by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
607 is easy to prove wrong.
Of course, for it was wholly devised to solidify the 1914 dating significance, something of which the WTS. had already
proselytized as a doctrine from Russell's days.
Weighing in people's ignorance to create support is what the WTS. has done continuously for decades, for most part it
has worked for them in the proliferation of organization's literature.
@Alwayshere:
djeggnog, you say Nabopolassar begin to rule as King of Babylon in 646 but the Vol. 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, the right side, last paragraph, says his rule begin in 625.
Does it? Please provide the name of the article you were reading in the Insight book; I primarily use the Bible, but I'll read the article if you provide the name of the article. I checked the articles on "Babylon," "Chronology" and "Nineveh, but I gave up looking for the article to which you are referring here.
Vol. 2 of the Insight, page 332, 2nd paragraph, they quote Jer.25:11-12, then in the 4th paragraph, they say God is wrong, Babylon fell BEFORE the 70 years of the exile.
While this is the conclusion that you have reached upon reading the Insight article "Exiles Return from Babylon," but nowhere in this article does it say that God is wrong. God's prophecy as recorded at Jeremiah 25:11, 12, states that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." You are reading something more into Jeremiah's words at Jeremiah 25:11, 12, than they actually say, for it had been foretold that God's people would have to become exiles in Babylon to fulfill seventy years "until the land had paid off its sabbaths." (2 Chronicles 36:21)
As to the words, "these nations," used at Jeremiah 25:11, "these nations" would include Egypt, Tyre, Moab and the Medes (Jeremiah 25:17-26), for after God's theocracy in Jerusalem was deposed, Babylon had become the dominant world power and all of "these nations" drank from Jehovah's "cup" for at least 70 years. Recall that before Egypt was deposed by crown prince Nebuchadnezzar in 625 BC, Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar, was the reigning king of Babylon, who in 632 BC had deposed Assyria and Nineveh during his 14th year as king of Babylon, and Nabopolassar's rule began in 646 BC. (Zephaniah 2:13) That means that until it was deposed by the Medes and the Persians in 539 BC, Babylon had been the dominant world power over God's people from 607 BC for 68 years, and the Babylonian Dynasty lasted for 107 years!
It's all who you want to believe, God or man. 646-539=107 625-539=86. I don't believe Babylon had world power 107years or 86 years.
Babylon didn't become the dominant world power until it deposed the theocratic kingdom of God in Jerusalem in 607 BC, but you're absolutely right: It's who or what you want to believe. Jehovah's Witnesses read the Bible and assign dates to the many recorded events that are described it, just as do other organizations that study the Bible. Although are many theologians once rejected Belshazzar as being the king of Babylon about whom Daniel wrote, Jehovah's Witnesses believed what Daniel wrote about "Belshazzar the king of Babylon" in Daniel chapters 5, 7 and 8 without reservation. (Daniel 7:1)
You remind me of many active Jehovah's Witnesses that are tied to our publications in such a way that without them, they would have to rely upon their memory of things that they really had not learned. Not once in this thread do I quote from the Insight book; not once. As a Bible scholar, I do from time to time need to conduct research using various publications, including those publications that were produced by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, but I use such publications in the same way those of us that have obtained a college education or that attended high school would use them: To validate statements of opinion proffered as fact.
Despite some of the boneheaded statements that one might have read in any of our publications in the past -- and there have many of them since the inauguration of the Watchtower, Golden Age and Awake! magazines, like the opinion that was once floated about how reading the Watchtower could actually replace someone reading the Bible! -- our literature is more carefully scrutinized than ever before by our governing body, which ensures that unscriptural flourishes of the pen do not make it to the presses. Every one of Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to read our literature and report any apparent errors or misstatements either by writing a letter to Brooklyn, New York, or by reporting such to one of the elders in the local congregation so that the error or misstatement should not be repeated. There is nothing at all that is the equal of the Bible and to believe such is nonsense, even when one Jehovah's Witnesses says so.
Our literature is essentially an aid to studying the Bible, but you may have noticed that I will typically not quote anything from any of our literature here on JWN, except from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, since anyone that quotes something that may have appeared 100 years ago, 60 years ago, even five years ago in our literature -- as you did in your message -- betrays that they may be nursing the totally false notion that everything that one reads in them are representative of the current beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, when the truth is that our beliefs are progressive as the light of truth becomes lighter and for this reason are subject to change.
For example, when the book, Reasoning From the Scriptures, was first released in 1985, many thought it could be used to win arguments with the householder in our field ministry, and although the Reasoning book clearly states that "this book is only an aid" and that "a quick glance" at some of the thoughts under the subheadings that appear under a main heading "may be all that you need," many attempted to use it as if it were a field service manual, instead of as a handbook designed to help Jehovah's Witnesses "to cultivate the ability to reason from the Scriptures and to use them effectively in helping others" in our field ministry.
