scholar JW

Alan F

4 minutes ago, AlanF said:

A deportation that results in captivity IS an Exile.

Not necessarily for a deportation can be limited to a few captives with the remaining population left alone. An Exile proper which is only the ONE in the OT as recognized by scholars and historians is the one of the  Babylonian captivity ending with the Return.

7 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You obviously do not believe the Bible when Ezekiel calls himself and his fellows "exiles", and dates many events as "in the 20th year of our exile .

Yes but there is a fundamental difference between the exile of a few such as Ezekiel and Daniel and the EXILE of the nation of Judah. Do you not see the difference, Alan?

scholar JW

Alan F

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Are you lying here? Or just plain stupid? I've consistently described -- not just alluded to -- FOUR DEPORTATIONS -- in 605, 597, 587 and 582. Daniel, his three companions, and a handful of other prominent Jews were deported in 605.

Correction here. many deportations but only one Exile!!!

scholar JW

JW Insider

If you accept a typo as a true statement  then you are in big trouble.

scholar JW

JW Insider

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes, most of them are definitely independent. We have an established date, but not an established chronology. You can't reject the 99% of a NB "absolute" chronology and then come back and say you want only 1%, a tiny piece of it. As you know, the Watchtower writers do not even know yet where exactly where they intended to identify the point of rejection. They only say that it must be rejected somewhere, based apparently on evidence that hasn't shown up yet.

Well you can because of methodology. WT scholar have simply selected only one pivotal date derived from a later Absolute Date and there is nothing wrong with that. Next they use the biblical history along with the regnal data and made a Chronology.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

he Watchtower publications have already admitted that, currently, all the secular evidence is against them.

So what. The problem with all of these lines of evidence is that none factor the definite historical period of the 70 years so such can not be credible witnesses.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower publications actually admit that they would be looking out for something new to be discovered that could falsify all this evidence that they admit goes against the current theory.

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be . . . incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

Yes this statement sends out a warning that such apparent absolute chronology may not be as absolute as first thought as this was written in 1981 and some decades later comes Rolf Furuli who has confirmed mush of this precautionary statement. Wise words indeed.

scholar JW

JW Insider

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower does not like the use of the term "absolute chronology" and will only mention its use by astronomers/archaeologitst in a pejorative sense. So the Watchtower does not dare to call it's chronology an "absolute" chronology. But the actual answer would be yes, if they had not rejected the same "absolute chronology." The reason that the Watchtower chronology is able to accept 539 as the accession year of Cyrus is because there is evidence for an absolute chronology that indicates Nabopolassar began the first year of his reign in 625 (accession 624), and Nebuchadnezzar began the first year of his reign in 604 (accession 605) and Cambyses began the first year of his reign in 629 (accession 630). A cherry-picked, eclectic chronology is an absolute misuse of an absolute chronology, and is therefore a pseudo-chronology.

I do not agree. This comes down to METHODOLOGY and you do not recognize that any Chronologist or scholar in order to construct a Chronology will be selective because all that one has has regnal data as links in a chain , assigned to an historical events and then as a chain of events with dates is described in a modern day calender. This proces requires not only METHODOLOGY but INTERPRETATION Therefore , to speak of an Absolute Chronology is simply mistaken showing ignorance.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's obviously the exact same thing that would be true if the Watchtower had agreed that all the evidence pointed to 587/6 as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar (which it does) and then said: Well, since Jerusalem must have fallen in 587/6, and we must interpret 70 years of exile beginning at that point until Cyrus, then we declare that Cyrus must have released the exiles  around 519/8 BCE to give the Jews time to get back home in 517/6 BCE.

There was exactly as much evidence (if not more) for the Watchtower to have chosen the 517 date for Cyrus as there was to choose the 607 date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

This scenario is good on paper but not in fact because it ignores several facts namely the three elements of the 70 year period and that the Return of Jews was in the first year of Cyrus.. Why do you not like 607 BCE when it to can easily accommodates the facts?

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So if the Watchtower writers were currently claiming that the first year of Cyrus was therefore 519 or 518, then would you call it an absolute chronology? Obviously not. It should be called a pseudo-chronology. And yet, this is exactly what the Watchtower did by selecting only one tiny part of an absolute chronology and rejecting the greater part of the same absolute chronology.

It would simply be a Chronology just like any others.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Correct. And the Watchtower is right that is exactly how the astronomers/historians/archaeologists claim to use the term "absolute chronology." The Watchtower writers clearly realized how the term was being used by specialists in the field, but didn't like the implications of the word "absolute." The Watchtower writers know that the term "absolute chronology" sounds like it must mean "absolutely correct" even though this isn't exactly the way it is used by specialists.

