607 B.C.E.

[Ann O'Maly]

7 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Secular chronology has many problems when deciding when NEB reign started. The given is 605/4 BCE. Yet even with the business tablets, controversy ensues.

Haha. Really? Which business tablets pose a problem for establishing when Neb's reign began? The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 pinpoints the day Neb acceded the throne: 

[Obv.9] For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon,

[Obv.10] when on 8 Abu [15 August 605.] he went to his destiny; in the month of Ululu Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon

[Obv.11] and on 1 Ululu [7 September 605.] he sat on the royal throne in Babylon. 

7 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

There’s a sloth of more information that also points to 606BC.

Points to 606 BC as what? Jerusalem's destruction? Nebuchadnezzar's accession? What? And what is this information of which you speak?

You're all huff and bluster, Allen. As usual.

[Guest Allen Smith]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Haha. Really? Which business tablets pose a problem for establishing when Neb's reign began? The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 pinpoints the day Neb acceded the throne: 

[Obv.9] For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon,

[Obv.10] when on 8 Abu [15 August 605.] he went to his destiny; in the month of Ululu Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon

[Obv.11] and on 1 Ululu [7 September 605.] he sat on the royal throne in Babylon. 

I was kind of hoping to avoid your ignorance, O’maly. As usual butting in and having nothing intellectual to say. But expected when DEFENDING apostasy.

BM21946 Say’s what?

It will be interesting to read how NEBUCHADNEZZAR II and his security force got back to Babylon from Carchemish as indicated on this tablet to take over the Kingdom. Do you have an incline of the distance between these two points? Probably NOT. But as usual boasting. I know you can’t conceive logic, but what’s important, is that you try.

You’re all Huff and Bluster O’Maly as usual.

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

BM21946 Say’s what?

Um. Obverse side, Allen. I quoted from obverse lines 9, 10 and 11 regarding Neb's accession. You quoted from the reverse side lines 11, 12 and 13 which deals with Neb's 7th year, you doofus. 

[Guest Allen Smith]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Um. Obverse side, Allen. I quoted from obverse lines 9, 10 and 11 regarding Neb's accession. You quoted from the reverse side lines 11, 12 and 13 which deals with Neb's 7th year, you doofus

Yes, I understand your stupidity has no bounds.

That was my point, August/September. Unless Neb was killing horses along the way, it wouldn’t have taken him less than a month to get back to Babylon. Best guess from historians, it would have taken him at the very least about 2 ½ months. October/November. So line 11 for BM21946 would be incorrect.

[Guest Allen Smith]

O'Maly:

Yes, I understand your a doofus, with no bounds.

That was my point, August/September. Unless Neb was killing horses along the way, it wouldn’t have taken him less than a month to get back to Babylon. Best guess from historians, it would have taken him at the very least about 2 ½ months. October/November. So line 11 for BM21946 would be incorrect.

[JW Insider]

21 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Nice try in distorting historical evidence. Just like Carl Olof Jonsson. Maybe from here on end I’ll refer to you as Junior. . . . .

You have learned nothing about honest chronology other than ACCEPT the foolishness of the Doug Manson, and Carl Olof Jonsson’s of this world. Historians really don’t give a hoot one way or another about it. For witnesses, the plague started with Raymond Franz, and others that got UPSET for being passed up for a higher position within the Organization, that’s all. So Satan used the opportunity to discredit the organization. Evidently, it worked with people like you. But for all I know, you’re a disfellowshipped witness pretending to be active.

You apparently have very little interest in responding to facts and evidence. The only bits of evidence you have tried to include in your posts are those that focus on the one-year and two-year differences among archaeologists, especially those from the 1800's. The one-year+ differences that are seen in more modern scholarship on the subject can be explained almost 100% of the time with the list of reasons I gave in a previous post. These differences have nothing to do with confusion and contradictions among the archaeologists.

In the portions of your response I just quoted above, I notice that when you realize that you have no answer you will invariably resort to phrases like, "Just like Carl Olof Jonsson" and "the foolishness of the Doug Masons and Carl Olof Jonssons of this world" or mentioning "Raymond Franz." Yes, it's true that all these people are disfellowshipped, so you do have the ultimate, ready-made ad hominem attack at your disposal. People, like COJ, who were disfellowshipped for "apostasy" are our equivalent, basically, of a "Hitler."

You remind me of me when I was 7 years old. We moved from California to Missouri and my brother and I were in a country school where the kids were angry at our religion and the fact that we did not salute the flag, because they also knew from their parents that we didn't fight in the war against Hitler. How could we not want to defend our country?

But this particular verbal attack died down when their statements were always met by giving them a witness, especially when they found out that JWs stood up to Hitler and their religion didn't. So they decided to change their tactic to making fun of my lack of a full earlobe. My ears only have a partial lobe, since the lower end of the lobe attaches to the ear with only a small lobe, instead of the usual one.

So, I came up with the "brilliant idea" of just matter-of-factly telling them, "Oh, I see the difference; you have the same kind of earlobe that Hitler had." They would deny it, and I would show them the picture of Hitler from the encyclopedia on the back shelf of our school-room. It happened about 4 times that same first year then, when I was in second grade. The 4th time, I went to show my 2nd grade colleague, and lo and behold, . . . it wasn't there any more. Someone had ripped out his picture. I lost my fallacy argument due to lack of evidence. For future reference, I looked up Mussolini but it turned out his picture had almost exactly the same kind of earlobes that I have. But I found my new evidence in a picture of Stalin! Close enough. But then I turned 8, and didn't care any more that I had Mussolini's ears.

The point is. . . . Well, there isn't much of a point, except that I understand exactly why you need to pivot towards mentioning our most "evil and dangerous" enemies.  Yikes! But then you revealed just how childish this type of argument really is.

You made a curious mistake. You accidentally reminded everyone that you are continuing to point out that 587 and 586 are the beliefs of "enemies" and 607 BCE is somehow more like a 'teaching from God.'  But then you said the following, which is an amazing admission, when you think about it. You said:

"Historians really don’t give a hoot one way or another about it."

Thanks for reminding me. It's really one of the most crushing bits of evidence that exposes the fallacy of  your entire childish tactic. The reason is simple. You are right that historians really don't give a hoot one way or another about it and that is simply another way of saying that their conclusions are are not biased one way or another.

Hmmm. So why do almost 100% of all historians and archaeologists of the Neo-Babylonian period, whether they be Jewish, Catholic, Atheist, Indian, Russian, Vegan or Japanese -- why do they all indicate that 607 is an impossible date for the destruction of Jerusalem, based on the evidence? Why do almost 100% of the same Neo-Babylonian specialists, date the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE?

21 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

But if you must insist to appease your crony’s. Historically, there are NO official historical evidence from any official government of antiquities. Those thousands of tablets you continue to exaggerate and bluster about are from PRIVATE businesses, or collections (Temples).

Interesting that you try to use the same bit of logic about the thousands of tablets that you wish I was exaggerating and blustering about. These are not from a single place that may have had a bias one way or another, they are simply thousands of records dealing with hundreds of different people that just happened to have a date on them: the year of the current king of Babylon. So you are right, these are not the "official evidence from any oficial government of antiquities." So isn't it curious that from all these different sources all give us evidence for the same chronology, whether from private sources and business that went on with temples and traders and banks and land organizers, "realtors," etc.

Anyway, thanks for making that point for me. It's a good one. Too bad it just continues to demolish your argument, though.

 

 

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

That was my point, August/September. Unless Neb was killing horses along the way, it wouldn’t have taken him less than a month to get back to Babylon. Best guess from historians, it would have taken him at the very least about 2 ½ months. October/November. So line 11 for BM21946 would be incorrect.

Wouldn't be surprised if he was acclaimed and declared to be on "the royal throne of Babylon" as soon as he reached friendly territory in his father's Babylonian "empire." It also wouldn't surprise me if he was declared king as of the first of the month Ulul 1 (as of the new moon) even if it was actually some time later in the month. Wouldn't be surprised if it was an exaggeration to make it look like he got back even faster than he did. So yes it COULD even be a mistake. Of course, this wouldn't change a thing about his accession year. No matter what, his accession year would be the label for the remainder of the year that was already named for his father in the calendar: "Nabopolassar 21st."

