Jump to content
The World News Media

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


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
On 12/14/2020 at 5:40 PM, scholar JW said:

Absolute rubbish and complete nonsense.

I've seen people react like this when they realize the evidence is rubbish, and exactly the same way when they realize the evidence is too strong. You've probably experienced the same.

On 12/14/2020 at 5:40 PM, scholar JW said:

Talk about circular reasoning for you maintain that there are five witnesses and thousands upon thousands to prove your timeline but how do these facts account for the insertion of the biblical 70 years

The thousands of witnesses support the Biblical account very well.

The Biblical "70 years" period fits perfectly well. I'm willing to stipulate 607 to 537 as one of the four strongest candidates. I believe you still accept those dates, too. Besides, the 70 years is from another relative timeline, not an absolute one. The Bible gives no BCE/CE dates, and doesn't attempt to describe eclipses and astronomical observations so that one may turn the Bible's relative chronology into an absolute chronology. So you have nothing to worry about unless you intend to rely on secular dating to prove a specifically interpreted Biblical timeline.

On 12/14/2020 at 5:40 PM, scholar JW said:

how do these facts account for ... the missing seven years of Neb's kingship

Are you so reliant on the Babylonian evidence that you can't believe that 7 of those 43 years could have been spent in madness? Did you expect a record of this madness in their Chronicles? Perhaps CC gave you the answer when he noted that Nebuchadnezzar didn't actually have to be at every battle fought in his name. Or perhaps, if you are not willing to propose that it was any of the 43 years credited to his reign, you could propose where the additional 7 years might fit. Or perhaps you could stop insisting that the Aramaic "iddan" refers only to literal "YEARS." Even its usage in the Bible is not always a reference to literal years. For Bible commentators it might be noteworthy that Daniel 4 speaks in terms of literal months from the time of the dream to it's fulfillment, but reverts to this more nebulous word "iddan" which can refer to different time periods for the fulfillment. What if it means "seasons" here? What if it means "weeks"? Besides, the Chronicles do contain long gaps without crediting anything specific to Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps it's mostly allegorical, and therefore about the complete term of his reign from the time of the dream at which time he recognized some of his own madness and beastliness. After all, that's the way the Watchtower mostly treats it anyway, as an allegory of some other time period unrelated to Nebuchadnezzar.

But here's another possible (but highly improbable) solution. Take it for what it's worth because it's my "personal" solution, purely speculative, and I've never seen it supported anywhere. But at least it gives you a full seven literal years:

The Bible doesn't say that Nebuchadnezzar died at this point when Evil-merodach became king:

(Jeremiah 52:31) . . .Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, . . .

So let's say that very near the end of Nebuchadnezzar's official reign, that would be his 42nd or 43rd year that he was struck with madness for a year. (The secular record shows that he never completed his 43rd year.) Not that it matters, but the standard dating would put this in in 563 or 562. Because of the year of madness, others would try to take his place, so that Evil Merodach begins ruling in 562 (standard dating) and then serves for two more years, per standard dating. Then Neriglissar serves for 4 more years, per standard dating. But in 556/555 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar returns to the throne, and out of appreciation for the dream and explanation, authorizes Nabonidus to rule the empire he created. That's SEVEN years from 555 back to 562, or even 556 back to 563. This could explain why Nabonidus was probably not even related to Nebuchadnezzar and yet is described as if adopted, and called his "grandson." He is called the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Also, the same is implied here:

(Jeremiah 27:4-7) . . .‘“This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says; this is what you should say to your masters, 5 ‘It is I who made the earth, mankind, and the beasts that are on the surface of the earth by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I have given it to whomever I please. 6 And now I have given all these lands into the hand of my servant King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon; even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 All the nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his own land comes, when many nations and great kings will make him their slave.’

Note that Jeremiah actually declares a kind of reversal of the Daniel 4 dream, here. It was a kind of restoration of Nebuchadnezzar through his dynasty, his son and grandson, that was a part of proving that Jehovah made the beasts, but even gave the beasts to Nebuchadnezzar. So Jehovah could also show that he gave power to whomever He pleased, just as Daniel 4 states.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 26.3k
  • Replies 679
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let me try to lay this out for you (although this is more for any interested readers' benefit than for yours). The stars, planets, and Moon are components in a giant sky-clock that keeps perfect time.

