Posts by Alleymom

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

So, history proves that the end of Assyria cannot be dated precisely and thus unsuitable for chronological purposes and therefore it would be a most unworthy candidate to begin the 'seventy years'.

Neil ---

Scholars agree that Nineveh was destroyed in 612 BCE.
Scholars agree that the war continued after the destruction of Nineveh.
Scholars agree that another Assyrian king, Aššur-uballit, reigned after the fall of Nineveh.
Scholars agree that Aššur-uballit reigned from 612-609 BCE.
These dates are not in dispute.

As a friend of mine on another forum says, you're doing the "teaberry shuffle."

You're claiming that the fall of Assyria cannot be dated precisely. According to you, there is -- gasp --- Uncertainty! Sound the tocsin!

But, Neil, as you know, scholars do agree on the dates I gave above. The only question is one of interpretation. How does one define "the end of Assyria"? Should it be reckoned from the fall of Nineveh, with the subsequent military action being regarded as mere "mopping up"? Or should it be reckoned from the last year of the last king, Aššur-uballit? As long as a scholar specifies what he means by "the end of the Assyrian empire," there is no ambiguity at all.

Remember, your original claim was that the date 609 BCE was useless and that nothing relevant happened. That is not true.

And you continue to harp on "THE" seventy years when you know that Jewish and Christian Bible scholars observe that there are several seventy-year periods. You keep talking about this and that event being a "candidate" --- you wouldn't be doing that if the Bible specified one and only one seventy-year period and specified the events which marked the beginning and end of that ONE period.

You insist on taking the destruction of Jerusalem as THE starting point for your ONE AND ONLY seventy-year period. But this is not the way Jewish scholars have traditionally interpreted the texts, going back at least as far as the second century C.E. Seder 'Olam Rabbah, which calculates seventy years between the destruction of the first Temple and the consecration of the Second Temple. This traditional interpretation matches perfectly with the modern dates of 586-516 BCE. Earlier in this thread I cited Eliezer Shulman, your own source, whose chronological charts based on traditional Jewish sources show several seventy-year periods.

Modern scholars do not accept the dates or regnal years in the Seder 'Olam Rabbah as accurate, but it is certainly of interest that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the "70 years of Jerusalem's desolation" is from the destruction of the First Temple to the consecration of the Second Temple, which would be our 586-516 BCE. See Eliezer Shulman, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, page 143.

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Continued from previous post ...

Information on the fall of Assyria can be found in the "Fall of Nineveh" chronicle, in A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975) and at these pages on livius.org:

http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/nineveh/nineveh02.html#Fall

http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/nineveh/nineveh01.html#Introduction

"Fall of Nineveh" Chronicle
The sixteenth year [610-609] In the month Ajaru [May] the king of Babylonia mustered his army and marched to Assyria. From the month [lacuna] until the month Arahsamna [November] he marched about victoriously in Assyria. In the month Arahsamnu the Medes, who had come to the help of the king of Babylonia, put their armies together and marched to Harran against Aššur-uballit, who had ascended to the throne in Assyria. Fear of the enemy overcame Aššur-uballit and the army of Egypt which had come to help him, and they abandoned the city. [lacuna] they crossed. The king of Babylonia reached Harran and [lacuna] he captured the city. He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple. In the month Addaru the king of Babylonia left their [lacuna]. He went home. The Medes, who had come to help the king of Babylonia, withdrew.

The seventeenth year [609-608]: In the month Du'ûzu [July] Aššur-uballit, king of Assyria, with a large army from Egypt crossed the river Euphrates and marched against Harran to conquer it. [lacuna] They captured [a town on the road to Harran]. They defeated the garrison which the king of Babylonia had stationed inside. When they had defeated it they encamped against Harran. Until the month Ulûlu [September] they did battle against the city but achieved nothing. However, they did not withdraw. The king of Babylonia went to help his army and [lacuna] he went up to Izalla and the numerous cities in the mountains [lacuna] he set fire to their [lacuna]
At that time the army of [lacuna] march as far as the district of Urartu. In the land [lacuna] they plundered their [lacuna] The garrison which the king of [lacuna] had stationed in it set out. They went up to [lacuna]. The king of Babylonia went home.

Here is some additional commentary from the Livius site:

A new king, whose name was Aššur-uballit, set up a kingdom in Harran. But he was no match for Nabopolassar, who, according to the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle , 'marched to Assyria victoriously' in the fifteenth and sixteenth year of his reign (612-609). King Aššur-uballit was forced to leave Harran.

He seems to have convinced the Egyptians to support his hopeless cause one more time. A large army under command of pharaoh Necho (610-595) advanced to the north. King Josiah of Judah, who had tried to conquer the former kingdom of Israel , tried to resist the invaders; the Second Book of Kings informs us that

while Josiah was king, pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, went up to the Euphrates river to
help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Necho faced
him and killed him at Megiddo. Josiah's servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo
to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. [2 Kings 23.29-30a]

In June, Necho's men tried to recapture Harran for Aššur-uballit and they may have come close to victory, but they had to raise their siege of Harran in August 609. After this event, Aššur-uballit and Assyria disappear from the historical sources. The Babylonians and Egyptians would continue their struggle in Syria and Palestine.

