Posts by Larsinger58

26

Does The Watchtower even try to prove 607BCE anymore?

by VM44 in

when was the last time that the watchtower published an article that attempted to prove the year 607 b.c.e.

was correct over the year 587 b.c.e.?.

the watchtower now simply mentions the year in its publications without attempting to justify it.. proof through repetition?.

Larsinger58

There is critical proof of the 70 years.

For one, Josephus notes the 70-year exile of the last deportees which is consistent with the Biblical account of when the 70 years occurred; that is, from the time of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II to the 1st of Cyrus. This is one of those suppressed references those trying to promote 587 BCE don't like to hear. So here it is:

ANTIQUITIES 11.1.1

1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.

This is almost a direct paraphrase of 2 Chronicles 36:

Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

KEY POINTS here are:

1) Those specifically serving 70 years per Josephus were the "poor people" which corresponds to 2 Chronicles who calls them, specifically, "those remaining from the sword." These are those of the last deportation from among the poor people who were left in the land after the destruction of Jerusalem but who had ran down to Egypt. Upon refusing to return, Jehovah sent Nebuchadnezzar to kill off the majority of them, thus those who were left remaining were called "those remaining from the sword."

This is clear from Jeremiah 44:14 and 28:

14 And there will come to be no escapee or survivor for the remnant of Judah who are entering in to reside there as aliens, in the land of Egypt, even to return to the land of Judah to which they are lifting up their soul[ful desire] to return in order to dwell; for they will not return, except some escaped ones.’”

This is yet another critical reference in the Bible the WTS is loathe to have the R & F connect with. That is, that the last deportation was out of Egypt from the escaped ones. That is because it is all too clear anyone being deported out of Egypt would certainly have to return via Judea and the WTS needs the concept that the land was completely desolated for 70 years began with the destruction of Jerusalem in year 18/19 rather than the year of the last deportation, year 23.

Here is their mind-control, power of suggestion deception regarding who was deported in year 23, even though they know quite otherwise:

Insight Book, page 416:

"Some two months later, after the assassination of Gedaliah, the rest of the Jews left behind in Judah fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah and Baruch along with them. (2Ki 25:8-12, 25, 26; Jer 43:5-7) Some of the Jews also may have fled to other nations round about. Probably from among these nations were the 745 captives, as household heads, exiled five years later when Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehovah’s symbolic club, dashed to pieces the nations bordering Judah. (Jer 51:20; 52:30) Josephus says that five years after the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar overran Ammon and Moab and then went on down and took vengeance on Egypt.—JewishAntiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7).

Here the WTS has the audacity to use Josephus as a confirmation of the year-23 campaign and yet avoid the specific reference by Josephus that those deported last were those who were down in Egypt. Not some imaginary escapees from other nations! So they avoid a direct reference about Egypt and betray the scriptures at Jeremiah 44:14,28. Here is Josephus' reference from which they quote and thus know for a fact that the historical reference for those last deported were from the official remnant of Jews down in Egypt:

"...the twenty-third of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he made an expedition against Celesyria; and when he had possessed himself of it, he made war against the Ammonites and Moabites; and when he had brought all these nations under subjection, he fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned (16) and set up another; and he took those Jews that were there captives, and led them away to Babylon. And such was the end of the nation of the Hebrews..."

Notice this is the same reference of Antiquities X! Josephus says nothing about the deportees coming from anywhere else but Egypt. This is in complete harmony with Jeremiah 44 which confirms that those who "escaped from the sword" are the ones who were deported last and who were the specific ones to serve the 70 years.

See what lying, deceptive men the WTS GB is? They need to twist the scriptures to maintain their false 1914 doctrine.

VAT4956 CONFIRMS RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF 70 YEARS: Finally, the VAT4956, an astronomical text from the Seleucid Period designed to hide cryptic references from the original timeline that had been changed in a diary full of revised dating, is another means of confirming the 70 years. That's because it dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE in complete harmony with the Bible's dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE following 70 years of exile. In that case, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 525 BCE which means year 37 falls in 511 BCE, confirmed by this text. Thus the "relative chronology" of the 70 years from year 23 is confirmed by the VAT4956 as well.