One other thing to consider however is your expression "unless Neb was killing horses along the way."

We shouldn't forget that this is exactly what he would have done. An empire without a declared ruler was in danger of a coup or a usurper, and this happened to the Assyrians before them, and the Persians after them.  So, I can't imagine Nebuchadnezzar doing anything other than running horses nearly to death from every one of his army's "posts" along the way. Horses can be pushed to travel 100 miles a day, and he would likely have wanted to move at night, too. It's currently about 550 miles from Baghdad to Jerusalem which is only 18 hours away at 30 miles an hour. ("Pony Express" speeds over shorter distances.) But along the most likely trade routes, from somewhere in "Hatti" to one of the major palaces or temples his father had built would likely be closer to 1,000 miles. Also, horses pulling a war chariot with guards would likely slow down to an average speed of 15 mph by day through 15 hours of daylight in September. (He could also have moved 5 to 10 mph by night, which I won't include.)

So that's 1000 miles divided by 15 mph, which equals 66.666 hours. If he only traveled during the daylight that's 4.5 days. Considering that an empire was at risk, we should have expected him to do everything to get there as fast as possible. But considering the possible problems of weather, the terrain, the need to carry several elite guards, some equipment, up to a week's worth of food and water, etc., we could expect that he averaged only 7.5 mph and it therefore could have taken 9 days.

The tablet says it was about 22/23 days. That's more than enough time for a messenger to get to him from the Babylonian palace AND for Nebuchadnezzar to get back and still have several days to spare!

If he was in enough of a hurry to travel at night (even if more slowly) he could shave off another day or two from the travel time. I would have expected even faster. So I don't know why you are so anxious to rely on secular historians who are making guesses of 2.5 months.

[Ann O'Maly]

Allen, it's real childish to make a mistake and call the person who pointed it out 'stupid.'  

To further JW Insider's answer about how Nebuchadnezzar raced back home to secure the throne, here is the excerpt from Josephus' Against Apion, 1.19 (134-138): 

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/josephus-apion/1926/pb_LCL186.217.xml

Note that Neb took a shorter route across the desert.

[Guest Allen Smith]

TO: administration I hope you forewarned Ann O’maly as well. Let’s not start this favoritism again. That would show the same FALLACIES in human nature people demonstrated in the past.

 

I’m glad you mentioned Josephus Apion. Now you’re beginning to see the scope of ancient chronology. Keep in mind the following:

Nabuchodonosor settled the affairs of Egypt and the other countries. The prisoners—Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, and those of Egyptian nationality

 

I love it, so please keep up. BM21946 States Neb took less than a month to arrive at Babylon. Now my conservative estimate would be that it should have taken him at least 2.5 months. However as JWinsider points out in his lecture on NEB’s travel back to Babylon is: soon as he reached friendly territory

So JWinsider is correctly implying Nebuchadnezzar still had a vast amount of enemies in the region. Now if he backed tracked his steps, then extreme historians would estimate it would have taken him at the very least January/February of 604BC. Now did, NEB NOT have an accession year? That would make his accession year 603BC as some historians attest to.

Well it’s a matter of interpretation. And since you people continue to fall for the same FALLACY of accepting secular chronology just because it looks good on paper? Those of us understand the following, by seeing it differently.

It could very well be that NEB, didn’t take that long to get back home. Why?

1.       Neb was in a rush to claim his throne. Fact accepted. Timing, well it probably took him longer than the EXAGGERATED account on BM 21946.

2.       Neb had a small security force. Fact accepted. He was able to maneuver in time and speed with a small party verses his entire army. Had his army accompanied him it would have taken him more than a year to get home?

3.       Josephus States he cut through the desert. Fact accepted. Had he gone through the Zargos Mountains, it would have taken him a lot longer, even with a small party.

