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

[Arauna]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is why I'm glad to have  my views corrected -- no matter whether the person correcting me knows the WTS reasoning

Thanks for this..... we all should have this attitude. 

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

Please explain how I trash the methods?  

Aren't you?

When you say ...

... you are being dismissive of the methods used to get to dates like 530 BCE for the year of Cyrus' death and 539 BCE for the year of Babylon's conquest. How do you think one gets to those BCE dates without the ancient sky-clock and calendars? What are your 'easier methods' of getting to the correct dates?

[Ann O'Maly]

25 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

To what extent in secular chronology?

To what extent what in secular chronology? Do your post and included screenshot have a point to make?

[AlanF]

César Chávez posted his usual unformatted gobble-de-goop:

Quote

 

What would be an example between 18.3 and 18.6 in astronomy?

Biblica volume 72 Gershon Galil: Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah

 

Like his bumbling compatriot ScholarJW, Chávez is simply too stupid to give a proper reference, which should be to the article "The Babylonian Calendar and the Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah", in the journal Biblica, Vol. 72, No. 3 (1991), pp. 367-378 (12 pages), Published by Peeters Publishers and now available from JSTOR ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42611193?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A25078c8227a49e6928f67edf364e51ae&seq=7#page_scan_tab_contents ). This is behind a paywall; tough toenails.

Instead of writing some sort of introductory material as a lead-in to a journal quotation, this moron simply posts a chunk of the article, hanging as it were, in the air. So readers haven't a clue about what the purpose of the quotation is. The quotation just sits there, with readers wondering, "What the f***?". Such is the mentality of too many JW apologists.

So here we have Chávez's disembodied quotation:

Quote

 

All the scholars assumed that the Babylonian calendar corresponded to the Judahite, and that 2 Adar in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar — a date undoubtedly given in the Babylonian chronicle according to the Babylonian calendar — fell on 2 Adar according to the calendar of Judah, but it can be positively established that there is no proof for the presumed correspondence between the calendars. To the contrary, since there was no fixed intercalation of years in Babylonia (see below), it is certainly possible

that at times the calendars diverged. We shall attempt to show that in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar the possibility of divergence was more probable than the possibility that the calendars corresponded. This will be followed by discussion of the implications of this conclusion for a reconstruction of the chronological frame of the events in the last years of the kingdom of Judah.

We shall first discuss our knowledge of the calendars in Babylonia and Judah at the time. It is well known that the Babylonian calendar was lunar-solar, and that in the seventh-sixth centuries BC a fixed system for intercalation had not yet been introduced. Only in a later period, apparently in the fourth century BC, was an intercalation cycle of nineteen years introduced in Babylonia, in which seven fixed years (years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19) were intercalated. Parker and Dubberstein’s research revealed that in the seventh-sixth centuries BC a flexible cycle evolved. In the course of this cycle, nineteen years on the average, between six and eight years were intercalated. Now, after the publication of a catalogue of more than 35,000 economic documents from the city of Sippar in the collections of the British Museum. It is clear that most of Parker and Dubberstein’s findings are still valid; two points, however, require emendation: 1) Following Goetze, Parker and Dubberstein supposed that the nineteenth year of Nabopolassar was intercalated. However, in the sole document on which their supposition is based (NCBT 1156), the king's name is not specified. It is more likely that this document is from the time of Kandalanu, the nineteenth year of whose reign was definitely intercalated. 2) It can be established that the first year of Nabopolassar was intercalated (BM 54209). Consequently, the number of intercalated years in the cycle beginning in 633 was at least six. Therefore, we can establish with a great deal of certainty the years intercalated in Babylonia during that period, as well as the Julian dates of the years in Babylonia from the last third of the seventh century 8c on (see the complete listing in the Table). Page 372-373

 

Then Chávez makes his typical gobble-de-goop comment:  

Quote

Therefore, let’s not make a big deal of the lunar calendar when Lunar/Solar Calendar played a role.

But the scholar Gershon Galil that Chávez quoted has much more significant things to say -- things that completely contradict Watchtower chronology. According to that Watchtower nonsense, Jerusalem was captured and king Jehoiachin taken captive to Babylon in 617 BCE. But here is what Galil had to say on page 373 of his article:

<< We will now turn our attention to the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar. It can be definitely established that this year was intercalated and that the intercalated month was Ululu. Similarly, 2 Adar (in the Babylonian calendar) fell in this year on March 16, 597, and 1 Nisan (in the Babylonian calendar) in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar fell on April 13, 597 [Gershon here references Parker and Dubberstein p. 27]. >>

Of course, this is exactly according to modern standard Neo-Babylonian chronology. As I and others showed above, this date is determined by several historical records, including two lunar eclipses occurring in 621 and 568 BCE, plus Babylonian cuneiform tablets.