Whatever, Chronology is not just for the experts but for Bible readers so language is essential for there is no place for dogmatism in Chronology.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

An author I know was working on a book about a high school teacher who, while doing research, discovers that the U. S. Civil War never happened. It was all fake news, fake history. He has published other books, but I don't know if this one was ever published. It sounds like you are using the term "absolute" chronology in a sense like the Watchtower uses it, not the way that specialists claim the term should be used. The way you have used the term, I would agree, it's all a matter of the degree of evidence. This is why I don't think a matter should be considered settled except at the mouth of multiple independent witnesses. We definitely have that for the relative chronology. But I don't think many people have really considered the multiple independent witnesses for the turning that relative chronology into an absolute chronology one that we can tie in some way to the dating system of our own era (BCE/CE/AM).

Yes there are witnesses and perhaps the one that gets ignored is the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus who should not be ignored. Such witnesses can be used to also check any interpretation of the data such as how the 70 years was understood by living in earlier times.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Easy. By finding some unresolved contradictions in the relative chronology. That's what has been the methodology all along in testing a relative timeline for this topic. Every new piece of independent evidence is tested to see if it can in any way falsify the evidence from the first two "witnesses" to the timeline. So far, we have nothing that would falsify it, which also means that each of the additional pieces of evidences has only strengthened the solidity of the relative timeline.

Agreed. So then how can NB Chronology be falsified and my simple answer is the the 70 years and the Exile these ate the 'two witnesses' so what are your two witnesses'/

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Further attempts to find evidence to falsify the relative timeline need not have anything to do with BCE dates, or about claims of what events happened in what year of any particular king, although there is a way that it could.

At this point it the discussion it should mostly be about finding evidence that the beginning and ending (relative) dates of any particular king is wrong, or that the order of the kings we have listed is wrong (which is effectively the same thing). Possible ways to do that would be to find evidence that proves there was another king (or kings) we didn't know about who should have had his own distinct listing, not merely as a co-regent. Or that one or more of the kings already shown in the list was a co-regent, overlapping his reign with another king already on the list, and therefore should not have been listed out with a completely separate reign.

Also, if business/contract tablets or inscriptions were found with dates outside the range indicated by the currently known tens of thousands that would create contradictions that might be unresolvable.

Another way to falsify the NB Chronology would be to look at all the evidence from the astronomical diaries. If there are any diaries that with unresolvable readings that are tied to a specific relative date, but which contradict another diary then we could end up with an unresolvable contradiction. For example, let's say there was an eclipse or planetary configuration at a certain date and time that matches a certain year, perhaps Nebuchadnezzar 37. But another diary says a certain identifiable eclipse or planetary configuration happened in Nebuchadnezzar 35, but we know from the calculations (in astronomy software) that this particular configuration was not possible two years earlier.

Yes if this process works for you. But this process that you propose with its three witnesses has some major difficulties that must be recognized but we will see how it is done. One major problem that is apparent that in the case of your first proposal is the difficulty in deciding 586 or 587. The second with the array of tablets not one of these contains complete historical data  and the third has issues over interpretation of the data as per. Furuli.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I offered to walk you through the same process that I used the last time we communicated on this forum (2017?). But I'm sure you would prefer to think that the person teaching you did not have a preconceived bias. I would have been just as happy if you had found an opportunity to get someone in say, Oslo, Norway, to walk you through the process. Probably too late for the particular person I was thinking of.

Either way it is difficult so best left alone.

scholar JW

Ann O'Maly

43 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Only a problem for you (and Watchtower). The matter is settled in academia.

No problem at all except in your mind. The matter is settled in the Bible, by celebrated WT scholars making fools of academia.

45 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Haha, and there it is. OK, fine. In that case, methinks you should let go of the "heavy world of chronology" and stick to the more sedate world of the retired: golf, sudoku, or maybe enroll on a basket-weaving course. Hooroo.

No thanks I will stick to Bible Chronology rather and make you and your cronies look like idiots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JW Insider

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Why do you claim they are missing? There is no problem positing that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year if you wish. There is no problem if you wish to posit that any 7 of these years were years of madness. Or if you have evidence that it changes the timeline, just show the evidence where you think the timeline should be adjusted.

it comes down to authenticity. A sound and accurate Chronology is built on the historical record and if the record omits key facts then such an omission detracts from the integrity of the documents and any chronology based on such documents. None of the documents has any mention of the events of Neb's 18th  regnal year and that is crucial because we are talking about an event that happened in that year-the Fall.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, trying to tie Biblical evidence into this timeline is not necessary. If one thinks the timeline is not solid, then you coudn't make any use of it anyway. We need to confirm the solidity of the relative timeline before trying to make it an absolute timeline. Also, many issues with Biblical evidence are based on interpretations. Even the claim that there must have been 7 years of madness is not found in the Bible except through a specific interpretation. It is known that the Aramaic for "times" (iddan) can refer to periods of time that are not years, perhaps even seasons, fortnights, months, weeks, etc.

Chronology employs synchronisms and several are in the biblical record which is not the case with any of the secular documents so such data is essential in constructing a relative chronology.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Independent witnesses in this case are pieces of evidence that are not known to have been dependent on each other, or from the same person. For example, if you found a 16th birthday card addressed to Elizabeth in 2016, you have a piece of evidence that someone named Elizabeth was born in the year 2000 or at least within a matter of months. If you find another birthday card to the same address to Elizabeth for a 20th birthday in 2020, you now have two pieces of independent evidence that someone named Elizabeth at this address was born around the year 2000. But this doesn't mean the person was right. Someone might be mistaken. And if it was the same person sending both cards, the mistake might have been compounded. Or perhaps Elizabeth was actually younger and gave out a wrong birth year because she wanted to be seen as older, or vice versa. Or perhaps there are two Elizabeths at this address and the sender was mixed up about which one was born in 2000 and which one was born some other year.

Independent evidence isn't the same as absolute proof, but the more you have the more likely the conclusion is solid. That's why we are fortunate to have several independent sets of business tablets that are unrelated to each other. Thousands from one temple, thousands from another, and thousands from various business houses, and thousands of others that are unrelated to one another.

So be it then what are these independent witnesses that can confirm NB Chronology for where i am standing there is no such thing for all of the so-called evidence is all in house.

scholar JW

JW Insider

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

COJ used the terms correctly. He speaks of the relative chronology just as discussed above, and he speaks of absolute chronology just as was discussed above:

In this chapter it will be demonstrated that the whole NeoBabylonian period, including the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, may be established as an absolute chronology by the aid of astronomical cuneiform documents found in Mesopotamia.

Yes but this is contradicted by the title of the chapter-'The Absolute Chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Era'

scholar JW

JW Insider

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I went through all the same readings Furuli did using "TheSky" and "Stellarium" software and I would have to agree that he made several obvious mistakes with the readings. There is no question about it, and you can prove it for yourself by downloading free versions of the software, setting the location to Iraq, and scrolling back through history. (Sky uses negative dates instead of BCE dates which are correct but you need to add -1 to a negative date to turn it to BCE.) Otherwise it's simple to double-check Furuli. See what you come up with

Although I have these astro programs on my computer I have no competence in using or understanding such highly technical matters so I cannot make any assessment on such matters. I have confidence that Furuli is no fool and is competent in the use of these programs. I am suspicious of others who object to Furuli's findings because of a collective bias which has no place in scholarship.

scholar JW

JW Insider

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I doubt that COJ would call the relative chronology an absolute chronology until various astronomical diaries and records of dated eclipses are added into the mix. I'll check out chapter 4 to see. 

But that is what COJ has done

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I have communicated with Rolf Furuli about his first two books on chronology, which he sent me as I've discussed before. His attempts were focused against just one important witness to the chronology: VAT 4956. It's an important witness to the absolute chronology, but you could throw it out and you'd still end up with the same timeline. You would also end up with the same absolute chronology from dozens of other astronomical records from NB. Also, since the timeline reaches just as accurately as a relative timeline, far into the future from NB times, you actually have thousands of astronomical positions to make use of in testing how well the relative chronology can become an absolute chronology. But even that is not necessary. It will be easy to show that you don't even need to go outside the timeline to start pegging separate --and independent-- "absolute" points along the timeline that all coincide and corroborate with the currently proposed timeline.

Furuli discusses also the other astronomical diaries as well but his primary focus has been on VAT 4956 which WT scholars claim it as the 'Big one' of secular evidence. But each of these evidences should also stand alone and if not then this gives rise to a much bigger problem of interpretation and methodology if we view the evidence holistically.

20 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Besides, Rolf Furuli actually only showed that VAT 4956, if you ignored the planetary positions, then with its current copyist typos, it had only about a 20% chance of pointing to 588/587 while the exact same data showed about an 80% chance of pointing to 568/567. This is not what he claimed of course; he claimed it was pretty much the reverse of that. But this is exactly what his methodology showed. And as you have said before, methodology is important in chronology. Also, he admitted that the planetary readings only pointed away from his theory, and to 568/567.

