The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  I won't... I won't... I won't...

  The business tablets that you refer to are of no great concern to celebrated WT scholars because these documents are still subject to interpretation.

  Too bad CWTS (celebrated WT scholars) did not apply the same logic to the Bible texts.

  The Jonsson hypothesis makes the bold claim that these records cover every single year of the Neo- Babylonian period yet Jonsson complains that these remain subject to sribal errors.

  As has been pointed out, dates are an essential feature in those kind of documents and most likely to be checked seriously. Remember, too, Bible texts are equally "subject to s[c]ribal errors," especially in datation which is secondary to their literary genres.

  Additionally, there remains the problem as to Why these documents are silent on Nebuchadnezzer's missing seven years off the throne.

  You have already been told that any "missing seven years" would not modify datation by rulership. Confidentially, I'll tell you one thing more: Daniel 4 is a 2nd-century Jewish tale. It is not mentioned in Neo-Babylonian annals for the same reason that the Joseph and Exodus stories are not mentioned in Egyptian history, Jonah's preaching in Assyrian history, Esther and Mordechai in Persian history, etc. But of course you can disregard this heretical comment and get back to the "inerrant Bible paramaters".

  and the twenty year gap problem when such chronology is compared to biblical chronology

  Not Biblical chronology, WT synthesis which disregards the different contexts for the expression "70 years".

  In short: CWTS will disregard any evidence which doesn't suit the claims of CWTS.

  Too bad.
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  Just one question, could you please explain how 539 BC is determined as the date of the fall of Babylon?
• 

  Jeffro

  Hardly an example of flawed reasoning in advocating the Fall of Babylon in 539 as a pivotal date.

  You state that it is not flawed reasoning, and then go on to clarify just how flawed its reasoning is. Very amusing. Thank you.

  Celebrated Wt in their genius and wisdom have explained why this event is chosen rather than the more popular astronomical dates advocated by scholars and apostates. This event is unique because it is derived from astronomical dates and as a pivotal date it is well attested by biblical and secular history.

  That the event is derived from astronomical dates is certainly not "unique". It is indeed well attested, but it is derived using methods that the Society pointedly states are unreliable because the same methods are used to indicate dates of other events that categorically show the Society's interpretations to be flawed. It is dishonest in the extreme to suggest that this date is valid, but that all other dates arrived at by the same methods and by the same scholars, are all wrong.

  Also, this event is the closet in time to the other momentous events in biblical history namely the Return of the Exiles in 537 BCE and the rebuilding of the Temple. Further, it is a mere 68 years from the Fall of the Temple in 607 BCE.

  You suggest that 539 cannot be the end of the 70 years because it is only 68 years after the alleged fall in 607. (Incidentally, 68 out of 70 is more than 97 percent, so it hardly qualifies as 'mere'.) This is blatantly illogical circular reasoning to the point of being amusing, as the only basis for the claim that the fall was in 607 is the belief that the 70 years ended in 537 (which contradicts the bible quite definitely anyway). The simple fact is that the Babylonian Empire and its king was called to account at the end of 70 years, as clearly identified by Jeremiah, which clearly occurred in 539.
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  The date 539 is calculated from astronomical evidence as you already know.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  There is no flawed reasoning in the selection of 539 rather than other proposed dates, it comes down to methodology and choice.

  Ther e is nothing unreliable about the selection of 539 as a pivotal date as it is derived from astronomical dates and the event of the Fall of Babylon is well attested biblically and in the secular records.

  The date of 539 cannot serve as the end of the seventy yeras as the texts clearly state that the end of the seventy years is when the land was repopulated at the Return in 537. Jeremiah clearly states that the judgement against Babylon commenced after 539 with its Fall and in 537 when it no longer had the captives in servitude. The judgement in Jeremiah 25:12 proves that this would be a ongoing progress over time until Babylon was no more.

  scholar JW
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  I just wondered if you could explain exactly how 539 BC is determined. Does it also require any 'regnal based methodology' as you have termed it. Why is the dating of 539 BC so unique compared to other dates such as 597 BC?

  CF.
• 

  Jeffro

  There is no flawed reasoning in the selection of 539 rather than other proposed dates, it comes down to methodology and choice.

  (As a side point, "methodology" refers to the principles and methods involved in a particular field; it does not refer to a particular method employed by a particular organization.) Choosing to ignore facts that refute a particular claim is simply intellectual dishonesty.

  Ther e is nothing unreliable about the selection of 539 as a pivotal date as it is derived from astronomical dates and the event of the Fall of Babylon is well attested biblically and in the secular records.

  Yes, the astronomically dated 539 is reliable, just as is 597 for the siege on Jerusalem. But it is the Society that inconsistently and hypocritically attempts to invalidate the reliability of such dating methods.

  The date of 539 cannot serve as the end of the seventy yeras as the texts clearly state that the end of the seventy years is when the land was repopulated at the Return in 537.

  Where?

  Jeremiah clearly states that the judgement against Babylon commenced after 539 with its Fall and in 537 when it no longer had the captives in servitude.

  Where?

  The judgement in Jeremiah 25:12 proves that this would be a ongoing progress over time until Babylon was no more.

  Regardless of whether it was ongoing, it clearly stated that it would begin once the 70 years were completed. Additionally, there is no logic in suggesting that Cyrus was judged as Babylon's king in 537.
• 

  VM44

  In The Watchtower's book, Let Your Kingdom Come, published in 1981 (twenty four years ago!) there are mention of some business tablets that date from the neo-babylonian period. From the "Appendix to Chapter 14" of that book:

  Business tablets: 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.

  But that is all, no further mention of these thousands of contemporary business tablets in the book. Also note that the Egibi family name is not mentioned. This brief mention of the tablets in a 1981 book, followed by silence since then from The Watchtower, led me to make my strong statement at the start of this thread that The Watchtower considers the business tablets (including those of the Egibi banking family) as a significant threat to the WT's chronology, and so they will not allow any detailed research about them to be printed in their publications. --VM44
• 

  startingover

  Does anyone else feel like banging their head against the wall after reading scholar's posts?
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  The pivotal date of 539 is a derived from astronomical dates concerning the seventh year of Cambyses II followed by evidence for the ninth year of CyrusII with his acc. year539 BC. In addition, the Nabonidus Chronicles furnishes information for the Fall of Babylon in 539

  There are many other astronomical dates for the Neo-Babylonian period but when these are utilized then there is a twenty year gap between such secular and biblical chronology. The 539 date is superior to other dates in that it bstands outside the square with its support base from Persian chronology and that it is more definable from a secular, biblical and theological standpoint.

  scholar JW