Alleymom

Joined

• started 37 topics
• posted 933 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Alleymom

• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  The regnal data is available from literally thousands of extant business records. It is impossible to be missing a contiguous 20-year period when the rest of the period is so well attested.

  Jeffro ---

  You are correct.

  It's also impossible because there is a cuneiform record, NBC 4897, which gives accounting records for several years, spanning the reigns of several kings.
  
  I don't have a link handy, but in the past I have posted a message giving a list of all the scholars who have published articles on NBC 4897.

  The last article I have was by Stefan Zawadzki in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies.

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 
  52

  What has this board given to you?

  by Crumpet in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  having cooled down a bit in the garden i got to thinking about what this board has given me and wondered what anyone else feels they have gained from it.. for me its been invaluable and even life changing:.

  1) freedom from the brainwashing - when i came here i had already read ray franz's books and still believed it jws had the truth - hat i was basically worthless and that i would die at armageddon.

  the reasoned conversations and help of the posters from all over the world has enabled me to have freedom of thought - something i didnt even know i didnt have until i spent time here.. 2) friends who empathise and know from an experience what i have been through in a way outsiders can never possiby understand.. 3) entertainment - unbelievable laughs and moments of humour that have cheered me up so many times.. 4) association - via the aposta bbqs and telephone chats i can now have so i don't feel so isolated and to some extent alleviates the awful pain of separation from my loved family.. 5) information - from this board and posters here i have found out things that were my right to know but would never have learnt otherwise - my sisters marriage, my aunts tragic death.. 6) reunions - i have now met at least one person who knows me from my childhood and has grown into a man of such kindness and patience that i would have missed out on completely had he not been here and been kind enough to hold my hand - even when i've been an irritating totured little idiot!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  

  I was never one of Jehovah's Witnesses; I originally started reading the board because of my interest in neo-Babylonian chronology.

  What has this board given me?

  ---- Some wonderful friends from all over the world.

  ---- A lot of nice feedback on my KISS thread --- http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx

  ---- AND a really cool coffee mug with cuneiform writing from Eisenbrauns!
  A forum friend (who shall remain nameless) recently surprised me with the mug pictured above.

  Thanks for letting me spend some time with you all, even though I am not an exJW.

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  The cunieform tablets presently as understood assign two years for Evil-Merodach but the historian Josephus contradicts such testimony. I and the celebrated WT scholars cannot be held responsible for this contradiction ...

  But the 1965 WT scholars presented it as a FACT that Amel Marduk reigned two years.
  
  If this is just "shonky" chronology, and if the 1965 WT scholars "simply repeated current knowledge of the Babylonian period," as you said in your previous post, then I certainly do think we must hold them responsible for the "shonki-ness" of their scholarship.
  
  What if someone had read that 1965 WT article and believed it?! After all, some people read WT articles and believe the material presented as FACT is trustworthy and should be accepted.

  Surely the 1965 WT scholars must have known that Josephus contradicted the testimony of the cuneiform tablets. So why did they ignore this information and present it as a FACT that Amel Marduk reigned for two years?

  Don't you think it is possible that they did this because they regarded Josephus's number as inaccurate?

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Your Neo-Babylonian chronology is shonky, it is wobbly because there is confusion over the precise length of the reign of Amel-Marduk or Evil-Merodach. Some authorities give his reign two years whereas Josephus gives him eighteen years so this makes your supposed list of conjectured 66 or 67 years useless. Try again and try harder!

  I meant to ask you before, can you tell me what the word "shonky" means? I take it this is an Aussie term?

  And since the 1965 WT says that Amel Marduk reigned for two years, does this mean that the 1965 WT scholars were guilty of presenting a "shonky" chronology?

  Marjorie
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  The cunieform tablets presently as understood assign two years for Evil-Merodach but the historian Josephus contradicts such testimony. I and the celebrated WT scholars cannot be held responsible for this contradiction for it simnply shows that secular evidence can be unreliable as it plainly is in this case.

  The dated cuneiform business tablets recording transactions for each year of Amel Marduk's reign are primary evidence.

  The readings from late manuscripts of Josephus (copied hundreds of years after Josephus died) are not primary evidence, they are tertiary at best. Even if we did have Josephus's original manuscripts, signed and dated by Josephus personally, these would not constitute primary evidence, because Josephus was writing about events that occurred more than half a millenium before he was born. Josephus did not have access to the primary evidence, the dated contemporary cuneiform records.

