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

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That's the point, you moron!

Exactly, you do not make a point but borrow from others, having nothing original to contribute which proves your ignorance.

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Actually it's a rehash of current scholarship, just as COJ's writings are. Both COJ and I personally are irrelevant to that large body of competent scholarship.

You, like your Mommy, are quite incapable of arguing against some scholarly stance without ridiculous ad hominems. You've learned well.

And we all know how passionately you lie about virtually everything.

You do not read current scholarship for it is a stranger to you  only relying on the breadcrumbs of your  Poppa, COJ.

50 minutes ago, AlanF said:

See above.

No answer. Why not ask COJ or Ann O Maly ?

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Point being: if the uninspired J. A. Brown got it right, then the "providentially" inspired Bowen/Barbour/Russell people ought to have gotten it right.

The fact that they got it wrong proves that "providence" had nothing to do with their mistakes. And Russell, having claimed to speak for God (he was God's mouthpiece, he said), proved himself a false prophet not only by making false predictions in God's name, but by proclaiming false teachings in God's name, including his claim to speak for God.

With Chronology no one gets it right in every detail first off for as with all scholarship it is a work in progress. Providence as history shows plays its part too especially with the fulfillment of prophecy interpreted against the background of Bible Chronology now as a strong cable.

Where is my answer to my question?

scholar JW

[AlanF]

ScholarJW Pretendus Braindeadus Bulshittus Maximus said:

Quote

54 minutes ago, AlanF said:
As for your lie that I cannot give such a "calendation", that's nonsense. I repeat: I'm not playing your games. The date is given in Julian years in almost all sources, of which you're well aware. Conversion from Julian to Gregorian dates is trivially accomplished by various means, the simplest being to find a website that does it. There are dozens. Here: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1227757509

Quote

It is not a lie for I am asking you a simple question,

Which I and others have answered several dozen times now.

You're lying because you know perfectly well that I most certain can answer your questions, but until a few posts ago have refused to play your game. Big difference between "can't" and "won't". Such a complete dipshit!

Quote

a relevant question that you refuse or are unable to answer

Answered yet again in a post above.

Quote

yet you pretend to be an expert on the Chronology of Cyrus' 1st year.

Another lie: all I do is tell what scholars say.

Quote

So give the Julian date if you dare!

Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 BCE through Addaru 29/30 (March 11), 537 BCE, according to Parker & Dubberstein.

Now you look up the Julian to Gregorian converter website I told you about and see if you can plug in the numbers and find your Gregorian date. If you dare. Which you won't.

Quote

 

  54 minutes ago, AlanF said:
Bullshit. See if you can do it in your own words.

Oh yeah. You're too stupid to know how to quote even the Bible, much less summarize this rocket-science material.

Just read the article provided and the explanation is self-evident.

 

As I thought: you can't do it. Any more than you can quote Scripture.

Quote

  54 minutes ago, AlanF said:
And of course, it's immaterial whether works on Chronology available in Russell's day made errors. The most important for our thread, based on quite understandable historical errors, was that most writers dated the fall of Babylon to 538 BCE rather than 539, and certainly not 536. The 538 date seems to have gone back at least as far as Bishop Ussher and Isaac Newton. I don't know where the 536 date came from, although Russell always claimed it was firmly established

Quote

No,

"No" what? you moron.

Quote

for such published works reflect the scholarship of that time.

Again proving that "providence" had nothing to do with the mistakes, and the Revelation Climax book, and other WTS publications, lied about it.

Quote

thus, the date for Babylon's Fall was accepted as 538 BCE again reflecting current scholarship of the day.

Wrong again. Russell used 536.

Quote

  54 minutes ago, AlanF said:
But in no case I'm aware of did any of these, aside from the demonstrably incompetent Nelson Barbour and those from whom he borrowed the 1914 chronology, neglect the "zero year" consideration.

Quote

Many scholars of that time failed to account for the zero year problem so it prevailed in the Chronologies of the period.

Prove it. Cite at least two examples of those "many".