Here are two more sites:

"The commander of the Assyrian army in the west crowned himself king in the city of Harran, assuming the name of the founder of the empire, Ashur-Uballit II (612-609 BC). Ashur-Uballit had to face both the Babylonians and the Medes. They conquered Harran in 610, without, however, destroying the city completely. In 609 the remaining Assyrian troops had to capitulate. With this event Assyria disappeared from history."

http://www.allempires.com/empires/assyria/assyria1.htm

612 - 609 BC Ashur-uballit II Last king.
610 BC Harran is conquered, but not completely destroyed.
609 BC The remaining Assyrians surrender. http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsMiddEast/MesopotamiaAssyria.htm

Neil, it certainly seems as if scholars do not agree with you that 609 B.C.E. is a "useless date" and an "utterly meaningless date for both historical and chronological purposes."

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Response to Scholar's post #621 to Jeffro

I think you are a confused little boy! Indeed you will not obtain 607 by taking off 70 years from 539 but will simply arrive at the useless date of 609 which is a utterly meaningless date for both historical and chronological purposes. The Jonsson hypothesis tries but fails to ascribe anything relevant to 609, it would be be preferable to view the seventy years as a round number and begin the period from 605. Better still, throw the Jonsson garbage in the bin and use the more accurate WT chronology.

Neil ---

You have cited Jack Lundbom's Jeremiah 21-36 : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by (Anchor Bible Series) several times in this thread. On page 250, Lundbom writes:

" … [f]rom the actual end of the Assyrian empire (609/8 B.C.) to Babylon’s capture by Cyrus and the return of the exiles (539 B.C.) was almost precisely 70 years."

So Lundbom (who is your own source) does not agree with you that 609 is a "useless date" or an "utterly meaningless date for both historical and chronological purposes."

He says that 609/8 B.C. was the "actual end of the Assyrian empire."

On page 177 of his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998 edition), Jack Finegan writes:

"In the history of the ancient Orient the defeat in 609 B.C. of Ashur-uballit II, ruler in the western city of Haran of the last remnant of the Assyrian empire, by Nabopolassar of Babylon, marked the end of that empire and the rise to power of the Babylonian empire. ([section]430). Then in 539 Cyrus the Persian marched in victory into Babylon ([section]329) and the seventy years of Babylon and the seventy years of Jewish captivity were 'completed'. "

So Jack Finegan and Jack Lundbom are in agreement that 609 B.C.E. marked the end of the Assyrian empire.

It is puzzling that you continue to go on and on about the imaginary "Jonsson hypothesis". But it is even more puzzling that you say "The Jonsson hypothesis tries but fails to ascribe anything relevant to 609".

609 is NOT a "useless date" or an "utterly meaningless date for both historical and chronological purposes" as the above quotes from Jack Lundbom and Jack Finegan show.

Marjorie

43

Special Vigil/Thanksgiving for Dansk--1 year

by under74 in

jw
friends

thanks marjorie!

for anyone uncertain about what this thread is about .

click here.

Alleymom

OK it's 7 pm and I am here!
Been awaiting it all day!
Looking for a post from Ian..
Where are you?
Probably baking in that sunroom.....

Snoozy --

Ian is probably sleeping (at least I hope he is!). When we started doing these vigils, he requested that we schedule them for when he would be asleep.

He usually checks back in with us on Wednesday morning.

Marjorie

43

Special Vigil/Thanksgiving for Dansk--1 year

by under74 in

jw
friends

thanks marjorie!

for anyone uncertain about what this thread is about .

click here.

Alleymom

Dear Ian ---

I was out most of the day, so this is the first chance I've had to log on.

You and Claire are in my prayers and on my heart.

Love,
Marjorie

43

Special Vigil/Thanksgiving for Dansk--1 year

by under74 in

jw
friends

thanks marjorie!

for anyone uncertain about what this thread is about .

click here.

Alleymom

23 minutes to go!

Brenda ---

ROFLOL at your picture of Ian's stomach!

43

Special Vigil/Thanksgiving for Dansk--1 year

by under74 in

jw
friends

thanks marjorie!

for anyone uncertain about what this thread is about .

click here.

Alleymom

I found this on the website of my favorite ginger ale

And speaking of ale ...

43

Special Vigil/Thanksgiving for Dansk--1 year

by under74 in

jw
friends

thanks marjorie!

for anyone uncertain about what this thread is about .

click here.

Alleymom

Or perhaps some ginger would be soothing ---

43

Special Vigil/Thanksgiving for Dansk--1 year

by under74 in

jw
friends

thanks marjorie!

for anyone uncertain about what this thread is about .

click here.

Alleymom

And in case he wants to stick with herbal remedies,
a nice cup of chamomile tea may settle his tum ...

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

Narkissos and Leolaia ---

LOL!

But .. but ... haven't you two read "Prosser and Keeton on Torts" (Robert F. Keeton et. al., Section 106, 5th ed. 1984), which explains that the majority of courts hold that "misrepresentation" occurs when "[L]iterally true statements are made that create a false impression."

Scholar admits to a mistake on his post # 607!

Scholar also admits to "a more precise date for the Fall" that happens to be

in his post # 587.