by Cordelia 126 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Scholar...are you just not getting it? No one is questioning 537. There is NO evidence to support 607.
Each of these events are discussed in Scripture and by the historian Josephus.
Wrong!!! Josephus's timeline points to 586/587. It's a long read but it's based on Josephus as a major reference: http://www.kingscalendar.com/kc_free_files_no_frames/CHAPTER_02.html
You still have given NO secular evidence....the only one playing games is you.......
jula 71
Sorry, the evidence is there as I have outlined. If you look at the three point model which of these has no biblical or secular evidence. Is it point 1, 2 or 3?
scholar JW
No Scholar you are being abusive to common decency and ignoring any real attempts at a FACTUAL discussion. POST THE EVIDENCE OR SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!
For scholar, arguments are like underwear. No matter how much they stink or how many holes they've acquired, once you get used to them why change them?
jula 71
I am playing no games. So you agree with point 2 concerning 537 which means that you agree that this date is supported by biblical and secular evidence. So. you have now progressed one third along the journey to the acceptance of 607. All that remains is for you to decide for point 1 and point 3.
Score =33%
scholar JW
Sorry Scholar.......I've been one and been around JW's my whole life...I know all the little mind tricks. Ok in brief...Ya..537 is a real date, why? THERE IS EVIDENCE. Thus for the same reason I trust 586...THERE IS EVIDENCE. Try to think outside the box for a sec.....is there a chance the 70 years is wrong? What if I showed you FROM THE WT proof of 586?
I have to credit Alleymom for this:
From WT literature, we have the kings of Babylon and the length of their reigns:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
Neriglissar -- 4 years
Labashi-Marduk -- assassinated within 9 months
Nabonidus -- 17 years
This agrees with the thousands of cuneiform tablets which show:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
Neriglissar -- 4 years
Labashi-Marduk -- 3 months
Nabonidus -- 17 yearsHere are quotations from WT literature showing the lengths of each king's reign:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years
*** w00 5/15 p. 12 Pay Attention to God's Prophetic Word for Our Day ***Learning that his father, Nabopolassar, had died, this young man named Nebuchadnezzar took the throne in 624 B.C.E. During his 43-year reign...
*** w86 11/1 p. 5 A Dream Reveals How Late It Is ***Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years (624-581 B.C.E.), this is a reasonable conclusion.
*** dp chap. 7 p. 99 Four Words That Changed the World ***Proud King Nebuchadnezzar's 43-year reign in Babylon ended with his death in 582 B.C.E.
*** dp chap. 4 pp. 50-51 The Rise and Fall of an Immense Image *** 9 Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 43 years, headed a dynasty that ruled over the Babylonian Empire. It included his son-in-law Nabonidus and his oldest son, Evil-merodach. That dynasty continued for 43 more years, until the death of Nabonidus' son Belshazzar, in 539 B.C.E
*** it-1 pp. 238-239 Babylon ***Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk.
Evil-Merodach --- 2 years
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived *** Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year
*** kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy's Canon.
Neriglissar -- 4 years
w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law***
Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Labashi-Marduk -- less than a year
*** dx30-85 Labashi-Marduk ***
LABASHI-MARDUK
king of Babylon: w65 29; bf 183-4
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months . Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Nabonidus -- 17 years
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
NABONIDUS
(Nab·o·ni´dus) [from Babylonian meaning "Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted"].
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.).
*** w68 8/15 p. 491 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates *** 17 Other investigators say this: "The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17* (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles distant."-Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 13. Footnote" VII/14/17 ": The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus' reign.
So there you have it.
If you start with the WTS's
own date of 539 for the fall of Babylon and count backwards through the Kings of Babylon for each year of their reigns, you arrive at 586/587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18 th /19 th year, when he destroyed Jerusalem
Save your breath Julia....this [removed] has been spouting the same crap for 2 1/2 + years without ever giving any evidence or playing rope-a-dope.
