607 or 587?

by cocolocoii 8 Replies latest jw friends

  • cocolocoii

    I found a very nice internet page where you can really learn many fact about jehovah's witnesses.
    Please go to Yahoo and search for RESEARCH ON THE WATCHTOWER.
    I hope Fred reads this site.

  • Fredhall

    Hey, I read alot of sites regarding 587 or 607. And I come to a conclusion as being bunch of sh*t. Ptolemy was not a historian ,so this would mean he did not go by what historians said back then. Plus, he did not know anything about history (even Bible history). He was into Middle East astronomy which he did not agree with it's caculations.

  • cocolocoii

    Fred, I know that you are a little excited about this information, but please be rasonable.
    Think for a moment:
    Neobabilonian era is one of the must known today. There are literally thousands of documents that proof that Jerusalem fell in 586/7 b.c
    For example we know today that Nebopolasar(Nebuchadnezzar's father reing for 21 years, Nebuchanedzzar for 43, Evil-Merodach for 2 years, Neriglissar for 4 years, Labahi-marduk for 3 months and Nabonidus for 17 years. If you sum the years we got to the conclusion that the Babylonian Dinasty lasted 88 years.
    Please Read a litte more of if you have questions ask me.

  • Fredhall

    You got a problem coco,

    According to Alexander Polyhistor, Evil-Merodack ruled at least for 20 years. Does he know more about history than Ptolemy?

  • cocolocoii

    I looked under Alexander Polyhistor and I found out the he was a phylosopher from the 4th century after Christ.
    But I didn't find any quote about neo-babylonian era.
    Are you quoting from a 4th century man?
    And please from where did you take that info.

  • Fredhall


    I got more information coming.

  • uncle_onion

    Interestingly "Dick" a stele was found in 1956 that was inscribed with the reigns of the kings that Adad-guppi had lived under. It states that evil Madduch reigned for two years.This is one bit of evidence and there are a lot more to back it up.What makes it even more important is that it is dated from that era and not 800 years later.

    "Dick" you dont get it do you. If you are trying to cast doubt on the validity of the Babylonian history, you are going to come into a lot of difficulty.If you are trying to say that the worlds historians have the Babylonian kingly reigns totally wrong and can proof it then I will have to agree with you.BUT we will have no choice then to throw out the date of 539 BCE as well. You can not have one without the other.

    You are also forgetting that we have an adundant amount of astronomical evidence as well, and a mass of cunieform data that also has to be thrown out if you are right.All this dates the kingly reigns and fits in with every thing that we have at the moment.

    So what reserach have you done yourself "Dick"? I am not talking about a book that you have read but what actual research.What Cunieform tablets have you actually examined your self? And how come the GB have not used this research that you have "staggered" across in their defence?

    As usual I expect a barrage of abuse from you because you are in a corner but quite frankly I am getting used to it.

    Over to you "Dick" and this time how about answering my questions which would make a nice change?


  • uncle_onion

    POlyhistor got his info from Berrosus. the Catholic Encyclopedia says this "What has come down is in the form of fragments preserved principally by late Greek historians and writers, such as Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus, and Apollodorus, whose writings are quoted by Josephus, Nicholas of Damascus, Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Syncellus, and a few others. So it is apparent that the views put forth by Berosus come down in a very roundabout manner. In places his statements have been so garbled as to seem absurd, and yet, fragmentary as his work is, it is of great importance. "

    Speaks for itself.


  • cecil


    Evil-Merodack ruled at least for 20 years.

    That's bulls**t Fred - and you know that!!!

    Or at least you should know that - because: Even Insight On The Scriptures (Vol I, page 453) gives Awel Marduk (Evil-merodach) TWO (rpt 2) years of rule over Babylon.

    And that is correct according to every single piece of evidence from the Neo-Babylonian era that has been found.

    There is for example Nabon. No. 24 (also known as the Adad-guppi insription) - already pointed to by uncle_onion - that gives Awel Marduk TWO years of reign!

    We could mention the front side of the Uruk King List, that gives chronological information for the reigns of Kandalanu down to Nabonidus - 8 kings! Awel Marduk is given TWO years!

    Or we could mention the tablet NBC 4897 - that gives the lengths of reigns of Nebuchadnezar and Awel Marduk. And the figure for Awel Marduk is - you guessed it right Fred: TWO years!

    Fred: May I suggest that you do a minimum of homework. How about Insight On The Scriptures, Vol I, pages 447-467 - that's the one about (WT)-chronology. Just to get you started...


Share this