Corrupting historical facts

by Hellrider 39 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  Some of thought the one-year difference can be explained by differing ways of calculing the king's rule, but that's not the case and can be proven to be erroneous. For instance, the error in the 7th vs 8th year deportation of Jehoiachin is explained by this excuse of different ways of calculating the rule, "accession" versus "non-accession" dating. That seems reasonable until you compare closely with the Bible and note that the 7th year deportation figures from the Bible vary from those in the 18th year. The number of Jews deported in the 7th year were much less than in th 8th when Jehoiachin was deoported.

  Differing reckonings of captives does not by itself indicate that different exiling events are presumed. This is hardly a strong reason for regarding the accession/non-accession explanation as "unreasonable".
• 

  JCanon

  Differing reckonings of captives does not by itself indicate that different exiling events are presumed. This is hardly a strong reason for regarding the accession/non-accession explanation as "unreasonable".

  I don't see why not. You have two factors. One the mentioning of the year of Nebuchadnezzar being year number 8 and the extremely large number of deportees in the eighth year at this time. Then you have a separate scripture talking about much fever deported in year 7.

  Add to that the fact that Ezekiel was deported in the 7th year with that small number because his years of exile was already 12 when he heard about the destruction of Jerusalem. So we know there was a 7th-year deportation. To presume elsewhere where the specific number is given would have been a "variation" of the number for the eighth year is simply wishful thinking. Here are the deportations:

  Accesion year Daniel and others 3rd of Jehoikim

  7th year: Ezekiel and others, 3023 deported. 10h year of Jehoiakim

  8th year, at the very end of the year, Jehoiachin is deported, after Jehoiakim's rule ends in year 11, 10,000 plus deported.

  Year 18, another small deportation of Jews 832.

  Year 19, Zedekiah and others deported. Poor people left in the land.

  Year 20, Gedaliah killed. Last poor remaining ones run down to Egypt.

  Year 21, Mourning for Gedliah begins a year after his death.

  Year 23, Nebuchadnezzar campaigns in Palestine and all the way down to Egypt, executing the majority of those refusing to leave, but a few, including Jeremiah and Baruch return to Jerusalem (Jer. 44:14,28). After this last deportation, the land is totally desolated of people and begins it's 70 years.

  To say that the apparent 7th year deportation of Ezekiel has no other reference in the Bible since the Jer. 52 reference to the seventh year where it says only 3023 were taken into exile but really that's just part of the over 10,000 mentioned elsewhere in "year 8" is not going to wash. This is beyond "twisting" the scriptures, this is simply contradicting scripture and not facing reality for what it says.

  So let's just FACE REALITY. The year 7 deportation which Ezekiel was a part of was a group of 3024 people. Jehoiachin was deported after the 11th year of Jehoiakim, which is only possible if he lived into the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and at that time over 10,000 were deported.

  If Jehoiakim's 3rd year matches the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, then his 4th year matches the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar which is a 3-year difference. So year 11 of Jehoiakim would be year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiachin could not come to rule until after the death of Jehoiakim.

  This is a case of "keeping the eye simple." Just following the numbers the Bible gives for each deportation, which also distinguishes them one from the other, besides giving consistently the year of Nebuchadnezzar then one is not confused. Once you start to make it overly complicated in this case, then the light becomes dark and you can't see the truth.

  Lots of people desperately want the revised Babylonian records to work out with some scenario of the Bible, but it simply doesn't. One contradicts the other. Period. It's time to face reality. But even if you don't, you shouldn't misquote the Bible. Dismiss the Bible if you don't believe it or are not convinced. Fine. But don't invent things it doesn't say and misquote it. That's not acceptable.

  JC
• 

  Quotes

  I wonder if Furuli's "scholarly" work (outside his area of expertise!) will use the same amazing arguments WTS uses to "prove" 607BCE:
  
  (1) 539 BCE == Babylon falls to the Persians, and this date is clearly and universally accepted by "worldly scholars" so you know it is true.
  
