http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/54983/830147/post.ashx#830147
This post and many of the other ones in the old Furuli thread are of relevance to this discussion.
Marjorie
Alleymom
JoinedPosts by Alleymom
-
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.
all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.
the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?
-
-
-
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.
all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.
the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?
-
-
Alleymom
That was rather a silly comment to make about me that I was not interested in reading any of the scholarship on the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings.
Neil ---
I am sorry for hurting your feelings.
In the course of our discussions over the last few years, I have gained the impression that your research does not include technical reading in the field of the cuneiform documents. You do not seem to be acquainted with the work of the scholars I read. I thought you were restricting your reading to other areas.
The last two times I brought up names, you found a footnote or reference in Furuli or COJ. But you have never indicated that you are actually familiar with these scholars' writings.
Have you read any of the reports on NBC 4897, for instance? I am not asking if you have read *about NBC 4897 in Gentile Times Reconsidered. I am asking if you have read any of the actual studies, such as the one I recently cited from the Journal of Cuneiform Studies?
If you are interested in reading actual studies, I have given references before and I would be happy to give references again, along with email addresses for the scholars who have written the articles.
Regards,
Marjorie -
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.
all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.
the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?
-
-
Alleymom
The primary documents conflict with part of the information provided by Josephus but coincide with the part where Josephus actually quotes (and endorses) his historical source (Berossus) and conflict with biblical history as expounded exclusively by the WTBTS Inc. -- but coincide with biblical history as understood by the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars.
for Narkissos!
Incidentally, I know Scholar's not interested in reading any of the scholarship on the reigns of the neo-Babylonian kings, but for those who are, Dr. Ronald Sack has surveyed the secondary sources (the classical, medieval, and Hebrew authors) in his writings. His book on Amel-Marduk is hard to get --- I had to order it through interlibrary loan -- but his more recent Images of Nebuchadnezzar covers the same material and is more readily available. I purchased it when it came out about a year ago, and IIRC I got it through amazon rather than from one of the specialty dealers.
Marjorie
-
349
The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets
by VM44 incould the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?
the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.
for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.
-
-
Alleymom
Scholar: There is no text in Daniel that says that Neb took Judean captives in his acc year or his first year
Jeffro: A proper chronology of the relevant scriptures places Daniel 1:1 occuring in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. (As previously covered at lengh, there is no basis for the Society's pretending that "kingship" means something different to "reign" because there is no distrinction in the original text, and other words could have been employed if vassalage was intended.)Jeffro ---
The sad thing is that Scholar knows this. There was a long discussion about the meaning of "kingship" and "reign" over two years ago. I not only gave him numerous verses from the NWT, I also referenced and quoted from several academic sources which confirmed that another word was used to refer to vassalage.
Scholar has admitted that he does not know Hebrew, and yet he continues to pontificate about the supposed meaning of the Hebrew words when all he is doing is relying on the NWT translators' choices of English words.
He peers into the NWT English and tries to divine nuances of meaning as if he's reading tea leaves. Not surprisingly, he comes up with interpretations which are peculiar to him.
Regards,
Marjorie -
349
The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets
by VM44 incould the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?
the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.
for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.
-
-
Alleymom
Not meaning to muddy the water again, but I would like to add something for the benefit of any lurkers. This cognitive dissonance you are witnessing from Scholar is caused by a necessity to prove that Daniel 4:10-17 means Jesus started ruling in the heavens in 1914. Jehovah's Witnesses insist that is the case, and the only way their uncanny numerology could be true is if 607 B.C.E. is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, they take issue with the entire known world's view of history to try and establish their pet year of 1914 by Scripture. If you are thinking this sounds like twisting history and Scripture to fit dogma, give yourself a cookie, you're right. OldSoul
OldSoul -- That's not mudding the waters at all. Not everyone has the patience to sift through all the details of these discussions on chronology, so it's helpful that you reminded lurkers of the WT's real motive in maintaining the 607 BCE date. Marjorie
-
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.
all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.
the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?
-
-
Alleymom
Alleymom, i know, sorry about that. Yes, I know Josephus mentions 18 years for Evilmerodach in "Antiquities of the jews", book X. I have the link to his works from before. I was adressing Scholars "Josephus says 70 years"-claim, which he says agrees with the WTS`s view on things (although it does NOT - regardless of how long Josephus says Evilmerodach, the statements Josephus says about "70 yearsof desolation" is a completely different matter!), not the length of Evilmerodachs reign. In the heat of the discussion, I thought this was the dispute you were having with him, too. My apologies, I didn`t mean to confuse things.
Hellrider -- That's quite all right. Since this forum doesn't have threaded replies, it's easy to lose track of who is responding to whom on what point. I just wanted to clarify things. Regards,
Marjorie -
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.
all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.
the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?
-
-
Alleymom
Neil ---
#1 --- As we have discussed numerous times in the past, the regnal lengths are firmly established from dated contemporary cuneiform tablets, which are primary sources. The testimony of ancient historians is not needed to establish the king lists. It is untrue that I "prefer the testimony of pagan historians." That remark was beneath you, Neil.
