When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  VM44

  Here is what The Watchtower expects the reader to retain after reading the October 1st article.

  THE WATCHTOWER, DECEMBER 15, 2011, page 31
  
  Do You Remember?
  
  * How do we know when ancient Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians?
  
  Classical historians give mixed, conflicting details about the Babylonian kings and their reigns. Yet, scholars agree that Cyrus II conqured Babylon in 539 B.C.E., a pivotal date. The Jews were released, and they arrived in their homeland by 537 B.C.E. The Bible says that their exile was 70 years long. So Jerusalem must have fallen in 607 B.C.E. (2 Chron. 36:21,22; Jer. 29:10; Dan. 9:1,2)-10/1, pages 26-31.
• 

  Alleymom

  NVR2L8: Also the chart shows gaps in the Chronicles...while a footnote states that there are business records for every year of every Neo-Babylonian kings...

  Yes. The casual reader probably does not understand that gaps in the Chronicles are irrelevant when it comes to establishing the king list. The Chronicles and the business records are two different genres. Gaps in the Chronicles mean we don't have every detail about all the building projects and military campaigns. But the dated business records cover every year of every king with no room in between for extra unknown "mystery kings."

  Two thousand business records had already been translated by 1929 when Yale Professor Raymond Philip Dougherty wrote Nabonidus and Beshazzar, a resource which the WTS has cited again and again over the years, most recently in Part Two of the Jerusalem article (WT 11/1/2011). Dougherty clearly stated in 1929 that the king list established by the dated cuneiform records was the unimpeachable standard. Today we have many more thousands of business records which have been translated and published. They cover every year without gaps.

  So the fancy chart showing gaps in the Chronicles means absolutely nothing.
• 

  Alleymom

  Continued from post 1333 -

  So the fancy chart showing gaps in the Chronicles means absolutely nothing. If we don't know about every building project and every military campaign, so what? We know the names and regnal lengths of all the kings from the business records.

  All the fancy pictures and minutiae about astronomical diary VAT 4956 are also irrelevant because the WTS accepts 539 BCE as an absolute date.

  If you have 539 BCE and you have the names and regnal lengths of the kings, that is ALL YOU NEED to disprove the WT's crucial 607 BCE date.
  
  The confusing mass of detail and footnotes and citations about eclipses and astronomy and Josephus and Berossus, all presented with beautiful photos of cuneiform tablets and slick looking charts and graphics, is nothing but chaff. It doesn't matter.

  The relative chronology (names and regnal lengths of the kings) is established by the thousands of dated business records.
  The WT's absolute date of 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon is correct.
  End of story. That's is all that's needed to disprove 607 BCE.
• 

  Alleymom

  NVR2L8 -- The gaps in the Chronicles and the stuff about the business records is being discussed in the thread about Part II of the article, so I won't post any more about it here.

  Sorry for diverting attention away from Part One.
• 

  VM44

  

  Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Ancient Near East: Classic Studies) [Paperback]

  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/155635956X/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

  Price: $20.00
• 

  Alleymom

  VM44 -

  If anyone wonders if the modern reprint contains all of the original material from the 1929 book, it does. I own both the 1929 original and the modern reprint that you just purchased and I compared them.

  It's amazing how often the WTS has quoted from this book over the years, and it's even more amazing how they refrain from any mention of Dougherty's comments on page 10, where he says the king list based on the dated cuneiform tablets is an unimpeachable standard. All the blather in the 10/1/2011 WT about errors in the classical historians means nothing when the king list has been established by cuneiform business tablets since at least 1929.
• 

  Alleymom

  And the assertion in PART ONE (see summary) that secular historians base their conclusions on the writings of classical historians is false.
  The WTS knows it is false -- they have been quoting from Yale Professor Raymond Philip Dougherty's book for years and years.

  And what's especially risible is that on the first page of PART TWO of the article (WT, 11/1/2011, p. 22) they first repeat the false claim in the graphic at the top left of the page and then in the second column they REVERSE themselves and say the scholars "base their calculations on ancient cuneiform documents"!

  Talk about wanting to have it both ways! They reverse themselves right on the same page.
• 

  wannabefree

  The original Watchtower magazines, since they are no longer available at jw.org

  http://www.sendspace.com/file/nzazau
• 

  AnnOMaly

  It's amazing how often the WTS has quoted from this book over the years, and it's even more amazing how they refrain from any mention of Dougherty's comments on page 10, where he says the king list based on the dated cuneiform tablets is an unimpeachable standard. All the blather in the 10/1/2011 WT about errors in the classical historians means nothing when the king list has been established by cuneiform business tablets since at least 1929.

  I don't think scans of this have been posted before.

  First, p. 7, then the p. 10 Alleymom cited. The pages inbetween list the other sources' versions of the kings listings. If anyone wants to browse the whole book, it is available to view at the Hathi Trust Digital Library.

  

  
• 

  breakfast of champions

  Thanks for the link ANNOMALY