 

What does this prove? For one, the tablets aren’t that reliable. Or are they? Reread what Josephus wrote. In order for Nebuchadnezzar to take the shortest route? He would needed to have felt CONFIDENT to maneuver through that territory. Here’s the rub:

According to Josephus, NEB commanded what? Did What? Nabuchodonosor settled the affairs of Egypt and the other countries. The prisoners—Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, and those of Egyptian nationality

So, your logic is riddled with flaws.

Secular history shows Nabopolassar in Babylon in 605BC and Nebuchadnezzar going home in 605BC. The battles between the Chaldeans, Medes were to the South and North of the Zagos Mountains. Historians keep insisting there was nothing going on in the West, The Northwest yes, but not the West. So then, how do the JEWS and PHOENICIANS figure into Josephus account? Go back to your history books and internet research, and your Babylonian chronicles. You won’t find it there. But the answer does lye with antiquities.

Well it does. Prior to 605BC, there had to be some type of events to include the Jews in the West region. What did Ptolemy describe?

You might want to argue, prisoners that were captured by the Egyptians is what Josephus is referring to, but that would be INCORRECT wouldn’t it. Perhaps the Judeans supported the Egyptians, well wait a minute, The Judeans accepted their defeat by the death of their King in 609BC. Since King Necho II killed Josiah in 609BC and left a puppet (Jehoahaz) in that kingdom. So no reason to take prisoners after the battle of Megiddo, not to mention King Josiah was taken home accompanied by his army. Maybe some Judeans aligned themselves with King Necho II, wait, history or scripture doesn’t support that Jews were taken captive or had their booty taken by Egypt at that time, as was the custom back then. Hmmm! Problem with JEWS and PHOENICIANS between 609BC and 605BC for the Babylonians/Chaldeans. Forget the prisoners for a moment. What Egyptian affairs did Nebuchadnezzar settle within that time frame?

Well anyways, I’m sure you’ll find some distorted explanation to keep accepting secular chronology, and when judgment day comes, speak plain and clear to the one that will have every right to judge you. Since you DON’T ACCEPT BIBLE CHRONOLOGY.

I guess that’s why the bible offers the following scripture: Matthew 15:14

But anyways, secular chronology is DISPUTABLE just like, in everything human. It’s best to rely in scripture for those of you that don’t want to fall into a trap like these people here. That’s the best way to go. Always trust in God, and be confident that the food dispensed by those that are worthy to receive it, is acceptable to the sovereignty of God himself.

[Ann O'Maly]

57 minutes ago, Allen Smith said:

BM21946 States Neb took less than a month to arrive at Babylon. Now my conservative estimate would be that it should have taken him at least 2.5 months.

Why? Show your working.

Here's mine (and I get the feeling we've had this conversation before, many years ago, right?):

A horse with outstanding endurance and speed that was around in antiquity (Alexander the Great is reported to have owned one) is the Ahal Tekke breed. In a famous 1935 race from Ashgabat to Moscow (2,600 miles, including desert terrain), it took these horses 84 days to complete their journey. (Google.)

2,600 miles divided by 84 days is approx. 31 miles per day on average.

Jerusalem to Babylon, a straight line over the desert, is approx. 500 miles.

500 divided by 31 miles per day is 16 days. Enough time even with a slower horse.

Pulling together all the information we have:

The Babylonian Chronicle says Nabo died 8th Abu. 

Josephus' Babylonian source adds that the chief noblemen held the royal throne for him.

The Chronicle says Neb returned to Babylon in Ululu (the very next month) and was pronounced king on the 1st of that month.

 

 

 

[Guest Allen Smith]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

A horse with outstanding endurance and speed that was around in antiquity (Alexander the Great is reported to have owned one) is the Ahal Tekke breed. In a famous 1935 race from Ashgabat to Moscow (2,600 miles, including desert terrain), it took these horses 84 days to complete their journey. (Google.)

2,600 miles divided by 84 days is approx. 31 miles per day on average.

Jerusalem to Babylon, a straight line over the desert, is approx. 500 miles.

500 divided by 31 miles per day is 16 days. Enough time even with a slower horse.

Wikipedia: Ahal Tekke

This of course would depend on breeding wouldn’t it? An equal and interesting breed would be the Arabian horse. Used more often and is an older breed. They are interesting hypotheticals, just not proven through your secular history.

Not to mention the size of the security detail Nebuchadnezzar had. Back then, a security detail could range anywhere from 50-300 depending. Now, did all these people have elite horses? 31 miles per day for a horse is pretty good. I guess, they must have been traveling light. No shields, lances, food, tents, Water. So a more logical look at this point would be, even with fine horses, the amount of travel would be within a 7-10 mile radius per day. Mainly, not to cause on due attention to themselves from enemy forces.

You must admit, even if King Nebuchadnezzar took the Kings route to Babylon through the desert as you indicate? The first and only stop back then would have been Dunham. The last time I read, they weren’t to parcel to Chaldeans. Did Nebuchadnezzar have Aarons staff to get water from rocks, and Manna from heaven? Well enough about the horses and miracles.

Let’s write about the straight line over the desert from Jerusalem to Babylon. Now, Scripture states that King Josiah went to confront King Necho II at Megiddo where he died? Historians here, subscribe to the notion that the King of Judah was aiding the Babylonians. Far from it. He decided to CONFRONT the Egyptian king. Why, perhaps because he didn’t want someone else’s army going through sovereign territory? Who knows, but have he survived, he would have done the same thing to King Nebuchadnezzar. The Judeans were no friends to Babylon on 609BC. So your assertion of a straight line would be problematic. None of the Western Kingdoms had aligned themselves to any Eastern Kingdoms according to secular history. For one, King Necho II left Jehoahaz in charge of that Kingdom according to secular history. So an Egyptian garrison would have been there if Nebuchadnezzar had come down to Jerusalem.

But according to scripture, all that territory had been taken from those Western Kingdoms. So you are CORRECT to suggest that King Nebuchadnezzar could have traveled from Jerusalem to Babylon using the Kings Route. Because there was NO need for him to fear any of those King ships if he had SETTLED THE AFFAIRS OF EGYPT AND OTHER COUNTRIES as attested by Josephus. So what pray tell could have happened in Judea between 609BC and 605BC to have Nebuchadnezzar be at peace within that territory to use the Kings route between Jerusalem to Babylon?

So that leaves the BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES short again. Because it doesn’t state that does it. Another FLAW when relying in secular history.

According to the Babylonian chronicles, Nebuchadnezzar was rushing back to Babylon from Carchemish. According to you, he came down from Carchemish to Jerusalem maneuvering peaks and valleys, and then from Jerusalem to Babylon (Desert) nonstop, light rations, light armor in 16 days. Maybe some of his security force were dying alongside those expensive horses.

Now you can also look at Nebuchadnezzar traveling from Carchemish to Babylon. You still have mountainous terrain, peaks and valleys, but safe territory. Medes, Persians, Scythians controlled most of those territories. Maybe he put some type of jet powered skates on the horses.

Perhaps, a look alike took over the kingdom while the real king was able to get there. (Proxy)

Maybe, King Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t in Carchemish as indicated in the Babylonian Chronicles, and was way closer to his kingdom than attested to. Perhaps by chasing King Necho II down toward his own territory. But that can’t be, because you people hold the chronicles as indisputable. Solid, no errors what’s so ever. Dawn!

Lastly, maybe King Nebuchadnezzar hopped on a flying carpet. Certainly NOT Pegasus. Definitely would make more sense than all the flaws in the BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES.

[JW Insider]

On 4/23/2016 at 11:21 PM, JW Insider said:

Wouldn't be surprised if he was acclaimed and declared to be on "the royal throne of Babylon" as soon as he reached friendly territory in his father's Babylonian "empire." It also wouldn't surprise me if he was declared king as of the first of the month Ulul 1 (as of the new moon) even if it was actually some time later in the month. Wouldn't be surprised if it was an exaggeration to make it look like he got back even faster than he did. So yes it COULD even be a mistake. Of course, this wouldn't change a thing about his accession year. No matter what, his accession year would be the label for the remainder of the year that was already named for his father in the calendar: "Nabopolassar 21st."