So the 70 years is not a "thin" reference. We know precisely when the Bible and Josephus apply the 70 years. Of course, we can't get that truth from the WTS who needs to begin the 70 years in year 18 which they incorrectly date to 607 BCE. Their need to confirm the land was totally and continuously desolated from this point down to the 1st of Cyrus requires them to steer the minds of their followers away from the idea that those last deported were from Egypt who had escaped from the sword of Nebuchadnezzar II. Josephus confirms those last deported were from the official remnant of Jews down in Egypt, not some imaginary scattered ones which is not supported by the Bible, and, in fact are contradicted by the Bible.

Can you see, therefore, why the WTS' GB is described as the "man of lawlessness" at 2 Thess 2:4?

But you are also correct that the R & F of JWs are also lovers of darkness. They love and embrace the darkness their glorified leadership provide. They are true worshippers of a new god and mediator, the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" god.

So the bottom line is that the secularists lie about the fall of Jerusalem when dated to 587 BCE, and the WTS also using the false timeline lie about Jerusalem falling in 607 BCE, though they are shying away from that discussion now in their publications. Instead, the true date for year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, confirmed by the VAT4956 is 529 BCE. This includes a 70-year interval from year 23 of Neb2 down to the 1st of Cyrus. So the 70 years is very firmly established, it is not "thin." But 607 BCE and 587 BCE are the dates that are thin.

LS

21

Babylon The Great Is Economic Ruin (Being Fulfilled)

by Este in

12 jesus entered the temple area.

he began chasing out all those who were buying and selling there.

he turned over the tables of the people who were exchanging money.

Larsinger58

Yes, the hatred of BTG has already started. They are already calling to "end the Fed" which is a BTG entity.

Interestingly enough, the "little horn" that is so effective in the world, the horn with "eyes" represent the CIA. But it is seen as an agent of BTG. Of course, the CIA was created out of Skull and Bones, etc. so no problem linking it t paganism and BTG and "The Mysteries" secret cults. The nations of the world are beginning to hate the Federal Reserve and the world bankers who are profiting from the debt market. They will soon meet their demise, but apparently so will the UN tire of the manipulation of international affairs by the CIA and they will be destroyed along with BTG.

We shall see.

42

Did you "make the Truth your own"?

by Mr. Falcon in

Larsinger58

Actually, you can't "make the truth your own" unless you are like the Bereans, which the average JW is not.

The Bereans checked out everything, even though they knew Paul was sent from God to instruct them. They still checked out everything. In this way, they "made the truth their own" because they could explain or understand their beliefs from the source, the scriptures.

The average witness doesn't bother to think about what they are hearing. They just read the answers they have underlined and don't worry about whether everything matches up with the Bible or not.

So in that regard, I have made the truth my own, because if something the WTS teaches does not match what the Bible says, I reject it. The averate witness who think that the WTS is their "mediator" can't do that. They don't have a personal relationship with Jehovah outside the concept of being a witness. Many think they are being disloyal if they question the Society, but the Bible clearly tells us to "make sure of all things" and "keep testing" to see that we are still in the faith. You have to be able to understand and explain your own beliefs, "making a defense" to those who question you. All the average witness does is find what the Watchtower says about something and repeat it. They don't think about their beliefs, they don't question them, and they certainly don't challenge the WTS.

But some need more. They need to see how the Bible is fully truth and they check out everything. If there is a discrepancy, they might table it to be understood later, but they do question their own beliefs. When that happens, they end up making the truth their own but become critical of the Watchtower, which becomes a journal of lies.

The WTS are an organization that gives lipservice to making the truth their own, but their hearts are far removed from any critical examination of anything the WTS teaches. They are not like the Bereans who became mature Christians. They have become an organization that is "always learning, but never coming to an accurate knowledge of the truth."

Making the truth their own has become a back-burner exercise.

