The two WT articles in 2011 about 587 vs 607.
(The bold and italicized words are from me)
*** w11 10/1 p. 31 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
A QUICK SUMMARY
▪ Secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.
▪ Bible chronology strongly indicates that the destruction occurred in 607 B.C.E.
▪ Secular historians mainly base their conclusions on the writings of classical historians and on the canon of Ptolemy.
▪ The writings of classical historians contain significant errors and are not always consistent with the records on clay tablets.
WT is very clever to use these words, and does so consistently. A month later (in "Part 2" of the 'series) WT again takes up its "slight of hand", "slight of words" tricks, throwing questions here and there to distract you, and says:
*** w11 11/1 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***Note: None of the secular experts quoted in this article hold that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E.An
accession year was not counted toward the years of a king’s rule; it referred to the remaining months of the year until the new king was officially enthroned.Business tablets exist for all the years
traditionally attributed to the Neo-Babylonian kings. When the years that these kings ruled are totaled and a calculation is made back from the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, the date reached for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 B.C.E.
Then WT dishonestly throws in:
However, this method of dating works only
if each king followed the other in the same year, without any breaks in between.
Not only did the actual evidence of business tablets for EACH year make me mad, and realize they lied, but the way WT uses distractions to throw you off track that there is evidence for EACH year!
" Even if an eclipse did occur on a certain date, does this mean ..?" "But do these astronomical references irrefutably point only to the year 568/567 B.C.E.?" "However, there was also..." "If these are retrocalculations, could they really be considered absolutely reliable unless corroborated by other evidence?" "Could others have ruled between the reigns of these kings? If so, additional years would have to be added to the Neo-Babylonian period."
(me: This means the BIBLE left out names of Babylonian kings... that means you can't trust the Bible either) ......................
"The Babylonian Chronicles" What do the documents show? There are gaps in the history recorded in the Babylonian chronicles.3 (See the box below.) Logically, then, the question arises, How reliable are deductions based on such an incomplete record?
(Remember, WT knows there are business tablets for every year of every king, but because there are not enough "Chronicles" they want you to think all is lost, all is "incomplete"...)
"▪ Some writings of classical historians contain significant errors and are not always consistent with the records on clay tablets."
Don't forget, that "some
" "Historical writings" have errors... why use those when you have business tablets for EACH year of EVERY king... WT is consistent in throwing you off guard, distracting you from reality.
"Instead of saying 70 years “at Babylon,” many translations read “for Babylon""
Blah, blah, blah "at" vs. "for", right!??!!
Remember, WT is just throwing out questions that they ultimately do not answer... these are just to make you question and stop considering the actual facts.
In my opinion? Very clever, very deceitful, very maddening! Hasta la vista, baby! and I am NOT looking back!