What Furuli's research demonstrates the need of caution when dealing with these documents so thes may not be as important as we claim or wish to believe as these were designed for different purposes and can only be of relative importance as a secondary source .

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

There is, of course, a chance that certain lunar positions will be repeated every 18 years (Saros) or every 19 years (Metonic) and sometimes every 20 years, or even random years. But for the planetary positions, Furuli admits that they only fit 568, against his own theory. These planetary positions only repeat every several hundred years or more, so they should be weighted as evidence about 100 times greater than the lunar data. But even if we only weighed them "linearly" or "even" with the lunar data, the tablet points to about a 10% chance of meeting Furuli's theeory and a 90% chance that it is a match to all the other astronomical tablets. Also, if you merely correct the two most obvious copyist errors, and also allow for a 1.5 degree accuracy instead of a stricter 1 degree accuracy in the readings, you move it to much less than 5% in favor of Furuli's theory, and higher than 95% in favor of all the other astronomical diaries. And all this is really based on some correctible copyist errors. Also there were some major inconsistencies in the way that Furuli tried to make some readings "possible" by breaking the known rules, making "Furuli-only" exceptions to the Babylonian calendar. But he only invoked these exceptions when they helped, even though these exceptions would have ruined others of his "possible" readings if he had been consistent with these mistakes.

Yes , your analysis underscores the need of caution when evaluating such complex evidence.

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

A very similar attempt to Furuli's was referenced above. The link is here: https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com

This is simply the position of Ann O Maly and again she has an agenda or bias and her research needs to be tested as with all others.

scholar JW

Alan F

You claim that 605 BCE is well established for Neb's accession year by means of at least Ptolemy's Canon a comment made by Thiele and two lunar eclipses which you do not give the cataloque number. Next you move onto 

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605 BCE is firmly established by two lunar eclipse texts dated some 53 years apart. The texts are independent of each other. It is widely recognized that two or more independent sources that indicate the same historical date are extremely strong evidence that the date is correct.

These two texts must be properly analysed and examined and compared with Furuli's observations about the content of these tablets and interpretation.

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Another extremely important date with respect to the several captures of Jerusalem is 597 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar's forces captured the city and took King Jehoiachin and most of the non-peasant-class Jews captive to Babylon. Concerning this date, Thiele continues (pp. 69-70)

Next you move onto Neb's seventh year and again this requires careful examination and not just blustering comments which hinder proper discussion. the dates that you give are asserted and not proved even though accepted by the majority of scholars. Before we assign any dates to these events first examine the content of these documents and tablets.

51 minutes ago, AlanF said:

In The Gentile Times Reconsidered (4th edition, pp. 293-294) Carl Olof Jonsson quotes two scholars as follows:

<< the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. [Dr. Edward F. Campbell, Jr., personal letter to Jonsson dated August 9, 1981.]

[The date for] the capture of Jerusalem in 597 . . . is now fixed exactly. [Dr. David N. Freedman, personal letter to Jonsson dated August 16, 1981]

Based on the above data, Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year would be 604 BCE and his 18th 587 BCE. Therefore, the Royal Canon in conjunction with Jeremiah 52:29 show that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE.

Far more can be said about how perfectly lunar and solar eclipses verify the above. Carl Olof Jonsson, in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, details how several dozen lunar eclipses described in various Babylonian tablets all converge on what has become the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology.

Well if it is good enough to bring COJ into the discussion along with Thiele then it is equally proper that we cite WT scholars and Furuli but that will only cloud the issue. First, we must examine the primary evidence from both the secular documents and the biblical record then we proceed to interpretation and consult with others.

scholar JW

Alan F

21 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Furuli does no such thing. A number of commentators have disproved every piece of his "research": Carl Jonsson, Ann O'Maly, etc. Furuli demonstrated, for example, his incompetence in interpreting the output of a simple astronomical display program.

That is a matter of opinion. The fact is that Furuli provides a valuable criticism which is the province of every proper scholar , to question orthodoxy, to ask questions and test the evidence. Are you going to argue that NB Chronology is some sort of Sacred Cow that cannot be challenged , becoming something to further study? You accuse Furuli of incompetence in the use of the astro program but is this more of confirmation of your bias rather than intellectual honesty.

scholar JW

JW Insider

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That need not be a concern here, because this is just a discussion of the secular evidence. If I want to solve a jigsaw puzzle for example I only need to make use of the pieces in the box. If they can be solved into a picture, that's great. If they can't, then I wouldn't trust them to help me with any other puzzle either. And of course, there is no circular reasoning when we take the "testimony" of several independent witnesses. We are basically looking at a puzzle with about 100,000 pieces to see if they form a picture with no unresolved gaps or overlaps.

