586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed (page 8)

Loris

Thank you Allymom. First for the K.I.S.S. approach for us chronologically challenged. and for doing the research beforehand so that we are not swept away by pseudo-scholors who attempt to confuse the facts with BS.

Loris

Alleymom

Thank you Allymom. First for the K.I.S.S. approach for us chronologically challenged. and for doing the research beforehand so that we are not swept away by pseudo-scholors who attempt to confuse the facts with BS.

Loris, as someone who was never a JW, I think I bring a different perspective to this. I am genuinely interested in archaeology and history (and have even toyed with the idea of writing some juvenile mysteries with archaeology themes). I got hooked back when my husband was an editor at Biblical Archaeology Review.

So I don't have an axe to grind with respect to the chronology. I don't have to protect the 1914 date, as Scholar does.

What I wish I could convey to "the chronologically challenged" is that they can be assured that the myriad of dated contract tablets give us the starting and ending point of each king's reign. Just as the heaps and heaps of dated junk in our own homes could be used by historians (or garbologists <s>) to reconstruct events in our families' histories, so the scholars who specialize in these documents have been able to trace the family histories of numerous individuals.

Scholar throws up one smokescreen after another in the Furuli thread, but the simple truth is that the lengths of reign are known from the tablets themselves.

If one were to browse through the sections of a university library which contain publications of the actual texts of the cuneiform documents, it would soon be apparent that the amount of information we have for this era is simply staggering.

These people were both literate and legal, a combination which leads to a lot of paperwork (or "tablet" work <s>.) Not only are the contract tablets dated, they also give a long list of witnesses, as well as the scribe's name, names of officials, names of both parties involved, etc. Scholars who specialize in this can actually trace the careers of these officials. They can trace the financial fortunes of the great merchant families. They know when people got married and conveyed property and disputed inheritances.

JCanon and scholar both ignore this, even though it is absolutely central to the discussion.

Marjorie

OICU8it2

Thank you for all that work and the KISS approach.

Alleymom

Thank you for all that work and the KISS approach.

You're very welcome! One of these days I am going to get all my books and articles organized and get the articles scanned into the computer, and then I'll really have some fun! Marjorie

seeitallclearlynow

I just got to read this thread for the first time, Alleymom, and what a terrific post. Thanks!

Alleymom

I just got to read this thread for the first time, Alleymom, and what a terrific post. Thanks!

Seeitallclearlynow ---

Glad you enjoyed it. I see it's been well over a year since I posted anything in this thread. Last night I posted some information in another thread about an upcoming article in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Maybe I'll go copy it and paste it in here.

Incidentally, the upcoming issue of the Journal of Cuneiform Studies is going to have an article by Stefan Zawadzki on NBC 4897. (NBC 4897 is a business ledger from the temple of Eanna with bookkeeping inventories for an institutional herd. It shows running totals for items such as ewes, lambs, goat hair, and hides. It's significant for 6th century neo-Babylonian chronology because it has inventories starting in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and continuing for ten years, through Awel-Marduk's reign and on into the first year of Neriglissar. There was an earlier JCS article on NBC 4897 by Van Driel and Nemet-Nejat.)

I'm looking forward to seeing what Zawadzki has to say.

Marjorie

Alwayshere

Alleymom, I am fairly new here and loved the way you explained 587What made me realize the Society was wrong is Zechariah 7:1-5.This was the forth year of Darius and Society agrees with History that his first year was 521 so 518 is the forth. And what they were doing was asking if they should continue fasting the fifth and seventh month of every year because these were the months when Babylon took Jerusalem. Verse 5 is were God said they had been doing it for 70 years.

they would have had to fast 90 years to get 607.Which proves they are off 20 years from Josiah to Zedekiah Your way is easier. I hate it took so long for me to find out the truth.I think so many love that organization more than the truth. you count from 518 up to 70 years and you get 587.

seeitallclearlynow

I love this one and we haven't heard from Alleymom in such a long time, so bttt.

Dansk

This absolutely wonderful thread needs resurrecting for the newer ones amongst us!

I recommend everyone print it out because it's the most simplistic yet explosive exposé on Watchtower's lies regarding its 607 BCE and 1914 CE connection.

Love you, Marjorie!

Ian

gumby

Next time scholar shows up.....we'll have to remind him about this thread he bailed out on.

Excellent thread! I'd forgotten about this one.

Gumby

586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed

Share this