Since love doesn't keep account of the injury and covers a multitude of sins, I will not go back and show you what you have actually said. Besides, I've never wanted to make this into a contest of who

Most of what CC says is just bluster he finds randomly, evidently by Googling key words. And if it he doesn't quite understand it, he must think others won't understand it either, and therefore he thi

Posted Images

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

that 7 of those 43 years could have been spent in madness?

This why your arguments are useless. You do not definitely know for sure if the seven years accounts for madness or if it includes the years that nebuchadnezzar did duties for his father as regent. As I said..... he went to war in the name of his father..... 

 

Too many assumptions. Like evolution these scholars are too cocksure......  It is merely a useful tool. 

Astronomical dating can be a powerful tool for establishing absolute chronologies, but...
it can easily produce precise and impressive looking results based on invalid assumptions –
results so precise and impressive they may not be questioned by scholars in other fields.

—John Steele, "The Use and Abuse of Astronomy in Establishing Absolute Chronologies."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, Arauna said:

You do not definitely know for sure if the seven years accounts for madness or if it includes the years that nebuchadnezzar did duties for his father as regent.

Exactly! I don't know. You don't know.

The point was that if we want a scenario that fits a preconceived notion (such as the idea that these seven times represent seven literal years) then we will end up speculating. Just as you apparently speculated that these 7 years (or some of them) could have happened when his father was still alive, pushing Daniel's exile back several more years. And those speculations can get pretty wild. We can even pull in other Bible verses from here and there, and some might even believe that this turns their speculation into the right solution, even if still highly improbable.

But, as fun as it is to speculate, and assume, and interpret, we can't know, and there is probably a reason that the Bible account gives us no hints here beyond the fact the book of Daniel places the dream's fulfillment well after Daniel and his companions were exiled, had finished their three years of training, and then promoted.

Of course, it's great fun to speculate about things as we are learning about (I'm thinking of chemistry, physics, medicine, discovering software bugs, guessing your opponent's next chess move, etc.) because often those speculations turn out to have merit, and we get a sense if our learning is on the right track when speculations prove true. But when our speculations turn out to be impossible based on things we hadn't thought of, then we realize we didn't have the whole picture.

That's the case with secular chronology. We don't have the whole picture, so the best we can do is to keep on looking for whatever evidence is available.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:
Astronomical dating can be a powerful tool for establishing absolute chronologies, but...it can easily produce precise and impressive looking results based on invalid assumptions – results so precise and impressive they may not be questioned by scholars in other fields. —John Steele, "The Use and Abuse of Astronomy in Establishing Absolute Chronologies."

He's right of course, and this can apply to the 539 date the WT uses, as well as the 587 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. John Steele has done some amazing work, and he appears very trustworthy. I wrote up a post a couple nights ago based on his explanations of the LBAT documents. Several of his documents are on academia.edu. His understanding of the mathematics is amazing. But I wanted to share his overall studies that show how the eclipse calculations were made, and how this had already become standardized probably in the 8th century BCE or prior. Well before the 6th century BCE documents from NB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

A day or so ago, I linked to some articles (Steele and Huber) that are useful for understanding the LBAT documents.

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

The more I look at the LBATs, the more I am amazed at what they can tell us. @Arauna has provided a very appropriate quote from Steele who is one of the specialists who appears to know these documents as well as anyone, and who is very careful with the data we can obtain from them.

There is another document from Steele that provides not only the background of the LBATs, but also provides a comprehensive reference to the eclipses known to the Babylonians over several centuries, taking into account several of the LBATs, not just the one I have already begun testing against astronomy programs:

http://www.caeno.org/_Nabonassar/pdf/Steele_Eclipse predictions_Lunar eclipse table_747 to 314.pdf

There are four pages of eclipse references that occurred from 747 BCE to 314 BCE as they would have been known to the astronomer/priests looking out for them from Babylon -- as we can calculate them today. I will reproduce just one of those 4 pages below because it is a comprehensive reference to show which ones of these were actually mentioned in discovered LBAT documents, which ones were predicted as viewable, as unviewable, and which ones were actually reported as viewed. Steele also describes the reason for putting some in bold and some underlined, or both:

In this table, dates of eclipses which were (at least partly) visible in Babylon are indicated in bold.41 There is no distinction between dates of eclipses not visible because they occurred during the daytime, and those dates when there was no umbral eclipse. Dates of eclipse possibilities for which we have a record in an NMAT source are underlined, and those where we have an explicit statement of the five month interval are in italics.

image.png

The idea of being able to calculate back to know when all the Babylonian eclipses occurred, and then know which ones were actually visible or invisible, and then see how many of these were actually mentioned in Babylonian documents is quite interesting. But I was concerned about mistakes, too. What about any predicted visible eclipses that didn't come true? And what about any eclipses predicted to be invisible, but which we might now know were wrong predictions based on current software? If there were a lot of inexplicable mistakes then we would have to reconsider the value of these sightings and predictions.

So were there a lot of mistakes in the Babylonian documents?

About this idea Steele adds the following information, about the mathematical scheme the Babylonians must have settled on to get this kind of accuracy. (Out of HUNDREDS of eclipse possibilities, there were only a couple of eclipses that occurred but would not have been predicted by the math they were using.)  Note the last sentence especially [all emphasis mine, as usual]:

Interestingly, there are no eclipse records between746 and314 that contradict this distribution of eclipse possibilities. Indeed, between 746 and340 the scheme correctly predicts every eclipse that was visible in Babylon. On339 September 29 and again on321 October 20 a lunar eclipse occurred which was not predicted by this scheme. . . . Both eclipses, however, had only very small magnitudes (0.10 and 0.13 respectively), and may not have been noticed by the Babylonian astronomers.43 It would therefore seem that this scheme was used throughout the period from746 to314. Furthermore, extending the scheme for a further three cycles down to at least 278, there is still no disagreement between this scheme and the records of observed and predicted eclipses on the NMAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I've seen people react like this when they realize the evidence is rubbish, and exactly the same way when they realize the evidence is too strong. You've probably experienced the same.

The so-called evidence for NB Chronology is illusory as it is easily falsified by the simple fact that the NB Period of history makes no account of the 70 years of the Jewish Captivity and Servitude to Babylon made worse when in fact that the Babylonian Power had domination over Palestine for such a lengthy period of time within the entire NB period.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Biblical "70 years" period fits perfectly well. I'm willing to stipulate 607 to 537 as one of the four strongest candidates. I believe you still accept those dates, too. Besides, the 70 years is from another relative timeline, not an absolute one. The Bible gives no BCE/CE dates, and doesn't attempt to describe eclipses and astronomical observations so that one may turn the Bible's relative chronology into an absolute chronology. So you have nothing to worry about unless you intend to rely on secular dating to prove a specifically interpreted Biblical timeline.

There is no such thing as a 'Absolute Chronology' only a 'Relative Chronology' is possible based on a few Absolute Dates. This Bible gives no BC/CE dates and neither does any other chronology. The Bible does not provide astronomical data for very good reasons but does provide a detailed history of the OT period- sufficient data in order to provide a simple but accurate Bible Chronology. Thus, simply put, WT Chronology is a Relative Chronology not an Absolute Chronology sufficient for the dutiful but inquiring Bible Student and Christian who seeks to understand the fulfillment of Bible Prophecy.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Are you so reliant on the Babylonian evidence that you can't believe that 7 of those 43 years could have been spent in madness? Did you expect a record of this madness in their Chronicles? Perhaps CC gave you the answer when he noted that Nebuchadnezzar didn't actually have to be at every battle fought in his name. Or perhaps, if you are not willing to propose that it was any of the 43 years credited to his reign, you could propose where the additional 7 years might fit. Or perhaps you could stop insisting that the Aramaic "iddan" refers only to literal "YEARS." Even its usage in the Bible is not always a reference to literal years. For Bible commentators it might be noteworthy that Daniel 4 speaks in terms of literal months from the time of the dream to it's fulfillment, but reverts to this more nebulous word "iddan" which can refer to different time periods for the fulfillment. What if it means "seasons" here? What if it means "weeks"? Besides, the Chronicles do contain long gaps without crediting anything specific to Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps it's mostly allegorical, and therefore about the complete term of his reign from the time of the dream at which time he recognized some of his own madness and beastliness. After all, that's the way the Watchtower mostly treats it anyway, as an allegory of some other time period unrelated to Nebuchadnezzar.

Well for at least 7 years Neb was absent from the throne so the throne was vacant.Such a vacancy is not mentioned in the NB records which in any terms is a significant omission undermining the accuracy of all of the documents and lines of evidence. It is not for me to try to insert where in Neb's reign these years should be inserted but as you are advocating for the pre-eminence of NB Chronology it is your problem. Regarding iddanim this is a subject of lexical and theological comment but is nicely discussed in WT publications.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But here's another possible (but highly improbable) solution. Take it for what it's worth because it's my "personal" solution, purely speculative, and I've never seen it supported anywhere. But at least it gives you a full seven literal years:

Regardless of your interpretive solution the fact is that the secular records have no account of it so into the dustbin it goes and let us to stick to God's Word for our Chronology.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
51 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

These examples are meant to show the inconsistency of secular evidence if they can’t come to a simple solution as to the birthdate of Nebuchadnezzar. Or can they?

