Nebuchadnezzar NOT KING in 607 B.C.

by rockhound 6 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • rockhound
    rockhound


    The Watchtower Society certainly has had much to say over the years about King Nebuchadnezzar destroying Jerusalem in the year 607 B.C., and over 6 million loyal followers have accepted their every printed word as if the very finger of God had written it in stone and had handed it directly to editors of the Watchtower magazine. Well, it would seem, that someone back in Brooklyn doesn't know whether they "are a foot", or "horseback". Over and over, the soceity uses A.K. Grayson as an authority on the neo-babylonian tablets, and every time I check out the actual source (Graysons translation of the tablet) I find the watchtower society has put Grayson's dates aside, and inserted their own dates.

    Writing down the actual dates that Grayson recorded in his book " seems to high a hill for the society to climb."

    Note: Grayson's translation of the BM 22047 shows without doubt that Nebuchadnezzar was (not even king )of babylon in the year 607 B.C.

    Nabopolassar was still very much alive and was king of bablyon in 607 B.C. His son Nebuchadnezzar was "Crown Prince" and acting as a military commander of his fathers army.

    Note A.K.Grayson's translation:

    Late Years of Nabopolassar (ABC 4)

    The Chronicle Concerning the Late Years of Nabopolassar (ABC 4) is one of the historiographical texts from ancient Babylonia. It deals with the wars of the Babylonian king Nabopolassar and his crown prince Nebuchadnezzar against nations that were interested in taking a part of the former Assyrian Empire. This chronicle is the last part of one large text that began with the Early Years of Nabopolassar Chronicle (ABC 2) and continued with the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle (ABC 3).

    For a very brief introduction to the literary genre of chronicles, go

    here. The translation on this webpage was adapted from A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975) and Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles (Atlanta, 2004).

    This text is inscribed on a small tablet, BM 22047 (96-4-9, 152), which, like Chronicle 2, 6, 9, and 15, has the shape of a Neo-Babylonian business document. It measures 45 mm long and 54 mm wide. The text is in splendid condition, so that only a few words are missing.

    Translation

    1

    The eighteenth year of Nabopolassar (608/607): In the month Ulûlu the king of Akkad mustered his army and

    2

    following the bank of the Tigris to the mountains of Bit-Hanunya

    3

    in the district of Urartu, he went up. He set fire to the cities and

    4

    plundered them extensively. In the month Tebêtu the king of Akkad went home.

    5 The nineteenth year (607/606)

    : In the month Simanu the king of Akkad mustered his army and

    6

    Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son, the crown prince,

    7

    mustered his army. They marched to the mountains of Za[...].

    8

    The king of Akkad left the prince and his army there while he returned to Babylon in the month of Du'ûzu.

    9

    After his departure, Nebuchadnezzar did battle at Biranati, situated in the mountains

    10

    captured Biranati, set it on fire, and took many prisoners.

    11

    He conquered all of the mountains as far as the district of Urartu.

    12

    In the month Ulûlu the prince returned to Babylon. In the month Tašrîtu the king of Akkad mustered his army and

    13

    marched to Kimuhu, which is on the bank of the Euphrates.

    14

    He crossed the river, did battle against the city, and in the month Kislîmu he captured the city.

    15

    He sacked it and stationed a garrison of his in it. In the month Šabatu he went home.

    16 The twentieth year (606/605)

    : The army of Egypt marched [17] against the garrison of Kimuhu

    17

    which the king of Akkad had stationed inside. For four months,

    18

    they laid siege to the city, captured it, and defeated the garrison of the king of Akkad.

    19

    In the month Tašrîtu , the king of Akkad mustered his army, marched along the bank of the Euphrates, and

    20

    pitched camp in Quramatu, which is on the bank of the Euphrates.

    21

    He had his army cross the Euphrates and they captured[22] Šunadiri, Elammu,

    22

    and Dahammu, cities of Syria,

    23

    and plundered them. In the month Šabatu the king of Akkad went home.

    24

    The army of Egypt, which was in Karchemiš, crossed the Euphrates and

    25

    against the army of Akkad, which was camped in Quramatu

    26

    it marched. They pushed the army of Akkad back so that they withdrew.

    27 The twenty-first year (605/604

    ): The king of Akkad stayed home while Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son

    28

    and crown prince, mustered the army of Akkad.

    I also thought that a few more of the societies quotes about dates that have proven less than reliable, might be of interest to lurkers of this site.

    The Watchtower Society says:

    The

    fall of the empire. The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): WRONG !!!!

    The BM 21901 actually says Note the date change

    The fourteenth year

    [612-611 ] : The king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Assyria. The king of the Medes marched towards the king of Akkad and they met one another at [...]u. The king of Akkad and his army crossed the Tigris; Cyaxares had to cross the Radanu, and they marched along the bank of the Tigris. In the month Simanu , the Nth day, they encamped against Nineveh.

    The Watchtower Society says:

    As Babylon’s crown prince, he and his army shattered the forces of Egyptian Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish. But a message compelled the victorious Babylonian prince to leave mopping-up operations to his generals. Learning that his father, Nabopolassar, had died, this young man named Nebuchadnezzar took the throne in 624 B.C.E. WRONG!!!!

    The Jerusalem chronicle ABC 5 actually says

    : Note: the date change

    1.

    In the twenty-first year [605/604; note 1 ] the king of Akkad [Nabopolassar] stayed in his own land, Nebuchadnezzar his eldest son, the crown-prince,

    2.

    mustered the Babylonian army and took command of his troops; he marched to Karchemiš which is on the bank of the Euphrates

    9.

