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

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

. . . the Return of Jews was in the first year of Cyrus.

Finally you admit that I've been right for some 15 years! The first year of Cyrus ran spring, 538 BCE to spring 537 BCE. Since the Jews were "in their cities" in the fall -- in the 7th month Tishsri -- that was the fall of 538 BCE.

 

Quote

Wrong.

You yourself have said it. See your own words above.

Now you ignore what you said and switch gears:

Quote

the Jews were in their cities by the 7th month this means that it would have been impossible for this to be the case if you postulate such a short time frame

Both time frames are equally possible, as I and others have repeatedly proved: The captive Jews observed the fall of Babylon in October, 539. They knew that Cyrus, following his usual practice, would likely release them and most other captives fairly soon. It was standard practice for kings like Cyrus to hold massive ceremonies inaugurating their FIRST year. This happened about Nisan 1, 538 BCE, giving the Jews some 5-6 months to prepare. Part of such ceremonies would have been a proclamation releasing the captives. The Jewish captives, already having prepared, would have spent little time further preparing for the 4-month journey from Babylon to Judah. There are six full months available from Nisan 1 to Tishri 1, so the 4-month journey is easily accommodated.

The Watchtower allows that Cyrus' proclamation could have been as late as early 537 BCE, by which it allows as little as the same six months for a journey in 537 compared to one in 538. Thus, the Watchtower Society itself allows for BOTH "short" time frames.

You don't seem to realize that criticism of a short time frame for 538 applies equally well to 537.

And of course, as I have repeatedly shown for some fifteen years, Josephus provides the tie-breaking data for a 538 return over 537:

https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf

Quote

so the seventh month could only have been in the following year of 537 BCE or if in his Cyrus' first year- 538-537 BCE would have been counted from the Fall rather than Nisan.

Disproved.

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

The venerable said scholar is of the opinion that Ezra counted the 'first year of Cyrus'- Ezra 1:1-4 as part of the official Decree using the official/secular calender beginning in Nisan

Exactly as I've argued above as regards Nisan 1, 538 being the start of Cyrus' 1st regnal year. What's your point?

Quote

and used the sacred/ religious calender beginning in Tishri from the time of resettlement of the Jews as from Ezra.1:68-3:1 and onwards.

Nonsense. Ezra explicitly calls Tishri the 7th month -- according to the secular calendar.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

1 minute ago, AlanF said:

But for those deported and made captive for awhile, they are BY DEFINITION in exile. Do I really need to point you to a dictionary?

Agreed but let us not confuse the exile/deportation of the few with the EXILE of the greater number in order to be historically correct.

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

LOL! It's rare, outside debate with Watchtower apologists, to see such blatant circular argumentation and begging the question.

No it is not and i checked a number of reference works which state similarly. But speaking of dictionarys, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'exilic'-"to that of the Jews in Babylon'.

8 minutes ago, AlanF said:

A few? What garbage! The exile of 597 was actually bigger than that of 587. Not only Ezekiel, but all of the important people in the country were exiled -- artisans, all of the elite, etc. The 587 exile was of the leftovers.

Do you need me to quote Ezekiel and other sources on this?

So if the population was so small or minimal in number why did Neb bother? And was not king Zedekiah present in the city at that time?

11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

here were biblically FOUR EXILES. Can you not count?

Only ONE Exile in the OT and recognized by historian for that it is why it is described as catastrohe  and Jeremiah wrote the book of Lamentations as a consequence thereof.

scholar JW

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan F

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Exactly as I've argued above as regards Nisan 1, 538 being the start of Cyrus' 1st regnal year. What's your point?

The point is that Ezra used a different calender for dating the first year of Cyrus and the dating of the month/year of the Return.

 

13 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. Ezra explicitly calls Tishri the 7th month -- according to the secular calendar.

Or the first month of the sacred calender which marked the beginning of a new or following year.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan F

17 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Both time frames are equally possible, as I and others have repeatedly proved: The captive Jews observed the fall of Babylon in October, 539. They knew that Cyrus, following his usual practice, would likely release them and most other captives fairly soon. It was standard practice for kings like Cyrus to hold massive ceremonies inaugurating their FIRST year. This happened about Nisan 1, 538 BCE, giving the Jews some 5-6 months to prepare. Part of such ceremonies would have been a proclamation releasing the captives. The Jewish captives, already having prepared, would have spent little time further preparing for the 4-month journey from Babylon to Judah. There are six full months available from Nisan 1 to Tishri 1, so the 4-month journey is easily accommodated.

