539 BC - How do they know that year is an "Absolute" date?
by Bungi Bill 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
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!
-
Larsinger58
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!
Thanks for clarifying your position. Let me clarify one point regarding 455 BCE which is why there's confusion. 455 BCE has never been the alternative date for the fall of Jerusalem. 455 BC is versus 537 BCE for the return from Babylon. The two dates in contest, therefore, concern the fall of Jerusalem in either 607 BCE or 587 BCE, both dates based on the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.
Your contention that if 539 BCE is correct then we must date the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE. Good point if you recognize that 539 BCE is part of the historical timeline that dates the fall of Jerusalem to 587/586 BCE. Byt the WTS is not following that reference. They feel 539 BCE is independently more reliable than other dating and so loosely follow the Bible's timeline in regards to the 70 years of desolation to date the fall of Jerusalem 70 years earlier than 537 BCE to get 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem. That's their option if they wish.
As far as "peer review" goes, that's kind of a mixed bag. Usually when I try to corner some academic to comment on some discrepancy in the historical record, they use that "peer review" as an excuse to avoid the topic. That is, they will often say, "Oh, um, well, prophessor such-in-such wote a book on this topic, why don't you contact him regarding this issue? This is really out of the area of my expertise."
So "peer review" in practice doesn't really work. More often than not, one expert doesn't review anything another asserts, they just assign him as an "expert" and defer to his expertise in the field.
The concept of "peer review" is that there are specialized journals for every specialized field. If you have a degree in the field and your article gets accepted and published, that is considered to be "peer reviewed." That certainly carries some weight. But it is also a catch-22. That's because it is well known that universities and these journals may choose not to publish something they consider controversial or antithetical to their cause. As a result, some valid criticism never gets wide review.
Of course, I have my own concept of "peer review." What I do, is challenge an author, who usually is on the faculty of some high-end university. Then I send a copy of my article to his boss, the Dean of the School, and every professor in his department. That is, before they consider me a "troll" and block my access to the e-mails of the faculty. That's what I call "peer review."
But let me tell you about something that comes up in research. There was a professor who specialized in ancient mathematics who got permission to review ancient texts in the archives of the British Museum. It wasn't long before he discovered that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the king! When he confronted the curators there, they promptly threw him out! At some point he must have realized his fight for truth could not be won against an institution. After all, even if you published something, it wouldn't be on the shelf long and someone like the British Museum could easily buy up all copies on the market, so that whatever you wanted to say would have no audience. That's the power of money.
So what he did was wrote his usual academic book on ancient math but in his book told his story and included critical refereces that would lead someone who actually read the entire book to conclude there was a conspiracy to cover up how Xerxes faked his own death and was actually Artaxerxes. That was the only way he could assure what he discovered survived--that is, by being indirect. Especially now, it is very easy for the powrs to be to control what you ever see or read.
So "peer review" sounds like a good idea, but like so many other things, it can be bought and manipulated by those with money and influence.
So "peer review" means that at some point some group of scholars in charge of the curriculum decide what will be seen and discussed and what will not be seen and discussed. They create their prostigious journals and only publish what they think agrees with their own agenda. It's a great plan.
"Peer review" in theory works, if the peers are honest and don't have their own agenda. Otherwise, it's just propaganda and damage control.
LS
-
shepherd
@Larsinger58
You lost me at 'Trust me'.
-
blondie
I might point out that the WTS changed its terminology. In the 50's and 60's, "absolute" was used and then the WTS changed it to "pivotal" which seems to have a less dogmatic stance. They even went so far as to edit it out of the Scriptures Inspired book and to cross reference "Absolute Dates" to "Pivotal Dates" in the WT Index but they were not able to edit it out of these WTs because these were not changed before the bound volumes went out (that is why the changed phrase in 1989 was able to be changed, done between the hard copies distriibution and the publication of the bound volumes).
To determine if 539 BC is either kind of date, look at the WTS definition.
A date in history that can be calculated using both Bible and secular history.
***w68 5/1 p. 268 pars. 19-20 Understanding Time a Help to True Worshipers***
To calculate long periods of time, certain dates called “absolute dates” are very valuable. These are dates that have been proved reliable by secular history, actual dates of events that are also recorded in the Bible. Starting from one of these specific dates we can, by using the reliable internal chronology of the Bible itself, ascertain when many other Bible events occurred.
For calculating Hebrew Scripture dates, the absolute date of October 5 to 6 in the year 539 B.C.E. is essential. This was the year that the Medes and Persians overthrew Babylon and it was definitely established in secular history when a record was found of King Nabonidus, the father and coregent of King Belshazzar. This remarkable clay document established that Babylon fell on October 5 to 6, in the year 539 B.C.E. according to the Gregorian calendar. From this date all the other dates in the Hebrew Scriptures can be calculated.
Well, secular historians agree that Babylon itself fell in 539 B.C.E. at the beginning of our month of October. Two years later, in 537 B.C.E., the Jews were repatriated to Jerusalem, ending their seventy-year period of Jerusalem’s desolation. Counting backward in time seventy years from 537 B.C.E. we arrive at the date 607 B.C.E. Thus, Jerusalem was left desolate at the beginning of October 607 B.C.E. The “appointed times of the nations” began. They ended with the establishment of God’s heavenly kingdom and the beginning of the “last days.” This time period, as many Bible students already know, was 2,520 years long, as indicated at Daniel 4:16, 17, 31, 32 and Revelation 11:2, 3; and Ezekiel 4:6. But how is this calculated? If we simply add 1,914 years to 607 years, we are confronted with 2,521 years, not 2,520 years.
----------------The question I have is who are these secular historians?
After that the WTS used the phrase "pivotal date(s)."
Another way the WTS used this was not to establish 607 BCE but also to establish that 1975 CE was the end of 6,000 years of human history.
*** w03 5/15 p. 4 Noah’s Log—Does It Have Meaning for Us? ***To determine the time of the Flood, we need to start with a pivotal date. That is, we must begin with a date that is accepted in secular history and that corresponds to a particular event recorded in the Bible. From such a fixed point, we can make calculations and assign to the Flood a date based on the Gregorian calendar now in common use.
One pivotal date is 539 B.C.E., the year when Persian King Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Secular sources for the time of his reign include Babylonian tablets and documents of Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy. Because of a decree issued by Cyrus, a Jewish remnant left Babylon and arrived in their homeland in 537 B.C.E. That marked the end of Judah’s 70-year desolation, which according to the Biblical record had begun in 607 B.C.E. By taking into account the period of the judges and the reigns of Israel’s kings, we can determine that the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt occurred in 1513 B.C.E. Bible-based chronology takes us back another 430 years to the making of the covenant with Abraham in 1943 B.C.E. Next we must take into account the births and life spans of Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, and Shelah, as well as Arpachshad, who was born “two years after the deluge.” (Genesis 11:10-32) We can thus place the beginning of the Flood in the year 2370 B.C.E.
-
Knowsnothing
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?
Who is furthering the agenda? Watchtower. What is the agenda? Perpetuate inconclusive biblical chronology/interpretation of prophesy to further cement themselves as the "truth" in the minds of believers.
How many people JW's doubt the "truth", but hang onto it because of things like these? It is not easy to refute that "Russell predicted 1914/End of Gentile Times", when all they do is manipulate and wind their way through real truth.
The task of unwinding all this crap just gives me a headache. I wish it were simpler.
-
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.
-
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.