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

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Stupidity falls on you. Don't try to deny your own words you pathetic person. This is more proof that you are clueless on how to interpret astronomical data.

Well, I was willing to make an allowance for your 'disadvantage,' but you deserve all you get! You're an idiot and a liar.

 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

JWinsider along with others are "responsible" for having "Allen Smith" banned and deleted for using words like stupid, moron, idiot, ignorance, apostate, NO  profanity.

That's completely false. You have repeated it so many times it might actually seem true to you now, but it never was. The banning did happen after your words appeared threatening and after a couple of your posts had already turned to profanity. I also received some messages from a moderator here, where I was asked my opinion about whether you should be banned, and I spoke against it (as I always have, so far).

Even though I think banning is only appropriate when threatening and bullying take place, most of your bile and vilification have been directed at me, anyway, and I don't feel the least bit threatened or bullied by you. I'm only embarrassed about the shame you have brought upon those related to me in the faith. But the more you escalate on topics like this one, at least you show others that you can't be taken all that seriously. So it all actually works out better when you remain on the board to expose yourself.

[Arauna]

11 hours ago, César Chávez said:

with this false narrative of 587 BC. 

CC let them stew in their own " self-importance" and self-deceit....... and go and mislead others.   They will not mislead us.  I have looked at this again and again and found their nit-picking to be without substance.  I have actually lost some  respect for them, that which I had when I started on this forum.

The reason, they only debate, but do not fully understand the main theme of the bible and the importance if the chronology time line as the JWs understand it (with the help of Jehovah) right now.  They give credence to secular scholars but reject the bible's own chronology. This is why they come up with ideas which say that 1914 is bogus, the interpretation of nebuchadrezzar dream is bogus, the signs of 'perousia' are bogus etc. Etc. ...... and some dare to think of themselves as "enlightened" or scholarly witnesses.

JW teachings are crucial to understand the thinking of jehovah and how jehovah cares about us. He wants us to understand where we are in the stream of time to keep active and our hope secure.

Our timeline  fits in with the time-line of the 7 heads of the beast - something which they have not looked at or consider important because they do not accept WW1 and league of nations as a "sign"  they do not accept WW2 and creation of UN as part of the "sign"....  .during perousia..

We are already living under the "image if the beast" ...... which soon will receive more power (like an 8th king) and they do not even consider how this fits into what ithey are debating. They are focussing on only one room of an entire ocean liner (Titanic) while the entire boat is sinking. They are so busy debating about one room that they do not notice the final signs, which is part of this time-line of succession of the "beasts" and image of the beast which takes place during the "perousia".  

Then you have " self-heroes like alanf" with his scoffing and name-calling ( like an off-key chorus in the background.)..... quite a crazy way to dominate a conversation...... lol. 

Does this bring them in line for life under Jehovah's government?  Definitely not.  This is a futile exercise ........ being an expert in one part of the boat and not taking note of the ENTIRE boat. 

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Numbered witnesses here. Not all that say they are, aren't. You should know the difference by now.

GB member Anthony Morris and his followers are of those, for sure. His "hatred speech" on JWTV is well known.

Question is: Why haven't you seen the "difference by now"? :))

When people on this Forum go beyond decency and consideration because they are emotional in the passion of arguing, then throwing each other up with “strong” expressions has its fun side that can be tolerated to some degree. However, when a member of the Governing Body of an International Organization makes Public Announcements and Instructions, for JW and non-JW listeners, in which he incites intolerance and hatred towards those who expose the Theological and Business manipulations of WTJWorg, then it can hardly be attributed to a duel between several members of one Forum like this.

[Arauna]

15 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

He must have had workarounds for his problem to be able to successfully submit his doctoral thesis. 

Out of curiosity, what was your thesis on, @César Chávez?

I do not have a doctorate - thanks to Jehovah. I do not tolerate the corrupting influence of self-importance.  I worked with about a hundred PHD persons when I was the PR for 13 museums. ... that was enough to open my eyes.  The same  petty and scholarly egotism was something which I also saw between silly opera singers when I worked in this field.

