by BroMac 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
Thanks Jeffro and Ann for all of the input into this topic over the years.
Jeffro: Looking at the timeline above I noticed a second 70 years ending with Darius in 517. More detail I discovered I was unaware of. I looked into it and found this on Wikipedia about Darius. Can you provide more insight into this 70 year account and the existence of Darius?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Mede#As_Darius_the_Great
The 'gap' starts at 20 years, but it actually widens as you go further back,
If I understand correctly, the gap between secular and WT dating is 20 years at 587 (Secular=587; WT=607)
At the deportation of the Northern Kingdom the gap slightly narrows (Secular=722; WT=740)
At the division of the kingdom after Solomon the gap is 67 years (Secular=930/1; WT=997)
At the exodus from Egypt (Secular=1446; WT=1513; Here the gap is holding at 67)
Secular dating actually helps explain certain things that WT dating leaves unexplained. For example, by secular dating Jonah visited Ninevah shortly after a famine and after an eclipse and during a very weak period in the Assyrian empire. These events may well have 'primed' the Ninevites to react favorably to Jonah. But WT dating puts Jonah in Ninevah way before these events.
By the way, I second the 'nice graphics' up above. Thanks for the efforts in those.
It is also possible that Daniel was taken in early 604BCE (the same Nisan-based regnal year). Babylonian chronicles confirm that Nebuchadnezzar did return to the "Hatti-land" (which includes Judea) in what we know as January/February 604BCE.
Sure. All we have to supplement this is a statement from Berossus (captives unnamed) and Dan. 1:1 (Jehoiakim's 3rd year).
It is also possible that the author of Daniel did not realise that the reigns of the kings of Judah were Tishri-based rather than Nisan-based ...
Or he could have just been counting the Babylonian way - Nisan-Nisan. When in Rome ...
... (though this doesn't seem to be consistently applied throughout 1 & 2 Kings anyway).
True. Trying to harmonize it all has vexed many a biblical chronologist.
It is also plausible that, for some reason, Jehoiakim's reign was only recognised from Nisan of 608. 608 to 598BCE is a good fit for Jehoiakim's 11-year reign. Many Jewish sources seem to cite 608 for the start of his reign rather than 609.
It all depends on how it's counted (accession versus non-accession reckoning, N-N versus T-T). Besides, we know Josiah died in or just before Month IV of 609 BCE. We know Jehoahaz lasted 3 months and Necho himself appointed a successor which would mean Jehoiakim was king around Month VII (Tishri) - a new year if Tishri-based. Have you come across this before?
http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/rtables.pdf The whole article's well worth reading and the tables at the end may be helpful.
AnnOMaly:
Thank you for the rtables.pdf. At my leisure I'm going to compare it with my copy of Edwin Thiele's "Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings."
Too smart....head hurting...
Does anyone know at what point the WT sneaks the 20 years into the timeline?
As Jeffro said, somewhere in between the end of Nebuchanezzar's reign and the beginning of Nabonidus'. They insert the reign of this guy,
The WTS time-line of the Itsa-Faka dynasty is way out of sync with the established facts, of course, but it plugs an inconvenient gap nonetheless.
Compliments of JW facts ...
Where the Watchtower differs with history is that it says Nebuchadnezzar gave up the throne in 581 B.C. History shows it was in 562 B.C. Therefore the two timelines are:  For the Watchtower timeline to be correct Nabonidus needs to have ruled for 36 years, yet the Society admits archaeology shows he only ruled for 17 years. "Other investigators say this: "The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17 [Footnotes]"VII/14/17": The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus' reign. (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus." Watchtower 1968 Aug 15 p. 491 There is a further problem created by the Watchtower timeline. The following quote goes on to say that there were two Nabonidus' due to tablets showing that Nabonidus was ruling over a city in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The reason the Watchtower Society has be forced to create an unattested second Nabonidus is due to their claim that Nebuchadnezzar started ruling in 624 B.C., making Nabonidus too young to rule at that time. However, since archaeology shows Nebuchadnezzar started ruling in 605 B.C. it is perfectly acceptable for Nabonidus to have been ruling a city in 597 B.C., and still been alive in 539 B.C. "Cuneiform tablets of the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 617-Nisan 616 B.C.E.) list a certain Nabu-na´id as the one "who is over the city," and some historians believe this is the same Nabonidus who later became king. However, this would mean that Nabonidus was a very young man when placed in such administrative position and would make him extremely aged at the fall of Babylon, some 77 years later (539 B.C.E.)." Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2 p.457 Nabonidus It is amazing that with Watchtower information it can be shown that 607 B.C. was not the year for the fall of Jerusalem. The Bible explains what happened during this period. |
At the exodus from Egypt (Secular=1446; WT=1513; Here the gap is holding at 67)
This is unsurprising. There's no actual evidence that the 'Exodus' from Egypt ever actually happened. The only source is the biblical account; the JW view of the length of the period between 'the Exodus' and the appointment of king Saul is essentially the same as that given by other Bible commentators since the 19th century.
Jeffro:
"the JW view of the length of the period between 'the Exodus' and the appointment of king Saul is essentially the same as that given by other Bible commentators since the 19th century.
For those curious, it is based on 1 Kings 6:1. 480 years from the 4th year of Solomon. (967/6 + 480 = 1447/6) The Society has Solomon's rule starting in 1037. (So, 1034/3 + 480 = 1514/3)
thank you for the replies, I did read them on the day posted, but have been away.
King Nevawaza was quite a character, the missing link.
