by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
:Using all of my scholarly brain power
I can't stop laughing. I'm convinced scholar is an apostate in disguise. I wager that nobody on this board is as successful in turning doubting witnesses to the real truth as scholar pretendus. Keep up the good work.
GBL
Using all of my scholarly brain power I arrive at 609 which for intents and purposes is a useless date because nothing happened in that year which ammounts to any consensus within scholarship.
Neil ---
On the contrary, there certainly is scholarly consensus about what happened that year. It's recorded in the cuneiform tablet catalogued as BM 21901, popularly called the "Fall of Nineveh Chronicle." Nabopolassar marched against Ashuruballit, who was laying siege to Harran.
If you have the 2000 reprint of A. Kirk Grayson's Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, see pp. 95 -96, lines 58-75. If you're using James Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts, it's on page 305 of the third edition. I gave an URL for an online site last night.
Note that the entry for the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar says, in part, "the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Assyria" ... " he marched about victoriously in Assyria " ... "marched to Harran, against Ashur-uballit who had ascended the throne in Assyria." ... "The king of Akkad reached Harran and ... he captured the city."
Then, in the next year, the seventeenth year of Nabopolassar, the Chronicle says: "Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) the large army of Egypt ... crossed the river (Euphrates) and marched against Harran to conquer it... They defeated the garrison which the king of Akkad had stationed inside. When they had defeated it they encamped against Harran. Until the month of Elul they did battle against the city but achieved nothing ... The king of Akkad went to help his army ... he set fire to their ..." [Grayson, pp. 95-96, brackets removed].
[edited to say, see last night's message for links to a site with the text of the Chronicle ---
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1557430/post.ashx#1557430 ]
Marjorie
Alleymom
Marjorie
Scholars do not agree as to the precise year that marked the end of the Assyrian World Power and even at best by your recent post well indicates that all that happened in 609 was a mopping up operation after the Fall of Haran in 610 BCE. In one reference work under the heading of Kings of Assyria in the Chrionological and Background Charts of the Old Testament by John Walton indicates on page 65 lists the last event of Assyria, the Fall of Carchemish in 605.
This means that the end of the Asyria can not only be datable from 612 or 610 but in fact could well extend to 605. This means that the end of Assyia is a matter of opinion and thus it would be a foolish person who would use such an open-ended event for chronological purposes namely dating the beginning of the seventy years.
scholar JW
Isnt it so cool that God hid the chronological support for 607, in fact so well hidden that only Russel and Rutherford could figure it out and even they were a little confused; ok they ended up being extemely confused.
I just think its really great that everything about the end times was hidden from the whole world, essentially speaking, so that the only way we could figure it out was through archaeological digs etc along with secular writings and the holy spirit operating on the WTS.
It really gives me a warm fuzzy feeling all over knowing God loves riddles, puzzles and mazes so much he was able to dupe 99.9 percent of the world.
Tor
Tor, this is a conversation that my husband and I have regularly. I figure, if I want my kids to understand something, I tell them what it is. If I want my son to clean his room, I do not bury clues to my wishes in the dirty clothes bin, leave written instructions pinned to the fridge with large sections of the writings cut from the paper, and then leave someone he does not trust and who abuses him to tell him what I wanted him to do.
I bloody tell him to clean his damn room!!!
ARGHHHH.....
If 'Man was made in His image', and 'God is a Loving Father' then why am I a better mother than he is a father? Why in the hell did he leave us to deal with so many mixed up messages, stupid religious leaders and inaccurate science in his 'written word'.
This is all like arguing over what kind of poison cannister has gone off in the room rather than leaving the room...
J
The year 539BCE for the end of the Babylonian empire is fixed by historians by means of astronomical dating. The Society happily accepts this date for the end of the 70 years, even though it is arrived at using means which they claim are not reliable means for establishing historical dates. (Insight volume 1, page 454, paragraph 7). On what basis does the Society accept the year 539 for Babylon's destruction, when the same methods used to arrive at that date are so staunchly objected to for the dating of other events? (Insight volume 1 page 453 paragraph 2.) According to the Society, two lunar eclipses "evidently" confirm the 539 date. If the Society is not hypocritical it cannot accept as reliable the year 539 for Babylon's destruction, and it therefore destroys its own premise for a pivotal year for its interpretations. The only reason for accepting 539 using methods it elsewhere rejects is to make 1914 work (even if we were to ignore all of the other problems with their 607 theory).
In the dubious "Kingdom Come" appendix, the Society is forced to admit that
Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.
Their rebuttal to these damning facts is that
From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
It is unlikely that the priests and kings were able to hide 20 full years of records held by individual citizens, as well as from contemporary records of other nations, especially since any motive seems lacking.
On a separate note of poor Society argument, consider their reasoning on why no record of the Isrealite slaves can be found in Egyptian history (from Insight volume 1 page 451):
Absence of information concerning Israel.This is not surprising, since the Egyptians not only refused to record matters uncomplimentary to themselves but also were not above effacing records of a previous monarch if the information in such records proved distasteful to the then reigning pharaoh. Thus, after the death of Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III had her name and representations chiseled out of the monumental reliefs. This practice doubtless explains why there is no known Egyptian record of the 215 years of Israelite residence in Egypt or of their Exodus.
