Neo Babylonian History....Everyone is Wrong! Ignore the Data!

by VM44 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  VM44

  I have been reading over the articles the Watchtower has published concerning Neo-Babylonian history.

  The major consistent statement in all of them is that "EVERYONE IS WRONG!"

  Doubt and uncertainty is thrown upon all historical evidence. It is as if they want to say that we can know nothing at all about that time in history. All the evidence is suspect. All the evidence might have been tampered with, changed, altered.

  One line of evidence that they DO NOT want to consider concerning the Neo-Babylonian time period is the abundence of legal, accounting, and contract tablets that ONCE AND FOR ALL establish BEYOND ALL DOUBT the length of the various king's reigns. In particular, the Egibi business tablets that have been well known for over A HUNDRED YEARS are NEVER mentioned in any Watchtower publication!

  One of the few references the Watchtower has listed is the book, "An Outline of Persian History," by A.W. Ahl (1922). Notice the year, the Watchtower always likes to quote from books that are very old! In this book, Persian history is derived from the cuneiform inscriptions. I have taken steps to obtain this book using Inter-Library Loan to see if the Egibi records are mentioned. I will report to the forum what I find out.

  Again, the Watchtower does NOT want people to think about this subject! The lastest information they have published about it was in the Inight book, and that was in 1988, over 17 years ago!

  --VM44
• 

  VM44

  The Watchtower has created a SPIRITUAL FANTASY WORLD that has been in existence for over 120 years, and the sole purpose of The Watchtower is to keep the fantasy alive indefinitely! --VM44
• 

  VM44

  Would it make any difference to the ordinary Witness if it shown that the Watchtower's chronology is incorrect, and not of the Bible? I wonder.

  Most witnesses' eyes glaze over when chronological matters are considered during Watchtower and book study.

  Ancient Babylonia history is just not real to their everyday life.

  --VM44
• 

  VM44

  The Watchtower has been silent about chronology for almost 20 years because if they do bring up the subject in an article, they would have to address the issues raised by COJ in his book "The Gentile Times Reconsidered".

  This they cannot do!

  They cannot refute the evidence COJ has presented in his book, and they do not want to risk bringing the topic to the attention of the witnesses

  So they are going to leasve the subject alone!

  --VM44
• 

  greendawn

  Isn't strange how they throw out everyone that disagrees with them (as they did to COJ)instead of sitting down to explain their positions face to face eg through their CO reps.
  
  That 1914 date was based on history as it was known in the early 19th century and since then many discoveries have changed things, it happens often in history and chronology.
  
  However they desperately need it to carry on with the urgency of times concept, which is crucial to their ablity to control and exploit the dubs. Take away the imminent end idea and they will fall apart. I am sure they know 1914 is wrong as much as everyone else.
• 

  Alleymom

  One of the few references the Watchtower has listed is the book, "An Outline of Persian History," by A.W. Ahl (1922). Notice the year, the Watchtower always likes to quote from books that are very old! In this book, Persian history is derived from the cuneiform inscriptions.

  VM44 ---

  Good to hear from you! Check your PM.

  Another interesting older reference is to Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by Raymond P. Dougherty, which was published in 1929 as part of Yale Oriental Series. The book has been cited quite a few times in WTS literature.

  One interesting article in which they cite Dougherty is the 1965 WT article I've been asking Scholar about. (This is the article in which they give the kings' reigns in order, with the correct regnal lengths.)
  
  Watchtower 1/1/1965 p. 28 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived

  I read Dougherty's book several years ago and copied quite a bit of it before I had to return it --- I got it through inter-library loan.

  As long ago as 1929, Dougherty was making the point that we no longer need to rely upon sources such as Ptolemy, because the chronology of the neo-Babylonian era can be established solely by the thousands of dated cuneiform tablets.

  Regards,

  Marjorie
• 

  Dansk

  the chronology of the neo-Babylonian era can be established solely by the thousands of dated cuneiform tablets.

  Which is why the Watchtower Society tried to shut Jonsson up by disfellowshipping him. The tablets prove Watchtower's lies regarding it's 607 BCE date.

  Ian
• 

  SeymourButts

  I came across a chronology list in the 1960 watchtower that has all of the kings listed....chronology up to 1926. Not lengths of reign, but all of the kings are there.
• 

  jula71

  There is so much archeological evidence that did-proves 607. One can only think, how long can they keep it buried? They seem to be doing a good job at. It seems that anything not-607 is very quickly brushed off and deemed "apostate".
• 

  Honesty

  Isn't strange how they throw out everyone that disagrees with them (as they did to COJ)instead of sitting down to explain their positions face to face eg through their CO reps.

  This sounds just like the way a cult operates.