Anyone that is qualified to teach others ought to know how to locate the appropriate scriptures in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Haggai and Zechariah to explain scripturally how God's prophetic word affected God's people in 607 BC and how God's prophecy came to be fulfilled when the Persians deposed Babylon in 539 BC, thus releasing the Jews from exile so that they could return to Judah at the end of 70 years in 537 BC, but until they should become more proficient in the use of the Bible, many Jehovah's Witnesses will use "crib notes" that they keep in their Bibles.
A little help regarding the subject we're here discussing is provided in the Reasoning book under the headings "Bible" and "Dates," but only by undertaking a study of the Scriptures themselves can one become proficient in using them, for not everyone is comfortable with the fact that dates in the "BC" sequence are counted in reverse of the way one reckons dates in the "AD" sequence and so having a knowledge of when a king of Judah reigned in relation to Nebuchadnezzar's reign is key to demonstrating the reliability of Bible prophecy.
Research typically requires one to authenticate what are really the opinions of many scholarly types in order to form one's own conclusions as to the topic being researched. But if one takes copious notes when conducting research, there should never arise a need to so the same research again, something that many Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty of doing as if for the very first time. Once you have learned, for example, that the overthrow of Babylon, which occurred in the year 539 BC, to be a historical fact, there should be no need for you to do a Google search, no need for you to visit a local public library, no need for you to open up one of our publications or use the Watchtower Library cdrom to re-learn what you have already learned.
Now those that must research the same things a second, a third or even a tenth time are memorizing and are not really learning anything. If someone can articulate the ages of their parents, each of their maternal and paternal grandparents, the ages of their parents' siblings (your aunts and uncles) and of their own siblings, as well as the ages of their own children as well as that of their nieces and nephews, this is the same kind of detail-oriented learning that research entails
If you should believe Jehovah's Witnesses -- and that is really what the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society are, Jehovah's Witnesses -- are perfect, so that you have made the stretch to also believe that what things we publish are as infallible as the Bible itself is infallible, then frankly, whoever you are, are just plain stupid. Now when I say this, @Alwayshere, I don't mean you personally, but I am referring to those that have decided that what things we have published in one of the many publications that have been produced over the years in order to help people to (1) obtain an understanding of what things they read in the Bible and (2) let them know where we perceive we are in the stream of time serve to represent much more than what we as a body of Christians may have concluded to be true at that time, as if the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses must be as static as those of Christendom's denominations.
Jehovah's organization is a progressive organization that is led by holy spirit, which simply means that our beliefs are not static, so that we both acknowledge and accept that various doctrinal matters will become progressively understood as we also give prayerful consideration to God's words while also taking into consideration the things currently taking place in the world that in hindsight help us to obtain a better grasp on Bible truth. Jehovah's Witnesses pay attention to history and news accounts that either contradict what beliefs we may have had to abandon or that confirm our beliefs as true.
For example, prior to August 23, 2006, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society has included many references to Pluto as being a planet, whereas our awareness of the International Astronomical Union vote that reclassified Pluto as being no longer a planet, but a "dwarf planet," which astronomer Percival Lowell had prior to February 18, 1930, called "Planet X," which another astronomer, Clyde Tombaugh, later declared to be a planet. There may have been other things contained in science books published before August 24, 2006, that are just as current today, but until those books were replaced in classroom, teachers would have had to explain to their students that the information regarding Pluto being one of nine planets was no longer accurate.
Just as school teachers cannot be held responsible for what they believed to be true as to Pluto's being the ninth planet in our solar system between February 18, 1930, and August 23, 2006, neither can Jehovah's Witnesses be held responsible for what we believed to be true and printed in our literature as to Pluto's designation as a planet during this 76-year period, but since August 23, 2006, Jehovah's Witnesses have discontinued referring to Pluto as if it were a planet in any of our literature as it is our endeavor to embrace the truth and to abandon falsehood.
Another example I can cite here as to how Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to embrace the truth and abandon falsehood is how it was from 1929 to 1962 we had understood the "superior authorities" to which Romans 13:1 refers to be Jehovah God and Christ Jesus to whom absolute subjection is due, but we, being guided by holy spirit, made a careful reanalysis of this matter, so that we came to understand through the pages of the Watchtower dated November 1, 1962, November 15, 1962, and December 1, 1962, that the "superior authorities" are the secular rulers, the political rulers of this world, who "stand placed in their relative positions by God" to whom only relative subjection is due.
