Jerusalemin tuho 607eaa vai 587eaa?

Lisäksi Vt-seuran oma materiaali osoittaa, että seura valehtelee tässä asiassa. Alla on pelkästään Vartiotorniseuran omasta materiaalista koottu Babylonian hallitsijoiden katkeamaton järjestys sekä heidän hallinta-aikansa:

Nebukadnessar hallitsi 43 vuotta ja hänen jälkeensä tuli hallitsijaksi Evil-Merodak:

”Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 43 years, headed a dynasty that ruled over the Babylonian Empire. It included his son-in-law Nabonidus and his oldest son, Evil-merodach. That dynasty continued for 43 more years, until the death of Nabonidus’ son Belshazzar, in 539 B.C.E” (dp pp. 50-51)

“Proud King Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign in Babylon ended with his death in 582 B.C.E.” (dp p. 99)

“Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach).” (it-1 pp. 238-239)

“[Nebuchadnezzar ] Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.)” (it-2 p. 480)

“Learning that his father, Nabopolassar, had died, this young man named Nebuchadnezzar took the throne in 624 B.C.E. During his 43-year reign, he built an empire that embraced territories once occupied by Assyria, and he extended his domain into Syria and Palestine down to the border of Egypt.” (w00 May 15 p. 12)

“Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years (624-581 B.C.E.), this is a reasonable conclusion.” (w86 Nov. p. 5)

“Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) as the oldest son succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 B.C.E.” (w65 Jan. 1 p. 29)

Evil-Merodak hallitsi 2 vuotta ja hänen jälkeensä tuli hallitsijaksi Neriglissar:

”There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: “Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.” (Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Susiane, by V. Scheil, Paris, 1913, Vol. XIV) Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself assigns him 18 years. Supposedly slain as the result of a plot, Evil-merodach was replaced by Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer). Reliable confirmation of these details is lacking.” (it-1 p. 773)

“As to Nebuchadnezzar’s son Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2 Ki. 25:27, 28), tablets dating to his second year of rule have been found. However, they contain little information about his reign and give no indication as to its length. So, too, for Neriglissar, said to be the successor of Evil-merodach, only one strictly historical tablet has come to light, and it is dated in his third year as king.” (w69 Feb. 1 p. 89)

“Ptolemy assigned 21 years to the reign of Nabopolassar, 43 to Nebuchadnezzar, 2 to Evil-merodach, 4 to Neriglissar, and 17 to Nabonidus, for a total of 87 years. Counting back from the first year of Cyrus, following the fall of Babylon, therefore, historians date Nabopolassar’s first year as commencing in 625 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar’s first year as 604, and the destruction of Jerusalem as in 586 or 587. These dates are some 20 years later than those indicated by Bible chronology, yet modern historians favor the system of dating based on Ptolemy.” (w69 Feb. 1 p. 90)

“Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) as the oldest son succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 B.C.E. …. Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations.” (w65 Jan 1 p. 29)

“Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach).” (it-1 pp. 238-239)

“He [Jehoiachin] was released from the house of detention by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), Nebuchadnezzar’s successor, and was given a daily allowance of food.” (it-1 p. 147)

“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.” (g72 May 8 pp. 27-28)

“For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year.” (it-1 p. 453)

“Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.” (kc p. 186)


Neriglissar hallitsi 4 vuotta ja hänen jälkeensä tuli hallitsijaksi Labashi-Marduk:

“From this very incomplete inscription it can be seen that the only figures actually given are the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and 4 years of Neriglissar’s reign. As to this latter monarch, the text does not necessarily limit his reign to four years; rather it tells of something that happened in his fourth year. How far within the reign of Ashurbanipal the life of Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) began is not stated, so that we are left in the dark as to the commencement and the close of the “104 happy years.” Nor is there any information as to the lengths of the reigns of Ashur-etillu-ilani, Nabopolassar and Evil-merodach. And there is no mention of Labashi-Marduk, now generally acknowledged by historians as reigning between Neriglissar and Nabonidus.” (w69 Feb. 1 p. 89)

“Ptolemy assigned 21 years to the reign of Nabopolassar, 43 to Nebuchadnezzar, 2 to Evil-merodach, 4 to Neriglissar, and 17 to Nabonidus, for a total of 87 years. Counting back from the first year of Cyrus, following the fall of Babylon, therefore, historians date Nabopolassar’s first year as commencing in 625 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar’s first year as 604, and the destruction of Jerusalem as in 586 or 587. These dates are some 20 years later than those indicated by Bible chronology, yet modern historians favor the system of dating based on Ptolemy.” (w69 Feb. 1 p. 90)

“Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law
Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.” (w65 Jan. 1 p. 29)

“Because this name bears such a striking resemblance to that found in Babylonian inscriptions (Nergal-shar-usur), some scholars think this prince was Neriglissar (Greek form), believed to be the successor of King Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk).—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308.” (it-2 p.493)

“For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year.” (it-1 p.453)

“Particularly was this domination manifest during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. when Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon.” (it-1 p. 425)

“Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk.” (it-1 p. 239)

“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.” (g72 May 8 pp. 27-28)


Labashi-Marduk hallitsi alle vuoden ja hänen jälkeen tuli hallitsijaksi Nabonidus:

”Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.” (w65 Jan. 1 p. 29)

“Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk.” (it-1 pp. 238-239)

“Particularly was this domination manifest during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. when Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon.” (it-1 p.425)

“Nabonidus’ ascension to the throne followed the assassination of Labashi-Marduk. Yet, the fact that in one of his inscriptions Nabonidus refers to himself as the “mighty delegate” of Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar indicates that he claimed that he gained the throne by legitimate means and was not a usurper.” (it-2 p. 458)

“And there is no mention of Labashi-Marduk, now generally acknowledged by historians as reigning between Neriglissar and Nabonidus.” (w69 Feb. 1 p. 89)


Nabonidus hallitsi 17 vuotta, jonka jälkeen Kyyros valloitti Babylonin vuonna 539:

”(Nab·o·ni´dus) [from Babylonian meaning "Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted"].
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.)” (it-2 p. 457)

“Jewish historian Josephus records an account of Cyrus’ conquest written by the Babylonian priest Berossus (of the third century B.C.E.) as follows: “In the seventeenth year of his [Nabonidus’] reign Cyrus advanced from Persia with a large army, and, after subjugating the rest of the kingdom, marched upon Babylonia……The cuneiform tablets found by archaeologists, though not giving details concerning the exact manner of the conquest, do confirm the sudden fall of Babylon to Cyrus.” (it-1 pp. 567-568)

“One such fixed or absolute date is in connection with the events recorded in the fifth chapter of Daniel, verses one to thirty-one. That was concerning the time when the Medes and Persians under Cyrus the Great broke up Belshazzar’s notorious carousal, captured the city of Babylon, and overthrew the Third World Empire. The year was 539 B.C.E. on the Gregorian calendar, four years after the Buddhist Era began in India…….The fixing of 539 B.C.E. as the year when this historical event occurred is based on a stone document known as the Nabonidus (Nabunaid) Chronicle. This important find was discovered in ruins near the city of Baghdad in 1879, and it is now preserved in the British Museum.” (w68 Aug. 15 pp. 490-491)

"’VII/14/17’: The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus’ reign.” (w68 Aug.15 p. 491 Footnote)

Kun nämä hallitsijat sekä heidän hallinta-aikansa asetetaan Vartiotorniseuran osoittamaan järjestykseen sekä kiinnitetään Vartiotorniseuran nk. absoluuttiseen vuosilukuun, niin syntyy seuraava luettelo:

21 = 605 Nebukadnessar II 43 vuotta
1 = 604
2 = 603
3 = 602
4 = 601
5 = 600
6 = 599
7 = 598
8 = 597
9 = 596
10 = 595
11 = 594
12 = 593
13 = 592
14 = 591
15 = 590
16 = 589
17 = 588
18 = 587
19 = 586
20 = 585
21 = 584
22 = 583
23 = 582
24 = 581
25 = 580
26 = 579
27 = 578
28 = 577
29 = 576
30 = 575
31 = 574
32 = 573
33 = 572
34 = 571
35 = 570
36 = 569
37 = 568
38 = 567
39 = 566
40 = 565
41 = 564
42 = 563
43 = 562 Evil-Merodak 2 vuotta
1 = 561
2 = 560 Neriglissar 4 vuotta
1 = 559
2 = 558
3 = 557
4 = 556 (Labashi Marduk 9 kk) Nabonidus 17 vuotta
1 = 555
2 = 554
3 = 553
4 = 552
5 = 551
6 = 550
7 = 549
8 = 548
9 = 547
10 = 546
11 = 545
12 = 544
13 = 543
14 = 542
15 = 541
16 = 540
17 = 539 Absoluuttinen tai keskeinen vuosiluku (w68 Aug. 15 pp. 490-493 ja it-1 p. 458)

Meidän kaikkien voisi olla joskus hyvä panna merkille se miten vähän Jeesus kiinnitti huomiota kaiken maailman detaljeihin ja kuinka paljon puolestaan toimintaamme ohjaaviin periaatteisiin.

Jerusalemin tuho tapahtui tietenkin 607 eaa. Tässä asiassa "uskollinen ja ymmärtäväinen orja" on oikeassa maalliseen historiaan verrattuna, joka onkin pääosin "ilmavallan hallitsijan" aikaansaannosta.

Jos Jeesuksen syntymän ajankohta on tutkijoille epävarmaa, sillä se ajoitetaan noin 4 - 7 eaa, niin kuinka paljon enemmän Jerusalemin tuho voi heillä mennä pieleen?

Jehova ja Jeesus käyttää "kanavaansa" nyt lopun aikana ja voimme olla varmoja siitä, että 1914 on merkityksellinen. Lopunajassa juuri teidän tyyppiset ihmiset kyselevät "missä on hänen luvattu läsnäolo?"

Te myöskin olette niitä "veden alle kätkettyjä kareja".

Jos historialliset asiat olis aina niinkuin luullaan yleisesti, kuten vuodesta 587 eaa, niin tutkijoita ei kai tarvittaisi ollenkaan.

...laskutehtävä. Vuoteen 537 eaa kun lisätään 70 v ei ainakaan minun laskutaidoilla päästä vuoteen 587. Menehäntäsittenjatiedä kenellä on senkaltainen laskuoppi jonka mukaan se onnistuu. Kait ne siellä jttuessa onnistuu siinäkin!