Uærlighed.

Føjgende citat er fra Vagttårn-Selskabets ”Indsigt i den hellige Skrift”, bind I, side 180:
Rigets undergang. Den Babyloniske Krønike (nr. 21901 på British Museum) beretter at Assyriens hovedstad Nineve blev belejret og indtaget af de forenede hære under babylonierkongen Nabopalassar og mederen Kyaxares i Nabopalassars 14. regeringsår (632 f.v.t.): „[De lagde] byen i ruin og [forfald].“ (Babylonske og Assyriske Kongers Historiske Indskrifter ved O. E. Ravn, 1934, s. 194) Således blev det assyriske rædselsherredømme bragt til en forsmædelig afslutning. — Es 10:12, 24-26; 23:13; 30:30-33; 31:8, 9; Na 3:1-19; Zef 2:13. (citat slut)
Min kommentar:
Den Babyloniske Krønike, nr. 21901 samt bogen om ”Babyloniske og Assyriske Kongers Historiske Indskrifter” lægges til grund for, at Ninive i 632 f.v.t. skulle være besejret af Kyaxares og Nabopolassar.
Nogle læsere af ”Indsigtsbogen” er måske ikke klar over, at BM 21901 er en lertavle fra den Neo-Babylonske periode beskrevet med kileskrift, og som ifl. British Museum beskriver perioden fra 616 f.v.t. – 609 f.v.t.,men det kan ikke rigtig være noget bevis for, at Ninive blev ødlagt i 632 f.v.t.
Den ganske lille sætning, der er citeret fra ”Babyloniske og Assyriske Kongers Historiske Indskrifter” siger jo ikke noget særligt, men meningen er vel, at man skal regne med, at bogen fortæller om 632 f.v.t.,Ville det Ikke være mere ærligt, at fortælle, at bogen hævder, at tingene skete i 612 f.v.t, hvilket da også kan konstateres i ethvert leksikon. Det er bestemt kun Vagttårn-Selskabet (VTS), der påstår, at Ninive faldt i 632 f.v.t.
VTS henviser ret ofte til ovennævnte bog, men de har dog aldrig nævnt, at bogen angiver Nebukadnezars regeringstid til 604 – 562 f.v.t. , hvilket er den korrekte angivelse både ifølge Bibelen og historien.
Er det ikke en uærlig og usympatisk måde, at fremføre tingene på, da man lader skinne igennem, at ”Den Babyloniske Krønnike, BM 21901” (og dermed British Museum) og ”Babylonske og Assyriske Kongers Historiske Indskrifter” støtter deres urigtige årstalsangivelser ?.

Og du lyder til at have studeret 607/587 problematikken ret indgående...

at Jerusalem ikke KAN være ødelagt i 607 f.v.t., men at man stadigvæk kan bilde rimeligt
begavede mennesker den slags ind, er en gåde for mig. I nogle af deres sidste udgivelser
refereres der stadigvæk til dette årstal.Men VTS tror jo åbenbart ikke på Bibelen, for de indrømmer, at Kyros første år som regent over Babylon var 538 f.v.t. og så påstår de at Jødernes første tibagevenden til deres byer skete i 537.f.v.t., altså i den syvende måned og Ezra beviser jo temmelig tydeligt, at det skete i den syvende måned i hans første år (Ezra 1:1 og 3:1,(Ezra angiver ikke, at man er nået ind i Kyros andet år, så må vi da regne med at der stadig er tale om hans første år))

Ja, hvad var det egentlig talt der skete dengang I 607 BC.? Her er et forslag:
http://www.archive.org/stream/passingempiresb00mcclgoog/passingempiresb00mcclgoog_djvu.txt
s. 485

A oontraot disoovered at Nipur by BilpreehtCKmlinichTifaiche Fund in Nifer, in the Zeiliehrift,
vol. iv. pp, 166-169) is dated in the fourth year of Awnc-etililtni. On the other hand, a oontraot
from Urak publiahed by King {Si«Jian»ftft«n and hit Enle in Babylonia, in the ZeiUehri/t fUr Auyri-
oXogie, vol. ii. pp. 396-400) ia dated in the aeventh year ot Bin-ahar-iahkun. Wa have, therefore,
eleven yeara attributed with certainty, out of the aotenteon or eighteen whioh aeparate the death of
Aiaur-banipal in 626 or 625 n.c. from the fall of Nineveh in 608. Since, on the other hand, it ia un-
likely that a oontraot of Urok should have been dated in the reign of a king of Assyria after the
revolt of Nabopolaasar, whiob ooourred in 611 or 610 at the latest, we cannot push the acoeaaion of
Sjn-ahar-iebkuii further hack than 620 or G19 B.C.
Thie may be deduoed from a pasMge ot Abydenus (JFrOifm. 7, in MIlleb-Didot, Fragm. Bi*L
Orac, vol. iv. p. 282), where Sarocoa or Sin-Bbar-iahkun senda Bnaaalossoroa (tliat ia. Nabopolasaar)
to defend Cbaldna against the invasion of the peoples of the sea ; so according to Aby deuna, or rather
Berosua, from whom Abydenns indirectly obtained his inGirmution, Saracos was King of Babylon as
wellasof Nineveh at the beginning of his reign. The contract dated in the year VII., quoted in the
preceding note, brings material proof ot tiiis fact, since it cornea from Urnk, and its leatioiony ia con-
firmed by that of two other tablets, dated in the king's aeeond year, which como from Sippara, one of
which is preserved in the Brilisb Museum (Evrrrs, Intcription* of the Beigm o/ Evil-Mtrodaeh,
SvHgli»»ar, and Ldborotoareliod, pp. 90, 91), and the other in the museum at Berlin.

Fixing the date of tbe fait of Nineveh in 608 or 607, and keeping in Tiew tbe fact, that the
contract dated In the year VII. , mentioned m^a, p. 4S2, nates 4, 5, comes from Uruk, it appears
diSIoult to place the inTaeion of the barbarians more than three or fonr years before the final cata-
strophe, viz. in 612 or SIl B.o.
------------------
HE FALL AND DESTRUCTION OF NINEVEH.
be drawn into the movement, and Judah, for example, remained iaithfiil to its
sozerain till the last moment,' bat Sin-shar-ishkon received no help from them,
and was obliged to fight his last battles single-handed. He shat himself up
in Nineveh, and held out as long as he could ; but when all his resources were
exhausted — ammunitions of war, men and food supplies — he met his fate as a
king, and bnmt himself alive in his palace with his children and his wives,
rather than fall alive into the hands of his conquerors (608 B-O.)."
The Babylonians would take no part in pillaging the temples, out of respect for
the gods, who were practically identical with their own, but the Medes felt
no such Bcniples. "Their king, the intrepid one, entirely destroyed the
sanctuaries of the gods of Assur, and the cities of Accad which had shown
themselves hostile to the lord of Accad, and had not rendered him assistance.
He destroyed their holy places, and left not one remaining; he devastated their
cities, and laid them waste as it were with a hurricane." ^ Kineveh laid low,
Assyria no longer existed. After the lapse of a few years, she was named only
among the I^ends of mythical days : two centuries later, hei very site was
forgotten, and a Greek army passed almost under the shadow of her dismantled
towers, without a suspicion that there lay beforo it all that remained of the
city where Semiramis had reigned in her glory.* It is true that Egypt,
Chaldffia, and the other military nations of the East, had never, in their hoars
of prosperity, shown the slightest consideration for their vanquished foes ; the

Venlig hilsen
Kosmos