As a progressive organization, Jehovah's Witnesses have had to shed unchristian habits such as to the appeal by some to creature worship due to the charisma possessed by certain circuit and district overseers or members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, so starting in 1942, neither the names or the initials of any contributor to the Watchtower or to any of our literature is credited to anyone, and all material contributed by Jehovah's Witnesses in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the islands of the sea is provided to all of the congregations in the world under the supervision of our governing body. This is why it is laughable when some of the folks here on JWN indicate their belief to the effect that Jehovah's Witnesses get their "marching orders" from just "a few old men in Brooklyn."
In this thread, reference has been made to the Nabonidus Chronicle and to Ptolemy's Canon, and while neither of these reckon Belshazzar to have been a king of Babylon, again Jehovah's Witnesses pay attention to news accounts about things that have surfaced which have shed light on things that were previously historical unknowns.
The Skeptical Review has an online article entitled "Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B.C. Events Part Two" by Everette Hatcher III --
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/012dan.html
-- which article makes reference to archaeologist Alan Millard's piece, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," published 26 years ago back in 1985, provides six (6) pieces of archaeological evidence reasons that support the view that Daniel was an eyewitness to sixth century BC events that no one writing about them during the second century BC could have known, which has forced critics to abandon the position that they had formerly held about Daniel being some fictitious character and Belshazzar "a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination":
[1] Belshazzar was ruling during the last few years of the Babylonian Empire.
[2] The Babylonians executed individuals by casting them into fire, but the Persians threw the condemned to the lions.
[3] The practice in the 6th Century was to mention first the Medes, then the Persians.
[4] Laws made by Persian kings could not be revoked.
[5] In the sixth century B.C., Susa was in the province of Elam (Dan. 8:2).
[6] Nebuchadnezzar had a pride problem (Dan. 4:30) and often boasted about his great building projects.
Commenting in "Discoveries from Bible Times" on the four-inch-long clay cylinders covered in cuneiform script that dating back to the sixth century that were discovered in 1854 by a British consul in Iraq, Professor Millard wrote that "[w]hen the consul took his finds to Baghdad, his senior colleague was able to read the inscriptions, for, fortunately, he was Sir Henry Rawlinson, one of those who had deciphered the Babylonian cuneiform script, and Rawlinson stated:
'The inscriptions had been written at the command of Nabonidus, king of Babylon 555–539 B.C.... The words they carried proved that the ruined tower was the temple of the city of Ur. The words were a prayer for the long life and good health of Nabonidus--and for his eldest son. The name of that son, clearly written, was Belshazzar.'"
Regarding Belshazzar's kingship in Babylon, Alan Millard wrote in the Biblical Archaeology Review: "It may have been considered quite in order for such unofficial records as the Book of Daniel to call Belshazzar 'king.' He acted as king, his father’s agent, although he may not have been legally king. The precise distinction would have been irrelevant and confusing in the story as related in Daniel." The fulfillment of God's prophetic word with respect to the coming of the Messiah was wholly dependent upon the seed of God's promise to Abraham being born in the line of Judah through David, and what happened in 607 BC didn't derail the Abrahamic promise in the least, but gave proof that Jehovah is the God of prophecy, and that what he foretells will occur in the future does, indeed, come to pass.
The question arises why should Jehovah's Witnesses care so much about the salvation of other people that they would spend time studying Bible prophecy and sharing what things they have learned with others? Notwithstanding that it is God's will that "all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth," Jehovah’s Witnesses view fellow humans as potential members of the Christian congregation. Some here on JWN have wondered how Jehovah's Witnesses hoping to survive Armageddon expect to obtain suitable clothing, transportation and gasoline for our vehicles if the infrastructure that exists in this world should no longer exist, but what they failed to realize is that not only are Jehovah's Witnesses involved in manufacturing, engineering, etc., today, but many of the "unrighteous" that will be resurrected in the new earth will then be in a position to use their former expertise as scientists, engineers, whatever, to benefit survivors and resurrectees alike as they, too, become members of the Christian congregation, or whatever it is we will be called under Christ's Millennial Kingdom.
