SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[JW Insider]

There are some additional eclipse readings on LBAT 1419 (BM 32234). These actually help lock in the years further. In addition to the primary saros series, astronomers/astrologers of this time could predict another eclipse that came sometimes 5 months later, but usually 6 months later in the same year. For an explanation of these additional eclipses see Steele's and Huber's articles on academia.edu :

https://www.academia.edu/2360681/Eclipse_Prediction_and_the_Length_of_the_Saros_in_Babylonian_Astronomy

https://www.academia.edu/44516375/Babylonian_Eclipse_Observations_from_750_BC_to_1_BC

picture is page 20 from Xerxes' Death (caeno.org)

When I get a chance I'll look more closely at the additional readings that supplement the saros series.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

if you continue to "refuse" to show how the Watchtower comes to certain conclusions, you "personally" don't understand.

In the previous thread that spun off this one, I explained exactly how the Watchtower came to the conclusion they did.

But I'll only continue to discuss and repeat the details back on that other thread. This should not be a thread about the Watchtower, or 1914. Because the 70 years is considered an important point of "OT synchrony" there is no reason we can't discuss this as it relates to the "secular" evidence. 

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Pretty charts and half-truth explanations just don't cut it

Please point out the half-truth explanations. Also, if you are concerned about charts being "pretty," I can always change them to black/white/gray-scale.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Nabopalassar, the king of Babylon, moved in 611 B.C. against the Assyrian forces in Haran, The next year, 610 B.C., Babylon, allied with Media, attacked the Assyrians in Haran.

Why are you repeating this contradiction against the Watchtower's chronology? The Watchtower claims that this happened around 630 BCE.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

In 609 ac. the Assyrians sought the help of Egypt, and Pharaoh Neco II led An army from Egypt to join Assyria. Josiah, the king of Judah, hoping to incur favor with the Babylonians, sought to prevent the Egyptians from joining Assyria and met the Egyptian army at Megiddo. Josiah’s army was defeated, and he was killed in this attempt (2 Kings 23:»30, 2 Chron. 3 24)” page 1326

Yes, you are contradicting the Watchtower again., which says Josiah died in 629 BCE, not 609 BCE

*** it-2 p. 118 Josiah ***
Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), Pharaoh Necho led his army northward to the aid of the Assyrians. For a reason not revealed in the Bible, King Josiah disregarded “the words of Necho from the mouth of God” and tried to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo, but he was mortally wounded in the attempt.

I completely agree with your sources here --at least the parts you quoted--but just don't say that you are in complete agreement with the Watchtower if you can only make your points by contradicting the Watchtower.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Don’t just look at the dates. Picture the terrain and how the Babylonians had NO opposition in the WESTWARD territories. There are two methods that have the same conclusion.

I pictured the terrain. I pictured how the Babylonians had NO opposition in the westward territories. That's fine. It's pretty much what you might expect if Jeremiah said that Babylon would dominate the nations all around for 70 years.  The Watchtower's method is clear. So is the method of archaeologists/historians/scholars. They arrive at different conclusions. It's not hard to see why.

But I'm also going to look at the dates. That's the topic of the thread. If you have no evidence against the secular evidence for the chronology, just say so. Don't keep feeding evidence for the Babylonian chronology and then claim you are rejecting it. Give evidence why you are rejecting it.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

The one that is trying to confuse people by showing the conclusions of the Watchtower have different dates, doesn't stop the fact, those dates can be moved by different observations.

Just claiming that dates can be moved by different observations is not a very strong argument unless you have evidence. Which dates did you have in mind moving? Do you want Nebuchadnezzar to stop ruling after 63 years instead of 43? Do you want another king inserted into the chronology so that you can make up for the extra 20 years that the Watchtower theorizes might be shown if new evidence shows up some day? Do you want to just give 5 extra years each to 4 of the Kings so that 4 times 5 = 20. Did you want Nabopolassar to be the same king as Nebuchadnezzar, so that it was really the same king, one part of his army fighting Assyria in 609, and one part of his army besieging Jerusalem in 609? Is that why you made the point previously that a king doesn't have to be there when the siege and destruction is taking place?