  It is not a matter of a mistake for the earlier WT simply repeated current knowledge of the Babylonian period but with the advent of more detailed bibl,ical research it is simply drawn to the attention of Bible students what the position actually is. We can be ever grateful for such illustrious and careful research by the 'celebrated' ones. There is a fact that in the case of this Babylonian ruler that is reign is subject to some uncertainty.

  This is just nonsense, Neil. None of the cuneiform tablets published after the 1965 WT article changed the regnal years of the neo-Babylonian kings! On the contrary, the publication of each cuneiform tablet since 1965 has only served to further confirm the regnal years of each king.

  And it is certainly not the case that the reading in Josephus was "discovered" for the first time after the 1965 WT article.

  You are suggesting that the 1965 WT article was wrong when it said that Amel Marduk reigned two years. You suggest that the 1965 WT authors were not acting under divine guidance, but were merely repeating current information about the Babylonian period. You suggest that some type of new information came to light after the 1965 article was published.

  So what new "illustrious and careful research" came to light after the 1965 WT article was published?

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Josephus who is the only source for the claim of Berossus that Evil-Merdoch's reign was two years also stated that the reign was eighteen years which creates a difference of sixteen years at least. You should consult the later refernces on Evil Merodach in the Aid and Insight publications because they were written after the 1965 WT which simply repeated a common viewpoint but was further clarified from 1969 forward with the Aid research.

  Sorry, Neil, our messages crossed. I had not seen this reply when I posted my last message.
  
  So are you saying the 1965 WT was wrong?
  
  It does not seem to me that the Insight book contradicts the 1965 WT.

  *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
  
  For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found.

  ** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
  
  Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

  The contemporary cuneiform tablets establish Amel Marduk's reign beyond any matter of doubt.

  Have you read Ronald H. Sack's Amel-Marduk: 562-560 B.C.; a study based on cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and rabbinical sources?

  Have you read Stefan Zawadzki's "Political Situation in Babylonia during Amel-Marduk's Rule," in Sulmu IV: Everyday Life in the Ancient Near East, Papers presented at the International Conference, Poznan 19-22 September 1989, (ed. J. Zablocka, S. Zawadzki), Poznan 1993 ?

  Regards,
  Marjorie Alley
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  The difference of sixteen years in the reign of Amel -Marduk

  Neil ---
  
  The cuneiform tablets show that Amel Marduk reigned two years.
  "Celebrated Watchtower scholars" also tell us that Amel Marduk reigned two years.
  

  Secular scholars and the WTS agree: Amel Marduk reigned two years.

  Why do you disregard the regnal information given by the Society?
  Did the "celebrated Watchtower scholars" make a mistake?

  Are you seriously suggesting that we should reject the regnal lengths given by both the WTS AND modern critical scholarship and accept, in their place, readings from centuries-old, non-contemporary manuscripts of Josephus, who was himself writing many centuries after the Babylonian exile?

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/117184/2058310/post.ashx#2058310

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 
  142

  539 BCE

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.

  is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.

  so, it is called an absolute date.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar wrote:
  Your Neo-Babylonian chronology is shonky, it is wobbly because there is confusion over the precise length of the reign of Amel-Marduk or Evil-Merodach. Some authorities give his reign two years whereas Josephus gives him eighteen years so this makes your supposed list of conjectured 66 or 67 years useless. Try again and try harder!

  "Some authorities"? Neil, the Society says Evil-Merodach reigned two years!
  
  Is the WTS wrong?

  *** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
  
  Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 
  53

  MERRYS MOTHER HAS DIED

  by tijkmo in

  1. social
  2. family

  .

  merrymagdelene is back home and agreed to me letting you know that her mother died on friday morning...understandably she doesnt feel much like posting at the moment..but will let us know her feelings as soon as she is able...the memorial service will be held on the 29th... (((((merry))))))

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  {{{{{ Merry }}}}} ----

  You have my sympathy, Merry. I am very sorry for your loss.

  Marjorie
• 
  16

  MERRY MAGDALENE's mom not doing well......

  by freedomlover in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i got another email from merry today and she told me i could pass on this info...... .

  her mom is in the hospital now, preparing to die.

  they are making her comfortable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Freedomlover,

  Thanks for letting us know. Merry's mom has really been on my heart a lot.

  Please send Merry my love and tell her I am thinking of her and praying.

  Thanks,
  Marjorie