Jump to content
The World News Media

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


JW Insider

Recommended Posts


  • Views 26.4k
  • 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:

it would allow the Jews back in their homeland too early.

No it would not!  For reasons I have already explained on this forum many times!  It is like speaking to a rock! 

It seems you would rather listen to the stars and let the stars foretell it for you but not the bible chronology! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 minutes ago, Arauna said:

So you have no clue?

That's not what I said. The Watchtower is very clear about the fact that they choose to rely on the secular dates from 539 forward, and always add 20 years to the secular dates from 539 backward in time.

The only exception is the time of Artaxerxes when the Watchtower also chooses to stop relying on the secular dates, and rejects the Olympiad dates, too, because of a certain theory about how the 490 years should work out..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower is very clear about the fact that they choose to rely on the secular dates from 539 forward,

Well it does work out if one counts in the festival of Akitu and then give a year for them to get back to Jerusalem.. ...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
50 minutes ago, Arauna said:

It seems you would rather listen to the stars and let the stars foretell it for you but not the bible chronology! 

First of all, I only accept the importance of the Bible chronology through this period. I do not think we have any reason to rely on the stars or eclipses or secular chronology or Babylonian evidence of any kind in order to understand the spiritual and Biblical importance of this period. The Bible chronology is a relative chronology, and this is all we need to know and trust.

The Watchtower, on the other hand, relies on this secular, "profane" chronology, provided by evidence from Babylon in order to put BCE/CE dates on this time period. The Watchtower admits that it relies on ancient "king lists," Babylonian Chronicles, and the reported positions of stars and planets in order to tie BCE/CE dates to the timeline.

If you think that's not true, then you haven't read the portion of the Insight book that admits this.

Personally, I think the evidence from Babylon is interesting because it DOES support the Bible. But I don't need this type of evidence for appreciating the spiritual value of the Bible. The reason I have looked into it here and am sharing what I'm learning is because, for me, it shows how easy it for any of us, Watchtower writers included, to become so interested in counting dates that many are probably not aware that they are using the secular evidence either dishonestly, or in a way that brings reproach on Jehovah.

If it's dishonest, and you don't think we should be concerned or that it should be corrected, that's fine. But it's not the same for everyone. All of our consciences work according to the Biblical, spiritual and moral training we have learned to appreciate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Well it does work out if one counts in the festival of Akitu and then give a year for them to get back to Jerusalem..

I've always said this is as good a conjecture as any. I am not terribly concerned about it because it appears to me that the 70 years is up the moment Babylon is no longer dominating them. Even if Persia continued to hold them for a year or two after the 539 conquest, I don't think this has to be included as part of the 70 years of Babylonian domination. But if one wants to argue that Babylon is still dominating them until they finally get back home, I'm OK with it. The WTS only adds a couple of years anyway, from Fall of 539 to the Fall of 537.

I also think, like you, that the most appropriate (and perhaps the most likely) time for Cyrus to make this proclamation would be at the festival of Akitu in the Spring of 538. Of course, this is nearly SIX MONTHS from the time that they were no longer being held BY Babylon, and the Jews could have already been preparing in expectation. But as I say, for me this is not so significant, because I don't worry about the exact BCE/CE dates. If these were really important to Christians, then we should all learn how to read the Babylonian evidence, because that's where we get these BCE/CE dates for the period. I think the Bible evidence is sufficient for what we need to know.

The Babylonian evidence fits the Bible perfectly, which is the best reason to look into how strong that evidence is.

In the next post I'll try to explain why the WTS and the Insight book will always reject any evidence for the festival of Akitu in Nisan 538, no matter how good you and I think the evidence is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I do not think we have any reason to rely on the stars or eclipses or secular chronology

Great ! At least we agree on this!

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower admits that it relies on ancient "king lists," Babylonian Chronicles, and the reported positions o

I last time I  looked in the insight book, I found they do NOT rely on the ancient Babylonian king lists (from my own reading I also found these  unreliable). The date of Cyrus's death is the pivotal date (530 BCE,  which is a proven and reliable secular date. one of the most reliable secular dates. The insight uses this date. The stars are superfluous.

The Babylonian chronicles puts the reign at 9 years (when the satrap was put as king in Babylon - Darius the Mede. Which also fits with bible prophecy about the two horned ram - Medes and Persians - conquering Babylon. (539 BCE)

It is not a complicated method to determine the date of return to Jerusalem......and the most reliable.... That is why I find it  strange that you guys keep running after all these other (not so reliable ) sources.  The date of Cyrus's death is an unquestionable date. .... set in stone in all literature. One does not have to violate your conscience with this evidence.

I clearly read in the insight book that the stars are not reliable.  While the AID book may have relied on other evidence - it is no longer the case...... the evidence is clear as daylight .... and easy to calculate. 

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I am not terribly concerned about it b

Neither am I, but it does give a good explanation on how it took 2 years to get back to Jerusalem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Arauna said:
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

it would allow the Jews back in their homeland too early.

No it would not!  For reasons I have already explained on this forum many times!  It is like speaking to a rock! 

So let's take this step by step. If you disagree with any of the steps, just say so, and I'll show the specific place in the Insight book or in your previous posts.

