Posts by Bungi Bill

17

539 BC - How do they know that year is an "Absolute" date?

by Bungi Bill in

the watchtower society describes the year 539 bc variously as being an "absolute date", a "pivotal date"; and certainly one on which the chronology of the entire "hebrews scriptures" depends upon.

(some jw apologists have even described that year as being a "drop dead" date).

however, this date of 539 bc didn't just fall out of the sky and mysteriously land on our lap:.

Bungi Bill

Blondie,

As Alan Feuerbacher correctly points out, over the years the WTS has altered many things as regards is views about chronology. These changes have included its description of the year 539 BC - from being an "Absolute" date to being a "Pivotal" one.

A definition of what constitutes a "Pivotal Date" is given in the 1990 edition of the All Scripture book, page 282:

"A pivotal date is a calendar date in history that has a sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds to a specific date mentioned in the Bible."

All very well - except that the same publication provides no definition of what the phrase "sound basis for acceptance" means!

In other words, this loose phrase leaves the WTS free to pick and choose whatever it likes from secular sources:

- probably from a realization that the very same evidence that supports Babylon's fall as occurring in 539 BC also supports 587 / 586 BC as being the date for Jerusalem's destruction. Much snake-oil salesmanship is needed to talk your way out of that contradiction!

Bill.

17

539 BC - How do they know that year is an "Absolute" date?

by Bungi Bill in

the watchtower society describes the year 539 bc variously as being an "absolute date", a "pivotal date"; and certainly one on which the chronology of the entire "hebrews scriptures" depends upon.

(some jw apologists have even described that year as being a "drop dead" date).

however, this date of 539 bc didn't just fall out of the sky and mysteriously land on our lap:.

Bungi Bill

Knowsnothing,

You are right on the money there!

People could actually get harmed by taking that nonsense seriously - as you pointed out, some may have "doubts about the 'truth', but hang onto it because of things like these." (I myself was in that category for a considerable time).

Bill.

7

Babylon's fall - 455 BC versus 539 BC

by Bungi Bill in

that 539 bc is the overwhelmingly accepted date for this occurrence is without doubt.. - practically every reference work you consult will cite this date for the taking of babylon by the medo-persian armies under cyrus the great.

however, even the most widely held theories are open to challenge:.

- this is, after all, part of the scientific process.. for a challenge to succeed, though - particularly if it were to overturn such a widely held view as this one - it would have to come up with some very convincing evidence.

Bungi Bill

LS

Certainly, most Middle Eastern history as we know it has come to us with a Greek bias - not surprizing, given the significant part Greek culture has played in the formation of Western Civilization.

That Persia formed - and then, even more importantly, maintained - the first great empire in world history is a point not so widely appreciated:

- At its peak, the Persian Empire controlled an estimated 44% of the world's population ; making it, from that point of view, the greatest empire ever. (By contrast, the British Empire ruled 25% of the world's population).

- The Persians even managed to control Afghanistan, a formidable achievement on its own!

The commonly held view of Persepolis is that, one night and while in a drunken rage, Alexander the Great destroyed it. Fortunately, however, he only succeeded in razing part of the complex (mainly the Treasury Building).

The tomb of Darius I (Darius the Great) is clearly identified by a stone inscription on its location at Naqsh - e - Rostam. (Not quite at Persepolis, but within about 3 miles of it). How though, are the other three tombs at that site identified? This is something you will have to help me with!

I will likely have other questions about these and related matters - but one at a time!

Bill

7

Babylon's fall - 455 BC versus 539 BC

by Bungi Bill in

that 539 bc is the overwhelmingly accepted date for this occurrence is without doubt.. - practically every reference work you consult will cite this date for the taking of babylon by the medo-persian armies under cyrus the great.

however, even the most widely held theories are open to challenge:.

- this is, after all, part of the scientific process.. for a challenge to succeed, though - particularly if it were to overturn such a widely held view as this one - it would have to come up with some very convincing evidence.