There must be a reason you keep dropping hints besides just trying to create confusion. What are your different observations that move the dates?

[Arauna]

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

the previous thread that spun off this one, I explained exactly how the Watchtower came to the conclusion they did.

You tend to use the "old publications"  and not the newer evidences provided by the insight book etc. - so I do not trust you when you quote watchtower. I have seen in the past how you cherry pick the "old publications".  So you need not quote them again.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

You tend to use the "old publications"  and not the newer evidences provided by the insight book etc.

I am using the new evidence provided by the Insight book, regularly. You probably were concerned that I used the "Your Kingdom Come" (1981) book. The primary difference is that the kc book was very succinct and easy to understand and happened to cover 4 of the 6 pieces of evidence I used for the relative chronology. In fact, I was showing that the relative chronology presented is exactly what you would come up with based on the admissions in the kc book. (Even though kc obviously promotes a different chronology.)

Most of the "Chronology" data written for Insight was written in 1967/1968, and published in the Aid book in 1969. The Insight book is a little longer, and more detailed with some pictures here, too. And Insight admits just how weak the Strm Kambys 400 document is in ways that were never been admitted in our publications before. From the Insight book you can see that the case for 539 was slightly weaker than we ever admitted before. Of course, it's not really weaker, it's just that it has now been admitted that it is derived from the same methodology that says Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year would be 587 BCE. Also, most of the direct evidence for 539 comes from pivotal dates starting earlier in the chronology, not later. That's why I could say earlier that it's those same LBAT eclipse documents which indicate the dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and these dates, if accepted as true, prove that Cyrus took over Babylon in 539 BCE.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I have seen in the past how you cherry pick the "old publications". 

I have never "cherry picked" the old publications. "Cherry-picking" old publications is an accusation about selecting only the old ones to imply a current belief or doctrine that is actually different (updated, changed) in the new ones. This is likely what you might be accusing me of doing here. But I think you will find, if you examine the new publications carefully, that this was not done. [If I did this mistakenly, I'll correct it. Tonight when I get home, I will double-check the differences between kc and Insight for the quotes I used.]

When I have used old publications to describe a teaching/doctrine that is now different, then the reason for using the old publication is to highlight the difference, because it is useful to present a history of how a doctrine changed, and often gives more historical context informing us of the reasons a specific doctrine has changed. (606 to 607, or 536 to 538, for example.)

This can be very important for understanding our chronology doctrines, and why they changed over the years. That topic is for the another thread though.

[Arauna]

Besides I have been reading up about the syncronization of all the middle eastern civilizations and their important dates - how all of them have been synchronized with the Egyptian dates so that they all make sense when put into one time-line. Every time on this forum I have brought attention to this you have outrightly rejected the thought.... but anyone who has studied some Egyptology knows about the controversies surrounding this egyptian chronology. Even the Hittite dates are synchronized to fit in with Egyptology's chronology..... and there are errors. So all time-line synchronized with it are not accurate.

Although egyptologists reject the bible and only accept secular dates...... their entire egyptian chronology is based on a single date they assumed to be correct when champollion lifted a single  "biblical king" from the bible to pin his entire chronology on it - shishak.  It is quite ironic that they accept a WRONG biblical king to base their entire incorrect chronology on yet reject the bible.

 BUT champollion's  unfortunate choice has put the middle kingdom out by more than 350 years and the new kingdom by 20 years. Because of this, I only accept biblical chronology and very careful with the accepted secular "scholarly" dates.  They have been synchronized with incorrect Egyptian dates.

I had a struggle to copy (stuff hands) the first 2 paragraphs under Egyptian chronology on wikipedia. It brings attention to the fact that there is NOT consensus on the secular egyptian dates.  Please look it up.

You will see that biblical chronology is NOT the same as the secular chronology - no matter how hard you try to converge them.  The battle of Josiah against Egypt took place 629 BCE  when Josiah was killed. The Egyptian king then took  time  to install the youngest son of Josiah on the throne. 3 months later he was removed and jehoiakim was made king.... he ruled for 11 years before being removed  by Babylon and replaced by Sedekia - who was dethroned in 607 BCE. Many rebellions and changing of vassals. Quite a lot of biblical events between these 2 dates too!

Secular date for carchemish between Nebuchadnezzar and Necho ii is 605.  Secular dates do not allow for detailed biblical events because it rejects the bible.

What chronology would you say is more reliable? Biblical or secular.

 

 

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

You said it was Nabopolassar ruling

??? 

[Arauna]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You claim here that Nabopolassar was surrounding the Assyrian forces in 611. But the Watchtower teaches that Nabopolassar had died about 14 years earlier, and that Nebuchadnezzar had already taken over for Nabopolassar 14 years before this event. In fact Nebuchadnezzar had already taken Ezekiel into exile 7 years earlier according to the Insight book, Nebuchadnezzar, not Nabopolassar was just months away from besieging Jerusalem:

You say many things without giving dates. Nabopolassar was getting old and his son was already presented as king (very important event) and married to the median princess. I speak from memory when I allege that nebuchadnezzar fought several battles in the name of his father when his father was alive. If I remember from the studies I did years ago he received the news of his father's death when he was at carchemish. (This according to secular history).

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You said it was Nabopolassar ruling

??? 

Thanks for asking. I'll start with this question. First the context:

• I mentioned in a post on "LBAT 1419 eclipses" that the Watchtower places 611 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, and the evidence of LBAT 1419 doesn't allow for that, because it supports the standard chronology.
• To this:  @César Chávez (CC) responded that it was Nabopolassar ruling in 611 BCE, saying: "611 BC Nabopolassar was surrounding the Assyrian forces in "Haran".
• So I reminded CC that the Watchtower publications like "Insight" say Nabopolassar had died 14 years earlier [625] and that the Watchtower said 611 was the 7th year of Ezekiel's exile under Nebuchadnezzar, and that it was Nebuchadnezzar, not Nabopolassar who was about to begin besieging Jerusalem a few months later in 609.
• So CC immediately responded that the Dallas Theological Seminary understands the structure of the ancient timeline, quoting them saying: "Nabopalassar, the king of Babylon, moved in 611 B.C. against the Assyrian forces in Haran." and that "In 609 ... Josiah, the king of Judah. . . was killed."
• To that I responded that CC was contradicting the Watchtower again., which says Josiah died in 629 BCE, not 609 BCE. I quoted the Insight book:

  *** it-2 p. 118 Josiah ***
  Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), Pharaoh Necho led his army northward to the aid of the Assyrians. For a reason not revealed in the Bible, King Josiah disregarded “the words of Necho from the mouth of God” and tried to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo, but he was mortally wounded in the attempt.

So that was pretty much the whole story up to that point. CC kept claiming that Nabopolassar was ruling in 611 even though the WTS says it was Nebuchadnezzar ruling in 611. CC says he can do this without contradicting the Watchtower because as CC keeps claiming: "because there are two distinct methodologies that have the same conclusion. . . . Therefore, people need to see the other side of a methodology that in the end syncs with the Watchtower."

So if you look back on the previous page, especially, you'll see that this is exactly why I questioned his reason for repeatedly saying it was Nabopolassar ruling in 611, when this contradicts the Watchtower's dates as shown in the Insight book.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

You say many things without giving dates.

You specified that this complaint referred to the following post that I copied below. You can see the context that CC had just claimed Nabopolassar was king in 611, so I reminded him that the WT publications say he had already been dead for about 14 years by then. I didn't want to add 625 to the mix yet (611+14=625) because the focus of the WT quote was still about 611, and CC's quote was also still focused on 611. The exact date of Nabopolassar's death wasn't really so important, only that it was many years earlier. I remember at first writing, "more than a decade earlier" but since that wasn't as accurate as it could have been, I scratched it and just put in the number of years that the WT says he had been dead.

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

Nabopolassar was getting old and his son was already presented as king (very important event) and married to the median princess. I speak from memory when I allege that nebuchadnezzar fought several battles in the name of his father when his father was alive.