We also don't know if Nebuchadnezzar had older or younger sisters, or whether he had any pets. Or even at what age he learned to read (if he ever did) or ride a horse. However, I think the only real concern most of us have really had about Nebuchadnezzar is the BCE year when he was in his 18th and/or 19th year of his reign.

The Biblical genealogies provide an excellent solution for a relative chronology by actually providing a relative birth year and age at the birth of their descendant, and we usually get the age when each person died.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Who used astronomical positions to arrive to an event, past or future, and who used ongoing events to describe those events?

Apparently, the Bible used ongoing events along with a relative chronology. In Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Isaiah, etc., we see that the Bible used a system similar to the Babylonians by telling us which king was reigning and in what year of his reign it was. Ezekiel also used the year of his exile as a point of reference. The Babylonians, too, wrote down the regnal year of the king (plus the month and day) when writing about events, or even when recording astronomical positions.

But we need to go outside the Bible, to rely on secular evidence, in order to pinpoint the "BCE" year get dates for kings  like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus?

Do you know what king list the WTS relies upon to know where Cyrus fits in the timeline? Do we know which royal chronicles the WTS relies upon to identify when Cyrus ruled? Do we know which astronomical positions in ancient diaries that the WTS relies upon to put a BCE date on the accession year of Cyrus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But we need to go outside the Bible, to rely on secular evidence, in order to pinpoint the "BCE" year get dates for kings  like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus?

Yes, that is correct but we need o be judicious and selective when using such data outside the Bible only using that data that has unanimity with scholarship, derived from an Absolute Date and has full historical support within the Biblical record and only ONE date is necessary and the best candidate by far is the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE wisely adopted by WT scholars.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
31 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Isn't he a Finnish elder?

I have the book. His chapter on VAT 4956 is clearly derived from Furuli.

His solution for adding the Watchtower's requirement of 20 years to the NB timeline is to claim that Nabonidus ruled for 37 years instead of 17. This way he can save 607 BCE, and keep 539 BCE.

The argument boils down to the idea that since he can't make recorded solar eclipses from centuries earlier fit the Egyptian dynasties, or Esarhaddon, then we can ignore the lunar eclipse information that the Babylonians observed. The key points in his theories are based on logic like this below, where he ends the section on VAT 4956, treating the interspersed planetary positions as an afterthought:

image.png

Then, completely and dishonestly ignoring the facts, and never admitting that these positions do point to the standard chronology, but not the Watchtower's required chronology (586/5). He immediately starts the next section with:

image.png

At least Furuli admitted that the planetary positions contradicted the Watchtower chronology, and supported the standard NB chronology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
28 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Yes, that is correct but we need o be judicious and selective when using such data outside the Bible only using that data that has unanimity with scholarship

Exactly. This is why, if the date is so important to us, that we should all know the answers to the questions posed earlier:

41 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Do you know what king list the WTS relies upon to know where Cyrus fits in the timeline? Do we know which royal chronicles the WTS relies upon to identify when Cyrus ruled? Do we know which astronomical positions in ancient diaries that the WTS relies upon to put a BCE date on the accession year of Cyrus?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

New chronology using solar eclipses Historian aputieteet

By Pekka Mansikka 2019

I notice that his goal is to add twenty years to the timeline, and he decided it is best to add it to the reign of Nabonidus. This of course, pushes back the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus, (and Nebuchadnezzar, and Naboplassar, etc.) rather than push forward the reign of Cyrus. And this means that eclipses specifically recorded in the last 15 years of Nebuchadnezzar, should have been marked for Nabonidus. And therefore he is also speculating that some eclipses from Nabopolassar should have been marked for Nebuchadnezzar. And he is speculating that VAT 4956 should have been marked for about Nabonidus' 7th year, not what was put on the tablet: Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. In other words, it's no end of speculation. Yet look what he says here about speculation:

image.png

Very sloppily, he also reverts to what is a common belief among Witnesses: that the date "539" is somehow specified in the Bible, saying, "the same person the Bible mentions to have become King of Babylon in 539 BC."

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,695

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Donna Mosteller

      Donna Mosteller 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • K625XM

      K625XM 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BTK59

      BTK59 139

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • 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.