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

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

It's pretty sloppy, actually. Some of it is sound, and some is confusing, misleading, or made up. 

@Ann O'Maly Thanks for joining and thanks for the correction.

I should not have said: "The site that Ann O'maly refers to is vat4956.com, and the translation information is excellent there, too."

The specific lines I checked out appeared to be exactly as I recalled them from other sources. But I just started looking at that site yesterday for the first time, and although I had not read any of their translations carefully yet,  I love that they break down each and every line the way they do. They put a picture of the line, a transliteration, and the official Neugebauer-Weidner/Hunger translation.

After just now reading your statement, I picked another line at random. Front - Line 17. I agree it looks unfinished and rushed, but I still love the method of showing information for each line one at a time and displaying literal meanings.

www.vat4956.com/thetablet.php?frontline17

 

Transliteration for 588 & 568 BC:

[xxx]

x

15

DINGIR

KI

DINGIR

IGI

7.

30

┌NA

AN.

MI

sin

ša2

DIB┐

[...]

 

Translation for 568 BC that also fits the year 588 BC- by P.V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner (1915) edited by Hermann Hunger (1988)

The 15^th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7°30'. A lunar eclipse which passed by [...]

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

Looking further down the page, I liked these charted out lines, and I assumed there would be more clarity here. I see that some symbols were given no translation, and some were given the possible meanings that would only work in other contexts.

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I love that they break down each and every line the way they do. They put a picture of the line, a transliteration, and the official Neugebauer-Weidner/Hunger translation.

When he sticks to that, yes, it's a great idea and works well. Unfortunately, he doesn't stick to that.

 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I assumed there would be more clarity here

His idea is to make the reader believe that cuneiform writing is open to interpretation - except when it conforms to his conclusions. If it doesn't conform to his conclusions, he changes the reading/meaning of the logograms. 

[scholar JW]

Alan F

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not at all. Furuli claimed that certain astronomical events recorded in various cuneiform tablets correspond best to certain configurations of planets, the moon, etc. as displayed in several computer programs that display such astronomical configurations. The data from the tablets is along the lines of "planet X was two cubits in front of the moon at time TTT on date DDD". It certainly takes a bit of interpretation of those ancient texts, and of the display from astro programs, to decide among several possibilities for matching textual events with displayed events for certain dates. But it's not rocket science. All it takes is a careful eye and intellectual honesty. Furuli's claims about some configurations matching certain texts displays a clear bias in favor of his preferred Watchtower dates. All other researchers disagree. Furuli was not simply wrong, but demonstrably biased. I know exactly how this works, since I've compared several such texts with the displays from several astro programs. It's quite interesting to do this.

That is the problem how does a person unfamiliar with astro programs or with ancient astronomy able to make sense of it all for this really is the terrain of experts and certainly Furuli because of his expertise in the language of these clay tablets must surely be allowed to have an opinion. Further, because you say he is wrong does not make it so for that is your opinion. In fact this is rocket science.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

In principle, that's right. But Furuli has demonstrably been biased, in the same manner that Raymond Franz explained how he was biased when he wrote material on "chronology" that appeared in the old Aid book. 

So what, Bias is part of scholarship so caution must be exercised.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Hardly. But just as the earth has been solidly shown to orbit the sun, standard Neo-Babylonian chronology has been firmly established. It would take a ridiculously unusual set of new and contradictory data to overturn what has been established these last few hundred years, on the order of showing that the earth does not orbit the sun.

Neo-Babylonian Chronology is hardly science so your parallel does not work. Chronology is about methodology and interpretation based on sound history.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not hardly. I've looked at several astro programs in the past two decades. It certainly takes a bit of learning to understand how to compare texts with astro displays, but if you're not mentally incompetent it's really not that hard.

Without an interactive display visible to two people, describing such displays is not so easy, but I'll try. An astro display might show some planet as being a little to the left of some star that serves as a constant marker. The program can display how much farther to the left the planet is from the star, in degrees, say XXX degrees, on some specified date. A dated ancient text might say something like "planet X was two cubits in front of the moon at time TTT on date DDD". Your problem is to decide whether "two cubits in front of" corresponds to the XXX degrees displayed by the astro program. In many cases it's not easy to decide, for any number of reasons.

So now you the expert! LOL. The very fact that there are several astro programs tells me that something is not quite right. It is similar to the number of different king lists for the Divided Monarchy in the OT, so where there is a lack of consensus then one knows something is wrong .

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

When one compares the data from some text with what the astro program displays for two different dates, one has to decide which astro date display best corresponds with the textual data. Most of the time it's not difficult to decide which astro display best corresponds with the text. But in some cases the data is somewhat buggered, and the astro program might have some errors (this is a serious problem in general, but not so much for our purposes here), so it might take some finesse of interpretation to decide on the astro date that best fits the textual data.

Given all that, Furuli's decisions about which astro event best fits some textual event demonstrably show bias toward Watchtower doctrine, since several independent investigators have concluded that the astro event in question best fits the textual event in terms of standard Neo-Babylonian dating. Any fair and competent person who looks at such data quickly sees how biased Furuli has been.

That is the problem one has to compare the data based on the programs and then interpret that data with the interpretation of the document. Is it not strange that because Furuli finds something different that happens to fit our Chronology then he is accused of bias to WT chronology but i could say exactly the same thing about the other side fo how do I know that the current interpretation is also not biased towards current NB Chronology?

scholar JW

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not at all! He has used the terms correctly. It is supported by the title of that chapter. COJ not only used the terms correctly, he also explained them correctly as I quoted above. He explained them in the same way a paper you once linked to on this forum explained it, as I recall. It is also the same way that Furuli explains it. And, in fact, our Insight book quotes a resource that indicates that this is exactly the way it is used by historians/archaeologists, too.

*** it-1 p. 454 Chronology ***
The claim is made that “astronomical confirmations can convert a relative chronology [one that merely establishes the sequence of events] into an absolute chronology, specifically, a system of dates related to our calendar.” (The Old Testament World, by Martin Noth, 1966, p. 272)

OK. Then on that basis and the definition then WT Chronology can also be properly termed an 'Absolute Chronology' Would you not agree? However, the Insight quote begins with "The claim is made" thus this is not a statement of fact but something that is claimed only.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

True but he makes no valid points against the others, and he completely leaves out various astronomical records that help to create an absolute chronology out of this whole period. You will see this clearly when we discuss just a few of those records.

It is impossible to create any Absolute Chronology for any period of history , this is simply creating myth and pretentiousness. Furuli's research is not fully complete as many thousands of tablets are yet to be deciphered so scholarship is in a early phase of research.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Fortunately, you will see the evidence that each of them not only stands alone in support of the timeline given above, they also give the same results holistically, taken all together. You can use the exact same methodology for all of them.

I disagree, very few if any stand alone so circular reasoning alone has all of the pieces fitting together. provide one example where on piece of evidence truly stands alone.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. Furuli certainly demonstrated the need for caution. Also, you can probably dismiss as many of them as you don't like, and you will still have many more all the way up into the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods. Even if you decided to get rid of all but one or two, you'd still get the same "absolute" result from them, but you'd have to complete a solid relative chronology to that point first. I stopped at Cyrus to save time.

Perhaps that is why WT scholars decide on simply one established Absolute Date or pivotal Date for its Chronology and now we a simple Relative Chronology.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We shouldn't be worried about the purpose or relative importance, only whether the evidence they provide corroborates or forces us to question the solid basis of the relative timeline. The purpose could have been to praise false gods, discover omens, or play a game to see who had the best eyesight. At this point wer're probably ready to just look for any differences that can't be easily explained. To see if that timeline is really solid, we should really be trying to "falsify" the above timeline if we can, with any evidence we can find.

I agree. Falsification is what true science is about so how then does none falsify NB Chronology?

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Exactly. That's why we should look at the evidence, test it, and see how it stacks up. If you find out all her evidence is reported correctly, then it doesn't really matter as much what her agenda was. Same with you or me.

Well said

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think you'll find them to be pretty easy once you get started. And there are excellent explanations and tutorials all around. Also, a lot of this software is only intimidating at first because it has so many features you won't use. (telescope adjustments, etc.) Once you find the single function you will use, and way to set it to a location and start scrolling back in time in fast motion, you end up catching on to new things you might not have thought of. I like setting to a specific day and scrolling back one year at a time from that date. Every "night" you see the movements of the planets, and you see what looks like some planets take a tiny extra jump forward every four years, but not when divisible by 100, except when divisible by 400, and you realize what just happened for every leap year.

Then you might set it to scroll by new moons, or full moons, or eclipses, and in a few minutes you will start to catch on to the basic lunar cycles that would have taken ancient astronomers hundreds of years to put together.

Easier said then done. i still have to understand what I am seeing and try to understand the subject. i am not as smart as you or others so i need something for Dummies or some online tutorial. Or i will just stick to the Bible.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's why you should check it out for yourself. It sounds like you will be surprised at what you learn about biases. Also, there might be someone in your congregation who already knows how to use this software. If you know any nearby, trusted Witnesses who already know how to use the software, they are probably already aware of the issues surrounding Furuli's scholarship anyway, but you should pick someone who won't be stumbled over any surprises.

Absolutely, and that is what I have been doing my entire life. I could join a local astronomy club or contact the Observatory at Brisbane or university if the facilities for ancient astronomy are available as there are no Witnesses to my knowledge who have such expertise. Ann O Maly could fly over and teach me or Alan F or your good self

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I would certainly hope that it would be independent lines of in-house NB evidence that could solidly establish the relative NB chronology. As it turns out there will also be a lot of help in the in-house astronomical records to help establish an absolute chronology.

So far, I have only really discussed independent witnesses to the relative chronology. Astronomical observations will be able to provide additional independent witnesses to several points for which one could claim an absolute chronology. I'm sure you are aware that this is exactly how BM 33066 aka LBAT 1477 aka Strm Kambys 400 had been explained in past WTS publications for "establishing" an absolute date based on the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses.

Are these lines of evidence truly independent?. So we have an established date so why not stick to that as presented in WT publications? Is it not ABSOLUTE enough?

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan F

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Your posts show clearly the difference between competence and incompetence in these matters.

It is a fine thing that now we have a team of experts who will enlighten us all, fully competent for every good work!

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan F

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not me: ALL proper scholars. I've merely parroted what these scholars have said. Right in line with JW Insider's purpose for this thread

So 605 BCE is now fully established so what about the status of 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon for Neb's accession year is a little fuzzy, biblically speaking.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

I don't need to for anyone competent to participate in this thread. Either they own Thiele's books, or they have easy access to them.

Just give the cataloque numbers

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Well if it is good enough to bring COJ into the discussion

It would appear that 597 is a better candidate then 605. How is that?

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

You need to stop making ad hominem comments. They're inappropriate for a scholar of your rank.

So how does one rank COJ compared to others scholars?

 

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Cite them all you want. But you're missing the point: the scholars I've cited do not merely state opinions, but clearly and vigorously lay out the basis for those opinions.

As for Furuli, his claims have already been thoroughly debunked by Carl Jonsson and various other scholars. Such scholars have not merely given opinions, but given very good reasons for their debunkings.

So does WtT scholars and Furuli. COJ has not debunked Furuli at all simply responded to Furuli's research and neither have others

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Of course. But as I have repeatedly emphasized, data such as from the Bible must be clearly laid out -- i.e., the Bible must be quoted and the passages clearly analyzed, not merely paraphrased or summarized.

Indeed. But you forgot the most important word-interpreted

scholar JW

[Ann O'Maly]

35 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

That is the problem how does a person unfamiliar with astro programs or with ancient astronomy able to make sense of it all ...

Learn how to - like everyone else. 🙄

37 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

...for this really is the terrain of experts and certainly Furuli because of his expertise in the language of these clay tablets must surely be allowed to have an opinion.

"My disadvantage is that I am neither a professional archaeoastronomer nor a historian. ... With the help of modern astro-programs, a person who is not an astronomer can find the positions of the heavenly bodies in the past and, on this basis, test the correctness of the observations found in cuneiform tablets." - Furuli, Persian Chronology (2012 ed.), p.11.

So, what's stopping you, Neil? 

[scholar JW]

Ann O'Maly

10 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

You test it then, Neil. Ever since Furuli's books came out 13 years or so ago, I've wanted you to compare the astronomical data for yourself. You have always refused or made silly excuses so you stay on the same loop-de-loop of non-arguments.

I would test if I was competent so until i become competent i must rely on those who are competent such as yourself, Alan F, JW Insider, COJ and of course Rolf Furuli and his colleagues.

10 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

It's pretty sloppy, actually. Some of it is sound, and some is confusing, misleading, or made up. 

There goes down the credibility and you want me to make sense of it all

scholar JW

[Ann O'Maly]

2 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

I would test if I was competent so until i become competent i must rely on those who are competent such as yourself, Alan F, JW Insider, COJ and of course Rolf Furuli and his colleagues.

I, AlanF, JW Insider and COJ are competent after all, are we? Then what are you objecting to? We keep telling you, showing you, that Ex-Celebrated WT scholar Furuli, and followers of his work, are mistaken in their conclusions about VAT 4956 and other astronomical tablets, but you keep kicking against the evidence and you are still too scared (or lazy) to verify it for yourself. Come on, Neil. Less blah-blah and more action. 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

All the Babylonian Chronicle by Wiseman are of military campaigns.

That's fine with me, so I will include them. I won't use their military nature as an excuse to ignore them. I just hadn't made use of them yet, because it should be pretty obvious that the timeline is already pretty solid without them. But from what I understand they also help to solidify the timeline even further. It sounds like you were not able to find any good reason to dismiss the Chronicles yourself, so I'll look at them more closely to see what they can tell us about the solidity or weakness of the timeline.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Yet, with scholars, it becomes a point of interest to figure out who was where when the Kings list were written. Therefore, relevant.

As I said, I'm glad to hear your conclusions about where the data and evidence is relevant to the timeline. If you have no evidence to share in this regard, I'll accept that fact, too.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, every thing from past records are relevant regardless if people pose different ideologies.

Everything is potentially relevant to this matter if it is evidence that can affect the timeline. I don't think anyone really believes that every bit of information from past records is always relevant. For some days in a Babylonian diary, the tablets might only say that a wolf came into the city and killed a couple of dogs, or perhaps a diseased fox got in. Furuli, COJ, WTS, myself and others would admit that this is not relevant to pinpointing either a relative or an absolute chronology.

On the issue of two supposedly different kings who are really the same king going by two different names, that's a different matter. It could affect a part of the evidence that was used in support of the relative chronology. For example, what if one was able to show that every tablet made out for the "first year of Nabopolassar" is really just another version of saying the "first year of Nebuchadnezzar," and that this held all the way up to year 21, when suddenly Nebuchadnezzar tablets continue to appear in about the same quantities beginning in year 22, and Nabopolassar tablets for year 22 suddenly drop to zero. Fortunately there is plenty of direct evidence that this was not the case, and that Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were distinct kings with distinct records. And although we have to Babylonian Chronicles to help verify this, we also have enough additional evidence.

So if you had a specific pair of king's names in mind, I've already see enough evidence to show how easy it would be to refute the idea that these were the same king. And that goes for anywhere in the timeline given above. So if you have something in this regard to share, I'd love to hear it. Else I will assume there was nothing with any evidence behind it

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You contradict yourself here. How can you have one without the other. The commentary shows ongoing events just like the Babylonian Chronicles.

You offered a bit of commentary that indicates that the timeline I provided earlier is correct. Thanks for the support, but this is merely from a modern commentary. I can't just accept a modern commentary as if it were a piece of independent secular evidence. Just because someone accepts the timeline I gave is not evidence that it is true. So there is no contradiction. In fact, it's one of the reasons I spent so little time, so far, making use of records of military campaigns commented upon in the Babylonian Chronicles. Most of that is just commentary about one event after another. It happens to provide support for the timeline, but it is mostly about events that occurred along the timeline.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Now, when I refer to Ann O'Maly's paper, it's her latest attempt to figure out a 10-year difference between two specific dates she posted in academia recently, not the VAT attempt.

OK. When you said it was her latest paper, I assumed you meant October 2020. It's the latest one I found there. (And from that VAT paper, it certainly seems like she knows the Saros and Metonic cycles way better than I do.)

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The VAT was just a translation to English.

Aren't you confusing her VAT paper: https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com

 ...with her translation paper? https://www.academia.edu/1649244/English_translation_of_Ein_astronomischer_Beobachtungstext_aus_dem_37_Jahre_Nebukadnezars_II_567_66_by_Paul_V_Neugebauer_and_Ernst_F_Weidner_1915_

So, this is the paper, from June 2016: https://www.academia.edu/26085025/Can_two_eclipses_on_BM_32234_be_dated_to_475_BCE_instead_of_the_conventional_year_465_BCE

 

[scholar JW]

Ann O'Maly

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I, AlanF, JW Insider and COJ are competent after all, are we? Then what are you objecting to? We keep telling you, showing you, that Ex-Celebrated WT scholar Furuli, and followers of his work, are mistaken in their conclusions about VAT 4956 and other astronomical tablets, but you keep kicking against the evidence and you are still too scared (or lazy) to verify it for yourself. Come on, Neil. Less blah-blah and more action. 

That is simply your opinion on the matter. Furuli's research differs from yours and that remains the problem. It is not against kicking the evidence as you say for i accept the fact of the tablet but it is in the interpreting of the data that remains the issue. It is not out of some fear but simply a recognition that at this stage I am not competent in making any sense of those programs of which there are many which in itself are problematic. Why do not you experts agree on one program cross the board?

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Ann O'Maly

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Learn how to - like everyone else. 🙄

I cannot be bothered. My primary focus is on Bible Chronology

 

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

"My disadvantage is that I am neither a professional archaeoastronomer nor a historian. ... With the help of modern astro-programs, a person who is not an astronomer can find the positions of the heavenly bodies in the past and, on this basis, test the correctness of the observations found in cuneiform tablets." - Furuli, Persian Chronology (2012 ed.), p.11.

So, what's stopping you, Neil? 

Does not Furuli's honest admission tell you something?

scholar JW