Like I said above, you're absolutely right it being who or what you want to believe, but Jehovah's Witnesses choose to believe Jehovah God and his word, we choose to believe in the principles that His son and our King, Jesus Christ taught, and we are exercising faith in his ransom sacrifice. Some refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as "prophets of doom," but we are ministers of God, ambassadors and envoys of the kingdom of God substituting for Christ, as God makes entreaty through us that those to whom we speak might enter his rest and "become reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:20)
We choose not to believe man, who must live in hope that God's word is bogus, because they know that if they are wrong and it isn't bogus, then they will forever be foreclosed on being one of the survivors of Armageddon. There's no reason that you should believe Babylon to have been a world power; none. However, it is my hope is that you will have a change of mind before it's too late and that you will put your faith in Christ Jesus, for "there is no salvation in anyone else." (Acts 4:12) Jehovah's Witnesses are prophets though in the sense that we today, as did Jesus Christ, during his ministry, speak what are in reality the works of Jehovah in fulfillment of prophecy. (John 14:10; Matthew 24:14)
@TD:
[T]ying a specific year of Cyrus' reign to a specific year of Nabonidus' reign is important inasmuch as 539BC would be either confirmed or falsified by that correlation.
Actually, the year when Babylon was deposed by Cyrus is not an issue in dispute today. What many dispute despite the existence of archaeological evidence to the contrary is the fact that during his third year of his reign Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, had appointed his son and crown prince, Belshazzar, as coregent, who after Nabonidus was the second ruler of Babylon, and who was considered by the Jewish exiles in Babylon (like Daniel) as the king of Babylon. (Daniel 7:1; 8:1)
For example, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus defeated Astyages of Media and Ecbatana fell just prior to the 7th year of Nabonidus. (Presumably the 6th) In the [king-list] below, what year would that be?
Nabopolassar, 646 BC for 21 years
Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years
Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years
Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years
Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months
Nabonidus and Belshazzar, coregents, from 575/574 BC for 35 years
[Belshazzar (557/556 BC) for 17 years]
End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC
Nabonidus' accession year would have begun in the year 575 BC, so his first regnal year would have been 574 BC. He appointed his son, Belshazzar as coregent of Babylon during his third regnal year, which would have been 572 BC. Accordingly, Nabonidus' seventh regnal year would have been 569 BC. (I have no idea what "Presumably the 6th" means, @TD, so regarding this I have no comment.) The reason Belshazzar is listed here as ruling for 17 years is not because he only ruled for 17 years, but just to make the point that he had ruled for at least 17 years, this 17-year period of which Ptolemy's Canon assigns to his father, Nabonidus, alone:
Nabopolassar, 627 BC for 21 years
Nebuchadnezzar, 606/605 BC for 43 years
Evil-Merodach, from 562 BC for two years
Neriglissar, from 560 BC for four years
Nabonidus, from 556 BC for 17 years
End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC
BTW, my "king-list" would be as follows:
Nabopolassar, 646 BC for 21 years
Nebuchadnezzar, 625/624 BC for 43 years
Evil-Merodach, from 581 BC for two years
Neriglissar, from 579 BC for four years
Labashi-Marduk, from 575 BC for three months
Nabonidus and Belshazzar, coregents, from 575/574 BC for 35 years
[Belshazzar (572 BC) for 33 years]
End of Babylonian Dynasty, 539 BC
@Alwayshere:
Thats the trouble with the Watchtower, they always "assume" instead of proving what they say.
Here's your problem though: You're talking to someone that is one of Jehovah's Witnesses; you are not talking to the Watchtower that you seek to disparage at every chance you get. I am the one here providing proof of the things I have been saying here, with the inclusion of secular works that contain information that bears upon the Belshazzar's having been confirmed by archaeologists as king of Babylon, Nabonidus' son, and note that I've not quoted anything to you here from the Watchtower or from any of our publications. In fact, I've been primarily using the Bible here, but if you feel you must bash the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society or other Jehovah's Witnesses for the things I have been saying to you in this thread, then so be it.
I didn't assume anything or ask you or anyone else here to assume anything. I've merely told you the truth, and if you should be at all interested in verifying the same evidence for yourself that I have uncovered instead of exhibiting your bias against Jehovah's Witnesses, then all you would have to do is do a little research for Professor Millard's "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," which was published back in 1985.
The Insight Book vol.1 page 458 2nd paragraph says, you can count forward or backward from a pivotal point and goes on to say 539 is a pivotal point. So use 539 and count up with the years you used 17,35,4,2,43, and 21. How do you get 646?
Here you are against quoting something you read in one of the two volumes of the Insight book, when you don't believe anything that the Insight book has to say, so what difference could it possibly make to you what this book says about the year 539 BC?
I think you are claiming a problem that really doesn't exist, except in your own mind, for you are the one using the number "17" used in Ptolomy's canon instead of the number "35." Just refer to the number of years in the king-list included in my response to @TD, that is, if you are truly interested in knowing how it is one arrives at 646 BC as being the beginning of Nabopolassar's reign.
So when was King Neb. 1st year to rule?
Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year was 624 BC; his accession year was 625 BC.
@Witness My Fury:
I highly recommend the book. Eggnog if you havent read it then I suggest you do and like me probably more than once to get the full sense of it.