So once again we see a JW apologist, César Chávez, vaguely referring to a scholarly article that he does not understand, and missing the most important point: the article clobbers Watchtower chronology.

After this nonsensical post, we have the perennially clueless Arauna high-fiving this moron:

Arauna: Well said. This is what I was saying above. That is why I stick to a date which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt:  530 BCE. Death of Cyrus.

[AlanF]

Arauna said:

Quote

6 hours ago, AlanF said:
Cyrus was viewed as having acceded the throne as early

Quote

This had nothing to do with business but with a powerful and superstitious religious system which always trumped business.

What the f***? The point is that a number of tablets -- business or otherwise -- were CLEARLY dated to Cyrus' ACCESSION year. And your precious Watchtower Mommy even admits to all of this. Why do you keep kicking against the goads?

Quote

 

  6 hours ago, AlanF said:
this was almost certainly done on or about Nisan 1, 538 BCE in connection with the Akitu Festival and Cyrus' inauguration.

I have said the same (and was the first to say so).

 

You were NOT the first to say this. This has been known and discussed for hundreds of years.

Quote

 

  6 hours ago, AlanF said:
  Quote
Time will tell.

Where have I heard that before?

. . .

 

Quote

I remember the "group-think " of nazi Germany. Like a herd of sheep they went along with the current ideology. Too afraid to be different. You remind me of that ..... you have the groupthink found at universities

This is a prime example of how morons so often turn their own sins back on their critics.

Quote

 

  6 hours ago, AlanF said:
guess the entire world of solid science has also fallen

Yes- if DNA no longer determines gender.....

 

Totally clueless yet again. Only a small fraction of people -- and rarely qualified scientists -- have this idiotic view. Most of the nutjobs who promote it do so on the basis of their narrow political agendas -- NOT SCIENCE. Again this is a product of your conspiracy theory mentality.

Quote

but how you are indoctrinated.....

LOL! Clueless.

Quote

then science is no longer sound. When doctors perform tons of gender transitions without giving the "young children"  a chance to make sure and take them away from their parents - then it is 'warped ' science and merely a desire for power.  It is science without a conscience.

NO children are being "doctored" in this way. Only consenting adults or near-adults are. From what planet do you get your news? Oh yeah: Fox "News" or its European equivalent.

Quote

When science is used to control people's minds and hook them up to computers for control .....

Not happening.

But what do you think religious cults like the JWs do?

Quote

then it is no longer about pure science or truth but about CONTROL.

Most people who look carefully at the JW organization quickly realize that it's pretty much like the Ingsoc society described in George Orwell's 1948 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. And more contemporarily, North Korea.

Quote

I can go on.  When information is weaponized,  then it is no longer a noble search for knowledge but an evil desire for power. 

Precisely describing JW/Watchtower leaders pretty much for 140 years.

Quote

I gave examples of other things I have researched such as Islam. When university studies blatantly lie or leave out information which can change the picture - there is no longer a search for truth or a scientific method.

True, but you keep forgetting: this is due to POLITICS, not science. Science can, and has been, horribly subverted by politicians, but that does not mean that science is always the handmaiden of corrupt politicians.

Quote

I can go on and on.... but you think like the  group - not about right or wrong and do not care about justice...... otherwise you would have noticed what is going on under your nose.

Ah. In other words, the fact that I have not bought into your whack-a-doodle conspiracy theories means that I'm clueless about what's really going on.

Quote

  6 hours ago, AlanF said:
How did 3 million Israelites wander the Sinai wilderness for 40 years without leaving even bits of poop as evidence?

Quote

Are you looking for fossilized poop?

No, you moron. Note that I said "EVEN bits of poop". That means the Israelites left NO evidence whatsoever -- NOT EVEN little bits of poop.

Naturally you fail to think clearly about this. The Sinai region is extremely dry, as is the rest of Egypt. Human bodies buried in the sand sometimes turn into natural mummies. Poop from various animals sometimes turns into what is called "coprolites" -- fossilized poop. This happens in all dry places. See https://www.nps.gov/articles/chcupackrat.htm for just one example.

So in 40 years of pooping by 3 million people, a few poop holes would surely be preserved.

But 3 million people would necessarily leave far more traces than just poop. Are you really so deliberately unimaginative that this needs to be explained to you?

Quote

I come from Africa and I have seen how quickly poop can dissipate. It is an organic material - not metal or plastic.

Africa has far more varied environments than just the humid Congo. Egypt is among the driest places on earth. If rat middens containing rat poop can last 10,000 years, then human burial pits containing human poop can last 3,000 years.

Quote

In archeology one is very lucky if one finds a poop which is still intact.

Sure. But preservation demonstrably happens in extremely dry regions.

And again, we're not just talking about traces of poop, but traces of everything that humans would leave in 40 years of wandering in a dry wilderness.