Bungi Bill

That 539 BC is the overwhelmingly accepted date for this occurrence is without doubt.

- practically every reference work you consult will cite this date for the taking of Babylon by the Medo-Persian armies under Cyrus the Great.

However, even the most widely held theories are open to challenge:

- this is, after all, part of the scientific process.

For a challenge to succeed, though - particularly if it were to overturn such a widely held view as this one - it would have to come up with some very convincing evidence. Despite this, there is one poster at least who is convinced that 539 BC is not the correct date for Babylon's fall.

Larsinger, you have the floor!

Bill.

17

539 BC - How do they know that year is an "Absolute" date?

by Bungi Bill in

the watchtower society describes the year 539 bc variously as being an "absolute date", a "pivotal date"; and certainly one on which the chronology of the entire "hebrews scriptures" depends upon.

(some jw apologists have even described that year as being a "drop dead" date).

however, this date of 539 bc didn't just fall out of the sky and mysteriously land on our lap:.

Bungi Bill

LS,

The point that I was trying to make at the beginning of this discussion was not that 539 BC is an "Absolute" date:

- rather, the issue is that if you were to accept 539 BC as being the correct date of Babylon's fall, then you would also have to accept the date 537/536 BC as being the time that Jerusalem was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar.

i.e. all the evidence that points to 539 also heavily points to 587/586.

That - and only that - is the point I was trying to make.

539 BC is not a pet theory of mine, so let us remove that straw man out of the way from the start!

Certainly, nothing in science is necessarily set in concrete. Accepted theories are challenged frequently, but for a challenge to be successful, it must pass the full scientific process - which includes review by ones peers. After all, that is how science progresses (thankfully - otherwise without the paradigm shifts that have occurred in medical science alone, many of us on this discussion board may not be around!).

However, the question as to whether 455 BC - rather than 539 BC - is the correct date for Babylon's fall is properly the subject of a seperate discussion.

Let's keep this one on the subject i.e. the inconsistency of holding to 539 BC as the date for Babylon's fall, while dismissing 537/536 BC as the date for Jerusalem's destruction.

Bill.

PS: As to whether 455 BC is the correct date for the fall of Babylon, I have no particular axe to grind, and am certainly open to suggestion:

- but on another thread, not this one!

17

539 BC - How do they know that year is an "Absolute" date?

by Bungi Bill in

the watchtower society describes the year 539 bc variously as being an "absolute date", a "pivotal date"; and certainly one on which the chronology of the entire "hebrews scriptures" depends upon.

(some jw apologists have even described that year as being a "drop dead" date).

however, this date of 539 bc didn't just fall out of the sky and mysteriously land on our lap:.

Bungi Bill

Thanks for your comments, everybody.

breakfast of champions and Witness My Fury: The way the WTS presented things, it always seemed - to me at least - that because 537 BC was an "Absolute" date, then it automatically followed that so was 607 BC.

MeanMrMustard: Good thought. It has always been said that if you think you know a subject well, try explaining it to someone else - nothing like that to reveal the gaps in your knowledge, and get you thinking. Using any other approach on the JWs - about this issue at least - is only likely to put them on the defensive.

diamondiiz: In establishing the boundaries of that 70 year period mentioned in Daniel and Jeremiah, the WTS does resort to using some creative accounting. (C.T. Russell and N.H. Barbour even more so, using 536 BC as the reference point, as you have mentioned). The date 539 BC is, though, still implicated in that process. Some two years after the Persian conquest of Babylon, a group of Jewish returnees performed a certain ceremony in Jerusalem, and the WTS deems the 70 years to have ended with that. Well, that's their story, and they are sticking to it, anyway!

Knowsnothing: I have no idea what this "agenda" is that you mention, nor who is meant to be furthering it. You might enlighten us all, perhaps?

Bill

58

WHO SURVIVED...."75"..?

by OUTLAW in

who survived..."1975"...,i`m just curious,how many of us,are there?those of us that lived though this,will know what i mean.