Quote

 

  54 minutes ago, AlanF said:
An examination of scholarly works available in the latter half of the nineteenth century proves Barbour and Russell's claim that their dates were firmly established is not true. Virtually every reference work used a slightly different set of dates for key events in the Neo-Babylonian period, but they generally differed by only one to three years. The following table shows three sets of dates for important events from this period, from reference works available in the period in which Barbour and Russell, and later Russell alone, wrote. These are: McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, 1871; Smith's Bible Dictionary, William Smith, 1864; Encyclopaedia Biblica, Cheyne and Black, 1899. Compare these with the currently accepted dates, which are also listed. See also Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Brown University Press, Providence, 1956.

. . .

 

Quote

Those scholars simply  adopted their schemes of Chronology using different pivotal dates for their respective chronologies so your chart simply reflects the accepted Chronologies of the period accessible by Russell and Barbour.

Exactly what I said, you moron. Again proving that the Revelation Climax book lied.

Quote

Of course, study of Chronology has evolved from Russell's day

Yes, but what is essentially modern chronology was in place not later than about 1910. This is even reflected in Watchtower literature beginning in the 1940s.

Quote

and we have currently many different chronologies available today.

Nope. Standard Neo-Babylonian chronology is accepted by virtually all modern scholars. The crackpots like Watchtower writers don't count.

Quote

  54 minutes ago, AlanF said:
And of course, as usual you miss the most important point of all: far from being "providential" (which means "according to God's will") Russell's errors were purely human errors. So the Revelation Climax book and other lying publications actually blamed the Watchtower's God Jehovah for the Watchtower Society's chronological errors.

Quote

Providence cannot be excluded as a process of revealing things previously hidden now being revealed and taught by God's people today.

By that stupid 'reasoning' you can rationalize anything. So you think that God caused Bowen/Barbour/Russell to come up with wrong dates! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Quote

  54 minutes ago, AlanF said:
There's that gibberish English again. Don't they speak English in Australia?

Quote

You are so stupid you stumble over  a typo 

Your gibberish was not a typo. Too many misplaced words. Perhaps your mushy brain thinks in typos.

Quote

but you have not answered my earlier question.

Done a few hundred times now.

[AlanF]

ScholarJW Pretenshus Assholius Maximus said:

Quote

 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:
Perhaps, but it would be better than being like you -- a pathological liar who falsely claims to stand for God's standards of Truth, Justice and The American Way.

You cannot answer a simple question but hide behind insults. You coward11

 

Already done a few thousand times now.

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
Wrong. One only has to read his works and compare them to real history and events to see this

Read his writings and his chronological expertise is well demonstrated

 

Yet more gibberish English.

Quote

unlike you who cannot answer a simple question on Chronology. LOL!!!!!

Already done a few thousand times now.

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
And every prediction for the events leading up to 1914 was dead wrong. Everything observable failed.

He got the Gentile Times right.

 

Not an observable event.

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
Ah, yes: the fact that current incompetent Watchtower "scholars" continue with Russell's incompetence proves that Russell was a brilliant scholar. LOL!

Scholarship has verified Russell's contribution of this subject.

 

Wrong. Watchtower writings on chronology are in no way "scholarship". Nor is the nonsense you peddle.

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
Wrong. Everything observable that he predicted for that nonsense failed. Everything! A completely invisible "end of Gentile times" is in no way a fulfillment of a prediction. Should I quote Carl Sagan on that again?

He got the Gentile Times right unlike that idiot , your mate Sagan

 

What was OBSERVABLE about "the Gentile Times"? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And again, every other observable thing that Russell predicted did not happen.

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
See above. And of course, your game is simple-mindedly transparent. All you're doing is trying to create irrelevant side issues in your silly attempt to sidetrack the theme of this thread.

Obfuscation at its finest. You cowardly avoid a simple question which your refusal proves your incompetence.

 

Now you've descended to the despicable but standard technique of the charlatan -- accusing your opponents of your own sins.

You fool no one, Neil.

[AlanF]

ScholarJW Pretendus HeadInAssus Maximus said:

Quote

 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:
That's the point, you moron!

Exactly, you do not make a point but borrow from others, having nothing original to contribute which proves your ignorance.

 

LOL! After several hundred years of solid scholarship by professional scholars, you think that telling little old me that I don't make original contributions to such is an argument? You've gone completely off the deep end.

On the other hand, you cannot even manage to quote the Bible, much less tell truthfully what it says. Nor can you truthfully summarize the findings of professional scholars.

All you can do is parrot the squawks of Mommy Watchtower.

