Jump to content
The World News Media

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


JW Insider

Recommended Posts


  • 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

Alan de Fool

57 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Let's try this again. The following dates are taken from Parker and Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology -- 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, Brown University Press, 1956; Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon), along with a Julian date calculator website ( https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1227779487 ). All dates are given by the usual Julian calendar.

The Insight book (Vol. 1, p. 453) clearly admits that Cyrus' official accession year was Nisan 1, 539 BCE through Addaru 30, 538 BCE, and his official FIRST year was Nisan 1, 538 BCE through Addaru 30, 537 BCE. The Persians under Cyrus conquered the city of Sippar, near Babylon, on October 10, 539, conquered Babylon on October 12, 539, and Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29. Tablets dating to Cyrus' accession year, dating to October 10 through January 14, 538, are listed in P&D (p. 14).

Therefore it was evident to all inhabitants of Babylon not later than October 29 that Cyrus was now the king. Since Cyrus was known to release captives when he conquered a city, it was obvious to the Jews that he would almost certainly release them. The question was when? It was the custom of rulers in Persia, and apparently Babylon, to celebrate the Akitu Festival beginning about Nisan 1. Accompanying this celebration, especially one in combination with celebrating the inauguration (on the 1st day of the 1st official year) was the ceremonial release of captives. Thus, it is extremely likely that the Jewish captives were freed on or about Nisan 1, 538 BCE in connection with the Akitu Festival.

Now, from Cyrus' entry into Babylon, October 29, 539 BCE to his inauguration day, Nisan 1, 538 BCE, is 146 days, or nearly five lunar months. This allowed nearly five months for the Jews to prepare for release from captivity, and even more if they were aware that Cyrus' depredations around Babylon before conquering it presaged the fall of Babylon.

Ezra 3:1 clearly states that by the 7th month Tishri (Tishri 1 = September 17), the Jews "were in their cities". From Nisan 1 to Tishri 1 is 6 months; 6 plus 5 equals 11, for the mathematically challenged, so the Jews theoretically had nearly 11 months of time to prepare for their Return to Judah and to execute it. The usual travel time between Babylon and Judah was about 4 months, which easily fits in the time slots between Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 and Tishri 1 (September 17), 538, or October 29, 539 and Tishri 1, 538. Either way leaves plenty of time for a return in 538 BCE.

What a load of bollocks.  The precise dating of the first year of Cyrus cannot be precisely known because of Darius' first year which intervened between the time of Babylon's Fall and the Cyrus' first regnal year.- Da. 9:1,2. Thus WT scholars have give two separate dates expressed in terms of the Babylonian, Julian and Gregorian calendars respectively for the first year of Cyrus however which presents the Return of the Jews in the seventh month only in 537 BCE. This is the only possible calculable date for an earlier date of 538 BCE is clearly impossible for it does not account for the short reign of Darius the Mede not does it allow sufficient time for the Proclamation and the Publishing of the Cyrus' Decree throughout the Empire and the very extensive preparations for the Return of the Exiles . Plain common sense trumps 538 BCE every time for this is simply an apostate date!!!

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 12/18/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

You still don't get the Saros Cycle. You haven't understood when a scribe might have used a Saros Cycle of 18 years and 10 or 11 days, or when a scribe used 19 years. Who used a specific date or when an observation was used.

Actually, you just indicated by what you are saying that you still don't get it. ... He says that a period of 18 years 11 days, will not always reflect 18 years between calendar years, but will sometimes appear to reflect 19 years. If someone uses what this author is saying to try to remove the value of the Nebuchudnezzar eclipses then they making a big deal out of something that should already be obvious. . . .

For example: what is the distance between these three dates that were clear from LBAT 1419?

  • September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise.,
  • September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset.,
  • October 6, 555 BCE, overnight.

The answer is 18 years, and about 10 or 11 days. 591-573=18 and Sept 25-Sept15=10 days. (actually 10.5 because one was sunrise and one was sunset, an extra half day apart).

The next ones are 18 years, 11 days apart, because 573-555=18, and September 25 to October 6 is 11 days. (There are only 30 days in September.)

So let's look at the author's examples. You'll see he is not being misleading but it is easy to be misled if you don't read t carefully:

[Edited: He is not clearly explaining that these so-called 18 year versus 19 year calendar differences are not because of a difference in the saros cycles over time. Because they always remain almost exactly 18 years and 11 days. He is saying that the saros cycle can "apparently" be 19 years when one only pays attention to the regnal year. His goal is to say that any tablets that tried to extend too far with just 18 instead of taking into account that the number of years was actually 18 years+ 11/365ths of a year, might be indicating that they were restarting an "era" of saros cycles rather than continuing to add to old attempts at saros cycle tablets where an apparent 19 year difference would have shown up after about 36 cycles in a row. (corrected: 36 x 18+ years.)