Yea, humans are the same everywhere...... they lift themselves up and pretend to all they are important because of what their job is.  Having a PHD allows them to understand ALL things in life perfectly -  better than lowly sheeple.  They are their job.  (Just like multi-billionaires think they have the right of their money  to decide the future of the world.) 

I must say I was not impressed with PHDs in Theology, especially those who wrote dissertations about "freedom fighters in the bible" or moses stealing ideas from sumerians.....and there are some other fields of science which I do not believe are scientific at all but closer to a blind religion with peers which act more like high priests of a cult. 

So miss o'Malley....... instead of asking if someone has a PHD, why do you rather not ask if they truly understand the ransom sacrifice of Jesus christ and where jehovah fits into this.  I think this may teuly give them a better chance of receiving everlasting life more than a misleading PHD. 

Jesus came for the lowly - not for those in the higher echelons of society. It was the higher society which rejected jesus and the truth.

Since this is supposed to be a bible forum I think that PHDs are not a criteria here. 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

Does this bring them in line for life under Jehovah's government?  Definitely not.

"Anthony Morris effect" 

Dear Arauna, you are definitely under strong influence of JW Broadcasting (in the harmony with Anthony Morris' "spirit") and that will not bring you nothing positive and good.   

[Srecko Sostar]

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

I do not have a doctorate - thanks to Jehovah. I do not tolerate the corrupting influence of self-importance.  I worked with about a hundred PHD persons when I was the PR for 13 museums. ... that was enough to open my eyes.  The same  petty and scholarly egotism was something which I also saw between silly opera singers when I worked in this field.

Yea, humans are the same everywhere...... they lift themselves up and pretend to all they are important because of what their job is.  Having a PHD allows them to understand ALL things in life perfectly -  better than lowly sheeple.  They are their job.  (Just like multi-billionaires think they have the right of their money  to decide the future of the world.) 

I must say I was not impressed with PHDs in Theology, especially those who wrote dissertations about "freedom fighters in the bible" or moses stealing ideas from sumerians.....and there are some other fields of science which I do not believe are scientific at all but closer to a blind religion with peers which act more like high priests of a cult. 

So miss o'Malley....... instead of asking if someone has a PHD, why do you rather not ask if they truly understand the ransom sacrifice of Jesus christ and where jehovah fits into this.  I think this may teuly give them a better chance of receiving everlasting life more than a misleading PHD. 

Jesus came for the lowly - not for those in the higher echelons of society. It was the higher society which rejected jesus and the truth.

Since this is supposed to be a bible forum I think that PHDs are not a criteria here. 

What JHVH have with your reasoning and decisions about PHD? Bible interpretations made by other humans and by reader himself bring people (believers) to this or that conclusion and decision.... about "higher education". Under influence of WTJWorg, JW members (most of them) making  decision to reject "higher education". That is their choice and their right for decision making. But please, do not put "burden of responsibility" on God, as he have something with WTJWorg interpretations on Bible text. 

WTJWorg has been proving to be an unreliable source for 140 years already. Because of that i completely agree with your statement how: Yea, humans are the same everywhere...... they lift themselves up and pretend to all they are important because of what their job is.

WTJWorg has been pretending that they are God's Sole Chanel aka FDS who spreading "truth". And in same time, after cornered because of so many nonsense in teachings, they came out with "we are imperfect". Everybody knows that they are "imperfect". What is so spectacular with that fact, and to put such "revelation" on JWTV or in own publications??!! 

Such a statement is not an admission of one's own mistake and stupidity. Such a statement is a hoax and distraction from the real situation in the WTJWorg Organization.

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

14 hours ago, Arauna said:

Yea, humans are the same everywhere...... they lift themselves up and pretend to all they are important because of what their job is. 

I agree with @Srecko Sostar exactly on this.

@Arauna you do it every time. You bring out the faults in the people that you serve. 

The Governing Body 'lift themselves up' by saying only THEY are the F&DS.  They 'pretend to all they are important' by pretending that are the spokesperson for God and Christ. 

'because of what their job is.'  but it is a job and title that they have given to themselves. 

Luke 14 v 11  How the 'mighty' will fall. 

Arauna wants to blame everyone else, whilst she blinds herself against the many faults of the GB. 

[Anna]

On 12/23/2020 at 2:46 PM, scholar JW said:

Seeing that you such an expert on all matters pertaining to the astronomical tablets would you or can you assist with the following question:

Regarding the 1st Regnal of full year of Cyrus, How is the beginning and end of that year expressed in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calenders?

I have not seen this question addressed in any standard text on Chronology or in any scholarly Journal to date and have put this question to Alan F and JW Insider without any success.

For anyone following this topic, they can see a question posed, but not answered. I haven't checked further down the thread, I am assuming it hasn't been answered, so if that is the case, I think for the benefit of the readers, it might be time that you answer it if no one else has.

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

This is why I brought up her latest paper where she is trying so hard to “discredit” Gertoux’s PH'd understanding of BM32234 by implying she can’t find any reference on how he came out with an observation of 15 degrees, meaning either he didn’t understand as well as she does, or there is a typographical error, which is convenient when someone with the lack of knowledge is trying to blame others for their own lack of understanding.

He was talking about the Zodiac.

If you were to divide up the constellations of the Zodiac into 12 equal sections, and the circle of the sky is 360 degrees, how many degrees would each Zodiac section be? I'll make it easy for you and give you a multiple choice:

a) 15 degrees

b) I do not know; my Ph.D. studies didn't cover simple math

c) 6.07 x 10⁵⁸⁷ parsecs

d) 30 degrees

e) 180 elephants

If you need help, I can always post another picture for you.

The rest of your reply is the usual gibberish.

[JW Insider]

21 hours ago, Anna said:

For anyone following this topic, they can see a question posed, but not answered.

It was already answered, by AlanF, and I will go ahead and answer it again in my next post. But you need to understand why "scholar JW" will always claim that it wasn't really answered. This type of question is a kind of game with "scholar JW." He has about 4 of these types of questions from what I can see.

If you have looked up his former behavior on all forums where he brings such things up, you'll see that "scholar JW" believes this must be a trick question. It's easy to answer correctly, and it's easy to answer in perfect agreement with the INSIGHT book. But "scholar JW" thinks he can be sneaky (slippery) by taking advantage of the fact that the INSIGHT book "waffles" on this point. The INSIGHT book is not as definitive as it could be, and "scholar JW" will use the indecision in the INSIGHT book against the person who answers.

Of course, if a person tries to answer in the same way the INSIGHT book answers it, "scholar JW" can point out that the person answering is being INDECISIVE, and is therefore weak and wrong. If you answer decisively according to the best choice offered in the INSIGHT book, "scholar JW" will simply point out that you did not take the other possible choice into account.

This game played by "scholar JW" works only because he counts on the idea that he thinks almost all JWs who watch these discussions are stupid. But JWs are not so stupid as "scholar JW" thinks. What really happens is that most JWs just won't look into it themselves out of their "fear for their comfort:" that they will have to deal with something they weren't prepared for. Another reason, seen in some Witnesses, is the preferred haughtiness of "knowing" they are always right and anyone who challenges that haughtiness, even another one of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be considered automatically wrong. But most JWs aren't stupid about these matters, they just have their reasons for not wanting to look into it.

In the congregation the reason not to look into such questions is "fear for their comfort." But discussion forums tend to attract people who want to show off their knowledge or their discoveries, along with a lot more people who think that they can feel superior by dismissing knowledge and discoveries, usually with something as simple as "That doesn't fit my religion or my ideology. Therefore, you are wrong, I am right, and I am therefore smarter and superior -- without even trying!"

This must be a great trick to feed someone's ego. And on a forum like this, "scholar JW" (and CC, too, for that matter) will have discovered a great secret. No matter what they say, no matter how stupid or how wrong, it will always be considered correct (and "smart") in front of several other forum-visiting Witnesses. On this topic, other Witnesses only have to think about whether it supports the 1914 doctrine (e.g. 607 for NEB18). If anyone can point out that what "scholar JW" claims happens to be inconsistent with the evidence or even with the WTS publications, it won't ever matter. Automatically, someone like "scholar JW" can be right, even though "scholar JW" doesn't even have to be familiar with the evidence. What could be simpler? One can "win" all arguments without even knowing anything. They can run away from evidence, simply deny it, create a diversion, make completely false counter-claims, and yet, even when they tell lies, they can still be considered almost like little "gods" at least to themselves.

And this now becomes a vicarious ego boost to all Witnesses who do not want to look up the information for themselves. The "smarter" that the person with evidence appears to a person like "scholar JW," the better the "win" against them by the "scholar JW's" of the world." (To this end "scholar JW" will make sure that the person with the most evidence is not just called "supposedly intelligent" but is also called an actual "expert" or "the one with the most information" or "the one who should be able to answer this question." After all, "they" (Witness discussion observers) have just vicariously "stood up" against people who thought they could explain supposedly "complex" secular evidence. The more familiar one seems with the secular evidence, the more the ego boost to the Witness who thinks they are siding with the Bible chronology versus secular chronology. The more complex and unexplainable the secular evidence seems, the better and smarter and haughtier they feel for being able to "win" over "complex" evidence without even needing to bother to look into it. 

That's because the Witness can now think: "Aha! We who support 1914 in the face of "complex" evidence are supporting the Watchtower Society, and therefore the Bible, and therefore Jehovah. And look how the Bible evidence that we Witnesses support is so much better and stronger than the evidence of so the called worldly intellectual. This makes us smarter than people with PhD's, smarter than all secular experts."

Later, when I come back, I'll go ahead and answer that question from "scholar JW."

[JW Insider]

On 12/23/2020 at 2:46 PM, scholar JW said:

Regarding the 1st Regnal of full year of Cyrus, How is the beginning and end of that year expressed in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calenders?

The INSIGHT book gives two choices:

*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.

So the first choice is that the first year of Cyrus as conqueror of Babylon would be the year when Cyrus made the proclamation decreeing the end of the Jewish exile. But since Daniel 9:1 refers to a first year of DARIUS in this same time period, "the may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and the 'first year of Cyrus' over Babylon." Then the INSIGHT book is even more "iffy" by adding: "If it did, then it would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus' first year from late in 538 BCE.

But then INSIGHT offers a slightly more conclusive solution, which is the one that I accept: "However, if Darius' rule . . . ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E."

There are several ways in which a first year of Darius the Mede could have fit into this timeline between 539 BCE and 538 BCE that would not have interfered with the fact that the Neo-Babylonian calendar places Cyrus accession year over Babylon in 539, and his first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537. Although I could offer the several conjectural reasons why the mention of Darius doesn't need to concern us, I already know that giving these possible reasons will be made to look as if the whole calendar is conjecture, and it isn't.

In addition to the above statement, I also agree with the much more definitive statement about the first year of Cyrus that the INSIGHT book offers:

*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
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, again, we have Cyrus' first year as 538 BCE, which is effectively from Nisan 1, 538 to (technically) the last day of Addaru, which is one day prior to Nisan 1, 537. The expression in the first INSIGHT quote indicates [the start of] Nisan of 538 to [the start of] Nisan of 537. So Nisan 1, 538 to Nisan 1, 537 is just as good for all practical purposes, unless you are doing this to quibble over a single day.

The Jewish calendar will be easy to surmise, because the Jewish calendar would have effectively become the Babylonian calendar at this time. Especially, since we are taught that all Jews to speak of were already exiled/deported into Babylonian dominated lands at this point. Of course, we must acknowledge, just as INSIGHT acknowledges, that we don't know for sure how well the Jewish and Babylonian calendars matched up until nearly 200 years later, when the Jews adopted the same Metonic cycle that the Babylonians had been using for centuries (including the year from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537):

*** it-1 p. 390 Calendar ***
We do not find record of a definitely fixed or standardized form of Jewish calendar until the fourth century of our Common Era (c. 359 C.E.), when Hillel II specified that the leap years of 13 months should be the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th of each 19 years. Such a 19-year cycle is commonly called the Metonic cycle, after the Greek mathematician Meton (of the fifth century B.C.E.), although there is also evidence that such a cycle was perfected before him by the Babylonians. (See Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, pp. 1, 3, 6.) This cycle takes into account that every 19 years the new and the full moons fall again on the same days of the solar year.

But we do have Biblical evidence that the Jews were already adopting the features of the Babylonian calendar, while exiled in Babylon and after coming back to their own cities in Judea. Some of that evidence is in the form of post-exilic contract tablets from Jewish settlements in Babylon. But it's the Biblical evidence that is more important here. Even more evidence of this trend already seen in the Bible, is also found in the Talmud

*** it-1 p. 392 Calendar ***
In postexilic times the names of the months used in Babylon were employed by the Israelites, and seven of these are mentioned: Nisan, the 1st month, replacing Abib (Es 3:7); Sivan, the 3rd month (Es 8:9); Elul, the 6th (Ne 6:15); Chislev, the 9th (Zec 7:1); Tebeth, the 10th (Es 2:16); Shebat, the 11th (Zec 1:7); and Adar, the 12th (Ezr 6:15).
The postexilic names of the remaining five months appear in the Jewish Talmud and other works. They are Iyyar, the 2nd month; Tammuz, the 4th; Ab, the 5th; Tishri, the 7th; and Heshvan, the 8th. The 13th month, which was intercalated periodically, was named Veadar, or the second Adar.

Imagine that! The Jewish calendar went so far as to name one of their months "Tammuz." That's like Christians using names like Thursday for Thor, Wednesday for Woden, Augustus [Ceasar] for August, etc. In fact, when we say that the Memorial of Jesus' Death is Nisan 14, instead of Abib 14, we are using the Babylonian influenced name for the first month, not the original Hebrew name for the same month, Abib.

So we can assume, fairly safely, that Nisanu 1, 538 and Nisanu 1, 537 would coincide with what the Jewish calendar called Nisan 1, 538 and Nisan 1, 537. (and we can subtract a day from Nisan 1, 537 if we think this gives us more "technical" accuracy.

In translating to Julian and Gregorian calendars we would need to have an idea of when any recent intercalary months had been added. If Addaru 29 or 30, 538 was the last day of Cyrus' accession year then we would need to know if it was actually an intercalary or "second" Addaru (Hebrew "second Adar" or "Ve-Adar"). In fact if either 539 or 538 had fallen into the 17th year of the 19 year Metonic cycle, the Babylonian calendar would have added an additional 6th month (Ululu [Elul] 2) instead of an additional 12th month (Addaru 2).

The INSIGHT book references P&D (Parker & Dubberstein) as an authority for the way in which it represents the Babylonian calendar. This is because there are literally hundreds of tablets, astronomical and otherwise, that make a reference to when the intercalary months have been added to which years in the Babylonian calendar. So it is possible to fix every one of these with a high level of certainty. Even though a couple of these had remained "unproven" or "unsure" up until several years ago, the gaps have now been filled in for every single year. (Some people probably don't realize that this alone provides an additional line of evidence that helps us double-check the accuracy of the Babylonian chronology as presented by many other independent witnesses.)

At any rate, the intercalary months that would effect the Julian & Gregorian reading have easily been identified by P&D for 539 through 537. Therefore we can have a very high level of confidence that the answer is:

[next post, for easier reference]