Quote

The bible says that the entire creation is suffering due to the choices that the first man Adam made - independence from God.

I suppose this is supposed to some sort of answer to my challenge about the God of love creating massive suffering in the animal kingdom lasting more than half a billion years.

Are you really so dense as to not understand that, if Adam and Eve did their thing some 6,000 years ago, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the half-billion years of life that went before them?

Quote

 

Roman's 8:" that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.  22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now." 

God created everything to work perfectly together but it has been corrupted.

 

Then by all means, explain the half-billion years of suffering before "sin entered into the world".

Are you afraid of "giving a witness for the faith within you"? Or just confident that you haven't a clue?

[AlanF]

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Aren't you?

When you say ...

... you are being dismissive of the methods used to get to dates like 530 BCE for the year of Cyrus' death and 539 BCE for the year of Babylon's conquest. How do you think one gets to those BCE dates without the ancient sky-clock and calendars? What are your 'easier methods' of getting to the correct dates?

It's painfully obvious that Arauna, and most JW apologists, are entirely clueless about such things. All they know is that some words are written in some Watchtower publication and that they're supposed to believe and defend those words. They'd do the same if the words were "the moon is made of Stilton cheese".

Arauna will NOT answer you in any coherent way.

[AlanF]

36 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Can't give a coherent answer, well at least you have jumped a spot to idiot! 

Has your stupidity just grown, or was the reference to 605 BC that the ignorance of JWisider decided to use by somehow trying to make a point about the secular evidence of the 605 BC deportation.

Only people like you O'Maly and JWinsider don't understand, and are seriously making yourselves look like fools. I suggest you take your blue pill, as if I don't know who you are. Chill, and pass out, lol!

I see the Watchtower chronology as intended. You can't challenge your ignorant position of King Jehoiakim with secular evidence, you resort to rants, and a filthy mental state. Get some help. You have too much of the Watchtower living in your pathetic brain.

Total incoherence, as usual.

[Arauna]

4 hours ago, AlanF said:

Arauna: Well said. This

I do not want your approval - even in sarcasm.  Your words are too obnoxious and abhorent. 

Your science is based on peer consensus( like much of the science these days) which is not science but a buddy-buddy system so you can be part of the group-think. .......With no-one prepared to say: the emperor has no clothes on! 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What does this chart suggest? Can you find the commonality between them?

To me, they suggest that you looked up "607" and "saros," so that you could make a point that you made earlier, that eclipses in 625 BCE and 607 BCE were on the same saros cycle.

http://www.libroesoterico.com/biblioteca/Astrologia/Articulos/Anon - Lista De Eclipses Lunares.TXT

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

-643 8 2 1486415.91 20031 -31446   7.14   0   8.32   0---9.45   0---10.58   0 12.16   0 u 1.5 0.4       57    9 tu

-625 8 13 1493001.22 19693 -31223 14.38   0 15.52   0---17.12   0---18.31   0 19.46   0 u 1.6 0.5    57  10 su

-607 8 24 1499586.53 19359 -31000 22.12   0 23.24   0---0.48   0---2.13   0   3.25   0 u 1.7 0.6     57   11 sa

The first one was on   invisible in Babylon.

The second one was on visible in Babylon.

The third was on visible in Babylon.

These were part of the saros that has been numbered #57. None of these three above were in 607 BCE or 625 BCE.

And none of them indicate what you said here:

On 12/19/2020 at 4:01 PM, César Chávez said:

Then you should be will aware the Saros Cycle fits 607 BC with a specific Bible account, that can be incorporated by ongoing secular evidence.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

11 hours ago, César Chávez said:

No...

I thought so. A scatter-gun approach to pasting or screenshotting quotes from random works, which barely have even a marginal relevance to the subjects under discussion, doesn't make you appear as informed or as half-intelligent as you imagine, sadly. Try forming a meaningful argument in your own words instead?

10 hours ago, AlanF said:

Arauna will NOT answer you in any coherent way.

It's OK. I'm not expecting her to. 

[Arauna]

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

It's OK. I'm not expecting her to. 

I only peek in now and then. I really do not have the time or the will to read through all of the half-baked information presented here. I have a life!  

I give a comment now and then but frankly, I do not have the ego or the wish to stay in here  to present a "winning" argument. I know what I know and I am content. Some here view the subject as a contest which they have to win at all cost. 

Some obviously are lost souls and it is sad - because they are so mistakenly cocksure. Trinitarians, evolutionists, and others...... but they have a right to their opinions.....

[Ann O'Maly]

29 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I only peek in now and then. I really do not have the time or the will to read through all of the half-baked information presented here. I have a life!  

Same here. But I was interested in your 'much easier method' for obtaining the year of Cyrus' death without stars and calendars. Maybe your method was restricted to flipping open the Insight book and it telling you?