  (2) "70 years" is in the Koran... whoops, I mean the Grimm Brothers Stories... whoops, I mean the Santa Claus Memoirs... whoops, I mean "Winnie the Pooh"... whoops, I mean the writings of Aristotle (as part of his Earth-centric cosmology)...whoops, I mean it was a prominent number on the Great Pyramid... whoops, I mean I saw that number in my tea leaves this morning... whoops, I mean it is in "the bible" (whew!) so you *KNOW* it is accurate and meaningful.
  
  (3) Scholarly date PLUS fantasy date = scholarly date -- and scholars that don't agree are clearly wrong! (please ignore point (1) above; there is no contradiction).
  
  Q.E.D.
  
  How can anyone argue with that?
  
  ~Quotes, of the "Thinking of writing a book on anatomy: I have access to a body (my own) and *THAT* should qualify me to write outside my field of expertise (which is engineering)" class
• 

  JCanon

  Sorry, I'm was working backwards.... In reply to you...

  I did not say that the text in Jeremiahstates that Jehoiachin was exiled in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. I said that the exile itself is mentioned as occurring in the 7th year; the 7th year exile is mentioned specifically in the Babylonian Chronicle and dated precisely:

  "In the seventh year (of Nebuchadnezzar) in the month Chislev the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid siege to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month of Adar he conquered the city and took the king (Jehoiachin) prisoner. He installed in his place a king (Zedekiah) of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent (them) forth to Babylon."

  I know what the Babylonian Chronicle says, I have a copy of it. But as I noted, per the Bible the deportation of Daniel was year 3 of Jehoiakim, the attack on Nehco was in year 4. The Bible assigns a 45-year to Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonian chronicle combines the attack of Necho in the same accession year of the deportation. This skews the Bible timeline by one year with the "events" in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, such as the deportation of Jehoichin which actually happened in year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar near the end of the year is revised to say year seven. And likewise the fall of Jerusalem is confused with year 18 rather than 19 as the Bible indicates. So, yes, I know the Babylonian chronical says "year 7" but that contradicts the bible. The only question to ask is whether this text is "contemporary" or a copy at this point, since we must presume it was revised. Of course, the text itself says it was "copied" in the 22nd year of Darius, thus during the Persian Period, during the time when the revisions were allegedly made.

  The exile of Jehoiachin thus could hardly have occurred in the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar (in Nisan-to-Nisan reckoning, Adar marks the end of the 7th calendrical year; in Tishri-to-Tishri reckoning, Chislev and Adar were both in the 7th calendrical year as well), or do you have some esoteric way of discerning a double-dating or explaining away the historical value of this statement?

  No actually. the very text you quoted from, the Babylonian chronicle, gives the month of the deportation of Jehoiachin, which is Adar, which is the 12th month, as you state. That's the last month. This matches the Biblical reference that this was at the "turn of the year" or at the very end of the year, only year 8. So even if the Bible didn't mentione the end of the year, the month of the deportation is considered to be accurate, especially since most of the deportations are all done in this month for some reason. The deportation in his accession year of Daniel was in the last month of the year as well, thus the presumption that this was the most convenient time for the deportation, right after winter.

  The reference regaring this being the end of the year is found for this event at 2 Chronicles 36:10 where it says, "And at the return of the year King Nebuchadnezzar sent and proceedd to bring him [Jehoiachin] to Babylon."

  Here are some other translations...

  At the return of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of Yahweh, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (WEB)
  
  And at the return of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of Jehovah, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (ASV)
  
  In the spring of the year King Nebuchadnezzar sent and took him away to Babylon, with the beautiful vessels of the house of the Lord, and made Zedekiah, his father's brother, king over Judah and Jerusalem. (BBE)
  
  And at the turn of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent and had him brought to Babylon, with the precious vessels of the house of Jehovah; and he made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (DBY)
  
  And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (KJV)
  
  And when the year had expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (WBS)
  
  And at the return of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. (JPS)
  
  and at the turn of the year hath king Nebuchadnezzar sent and bringeth him in to Babylon, with the desirable vessels of the house of Jehovah, and causeth Zedekiah his brother to reign over Judah and Jerusalem. (YLT)

  It takes five months to travel from Jerusalem to Babylon via normal travel thus the journey may have begun specifically in the 8th year in month 12, but it was at the time of New Year's. That is, it was at the time when the new year returns.

