by Alleymom 61 Replies latest watchtower bible
The beauty of the K.I.S.S. method is that it works without having to delve into VAT 4956 or errors in Josephus, Berossus, the Canon of Ptolemy, etc.
IF each of the Neo-Babylonian kings named in the business tablets succeeded the other
without any breaks in between,
THEN Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.
That's per the Watchtower's own admission.
Here are some questions based on "Babylon's Last Dynasty of Semite Kings," in "The Rejoicing of the Wicked is Short-Lived," WT 1/1/1965. I'll repost the article first.
That's what's great about the Neo-Babylonian era: it's a fairly well documented time. It's one thing to argue over the kings lists or VAT 4956, but with all the other lines of evidence (I believe COJ lists 14 independent lines), proving 607 becomes and exercise in futility.
Great thread, and a great way to keep it simple!
MeanMrMustard
MeanMrMustard --
I also like this approach because it does not require asking someone to look at secular or "apostate" literature.
Starting with the Nov. 1, 2011 WT and the Jan. 1, 1965 WT you can ask questions that naturally lead to 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem, just by using WT literature and counting backwards.
What is the note on page 24 talking about?
How would you count back from the last king, Nabonidus? Year 17 = 539 BCE, Year 16 = 540 BCE ...
Where can I find information about who came before Nabonidus? about who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar? etc.
Is there one article that covers all of the kings? 1/1/65
This could be a simple, unhurried, uncomplicated research project that does not involve astronomy or reading passages from ancient historians, just looking things up in the WT and using paper and pencil to draw up a simple counting-backwards-from-539-BCE chart.
@Alleymom:
I just read the article through for the first time, and I see the note you referenced (the footnote on pp. 24). I also see what other posters mean when they wrote that the WTB&TS is making two contradictory assertions almost within the same paragraph. Mainly, that the business documents may show an overlap of kings. They do this in order to try and cast doubt that the business tablets are a valid source of information regarding this period. Yet, the footnote you cite shows that unless there are gaps between the kings, 607 becomes unfeasible.
Also, I don't know if any of the other posters mentioned this in the previous thread, but the content of the tablets also matters. The same business deals, contracts, families are mentioned in them, allowing the documents to become interlocking joints between kings. There is no way to find 20 years between these kings, and there definitely is no way to find 20 years if one's argument is that the kings reigns overlap.
(Note: the are getting "overlap" happy these days, applying it to everything!)
MeanMrMustard
I know my approach is a tad complex, but I use WTS sources to form the accepted neo-Babylonian chronology at:
http://www.jwstudies.com/WTS_support_for_the_Babylonian_king-list.pdf
Doug
Doug --
I love your presentation! The picture with the row of kings on page 1 is awesome, and you managed to squeeze a LOT of information onto one page. You really have a gift for making the material accessible, starting with simple facts and then expanding with further support in greater detail.
@Doug: Very nice. There is a lot of information here!
MeanMrMustard
