Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    445

JW Insider last won the day on March 28

JW Insider had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

32,964 profile views
  1. @xero, I don't know if you are still interested in the question, but I figured out a way to arrive at the answer without making use of any astronomy. I started a thread where I was looking at starting from scratch and just using the Bible at first to figure out the relative chronology that the Bible gives, and using the Bible's synchronisms with Babylonian kings. Basically, you probably worked this same out for yourself already, based on statements in the Bible that say things like: the battle of Carchimish was in the 4th year of Jehoiakim the first year of Evil-Merodach was in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile etc. So I come up with the following, which makes no mention of any BC/BCE years, but still gives the relative points in time for Josiah's death at the end of his 18 year reign, Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar's first year and last year, the beginning of Jehoiachin's exile, the beginning of Evil-Merodach's reign. I didn't have room to tie Manasseh's reign all the way back to it's beginning, but this becomes interesting when we learn that secular inscriptions show Ashurbanipal claiming to take tribute from King Manasseh. But we don't know how long Cyrus ruled, and how long Evil Merodach ruled and we don't know the exact number of years between his reign and Cyrus conquering Babylon. The test will require only 3 or 4 steps. The next step would make use only of the secular, clay business/contract tablets to fill in the known kings of Babylon over this same period shown above. That turns out to be fairly easy because there are thousands of them, and they interconnect and show the order of each king and the lengths of their reign, including their accession year. And then a third step will be to look at any other single inscription, or subset of the tablets, that might verify the record we would get from the overall set of Babylonian contract tablets. Turns out there are about 3 ways to do this, none of which will involve astronomy, or the need to identify any BCE dates. Then the fourth step, after the relative timeline is complete, just pick any ONE date you think is confirmed. Could be 539 BCE, could be the Watchtower's date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, could be a date for Josiah's death, or the fall of Nineveh. Just choose any source you think might be viable, because choosing any one will fill out the rest. Then you can check if the date chosen makes sense for the entire timeline.
  2. If the above claims of R.R.Newton were all true, it would have a devastating effect on the Watchtower's chronology for the events reported about 539 BCE. To avoid the admission that the 539 evidence also lands Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year on 587 BCE, the WTS is forced to ignore most of the evidence data that would easily confirm 539 BCE and instead specifically makes use of the supposedly "fabricated" eclipse from Kambyses 7, listed above. (Note that this is one of only 3 that Newton considers fabricated.) The term "may be fabricated" can also mean the same as "may be genuine" but Newton applies a different percentage of probability to that possibility. Note the use of this very eclipse from "Insight:" *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II. Keep in mind of course that -522 is 523 B.C.E. But also note that while R.R.Newton actually does prove (to my satisfaction) that Ptolemy basically copied a lot of previous information without actually working out the math for himself. He gives himself credit for work that others had already confirmed before him, and in some cases proves his "fraud" by making the same mistakes that others made before him. He did not personally work out all the mathematics or observations found in Almagest. But only two of the eclipses above have any bearing on the discrepancy between Watchtower chronology and the standard chronology of the Biblical accounts. And usually, the only reason we (Witnesses) take much interest in chronology is to help understand the chronology of Biblical accounts. So the only two that are both highly questionable and related to the Biblical accounts are these, below, which he says are fabricated: -620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated -522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated Fortunately, we know that the second one was NOT "fabricated" because it's also on an old copy of a clay tablet from years prior to Ptolemy (as quoted in "Insight"). The "Insight" book is correct. One of the most thorough reviewers of the book said this about it: https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1980JHA....11..133M/0000134.000.html SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) Title: Book-Review - the Crime of Claudius Ptolemy Authors: Moesgaard, K. P. Journal: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 11, pp. 133-135, 1980 Bibliographic Code: 1980JHA....11..133M
  3. I have no expectation that my posts should matter to anyone. But I should make clear that I don't assert that 587 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE as 18th year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. I'll leave it to the Bible to assert whether anything significant is associated with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. And I would say the same for 539 BCE as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon. I don't assert that 539 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 539 BCE as the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, since this is about the preponderance of evidence, it is also good to point out that, compared with 539, there is at least 10 times the evidence for 587 being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As to 612 BCE for the Fall of Nineveh, I couldn't say it's correct either. But I do know that the best evidence does show that 612 BCE is the 14th year of Nabopolassar's reign. They offer a certain convenience, but I still don't think we really need to know any of the BCE dates. They can't be determined without astronomy anyway. Were the apostles supposed to learn astronomy or trust in someone else's claims about astronomy to understand Bible prophecy? It's like someone in service once said about the King James Version Bible: "If it was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me."
  4. I think I did speak to the actual reason. I mentioned that you must have thought this was about the best you could do in finding fault. And in that attempt you utterly failed, and actually showed COJ to be 100% correct. So the actual reason, I must assume, is that you have an unrequited desire to find fault, and this has frustrated you to the point where you merely throw up anything and hope it sticks. In this case you show that COJ was correct about something (years 12 to 16 missing) and say that this is wrong because the chronicle stops at 11 and picks up again at 17. In other words, you are simply showing that COJ was absolutely correct: that 12 to 16 are missing. Then you went ahead and embarrassed yourself by proving him right, quoting his exact words: You highlight that the supposed problem where COJ mentioned that the portion containing the words for 17th year is damaged. His wording here is perfectly in line with scholars, and the WTS accepts the exact same thing. In other words, the Watchtower Society agrees with COJ here. Note: COJ: “. . . and the portion where the words for "seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102 Now the agreement with the WTS publicaitons. Here is "Insight" making the same point: *** it-2 p. 459 Nabonidus *** It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged It is becoming more clear why genuine scholars have had only good things to say about COJ's work, and no genuine scholars have said anything about it being flawed in any aspect. You yourself have just shown it to have been careful and accurate. even in the one spot where you had hoped to point out a mistake. Therefore, I do believe your real concern is that "deep down" you probably know it is accurate and are just lashing out aimlessly.
  5. Actually, I have never seen a person who worked so hard to prove someone wrong, but at the same time, inadvertently confirm that what I have been presenting here is relatively accurate -- so far. Given time, and given the amount of effort you evidently put into finding fault, I assume that someday you really will find something that I am presenting incorrectly, and then I'll be able to learn something useful from it and make the necessary correction. In the past, under other names, you've presented some resource material I hadn't seen before, and I found it very interesting. I'm a patient person. Happy to keep waiting for something useful again. Even if it means putting with all those lies and nonsense from you about banning persons. I'm also happy for the entertainment value, and revelations about human nature, etc. Even if you don't come through again. I have no interest in banning you, nor do I even know for sure if I have that authority as an assigned moderator. If I do have that ability, I have never used it.
  6. That's odd. You find something accurate in COJ's book and then declare it inaccurate. You make me wonder if you have ever found anything inaccurate in COJ's book anywhere. Not that it matters, but have you actually ever found an inaccuracy in COJ's book? If that feeble attempt was any indication of the "best you could do" to find something inaccurate, it comes across as an admission that perhaps COJ's entire book is also accurate. Maybe, as a challenge, you could find something that really is inaccurate, and if you can't find it and produce it here, I will just assume that "deep down" you believe his book is accurate and you are only flailing against it out of some kind of temper tantrum, or something like that. Something like the way you keep making up false information about me.
  7. I'm sure you recall that I never denounced Raymond Philip Dougherty. But I would also not use his works to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BCE. Besides here is what Dougherty said about Nineveh: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008910332 Archives from Erech, 1923 That was his writing in 1923. It was common during the late 1800's and early 1900's to assign the capture and destruction of Nineveh to 606, the year before Carchemish. Evidence from the Nabopolassar Chronicles ("Fall of Nineveh") changed the view to Nabopolassar's 14th year, even though the tablet is not perfectly explicit about exactly what happened then because there is a lot of damage to the tablet at that point where the 14th year would be found. But 6 years later, he wrote: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004069087&seq=164&q1=612 I never denounced him. And i never used him to support 612 BCE. But I think you already knew that. I used the astronomical evidence for the years of Nabopolassar's reign, and tied that to the strong probability that the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" is referring to Nineveh as the destroyed city in his 14th year of reign. I couldn't care less about Dougherty himself, though. There is no "certainty," it's just a matter of working with what is usually considered "best evidence" so far, but always ready to adjust if even better evidence comes along.
  8. There is good evidence that the original was recorded much closer to the actual time of the events being chronicled. Copyists/scribes/scholars were making copies of the tablets as they became too worn out or cracked. The British Museum in the Assyria section has a display of an actual tablet library which shows how they stored the tablets much like we would store books on a bookshelf, complete with the edge marked with the "title" of the tablet, so they could be kept in order. Similar to VAT 4956. But they were as fragile as iPhones, and would have to be recopied when they cracked. You are reading too much into my use of the term BCE/BC. I never opposed it. I only said I preferred the Watchtower's reasons for using BCE instead of BC.
  9. The top part is just the Babylonian kings based on the tens of thousands of contract/business tablets, with no concern as to their BCE dates. Just trying to match up the Biblical events underneath. Then the two unnecessary rows at the bottom offer the standard BCE timeline in green, and the WTS timeline in blue. Note that the WTS timeline agrees with the green standard timeline from 556 onward, but differs from 580 on back. The WTS publications also agree with 580 being part of Evil-Merodach's reign, so I have included that date. But the orange dates refer to the entire reign of Neriglissar which is the only range of standard dates which the WTS leaves open to a 24-year period rather than a 4-year period. The assumption is that there may be one or more unknown kings who reigned for 20 extra years during this period. Like I say, these BCE dates aren't necessary for understanding the Bible. The Bible doesn't use them. I would not stake my life on either one of the timelines. The only thing I would push back on is the false claim that the blue (WTS) have more or better evidence behind them than the green (standard).
  10. That's another astute observation. Even if a stone tablet or inscription had declared that it was precisely the 14th year of Nabonidus when Nineveh fell, and another tablet gave astronomical positions that could only be dated to the 612 BCE, this isn't enough. Who's to say that the those lunar or planetary positions which definitely happened in 612 BCE were actually recorded in the 14th year of Nabonidus, just because they say they were? The celestial positions would still definitely be for 612 BCE, but attributing them to "NABONIDUS 14" could still have resulted from a scribal error (or a conspiracy of scribal errors). And just because the ancient record indicates that Nineveh was actually destroyed in the 14th year of Nabonidus, who's to say that this wasn't wishful thinking on the part of the person recording the events. Perhaps the bulk of Nineveh had been destroyed earlier, perhaps it was an ongoing process and someone just arbitrarily assigned it to a specific year of Nabonidus to make it appear more successful, even though the persons he was after got away to another city. Or who knows whether there was some criteria by which a city was considered captured or destroyed under Assyrian protocol that was different under Babylonian or Judean? However when the Bible speaks of Jerusalem's temple being destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, we probably shouldn't doubt that it was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. But there is an obvious solution to the problem. Just pick any particular date you would like and work from there. See what evidence there is to attach a Julian/Gregorian date to it (B.C.E./B.C.) and see if it fits the rest of the evidence. It's even simpler because the Watchtower publications already agree with all of the standard dates that I have marked in green below throughout the Neo-Babylonian period. Since these are the only two competing timelines that we are worried about, why not just discuss them either as relative dates, the way the Bible does, or offer both BCE dates in the timeline. That's what I have done below when I was trying to work out the relative dates starting from 1 Kings and Jeremiah. I couldn't care less what the actual BCE dates are, so I'll just put them both there as reference. I'll put it in the next post.
  11. The Watchtower Society also adamantly asserts that there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible. [Insight Vol.1: "Chronology"; w69w68 8/15 p. 489; etc.] It's exactly what my point has been about both 607 BCE and 587 BCE. And it's exactly right. Because the Bible does not refute 607, just as it does not refute 587. Neither does the Bible support either date. The 607 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy. The 587 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy. BCE/BC dates are only measured in terms of the Gregorian or Julian calendars. Note: *** w68 8/15 pp. 489-490 pars. 8-15 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates *** If events recorded in the Bible were dated according to the Julian or other preceding calendars, it would be a rather simple matter to convert such dates to the Gregorian calendar. But not so. . . . Please note, the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars.
  12. It looks like it could be based on a translation issue where Gadd trusted Herodotus and Diodorus to fill in some of the information gaps in the heavily damaged places on the tablet. The tablet credits the alliance between the Babylonians and Medes. But the tablet uses the name Cyaxares, the King of the Medes, as a way to reference to the Medes, but it also uses the term Umman-Manda which may have also meant Medes and not Scythians. Either way, both things could be true, rather than constituting a true conflict. Some are willing to give Herodotus and Diodorus the benefit of the doubt, and some are more skeptical, as was the case of Maurice Price in 1923 who only wanted to derive information from what was actually said on the tablet, not what was inferred through others. It is rather hard to believe that Cyaxares could have forced a true alliance with the Scythians after just murdering their leaders a few years earlier. That assumes that the following was true: (Wikipedia, Cyaxares) The next year, in 625 BCE, Cyaxares overthrew the Scythian yoke over the Medes by inviting the Scythian rulers to a banquet, getting them drunk, and then murdering them all, including possibly Madyes himself. After freeing the Medes from the Scythian yoke, Cyaxares reorganised the Median armed forces . . . .Cyaxares might also have forced the Scythians into an alliance with the Medes after overthrowing their rule, since from 615 BCE onwards the Babylonian records mention the Scythians as the allies of the Medes. Price's skeptical 1923 article on the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" was already quoted from earlier. (Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol 43.)
  13. The main thing to remember in all this discussion is that there are absolutely no BCE dates that can be known without astronomy. NONE. If you make a claim about ANY date in the BCE range, you have relied upon astronomy as the foundation for that date. That's the foundation we start from even for our famous 607 date (WTS chronology). The 539 date. The 632 date we use for the 14th year of Nabopolassar, and therefore the likely Fall of Nineveh. It's all about astronomy if we include a BCE date. The gap does not necessarily widen, at least through the late Neo-Assyrian or the entire Neo-Babylonian era, and every era since: Persian, Greek, Roman, etc. This is where the many readings from astronomy come in. There is often a question about what month of the year a king started his reign in, and if reigns count from a fall new year instead of a spring new year, you could be 6 months off. If you don't know whether the few weeks or months before the new year was counted as the "first year" then you might be a year off. But if the method stayed the same from reign to reign you would not continue to widen any gap, and if the method changed back and forth from reign to reign, the mistakes would essentially cancel each other out. But every few years, and sometimes year after year for several years in a row, we have astronomy readings that identify every BCE year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, every BCE year of Nabopolassar's reign, every BCE year of Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus, right up to Cyrus. The reason those dates match exactly to the years of the eras that Ptolemy used was because he, too, checked them against the astronomy.
  14. I might just try to get my money back. The parrot in the first picture is undoubtedly responding only to the difference between the prompt and the actual cartoon.
  15. Except that Furuli was caught doing exactly as you say above about someone else: This is exactly what one of the secular authorities that the Watchtower used has indicated about Furuli. Furuli also tried to hide his WTS-chronology agenda under the guise of the "Oslo-chronology." I couldn't say whether Furuli lacked sincerity, because no one else can really get into his own mind. But I had already seen that Furuli had told untruths even prior to the book that fooled the WTS into printing misinformation back in 2011. Perhaps that would fit the bill for something else you said: I don't care about Furuli's or Thiele's or Young's or McFall's credentials. I only know that those last three added some interesting points to the body of work on the topic. Furuli is competent in Hebrew from what I've read, but at least he admitted to being an amateur on some of the topics he tackled in his two books on chronology.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.