    For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon,

    10.

    when on 8 Abu [15 August 605 ] he went to his destiny; in the month of Ululu Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon

    11.

    and on 1 Ululu [7 September] he sat on the royal throne in Babylon

    12.

    In the accession year Nebuchadnezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Šabatu

    The Watchtower Society says

    :

    If the Mannai or Manneans were inhabitants of Minni, as some scholars say, then according to cuneiform inscriptions Minni was intermittently under subjugation, first by the Assyrians and then by the Median Empire. According to a Babylonian chronicle, in his tenth year of reign (636 B.C.E.) Nabopolassar "captured the Manneans who had come to their (i.e. the Assyrians’) aid." (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 91) But by the time Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E. Minni was dominated by the Medo-Persian Empire. WRONG!!!!

    The Fall of Nineveh Chronicle actually says: Note: the date change

    The tenth year of Nabopolassar [616-615 BCE ] : In the month Ajaru , Nabopolassar mustered the army of Akkad and marched along the bank of the Euphrates . The Suheans and Hindaneans [people living south of Harran] did not do battle against him but placed their tribute before him.

    In the month Âbu the army of Assyria prepared for battle in Gablini and Nabopolassar went up against them. On the twelfth of the month Âbu [24 July 616] he did battle against the army of Assyria and the army of Assyria retreated before him. He inflicted a major defeat upon Assyria and plundered them extensively. He captured the Manneans , who had come to the Assyrians' aid, and the Assyrian officers. On the same day he captured Gablini.

    The Watchtower Society says :

    In fulfillment of Nahum’s prophecy, Nineveh fell to the combined forces of Babylonian King Nabopolassar and Cyaxares the Mede in 632 B.C.E. The Babylonian Chronicles state: "The great spoil of the city and temple they carried off and [turned] the city into a ruin-mound. " WRONG!!!!

    The Fall of Nineveh Chronicle actually says: Note: the date change

    The fourteenth year [612-611 ] : The king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Assyria. The king of the Medes marched towards the king of Akkad and they met one another at [...]u. The king of Akkad and his army crossed the Tigris; Cyaxares had to cross the Radanu, and they marched along the bank of the Tigris. In the month Simanu , the Nth day, they encamped against Nineveh.

    From the month Simanu until the month Âbu -for three months- they subjected the city to a heavy siege. On the Nth day of the month Âbu they inflicted a major defeat upon a great people. At that time Sin-šar-iškun, king of Assyria, died. They carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple and turned the city into a ruin heap .

    It would seem that the words of James Madison would apply "All men having power ought to be mistrusted"

    ROCKHOUND

    I
  • crazies
    crazies

    Beautiful!

  • Judc
    Judc

    umm, dude, the year isn't actually on the cuneiform tablets. That's why it's bracketed.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    Judc,

    While the year isn't exactly on the steles, the astronomical observations are. Observations of patterns which (in some case) would not repeat again for 12,000 years. Certain sets can pinpoint events to within one week, and particularly complete observations can pinpoint a specific day. The same way 539 BC is derived as the date for the destruction of Babylon, these other dates are derived. The Bible never states a year for any of these events, there is no such thing as Biblical dates for any event. Their time keeping was relative to the rule of kings, not astronomically fixed.

    Astronomical observations are verifiable and translate across cultural and linguistic barriers. Assyrian and Babylonian event dating is among the most certain of any ANE cultures and is incredibly advanced comparative to the methods of the Ancient Hebrew methods of chronology.

    I think Rockhound's primary point was that the WTS quotes an authority out of context on a secular issue in such a way as to create the impression that the secular source supports their beliefs. I was personally fooled by this exact deception. It is intentionally misleading and smacks of fraud.

    Excellent post, Rockhound!

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • Honesty
    Honesty

    Excellent post, Rockhound!

    The WATCHTOWER is so evil they deserve to reap every reward they are sowing with their lies.

  • Judc
    Judc

    understood, Auldsoul.

    My point is that when Rockhound, for instance, said:

    The BM 21901 actually says Note the date change

    That such a statement is misleading, in the same manner we accuse the WTS material of being misleading. The fact is, BM 21901 carries no "absolute" date--only the regnal year in which it was written.

    It is quite another matter if the WTS represented a certain scholar as advocating their date, when in reality the scholar advocated something else. I would prefer to see an explicit instance of that. Forgive me if I missed it.

  • rockhound
    rockhound

    Hello Judc please note my original statement:

    The Watchtower Society certainly has had much to say over the years about King Nebuchadnezzar destroying Jerusalem in the year 607 B.C., and over 6 million loyal followers have accepted their every printed word as if the very finger of God had written it in stone and had handed it directly to editors of the Watchtower magazine. Well, it would seem, that someone back in Brooklyn doesn't know whether they "are a foot", or "horseback". Over and over, the soceity uses A.K. Grayson as an authority on the neo-babylonian tablets, and every time I check out the actual source (Graysons translation of the tablet) I find the watchtower society has put Grayson's dates aside, and inserted their own dates.

    A good example of what I mean is in the Insight Book under the topic of Nebuchadnezzar:

    The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and

    "in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon." (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first

    The Society has taken Grayson's quote and inserted their own date within the quotation marks of his quote. They are using Grayson to lend legitimacy to their inserted bracketed date. I personally find this very dishonest

    ROCKHOUND

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit