tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post7727285534976373413..comments2023-09-27T05:04:37.119-04:00Comments on THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: According to the Watchtower CD Library, did Jerusalem fall in 607 B.C.E. or 587?Mike Felkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-79347066983418300832010-04-13T09:01:01.047-04:002010-04-13T09:01:01.047-04:00Great work, Mike. I have a feeling that the anony...Great work, Mike. I have a feeling that the anonymous JW who's been commenting here is the same anonymous JW who's been avoiding the same arguments at my blog.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13108158469007498050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-71608844801229596992010-04-06T18:40:52.327-04:002010-04-06T18:40:52.327-04:00I disagree that the 70 years ended when the Jews r...I disagree that the 70 years ended when the Jews returned to their land. The 70 years was "for Babylon" (Jeremiah 29:10) in reference to taking "the surrounding nations" and "this land" as their slaves (Jeremiah 25:11). Thus, according to v. 12 the seventy years would end with the punishment of the King of Babylon in 539. <br /><br />But I don't want to get into this here, so please save your criticism for my future posts when I address the 70 years in more detail.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-5373543702689626162010-04-06T18:31:07.530-04:002010-04-06T18:31:07.530-04:00Mike: "I don't have any references for an...Mike: "I don't have any references for anyone who would date other than 539."<br /><br />So, if Babylon was destroyed in 539 BC, when did the Jews return to their land, ending the 70 years?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-39018853017712501072010-04-06T18:25:29.420-04:002010-04-06T18:25:29.420-04:00Your conclusion from Thiele's quote is absurd....Your conclusion from Thiele's quote is absurd. Something doesn't have to be specifically for "historical purposes" to be a reliable historical witness. Furthermore, do you think that the canon is just a bunch of made up stuff? <br /><br />Apparently, there is something to the canon, since the Babylonian chronicles, king lists, and astronomical texts are in very good agreement all the way from the 8th century to the 1st century. <br /><br />It would be a pretty amazing thing to claim that these <i>thousands</i> of independent testimonies all happened to get the details wrong with excellent agreement to one another. <br /><br />Also, what Thiele means by not "giving a complete list" is because only length in <i>years</i> was given, which would exclude Labashi-Marduk. So, in no way does Thiele's quote suggest that the canon is in any way unreliable. If anything, it affirms the reliability and to say that dating is "impossible" through this is completely absurd when we have thousands of other independent testimonies which agree with it. <br /><br />And no, I don't have any references for anyone who would date other than 539. But then again, scholarly consensus has never stopped JW's from having contrary views from the majority.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-40178120916237370332010-04-06T18:13:37.528-04:002010-04-06T18:13:37.528-04:00Can you please provide any references to the date ...Can you please provide any references to the date of the fall of Babylon other than 539 BC?<br /><br />Is there any "extreme confusion" around this date?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-38188888955004898412010-04-06T18:04:43.157-04:002010-04-06T18:04:43.157-04:00Mike: "Last, you keep mentioning Ptolemy'...Mike: "Last, you keep mentioning Ptolemy's Canon as if this is the be-all-end all....Can you provide for me just one single reason why assigning two years to him would throw anything off?"<br /><br />This is discussed in the 1972 Awake article "When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?<br /><br />"The 586 B.C.E. date is based primarily on what is known as “Ptolemy’s Canon,” which assigns a total of 87 years to the Babylonian dynasty beginning with Nabopolassar and ending with Nabonidus at the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E. According to this Canon, the five kings that ruled during this period were Nabopolassar (21 years), Nebuchadnezzar (43 years), Evil-merodach (2 years), Neriglissar (4 years) and Nabonidus (17 years). In line with the number of years thus assigned to each ruler, Jerusalem’s desolation in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year (nineteenth year if counting from his “accession year”) would fall in 586 B.C.E.—2 Ki. 25:8; Jer. 52:29."<br /><br />But how dependable is Ptolemy’s Canon? <br /><br />In his book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Professor E. R. Thiele writes:<br /><br />“Ptolemy’s canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available. Kings whose reigns were less than a year and which did not embrace the New Year’s day were not mentioned.” (Italics ours.)<br /><br />So the very purpose of the Canon makes absolute dating by means of it impossible.<br /><br />Also, by assuming the accuracy of these highly debated, unreliable dates, it creates multiple issues that contradict what the Bible says.<br /><br />You can read all the specifics by googling:<br /><br />Jehovah's Judgment 607Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-72386336890205253872010-04-06T17:51:33.700-04:002010-04-06T17:51:33.700-04:00Mike: "If its just completely and totally up ...Mike: "If its just completely and totally up in the air, then can we say the same thing about the other kings? You see, this creates a huge problem for the Watchtower because their chronologies are based on precise details. And if the chronologies for the kings lists are completely and totally up in the air, and we can have no clue what they were, then how can you even be sure about 607?"<br /><br />Yes, there is also "extreme confusion" in the minds of historians about the other kings:<br /><br />Nebuchadnezzar: 23, 43, 44, 45 years?<br />Evil-Merodach: 1, 2, 3, 12, 18, 26 years?<br />Neriglissar: 3, 4, 5, 40, 46 years?<br />Laborosoarchod: 9 months<br />Belshazzar: 5, 17 years?<br />Nabonidus: 17 years?<br />Neucolassar: 5 years?<br /><br />This doesn't created any "huge problem for the Watchtower," because they choose to trust God's Word, the Bible, rather than this "extreme confusion" presented by historical experts.<br /><br />I think you should review the section labeled "Babylonian Chronology" under the article "Chronology" in the Insight Book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-15102694424988857372010-04-06T17:49:35.101-04:002010-04-06T17:49:35.101-04:00Yes, I am aware of the controversies. And controv...Yes, I am aware of the controversies. And controversies extend to all areas of theology as well, not just history. I think i've said all I can for this. <br /><br />As far as the king's reigns, the Watchtower seems to give a lot more confidence towards the other reigns, do they not? <br /><br />I think the 70 years would be a good place to take this conversation towards. It seems that according to you, this is clear and uncontroversial. We'll see how that goes when I make my video on it. Keep in touch.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-46073173512576510252010-04-06T17:41:01.544-04:002010-04-06T17:41:01.544-04:00Mike: "...citing controversy amongst historia...Mike: "...citing controversy amongst historians says nothing about what is true or false. We are to examine all the data and come to the best possible conclusion."<br /><br />Have you read this overview of the contradictory opinions of noted historians, I sent you?<br /><br />google: "Nebuchadnezzar the Great, or Nabo"<br /><br />and read a few paragraphs.<br /><br />It's not just a question about the 2 year reign of Evil-Merodach, there's massive dissagreement among experts on the list of kings and the duration of their reigns:<br /><br />For example:<br /><br />Nebuchadnezzar: 23, 43, 44, 45 years?<br />Evil-Merodach: 1, 2, 3, 12, 18, 26 years?<br />Neriglissar: 3, 4, 5, 40, 46 years?<br />Laborosoarchod: 9 months<br />Belshazzar: 5, 17 years?<br />Nabonidus: 17 years?<br />Neucolassar: 5 years?<br /><br />On the other hand, the Bible lays out a very simple chronology of 70 years.<br /><br />You're free to decide what you think is "best" out of this "extreme confusion" among secular historical experts, but I'm very clear what I put more trust in and that is the Bible's 70 year chronology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-89773538668945504522010-04-06T16:38:46.827-04:002010-04-06T16:38:46.827-04:00I'm going to beat this dead horse one last tim...I'm going to beat this dead horse one last time: again, citing controversy amongst historians says nothing about what is true or false. We are to examine all the data and come to the best possible conclusion. <br /><br />And yes, as I cited in the blog update, the WT is unsure about the two years. If its just completely and totally up in the air, then can we say the same thing about the other kings? You see, this creates a huge problem for the Watchtower because their chronologies are based on precise details. And if the chronologies for the kings lists are completely and totally up in the air, and we can have no clue what they were, then how can you even be sure about 607? What it boils down to is an "accept the dates that we tell you to." And this is not an off-the-cuff remark. This is Watchtower authority 101. You have to believe anything the Watchtower says, whether its dates like 607 or the length of kings reigns. <br /><br />Last, you keep mentioning Ptolemy's Canon as if this is the be-all-end all. Why not address the other lines of evidence that I have mentioned? Whether the WT is unsure or not almost becomes irrelevant at this point, because there is just no reason whatsoever to no accept 2 years for Evil-merodach. Can you provide for me just one single reason why assigning two years to him would throw anything off? <br /><br />Also, I completely retract my statement about "the WT being sure." I completely misspoke on that.