Enjoy reading Johsson's book, @Witness My Fury. He is entitled to his opinion the same as you, but he ignores archaeological evidence that I have found to be illuminating.
You may want to cross reference Egyption history against the bible accounts as well when it mentions the various pharoahs... not by just adding 20 years to ALL the worlds history like the WTS likes to do either!
I am a Bible scholar and I have primarily been here in this thread quoting from the Bible, although I did mention that there is a problem with Ptolomy's Canon in attributing only 17 years to Nabonidus' reign, the man that succeeded Neriglissar, who like Nabonidus was also one of Nebuchadnezzar's sons-in-law (after the short reign of Neriglissar's son, Labashi-Marduk), and appointed his eldest son, Belshazzar during his third regnal year as coregent in Babylon.
I don't suppose Johsson's book explains any of this, but what I have been saying here regarding Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, has nothing at all to do with anything to which you might be referring that has been published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, and I don't see why you are even mentioning the WTS since we are discussing what the Bible has to say regarding the events that I have said occurred in the year 607 BC, which events others here say occurred in the year 587 BC, right?
@djeggnog
djeggnog:
It's a nice little speech you gave to Alwayshere about not relying on WTS publications like the Insight book, so where do you come up with your dates?
How come, if you quote Millard who said Nabonidus reigned from 555-539 B.C., you assert that he and his son reigned from 575-539 B.C.? Where do you get 575 from?
Where did you initially get 557 B.C. as the beginning of Belshazzar's 17 year rule?
Once you realized that Belshazzar was appointed kingship over Babylon in Nabonidus' 3rd year, you alter your start date for his reign to 572 B.C. so that Belshazzar ruled 33 years. How do you know he reigned that length of time? Where is your evidence?
The Nabonidus Chronicle has Nabonidus' rule ending at his year 17. We all agree that his rule ended when Babylon fell in 539 B.C. It only takes basic math to figure that his 1st year would have been 555 B.C. Nabonidus' 3rd year, therefore, would be 553 B.C. So again, where do you get your alternative dates from?
Enjoy reading Johsson's book, @Witness My Fury. He is entitled to his opinion the same as you, but he ignores archaeological evidence that I have found to be illuminating.
It's quite obvious you haven't even read his book ("I don't suppose Johsson's [sic] book explain's any of this ... ") so you have no real idea whether or not he ignores anything. But please explain anyway, what archaeological evidence do you imagine Jonsson has ignored?
Come on, eggie. You have a backlog of questions you need to address on this thread. You would have been thrown out of the courtroom long ago if this had been a case put before a judge.
Nabopolassar 626 BC – 605 BC
The Ishtar Gate of Babylon
After the death of Ashurbanipal in 627 BC, the Assyrian Empire began to disintegrate, riven by internal strife. An Assyrian general, Sin-shum-lishir , revolted and seized Babylon, but was promptly ousted by the Assyrian Army loyal to king Ashur-etil-ilani . Babylon was then taken by another son of Ashurbanipal Sin-shar-ishkun , who proclaimed himself king. His rule did not last long however, and Babylon revolted with the help of the Chaldean tribe (Bit Kaldu), led by Nabopolassar . Nabopolassar seized the throne, and the Neo-Babylonian dynasty was born.
Nabopolassar was able to spend the next three years undisturbed, consolidating power in Babylon itself, due to the brutal civil war between the Assyrian king Ashur-etil-ilani and his brother Sin-shar-ishkun in southern Mesopotamia.
However in 623 BC, Sin-shar-ishkun killed his brother the king, in battle at Nippur , seized the throne of Assyria, and then set about retaking Babylon from Nabopolassar. Nabopolassar resisted repeated attacks by Assyria over the next seven years, and by 616 BC, he was still in control of southern Mesopotamia. Assyria, still riven with internal strife, had by this time lost control of its colonies, which had taken advantage of the various upheavals to free themselves.
Nabopolassar marched his army into Assyria proper in 616 BC and attempted to besiege Assur and Arrapha , but was defeated on this occasion.
Nabopolassar made alliances with other former subjects of Assyria, the Medes , Persians , Elamites and Scythians .
In 615 and 614 BC attacks were made on Assur and Arrapha and both fell. During 613 BC the Assyrians seem to have rallied and repelled Babylonian and Median attacks. However in 612 BC Nabopolassar and the Median king Cyaxares led a coalition of forces including Babylonians, Medes, Scythians and Cimmerians in an attack on Nineveh , and after a bitter three-month siege, it finally fell. Babylon retained control of Assyria and its northern and western colonies.