What about the reign of Darius during this period and what about the proclamation of the Decree and the preparations of the journey and the its length of at least four months. Your timeframe  is too short and impossible for it also does not allow time of resettlement prior to the seventh of altar celebrations.

22 minutes ago, AlanF said:

The Watchtower allows that Cyrus' proclamation could have been as late as early 537 BCE, by which it allows as little as the same six months for a journey in 537 compared to one in 538. Thus, the Watchtower Society itself allows for BOTH "short" time frames.

You don't seem to realize that criticism of a short time frame for 538 applies equally well to 537.

And of course, as I have repeatedly shown for some fifteen years, Josephus provides the tie-breaking data for a 538 return over 537:

Our time frame easily accomodates the above requisites which invalidates your short, impossible time frame as confirmed by Josephus that it was in the second year of Cyrus' reign that the foundations of the Temple were laid.

scholar JW

29 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Disproved.

Nonsense

scholar JW

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
They are both equally well established.

Quote

539 BCE is well established but 605 BCE is not so prove it.

Already done above. Do you have reading comprehension or short-term memory problems?

Quote

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
The Bible says nothing directly about it. It does speak of his 18th and 19th years as when Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE -- the same year after accounting for the fact that "18th" was written by someone using Babylonian dating and "19th" by someone using Jewish dating. Starting with the 18th year and counting back to zero by accession year dating gets you to 605. Easy!

Quote

So, the date 605 BCE is a calculated date not an Absolute date therefore not well established.

ALL such dates are calculated! Including 539.

Quote

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
You have the books. Look at them.

Quote

True. I have the books to hand 

THEN LOOK AT THEM! I even gave you the page numbers!

Quote

 

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
So how does one rank COJ compared to others scholars?

Again irrelevant. COJ is not a degreed academic scholar; so what? What he has done -- why do you continue dishonestly to use this irrelevant ad hominem? -- is to collate a massive amount of data published by recognized scholars in several fields. Thus, when someone dismisses COJ as if his collations were of no value, he is dismissing most of the world of academic scholarship. But because much of Watchtower argumentation consists largely of such ad hominen dismissals, it's no surprise when Watchtower accolytes do the same.

. . .

 

 

Quote

I applaud COJ for his research as an independent thinker not a scholar but one must view his research in the light of current scholarship, WT Chronology and the Bible and then make one's own analysis and opinion.

Which everyone not a Watchtower acolyte has done, and concluded that Watchtower chronology is wrong.

Quote

 

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
Except that, as the discussions in this thread alone prove, Furuli's 'debunkings' are provably wrong.

You continue to make the mistake of dismissing all of academic scholarship based solely on the Watchtower's demonstrably wrong interpretations of a handful of Bible passages, which interpretations mostly ignore without comment all passages that contradict its tradition.

 

Quote

You say that Furuli's research is debunked but this is only by those with bias to NB Chronology whom regard it as a sacred cow.- not to be critical of it.

Wrong. That's exactly like claiming that the fact that the earth is a ball is merely the product of bias on the part of most of the world.

Since you're both unwilling and unable to judge Furuli's astronomical claims, you have no say in this matter.

Quote

It is a nonsense to say that WT interpretations are demonstrably wrong when one only has to compare such interpretations with Bible commentaries and published journals and these show otherwise

Utter nonsense. NO such scholarly works "show otherwise". If you disagree, NAME THEM AND QUOTE THEM.

Quote

or at least some tangents of agreement as I have pointed out over the years.

LOL! Like pointing out that some scholars discuss such astounding new findings as that Bible writers speak of captivity, exile and desolation?

Quote

the most recent example is Nile's thesis that the 70 years related to three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics.

COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book? I thought not.

And of course, plenty of other scholars have discussed such things, sometimes at length, sometimes as side notes. So what? None of those writings in any way lends support to your claims that they support the "607 chronology".

Quote

 

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
COJ's responses thoroughly debunk Furuli's claims -- as this thread is proving.

Only in your own mind.

 

Once again, since you admittedly have neither the mental capacity nor the facility to analyze Furuli's arguments, you have no say here.

Quote

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
We still see no BIBLE QUOTATIONS from you in any thread. Any more than we've seen such for 20 years.

Quote

You are correct. I will have to work on that and install the app but I am a computer dummy so must give this some priority and thank you for the correction.

