“WHEN WAS ANCIENT JERUSALEM DESTROYED?”
A critique of the two-part article published in the public editions of
The Watchtower of October 1, 2011, pages 26-31 and
The Watchtower of November 1, 2011, pages 22-28.
PARTS ONE & TWO
© Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, 2011
http://kristenfrihet.se/vtsvar/vtsvar1.pdf
http://kristenfrihet.se/vtsvar/vtsvar2.pdf
DOUG MASON'S Critique of 10/1/2011 & 11/1/2011 Watchtower articles
"When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?"
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/215458/1/Critique-of-the-October-1-Watchtower-articleWhen-Was-Ancient-Jerusalem-Destroyed
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/217540/1/Onscreen-Critique-October-1-Watchtower-When-Was-Ancient-Jerusalem-Destroyed
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/217098/1/Critique-of-the-NOVEMBER-1-Watchtower-articleWhen-Was-Ancient-Jerusalem-Destroyed
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/218052/1/Onscreen-Critique-NOVEMBER-1-Watchtower-When-Was-Ancient-Jerusalem-Destroyed
WHEN WAS ANCIENT JERUSALEM DESTROYED? Why does it matter? The Watchtower October 1, 2011 and November 1, 2011
by wannabefree 47 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
wannabefree
-
wannabefree
Important information I thought would be good to have together.
-
No Room For George
Those were some good threads. Remember the part in the WT article where they stated that some researchers had developed a new technique to verify that Jerusalem got sacked in 607, but didn't state whom or how it was done? Can someone find and post that part as it was hilarious!
-
Londo111
From page 26/27:
Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956. They analyzed the data with the aid of a computer program capable of showing the location of celestial bodies on a certain date in the past. What did their analysis reveal? While not all of these sets of lunar positions match the year 568/567 B.C.E., all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E.
Footnote 19:
This analysis was made with the astronomy software entitled TheSky6. In addition, the analysis was augmented by the comprehensive freeware program Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts (CDC) and a date converter provided by the U.S. Naval Observatory. Because the cuneiform signs for many of the planetary positions are open to speculation and to several interpretations, these positions were not used in this survey to pinpoint the year intended by this astronomical diary.
They do not show their work. And as the above threads show, which examine data from both 568 and 588, it simply isn't true. And footnote 19 is totally bogus.
This was more of a free-for-all thread, but this was good as well: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/215282/1/WT-Nov-1-2011-public-When-Was-Ancient-Jerusalem-Destroyed-Part-2
-
Larsinger58
GETTING PAST COJ'S MASTERFUL PROPAGANDA:
Carl Olof Jonsson is an extermely talented propagandist. He could charm the chrome off a trailer hitch if push came to shove. He's charming and he speaks well with smooth words. But that's part of the problem. He seems so logical and laid back, if you don't do your own research and check his work you find him in one lie after another. Now here is an example of master propaganda at his best. Here is a statement by COJ regarding why there is confusion over 587 vs 586 BCE being the year for the fall of Jerusalem; this is a quote from the PDF link above:
Historians and archaeologists date Nebuchadnezzar?s destruction of Jerusalem either to 587 BCE or 586 BCE. The
difference between the two dates has nothing to do with secular or extra-Biblical sources, which establish beyond all reasonable doubt that Nebuchadnezzar?s 18 th year was 587 BCE and his 19 th year 586 BCE. The question which of these two dates is correct is a Biblical problem: Jeremiah 52:12-27 (quoted in 2 Kings 25:8-21) dates the desolation to the 19 th year, while Jeremiah 52:29 dates it to the 18 th year. The problem may be solved if the different methods of reckoning regnal years in Judah and Babylonia are considered. ( GTR4, pp. 314-320.)"
Here, COJ makes the reader think the Bible presents a confused concept for the fall of Jerusalem. He quotes one scripture at Jeremiah 52:12-27 the Bible specifically dates the fall to the 19th year, including the month and day: "and in the fifth month on the tenth day of the month, that is in the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar..." This is very specific. There is no confusion over it. Then COJ introduces alleged confusion by saying "Jeremiah 52:29 dates it to the 18th year." But does it? Here is what Jeremiah 52:29 says, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem: "In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, from Jerusalem there were eight hundred and thirty-two souls."
The following verse mentions how many deportees there were in year 23. So all Jeremiah 52:29 says is that there was a deportation in year 18. That's all. It does not contradict that Jerusalem was destroyed the following year. That following year it describes the capture of the city and the deportation of only one person, king Zedekiah. So the 18th year deportation was completely separate from the 19th year destruction.
Therefore, the Bible's reference for the fall of Jerusalem in year 19 is critical and final and definite and without confusion.
Now the question is, why did COJ think it was necessary to put this b.s. out there for the readers? What is he trying to cover up? Who knows? All we know is that he wants to blame the the confused dating on the Bible, which is a false claim.