What's the distance between these two:

On 12/18/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

SE 213 (99 bce): the eclipse in this series that year takes place in Month xii2 and the next eclipse would be in month i of SE 232 (80 bce), which is 19 years after SE 213.

So is it really 19 years? No! Month 12 of 99 BCE to Month 1 of 80 BCE is exactly 18 years and 11 days.

That's the eclipse of 3/31/98 BCE. (Month 12, as you know runs into the 98 BCE portion of 99/98 BCE, as explained in the last LBAT 20 post.)

image.png

image.png

and the second part of that was Month 1 of  80 BC:

image.png

image.png

So, what's the difference between March 31 98 BCE and April 11, 80 BCE?

98-80=18 years. And from March 31 to April 11 is 11 days. Total 18 years 11 days.

On 12/18/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

As a consequence, once the month of the eclipse has moved through the whole of the year, after about 36 cycles, there will be a one-off change in the calendar year of the eclipse by 19 rather than 18 years.

Obviously. Just like a person born on December 25, 1999 is 18 years and 11 days old on January 5, 2018. Even though the "calendar" difference appears to be 2018 - 1999 = 19 years. But if that same person was born 6 days later, on January 1, 2000, he would be 18 years and 11 days old on about January 12, 2018. The "calendar" difference appears to be only 18 years this time (2018-2020) even though it's exactly the same amount of time. 

I won't even do the next set of eclipses he mentions because you can just look at them and know he is using the same deceiving language by not making it clear why this happens:

"Month i of year 11 of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (657 bce) and the eclipse possibility in Month xii 2 of year 6 of Esarhaddon (676 bce)"

Again he is comparing late in Month 12 (March) with early in Month 1. (April) (Normally, month 12 is February/March, but the 2 subscript on the twelfth month means there was a second "leap month" for month 12, just as in the first case he showed. This pushes Nisannu out into a start that will always be in April, not just March/April).

[We experience the same issue when calculating the Memorial date each year, deciding whether it will be closest to the full moon in March or a full moon in April.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

So then what is fundamentally wrong with the explanation given in the Insight article seeing that it does account for the brief reign of Darius which you do not and does not also occur in the tables in P&D?

scholar JW

Already explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

What a load of bollocks.  The precise dating of the first year of Cyrus cannot be precisely known because of Darius' first year which intervened between the time of Babylon's Fall and the Cyrus' first regnal year.- Da. 9:1,2. Thus WT scholars have give two separate dates expressed in terms of the Babylonian, Julian and Gregorian calendars respectively for the first year of Cyrus however which presents the Return of the Jews in the seventh month only in 537 BCE. This is the only possible calculable date for an earlier date of 538 BCE is clearly impossible for it does not account for the short reign of Darius the Mede not does it allow sufficient time for the Proclamation and the Publishing of the Cyrus' Decree throughout the Empire and the very extensive preparations for the Return of the Exiles . Plain common sense trumps 538 BCE every time for this is simply an apostate date!!!

Obviously you disagree with the dates given in the Insight book. Your lookout.

You're so incredibly stupid that you can't even manage to explain your claim about Darius the Mede. All you can manage is to throw a piece of disembodied information out there to see if sticks -- much like throwing bits of poopy underwear against a wall to see what sticks. One of your usual techniques of "argument".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Alan de Fool

I fully accept and endorse the Insight commentary. it is your nonsense that I do not accept.

13 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You're so incredibly stupid that you can't even manage to explain your claim about Darius the Mede. All you can manage is to throw a piece of disembodied information out there to see if sticks -- much like throwing bits of poopy underwear against a wall to see what sticks. One of your usual techniques of "argument".

i did not create Darius the Mede, you idiot. He is mentioned in Daniel accompanied with a regnal date that cannot be ignored and WT scholars take that historical mention seriously. Your omission of this obvious fact renders your hypothesis sterile.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
23 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

I fully accept and endorse the Insight commentary. it is your nonsense that I do not accept.

i did not create Darius the Mede, you idiot. He is mentioned in Daniel accompanied with a regnal date that cannot be ignored and WT scholars take that historical mention seriously. Your omission of this obvious fact renders your hypothesis sterile.

scholar JW

Still no evidence presented. You're dismissed.

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

    No members to show

  • 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.