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
Actually it's a rehash of current scholarship, just as COJ's writings are. Both COJ and I personally are irrelevant to that large body of competent scholarship.

You, like your Mommy, are quite incapable of arguing against some scholarly stance without ridiculous ad hominems. You've learned well.

And we all know how passionately you lie about virtually everything.

. . .

 

Quote

You do not read current scholarship for it is a stranger to you  only relying on the breadcrumbs of your  Poppa, COJ.

You think that is an argument? LOLOLOL!!!

[AlanF]

ScholarJW Pretendus Braindeadus Maximus said:

Quote

 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:
Point being: if the uninspired J. A. Brown got it right, then the "providentially" inspired Bowen/Barbour/Russell people ought to have gotten it right.

The fact that they got it wrong proves that "providence" had nothing to do with their mistakes. And Russell, having claimed to speak for God (he was God's mouthpiece, he said), proved himself a false prophet not only by making false predictions in God's name, but by proclaiming false teachings in God's name, including his claim to speak for God.

. . .

With Chronology no one gets it right in every detail first off

 

But Providence gets it right!

Quote

for as with all scholarship it is a work in progress. Providence as history shows plays its part too especially with the fulfillment of prophecy interpreted against the background of Bible Chronology now as a strong cable.

The Watchtower has never gotten anything of significance right. And invisible 'events' don't count.

Quote

Where is my answer to my question?

For the millionth time, see above.

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

Why can't you admit that you cannot answer my simple question despite your superior knowledge in every thing. It would appear that the said scholar has you stumped. Your pathetic excuses doesn't cut it with me.

14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Answered yet again in a post above.

You have been outsmarted and struck dumb!!

14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Another lie: all I do is tell what scholars say.

You only follow the delusions of COJ

17 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 BCE through Addaru 29/30 (March 11), 537 BCE, according to Parker & Dubberstein.

Now you look up the Julian to Gregorian converter website I told you about and see if you can plug in the numbers and find your Gregorian date. If you dare. Which you won't.

Finally, At last I get an answer. Why did it take you so long? Now all that remains is that you provide the answer for the Gregorian calender for I am incompetent in this regard so I ask in all humility for your assistance in this matter.Are you sure the above is absolutely correct?

24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

As I thought: you can't do it. Any more than you can quote Scripture.

I can only just quote scripture but am a master of exegesis.

25 minutes ago, AlanF said:

"No" what? you moron.

You are the moron

26 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Again proving that "providence" had nothing to do with the mistakes, and the Revelation Climax book, and other WTS publications, lied about it.

Providence - Jehovah's direction on matters is everything but you are not a spiritual person so you have no understanding of such matters.

28 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong again. Russell used 536.

Yes and this was the pivotal date used at that time for Cyrus' Decree which released the Exiles.

37 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Prove it. Cite at least two examples of those "many".

So are you saying it was not a problem confronted by scholars of that day?

39 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Exactly what I said, you moron. Again proving that the Revelation Climax book lied.

No, the Climax book made a simple and honest statement.

41 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Yes, but what is essentially modern chronology was in place not later than about 1910. This is even reflected in Watchtower literature beginning in the 1940s.

WT Chronology was clearly adjusted  in the mid forties with new research available at that time and became more clearly established in 1963.

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Nope. Standard Neo-Babylonian chronology is accepted by virtually all modern scholars. The crackpots like Watchtower writers don't count.

Nope, NB Chronology has become widely accepted but the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy remains problematic and as a consequence undermines the credibility of NB chronology.

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

By that stupid 'reasoning' you can rationalize anything. So you think that God caused Bowen/Barbour/Russell to come up with wrong dates! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Wrong dates is simply doing Chronology hence one must rely on the superiority of God's Word and Providence.

48 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Your gibberish was not a typo. Too many misplaced words. Perhaps your mushy brain thinks in typos.

I have to use Grammarly which is on my desktop

49 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Done a few hundred times now

You have attempted half the question which is incorrect. So repeat and answer the rest of the question and double check your authorities or advisors

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

lready done a few thousand times now.

Incorrect. Complete the answer to my question.

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Not an observable event.

Great War was an observable sign of the end of the Gentile Times

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. Watchtower writings on chronology are in no way "scholarship". Nor is the nonsense you peddle.

Well it certainly commanded the attention of COJ, the scholarly community and yourself in a lather.

