WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • AnnOMaly

    For JWs, wts doesn't need to show proof but to create enough doubt in their mind that the reader will accept the material presented by wts as honest truth from God's directed organization.

    Yep, you nailed it. And the strategy works brilliantly with most JWs!

  • Bungi Bill
    Bungi Bill

    It is a technique called "muddying the water":

    - usually resorted to by people who know that they are wrong, but no way in hell will they admit to this!


  • Crisis of Conscience
    Crisis of Conscience

    LOL @ Bungi Bill!!

    I just want to offer my thanks to everyone for the excellent research and proof offered here.
    Also thanks for allowing me the opportunity to 'research this for myself', as was The Watchtower's suggestion in this 2nd article. ;)


  • Alleymom

    I wrote to Dr. Ronald H. Sack about the misrepresentation of his work in the Nov. 1, 2011 WT article. I have been reading his work for years and told him that I own three of his books and have copies of some of his articles. I let him know that I planned to post information on this board about footnotes 9 and 10 on page 28 of the article, regarding the transition between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar. I asked him for permission to scan and post pages from his book Neriglissar - King of Babylon. He wrote back about 45 minutes ago and gave permission to post the scans. He said he appreciates responsible people familiar with his work who will not tolerate such misrepresentation.

    Marjorie Alley

  • Alleymom

    Comments on footnotes 9 and 10, p. 28 of the article“When was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed, Part Two. What the Clay Documents Really Show,” The Watchtower, Nov. 1, 2011, pp. 22-28.

    Footnote 10 asks whether Bel-shum-ishkun [Belšumiškun] could have ruled for a time between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar.[See further note below on the identity of Bel-shum-ishkun, who, contra the WT’s suggestion, was not one of the kings of Babylon.]

    Was there a gap between the reigns of Amel-Marduk and Nerigilissar?

    Dr. Ronald H. Sack, the scholar whom the WT cites in footnote 9, is the scholar who first published tablet BM 75489 (No. 91) in his book Neriglissar -- King of Babylon, published in 1994.I own a copy of this book as well as two other booksand various articles written by Prof. Sack.What he actually says on page 26 of Neriglissar – King of Babylon is that tablet BM 75489 identifies Neriglissar as king of Babylon EARLIER than previously thought.

    Rather than there being a GAP between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar as the Watchtower suggests in footnote 10, the tablet they cite in footnote 9 actually shows a three-month OVERLAP in the documents from the reigns of Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar.

    The gross misrepresentation of the work of Dr. Sack and the other scholars who are quoted out of context in this Watchtower article is shameful. I wrote to Dr. Sack telling him about this, and he gave me permission to scan and post some pages from his book Neriglissar – King of Babylon.

    Note on Bel-shum-ishkun –

    AnnOMaly provided a link upthread, http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf3/review5.htm , to a thorough discussion of “Belšumiškun, king of Babylon.”Scroll down about a third of the page to section 5.Not one of the thousands of extant dated administrative/legal tablets refers to Belšumiškun as king. See esp. the comments by Assyriologist Michael Jursa.

    Marjorie Alley 9/10/2011

  • Alleymom
  • Alleymom

    The previous image was too small. Here is a larger scan of page 26 from Ronald H. Sack's Neriglissar - King of Babylon.

    Page 26, Sack, Neriglissar

  • Alleymom

    Edited to delete duplicate post.

  • Alleymom
  • muzikman74

    Just remember also that Michael Jursa's name was used in the May 2009 Awake! article. If you go to the British Museum website it talks about this same clay tablet with one difference..........the British museum states 587 and not 607. Oh my....when will the Watchtower ever learn. Don't they know people will investigate these things. Another person who's name was also used was Eliat Mazar. I personally contacted her regarding her name used in the new Jeremiah book to see if she agreed with the Watchtower's 607BCE date. She agree's with the 586/587 date. Now, not that the Watchtower Society is quoting these people, it's decieving on their part to use these scholars, historians, archeaologists names in a way that make it seem like they do support the 607 date. I guess that is why they had to add the little footnote that none of them do in the November 1st article.

    It's almost like if you smoke that every doctor, scientist, or any other medical expert says that smoking causes cancer....and if the Watchtower was the ONLY ONE that says it doesn't......who would you believe? The same thing should be applied to the 587/607 debacle.

    Here's an example of what I'm talking about in this article. Michael Jursas' name is used. Once you read further it seems that he supports it... right? Wrong...he doesn't. Ladies and Gentlemen what we have here is the Watchtower's magician's trick.....slight of hand!

    A Receipt That Corroborates the Bible Record

    A two-inch-wide [5.5 cm] clay tablet was unearthed in the 1870’s near modern-day Baghdad, Iraq. In 2007, Michael Jursa, a professor at the University of Vienna, in Austria, came across the tablet while doing research at the British Museum. Jursa recognized the name Nebo-sarsechim (Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, in its Babylonian form), a Babylonian official mentioned in the Bible at Jeremiah 39:3.

    Nebo-sarsechim was one of King Nebuchadnezzar’s commanders at the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., and according to the tablet, he is called “the chief eunuch.” Moreover, the title chief eunuch was held by only one man at any given time, providing strong evidence that the Sarsechim in question is the same man mentioned in the Bible.

Share this