WHAT IS THE REAL ISSUE ABOUT THE CONFUSED DATING of 587 vs. 586 BCE? The real issue here, whether COJ knows about this or not, is that there has always been a 1-year discrepancy between the Biblical dating and the dating of events found in a fragment of the Babylonian Chronicle. Not sure if COJ is trying to distract from this issue. That is, when the Persians re-wrote the Babylonian Chronicle, in an effort to reduce the Neo-Babylonian timeline as much as possible (i.e. the Persians removed 26 years from the NB kings to help expand the rulership of Persian king Darius I), what they did was combine what happened during the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II with what happened in his first year. That was, during his accession year he deported Daniel and others to Babylon. This was in year 3 of king Jehoiakim. Then the follolwing year in year 4 of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar attacked pharaoh Necho, a rather well-known event. Later, in year 7, a deportation takes place where Ezekiel is deported. Then in year 8, king Jehoiachin is deported on the very last day of the year. Then there was another deportation in year 18 and 23. Jerusalem was destroyed in year 19. But the Babylonian Chronicle in an effort to reduce the NB timeline, combines what happened in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II and what happens in his 1st year, so that you have a conflict of 1 year between the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicle. Now on its face, that would suggest the Babylonian Chronicle was revised by 1-year, which it was! The Babylonian Chronicle, for instance, dates the incident with Nehco in the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar, and shows the deportation of king Jehoiachin in year 7, when the Bible clearly says it was "year 8" (2 Kings 24:12).
Now what has historically happened, is that the WTS and others seeing some secular confirmation of the Bible's history for these events in the BabylonianChronicle, try to water down the 1-year discrepancy, coming up with the incorrect idea that Jermiah uses two different kingship calculations to make references, which is total b.s., of course. COJ seems to want to distract further from this by blaming it on the Bible, probably knowing the average person will never look up a reference that is given to find out it has nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem. This ultimately distracts from the fact that the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicle do contradict each other by 1 year.
Now let's examine this to another level. What is COJ trying to hide? Well, I don't know for sure, but I know that if this issue were part of the discussion, it would be clear that Jerusalem fell in year 19, period. That would mean per the revised NB timeline in year 586 BCE! In the meantime, the WTS is dating their fall of Jerusalem in year 607 BCE, which is really year 18, the wrong year for the fall of Jerusalem. There is a well established 20-year gap between the WTS' dating and that of secular history. But really, it is only a 19-year gap. This might down the road give too much light to the problem for this period and maybe COJ prefers to validate in some way just having the WTS simply to be a neat 20 years off from the secular timeline.
This b.s. excuse helps to cover up other critical Bible comparisons to the popular NB timeline. For instance, it affects when the death of Nebuchadnezzar II occurs and thus the length of his reign. Now if you follow the Bible, if Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) was deported on the very last day of year 8, that means his exile was essentially parallel to year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar. This is clear with the rule of Zedekiah which represents an 8-year gap. That is, when Jerusalem was destroyed in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, that was year 11 of Zedekiah. 19 minus 11 = 8. That would also represent the 11th year of exile of Jeconiah. So when the Bible says that Evil-Merodach released Jeconiah in the 37th year of his exile, which would date the accession year of Evil-Merodah, that means that Nebuchadnezzar II ruled for 45 years, not 43 years! That is, you simply add 8 years to 37 to get 45. The Babylonian records claim he only ruled for 43 years, which was part of the Persian reduction for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, including eliminating his accession year by combining what happened in that year with his 1st year. That is what the real 587 vs. 586 BCE controversy is really all about. But you see, you have another Bible vs. secular discrepancy here, where the Bible confirms a 45-year rule for Neb-II whereas the revised Babylonian records are showing only a 43-year rule.
What the Persians did was add an extra 30 yeas to the 6-year rule of Darius I, making his rule 36-years. But they were only able to remove about 26 years of NB history to make up for this. 2 years were removed from Nebuchadnezzar II, which we have just proven by simple Biblical comparison. Nebuchadnezzar II, per the Bible ruled for 45 years. Josephus confirms in antiquities that Evil-Merodach ruled for 18 years rather than just 2 years. So we have a reference for that. That's thus 16+2 years we have identified to restore to the original timeline. Comparisons with other references confirm that Nabonidus ruled for 19 years rather than 17, giving us another 2 years, a total of 20 at this point. And finally, the Bible says that 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem fell in the 2nd year of "Darius" (the Mede) at Zechariah 1. Per Josephus, the 70 years of exile were specifically served by those last deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem in year 19. So essentially, the Jews still would have been in exile up until 4 years past the expiration of 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem. So is 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem fell in year 2 of Darius the Mede, then the final return in the 1st of Cyrus, 4 years later, would fall in the 6th of Darius the Mede. That means we have a Biblical confirmation that Darius the Mede ruled for a full six years before Cyrus came to the throne to release the Jews. Of course, Zechariah 1 clearly shows the Jews were still in exile in year 2 of Darius the Mede. There is no mention of Darius the Mede releasing anyone during his reign and we still find poor Daniel dealing with the pagan priests during the reign of Darius the Mede.
COJ wants us to think the reign of Darius the Mede and that of Cyrus began at the same time, even suggesting that Darius the Mede was not a real person and was actually a cryptic reference to Cyrus, which is more b.s.! At any rate, adding back in those 6 years per the Bible to the NB timeline brings the restored years to 26. Thus the Bible's NB timeline plus that of Josephus, who introduces 70 years from the last deportation down to the 1st of Cyrus (Ant. 11.1.1) is 26 years longer than that of the revised Babylonian secular records.
COJ wants to avoid this aspect of the discussion. He goes out of his way to try and make us think the Bible represents the 70 years as those of servitude to Babylon by the first foreign nation they conquered. This totally ignored Josephus who specifically says the 70 years of Jeremiah is to be applied to those last deported off the land in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
So it is my opinion that COJ's agenda is to try to water down Bible vs. secular here, and distract from the critical contradictions, thus making us trust the secular records without question. When push comes to shove, he distorts what the Bible teaches and tries to make that fit the secular reference.
But look what's happening. The average XJW praise COJ for his work and follow him almost as devotedly as the average witness follows the GB of the WTS! COJ is lik the XJW chronology guru and savior we all love. But if you want the TRUTH, you have to be vigilant, which means you trust no one like the Bereans and you check out every single claim that is made and inform yourself of ALL of the arguments. If you don't, you will be just another group being deceived by logical arguments that cherry picks what supports their own chronology.
Bottom line is, a lot of people are going to be deceived and confused over all this. I simply seem to be one who needs to get to the bottom of all this and defend the Bible since I'm the Christ. I provide this critical information to the elect, but it doesn't seem anyone else will be spared from this barage of Satanic propaganda. The average person does not have the time or skill to look up all this stuff and get to the bottom of things, plus the average person lacks a critical eye which is absolutely necessary to weigh through all this. All I can do is offer my side of the argument for that very smart 1/2 of 1% of those scholars looking to find credibility for the Bible in the secular world. It's now quite confirmed, thanks to the 511 BCE dating in the VAT4956, but its hard to get there wading through the deceptions of COJ.
THE BOTTOM LINE FROM THE SPIRITUAL VS. SATANIC POINT OF VIEW: Now stepping and looking at this from a spiritual point of view, that is how someone of the elect looks at this, we see where Satan's deception is. That is, not a focus on the fall of Jerusalem or how the VAT4956 seems to support 588 BCE as much as 568 BCE. The real big LIE that all of these false prophets agree on, that is COJ, the WTS and Furuli is that Babylon fell in 539 BCE. All of them promote that false date and from there have their sideline arguments based on this false premise. The Bible, which dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE dates the fall of Babylon 7 years earlier and thus in 562 BCE. This is followed by the 6-year rule of Darius the Mede that began the following Spring in 561 BCE. Cyrus did not take over Babylon until Darius the Mede abdictated to him six years later in 455 BCE. That's when the Jews were finally released. So the Jews were still in exile under the 6-year rule of Darius the Mede, who was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II! During this time, Nabonidus was still at-large and thus the actual Neo-Babylonian kings did rule until the 1st of Cyrus.
So until you get real and correct the date for the fall of Babylon from 539 BCE to 562 BCE all these discussions are just distracting propaganda and non-Biblical b.s. People who love darkness will embrace everything COJ claims without question or checking him out. Those who love the Bible and love the light will turn over every rock to find the truth and they do find it, but it is hard work. When all is said and done, the Bible's true timeline shines in the sun. The manipulation of the NB and Persian and Greek timeline by the Persians during this period is an extremely desperately guarded secret by the "Illuminati." It's not that they don't know the timeline was manipulated, it's just that they don't want the average person to investigate it. Trying to distract from what in the Bible exposes these revisions is the task of these master propagandists. The goal is to provide lots of wrong choices to choose from in hopes you won't discover the truth. So the WTS, Furuli and COJ are all on the same page in this regard, promoting the false date of 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon. All three are Satanic false prophets.
Fortunately, I've been able to wade through all their b.s. and get down to the real truth and now "secular" is 100% on my side, proving the Bible's timeline, which means 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus, Babylon falls in 562 BCE and the fall of Jerusalem occurs in 529 BCE. Wonderful. Confirmed by the VAT4956, several eclipses and also carbon-14 dating from Rehov and Jericho! It's wonderful! But I guess that is somthing for me and the elect to know. The masses will simply remain to be deceived and have their faith challenged. We're immune to these propagandists, however, which is Jehovah's direct blessing to us.
LS
-
wannabefree
Lord Larsinger58 ...
-
mP
They always quote Carl, too bad they dont mention he is a JW. talk about objectivity.
-
AnnOMaly
They always quote Carl, too bad they dont mention he is a JW. talk about objectivity.
??? Say again.
-
AnnOMaly
Important information I thought would be good to have together
Good idea
Spin-off links:
The info in the last two can be found in Doug Mason's critique Part Two and References.
-
simon17
Lord Larsinger58 ...
Incidentally, he's thankful someone finally got his title right.