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-6623743937917007982010-04-06T16:24:48.753-04:002010-04-06T16:24:48.753-04:00Mike says:
"I have displayed several referen...Mike says:<br /><br />"I have displayed several references for supporting the two years, which you have yet to address."<br /><br />I have provided multiple references to you that show noted historians see the date as 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, 12 years, 18 years, or 26 years. (Josephus, Scaliger, Dr. Hales, Sir Walter Raleigh, Dr. Prideaux, Lightfoot, Ptolemy, Rollen) <br /><br />I've also provided multiple references of WT materials that shows they have never given any comment that these dates were accurate, sure, probable, or anything but unreliable, questional, and uncertain. That they used 2 years in one article (without a footnote that you're demanding), doesn't change anything about their opinion of the complete unreliability of these dates.<br /><br />Mike says:<br /><br />"Secondly, I never claimed that the WT ever said that they are "sure" of the two years."<br /><br />But just two days ago on his YouTube video he said exactly that. Here's the quote:<br /><br />"Just mentioning Josephus' 18 years doesn't mean they aren't sure about the 2 years."<br /><br />Mike says:<br /><br />"Its just that the fact that they mention the 2 instead of the 12 or 18 indicates that they believe 2 to be the most accurate."<br /><br /><br />Did they ever say 2 years was "the most accurate?" No, to the contrary, they said:<br /><br />""There is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct in assigning a certain number of years to various kings. For example, while Ptolemy credits Evil-merodach with only two years of rule, Polyhistor assigns him twelve years."<br /><br />Where has the WT ever said that the 2 years is "the most accurate?"<br /><br />Here's what they've said about it:<br /><br />"the very purpose of the [Ptolemy's] Canon makes absolute dating by means of it impossible. <br /><br />They've written full articles explaining why the dates are unreliable.<br /><br />You are simply trying to read something into their position that was never said, and was specifically argued against on multiple occasions.<br /><br />You are simply misrepresenting their stated position, and in the face of overwhelming evidence that shows you are doing this, you continue to argue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-89977886077939337792010-04-06T15:57:21.175-04:002010-04-06T15:57:21.175-04:00Again, you keep asserting that its unreliable. Pr...Again, you keep asserting that its unreliable. Prove it. Citing controversy amongst historians proves nothing. I can cite controversy among just about anything. But I have displayed several references for supporting the two years, which you have yet to address.<br /><br />Secondly, I never claimed that the WT ever said that they are "sure" of the two years. Its just that the fact that they mention the 2 instead of the 12 or 18 indicates that they believe 2 to be the most accurate. <br /><br />If I can cite controversy for all the other lengths of reigns for the kings, does that automatically prove that we can have no idea how long they reigned?Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-59723486953470460282010-04-06T15:48:49.088-04:002010-04-06T15:48:49.088-04:00When the WT writes that:
1) the dates of the reig...When the WT writes that:<br /><br />1) the dates of the reigns of the Babylonian kings are unreliable, <br /><br />2) shows specific examples that there is controversy and lack of agreement among noted historians.<br /><br />3) states there is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct.<br /><br />4) specifically calls out Ptolemy's 2 year view as an example of something we can't be sure of.<br /><br />5) Explains that other historians think it's 12 years, or even 18 years.<br /><br />I don't have any problem understanding that they don't view the 2 years as accurate and sure.<br /><br />On the other hand, your difficulty in understanding such a simple point never ceases to amaze me. But I see this as a common trait among people who identify themselves as "dedicated opposers" of the Watchtower.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-6299922388318270872010-04-06T14:28:53.775-04:002010-04-06T14:28:53.775-04:00To the nameless and faceless JW who commented:
Yo...To the nameless and faceless JW who commented:<br /><br />Your argument is fallacious on one big level. It would be the equivalent of saying:<br /><br />Scholars can't even agree on how John 1:1 should be translated. Some say "God," others say "divine," and some say "a god." Just google it and you'll see the controversies! We therefore can't have a clue on what John 1:1 says!<br /><br />As Bible students, we have to weigh the arguments not based on how much controversy there is, but on what the best available evidence leads to. This is what we do on all controversial biblical issues and this is what we also do with history. <br /><br />Next, the two years are not just based on "Ptolemy's" view. You seemed to completely ignore my mention of three historical/archaeological witnesses to Evil-merodach's two year reign. And even within each of these, there are many independent sources to compile the three groups: the Neo-Babylonian chronicles, the Uruk King List, and Royal Inscriptions. <br /><br />Do the secular chronologies show unreliable testimony? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. We have to weight the evidence rather than dismiss it based on "controversy."Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-14076245962887641862010-04-06T14:09:02.995-04:002010-04-06T14:09:02.995-04:00Mike says regarding Evil-Merodach's reign:
...Mike says regarding Evil-Merodach's reign: <br /><br /> "The fact of the matter is, the two years length is extremely well testified."<br /><br />Not so.<br /><br />Secular historians don't agree at all, and I've given Mike specific evidence of this.<br /><br />Simply Google any of these phrases with the quotation marks around them:<br /><br />"merodach reigned twenty-eight years"<br /><br />"Nebuchadnezzar the Great, or Nabo"<br /><br />"From the preceding details, the extreme confusion which prevails among the historians of that period and their subsequent commentators is at once apparent." <br /><br />You'll quickly see that some historians say 1 year, while others say 2 years, 3 years, 12 years, 18 years, and even 26 years. <br /><br />While Mike calls this "well-attested," Non-JW historians refer to this as "extreme confusion."<br /><br />But, Mike hangs on one of the WT's references to Ptolemy's view of 2 years and insists that the WT is suggesting this is correct. <br /><br />However, what does the WT say about this 2 year period?<br /><br />"There is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct in assigning a certain number of years to various kings. For example, while Ptolemy credits Evil-merodach with only two years of rule, Polyhistor assigns him twelve years. Then, too, one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period. At Borsippa, for instance, were found names of a number of Babylonian kings that do not appear elsewhere." (5/8/72 Awake article - When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?)<br /><br />The bottom line is this:<br /><br />1) Historians don't agree on the dates.<br /><br />2) The WT's position is that these dates are unreliable and can't be trusted.<br /><br />3) The WT says the 2 years for Evil-M is Ptolemy's view and there's no way to be sure that's correct.<br /><br />But Mike continues to insist that they find Ptolemy's view to be accurate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-51581942697570617082010-04-05T15:42:41.939-04:002010-04-05T15:42:41.939-04:00Fantastic work.Fantastic work.Mark Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-89637373201404210042010-04-02T10:22:22.523-04:002010-04-02T10:22:22.523-04:001914 Is the kingpin teaching for the Society. If i...1914 Is the kingpin teaching for the Society. If it fails, everything fails along with it. If Christ didn't return in 1914, he didn't appoint the "Slave" in 1919 if he didn't appoint the slave in 1919 their is no authority structure.<br />Good work on this info Mike.Religion is a Rackethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02957258120424220385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-24736210456973264502010-04-01T23:44:07.950-04:002010-04-01T23:44:07.950-04:00Stellar investigative apostatechniques my pal.Kudo...Stellar investigative apostatechniques my pal.Kudos on having the patience to navigate that WT cd rom to gather the scattered facts as well.More and more people who see these things online have been and are going to be waking up ..:-)micheygirl66https://www.blogger.com/profile/16182929002057872230noreply@blogger.com