#2 -- You imply that you are relying on Josephus rather than the testimony of "pagan historians." But Josephus himself consulted "pagan historians" for information about the neo-Babylonian kings. He even names the "pagan historians" he used: Berossus, Megasthenes, Diocles, and Philostrates. This immediately precedes his statement about Evil-Merodach.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant10.html (See Book X, Chapter 11, sections 1 and 2.)
#3 >>> Celebrated WT scholars take Josephus seriously. <<<
But they do not agree with him that Evil-Merodach reigned 18 years and Neriglissar reigned 40 years, do they? I have posted the WT references numerous times. The WT references I have quoted say that Evil-Merodach reigned 2 years and Neriglissar reigned 4 years.If you prefer to believe the testimony of Josephus rather than that of "celebrated WT scholars" that is up to you.
Are you a baptized JW? Why do you continue to reject the clear statements of the WT regarding the regnal lengths of the neo-Babylonian kings? Why are you running ahead and engaging in independent thinking?
Regards,
Marjorie -
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.
all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.
the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?
-
-
Alleymom
Hellrider wrote:
No need to make any axcuse for Josephus, Josephus is in full agreement with modern chronology, and never wrote nor believed that the Temple was destroyed in 607, on the contrary, he believed, and rightly so, that it was destroyed around 587/586. Scholar just invented that crap. See my post above, where I show Josephus` statements on the issue.
Hellrider ---
With all of the cross discussion going on, you may have missed Scholar's message
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/98966/1706200/post.ashx#1706200
where he says Josephus gives 18 years to Evil-Merodach. That is the point I was addressing. I wasn't talking about the 70 years or 50 years at all.
Josephus is out of step with everyone when he says Evil-Merodach reigned 18 years and Neriglissar reigned 40 years. This is not in accordance with the regnal lengths given by modern scholars, which are based on the primary sources of the dated cuneiform tablets. Neither does it agree with the lengths given by other ancient historians or by the Jewish sources.
Not even the "celebrated WT scholars" agree with these figures from Josephus, as Scholar knows full well.
Here is a link to the relevant passage from Josephus:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant10.htmlJosephus, Antiquities of the Jews. Book X, Chapter 11.2.
Regards,
Marjorie -
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.
all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.
the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?
-
-
Alleymom
Scholar wrote:
Indeed the primary source documents are impressive but such documents are falsified by the twenty year gap when compared to biblical history and also do not account for Neb's seven year absence during his kingship. Therefore, the documents are not infallible history but can merely be used as a guide with historical but limited chronological value. Josephus also had access to such documentsNeil --
As I stated in an earlier post, Josephus did not have access to the primary documents, the dated cuneiform tablets. Your statement that he did have such access is just plain silly.
Josephus was writing more than 650 years after these clay tablets were written. The original tablets were discovered in the cities of the Babylonians. Josephus never saw them. And he couldn't have read the cuneiform signs or understood the Akkadian if he had seen them.
Josephus relied on the works of other historians. His chronology is tertiary at best.
Today we have the actual dated cuneiform tablets, which are primary sources. We don't need to rely on the mangled reports of ancient historians.
Marjorie
-
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.
all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.
the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?
-
-
Alleymom
Scholar wrote: 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.
Neil ---
You are misrepresenting the WT position stated in the literature I cited. There was no qualification or disclaimer. They didn't say "This is the currently accepted figure, but it's just provisional, it could be wrong." No, they presented the figures as facts.
Neo-Babylonian chronology is not based on later historian's king lists, which are tertiary at best. It is firmly grounded on the actual contemporary primary documents themselves. There are thousands of dated cuneiform tablets from the neo-Babylonian empire, with dated tablets for each year of each king. There are also documents which cover years from more than one king.
I recently discussed one of these tablets (it is catalogued as NBC 4897), and you have not replied to my post. It is an accounting tablet which records tallies from a flock of goats and sheep. It covers the sheep and goats separately, with each group broken down by age and sex. It includes entries for the payments of the herdsmen's wages as well as payments for shearing. Most significantly, it spans several kings. It covers the years from the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar through the 1st year of Neriglissar. And guess which king comes in between? Evil-Merodach, aka "Amel-Marduk." He reigned 2 years, just as the WT says in the literature I cited, and both of those years are covered in this accounting tablet.
Evil-Merodach did not reign 18 years, and the WT literature I cited did not suggest or imply any such figure.
The text of NBC 4897 has been carefully studied and research on it has been published by leading Assyriologists, including Stefan Zawadzki (whose article in volume 55 of the Journal of Cuneiform Studies I discussed a few weeks ago), Ronald Sack, Karen Nemet-Nejat, and G. van Driel.
Regarding Josephus: First of all, there are huge textual critical issues in the Josephus manuscripts and some recent collation of manuscripts has revealed some critical errors in the printed editions. Leaving that aside, Josephus, in any case, was hundreds of years removed from the actual events and he did not have the primary evidence of the dated cuneiform tablets that we have today. There are rabbinic legends (haggadah) about Evil-Merodach's rule with material that is neither Biblical nor historical. Josephus may have been familiar with these stories. The figure may also represent a time of co-regency when Evil-Merodach shared the throne.
Regards,
Marjorie