  Again, if month 12 of his 8th year was when the deportation officially began then 11 months of his exile beginning month 12 fell in the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar since this was the very last month. So a better comparison between the 37th year of Jehoiachin and Nebuchadnezzar is an 8-year difference and thus year 37 of Jehoiachin's exile would match up to year 45 of Nebuchadnezzar.

  (As a side-note: the reference to the 8th year in 2 Kings would reflect the 7 calendrical years + accession year in Judean regnal reckoning, and the differing numbers of captives can again involve different methods of numbering (e.g. including women + children or not?). It is odd, isn't it, that Jeremiah or his redactor mentions a lesser exile from a year before but failed to list the much greater exile of 10,000 that carried off Judah's king? That's a big omission...)

  Sorry, but no it does not. There was actually a deportation in the 7th year and Ezekiel was part of that 7-year deportation. Josephus likewise makes this reference. Jehoiakim has to rule 11 years. Year 3 was the deportation of Daniel in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. Again, that means his 4th year was year 1 of Nebuchadnezzar, establishing a 3-year gap. Year 11 would match up to year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiachin only ruled for 3 months and we know from both the Bible and the Babylonian chronicle that he was deported at the very end of the year, which means the first year of his exile was primarily, save a few days in the 12th month occurred in the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar as did the rule of Zedekiah. That's why year 11 of Zedekiah, is year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, an 8-year gap. There's no fancy switching back and forth counting from the accession year versus non-accession year explaining this discrepancy. The discrepancy exists because the Persians, after removing two years from the 45-year rule of Nebuchadnezzar tried to squeeze some of the events into the shorter rule and thus all the events after the attack on Pharoah Necho are a year off in the revised Babylonian record versus the Bible.

  Finally, please show me where the text specifically states that the exile was "late in the year" (as you say it says) and how "late in the 8th year" thus means "9th year" -- thereby adding another year to Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

  I noted this above at 2 Chronicles 36:10. As I noted, if Jehoiachin was deported near the end of the year or at the time of the new year ("the return of the year"), which means very late in the year, then only a few days of his official exile which begins when he left the city and includes 5-month travel time to Babylon would actually fall in year 8. The majority of his first year of exile would fall in year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar. Again, this is confirmed since Zedekiah was appointed over Jerusalem at this very same time so the reign of Zedekiah and the exile of Jehoiachin are parallel. If the 1st year of Zedekiah actually parallels the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then his 11th year would parallel the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, which is precisely what the Bible tells us. Jerusalem fell in the 11th year of Zedekiah which is also the 19th yer of Nebuchadnezzar. There is an 8-year gap (11+8=19). Thus year 37 of Jehoiachin likewise has an 8-year gap which means Nebuchadnezzar actually ruled for 45 years, not 43.

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  Please recheck the math...

  Jeremiah 52:31 indicates that Nebuchadnezzer ruled until his 43rd year:

  Not so. It's simple math.

  "In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month". That would be 36 complete years and a portion of a year. According to Jeremiah 52:28, the exile that Jehoiachin was carried into began in Nebuchadnezzer's seventh year. The accession year of Evil-merodach would have thus completed Nebuchadnezzer's 43rd year (7th + 36 = 43rd + part of year = accession year of Evil-Merodach).

  See you are saying here that Jeremiah 52:28's reference to the "7th year" deportation relates to Jehoiachin. I'm saying it does not, but that the Bible specifically dates his exile occurring near the end of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The exile mentioned in year 7 was just 3023 people and included Ezekiel. The deportation in year 8 when Jehoiachin was deported includes thousands.

  Zedekiah's rule parallels exactly the exile of Jehoiachin. If his year 11 fell in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar then year 37 would indicate a 45-year rule for Nebuchadnezzar, the same 8-year gap (37+8=45).

