New Dead Sea Scrolls revealed -never before seen Nehemiah - 586 BCE Destruction of Jerusalem

by RetiredLE 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  RetiredLE

  25 New Dead Sea Scrolls revealed including never before seen Nehemiah - 586 B.C.E. destruction of Jerusalem... oops...

  http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/10/11/25-new-dead-sea-scrolls-revealed.html

  Nehemiah

  A highlight from the newly published Museum of the Bible collection is a fragment from the Book of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:13-16).

  The fragment tells of a man named Nehemiah who lived during the fifth century B.C., at a time after Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Persian Empire had taken over Babylon's territory and the Jews, who had been forced to leave Israel by the Babylonians, were allowed to return home.

  The fragment records Nehemiah's visit to a ruined Jerusalem, finding that its gates had been "consumed by fire." According to the fragment text, he inspects the remains of the walls before starting work on rebuilding them.

  Scholars have noted in previous studies that archaeologists hadn't found any copies of the Book of Nehemiah in the Qumran caves. How this fragment came to America is unknown, and scholars say they can't be sure it's from Qumran.

  "It is assumed to come from Cave 4 [at Qumran], but in the final analysis it must be said that the provenance of the fragment remains unknown," wrote Martin G. Abegg Jr., a professor at Trinity Western University who led the team that analyzed the fragment, in the book "Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection."
• 

  redvip2000

  To be fair, it's not clear that the manuscripts themselves mention any date. The date is mentioned as part of the explanation in the article. I'm guessing the manuscripts would not mention the date anyway - certainly not in the format of 586BC since they didn't keep track of dates in that manner.
  
• 

  The Searcher

  Sadly, it's FOX news who is ascribing the date of 586 B.C., and not the scrolls themselves.

  Interesting article, though.
  
• 

  sir82

  JWs will just [bleep] right over the date...at most they will remind themselves "oh how lucky we are that we know the 'real' date of 607 BCE..."
  
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  Interesting yes, but doesn it puzzle you that a sect (Essenes) where in possession of the most holy scriptures at Jesus time? Would be the same as if J.W. would be in possession of the orginal Bible today and be the only scholars protecting text.... Ahh they the sect got only one exemplar of bible as gift and it remained because it was hidden and all other where destroyed and burned by the romans.
• 

  RetiredLE

  Agreed, the point being the dilemma this causes for WT which loves to latch on to the Dead Sea Scrolls as proof of their doctrines. Now, the probability that J.W.'s will see, here in main stream media, use of the 586 B.C.E. date.
• 

  redvip2000

  
  

  
  It really doesn't matter. The date of 586 bc is already visible to them - the entire community of historians and archeologists agree on it. It's in encyclopedias and every piece about the destruction of Jerusalem.

  Even the Org has had recent articles where they admit that common belief if that 586 is the right date, BUT they claim they know better than everybody else according to their own logic.

  99.5% percent of JWs wont read this. The other 0.5% might read but will not make the connection with anything they believe.

  Sometimes we give JWs too much credit that they are are on a quest to find the real truth. They actually don't care at all about this stuff, they are too busy with other things, that they barely pay attention to the latest Watchtower.
  
• 

  nicolaou

  Sometimes we give JWs too much credit that they are are on a quest to find the real truth. They actually don't care at all about this stuff, they are too busy with other things, that they barely pay attention to the latest Watchtower.

  Exactly right. It's also the reason why someday the WT will ditch 607BCE and even 1914 in an attempt to add credibility and mainstream the organisation.

  So many say 1914 is untouchable, don't you believe it.
• 

  steve2

  redvip2000 is absolutely correct:

  "99.5% percent of JWs wont read this. The other 0.5% might read but will not make the connection with anything they believe."

  I have yet to meet any JW under 60 who is even remotely interested in Biblical history to engage in any discussion whatsoever - even to simply "get" how the organization's date (607 BCE) disagrees with the evidence-based date (586 BCE).

  This duck is dead in the water even before hunting season.
  
  
• 

  Saename

  steve2 - I have yet to meet any JW under 60 who is even remotely interested in Biblical history to engage in any discussion whatsoever - even to simply "get" how the organization's date (607 BCE) disagrees with the evidence-based date (586 BCE).

  This duck is dead in the water even before hunting season.

  I was that Jehovah's Witness. I studied Biblical history, and it is one of the reasons why I'm not a Jehovah's Witness anymore. But to be fair, more credit should probably go to my studying the issues behind the Watchtower such as child sexual abuse (which ultimately convinced me of being wrong) rather than Biblical history itself... Still, it remains at least one of the reasons.