How about using "Watchtower Library" like I do? Or is that too complicated for your little brain? Do you know how to copy/paste using Control-C/Control-V in Windows, or Command-C/Command-V in Macs, or the equivalent in any other operating system? NO WONDER you can't manage to quote people properly! OR THE BIBLE ITSELF!

Are you telling me that for 20 frigging years you haven't QUOTED THE FRIGGING BIBLE because you can't figure out how to copy/paste text? How about just typing? I've typed literally thousands of passages from various Bibles?

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

33 minutes ago, AlanF said:
Both time frames are equally possible, as I and others have repeatedly proved: The captive Jews observed the fall of Babylon in October, 539. They knew that Cyrus, following his usual practice, would likely release them and most other captives fairly soon. It was standard practice for kings like Cyrus to hold massive ceremonies inaugurating their FIRST year. This happened about Nisan 1, 538 BCE, giving the Jews some 5-6 months to prepare. Part of such ceremonies would have been a proclamation releasing the captives. The Jewish captives, already having prepared, would have spent little time further preparing for the 4-month journey from Babylon to Judah. There are six full months available from Nisan 1 to Tishri 1, so the 4-month journey is easily accommodated.

. . .

 

Quote

What about the reign of Darius during this period

Right. What about it? Do you have a point? Even the Watchtower agrees on the above dates.

Quote

and what about the proclamation of the Decree and the preparations of the journey and the its length of at least four months.

I discussed those things above.

Quote

Your timeframe  is too short and impossible

I've proved above that YOU'RE WRONG. You have no arguments -- only dismissals.

Quote

for it also does not allow time of resettlement prior to the seventh of altar celebrations.

Irrelevant. Ezra is clear: "by the 7th month the Jews were in their cities". Ezra says nothing like what you seem to claim.

Quote

 

  33 minutes ago, AlanF said:
The Watchtower allows that Cyrus' proclamation could have been as late as early 537 BCE, by which it allows as little as the same six months for a journey in 537 compared to one in 538. Thus, the Watchtower Society itself allows for BOTH "short" time frames.

You don't seem to realize that criticism of a short time frame for 538 applies equally well to 537.

And of course, as I have repeatedly shown for some fifteen years, Josephus provides the tie-breaking data for a 538 return over 537:

. . .

 

Quote

Our time frame easily accomodates the above requisites

Did I not say that? What's your point?

Quote

which invalidates your short, impossible time frame

Wrong again. See if you can ARGUE your point using sound reasoning, facts and figures. As I have done many times, including above.

Quote

as confirmed by Josephus that it was in the second year of Cyrus' reign that the foundations of the Temple were laid.

Which my above-referenced essay shows is the absolute proof that the Return was in Tishri, 538.

Since I've used Josephus to prove that the Return was in 538, the temple foundations must have been laid in 537. This perfectly lines up with Josephus' statement in Against Apion that the temple lay in ruins for 50 years, along with his giving a list of kings and their reigns during that time. Read it and weep, ScholarJW.

 

[AlanF]

33 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

The point is that Ezra used a different calender for dating the first year of Cyrus and the dating of the month/year of the Return.

 

Or the first month of the sacred calender which marked the beginning of a new or following year.

scholar JW

You've descended to complete gobble-de-goop now.

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

2 hours ago, AlanF said:
It's historical science. Ever hear of that?

the more precise term would be 'history of science' or 'philosophy of science'

Wrong. "History of science" etc. are completely different things. Do a little research for once.

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Of course it does. Real science, historical or otherwise, gathers evidence, formulates hypotheses, measures the hypotheses against the evidence, eliminates those that don't work, and eventually comes up with a set of hypotheses that withstand all valid tests. Valid tests do not include the sort of wild speculations that morons like the Flat-Earthers come up with, such as claiming that all photo evidence is the product of a worldwide conspiracy of CGI experts. Your 'tests' are in that category. Academic experts have used solid historical science to come up with a fully tested Scientific Theory called Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. Something as well established as, and often better than, anything else in ancient history.

. . .

 

Quote

Scholar loves real science.

Suuuure. But only so far as it doesn't conflict with Watchtower tradition.

Quote

True science relies on the principle of Falsification so how do you falsify NB Chronology or is it a sacred cow?

JW Insider already covered that.

Quote

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Which is fully explained and justified for Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. And of course, which eliminates the sort of bogus methodologies and interpretations so beloved by Watchtower Tradition

Quote

Do not forget from where you first learnt this principle- the said scholar!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Quote

So are you saying that WT Chronology is without methodology and interpretation?

No, it's just the WRONG methodology and interpretation. But Russell and his Adventist mentors really had no such things. It was all flying by the seat of their pants.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
No academic expert, but competent. And since you're too lazy (and self-admittedly mentally deficient) to learn, you have no basis for an opinion.

It is now a good thing that you are competent but are you fully competent?

 

No one is fully competent in anything. Except perhaps basket-weaving.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about. In general these programs are marketed by software companies that want to make money from them. Over the past 25 years I've bought half a dozen of them. Most become obsolete after a few years, not because the underlying data and mathematical calculations need revision, but because computer operating systems change and marketing goals change. I'm quite capable of writing such a program myself, using data from easily available NASA and related sources, and I've even played around with this. But it takes an inordinate amount of time to produce a usable video display, and so it's not worth my time to do it. Besides, others are far more competent than I am in such programming.

. . .

So why is it the case that you so-called experts use different programs?

 

I already explained. Can't you read?

Quote

Why not use the same programs as Furuli does/

Ditto.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
There is no comparison. NASA's data and the underlying math does not change.

YES. But the devil is in the interpretation.

 

Meaningless verbiage. Try making a point.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Wrongheaded again. If the document says that planet X is "two fingers in front of the moon" on date DDD, that requires NO INTERPRETATION aside from figuring out what "two fingers" means and what DDD means. In most cases all experts, academic and amateur alike, agree on most such things. Where biased people like Furuli display their bias is in claiming that a "two fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated DDD is a worse fit than is a "six fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated EEE but which also says "two fingers". Anyone not blind can SEE that the "two fingers" display is better than the "six fingers" display. So when Furuli makes such claims, we KNOW he's lying.

. . .

Well you have nicely identified a problem so how does the layman proceed with this ?

 

Several have already told you: buy a program and try it out for yourself. After you've learned how to use it in a decade or two, come back here and present your results.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Furuli found no such things. Rather, he fudged his judgment of "two fingers" versus "six fingers" to convince his readers of a lie. And most likely himself

Furuli is not a dishonest person and is not a liar.

 

He is demonstrably so. I think he's sincere in a way, but sincere people can convince themselves that lies are true if they try hard enough. The Watchtower Society calls sincere believers of the Trinity doctrine liars. Same for Furuli.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Not merely "accused". He has DEMONSTRATED bias. He's been tried and convicted.

All scholars have bias that is why one must test the evidence himself.

 

Which I think you're afraid to do. I really don't think you're so mentally deficient that you can't manage to operate a simple astro program. Rather, you don't want to take a chance on destroying many of your cherished rationalizations.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
You could easily do so if you were not lazy or mentally deficient.

I rely on God's Word the Bible and its 70 years

 

Which totally disqualifies you from discussing any astronomical issues.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

28 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Already done above. Do you have reading comprehension or short-term memory problems?

You have not established 605 BCE

29 minutes ago, AlanF said:

ALL such dates are calculated! Including 539.

Correct

29 minutes ago, AlanF said:

THEN LOOK AT THEM! I even gave you the page numbers!

Thanks

30 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Which everyone not a Watchtower acolyte has done, and concluded that Watchtower chronology is wrong

Matter of opinion

31 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. That's exactly like claiming that the fact that the earth is a ball is merely the product of bias on the part of most of the world.

Since you're both unwilling and unable to judge Furuli's astronomical claims, you have no say in this matter.

Science proves that but not the case with NB Chronology falsified by the 70 years

33 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Since you're both unwilling and unable to judge Furuli's astronomical claims, you have no say in this matter.

That is why i do not get into those astro programs

34 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Utter nonsense. NO such scholarly works "show otherwise". If you disagree, NAME THEM AND QUOTE THEM

Nile's thesis is a good example.

35 minutes ago, AlanF said:

LOL! Like pointing out that some scholars discuss such astounding new findings as that Bible writers speak of captivity, exile and desolation?

Which all WT critics choose to ignore.

36 minutes ago, AlanF said:

COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book? I thought not.

And of course, plenty of other scholars have discussed such things, sometimes at length, sometimes as side notes. So what? None of those writings in any way lends support to your claims that they support the "607 chronology".

COJ did no such thing and neither has any other scholar for it is only for the first time that these three concepts have been related to the 70 years.

38 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Once again, since you admittedly have neither the mental capacity nor the facility to analyze Furuli's arguments, you have no say here.

Neither do you or COJ have the facility to properly examine Furuli's research.

40 minutes ago, AlanF said:

How about using "Watchtower Library" like I do? Or is that too complicated for your little brain? Do you know how to copy/paste using Control-C/Control-V in Windows, or Command-C/Command-V in Macs, or the equivalent in any other operating system? NO WONDER you can't manage to quote people properly! OR THE BIBLE ITSELF!

Are you telling me that for 20 frigging years you haven't QUOTED THE FRIGGING BIBLE because you can't figure out how to copy/paste text? How about just typing? I've typed literally thousands of passages from various Bibles?

Bully for you!!

scholar JW

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

 2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Number One: Anyone with an intellectual level above about seven years old can learn these programs. If you can view a web page, you can view the display of an astro program.

Viewing is one thing, Understanding the thing viewed is another.

 

I've clearly explained how to do so. It's really not hard.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Number Two: You've already stated that you cannot be bothered, so everything you said here is irrelevant -- just smoke and mirrors.

True. Is it really necessary when it is the subject of much technical controversy?

 

There is no technical controversy.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Number Three: Ann O'Maly has already quoted Rolf Furuli as saying that he is no expert, but another amateur

Well Ann O Maly has repeatedly refused to identify her academic credentials when asked by me and Furuli has publicly identified his academic credentials.

 

Irrelevant to the fact that Furuli admits he is not competent with astro programs.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Number Four: Scholarly experts have already examined the evidence and concluded that in the case of Furuli's disputed dates, 568 versus 588 for VAT 4956, 588 is wrong.

So what for that is simply their opinion.

 

Nope. Measuring a distance as two centimeter when it really is two centimeter is not mere opinion.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
This really is not rocket science. If I tell you that picture X displays a kangaroo two centimeters to the left of a wallaby, and then display picture X alongside picture Y which displays a kangaroo six centimeters to the left of a wallaby, would you have any difficulty figuring out which was X and which was Y? Donald Trumpolini might, but I doubt that you would. And if you would, you'd have no business participating in a discussion like this.

Then how is it that it is so complicated with many offering different views.

 

What different views? The incompetent Furuli versus competent professional and amateur scholars?

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Any such claimed expertise is irrelevant to deciding between measures on a screen of two and six.

So you say.

 

You're not competent to judge.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Real academic experts, and we amateur experts on this forum are unanimous: Furuli fudged his opinions.

Opinion not fact.

 

Nope. All you have to do to see it is the spend the required couple of decades learning Furuli's astro program.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Nope. Just because you're too intellectually lazy to learn it doesn't make it so.

Insults indicate that you have lost the argument.

 

You yourself said that you couldn't be bothered. That, by definition, is intellectual laziness.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Bias that results in deliberately wrong conclusions is in no way "scholarship".

Scholarship cannot be devoid of bias

 

A meaningless generality in the face of definite proof of Furuli's overriding bias.

Quote

and it is the same with translation of the Bible whereupon Theology of the translator is always present. bias+scholarship=

Irrelevant.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

28 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Right. What about it? Do you have a point? Even the Watchtower agrees on the above dates.

Your thesis has too short of a timeframe for the events under the Decree of Cyrus by not accounting for the reign of Darius. The dating of the beginning of Cyrus' first year is problematic because it could be counted either according to Babylonian custom from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE or beginning late in 538 BCE. 

35 minutes ago, AlanF said:

discussed those things above

Those things are given scant attention in your paper and that is the problem, too short for all that needed to happen within a period of 12 months or less. makes no sense at all.

40 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Irrelevant. Ezra is clear: "by the 7th month the Jews were in their cities". Ezra says nothing like what you seem to claim.

it is relevant to the matter as an adequate time of resettlement is essential

41 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Did I not say that? What's your point?

Good to see some recognition that our theory has some validity.

43 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong again. See if you can ARGUE your point using sound reasoning, facts and figures. As I have done many times, including above.

All that you have presented is a contrivance with no attention to the history and circumstances of the Decree.

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Which my above-referenced essay shows is the absolute proof that the Return was in Tishri, 538.

Since I've used Josephus to prove that the Return was in 538, the temple foundations must have been laid in 537. This perfectly lines up with Josephus' statement in Against Apion that the temple lay in ruins for 50 years, along with his giving a list of kings and their reigns during that time. Read it and weep, ScholarJW.

Utter nonsense for Josephus simply states that in the second year of Cyrus the foundations were laid which also can be used in our chronology of the period for this occurred in the following year of 536 BCE

scholar JW