48 minutes ago, AlanF said:

What was OBSERVABLE about "the Gentile Times"? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And again, every other observable thing that Russell predicted did not happen.

The Great War was big enough.

49 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Now you've descended to the despicable but standard technique of the charlatan -- accusing your opponents of your own sins.

You fool no one, Neil.

Well just answer and complete the question

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

LOL! After several hundred years of solid scholarship by professional scholars, you think that telling little old me that I don't make original contributions to such is an argument? You've gone completely off the deep end.

On the other hand, you cannot even manage to quote the Bible, much less tell truthfully what it says. Nor can you truthfully summarize the findings of professional scholars.

All you can do is parrot the squawks of Mommy Watchtower.

No you have not made any original contributions to the study of Chronology only parroting COJ's hypothesis. Scholar should quote the Bible when dealing with you but you are not a believer, Are you?

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You think that is an argument? LOLOLOL!!!

Not meant to be an argument but a statement.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

42 minutes ago, AlanF said:

But Providence gets it right!

Absolutely!!

43 minutes ago, AlanF said:

The Watchtower has never gotten anything of significance right. And invisible 'events' don't count.

Wrong for we have that strong Cable of Bible Chronology and invisible events do matter.

 

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

For the millionth time, see above.

Correct your answer to the first part and attempt the next half of the question if you dare.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

So, where were we? Yes. Back to LBAT readings and Saros cycles.

We found that LBAT 1419 provides positively identifiable eclipses which know occurred on

• September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise.,
• September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset.,
• October 6, 555 BCE, overnight, perfectly viewable for 2 hours, completing more than 3 hours before sunrise.

Anyone who wishes can download free software and easily find that these are the only ones that fit the descriptions. And the LBAT happens to put the king's name and regnal year in front of many of the readings, so that we have evidence tied directly to the relative chronology. This gives us:

• Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise.
• Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset.
• [no king/year] October 6, 555 BCE, overnight.

625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536	535	534	533	532	531	530
N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years)																					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	C Y R U S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	591	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Notice too that if these eclipses are correct, that they would prove that the accession year of Cyrus was in 539 BCE (when he conquered Babylon), and that his first year of reign would be 538 BCE. These LBAT readings confirm the Watchtower's accepted dates for the reign of Cyrus. But that would also make it impossible to accept 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year.

So now we are ready to move on to another piece of archaeological evidence. We are continually checking to see if any of the secular evidence might falsify what has been shown to be consistent so far.

 

[JW Insider]

For the second piece of archaeological astronomical evidence to test the Neo-Babylonian chronology, I'll pick LBAT 1420. (Also known as BM38462.) It doesn't skip every 18 years to record Saros series like LBAT 1419. And it only has records, year by year, for Nebuchadnezzar, no other king.

To make it easier to type out the years, I will abbreviate the first year of Nebuchadnezzar as NEB1, his 11th year as NEB11, his 35th year as NEB35, etc. It makes sense to label his accession year as NEB-A or NEB0.

LBAT 1420 starts out in the first line, letting us know that these are going be the years of Nebuchadnezzar, starting with the first regnal year. Several of the years are damaged, so we will only use the very readable lines, so here's an overview:

• NEB1: The name Nebuchadnezzar and Year 1 are very readable, but not enough of the eclipse info (except the month Simanu).
• NEB2: ... NEB 10 . . . too much damage on these lines.
• NEB11: ECLIPSE(S) defined (will discuss below)
• NEB12: ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB13:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB14: too much damage on this line
• NEB15: too much damage on this line
• NEB16:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB17:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB18: .. NEB23 too much damage on these lines.
• NEB24: TWO ECLIPSES shown but partially damaged.
• NEB25:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB26:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB27:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB28:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB29:ECLIPSE(S) well defined

The work on all of these has already been done for us, but we will double-check that work by randomly picking 3 or 4 of them to do ourselves, and we can check to see if there is any possibility that these same scenarios could fit other years including the Watchtower chronology.

http://www.caeno.org/pdf/Hunger_Lunar texts 6_photo list translation.pdf

It's cheating to look now, but here's what the specialists have made of it, with dates calculated from the eclipse information. For a few of these lines, they have done their best (but also made some assumptions) from partial information. We will only be looking at the fully readable lines.

So, let's pick the ones closest to Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year of reign. In the next post.