I just flew about 10 different routes with a flight simulator with full 3-D photographic terrain mapping from Judea to Carchemish and Carchemish to "Baghdad" and flew as low as I could to the ground to get a sense of the actual mountains and problem areas. If his travel was only from Carchemish to Babylon then I found several routes that were perfectly flat, and no more than 590 to 650 miles. If the early trade routes kept to some of these same flat areas, then the mountains were not a problem. I also tried a few routes from Judea and straight across the desert. You can avoid the mountains easily enough, but I can't believe he would cut across so straight through the dryness of the Syrian Desert, sand, etc. (Water is the heaviest burden to carry. And I've also done horseback riding across sand. It's slow and tiring.)

[Edited to add that, scouts who knew the area would likely have known additional routes and shortcuts, so that even if the trip was difficult to manage as claimed, we can't say it wasn't possible. I also checked the possibility that Ululu II was meant instead of Ululu I, but Parker & Dubberstein and the additional 3,500 "Yale" documents only support a second Ululu in Nabopolassars's 19th and Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year.]

Interesting that Berossus adds details about Nebuchadnezzar taking some time to settle some affairs with the enemies and manage the separate escort of some prisoners from Judea and elsewhere -- likely including Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who would have arrived during 605 BCE. So I had the idea he didn't travel straight back from Carchemish, but continued to tramp around, perhaps even in Hatti-Land again, to take care of some necessary business, although he would have done this quickly. I had the feeling that if the Babylonian Chronicles were inaccurate, it was only to the extent that they exaggerated the speed at which he had been able to return by a week or two.

Typical commentaries [2 Kings 24 and 25], like the following from "Enduring Word" admit that this seems to be an unusually speedy return by Nebuchadnezzar:

i. Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem because the Pharaoh of Egypt invaded Babylon. In response the young prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at Charchemish, and then he pursued their fleeing army all the way down to the Sinai. Along the way (or on the way back), he subdued Jerusalem, who had been loyal to the Pharaoh of Egypt.

ii. This happened in 605 b.c. and it was the first (but not the last) encounter between Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim. There would be two later invasions (597 and 587 b.c.).

iii. This specific attack is documented by the Babylonian Chronicles, a collection of tablets discovered as early as 1887, held in the British Museum. In them, Nebuchadnezzar’s 605 b.c. presence in Judah is documented and clarified. When the Babylonian chronicles were finally published in 1956, they gave us first-rate, detailed political and military information about the first 10 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. L.W. King prepared these tablets in 1919; he then died, and they were neglected for four decades.

iv. Excavations also document the victory of Nebuchadnezzar over the Egyptians at Carchemish in May or June of 605 b.c. Archaeologists found evidences of battle, vast quantities of arrowheads, layers of ash, and a shield of a Greek mercenary fighting for the Egyptians.

v. This campaign of Nebuchadnezzar was interrupted suddenly when he heard of his father’s death and raced back to Babylon to secure his succession to the throne. He traveled about 500 miles in two weeks – remarkable speed for travel in that day. Nebuchadnezzar only had the time to take a few choice captives (such as Daniel), a few treasures and a promise of submission from Jehoiakim.

Allen, you may have a point about the speed. It still seems possible when looking at numbers for the most ideal of circumstances, but I also believe there is a possibility that it would have taken at least a week or so longer. But I'm guessing. I don't have the same concerns about enemies along the way. If they took a sparser, more direct route, they would encounter no forces, and if they took the same route back by which they had marched in the first place, then any enemies were likely already subdued along that route. And we know from other records about ancient battles that guards and posts and forts would be set up along those routes for future passage, and messages/messengers from back at the capital. I assumed the possibility of fresh horses, and therefore higher speeds, based on this idea.

No matter what, though, I can't see that this has any bearing on his accession year. In fact, the Chronicle mentions specifically that he went back to Hatti-land in the accession year, and that he stayed until Sabatu. This makes sense in the context of Ululu being the 6th month of the year and Sabatu being the 11th month. But it also fits travel times of much less than the 2.5 months each way that you are talking about. If travel was more likely about a month, which fits all the know ideas about the trade routes and the speed of travel, then the Chronicle makes sense.