Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date! (page 8)

scholar

Alleymom

Marjorie

Celebrated WT scholars have published over the years information concerning the regnal years of the Neo-Babylonian kings and I accept this information. However, the data as presently understood about this period is not absolute as any chronology based upon what is known or understood yields a gap of twenty years. So, our understanding of this period is somewhat in a state of flux, there also remains a proper accounting by the secular records for the missing seven regnal years for the reign of Nebuchadnezzer.

The period of Neo- Babylonians is about 87 years from memory so such data of 27 years is a major worry for those who believe in the infallible history for these king lists.

scholar JW

sf

scholar,

Are you Joel Elliot? THE Joel Elliot?

sKally

Alleymom

Scholar wrote:

Celebrated WT scholars have published over the years information concerning the regnal years of the Neo-Babylonian kings and I accept this information. However, the data as presently understood about this period is not absolute as any chronology based upon what is known or understood yields a gap of twenty years. So, our understanding of this period is somewhat in a state of flux, there also remains a proper accounting by the secular records for the missing seven regnal years for the reign of Nebuchadnezzer.

The period of Neo- Babylonians is about 87 years from memory so such data of 27 years is a major worry for those who believe in the infallible history for these king lists.

Neil --

Do you really accept the information from the "celebrated WT scholars" concerning the regnal years of the neo-Babylonian kings?

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

#1 "Celebrated WT scholars" say Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years. Do you accept that figure?

#2 "Celebrated WT scholars" say Evil-Merodach reigned 2 years. Do you accept that figure?

#3 "Celebrated WT scholars" say Neriglissar reigned 4 years. Do you accept that figure?

#4 "Celebrated WT scholars" say Labashi-Marduk's reign was less than 9 months. Do you accept that figure?

#5 "Celebrated WT scholars" say Nabonidus reigned 17 years. Do you accept that figure?

#6 "Celebrated WT scholars" say Evil-Merodach succeeded Nebuchadnezzar,
 and Neriglissar succeeded Evil-Merodach, and Labashi-Marduk succeeded Neriglissar, 
and Nabonidus succeeded Labashi -Marduk. Do you accept that information, too?

You say "I accept this information"  but do you mean it?

Regards,
Marjorie

Jeffro

Celebrated WT scholars have published over the years information concerning the regnal years of the Neo-Babylonian kings and I accept this information. However, the data as presently understood about this period is not absolute as any chronology based upon what is known or understood yields a gap of twenty years. So, our understanding of this period is somewhat in a state of flux, there also remains a proper accounting by the secular records for the missing seven regnal years for the reign of Nebuchadnezzer.

"any chronology based upon what is known or understood yields a gap of twenty years"? No, that's not right. Only the Society's flawed chronology yields such a gap. And the Society also admits that it has a 20 year variance with the independent contemporary Egyptian chronology as well. (If all of these ancient historians were so unreliable as the Society claims, there would not be an exact concurrence between the enemy historians of Egypt and Babylon.) Using the 20-year gap as a defense for 607 is pathetic.

The period of Neo- Babylonians is about 87 years from memory so such data of 27 years is a major worry for those who believe in the infallible history for these king lists.

"a major worry"? Not at all. No-one else took the kingship from Nebuchadnezzar during the seven years. You choosing to ignore that fact does not create any worry for the rest of us back in reality, and the other 20 years are just a Society-perpetrated myth with no evidence or backing.

Your tenacity is impressive, but you are still wrong.

willyloman

Nominating "Celebrated WT scholars" for Oxymoron of the Year...

steve2

People, you should realise that scholar is not actually reading what you write. Instead, he sticks to his catch phrases because that is all he knows - or rather what he knows will "get to" readers.

Leave him be. He's worse than being close minded: He tries to give illusion of a scholarly approach- but it is only illusion.

ackack

This brings up for me the question of, "What would it take for you to discard any given belief?" I think about my beliefs, but do I have any belief too precious, too sacred that I couldn't discard it?

If you say nothing, I would never give up [insert your belief], basically you're saying, the reason I believe such-and-such is irrational. (that is, its not based on any rational process.) Also, if you don't have reasons for believing something (and subsequently reasons for not believing it) then its unteachable, and you can't expect others to believe it.

Essentially, Scholar has a belief around 70 years having to apply to the destruction of the temple to the exiles returning. This belief is irrational (in all likelihood) as its not supported by evidence, instead, evidence is sacrificied on the alter of blind faith. Is it to prop up 1914? Is it a cerished belief from a parent? What are the emotional reasons behind this belief?

All in all, it just makes me sad I guess. I can say honestly I used to be scholar (to a far lesser degree) but after awhile, the mounting evidence against 607 was too much for me. I realized the mathematical improbabilty behind the business tablets (this was before I ever saw Gentile Times Reconsidered). Just my take.

ackack

Hellrider

Steve2 is right. But it`s just that people like that are so annoying. You know, when you meet someone that is a complete retard, and at the same time not only unable to see that himself, but in the illusion of actually beinig the smartest guy in the world. I bet we`ve all encountered people like that. And it pisses me off. It just builds up inside untill it feels like I`m going to explode. Arghhhhhhhhhhhh

Narkissos

Btw, the Hebrew text I was desperately trying to post (it would have been lost on scholar anyway) was from Proverbs 26:4f :

Do not answer fools according to their folly,
or you will be a fool yourself.
Answer fools according to their folly,
or they will be wise in their own eyes.

This sort of sums up the discussion I guess.

Alleymom

Nark --

Marjorie

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

Share this