  • You have said that the proclamation edict from Cyrus must have happened in Nisan (Spring: March/April) of 538. True?
  • The Insight book says that the edict could have happened "later in 538," and never mentions the possibility of Nisan 538. True?
  • The Insight book says that the edict could have happened as late as Nisan 537 (or even a bit later). True?
  • If the edict happened in Nisan 537 the Insight book says that this would be enough time to get back into their homes in the "seventh month" of 537. True?

Can you think of any reason that the Insight book only gives two possibliities here?

It's either:

  1. Late in the year 538. True?
  2. Early in 537. True?

The most obvious reason is that the Insight book indicates that they needed less than 7 months from the edict in order to get back in their homes. True?

If they could get back home and settled in their cities in less than seven months from the edict, and the edict was in 538, then what year would they get back to be settled in their cities? 538. True?

Now, if you think that anything I said, or the Insight book said here wasn't true, please point out the place.

---------------

Now, there is also a contradiction to this choice between "later in 538" and "early in 537." In one place in the Insight book it simply declares that it was "early in 537." This is what I meant when I said that the WTS rejects your idea about Akitu - Nisan 538. Here:

*** it-1 p. 417 Captivity ***
Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.

The more flexible idea offering the choices is here:

*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Arauna said:

Quote

On 12/14/2020 at 8:27 AM, AlanF said:
What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand

Quote

It has a lot to do with the holding of the festival and Cyrus' attendance of it to be crowned "King of the four corners of the earth!"  If you just look up the numbers/dates and do not understand the culture then you are lost!  It is about the Babylonian traditions and its importance in the social life of the nation, its acceptance of the new kings (satrap and emperor) and the most important festival to be attended by Cyrus. To dismiss it is an ERROR!

Still no answer to my question: "What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand?"

Merely saying "it has a lot to do . . ." without specifying what "a lot" means is just stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider

Would you please give the following information for the beginning and end dates for the Cyrus' 1sr full year expressed in the following calenders:

Jewish/Hebrew-

Babylonian

Julian

Gregorian

Alan F is unable or unwilling to assist in this matter so as you have some competence in reading astro programs your input would be greatly appreciated seeing that the discussion has proceeded to the date of 537 or 538 BCE  for the Return.

scholar JW

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

 

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

nd yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E.

So your issues are with the time between 539 and 537.  Well, 2 years ago when this subject came up I was the first to mention Akitu and how important it is.  I had read extensively about Sumeria and the Babylonian empire more than 20 years ago.   Many books wrote about the important festival of putting the king on the throne during a recurring festival of Akitu. He went up into the ziggurat and slept with the priestess. All part of this pagan festival and the large festivities.

I assumed the GB had not seen this in their research.  To me this festival explained it clearly.  So why the BIG palaver about this period when there is evidence of what took place.  Is it not an obsession to prove the GB WRONG?  

To me this festival explains what happened in those two years and gives enough time for the proclamation and to get back to Jerusalem. 

26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.

No - he was crowned King of the four corners of the earth in 538 BCE during the 14 day festival 1-14 Nissan (New Years festival).  This would give until Nissan the following year plus extra months up to Tishri to gather together and get back to Jerusalem. TO SPLIT HAIR ABOUT DAYS OR A MONTH OR TWO IS REALLY (I had a bad word here but removed it)...... THAT IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN DISCRIBE IT.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 12/18/2020 at 12:35 PM, Arauna said:

I last time I  looked in the insight book, I found they do NOT rely on the ancient Babylonian king lists (from my own reading I also found these  unreliable).

You just need to read the entire section carefully under the heading "Chronology."

*** it-1 pp. 452-453 Chronology ***
Babylonian Chronology. Babylon enters the Biblical picture principally from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II onward. The reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar marked the start of what is called the Neo-Babylonian Empire; it ended with the reigns of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar and the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. . . . In harmony with this, a cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2Ki 24:1-17; 2Ch 36:5-10.) (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) For the final 32 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, there are no historical records of the chronicle type except a fragmentary inscription of a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year.
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year.
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.

So, the WTS, according the Insight book, relies on a Babylonian clay tablet to connect Babylonian chronology. This clay tablet concerns eclipses of the moon. This clay tablet does not point to Cyrus. It points to Cambyses II. How do we know in what way it relates to Cyrus? One way is the contract tablets, that cement the entire period from earlier than Nabonidus through a period even later than Cyrus and Camybses. These clay tablets are cemented into a very strong, single chronology/timeline and this is used in the calculation. But the WTS doesn't actually believe in these. There are many for every single year of the NB chronology, yet the WTS has decided that there are 20 years of these completely missing. So they count on king lists to know that those 9 years of Cyrus are complete. This is admitted by adding the reference to Parker & Dubberstein, for example. Since the WTS assumes many years are missing in the contract tablets, then Cyrus may have had years 10 through 30 that we don't know about. Or perhaps another king reigned between Cyrus and Cambyses. How would you know that the rule of Darius I or Bardiya didn't come between Cyrus and Cambyses. For this one relies on Berossus list of kings and their reigns, or "Ptolemy."

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

    • Avrek

      Avrek 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

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

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    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.