Thutmose III had whose name erased?? Surely we wouldn't know her name if they were so good at this practice of erasing history, and that is only one individual, not 215 years of an entire national group's presence.
Jeffro
WT scholars have shown to their great credit, considerable wisdom and ingenuity in the selection quite arbitrarily of the pivotal date 539 for the Fall of Babylon. The Society does not accept this date for the end of the seventy years as you state but simply marks the end of the Babylonian World Power. This date is universally accepted by scholars because it is based on astronomical evidence, secular and biblical history. Thus it is the most well attested date in OT history and serves as the only suitable candidate for the purposes of chronology.
It is true that there are many other dates that could serve as a pivotal date and such dates are used by other scholats such as Thiele but why not use the best date if one is available? WT scholars having chosen the best pivotal date then cam construct a chronology based on biblical and secular evidence and from 539 we arrive at 537, 607 going right back to Adam. Our chronology is based on our methodology which would differ from the methodology of Thiele, Finegan etc. So, to answer your question as to why and how we discriminate with 539 it is simply the case that we have a precise methodology that is Bible based and it matters not that there is a twenty year gap between the biblical and secular chronology or the sacred and profane chronology;
scholar JW
Once again, you have shown your flawed logic. You boast that the Society's chronology models takes us "right back to Adam", as if having any chronology back to Adam means it must be correct. I did not suggest that 539 is a not valid pivitol year, but that the Society is hypocritical in accepting that year because it is determined using methods the Society criticizes as being invalid. It is only the Society's interpretation that introduces the unexplainable 20 year gap, a gap which puts the entire history of the Kingdom of Israel prior to the Neo-Babylonian out of synchronization with secular history by - you guessed it - 20 years. Therefore, the Society boldly asserts that every single historically determined date up until that point is wrong, yet it accepts the year 539 that is established using the same 'uncertain', 'unreliable', 'misunderstood' methods used to determine those dates.
The Society is biased in its criticism of secular chronology. In the Insight Chronology section (page 454) an example is given of 'flawed' dating regarding Shalmaneser. Here the Society revels in the apparent discrepancy, without any attempt at reconciling the secular and biblical history such that both may be correct.
Compare this to their dogged efforts at harmonising biblical accounts of the Isrealite Kings. Such as their defense of 2 Chronicles 16:1 which states that Baasha attacked Judah after he had died about 10 years earlier (Insight, volume 1, page 184 [Asa]). Or the discrepancy between 2 Kings 14:21 (Uzziah (aka Azariah) became king at 16 years of age, 15 years after Jehoash's death) and 2 Kings 15:1 (Uzziah (aka Azariah) became king in the 27th year of Jeroboam at 16 years of age) (Insight, volume 1, page 1146 [Uzziah]). Or the discrepancy between 2 Kings 14:29 (Zechariah began to reign when Jeroboam died) and 2 Kings 15:8 (Zechariah became king in the 38th year of Uzziah (aka Azariah)) (Insight, volume 1, page 1223 [Zechariah]). Or the discrepancy between 2Kings 15:30 (Hoshea began to reign in the 20th year of Jotham) and 2 Kings 17:1 (Hoshea began to reign in the 12th year of Ahaz) (Insight, volume 1, page 1149 [Hoshea]). For these cases, they suggest explanations that could be correct, but they don't allow the same latitude for what seem like errors in sources used for secular dating.
In the Insight Chronology section (page 454) an example is given of 'flawed' dating regarding Shalmaneser. Here the Society revels in the apparent discrepancy, without any attempt at reconciling the secular and biblical history such that both may be correct.
To clarify: The Society does correctly point out that Ahab could not have been present during the reign of Shalmaneser III. The truth of the matter is that the chronology for Shalmaneser III's sixth year is correct, but the ascription of the name A-ha-ab-bu to King Ahab of Israel is either incorrect (as suggested by many historians), or refers to Ahab in the sense of Israel's king being his descendant. The Assyrian account does correctly indicate that Jehu was contemporary with Shalmaneser III. Assyrian history synchronizes very well with the bible when 587 is used for Jerusalem's destruction. All of the events in the bible mentioning Assyrian kings by name (Shamshi-Adad V, Tiglath-pileser III (aka Pul), Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esar-Haddon and Ashurbanipal) are consistent with secular chronology.
Thus it is the most well attested date in OT history and serves as the only suitable candidate for the purposes of chronology.
LOL
Though the date is not contested, on what basis is your claim that it is "the most well attested date in OT history" and the "only suitable candidate for the purposes of chronology"? And by the way 'OT' is not a valid designation for the Hebrew scriptures, but all good Witnesses know that anyway.
The Society does not accept this date for the end of the seventy years as you state but simply marks the end of the Babylonian World Power.
The Society may make whatever claims it wishes regarding the 70 years, however the bible states: "'And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite." (Jeremiah 25:12) There is no ambiguity or room for various interpretations of this verse as is the case for some of the scriptures that mention the 70 years that have been debated at length on this thread. It is clear that Babylon's king and its status as a nation would be finished after 70 years. Both Daniel and Jeremiah agree that Babylon's days would be numbered (ME'NE) and it would be called to account (TE'KEL).
There are so many lines of reasoning that counter the 607 theory that it would be funny that so many people believe but for the sad fact that people stake their entire lives on it.