LS

382

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

by Spade in

disproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.

carl o. jonsson).

along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.

Larsinger58

Please note that the reference to the "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem" was a reference to an official beginning of the actual work. It is similar to executive showing up for a groundbreaking ceremony to begin a building project. Major projects are begun with some ceremony, of course. Today they are called "groundbreaking ceremonies" where everybody collect together and acknowledge the beginning of a new project.

Thus the "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem" was the actual groundbreaking command to actually begin the literal work. This was on the 1st of the 7th month. This is critical because, the messiah must be executed in the middle of the 70th week. That means you have to begin the year at the right time to end up at exactly 3.5 years. Since Jesus fulfills passover at the time of his death, the fulfills the beginning of his ministry in the Fall at the beginning of the 7th month.

The "decree" or "command" thus is not that of Cyrus, but of the builders who began the work on the 1st day of the 7th month. But this occurred in the 1st year of Cyrus which was 455 BCE, of course.

Reflecting on how JWs are totally clueless in this regard, it should be noted that there are two major festivals during they year for the Jews. Each is a week long. One is the Festival of Tabernacles and the other, of course, is Passover. These are fulfilled by Christ. That is, the messiah arrives in the fall to begin a 3.5 year ministry in the Fall in connection with the Festival of Booths. Then he dies 3.5 years later in connection with the Passover celebration. Thus the parallel is Jesus beginning his 3.5 year ministry at the time of the Festival of Booths and ending his ministry when he dies during passover week on Nisan 20th. This is clearly another reason why the work by Nehemiah which began in the early summer cannot fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy. The month the work begins is critical to aligning with the death of Christ to "end gift and sacrifice" in the middle of the 70th week, specifically at the time of Passover and the Festival of unfermented cakes.

During the revisions of astronomical texts, someone must have panicked and thought the original timeline would be forever lost. So they invent the "diary" where many planetary and lunar observations would match the revised, popular, "politically correct" new timeline. This afforded an opportunity to insert references from the original timeline. These would appear as slight "errors" to the casual reader. But once it is clear these references were far from casual but specific and intentional and matching a specific year, then we have a new situation. A record of the original chronology. Interestingly enough, the dating to 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar completely confirms the Biblical dating of the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE.

Let me again show you. If 511 BCE is year 37, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE. Josephus and the Bible both date the the 1st of Cyrus 70 years after the last deportation, which means the 1st of Cyrus must be dated to 525 BCE. So now you have two sources, one Biblical and one secular that are pointing to the precise same chronology and timeline for Nebuchadnezzar II. Again, that is, 511 BCE is not a spurious or haphazard date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, it was the original 37th year before revisions made by the Persians.

So all these really impressive and smart people quoting from the revised records are ignoring the obvious, which is these records are revised. But a secular source reflecting the original timeline completely supports the Bible's dating for the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE. The WTS and everybody else, of course, will eventually have to face this reality at which point 1914 will fall. Also every archaeologist who trusted Ptolemy's canon and these revised records will have mud on their faces and their detailed commentary about how the Bible's chronology is wrong or about how David and Solomon are myths will have to be retracted. Once the original timeline becomes official, likely tens of thousands of historical books will suddenly become outdated and incorrect. The academic world will have mud in their face for not recognizing the revisionism before their very eyes.

In the meantime, the Bible is proven to be true history!

LS

37

Egibi Banking Tablest - of which The Watchtower has never mentioned - why?

by VM44 in

the egibi tablets are contemporary (that is, they were written at the time) documents containing the records of the babylonian egibi bank over the time period of the neo-babylonian kings, 606 - 482 b.c.. these detailed records, the first of which was discovered in 1874, five years before the first issue of the watch tower magazine appeared, should have been of great interest to anyone who wanted to establish the reigns of the babylonian kings.. however, the watchtower has never mentioned the name egibi in any of its publications over the last 130 years!.

the watchtower has completely ignored this source of information!.

book: 'das egibi-archiv, i: die felder und garten,' vol.

