter was written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem. It was sent to the captives who were already in Babylon. And the seventy years had already started.

  Jeremiah does not say, "Soon Jerusalem will be destroyed, and then seventy years after THAT, the Lord will bring you back."

  No. He is writing to a people who are sick at heart, who are wondering, "How long, O Lord?"

  And he tells them to settle down, because the Lord will come to them when seventy years have been completed for Babylon. Now you can argue about whether that means seventy years IN Babylon or seventy years FOR Babylon to oppress the nations.

  But the point is that the seventy years have already started. And Jerusalem has not yet been destroyed.

  So in Jeremiah 29 the terminus a quo for the seventy years is not the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which had not yet taken place.

  Blessings,
  Marjorie
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  I sincerely hope with the invasion of Iraq and the sacking of Babylon and it's antiquities museum that these records are still intact.
• 

  Alleymom

  Brenda ----

  I sincerely hope with the invasion of Iraq and the sacking of Babylon and it's antiquities museum that these records are still intact.

  You might like to browse through the archives from these two scholarly discussion lists hosted by the University of Chicago.

  https://listhost.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/iraqcrisis

  IraqCrisis: A moderated list for communicating substantive information on cultural property damaged, destroyed or lost from Libraries and Museums in Iraq during and after the war in April 2003, and on the worldwide response to the crisis.
  

  https://listhost.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ane Ancient Near East discussion list

  Edited to add this site, which I had to look up ----

  http://cctr.umkc.edu/user/fdeblauwe/iraq.html

  This is the one you should look at first.

  Marjorie
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  I agree with you that there are many sincere Christians who rightly accept the Bible as God's Word and the duty for such ones is to defend it from the prevalence of higher criticism which has eroded the faith of many. an area of conflict is that of the authenticity of biblical history and prophecy and a study of chronology goes right to the heart of the matter.

  You raise the matter of the seventy years which I am sure you realize is an area of considersable interpretation and you argue that the seventy years had already began prior to the destruction of Jerusalem according to your interpreatation and translation of Jeremiah 29:10. However is such an interpretation correct? When then did the seventy years began if it was prior to the dramatic event in Jewish history fulfilling Jeremiah's prohecy. Scholars cannot agree as to a suitable beginning for the seventy years.

  Jeremiah's prophecy covers the time range from the 13th year of Josaiah until the 11th year of Zedekiah and contains prophecies of denunciation and restoration and was directed to the people living in Jerusalem at that time. It was Ezekiel and Daniel whose prophecies were directed to the exiles in Babylon so his prophecy in chapter 29 could not have been fulfilled unti the city was destroyed, all of the people exiled to Babylon and the land emptied for a total period of seventy years.

  scholar