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

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

As I quoted above from a book review of Rainer Albertz's book, Albertz "places the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." That alone clobbers Watchtower chronology if Albertz is accepted as a major authority, as ScholarJW Pretendus would have it.

I never claimed that Rainer Albertz supports WT Chronology and Chronology  is not the subject of his Historiography.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

his charlatan claims that Albertz's expression "the exilic age" comprises one and only one period of exile -- false and stupid on its face. A deportation by definition results in an exile. As I showed in my post above, Albertz clearly documents FOUR DEPORTATIONS/EXILES: in 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Therefore Albertz documents FOUR EXILES. Furthermore, the dates of these four exiles surround the period he calls "the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." And since Albertz explicitly dates one deportation/exile to 587 and one to 582 BCE, his "exilic age" comprises AT LEAST 587 through 582 down to 520 BCE, as he states -- AT LEAST TWO EXILES.

Deportations by definition do not constitute an exile but are indeed a consituent part of an exile so there were deportaions in Israelite history but in terms of OT Historiography and the Biblical record there was only one exile and that is thematic of Albertz's book which of course you have not read right through as scholar has done. If there were 4 exiles proper then the title of Albertz's book is misleading for the author continuously refers to that exilic era as a descriptor for that one jewish exile of the 6th century BCE.

Scholar is quite happy for you to interpret the book as you wish and if you believe there was more than one exile then scholar is not perturbed for the 70 years equates with the Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus as observed by Albertz.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I never claimed that Rainer Albertz supports WT Chronology and Chronology  is not the subject of his Historiography.

15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

. . . for the 70 years equates with the Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus as observed by Albertz.

There will probably be people reading this who believe that you are claiming that Albertz equates 70 years of Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus. Obviously, Albertz does NOT believe the 70 years of Jewish exile begin with the Fall and end with the return under Cyrus. And since it's not true, you are being deceptive if you imply that it is. For example, in one sense Albertz says that Israel is still in the exilic period, "extending down to the present:"

Then notice that Albertz does not consider a "simple" demarcation at the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6, and most definitely does not end it at the usual demarcation of Cyrus in 539/8:

Read it carefully. He prefers to consider the exilic period from 587/6 but says there was already a golah -- an EXILE -- in 598/7.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/golah

History and Etymology for golah

Hebrew gōlāh exile

That's the same exile the Watchtower dates, not to 607 (or 597), but to 617, because the WTS simply adds 20 years to the date supported by archaeology and NeoBabylonian chronology. 617-20=597. Note that the INSIGHT book also calls this an exile:

*** it-1 p. 795 Ezekiel, Book of ***
In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision

593 + 25 = 618; and, 618 - 20= 598

*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
Following the siege of Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s “third year” (as vassal king), Daniel and other Judeans, including nobles and members of the royal family, were taken as exiles to Babylon

And the INSIGHT book also calls the exile of 582 "an exile" (Although the WTS adds 20 to 582 to make it about 602 or 603 BCE):

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Later Exiles of Jews. About three years later, in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, more Jews were taken into exile. (Jer 52:30) This exile probably involved Jews who had fled to lands that were later conquered by the Babylonians.

And INSIGHT even agrees with Albertz, that in one sense, large numbers were still in exile around 20 years after Cyrus, during the time of Zerubbabel's work which INSIGHT gives as 522 to 515 BCE:

*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
Both the book of Ezra (2:1-67) and the book of Nehemiah (7:6-69) list the number of exiles from various families or houses who returned from Babylonian exile with Zerubbabel.

I expect that Ann O'maly and AlanF probably already covered this for you, but you had addressed me with the claim on a previous page where I pointed out that your claim about Bryan and Albertz was wrong. You included this false statement.

On 1/3/2021 at 3:44 PM, scholar JW said:

No this is the case with Exilic scholars. I rest my case because it is well established on the facts of the case and on OT Historiography , a term not found in COJ' s hypothesis nor found in other critics of WT chronology.

The "facts" proved you wrong. But why did you think it necessary to make a big deal out of the fact that COJ doesn't use the term "historiography." And why would you go out on a limb just to be wrong again? I take it you have never read COJ?

Here are some quotes from COJ from GTR4. The main theme of the whole book is about historiography. Since you obviously need to learn some skills about how to search words to avoid spreading untrue statements, I'll leave it to you to find the page numbers:

In his discussions of historiography, he quotes from several different sources about it:

The Watch Tower Society, in its Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. I, p. 453), devotes only one paragraph to Berossus. Almost the whole paragraph consists of a quotation from A. T. Olmstead’s Assyrian Historiography in which he deplores the tortuous survival history of Berossus’ fragments via Eusebius’ Chronicle (cf. note 6 above). Although this is true, it is, as noted, essentially irrelevant for our discussion

Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia show that, in order to break the power and morale of a rebel quickly, the imperial army would try to ruin the economic potential “by destroying unfortified settlements, cutting down plantations and devastating fields” — Israel Eph’al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires,” in H. Tadmor & M. Weinfield (eds.), History, Historiography and 1nterpretatian (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1984), p. 97.

Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition (Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill, 1992), pp. 106, 260, 261.

In fact he correctly uses the term historiography in a discussion of the Watchtower's misuse of historiography and misrepresentation of authorities on historiography here:

It has been amply demonstrated above that the Watch Tower Society in its “Appendix” to “Let your Kingdom Come” does not give a fair presentation of the evidence against their 607 B.C.E. date:

(1) Its writers misrepresent historical evidence by omitting from their discussion nearly half of the evidence presented in the first edition of this work (the Hillah stele, the diary BM 32312, and contemporary Egyptian documents) and by giving some of the other lines of evidence only a biased and distorted presentation. They erroneously indicate that priests and kings might have altered historical documents (chronicles, royal inscriptions, etc.) from the Neo-Babylonian era, in spite of the fact that all available evidence shows the opposite to be true.

(2)They misrepresent authorities on ancient historiography by quoting them out of context and attributing to them views and doubts they do not have.

(3)They misrepresent ancient writers by concealing the fact that Berossus is supported by the most direct reading of Daniel 1:1–6, by quoting Josephus when he talks of seventy years of desolation without mentioning that in his last work he changed the length of the period to fifty years, and by referring to the opinion of the second century bishop, Theophilus, without mentioning that he ends the seventy years, not only in the second year of Cyrus, but also in the second year of Darius Hystaspes (as did his contemporary Clement of Alexandria and others), thus confusing the two kings.

I can give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not purposely deceiving anyone, and that these mistakes are just evidence of incompetence as a reader. But then, of course, you must be deceitful about your "scholarly" abilities. But perhaps you did lie about reading the book, or lie about how clear it was to you, because if you really had, then your mistakes should have been obvious.

Also, why are you spending so much time on a particular scholar or two who seem to have views that are exceptions to most other scholars? If scholars are so all-important to you in this discussion, you should explain why you have dismissed the supposed authority of the majority of scholars. You cherry-pick one or two scholars, claiming they say a certain thing, and then you misrepresent even these very scholars you wish to rely on. But why so much attention to scholars in the first place?

With a little effort you could learn a lot of this same information without even relying on all these secular scholars.

This doesn't mean I didn't find the Albertz book interesting. I had seen that the WTS had quoted from him before, but I had not ever read (about 70 pages of) his book until now.

15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

thematic of Albertz's book which of course you have not read right through as scholar has done.

Somehow, I must doubt this. I can see that if you really did read it then you are telling untruths about what it says. Whether these are "lies" or not depends on your competence to understand what you claimed to have read. But you are definitely telling things that are not true, saying they are found in his book, and they aren't there.

[AlanF]

15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

I never claimed that Rainer Albertz supports WT Chronology and Chronology  is not the subject of his Historiography.

Deportations by definition do not constitute an exile but are indeed a consituent part of an exile so there were deportaions in Israelite history but in terms of OT Historiography and the Biblical record there was only one exile and that is thematic of Albertz's book which of course you have not read right through as scholar has done. If there were 4 exiles proper then the title of Albertz's book is misleading for the author continuously refers to that exilic era as a descriptor for that one jewish exile of the 6th century BCE.

Scholar is quite happy for you to interpret the book as you wish and if you believe there was more than one exile then scholar is not perturbed for the 70 years equates with the Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus as observed by Albertz.

scholar JW

Lie all you want. I'm done with you, you detestable liar.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There will probably be people reading this who believe that you are claiming that Albertz equates 70 years of Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus. Obviously, Albertz does NOT believe the 70 years of Jewish exile begin with the Fall and end with the return under Cyrus. And since it's not true, you are being deceptive if you imply that it is. For example, in one sense Albertz says that Israel is still in the exilic period, "extending down to the present:"

You simply 'cherry pick' statements from Albertz's book without taking the time to read it as you probably have not got a copy of his book so i would read it then you can be critical of my comments on his book for that would be the honest thing for you to do. The simple fact is that for Albertz there was only ONE Exile proper or exilic era and that it can be dated from the Fall of Jerusalem from 587/586 BCE until the return of the Exiles under Cyrus in his first year-538 BCE according to the primary sources (Refer pp. 2, 121)

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

hat's the same exile the Watchtower dates, not to 607 (or 597), but to 617, because the WTS simply adds 20 years to the date supported by archaeology and NeoBabylonian chronology. 617-20=597. Note that the INSIGHT book also calls this an exile:

*** it-1 p. 795 Ezekiel, Book of ***
In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision

593 + 25 = 618; and, 618 - 20= 598

*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
Following the siege of Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s “third year” (as vassal king), Daniel and other Judeans, including nobles and members of the royal family, were taken as exiles to Babylon

And the INSIGHT book also calls the exile of 582 "an exile" (Although the WTS adds 20 to 582 to make it about 602 or 603 BCE):

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Later Exiles of Jews. About three years later, in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, more Jews were taken into exile. (Jer 52:30) This exile probably involved Jews who had fled to lands that were later conquered by the Babylonians.

And INSIGHT even agrees with Albertz, that in one sense, large numbers were still in exile around 20 years after Cyrus, during the time of Zerubbabel's work which INSIGHT gives as 522 to 515 BCE:

*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
Both the book of Ezra (2:1-67) and the book of Nehemiah (7:6-69) list the number of exiles from various families or houses who returned from Babylonian exile with Zerubbabel.

I would recommend that you also read the article under CAPTIVITY in Insight and you will notice the more extensive discussion of the Exile proper or the Babylonian Exile which began in 607 BCE until 537 BCE which harmonizes well with Albertz's historiography on the subject of the Exile.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The "facts" proved you wrong. But why did you think it necessary to make a big deal out of the fact that COJ doesn't use the term "historiography." And why would you go out on a limb just to be wrong again? I take it you have never read COJ?

I have COJ'S many editions of his GTR and let me assure you it is not historiography and he does not use the term in any definitive way and this a serious failure of his treatise because what undergirds any competent Chronology is Historiography, a sound writing of the History of the period or era.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I can give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not purposely deceiving anyone, and that these mistakes are just evidence of incompetence as a reader. But then, of course, you must be deceitful about your "scholarly" abilities. But perhaps you did lie about reading the book, or lie about how clear it was to you, because if you really had, then your mistakes should have been obvious.

I am not interested in lies or deceit but simply a defence of our wondrous, strong cable of WT Bible Chronology and if this does not meet with your approval then so be it.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, why are you spending so much time on a particular scholar or two who seem to have views that are exceptions to most other scholars? If scholars are so all-important to you in this discussion, you should explain why you have dismissed the supposed authority of the majority of scholars. You cherry-pick one or two scholars, claiming they say a certain thing, and then you misrepresent even these very scholars you wish to rely on. But why so much attention to scholars in the first place?

I am simply educating you that scholarship is a 'work in progress' and I have submitted recent scholars who have written about the 70 years in recent years and how this research supports to some degree our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Somehow, I must doubt this. I can see that if you really did read it then you are telling untruths about what it says. Whether these are "lies" or not depends on your competence to understand what you claimed to have read. But you are definitely telling things that are not true, saying they are found in his book, and they aren't there.

You have much more to read some 390 pages to go-rather prophetic, so as with any reading you must form your own understanding of matters. Best Wishes.

scholar JW

 

 

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Lie all you want. I'm done with you, you detestable liar.

Does this mean that I can now close Case File No. # 607539537?

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

45 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

The simple fact is that for Albertz there was only ONE Exile proper or exilic era and that it can be dated from the Fall of Jerusalem from 587/586 BCE until the return of the Exiles under Cyrus in his first year-538 BCE according to the primary sources (Refer pp. 2, 121)

You already failed on page 2. Now you say to also refer to page 121. Seems you are trying to convince me that your problem really is deceitfulness instead of just incompetence. You cherry-picked something Albertz said about Ezra. But you failed to note that Albertz doesn't trust Ezra to tell the truth. He says parts of Ezra are fictive (made up, fictional, lies, fantasy, myth). And Albertz goes right back to saying that the actual "decisive turning point that ended the exilic period" is 520/521 BCE:

So, no surprise, you were not being honest, either due to incompetence or deceitfulness.

47 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

I have COJ'S many editions of his GTR and let me assure you it is not historiography and he does not use the term in any definitive way and this a serious failure of his treatise because what undergirds any competent Chronology is Historiography, a sound writing of the History of the period or era.

"Let me assure you?" Believe me, there can be nothing from you that "assures" me of anything. Based on your track record here and everywhere I see that you have been, it's a track record full of either incompetence or dishonesty. Probably a mixture of both. I think this time your obvious M.O. even accidentally let most other Witnesses in on your devious secret.

COJ's book GTR4 is a study of historical writing, therefore it is a book about "historiography," even where that historical writing originally appears in cuneiform inscriptions or the writings of various historians after the Neo-Babylonian period.

I don't know if it's true, but they say that Charles Darwin never used the word "evolution" in the book "Origin of Species." I guess you'd claim it's not a book about "evolution." You are like a person who complains that the world-wide Christian congregation should have nothing like a Governing Body, just because the Bible doesn't use the term "Governing Body." You are not being honest again.

In the case of COJ when you found out you were wrong, you tried to walk back what you meant, and, as usual, you were still just as wrong, again. Here's a google-discovered definition:

Historiography, the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination.

Even if you don't believe a word that COJ wrote, it is still most definitely a book about historiography. If you don't think so, then you are simply inadvertently admitting that you don't know the meaning of the word. Or else you are being dishonest.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

I am simply educating you that scholarship is a 'work in progress' and I have submitted recent scholars who have written about the 70 years in recent years and how this research supports to some degree our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years

It has always been well known that scholarship is a work in progress. The fact that you have consistently used deceit only teaches me not to trust you. You have shared your discovery that interpretations can be all over the place, but can't you see that this was already the whole point of looking into the secular evidence instead of just the interpretations in this topic/thread? It turns out that some of these scholars, especially if they reject the Bible text, might sometimes overlap with Watchtower interpretation here and there. But the fact that they NEVER in the slightest support our chronology to any degree is a testimony to the strength of the strong cable of archaeologically-evidenced chronology for this period. And, it supports the Bible chronology. Yet, it reveals a broken, fragmented, snapped, frayed and kinked string tied up in knots, when it comes to the arbitrary Watchtower timeline. 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Try syncing with a minus 2 years, when appropriate. You'll find a 19-22 year discrepancy.

I did. You'll notice that to give the Watchtower timeline a chance, that this is exactly what I did with the astronomical readings. They invariably proved that the archaeological evidence was correct (and is supported in the Bible, too).

Yes, it also invariably showed that the arbitrary, non-evidenced chronology in the Watchtower publications shows about a 20-year discrepency for all the arbitrary dates the Watchtower uses prior to 539 BCE. The Watchtower publications even arbitrarily create a 20 year discrepency even back to Assyrian dates and prior.

[JW Insider]

This reminds me of a major point that the Watchtower publications and no Witnesses have yet tried to explain.

There are tens of thousands of "dated" tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period. They are not evenly distributed, but a huge portion come from Nebuchadnezzar's reign, which is the one we are most interested in anyway. Also there are dozens more of these astronomical readings that all point to the exact same chronology I pointed out earlier. I have matched several more of the eclipses, and all of them give excellent, consistent evidence that all the archaeological evidence is accurate.

	625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536	535	534	533	532	531	530
	N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years)																					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	C Y R U S
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	591	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

 

With the "contract" tablets alone, there are literally tens of thousands of tablets that support the above chronology. There are zero of the tens of thousands that would discredit or falsify the above chronology.

So we can definitively say that the archaeologically supported chronology is the one shown above and the Watchtower chronology is completely unsupported for every year prior to 539. The WTS publications support the 17 years of Nabonidus, and the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, and the first year of Evil-Merocach. So this leaves a 20 year gap between the EM2 and NERI4. A 20 year gap to be found somewhere in those 5 years that the archaeological evidence indicates.

Imagine that there are about 30,000 tablets that support the nearly 90 years of Neo-Babylonian timeline. If they were evenly distributed that would mean about 333 tablets per year. If the Watchtower's arbitrarily imagined gap actually existed, that would mean that 6,666 tablets of the 30,000 found are still missing. If these tablets all came from one place that might be a possibility. But many are from major temples, and many others are from personal business contracts from hundreds of different people altogether.

And of course, if this gap were a real thing, it would mean that all those eclipses could never have been predicted correctly, and all the astronomical readings from both before and after the gap would have been impossible to have faked. There really is absolutely no reason to imagine an arbitrary gap of 20 years. The Biblical evidence fits very well with the above, but would be nearly impossible to explain if the imagined gap theorized by the WTS had actually existed.

All the evidence says that the Watchtower-promoted gap is impossible. In fact, it's not even possible to propose where a ONE-year gap might go.

Most of the time the secular chronology in Biblical history is not that good. One might even surmise that if there ever a time period in history where Jehovah wanted us to know the actual definitive, absolute date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year, for example, then this would be the period of time when all those tens of thousands of documents were protected from the elements.

 

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You already failed on page 2. Now you say to also refer to page 121. Seems you are trying to convince me that your problem really is deceitfulness instead of just incompetence. You cherry-picked something Albertz said about Ezra. But you failed to note that Albertz doesn't trust Ezra to tell the truth. He says parts of Ezra are fictive (made up, fictional, lies, fantasy, myth). And Albertz goes right back to saying that the actual "decisive turning point that ended the exilic period" is 520/521 BCE:

My suggestion, plain and simple is just read Albertz and form your own opinion of his historiography just as i have done!!!

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

"Let me assure you?" Believe me, there can be nothing from you that "assures" me of anything. Based on your track record here and everywhere I see that you have been, it's a track record full of either incompetence or dishonesty. Probably a mixture of both. I think this time your obvious M.O. even accidentally let most other Witnesses in on your devious secret.

Really i could not less about what you think.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

COJ's book GTR4 is a study of historical writing, therefore it is a book about "historiography," even where that historical writing originally appears in cuneiform inscriptions or the writings of various historians after the Neo-Babylonian period

No, it is not . Historical writing of history is not the same thing as historiography

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In the case of COJ when you found out you were wrong, you tried to walk back what you meant, and, as usual, you were still just as wrong, again. Here's a google-discovered definition:

Historiography, the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination.

I have done a post graduate course in Historiography and COJ does not present any such historiography in his tratise, GTR.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It has always been well known that scholarship is a work in progress. The fact that you have consistently used deceit only teaches me not to trust you. You have shared your discovery that interpretations can be all over the place, but can't you see that this was already the whole point of looking into the secular evidence instead of just the interpretations in this topic/thread? It turns out that some of these scholars, especially if they reject the Bible text, might sometimes overlap with Watchtower interpretation here and there. But the fact that they NEVER in the slightest support our chronology to any degree is a testimony to the strength of the strong cable of archaeologically-evidenced chronology for this period. And, it supports the Bible chronology. Yet, it reveals a broken, fragmented, snapped, frayed and kinked string tied up in knots, when it comes to the arbitrary Watchtower timeline. 

I do not care if you mistrust me for you have deviated from the true faith by your endorsement of NB Chronology, a mere string of beads over that strong cable of WT Bible Chronology..

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider/Outsider

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

his reminds me of a major point that the Watchtower publications and no Witnesses have yet tried to explain.

There are tens of thousands of "dated" tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period. They are not evenly distributed, but a huge portion come from Nebuchadnezzar's reign, which is the one we are most interested in anyway. Also there are dozens more of these astronomical readings that all point to the exact same chronology I pointed out earlier. I have matched several more of the eclipses, and all of them give excellent, consistent evidence that all the archaeological evidence is accurate

Furuli showed otherwise and has provided the explanation that you seek.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So we can definitively say that the archaeologically supported chronology is the one shown above and the Watchtower chronology is completely unsupported for every year prior to 539. The WTS publications support the 17 years of Nabonidus, and the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, and the first year of Evil-Merocach. So this leaves a 20 year gap between the EM2 and NERI4. A 20 year gap to be found somewhere in those 5 years that the archaeological evidence indicates.

That strong cable of WT Chronology based on 4 prophetic witnesses is not reliant on such ancient artifacts susceptible to interpretation and fail to properly account for Neb's missing 7 years of regnal vacancy and the notorious 20 year gap and Jeremiah's 70 years.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Imagine that there are about 30,000 tablets that support the nearly 90 years of Neo-Babylonian timeline. If they were evenly distributed that would mean about 333 tablets per year. If the Watchtower's arbitrarily imagined gap actually existed, that would mean that 6,666 tablets of the 30,000 found are still missing. If these tablets all came from one place that might be a possibility. But many are from major temples, and many others are from personal business contracts from hundreds of different people altogether.

Yes, you need imagination when trying to interpret the so-called 17 lines of secular evidence and trying to harmonize secular chronology with that strong cable of WT Chronology.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And of course, if this gap were a real thing, it would mean that all those eclipses could never have been predicted correctly, and all the astronomical readings from both before and after the gap would have been impossible to have faked. There really is absolutely no reason to imagine an arbitrary gap of 20 years. The Biblical evidence fits very well with the above, but would be nearly impossible to explain if the imagined gap theorized by the WTS had actually existed.

The gap is an historical reality when trying to sort out the muddle of NB Chronology and is well supported by the biblical evidence of 70 years along with the other three witnesses unlike the muddle of secular chronology.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Most of the time the secular chronology in Biblical history is not that good. One might even surmise that if there ever a time period in history where Jehovah wanted us to know the actual definitive, absolute date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year, for example, then this would be the period of time when all those tens of thousands of documents were protected from the elements.

Finally, some honesty appears on the horizon so you better stick to the Bible and not to COJ's deception- the Devil's work.

scholar JW

[Arauna]

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Furuli showed otherwise and has provided the explanation that you seek.

True, there are no dates on tablets.  They usually refer to some great local event...most of these, in our time cannot be tracked.  I happened to take out a book with translations of tablets when I worked at the university.  Yes there are theories about stars etc.... but descriptions of these events are not that accurate..... so we can be  making mistakes.

I think these people will believe what they want to believe. They are forming camps now.  Propaganda is rife in these statements that there are  "dates" - without substantiation - and are often repeated and people start to believe the fallacies.

 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The discrepancy lies with secular and astronomical order.

No, it doesn't. I checked.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Most historians start with Ptolemy's "Almagest", in 747 BC. Some scholars start there to.

True, but there is no reason to. You get the same answers from archaeology even if you threw out the King's List that was still being used in the time of Ptolemy's Almagest. And there is no reason to start in 747. You can develop the entire timeline from archaeology and historiography (without the Almagest) and then start from any year of any king. No reason to concern oneself with 747 BCE.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What are the Saros Cycle, and the 19-year cycle. You'll find very little evidence with ongoing secular chronology when ancient scribes used different starting points to achieve their historical stories to sync.

You already proved that you didn't understand what at least one scholar was saying about the ancient scribes (John Steele) If you want to claim something specific, go ahead, but these vague and ill-formed claims have never gone anywhere.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Now the proof you argue, doesn't even come close to 587/6 BC according to secular evidence.

I don't argue proof. But, if you looked at it, I'm you would see why the evidence is accepted as absolute and definitive, even overwhelming. Even if every scribe lied about what historical stories to sync, that would be irrelevant. The point is that we can know what BCE year it was when Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year occurred. It is only the Bible scribe that matters if the Bible says a certain event happened at that point. Unless you are trying to argue that the Bible scribe was trying to achieve an historical story to sync.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So, I don't know why you keep defending that position when natural history itself is contradicting your observation

Quite the contrary. It is natural history that is defending the observations of the Bible. We could ignore the Babylonian written history altogether. You have never been able to give one instance of natural history contradicting any of the other observations from natural history. And that's all this is about primarily, the fact that the natural history observations coincide with and support all the other natural history observations, creating a strong cable of chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Secular Evidence.

You put a bunch of disjointed items under the heading "Secular Evidence." If you have a specific point to make, you should say it.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Since LBAT 1420 tablet dealt with future predictions, then, was 567 BC realized?

567 BCE was realized in 567 BCE. Your premise about LBAT 1420 is false. But even if it were true, it would show that 567 actually was realized in 567.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The Babylonian 19-year cycle doesn't even come close to that date of 587/6 BC as contended by secular evidence, but If you add a “score” to that equation, then you get 587 BC.

And that is one of the ways we know for sure that you should not be adding 19 year cycles. And why it's wrong to pretend you can use either 18 year cycles or 19 year cycles to fake a pseudo-chronology. However, their very existence can help you see why it is so very dishonest to try to re-adjust the archeological date by 20 years (a score) to reach a Watchtower "goal year."

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Since VAT 5956 is a copy of earlier events, a mistake of 2-years will make those events off by 19-22- years, or less given which scribe recorded these timetables.

Just like with "scholar JW," you are either showing extreme incompetence here, or plain dishonesty. You've had plenty of chances to learn what the archaeological evidence shows. I'm not engaging just to help you untangle your strings of logical fallacies. If you want to claim something specific instead of all this pretentiousness, make your point. But your statement above is about the equivalent of saying that since the photocopied pages that the teacher made for the class have from the math book have a two year mistake in one of the questions, then all answers for all questions can now be wrong by 19 to 22 years depending on which teacher used the copy machine.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, people needed to prepare for their journey since they would have to cultivate the land destroyed. Hence, 537 BC.

537 is fine with me. 607 as the beginning of the 70 years is fine with me too. Both of those dates are within a a couple of years of the archaeological evidence.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Rolf Furuli: Both VAT 4956 and Strm Kambys 400 seem to be late copies of originals written in Babylon

And yet, the WTS relies on one of them for it's astronomical data. The one the WTS relies on is problematic compared to the VT 4956, but at least they both give the right years that the rest of the archaeology shows.

By the way, you could throw out both VAT 4956 and throw out Ptolemy's Almagest, and still you'd get 587 for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar from dozens of other points of archaeological evidence.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Pekka Mansikka

This might be useful to discuss at length. It's too easy to just claim that he is a very sloppy sychophant of Furuli's work, but he definitely didn't catch on to the places where Furuli showed the most dishonesty and/or incompetence. This is easily shown, but the example you offered about a two-year error has absolutely no basis in evidence.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So, these esteemed cycles have very little to offer as proof with recorded events.

Exactly. You can use them and they provide good evidence that the observations were not referring to observations from 18 or 19 years earlier or later. Or you can ignore them and realize that the archaeological evidence stands very definitive and absolute without any concern about them whatsoever. Persons who try to use them to create 20 year differences (18+2=20, or 19+1=20) are just fooling themselves, or being dishonest. Always watch out for people who try that kind of trickery.