Larsinger58

Based on a preliminary Google search about the tablets, it appears to me there was no need to create fake documents except for the reign of Darius I, whose reign was extended by 30 years. In the meantime, it appears that the texts from the Neo-Babylonian kings that were reduced were simply removed.

But there are few documents from the 21-year reign of Xerxes, apparently only dated to year 2 of Xerxes. Plus few for the reign of Artaxerxes. Thus the only fabricated documents would have to be for the years beyond year 6 of Darius I. Apparently there are missing 19 years of this reign with one tablet dated to year 36, which is clearly fabricated.

So it doesn't appear that much more than a few documents for the periods expanded during the Persian Period are represented by the Egibi tablets. But you can't confirm a negative. These texts are presumed to be a complete and untampered collection which reflect the reduced Babylonian timeline, but you can't confirm that the missing years never existed. Of course, they should have.

Further, it is clear that the Egibi family were Jewish and the Jews were very much involved in assisting in the revision of Persian Period documents. That is, they fully cooperated with covering for Xerxes/Artaxerxes, who was a favorite king of theirs. As noted, they replaced their Ezra/Nehemiah with "Esdras" since Ezra/Nehemiah would require Nehemiah who returned with Zerubbabel from Babylon to live some 143-150 years into the reign of Darius II. So the revised Esdras just deals with when Nehemiah first came to Babylon and was concerned with the beginning of the building work. The part of the history where he is cupbearer to Artaxerxes throughout his entire reign is completely left off. So it is not hard to see what history is being suppressed, simply by comparing apocryphal "Esdras" with the canonical Ezra/Nehemiah and Josephus.

The idea that all these tablets had to be revised and copied to reflect the new timeline is now clearly not necessary. The rulership years are circumstantially being dated by the available texts along with the missing years of certain kings, thus they represent an incomplete collection of the business tablets.

It is now interesting in this context, that we consider the VAT4956 and the SK400 which are counter-conspiratorial texts. That is, "diaries" that were created to help hide references to the original chronology. We can see why this seemed an important if not desperate attempt since the revised or circumstantially altered records was such a comprehensive undertaking. These documents were being destroyed and lost forever. The best place to hide something is in plain sight is the purpose of the diaries. They superficially are documents that support the revised timeline except for a few "errors" which go past without much attention until you realize they are too specific to have been unintentional. Once you consider an intentional inclusion to another year, then you realize you have a confirmation of the original timeline. The SK400 dates year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 541 BCE and the VAT4956 dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE. That is the same dating for the rule of Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE following a 70-year exile of the last deportees, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. That means year 23 falls in 525 BCE, year 7 falls in 541 BCE and year 37 falls in 511 BCE. So is it really a mystery why the "errors" in the VAT4956 match 511 BCE? The double-dating, of course, proves the timeline was revised. To ignore this is simply incompetence at this point.

The Egibi tablets might have been an issue had the VAT4956 and SK400 not contained the double-dating to the original years of Neb2. Once we see this, then we know the collection was altered by getting rid of tablets dated to the reduced years of the NB Period. A few fabricated documents seems all there are for the expanded reign of Darius I, with no tablets for the parallel 21-year rule of Xerxes with Artaxerxes.

Even so, the texts are certainly fascinating and shows the Jews were very much into banking even back then and has remained a family tradition even now. Some have thought the Egibi family were similar to the modern Rothchilds.

LS

37

Egibi Banking Tablest - of which The Watchtower has never mentioned - why?

by VM44 in

the egibi tablets are contemporary (that is, they were written at the time) documents containing the records of the babylonian egibi bank over the time period of the neo-babylonian kings, 606 - 482 b.c.. these detailed records, the first of which was discovered in 1874, five years before the first issue of the watch tower magazine appeared, should have been of great interest to anyone who wanted to establish the reigns of the babylonian kings.. however, the watchtower has never mentioned the name egibi in any of its publications over the last 130 years!.

the watchtower has completely ignored this source of information!.

book: 'das egibi-archiv, i: die felder und garten,' vol.