Yes, this makes sense and fits the Biblical accounts, too.

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

If I remember from the studies I did years ago he received the news of his father's death when he was at carchemish. (This according to secular history).

Absolutely. And the battle itself is referenced in the Biblical record.

*** it-1 p. 418 Carchemish ***
Then, after the fall of Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, Pharaoh Necho led his army northward to the aid of the Assyrians. King Josiah of Judah unwisely tried to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo and was killed in the attempt (c. 629 B.C.E.). (2Ch 35:20-24) In 625 B.C.E. a decisive battle was fought at Carchemish between the Egyptian and Babylonian armies. Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonians to a smashing victory over Pharaoh Necho’s forces and swept over Syria and Canaan. This battle marked the end of Egyptian imperial strength in these regions. The Bible account at Jeremiah 46:2 is paralleled by that of the Babylonian Chronicles (B.M. 21946), both describing the defeat of the Egyptian army.

(Isaiah 10:9-11) . . .Is not Calʹno just like Carʹche·mish? Is not Haʹmath like Arʹpad? Is not Sa·marʹi·a like Damascus? 10 My hand has seized the kingdoms of the worthless gods, Whose graven images were more than those of Jerusalem and Sa·marʹi·a! 11 Will I not also do to Jerusalem and her idols Just as I have done to Sa·marʹi·a and to her worthless gods?’

(Jeremiah 46:1-13) . . .This is the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the nations: 2 For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharʹaoh Neʹcho the king of Egypt, who was along the Eu·phraʹtes River and was defeated at Carʹche·mish by King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon in the fourth year of Je·hoiʹa·kim son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah:  3 “Prepare your bucklers and large shields, And advance to the battle.  4 Harness the horses and mount, you horsemen. Take your positions and put on your helmets. Polish the lances and put on your coats of mail.  5 ‘Why do I see them terror-stricken? They are retreating, their warriors are crushed. They have fled in panic, their warriors have not turned around. There is terror all around,’ declares Jehovah.  6 ‘The swift cannot flee, and the warriors cannot escape. In the north, by the bank of the Eu·phraʹtes River, They have stumbled and fallen.’  . . .  And the sword will devour and satisfy itself and take its fill of their blood, for the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, has a sacrifice in the land of the north by the Eu·phraʹtes River. . . .12 The nations have heard your dishonor, And your outcry has filled the land. For warrior stumbles against warrior, And they both fall down together.” 13 This is the word that Jehovah spoke to Jeremiah the prophet regarding the coming of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon to strike down the land of Egypt:

The significance given here to the King of the North (Babylon) and it's defeat of the King of the South (Egypt) is one of the reasons that so many Bible scholars believe that this battle (605 BCE/625 WTS BCE) is included in the "70 years" Jeremiah prophesied about the subjugation of all these nations to Babylon. It's one of the main reasons I agree that the 70 years probably ran from about 607 to 537 (plus or minus a year or two). Note that the Insight book even added "and Canaan" to its evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's had begun devastating the previous powers in the land around Israel, and this could even relate to why the Bible says:

(Daniel 1:1-2:1) 1 In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. . . . .5 Furthermore, the king assigned to them a daily ration from the king’s delicacies and from the wine he drank. They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. 6 Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. . . . 2 In the second year of his kingship, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had a number of dreams. . .

Of course, the Insight book does not agree that this was really the third year of the kingship of King Jehoiakim as stated in Daniel 1:1. Insight says it probably means the event under Jehoiachin, not Jehoiakim.

*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
There being no record of an earlier Babylonian exile, this appears to place the event in the short reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s successor.

But if the Bible is right, and Daniel was not mistaken here as Insight indicates, then the statements in the Babylonian evidence about Nebuchadnezzar taking heavy tribute from the area around 605 (including "Canaan") would support the Bible record, especially if you changed the 625 BCE WTS date to the standard date of 605 BCE.