  JC
• 

  AlanF

  In his book Persian Chronology, Furuli distinguishes himself as a true crackpot and pseudo-scholar -- just like most JW apologists, including and especially Watchtower Writing Staff members, so often do. Furuli's method of linguistic interpretation of certain key scriptures is to begin with an overall Watchtower-oriented interpretation of "Bible chronology", and then bend and twist the specific interpretations to fit -- even to the extent of inventing new forms of Hebrew grammar and word meanings that no true scholar would go along with. His method of dealing with ancient cuneiform texts is to reject the 99.99% that conform with, and are in fact the foundation of, standard secular history, and then build a chronology based on the 0.01% that don't fit or seem to fit. No good scholar would go along with such ridiculous interpretive methods. Such dishonest scholarship is completely in line with long Watchtower practice.

  Carl Jonsson has already published a preliminary refutation of Furuli's foolishness, and will soon publish a more complete refutation, including showing the dishonesty of the selective use of historical material that is the foundation of Furuli's book.

  I note that scholar pretendus has reared his nasty little noggin once again, to defend the usual nonsense. How he manages not to be embarassed at his complete drubbing at the hands of honest critics is astounding. In one of his last posts, he lied about the contents of certain major reference works -- claiming falsely that they support the Watchtower's claims about the meanings of the Greek words stauros (cross, stake) and parousia (coming, presence). Of course, when I pointed out his transparent lies by actually quoting the source references, as well as other references, he disappeared without comment. This was in the long thread "Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/36.ashx ).

  These JW apologists routinely distinguish themselves as dishonest, as crackpots or at best, fake scholars, and as having only an agenda of defending Watchtower teachings at the expense of the facts.

  AlanF
• 

  Hellrider

  In his book Persian Chronology, Furuli distinguishes himself as a true crackpot and pseudo-scholar -- just like most JW apologists, including and especially Watchtower Writing Staff members, so often do. Furuli's method of linguistic interpretation of certain key scriptures is to begin with an overall Watchtower-oriented interpretation of "Bible chronology", and then bend and twist the specific interpretations to fit -- even to the extent of inventing new forms of Hebrew grammar and word meanings that no true scholar would go along with. His method of dealing with ancient cuneiform texts is to reject the 99.99% that conform with, and are in fact the foundation of, standard secular history, and then build a chronology based on the 0.01% that don't fit or seem to fit. No good scholar would go along with such ridiculous interpretive methods. Such dishonest scholarship is completely in line with long Watchtower practice.

  That`s exactly what I suspected (although I have not read his book, and doubt I ever will, I don`t like wasting my time). The disgusting part of this,and the part that upsets me the most, isn`t that a JW is writing a book about 587 vs 607, but the fact that a trained and educated scholar (although not in history) is using his academic position to promote his religious views. That is to CORRUPT the academic institution, nothing less! I place it all the way up there with David Irving, who is trying to rewrite the story of the Holocaust and WW2 to fit his own extreme right-wing views. Unfortunately, the subject of Babylonian chronology isn`t as tense as holocaust/ww2, the only ones that give a shit, are JWs and x-JWs. Therefore, he probably won`t be shunned in the academic environment for doing this, and no matter how much his book is slaughtered by serious historians, the fact that "a book has been written by a professor, supporting the 607-date" is the only part of this whole thing that the average JW will hear. It`s sole purpose is to strengthen JW-doctrine over the poor, allready brainwashed dubs. I certainly hope that Furuli has written his own academic suicide-note by writing this book.
• 

  Spook

  Boy, good thing god doesn't exist, or I might have to think about this.
• 

  tdogg

  LOL @ Spook
• 

  Jeffro

  scholar,

  do you really think that biblical chronology is something static and cannot benefit by further research?
  The date of 607 can only be the best possible candidate for the Fall of Jerusalem and for the Gentile Times doctrine leading to the epochal year of 1914.

  These two statements of yours are contradictory. What you really mean is that biblical chronology can benefit from further research unless (and only until) the historians agree with the Society's supposed 607 date.
  The following problems also exist in your second statement:

  • The original text of Luke 21:24 indicates that the 'appointed times of the nations' is a period that began at or after 70AD
  • Daniel 5:26-31 indicates the fulfilment of the 70 years in 539BC
  • Babylon's king could not be called to account 2 years before the 70 years ended, making it impossible for the 70 years to end in 537
  • No source other than the Society recognizes any significant event regarding Babylon and Jerusalem in 607
  • World War I started several months before the supposed October fulfilment