Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 239 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  You continue to raise the matter as to my opinion of the Neo- Babylonian dynasty and I repeat that the regnal years and the list of kings can only be considered as presently tenable. The current presentation of matters is simply unsatisfactory as it does not account for Neb's missing seven years of kingship and the twenty year gap problem when compared with authentic biblical chronology. So, my view like that of celebrated WT scholars is that such regnal lists can only be considered as provisional at this point of time.

  scholar JW

  Neil ---

  But the "celebrated WT scholars" who wrote the articles I cited did NOT qualify their information as provisional. They flat out said that those kings reigned for those time periods. No "if," "and," or "but" about it.

  So, I ask you again: do you agree with those celebrated WT scholars? Do you believe that the information they provided is accurate and trustworthy?

  Did Nebuchadnezzar reign 43 years? The WT says he did.
  Did Amel-Marduk reign 2 years? The WT says he did.
  Did Neriglissar reign 4 years? The WT says he did.
  Did Labashi-Marduk reign less than 9 months? The WT says he did.
  Did Nabonidus reign 17 years? The WT says he did.

  Do you think that your understanding is superior to that of the "celebrated WT scholars"?

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Little Bo Peep wrote:

  Just finished talking with our daughter. Told her about the "kings list" from the WT literature you just posted. She has been having quite a discussion with her in-laws. Her father-in-law said he will give her the needed information regarding 607, as he has "connections". We'll see if he does any research. If you look in the current book study book, Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy, page 46, it says, "In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as world ruler (606/605 B.C.E.), God sent him a terrifying dream." This is in contradiction to page 64 that says, "In the fourth year of his reign (620 B.C.E.), Nebuchadnezzar made Judah his vassal kingdom." Which one is right? I think this would be a good question to ask any JW, since they are studying this book right now. If 606/605 is right, you have the nearly 20 missing years.

  Little Bo Peep --

  May I ask, are your daughter and son-in-law Jehovah's Witnesses, or is it just his parents who are? If your daughter's FIL is willing to look up material for her on 607, she might try asking him to give her a list of reference works (encyclopedias, etc.) which say Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. (There are none, as he will discover if he goes to the library and starts looking.)

  I see that Jeffro answered your question about the seeming contradiction in the Daniel book. Page 46 isn't talking about the "real" second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, although you'd never know that. As Jeffro said, the Society claims that when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem (in the 18th or 19th year of his reign, depending on how you count the accession year), then he started reigning as "world ruler." So they claim that when the Bible says Neb. had a dream in his 2nd year, it doesn't mean the "real" 2nd year of his reign. According to them, it means the 2nd year of his reign as "world leader."

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 

  stillajwexelder

  alleymom - do not hold your breath - pseudo scholar MA Religion etc, etc does not like arguing with facts--- I can almost predict his reply- I was thinking of posting the incontrevetible proof from the WTBTS own publications but scholar will post his usual shite -arent they wonderful these celebrated WT scholars?
• 

  wiegel

  yup, they are celebrated scholars alright, but scholars of what???? trudy (of the "I can't believe it happened to me" class)
• 

  a_ Christian

  Hi Gals and Guys,

  Thanks for the warm welcome. I have a feeling my efforts to get "Scholar" to do some "independent thinking" will be in vain. I tend to believe his reply to my post, if he replies, will do little more than assure me that when the Bible tells us Nebuchadnezzar was away from his throne for "seven times" it must have meant "seven years" because "CWS" (celebrated Watchtower scholars) tell us so.

  Like most others here, I can't believe "Scholar" is for real. He has got to be playing with us. But even if he is, maybe something we say to him may do someone else some good, someone who really believes what "Scholar" here pretends to believe.

  Mike
• 

  Jeffro

  However, the history of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is very well documented in the scriptures and in extrabiblical sources. A thorough review of all of this information shows that it is impossible to find a period of 7 years within his reign of 43 years when Nebuchadnezzar was absent from his throne or inactive as ruler. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that the "7 times" of Daniel 4:25 could have referred to a period of 7 years. Babylonian history does, however, allow for Nebuchadnezzar to have been away from his throne for seven years.

  Nabonidus was absent from the throne for long periods of his reign, but he was still considered King. There is no reason why Nebuchadnezzar could not be called king even if he was away for a full seven years, since he wasn't actually replaced as King during that time. But I doubt 'scholar' will get the point.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Yes, but the facts are that the Babylonian annals or records omit any reference to that imoprtant phase of Neb's kingship namely the seven years of banishment or interruption to his reign. GThis proves that the testimony of the secular period is inadequate when using such materials as a basis for chronology. Far better to stick to God's Word for purposes of chronology.

  scholar JW
• 

  Hellrider

  Here we go again.

  Far better to stick to God's Word for purposes of chronology.

  scholar JW

  You mean the WTS`s "Word for purposes of chronology".

  I never thought I`d meet a human as dumb as my sisters bullterrier.
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  As I have pointed out before there is some problems with the Babylonian King lists so when the Society's publications give certain figures for the kings it is simply presenting current scholarly opinion. Celebrated WT scholars have kindly informed us that in the case of Evil-Merodach there is a current acceptance that he reigned for two years and yet Josephus assigns a period of 18 years. In this case we are closing in on the twenty year gap between profane-secular chronology and true biblical chronology.

  My considered view in respect of this data is a wait and see, that such data is provisional and that is the view of celebrated WT scholars.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Yes, but the facts are that the Babylonian annals or records omit any reference to that imoprtant phase of Neb's kingship namely the seven years of banishment or interruption to his reign. GThis proves that the testimony of the secular period is inadequate when using such materials as a basis for chronology. Far better to stick to God's Word for purposes of chronology.

  It has been previously indicated to you that there is at least some secular material to indicate that Nebuchadnezzar had some kind of madness for a period. It has also been pointed out that for administrative purposes, it was not necessary to record that anyone other than Nebuchadnezzar was king. The bible is not at odds with the Babylonian records, so it really doesn't matter anyway.

  It's only when the Watchtower Society starts applying their strange little theories that things go awry.