An Assyrian general, Ashur-uballit II , became king of Assyria, and set up a new capital at Harran . Nabopolassar and his allies besieged Ashur-uballit II at Harran in 608 BC and took it; Ashur-uballit II disappeared after this.
The Egyptians under Pharaoh Necho II had invaded the near east in 609 BC in a belated attempt to help their former Assyrian rulers. Nabopolassar (with the help of his son and future successor Nebuchadnezzar II ) spent the last years of his reign dislodging the Egyptians (who were supported by Greek mercenaries and probably the remnants of the Assyrian army) from Syria, Asia Minor, northern Arabia and Israel. Nebuchadnezzar proved to be a capable and energetic military leader, and the Egyptians and their allies were finally defeated at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BC.
An engraving inside an onyx-stone-eye in a Marduk statue that depicts Nebuchadnezzar II
Nebuchadnezzar II became king after the death of his father.
Nebuchadnezzar was a patron of the cities and a spectacular builder. He rebuilt all of Babylonia's major cities on a lavish scale. His building activity at Babylon was what turned it into the immense and beautiful city of legend. His city of Babylon covered more than three square miles, surrounded by moats and ringed by a double circuit of walls. The Euphrates flowed through the center of the city, spanned by a beautiful stone bridge. At the center of the city rose the giant ziggurat called Etemenanki , "House of the Frontier Between Heaven and Earth," which lay next to the Temple of Marduk . Some biblical scholars believe that it was this immense ziggurat that provided the inspiration for the biblical story of the Tower of Babel .
A capable leader, Nabuchadnezzar II, conducted successful military campaigns in Syria and Phoenicia , forcing tribute from Damascus, Tyre and Sidon. He conducted numerous campaigns in Asia Minor, in the "land of the Hatti". Like the Assyrians, the Babylonians had to campaign yearly in order to control their colonies.
In 601 BC Nebuchadnezzar II was involved in a major, but inconclusive battle, against the Egyptians. In 599 BC he invaded Arabia and routed the Arabs at Qedar. In 597 BC he invaded Judah and captured Jerusalem and deposed its king Jehoiachin . Egyptian and Babylonian armies fought each other for control of the near east throughout much of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and this encouraged king Zedekiah of Israel to revolt. After an 18 month siege Jerusalem was captured in 587 BC, thousands of Jews were deported to Babylon and Solomon's Temple was razed to the ground.
Nebuchadnezzar fought the Pharaohs Psammetichus II and Apries throughout his reign, and during the reign of Pharaoh Amasis in 568 BC it is rumoured that he may have set foot in Egypt itself.
By 572 Nebuchadnezzar was in full control of Mesopotamia, Syria, Phonecia, Israel, Philistinia, northern Arabia and parts of Asia Minor.
Nebuchadnezzar died of illness in 562 BC.
Amel-Marduk was the son and successor of Nebuchadrezzar II . He reigned only two years (562 - 560 BC). According to the Biblical Book of Kings, he pardoned and released Jehoiachin , king of Judah , who had been a prisoner in Babylon for thirty-seven years. Allegedly because Amel-Marduk tried to modify his father's policies, he was murdered by Neriglissar , his brother-in-law, who succeeded him.
Neriglissar appears to have been a more stable ruler, conducting a number of public works, restoring temples etc.
He conducted successful military campaigns against Cilicia , which had threatened Babylonian interests. Neriglissar however reigned for only four years, being succeeded by the youthful Labashi-Marduk . It is unclear if Neriglissar was himself a member of the Chaldean tribe, or a native of the city of Babylon.
Labashi-MardukChaldean king of Babylon ( 556 BC ), and son of Neriglissar . Labashi-Marduk succeeded his father when still only a boy, after the latter's four-year reign. He was murdered in a conspiracy only nine months after his inauguration. [citation needed] Nabonidus was consequently chosen as the new king.
Nabonidus 's background is not clear. He says himself in his inscriptions that he is of unimportant origins. [1] Similarly, his mother, who lived to high age and may have been connected to the temple of the Akkadian moon god Sîn in Harran ; in her inscriptions does not mention her descent.
For long periods he entrusted rule to his son, Prince Belshazzar , who was a capable soldier but poor politician. All of this left him somewhat unpopular with many of his subjects, particularly the priesthood and the military class.
The Marduk priesthood hated Nabonidus because of his suppression of Marduk's cult and his elevation of the cult of the moon-god Sin. Cyrus portrayed himself as the savior, chosen by Marduk to restore order and justice .
To the east, the Persians had been growing in strength, and Cyrus the Great was very popular in Babylon itself, in contrast to Nabonidus.