Bungi Bill

I was so blind to their nonsense that I even signed up as a regular pioneer early in the following year, 1976. It took nealy 20 years for the penny to finally drop!

Bill.

17

539 BC - How do they know that year is an "Absolute" date?

by Bungi Bill in

the watchtower society describes the year 539 bc variously as being an "absolute date", a "pivotal date"; and certainly one on which the chronology of the entire "hebrews scriptures" depends upon.

(some jw apologists have even described that year as being a "drop dead" date).

however, this date of 539 bc didn't just fall out of the sky and mysteriously land on our lap:.

Bungi Bill

The Watchtower Society describes the year 539 BC variously as being an "Absolute Date", a "Pivotal Date"; and certainly one on which the chronology of the entire "Hebrews Scriptures" depends upon. (Some JW apologists have even described that year as being a "drop dead" date).

However, this date of 539 BC didn't just fall out of the sky and mysteriously land on our lap:

- Nowhere in the Bible will you find the fall of Babylon to Cyrus of Persia stated as happening in 539 BC - an impossibility, given that our Gregorian Calendar was not introduced until some several thousand years after the event. (The Bible uses regnal dating to catalogue events of that era; i.e. whatever king was ruling at that time, and which year of his rule the event occurred in).

Rather, this date has been determined by secular history, by using:

- The record of Claudius Ptolomey (a scholar, astronomer, geographer, historian and chronologist), who lived from 70 - 161 AD

- The works of a Babylonian scribe named Berossus (as quoted by later historians of the Roman era).

- Other early historians such as Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius (who used Olymiadic dating to place events).

- Archaeolgy; in the form of cunieform texts, usually written on clay tablets. These writings include such things as royal inscriptions; business, administrative and legal documents; astronomical diaries; lunar eclipses (in particular, a regular series of lunar eclipses that Babylonian astronomers discovered, and recorded on what are known as the "Saros texts").

That 539 BC can be accurately fixed on the Gregorian Calendar is due soley to the remarkable knowledge that Babylonian astronomers did have about this science:

- that, and the fact that they diligently recorded their astronomical observations. Further, their observations were always dated - using the regnal day, month and year of the current Babylonian King.

By drawing on this data, modern astronomers can accurately date a giveen astronomical event on the Gregorian Calendar. Then, from this, the beginning of each Neo-Babylonian King's reign can be determined.

An excellent essay on these details can be found on the website http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-6-appendix-b-pivotal-date-539-bc.html

One will note while reading this essay that the WTS is completely dependent on both this data - and/or its associated research methods - in order to date the fall of Babylon. Yet, one will also notice their considerable ambivalence toward this same data, plus its research methods.

(My apologies to those here who are already aware of this site - there are others (myself included) who are new to this discussion board, and may not have previously known of its existence.)

Bill.

492

607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury in

if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

Bungi Bill

Internet access must be provided in the psychiatric wards these days!

Bill.

62

Br. Loesch - great tribulation, king of the north, generation overlap, new scrolls and more...

by Bonnie_Clyde in

just got this email...... .

subject: zone report germany date: 5/17/11 2:02:57 am.

we thought we would share one of our interesting experiences with you.

Bungi Bill

For 24 out of the 28 years that I was an avid reader of everything that the WTS ever printed, the King of the North was Communism:

- there were no ifs, buts or maybes about that one!

- by extension, too, it was also very strongly implied that "aren't we something else again to have been able to have figured all that out in advance, surely further evidence that God is using us as his sole channel of contact with humankind."

- furthermore, we were often reminded (too many times to enumerate here) that the King of the North, in the form of the "Communist Block" would still be very much alive and functioning when Armegeddon occcurred.

With the collapse of Communist rule in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the early 1990s (i.e. 20 years ago), the King of the North could no longer be Communism :
- now we are told that his identity will not be known until he makes his attack.

Is this what "New Light" really means?

i.e. Events occur that demonstrate the WTS was very obviously wrong, so they now have to concoct some another story!

The saddest thing about all this is that most JWs will just continue to swallow such nonsense without question.

Bill.