Larsinger58

RESEARCH: Here's an interesting quote:

The Egibi Tablets.

Table-case G in the Babylonian and Assyrian Room of the British Museum, contains a most important and valuable series of clay tablets, dating from the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 36th year of Darius. These are largely legal and commercial documents, many of them recording business transactions carried out by the members of the great mercantile house, founded by a wealthy merchant - a Babylonian Rothschild of the 7th Century B.C. - named Egibi or Sin-muballit.

These tablets include deeds respecting the sale of land, slaves, and houses, marriage contracts and dowries, loans of money and grain, payment of debts, divisions of property, accounts and receipts.

They are dated according to the year of the reign of the King of Babylon, and thus contribute to the fixing of the Chronology of the period. Transactions are recorded in every one of the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, from B.C. 604-562; the 2 years of Evil-merodach, B.C. 561-560 ; the 4 years of Neriglissar, B.C. 559-556; the accession year of Labashi-Marduk, B.C. 556; and the 17 years of Nabonidus, B.C. 555-539.

Transactions are recorded in each of the 9 years of Cyrus, B.C. 538-530, including the two years in which he was Co-Rex with Darius the Mede, B.C. 538- 537, and the 7 years in which he was sole King, B.C. 536-530. Cyrus being regarded as King of Babylon during the whole of these 9 years, Darius the Mede, whose residence was at Ecbatana, is not mentioned.

Transactions are recorded in every one of the 8 years of Cambyses, B.C 529-522, in the year of Smerdis, who is sometimes called Barzia (B.C. 521).

Transactions are recorded in about half the years of Darius Hystaspes, but tablets are wanting for 19 years of this reign. There is, however, a tablet dated as late as the 36th year of his reign, just two years beyond the close of the Old Testament Record and the period now under review.

The only tablets dated later than this in the Persian period are, one in the 2nd year of Xerxes, and one each in the 6th and the 13th years of Artaxerxes. Also one in the reign of Artaxerxes, but undated.

Possibly these also refer to Darius Hystaspes, for Xerxes calls himself Darius in the Persepolis Inscription, and Artaxerxes is clearly another name for Darius in the Book of Ezra.

This confirms the suspicion that, as there are no authentic records of this part of the Persian period, its duration may have been over-estimated by something like 82 years, by the late compilers Diodorus Siculus and Ptolemy."

From: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_anstey_romance.html

37

Egibi Banking Tablest - of which The Watchtower has never mentioned - why?

by VM44 in

the egibi tablets are contemporary (that is, they were written at the time) documents containing the records of the babylonian egibi bank over the time period of the neo-babylonian kings, 606 - 482 b.c.. these detailed records, the first of which was discovered in 1874, five years before the first issue of the watch tower magazine appeared, should have been of great interest to anyone who wanted to establish the reigns of the babylonian kings.. however, the watchtower has never mentioned the name egibi in any of its publications over the last 130 years!.

the watchtower has completely ignored this source of information!.

book: 'das egibi-archiv, i: die felder und garten,' vol.

Larsinger58

"So since the business records of this banking house would have been targeted for destruction, they were simply revised."

This would involve creating new tablets. The work involved would be rewriting the text on new clay tablets and then baking them.

The amount of work involved would be immense to change 100's or 1,000's of records.

Wow. Thanks. You know, I hadn't really thought about that. Good point. So I'm wondering if these tablets were exceptional. I mean, if this was a stable family business over the years that was seen as an opportunity to substantiate the reduced Babylonian timeline.

But there is something we can look into. That is, whether these tablets show contemporary recording over the years which might reflect slight and gradual changes in writing style, versus a very consistent writing style, perhaps that can be dated to a later period. That's the case with the Nabonidus Chronicle, the Cyrus Cylinder and the Babylonian Chronicle, which all sport the very neat style of a smaller script typical of the Persian Period, thus we know from the writing style the documents were "copied" during the Persian Period, not that the Babylonian Chronicle itself even mentions the year it was "copied" (i.e. year 22 of Darius (II)).