A sense of Nabonidus's religiously based negative image survives in Jewish literature. Though in thinking about that image, we should bear in mind that the Jews were very pro-Persian. The Persians, after all, were the only foreign overlords against whom the Jews never rebelled. It was Cyrus who sent the exiles home from the Babylonian Captivity , for which he is called God's "anointed one," literally Messiah in Isaiah 45:1.
Greetings djeggnog,
I don't have a real strong opinion on this subject so this is observation, not argument. I'm trying to look at it from the standpoint of a JW. Since both 587BC and 539BC come to us from the same sources, it seems like it would be important that one does not inadvertantly reject the evidence for 539 in the process of defending 607. Damaging the case for 539 would be analogous to sawing off a tree limb that we're sitting on, so the question of exactly how the 539BC date is established is important.
One way historians establish it is by accepting the astronomical observations of VAT 4956 and working forward through the Babylonian kings. But since this document places the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar at 568/567, it is antithetical to 607.
Another way is by accepting the astronomical observation of Strm. Kambys. 400 and working backward through the Persian kings. This document places the 7th year of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus at 523/522
If 523/522 was the 7th year of Cambyses, then his first year would have been 529/528 and the preceding year, 530/529 would have been the year his father, Cyrus died in battle. And since Cyrus reigned for 29 years and ruled Babylon for the last 9 of those years, then Cyrus became king in 559/558 and overthrew Babylon 20 years later.
Therefore the mathematical basis for 539BC is directly connected to the reign of Cyrus. The Persian revolt began in 553/552 and Cyrus finally overthrew Astyages, his grandfather and united Persia and Media in the year 550/549. The Nabonidus Chronicle records that event and dates it to the 6th year of Nabonidus. This was the basis for my question.
-Tom
(Sighs very heavily)
Eggnog that's one hell of a non post right there. Lots of fluff and filler but no substance. Cant you express yourself in posts of less than 200 words?
Even in your secular "supporting" quote it gives the CORRECT dates right in front of your eyes, but you dont wish to see it obviously. It appears to me that you are not a person who will EVER change their mind once it is made up.
As you said yourself you take pride in yourself on doing research ONCE only, so no need to go back and redo it is there? Or is there? What if you are wrong 1st time around and you NEVER allow yourself to be WRONG? Then you will never come to the truth about any matter unless you got it right 1st time around. That's got to be a very stupid way of going about things to let pride get in the way of truth.
Your maths suck as well.
You say Belshazzar was co regent in nabonidus' 3rd year and that he ruled for 17 years. How does that = 35 years?
You then claim that Ptolemys Canon "says" 35 and not 17. Prove that please : Just google Ptolemys canon and check any page you like it will say 17 years for Nabonidus (555 -539) Belshazzar died when Babylon was destroyed remember so that's 539 too.
After an 18 month siege Jerusalem was captured in 587 BC, thousands of Jews were deported to Babylon and Solomon's Temple was razed to the ground.
I said it before and I'll say it again the WTS. came up with 607 BCE. because it fit with their 7 X times doctrine to reach 1914.
It's for this reason that its out by 20 years, there is much evidence to support this assertion.
You must take in consideration that 1914 was posthumously calculated years prior to that year coming about,
then Pyramidology popped up and then again Russell further attempted to solidify that calculation with this absurd ideology.
In this doctoral progression over the years, no matter how and in which way it presented the WTS. used it as platform
to attract people to the organization and its published literature.
Sure its inaccurate and misleading but it had become such a strong and valuable asset in regard to the WTS. own
literature proliferation, it was kept and somewhat protected.
A century has almost passed since that year and its still part of the WTS.
professed doctrines. Fortunately for the WTS. most people are not studied on ancient history, theological or otherwise.
When you all calculate the correct answer, Armageddon will be here.
@TD:
I don't have a real strong opinion on this subject so this is observation, not argument.
Here on JWN, one only need have an opinion, let alone bring 'a really strong one,' because things like literacy aren't a prerequisite for folks to post messages here. I am accustomed to folks pretending to have read what I have written to the thread here, only to discover after reading their responses that they really didn't comprehend what they had read at all. For example, the OP asserted I had claimed "that Ptolemys Canon 'says' 35 and not 17," presumably with reference to Nabonidus, but I found this statement to which I allegedly made without being aware of it to be vague, so it anybody's guess to whom I had indicated a reign of 35 in Ptolemy's Canon.