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
The fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) saw Nebuchadnezzar defeat Pharaoh Necho in a battle over the domination of Syria-Palestine. The battle took place at Carchemish

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

all the middle eastern civilizations and their important dates - how all of them have been synchronized with the Egyptian dates so that they all make sense when put into one time-line.

Isn't it wonderful how all the problems with these attempts disappear during the Neo-Babylonian period (NB). There are older chronology claims that people have had trouble synchronizing, even impossible claims in their own records from Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. But it's amazing how all these issues clear up by the time of Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar because the synchronisms with Egypt actually work well at that point. The more widespread use of recording eclipses, planet and star configurations, even though it was originally related to astrology for the most part, ended up giving us a chronology that could be tested against itself and other relative timelines.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Every time on this forum I have brought attention to this you have outrightly rejected the thought.... but anyone who has studied some Egyptology knows about the controversies surrounding this egyptian chronology.

Correct. But you can throw out the Egyptian chronology if you wish. If it's problematic to you then ignore it. But if you look into it carefully you are going to realize that it helps to support the standard NB chronology, but that the NB chronology obviously doesn't depend on it. What I have rejected before, and still do reject, is the idea that much older problems of different time periods need concern us in a discussion of NB chronology. The other point I have made before, although it shouldn't have been germane to this thread, is that the standard NB chronology synchronizes extremely well with the BCE/CE era, and also synchronizes extremely well with the relative chronology of the Bible. If Egyptian chronology is so troublesome, then why be so concerned that someone has trouble synchronizing with Egyptian chronology? That's exactly what you should expect if it's so troublesome.

At least they don't have much trouble synchronizing it with the NB period. Which I plan to discuss anyway. So hopefully we can all get a better idea of what is going on here with Egypt. Myself included.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

You will see that biblical chronology is NOT the same as the secular chronology - no matter how hard you try to converge them.

Biblical chronology may not be the same as most secular chronology. But at least we don't have to try hard to converge them for the NB period. Through the NB period we have an excellent convergence of the Biblical data with the NB data. From what we've seen so far, the Bible never contradicts the data from the NB evidence.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

What chronology would you say is more reliable? Biblical or secular.

The Bible does not give dates like 607, 539, 625, 629. These are secular dates. Anyone who says 539 is the true date for the fall of Babylon is putting their trust in the reliability of a secular date -- not a Biblical date.

And since the Bible gives only relative dating, not absolute dating (tied to eclipses and planetary patterns), then we can accept the Biblical evidence and not even be concerned if secular chronology contradicts it.

Jesus was not born in 1 A.D., for example. Does that concern me? Not at all. The secular evidence could have shown that Cyrus first year was 3,000 BCE. That wouldn't concern me either. I would merely completely reject that secular date. But here we have evidence that historical, secular records support the Bible -- and might even provide a detail here and there that enhances our understanding of the Bible record. Like finding an archaeological artifact with the name Pilate, Nebuzaradan, or Baruch. We don't depend on any of these objects for our faith, and we don't idolize artifacts. But they can help us understand the time period in history when the Bible was written, and enhance our appreciation that the Bible is a historically grounded book. For some, that fact might even help them appreciate that it is a trustworthy source for spiritual guidance, too.

[JW Insider]

On 12/15/2020 at 10:46 PM, César Chávez said:

Once again, you're the author of these false claims.

Slippery! I quoted your claim directly and asked questions about what you might have meant, and instead of trying to answer the questions, you tell me I was the author.

On 12/15/2020 at 10:46 PM, César Chávez said:

The evidence is in front of your nose. But, this tells me, you didn't read O'Maly's latest paper.

True. I didn't read it, but I plan to.

On 12/15/2020 at 10:46 PM, César Chávez said:

Maybe she can teach you how to view ancient history, if she has the skill to understand most of it, herself.

Slippery again! So, does O'maly's paper really provide plain evidence in front of my nose, as you say? Or is that she might not even have the skills to understand most of what she was writing herself? (As you also said.) I assume that you have a reason for not sharing what you think she got right. If past is prologue, I would expect that you think people will just have to guess what you mean so that you can them the "author of false claims."