So we can get some further input here. We will know they were all recopied and revised if the writing style belongs to a later period rather than varing over those centuries. So if you can find graphics of some of these tablets we can compare them. Maybe the writing style has already been commented on.

But as far as the monumental task of recopying all those texts goes, if the Persian government thought it was worth it, they could have easily done it. For instance, how many tablets do you think could be copied by one copyist in a day? 50, 100? If ten copyists were assigned to recopy and change these texts then it wouldn't really take that long. Remember the Persians were in a cold war with Greece and they were desperate to try to cover their ploy of Xerxes faking his own death and claiming to be his own son. So if the Egibi business records were thought to provide convincing background, then the Persian government certainly had the means to recopy these texts. They had already recopied all the critical palace documents as mentioned above, so why not these? Actually, it think it is a matter of budget as well. Question is, could they afford it? Answer is yes. They afforded carving out a new extra rock tomb at Naqshi-Rustam for "Xerxes." Xerxes is buried out of order, but it's out there to fool people.

However, now that you mention it, this was a minor project compared to what took place during the Seleucid Era with the astronomical texts. After the VAT4956 was created, someone figured out that changing the lunar times could help preserve some of the original astronomical events that had coincidental match-up in the new timeline. So what they did was create thousands of astronomical texts with predicted eclipse events that were timed to the new distorted eclipse times! Thus they created a pool of documents that seemed to confirm the consistent new times. That must have been a major undertaking; certainly more challenging than copying and redating some business transaction records for this bank. Remember, the Persians are trying to snow job the Greeks, so the more ancient texts reflecting the revised timeline they have that look legit, the more likely they would be believed. If that only meant recopying a few thousand business documents, then that was well worth it. So I would be curious to see by comparison if these are all contemporary or copies. In fact, apparently some are duplicates so clearly there was some recopying.

I'll do a preliminary Google search of these tablets to see what is said. But if you come up with anything specific about them, I'd appreciate it. But also remember, just as you think this project of recopying this many texts is impractical, so would the Greeks. Therefore, that alone would make it worth it. If they thought no one would bother recopying all these texts just to fool them then that alone made it quite worth doing just that.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

LS

37

Egibi Banking Tablest - of which The Watchtower has never mentioned - why?

by VM44 in

the egibi tablets are contemporary (that is, they were written at the time) documents containing the records of the babylonian egibi bank over the time period of the neo-babylonian kings, 606 - 482 b.c.. these detailed records, the first of which was discovered in 1874, five years before the first issue of the watch tower magazine appeared, should have been of great interest to anyone who wanted to establish the reigns of the babylonian kings.. however, the watchtower has never mentioned the name egibi in any of its publications over the last 130 years!.

the watchtower has completely ignored this source of information!.

book: 'das egibi-archiv, i: die felder und garten,' vol.

Larsinger58

Hi Ann

@ Lars

Lovely spaaaam, wonderful spaaaam!

Haaaaa. Sorry, I know you wish it were spam but it's not. This is fundamentalism. The 455 BCE dating is part of Martin Anstey's conclusion and dating from his 1913 "Romance of Bible Chronology." He determined from the Bible there were 82 years of "spam" Persian chronology. So that's a Biblical interpretation just as valid as any other claim of chronology, as the WTS' claim about 607 BCE. It's a premise you have to compare with evereything else. So is Martin Anstey "spam"?

Josephus is the one who claims there were 70 years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus. That's a legitimate Jewish customary and traditional interpretation of the 70 years. So that has to be investigated and compared with the Bible. That's not spam, that's an actual secular reference, whether you find it easy to dismiss Josephus or not. Where did he come up with that interpretation? This is Jewish history.

Of course, you also have the VAT4956 with its two "errors" which you like to think of as being "scriabal errors" which is a joke because the scribes didn't invent and fill text just to fill in the space. If the tablet was broken, they noted it. These two references though are too specific to be guesses from the same year, which fits 511 BCE. 511 BCE, though is a Biblical date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II when the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455 BCE, which is the absolute correct interpretation. That's when Jerusalem began to be rebuilt.

