by VM44 30 Replies latest watchtower bible
Yes, the wealth of evidence is quite conclusive concerning the chronology.
What I want to know is did the Watchtower know about the Egibi tablets and what they meant towards establishing the chronology, and if because of that they deliberately avoided considering them in the Watchtower, Awake!, Aid and Insight book articles. --VM44
Here is an article from over a hundred years ago on the Egibi Tablets:
"The Egibi Tablets", by Theophilus Goldridge Pinches, Records of the Past (In 12 volumes (1875-1899)), Series 1, Vol.11, pages 86-98
http://www.brainfly.net/html/books/rop0176.pdf
The following chronology derived from the tablets:
Nebuchadnezzar III - B.C. 604
Evil-Merodach - B.C. 561
Neriglissar - B.C. 558
Nabonidus - B.C. 554
Cyrus - B.C. 537
The remark is made in the article that "Future researches and discoveries will doubtless make alterations in the chronology of this period, which the above lists will give some idea of the importance of these documents in determining." The author means that the Egibi tablets required further study, and that they will help determine any alterations required in the chronology.
Note that the article names "Nebuchadnezzar III" insteand of "Nebuchadnezzar II".
As more references are found concerning this topic, it becomes more and more unlikely that the Watchtower researchers were unaware of these tablets, and yet they wrote nothing about them.
--VM44
City Fan,
Both the "Babylon the Great" and the "Your Will be Done on Earth" books used to be on the WT-Library CD, but they have been removed on the last two versions!
Maybe someone can scan the pages you want and post them here.
--VM44
Great post, VM44! I would like to get Carl?s 4th edition soonest! I checked Amazon, and the earlier version is sited, but I got a private email from Carl some time ago, that he was releasing an update. Where?s the best place to get it?
Here?s a post from an email I got from Carl (I'm sure he won't mind), that I?m not sure made it into the latest edition. It is an extremely devastating blow to JW 1914-chronology, especially so, since it comes from their own Isaiah Commentary!
THE 70 YEARS FOR TYRE (ISAIAH 23:15)
(August 17, 2000)
It's interesting that in this latest response from the London branch office (June 29, 2000), the Society refers you to Isaiah's prophecy on the 70 years for Tyre! As you know, they believe this 70-year period is the same as that in Jer. 25:11-12 and 29:10. Yet, as you may already have noticed, in their recent commentary on ISAIAH'S PROPHECY released this summer they explain the period in a very different and interesting way. Quoting Isa. 23:15 about the 70 years for Tyre, they go on to say on p. 253:
"True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia's greatest domination?when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above 'the stars of God.' (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble."
Their letter to you reflects to some extent these remarkable statements, which seem clearly to involve several important admissions:
1) The 70 years referred to the period of "Babylonia's greatest domination", i.e., they meant "seventy years for Babylon" (Jer. 29:10)!
2) This 70-year period of domination ended at the fall of the Babylonian Empire in 539 B.C.E.!
3) When applied to the servitude of individual nations, the 70 years must be understood as a "round" number, because different nations were subjected to Babylon "at different times."
All of this is exactly what I argued in my book and which they until now have emphatically denied!
It will be interesting to see if these admissions represent a cautious beginning of a rethinking about their chronology, or if it is the author(s) only who have subtly tried to insert their own understanding into the book. Anyway, I guess that they will soon get in trouble with the new statements on the 70 years, as Witnesses undoubtedly will begin to write to them and ask why the 70 years are applied so differently in the case of Tyre!
Personally, I feel strongly that the 70 years for Tyre do not refer to the same period as the 70 years "for Babylon". As I suggested in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, I tend to agree with those who apply the period to c. 700-630 BCE. (GTR-3, p. 195, note 7) Sennacherib conquered Phoenicia, including Tyre as the capital of the area, in 701 BCE and turned Phoenicia into an Assyrian vassal province. The king of Tyre had to flee to Cyprus, where he died in 694 BCE. After Sennacherib?s conquest, Tyre ceased to be the center of the Tyrian commercial empire, which until then had embraced the coastal regions of the Mediterranean. This role was then on gradually taken over by Carthage. Only toward the end of the long reign of Ashurbanipal (669-627 BCE) was Tyre able to regain its former strength and gradually reestablish itself as the leading city on the Phoenician coast. Thus, in the period c. 700-630 BCE, Tyre was truly "forgotten seventy years", after which period it once again turned "to her hire" and again began to "commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth," exactly as Isaiah had predicted. (Isa. 23:15-18)
The standard work on the history of Tyre is H. Jacob Katzenstein, The History of Tyre (Jerusalem, 1973. A new revised edition was published in 1997). It is a very thorough and informative work, and his information on this period and his comments on Isaiah 23 agree very well with the application of the 70 years to c. 700-630 BC.
Carl Olof Jonsson
Insight mentions them, without naming them, then sweeps them under the carpet.
Insight Vol 1 p 448
What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period. While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms.
Chris
i feel that history and the bible both confirm 586/87 2ki 25:8 shows that neb. destroyed jerusalem in the nineteenth year of his reign which history confirms was 604/5 bce add nineteen years to this and you get 586/7 so both the bible and history show the same story when you put them side to side. i also find it interesting that you can look up almost anyone on the cd and get a date of thier death but not so with nabbapolosa nebbacanezzas father. i bet thats also a date that history nails at 604/5.
i also find it funny that the wtbs states that neb. came into power at 625 which means that neb was the greatest millitary mind ever cause he defeated egypt at 5 years old that beats alexander i think. ( sorry about the spelling i was working all night )
zealofjehu
You have it all upside down. WT scholars have determined from the Bible that Nebuchadnezzer began his reign in 624 and he destroyed Jerusalem in 607 which was his nineteenth year according to 2 Ki. 25:8 By the way history does not give us calender year dates for these events but simply describes then as regnal or acc. years, these relative dates then need to be converted to a relative chronology.
scholar
Scholar, if Neb. begin to rule in 624, how could Daniel have been taken captive in 617 as the Society says? Daniel chapter 2 has Daniel telling Neb. dream in Neb second year,which if you think 624 is his first year than 623 would be his second.You are as screwed up as the organization is. You are working for Apostates and I am sure you know it.
Alwayshere
You did not read what I said. Daniel 2: 1 refers to the second year of his kingship NOT his reign so it does date from 624 but rather from 607 whence he became World Ruler by destroying Jerusalem. This interpretaion is recognized by other commentators apart from the Society.
scholar JW
Was Jerusalem the world power of the time? Wouldnt that be like the US claiming to be the world power because they destroyed Ethiopia?
Besides using your criteria for world power, he would have become King of the world in 587 when he destroyed Jerusalem.