Here's the thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/61024/1.ashx
You disgust me Scholar, you do not post in good faith but only to mislead others. Go back to the Dub's and their Witless theology, and quit abusing Christ's flock you pervert.
scholar pretendus listed some false claims:
: 1, The arbitary selection of a specifically chosen pivotal date which is 539 based on biblical and secular evidence.
The 539 date has no biblical evidence whatsoever for it. The proof is easy: scholar pretendus cannot present any biblical evidence for the date. It has pretty solid secular evidence, though.
: 2. the Return of the Jews under Cyrus in 537 well attested biblically and upon secular evidence
The biblical evidence as interpreted by the Watchtower Society is uncertain, because it rests on several assumptions that cannot be proved. This is easy to see by carefully parsing the Society's arguments given in, say, the Insight book. But that evidence can also be interpreted as pointing to 538 for the return of the Jews. There is no secular evidence whatsoever for this date. Again the proof is easy: scholar pretendus can present no secular evidence.
: 3. the 70 years of exile-desolation-servitude well attested biblically and secular evidence
Not so. There is secular evidence for the taking of Jewish captives, but not of Judah being desolated -- completely without an inhabitant -- during any time between the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and the biblically-described return of the Jews after 539. In fact, there is excellent evidence that Judah retained some inhabitants during the entire period. As for 70 years of "exile-desolation-servitude", well that's exactly the matter of dispute in several threads here, and so for scholar pretendus to speak of his and the Watchtower's claims as if they were facts is absurd.
: So, simplicity follows; 539 ---537 + 70 = 607
Except that the Society taught until 1944 that 536 ---536 + 70 = 606.
Furthermore, they taught that 606 --> 1914 = 2,520 years -- proving they had no ability to do simple chronological calculations. So much for their being "spirit-directed". Perhaps the spirit was trying to tell them something, but either it wasn't trying too hard, or they were deaf.
: Each of these events are discussed in Scripture and by the historian Josephus.
Josephus, in his final work, specifically said that the time of devastation of Judah was 50 years -- not 70.
: Points one and two are supported by archaeological evidence and are not of great dispute.
On point 2: there is no archaeological evidence supporting the date.
: The matter of great dispute is the seventy years, its chronology and signifcance. The above is explained simply but I am sure will generate much controversy. So let the Games begin!
Scholar pretendus has distinguished himself on this board as the most braindead JW apologist any of us have ever encountered. Hi makes himself look more stupid every time he posts. I'm simply amazed at the huge quantity he generates of what would be, in a normal person, self-embarrassment.
AlanF
Scholar,
You have been treated with a bit of intolerance here and I often wondered why. I'm getting the picture and will point out as simply as I can what is wrong.
In your post above you answered Evilforce's request for "any secular proof of your 607 date" with the reply:
No problem, The chronology for 607 is calculated simply, Bible -based, and necessary secular evidence.
1. The arbitary selection of a specifically chosen pivotal date which is 539 based on biblical and secular evidence.
2. the Return of the Jews under Cyrus in 537 well attested biblically and upon secular evidence
3. the 70 years of exile-desolation-servitude well attested biblically and secular evidence
So, simplicity follows; 539 ---537 + 70 = 607
Each of these events are discussed in Scripture and by the historian Josephus. Points one and two are supported by archaeological evidence and are not of great dispute. The matter of great dispute is the seventy years, its chronology and signifcance. The above is explained simply but I am sure will generate much controversy. So let the Games begin!
You admit point three, using a biblical prophesy of 70 years of "exile-desolation-servitude" is of "great dispute". Yet you offer no secular evidence nor an ethical justification for deviating from Scholarly or Secular proves but drawing a conclusion based on Theology. Point three is Theology, not scholarly or secular proof.
Would it not be more fair and honest, in your "simply" scholarly proof, to admit that point three deviates from scholarship?
Jst2laws
Good luck I hope you can get a straight answer from him, as I along with dozens of others have been unable to. He pontificates on his theories without any back up or quotes from secular sources. Not only on this thread but virtually all his threads he has ever posted on. Remember, I think this board is pretty fair for the most part, so when you are seeing "intolerence" you should wonder what really is going on......