So it boils down to the academic world thinking the Jews must have revised their chronology and history but the pagans were so honest, we can rely on them? Please. Everybody revised their history, including the Jews (i.e. apocryphal "Esdras", Book of Esther).

But you wanna know what true spam is? It is when you claim someone like Plato is consulted 2 years before he is born. That's what the current chronology stands on--contradictions like that. Plato's younger brother Glaucon served in the 7th year of the war now dated to 424 BCE. He couldn't have been born prior to 427 BCE, so you have a 3-year old serving in the war. That is the current chronology you think the Egibi tablets substantiate. So it is not me to believes in spam but YOU. You're the one that thinks it is perfectly natural for someone to be consulted 2 years before they were born, not me.

Anyway, it is fun to discuss these things! Olof Jonsson tries to tell us the 70 years was based on Babylonian captivity of the nations while ignoring Josephus' 70 years interpretation. It doesn't work that way. That is true "spam".

Of course, that's the best you can do since you have no specific rebuttal, though you will be claiming you effectively dismissed all my evidence, as usual, when no such thing is possible. Anyway, thanks for the compliment.

Let me know when you are ready to agree to disagree!!! tee hee

LS

37

Egibi Banking Tablest - of which The Watchtower has never mentioned - why?

by VM44 in

the egibi tablets are contemporary (that is, they were written at the time) documents containing the records of the babylonian egibi bank over the time period of the neo-babylonian kings, 606 - 482 b.c.. these detailed records, the first of which was discovered in 1874, five years before the first issue of the watch tower magazine appeared, should have been of great interest to anyone who wanted to establish the reigns of the babylonian kings.. however, the watchtower has never mentioned the name egibi in any of its publications over the last 130 years!.

the watchtower has completely ignored this source of information!.

book: 'das egibi-archiv, i: die felder und garten,' vol.

Larsinger58

I just wanted to add that you have to consider the extensive measures that were taken to make the revised timeline authentic. Case in point are the tombs at Naqshi-Rustam. Xerxes had faked his own death and claimed to be Artaxerxes. But when he died he was bured in tomb #2 next to Darius I. So we know Artaxerxes succeeded Darius I. After that was buried Darius II. But with the claim that Xerxes was the father of Artaxerxes, it was very obvious from the tombs that Xerxes was skipped. So they dug out another tomb at Naqshi-Rustam. The first three were facing the same direction. Xerxes' new tomb is lower and facing another direction. But he's buried out of place. That's rather drastic.

Or you can consider the astronomical texts. After Xenophon's last revision, apparently some attention during the time of Berossus was paid to the thousands of astronomical texts from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II. Remember, we have thousands of business records from the time of Nebuchadnezzar but no surviving astronomical texts. We know they were extensive because "copies" like the VAT4956 gives us nearly daily recorded observations of several planets, the moon and sun! Where are those thousands of astronomical texts? They are no where to be found.

Even so, we know because some astronomical texts, which were discovered by Ptolemy represent the revised timeline. Thus astronomical texts were revised as well. But if you compare the lunar times in the VAT4956 as well as certain star names, you find that later astronomical texts attempted to revise lunar times and locations as well! That's extensive. The logical reason for doing so would be to authenticate some original astronomical observations that coincidentally fit with the revised timeline.

