Alleymom

Joined

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

Posts by Alleymom

• 
  224

  When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

  by wannabefree in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  obviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  And the assertion in PART ONE (see summary) that secular historians base their conclusions on the writings of classical historians is false.
  The WTS knows it is false -- they have been quoting from Yale Professor Raymond Philip Dougherty's book for years and years.

  And what's especially risible is that on the first page of PART TWO of the article (WT, 11/1/2011, p. 22) they first repeat the false claim in the graphic at the top left of the page and then in the second column they REVERSE themselves and say the scholars "base their calculations on ancient cuneiform documents"!

  Talk about wanting to have it both ways! They reverse themselves right on the same page.
• 
  224

  When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

  by wannabefree in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  obviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  VM44 -

  If anyone wonders if the modern reprint contains all of the original material from the 1929 book, it does. I own both the 1929 original and the modern reprint that you just purchased and I compared them.

  It's amazing how often the WTS has quoted from this book over the years, and it's even more amazing how they refrain from any mention of Dougherty's comments on page 10, where he says the king list based on the dated cuneiform tablets is an unimpeachable standard. All the blather in the 10/1/2011 WT about errors in the classical historians means nothing when the king list has been established by cuneiform business tablets since at least 1929.
• 
  61

  Watchtower admits the KISS method works - Nov 1, 2011 WT, p. 24

  by Alleymom in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following posts and graphics refer to the k.i.s.s.

  (keep it simple, sweetie) approach to 587/586 bce,.

  which i introduced on july 12, 2003.. here is a link to the original thread:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  I hope everyone reading this will take a minute and click on the link to Doug's report.
  The graphics on page 1 totally rock and all the WT references you need for the names and regnal lengths of the kings are right there.

  http://www.jwstudies.com/WTS_support_for_the_Babylonian_king-list.pdf

  I can't emphasize this enough --- if you accept the WT's pivotal date of 539 BCE (and all scholars do accept it!) and you count backwards using the WT's OWN references for the kings (summarized beautifully in Doug's report) you arrive at 587/586 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

  And the WT finally ADMITS it! (See the note on p. 24 of the 11/1/2011 WT article.)
• 
  224

  When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

  by wannabefree in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  obviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  NVR2L8 -- The gaps in the Chronicles and the stuff about the business records is being discussed in the thread about Part II of the article, so I won't post any more about it here.

  Sorry for diverting attention away from Part One.
• 
  224

  When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

  by wannabefree in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  obviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Continued from post 1333 -

  So the fancy chart showing gaps in the Chronicles means absolutely nothing. If we don't know about every building project and every military campaign, so what? We know the names and regnal lengths of all the kings from the business records.

  All the fancy pictures and minutiae about astronomical diary VAT 4956 are also irrelevant because the WTS accepts 539 BCE as an absolute date.

  If you have 539 BCE and you have the names and regnal lengths of the kings, that is ALL YOU NEED to disprove the WT's crucial 607 BCE date.
  
  The confusing mass of detail and footnotes and citations about eclipses and astronomy and Josephus and Berossus, all presented with beautiful photos of cuneiform tablets and slick looking charts and graphics, is nothing but chaff. It doesn't matter.

  The relative chronology (names and regnal lengths of the kings) is established by the thousands of dated business records.
  The WT's absolute date of 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon is correct.
  End of story. That's is all that's needed to disprove 607 BCE.
• 
  224

  When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

  by wannabefree in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  obviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  NVR2L8: Also the chart shows gaps in the Chronicles...while a footnote states that there are business records for every year of every Neo-Babylonian kings...

  Yes. The casual reader probably does not understand that gaps in the Chronicles are irrelevant when it comes to establishing the king list. The Chronicles and the business records are two different genres. Gaps in the Chronicles mean we don't have every detail about all the building projects and military campaigns. But the dated business records cover every year of every king with no room in between for extra unknown "mystery kings."

  Two thousand business records had already been translated by 1929 when Yale Professor Raymond Philip Dougherty wrote Nabonidus and Beshazzar, a resource which the WTS has cited again and again over the years, most recently in Part Two of the Jerusalem article (WT 11/1/2011). Dougherty clearly stated in 1929 that the king list established by the dated cuneiform records was the unimpeachable standard. Today we have many more thousands of business records which have been translated and published. They cover every year without gaps.

  So the fancy chart showing gaps in the Chronicles means absolutely nothing.
• 
  61

  Watchtower admits the KISS method works - Nov 1, 2011 WT, p. 24

  by Alleymom in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following posts and graphics refer to the k.i.s.s.

  (keep it simple, sweetie) approach to 587/586 bce,.

  which i introduced on july 12, 2003.. here is a link to the original thread:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Doug --

  I love your presentation! The picture with the row of kings on page 1 is awesome, and you managed to squeeze a LOT of information onto one page. You really have a gift for making the material accessible, starting with simple facts and then expanding with further support in greater detail.
• 
  61

  Watchtower admits the KISS method works - Nov 1, 2011 WT, p. 24

  by Alleymom in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following posts and graphics refer to the k.i.s.s.

  (keep it simple, sweetie) approach to 587/586 bce,.

  which i introduced on july 12, 2003.. here is a link to the original thread:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  MeanMrMustard --

  I also like this approach because it does not require asking someone to look at secular or "apostate" literature.
  Starting with the Nov. 1, 2011 WT and the Jan. 1, 1965 WT you can ask questions that naturally lead to 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem, just by using WT literature and counting backwards.

  What is the note on page 24 talking about?
  How would you count back from the last king, Nabonidus? Year 17 = 539 BCE, Year 16 = 540 BCE ...
  Where can I find information about who came before Nabonidus? about who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar? etc.
  Is there one article that covers all of the kings? 1/1/65

  This could be a simple, unhurried, uncomplicated research project that does not involve astronomy or reading passages from ancient historians, just looking things up in the WT and using paper and pencil to draw up a simple counting-backwards-from-539-BCE chart.
• 
  61

  Watchtower admits the KISS method works - Nov 1, 2011 WT, p. 24

  by Alleymom in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following posts and graphics refer to the k.i.s.s.

  (keep it simple, sweetie) approach to 587/586 bce,.

  which i introduced on july 12, 2003.. here is a link to the original thread:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Here are some questions based on "Babylon's Last Dynasty of Semite Kings," in "The Rejoicing of the Wicked is Short-Lived," WT 1/1/1965. I'll repost the article first.
• 
  61

  Watchtower admits the KISS method works - Nov 1, 2011 WT, p. 24

  by Alleymom in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following posts and graphics refer to the k.i.s.s.

  (keep it simple, sweetie) approach to 587/586 bce,.

  which i introduced on july 12, 2003.. here is a link to the original thread:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom