The Watchtower's 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Could you please specify which tablet you are referring to?

Sure. It's not just one tablet. Several different tablets independently validate different years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign with the moon, planets, and/or star positions we can now identify with the particular BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 

Rather than redo all the work again, as I get time I'll probably copy some of my old posts over to here which identify the tablets I used for the calculations.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Additionally, can you provide an image explicitly mentioning the 587 BC for the destruction of Jerusalem that a scribe specifically included in that tablet, rather than relying on other sources for confirmation

As I've pointed out before, there are no extant tablets that we know of explicitly mentioning Jerusalem's destruction in the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Rather, I am relying on another source of information: It's the Bible that speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem occurring in the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .
 (2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan . . . came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down . . .

If you believe the Bible, then you don't need an explicit mention on a Babylonian tablet. You merely need to believe this happened around the 18th and/or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. I believe the Bible's information is sufficient, and I'm happy with it. However, if you wish to also put a BCE date on those years, then you would just need evidence from recorded sun, moon, planet or star positions for ANY particular year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

If you can discover the BCE year for any ONE year of his reign this way, then you also know his 18th year and his 19th year.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

rather than relying on other sources for confirmation, including calculating backward from 568 BC?

It's curious to me that this is not the first time you have mentioned "counting backward from 568 BC." You should know that ZERO of the dates you listed are discovered by calculating backward from 568.

For readers who wonder what this question is all about it comes from the mistaken idea that a certain tablet called VAT 4956 is somehow all-important to those who argue for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE.

That particular tablet refers to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and even Rolf Furuli says that all the planetary references on this tablet definitely refer to 568/7 and no other year as NEB 37- which puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (NEB 18) in 587 BCE, which would destroy the WT claim of 607. Rolf Furuli is confident that the tablet contains information that MUST refer to 568 and NO OTHER possible year, which is what scholars have been saying all along.

He goes so far as to say that the correct information must have been spliced onto the incorrect information and that someone might have forged parts of it, but not all of it, or faked some of the markings on it, or even potentially used saws and sanders to create it -- all things that are obviously impossible when you look at it.

 But he also (inexplicably) claims that the LUNAR positions on that tablet refer to a different year, 20 years later, in support of the WT Chronology. Furuli spent so much time on this ridiculous SPLIT theory that it makes VAT 4956 seem more important than it is. He attempts to create confusion over the LUNAR positions (and makes embarrassingly amateur errors in doing so.) But no one seems to remember that he could NOT create any confusion about the PLANETARY positions. He admits that the planetary positions ultimately support 587/586 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, invalidating the WT claim. 

All this craziness about 568 can make some less-informed Witnesses believe that this particular tablet must be so important that those who still support 586 for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year must have used this "NEB 37" tablet and simply counted backwards to "NEB 19".

Those who think that way probably don't realize that you can actually just toss out this particular tablet VAT 4956 that Furuli focused on, and still find that other independent evidence supports ALL those other years mentioned in the list. Counting backward from 568 was not done for ANY of them. 

[Pudgy]

With all the effort spent here and everywhere else to analyze these dates, and get it right … the point I have missed is “WHY?”.

I think my experiences with “1975” destroyed my faith in reliance on such things, but perhaps I missed something.

The logic and reasoning supporting “overlapping generations” was no help.

ADD is a two edged sword, I have learned.

Tens of thousands of people have been arguing for and against certain dates for at least a century.

WHY is this THAT IMPORTANT?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

WHY is this THAT IMPORTANT?

I think it's important to be able to see the fallacy of relying so much on secular chronology and pretending it's Bible chronology. It's important to see that it's a mistake for Christians to think they have pretentious insight to know about the "times and seasons." If we can see that our supposed Biblical chronology is actually a man-made idol -- a pseudo-chronology -- then we wouldn't keep using it as a means for "bragging rights" about having supposedly predicted something the Watchtower never actually predicted. We wouldn't keep using it as a way to brag about how our special insight into the "times and seasons" proves we have Jehovah's spirit and backing and have had it for over 100 to 150 years. 

For me, I think we need to shift our "bragging rights" away from having made Palestine-Zionist-Times-Rulership vs Gentile-Times-Rulership predictions in advance of 1914, and focus on our real Christian progress in terms of teaching and promoting conduct in response to Jehovah's love, the ransom, and the good news of the kingdom:

(2 Corinthians 1:12) . . .For the thing we boast of is this, our conscience bears witness that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but with God’s undeserved kindness. 

(2 Corinthians 10:3-5) . . .For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, . .

[Pudgy]

Thank you … my sentiments exactly.

That’s why I DON’T care, anymore about dates.

42 is all I need to know.

 

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's my point. Most of us (Witnesses) in my experience have never personally arrived at a conclusion about 539 except by simply READING the explanation in WT publications. In your case you also have a lot of books by current scholars on the subject but I think you've already admitted before that EVERY one of them puts the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar within a few months of 587 and 586 BCE. 

Correct, most if not all past and current reference books on Bible Chronology most support 586 BCE and 587 BCE as a contender for the Fall of Jerusalem.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And most Witnesses if you ask them will THINK that the explanation about 539 is somehow better and more direct than the ways in which the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are associated with BCE dates. 

Correct because 539 BC has universal acceptance as a date for the fall of Babylon and the WT explanation for its computation is both immediate and simple.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The reason I asked how you personally arrived at it was because I figured you might have checked it out for yourself and realized that more recently even the WT publications themselves now ADMIT that the method for figuring out CYRUS' regnal years are indirect and makes use of additional assumptions -- assumptions which are not necessary with much of the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years. 

Bible Chronology should be simple and easily understood and that is why WT Bible Chronology is more credible than secular NB Chronology as it has an inbuilt complexity that has caused innumerable problems as it is based on regnal years which is its focus. WT chronology is based more on events in Bible history than regnal years. Of course, the latter has its due place in the construction of any scheme of Chronology but it does create many assumptions which of course are part and parcel of any Chronology for have I not said that Chronology is about interpretation and methodology.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm sure you already know exactly what I'm talking about since you have read the explanations in WT publications. I would be very surprised if you didn't know this already.

Correct!

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, almost NO Witnesses I have ever spoken to, with only a very few current exceptions have ever admitted going to the trouble to use an astronomy program to check it out for themselves. As simple as this is to do, and with all the importance so many Witnesses attach to chronology.

Guilty as charged for even though I have such programs on my computer I have not used them because I do not know how to use such programs relying on others with some caution.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I do think it's an indication that there is a real FEAR of what they might find out. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it's FEAR because if we thought we might find out something that might bolster our teaching about 607 we'd be anxious to see for ourselves. We'd be thrilled to see if those claims by Furuli were really true: that the evidence is questionable. Instead, it's easier to have faith in someone who claims that the evidence for all of these dates is open to question. Yet they forget that that this includes 539 which somehow still remains "pivotal." 

I disagree that knowledge and use of such programs are not necessary for an understanding of Bible Chronology for a knowledge of history is far more important and in this regard, WT publications have served us very well. It is my opinion that the use of astro programs is best left to experts as these can become very problematic. I do not believe that we have cause to fear from such programs. Furuli's claims should be tested along with all other hypotheses so only time will tell but there remains sufficient biblical, secular and historical evidence to validate 607 BCE for the Fall.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Deep down, I'm starting to believe that NO ONE really looks at the evidence, and if anyone knows ANYTHING about the evidence they don't really believe the evidence is going to go our way and that's why we avoid it.

The challenge for those who support 586 or 587 BCE for the Fall is that there remains no single line of evidence that proves either of these two dates or conversely disproves 607 BCE only many pretensions that there are multiple lines of evidence such as that of COJ. The fact is that there is at least one line of evidence that proves 607 BCE and falsifies 586/587 BCE and that is the biblical-historical-theological fact of the Jewish Exile of 70 years reckoned from 607 BCE with the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return of the Jews in 537 BCE.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And it's also a fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE also enjoys universal acceptance within scholarship.

No. Both Neb's 18th and 19th year for our modern calendar along with 586 or 587 remain contentious within scholarship.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And although the event of the fall of Babylon by Cyrus was NOT a fully described in the context of the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Davidic monarchy, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year absolutely WAS described in pretty much exactly those terms.

Both the Fall of Babylon and the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18/19th year and that of Zedekiah's 11th year are well described in the biblical account.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

539 is surely no less open to interpretation than the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. According to your listed criteria, that would make Nebuchadnezzar's reign much more pivotal. Besides the fact that we can double-check the evidence for MANY MORE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign than for Cyrus, and each year strengthens the evidence for all the other years. If a three-fold cord cannot easily be broken, then an eight-fold cord ought to be even stronger than that. 

The date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is universally accepted within scholarship whereas Neb's regnal years remain contentious unless synchronized to the regnal years of the Late Judean Monarchy.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Since currently we are asked to reject the evidence for all the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign which are MUCH better documented, why don't you just use the Bible's date of Nebuchadnezzar 19th year, and reject the secular date of 539 for Cyrus? Just make the claim that since we KNOW Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is a PIVOTAL year, and that it's even more pivotal than 539 for Cyrus, then just start claiming that Cyrus captured Babylon in 519. You get to keep the 70 year period intact, just as you do now. It's EXACTLY what's being done at the OTHER end. Why does it matter so much which secular date we put faith in and which secular date we dismiss?  

The regnal years of Neb's reign may well be documented in the Babylonian record but not in the Biblical record and the Biblical record proves a gap of some 20 years in the NB Chronology by means of the 70 years of Babylonian rule and Exile. Neb's 19th year or 18th year whether 586 or 587 BCE is problematic in its relation to the Fall of Jerusalem and thus cannot be used as a pivotal year. The only way that the 70 years remains intact is to view it quite properly as the period of Jewish Exile beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We'd be doing exactly the same thing we are doing now except that we would then be saying that 539 is just a secular date but that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is a Bible date, and that we'll choose the Bible's dates over Secular dates every time.

Your methodology is flawed. The date 539 BCE remains the only pivotal date for the OT for no other date is its equal. Neb's 19th or 18th year is problematic for the Bible uses both as regnal data in relation to the Fall of Jerusalem thus creating a problem of methodology which has been noted by chronologists such as Rodger Young.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm surprised you even admitted that one. It's an even better criteria for using Nebuchadnezzar's pivotal Bible dates instead of the secular Cyrus 1 date. Several of Nebuchadnezzar's years actually ARE synchronized to the Judean monarchy, yet ZERO of Cyrus' dates are. 

Why are you surprised? I am simply using common sense and utilizing all of the biblical data. Not all dates have to be synchronized to another system to be validated. Cyrus only reigned for 9 years and the only significance is that he conquered Babylon in 539 BCE and released the Jews from Exile in 527 BCE.

scholar JW

[Pudgy]

So … um … what’s a “pivotal year”, and how many of them have there been in history?

I think of a “pivotal year” being something like 65,203,112 BCE when the dinosaurs were wiped out, with 95% of all other living things on Earth. ….. and with all the dates being bandied about, did anyone take into account “leap years” and other “adjustments”?

I seem to remember something about the Popes screwing around with calendars, cancelling 7 months (?) and people being infuriated because they thought seven (?) months of their lives had been lost.

If priests of Marduk in Babylon did similar things and didn’t leave records …. well ….. BLOOIE!

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No. As we've already established NONE of them are, not as BCE dates. We are ONLY talking about how you might determine that a certain reference to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar (in this case) has been assigned a valid BCE date. After you assign any ONE of them to a regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar, you have just assigned BCE dates to ALL the known years of his reign, even ones I didn't mention. (I only focused on ones where I had already personally checked astronomical data that was related to major events of interest or referenced on Babylonian tablets.)

The Bible mentions only the following years in Neb's reign: 1st, 7th, 18th/19th, and 23rd each of which can be assigned a valid BCE with the first three of which were synchronized to that of the Late Judean Monarchy. These are the only dates that are of importance in constructing a valid scheme of Bible Chronology in my opinion.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Screcko Sostar

17 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please, who are WT scholars?

Then, since when have they been operating within WTJWorg?

Who chose them and appointed them to do this kind of work?

On the basis of which credentials were they chosen?

The 'celebrated' WT scholars wish to remain anonymous and that is also the stated policy of the NWT Committee by way of comparison. Their origin remains unknown but they no doubt have been chosen by means of the Holy Spirit and were originally of the Anointed. Their qualifications also is unknown at this time suffice to say they both as a class and as individuals champion the Bible as God's Inspired Word. I hope this helps!!

scholar JW

[Pudgy]

“  …. pay no attention to the man (men) behind the curtain …” (Wizard of Oz)

…. and anytime someone says “… no doubt …” it is a red rocket flare arcing high into the night sky!

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You have that wrong. He absolutely does! Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587/6 BCE. Just as he believes his 19th year was 586/5 BCE, his 23rd year was 582/1, etc. 

Correct. Oded Lipschits gives the beginning of the siege in Neb's 18th year- 587 BCE and its ending in 586 BCE in his 19th year with the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and not 587 BCE.

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Perhaps you thought I was referring to the date for the more complete destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. I also would put this more complete destruction of the city and temple almost as likely in 586, and we should recall not just the two different "new year" dates that are six months apart, and the difference in counting even a partial accession year as a full year with some Bible writers, but also the fact that the siege lasted about a year and a half. (Yes, I have read Rodger Young and Edwin Thiele on the matter of regnal year counting.)

Noted

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I was asking, not about the destruction itself, but what was the BCE YEAR that Oded Lipschits identifies as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. So the answer is definitely 587 BCE. (Using the usual Spring/Nisan start of the new year, 587 starts in the spring, and therefore will contain about 3 months of 586. This is one of the main reasons we'll often see a BCE date written, for example, as 587/6 instead of just 587.

Again noted!

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, you seemed to miss the point of the question. Even if you thought that Lipschits used a different year-to-year schema, my question means the same thing as if I had asked:

 

Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 [586] BCE?

I would think that his understanding of this subject is based on current scholarship as noted in his extensive footnotes throughout his seminal work The Fall and Rise of JerusalemI, 2005, Eisenbrauns of which i have a copy.

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If the Neo-Babylonian regnal years of the NB kings were open to interpretation, why does he not admit that anywhere? Do you think that all these professors and historians and archaeologists of the period are just going along with what they've heard the way most Witnesses do? Or do you think they do a little research before making such definitive use of the NB chronology?

Because scholars believe and trust the current chronology but what they all have in common is to properly interpret and understand the importance of the Jewish Exile and the biblical 'seventy years of Jeremiah'.

scholar JW