For instance, in year 2 of Nabonidus was a lunar eclipse that took place in month 6. It was a total lunar eclipse that was near the end of totality just before moonset. This caused a panic and Nabonidus sacrificed his daughter to the Moon god. Basically, they saw the moon turn to blood and then set before turning back. That is the context of the original event in 479 BCE. When the revision of the NB Period was made, year 2 of Nabonidus fell in 554 BCE where coincidentally there was a lunar eclipse that occurred in month 6. The only problem was that the eclipse timing was such that it was not in progress at moonset. But also coincidentally, another eclipse event that got dated to year 7 of Kambyses falling in 523 BCE was an ideal substitute for an eclipse 18 years earlier that fell in year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar, 541 BCE, based on the original dating. But this eclipse originally occurred one hour before midnight. It turned out though that if you adjusted the lunar time of the eclipse in the Nabon 18 for the 2nd of Nabonidus so that it was in progress at moonset, the 523 BCE eclipse could be timed to 1 hour before midnight! So if you changed the lunar times for one, you could have both references work. To help cover for this, the star called the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) was switched from sigma-Leonis to beta-Virginis which makes up for those approximate 16 hours revision of the lunar times. They then made thousands of new tablets using their best predictions for future eclipses that reflected the 16-hour difference. Thing is, though, this occurred after the VAT4956 was created which still referenced the original lunar times and positions. That's why astro programs reflecting on the revised lunar times shows this descrepancy in line 8 of the VAT4956.

Point being, a lot of detailed effort went into authenticating the new chronology at every possible level, from business documents, to astronomical texts, to building inscriptions and all kinds of historical records. So what we have is a well documented revised timeline with few critical surviving documents from the original timeline other than double-dated texts like the SK400 and the VAT4956 that confirm the original chronology.

So again, if any tablets or business documents would have given the revisions away, then they would have been changed or destroyed. Since these tablets reflect the reduced NB timeline, we can confirm they were revised as well.

But, it is not a matter of dismissing these documents as revised or not as much as establishing that they contradict the Bible's own chronology. That is, the relative chronology of the tablets reflect a 26-year shorter NB Period than does Josephus or the Bible. That means either the Jews revised their records or the pagans revised theirs. You have to decide which one revised. The smart choice is the Bible, of course. The Bible inserts 70 years between year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II and the 1st of Cyrus and confirms that the successor to Darius I in his 6th year was Artaxerxes, Longimanus, who was first known as Xerxes. If you haven't dismissed that or tried to confirm it, then you'll never get the timeline correct.

LS

37

Egibi Banking Tablest - of which The Watchtower has never mentioned - why?

by VM44 in

the egibi tablets are contemporary (that is, they were written at the time) documents containing the records of the babylonian egibi bank over the time period of the neo-babylonian kings, 606 - 482 b.c.. these detailed records, the first of which was discovered in 1874, five years before the first issue of the watch tower magazine appeared, should have been of great interest to anyone who wanted to establish the reigns of the babylonian kings.. however, the watchtower has never mentioned the name egibi in any of its publications over the last 130 years!.

the watchtower has completely ignored this source of information!.

book: 'das egibi-archiv, i: die felder und garten,' vol.

Larsinger58

For the Egebi tablets to be "criticized" are you suggesting that noted archeaeologists somehow:

Deny their existence (they are manufactured fakes)
Inaccurate (bankers kept poor records)
Not what they seem (they are not really banking records and the kings mentioned are fabrications)

Interestingly, it makes a difference when you know precisely what happened. 26 years were removed from the Neo-Babylonian kings and added to the Persian timeline during the reign of Darius I, who only ruled 6 years (not 36 years) per the bible (Ezra 6:14,15). So any kind of tablets or histories that did not reflect the reduced NB timeline would have been targets for destruction or revision, and then left as records for the Greeks to find and be fooled into thinking the shorter NB Period was authentic. So what was involved was not manufacturing a lot of fake tablets, but removing critical tablets from certain years as follows:

A) 2 years from Nebuchadnezzar II, years 44 and 45. Neb2 ruled for 45 years not 43 years.

B) 16 years from Ewil-Merodach who ruled 18 years originally, which even Josephus records in Antiquities. So years 3 through 18 would be removed.

C) 2 years from Nabonidus who ruled 19 years, reduced to 17. Years 18 and 19 would be removed.

D) The entire 6-year rule of Darius the Mede was removed.

This was required to cover up for the reduced Neo-Babylonian Period. All palace records and as well business records would have to be revised as well. So any records reflecting the shortened NB Period, as I noted, automatically are recognized as revised documents.

LS