And then I should happen upon the statement: "Lots of fluff and filler but no substance." Can you imagine being the only scholar in the room and one of your kids (students) thinks himself/herself to be qualified to judge my statements as being incompetent? I don't have to use my imagination here on JWN. If my posts should truly be fluff and filler, perhaps I should start a blog where I can bloviate which is what most bloggers tend to do. Whatever. So why do I tell you these things? You mentioned folks here on JWN having 'real strong opinions on this subject,' so I thought I'd share with you some of the dim ones I've read in this thread that I felt someone needed to address tactfully. Please forgive me for all the "fluff and filler" in this reply, and don't worry: I'll eventually get to the point I wanted to make in a moment, but my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek here and I guess I'm not yet through with this lousy attempt at being tactful. (I really don't like conveying to others the feeling that I'm talking down to them, but when you're sitting up here where I am -- well, it's one day and a time.)
I raised this as an example of illiteracy because, as it happens, when I responded to your previous message in which you provided the "king-list" along with the length of each king's reign from one of my previous messages, which message indicated Belshazzar to have been coregent with his father, Nabonidus, for 35 years, with a separate line to indicate that Belshazzar had to have ruled for at least 17 years as king of Babylon, you will recall that the first thing I stated in my response was this:
(1) I provided the "king-list" from Ptolemy's Canon along with the length of each king's reign, which list assigns 17 years for Nabonidus' reign, but doesn't mention Belshazzar at all.
(2) Then, in that same response, I went on to provide my own "king-list" along with the length of each king's reign for a 33-year rule by Belshazzar since I totally reject a 17-year reign for either Belshazzar or Nabonidus.
Another example of the sort of illiteracy here on JWN is when I get a message from @Alwayshere indicating that "Vol. 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, the right side, last paragraph, says [Nabopolassar's] rule [began] in 625 [BC]," and I go to this reference only to discover an apparent reading comprehension problem since, under in Volume 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, under the heading "Aramaic" in the second column, last paragraph (not "Vol. 1 of the Insight Book on page 144, the right side, last paragraph"), the statement I read with reference to the use of "Official Aramaic" that gradually came into use after the eighth century BC is quite different: "It continued to be employed during the time Babylon was the World Power (625-539 B.C.E.)...." Nothing in this just quoted sentence indicates that it refers to any aspect of Nabopolassar's rule, let alone that his rule began in 625 BC.
BTW, this is not to say that this sentence accurately states the case as to when Babylon was recognized as a world power from the Bible's standpoint; I've only quoting here what the Insight book states "on page 144, under the heading 'Aramaic' in the second column, last paragraph." I interpret the reference to "the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" at Daniel 2:1 to mean that Babylon was recognized as being the Third World Power of Bible history during the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship in the year 607 BC, although the Babylonian Dynasty began with the reign of Nabopolassar in 646 BC and ended during the rule of Belshazzar when Babylon was deposed by the Medes and Persians in 539 BC.
Since both 587BC and 539BC come to us from the same sources, it seems like it would be important that one does not [inadvertently] reject the evidence for 539 in the process of defending 607. Damaging the case for 539 would be analogous to sawing off a tree limb that we're sitting on, so the question of exactly how the 539BC date is established is important.
There is no one that doesn't recognize 539 BC as the drop dead year creditting Cyrus as being responsible for bringing the Babylonian Dynasty to an end as a world power, with Medo-Persia emerging as the Fourth World Power of Bible history. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly do not reject the evidence establishing 539 BC as being the year when Babylonian Empire fell to the Medo-Persian Empire, and we feel no need to defend 607 BC; we accept that the kingdom of Judah was deposed during Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year, in which year Babylon became the dominant world power.
Therefore the mathematical basis for 539BC is directly connected to the reign of Cyrus. The Persian revolt began in 553/552 and Cyrus finally overthrew Astyages, his grandfather and united Persia and Media in the year 550/549. The Nabonidus Chronicle records that event and dates it to the 6th year of Nabonidus. This was the basis for my question.
I don't see the relevance of knowing when the Persian revolt began, but I suppose there are many ways in which the year 539 BC might be established. It do know that it isn't possible to establish the year when Babylon was deposed by means of the Nabonidus Chronicle or Ptolemy's Canon, but Eusebius indicates (also Diodorus and Africanus) Cyrus' first regnal year beginning Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 BC), and ending Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 BC), and since cuneiform tablets indicate that Cyrus ruled over Babylon for nine years (the olympiad year ran from July 1 to June 30), then subtracting nine years from 530 BC, one arrives at 539 BC.
@djeggnog
djeggnog,
I don't see the relevance of knowing when the Persian revolt began, but I suppose there are many ways in which the year 539 BC might be established.
I think the only relevance would lie in the fact that the Nabonidus Chronicle mentions that event and links it with a specifc year of Nabonidus' reign. The 6th year of Nabonidus needs to correspond to the year 550BC. --Else something is wrong somewhere.