But there are pieces that are missing e.g. 1. the missing 7 years of Neb's madness from the throne and 2. No mention of Neb's destruction of Jerusalem in his 18th year for starters. And what are the independent witnesses that you refer?

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Good point. But it's no problem. That's why we carefully distinguished between these two terms. All one has to do to turn it into an absolute chronology, if they need to, is to attach any one year in the timeline to a date that is absolutely attached to the common era. If you think any of the dates in the timeline can be absolutely tied to the common era, then you have turned the relative chronology into an absolute chronology

But according to COJ you already have an Absolute Chronology titled as chapter 4 in his latest 4th edn

then of course you have the problem of Rolf Furuli whose research undermines any confidence in the correctness of the present scheme of NB Chronology

scholar JW

JW Insider

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

y looking at any additional items of Neo-Babylonian data to see if they continue to corroborate the timeline that fits the data we have made use of, so far

What is of concern to me that there is the danger of circular reasoning. What i am seeking is some external or independent evidence that lies outside NB Chronology that would validate it.

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

As you can see, I have not attempted to turn this into an absolute chronology yet. It may very well be "absolutely" accurate as a relative chronology, however. I have only referenced one small item, so far, purporting to offer us several data points for an "absolute" chronology.  On its own, however, it is only one piece out of many, and I prefer to discuss the overall quality of these evidences for an absolute chronology first.

By "absolute," of course, I am referring to the ability to attach it to the BCE/CE era. A relative timeline can be "absolutely" accurate and still not be called an "absolute chronology" as the term is used by a chronologist/historian/archaeologist. I like to start with at least two witnesses to the evidence.

What I have presented here, so far, is a reference to to some of the relevant evidence that indicates that we do have a solid basis for a "relative" chronology from at least the reign of Nabopolassar through Cyrus. (We also know that this same level of confidence continues into the future well past the time of Jesus, Augustus, Nero, etc.) So we know that if anyone accepts any particular date as absolute (through the range of Napopolassar through Nero, for example), that they are, in effect, accepting every date along this line as absolute

Herein lies the problem.  A failure to carefully distinguish between these two terms, 'relative' and absolute' because wil confuse the two and believe that what as been constructed becomes a absolute chronology.

For NB Chronology to have a useful or practical purpose for Bible Students it must have an interface to OT chronology which can stand alone from NB Chronology as shown by the independent WT chronology which employs identical regnal data for both the Monarchies of Judah, Israel, Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian and Assyrian. Thus interface between these different periods and chronologies is the regnal data. Now of course, we have the additional problem of a lack of consensus with respect to the Divided Monarchy. Thus if we admit to the absoluteness of the NB Period and its Chronology then we have the problem of the INTERFACE between the two- NB Period and OT period.

scholar JW

scholar JW

JW Insider

Your presentation of NB Chronology is excellent with lovely coloured charts and it appears infallible. How does one test or falsify this scheme of Chronology. Can it now be viewed as an Absolute Chronology and can it now be used to construct a OT Chronology which are legitimate questions?

scholar JW

JW Insider

Chronology has nothing to do with Furuli's latest bombshell for his views on WT Biblical  Chronology are firm and well established as is mine thus his current stance in some sense creates a distance, a freedom from any alleged bias working as a truly independent scholar working in the pursuit of Truth.

scholar JW emeritus

Hi Ann

How are you and I hope you are well. I received from Rolf a free copy of his latest book yesterday morning and I replied to him forthwith with some of my own observations over the last few decades. Like Rolf I share his scholarly endorsement of 607 BCE and the doctrine of the Gentile Times based on Daniel 4 and the Lukan text- Luke 21:24 his now public position certainly adds some validity to the authenticity of the 607 BCE Chronology despite the criticism of current scholarship.

Since our many online discussions of 607 BCE in relation to the chronology and nature of the 'seventy years' of Jeremiah a recent published article adds some weight to our current and traditional interpretation of the 70 years as opposed to view of our many critics. The article is titled 'The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' by Steven M Ruse in the Journal Of Biblical Literature, 2018 Vol.137,No.1, pp.107-126. This article is the most recent published article on this subject and has much emphasis on the exilic aspect of the seventy years as opposed to the view of a solely Babylonish servitude or domination of Judah. Enjoy!!!!

scholar JW emeritus

Nana Fofana

Despite Alan F's protestations to the contrary I agree with you that Lewontin, an evolutionary zoologist was correctly quoted in both the earlier and recent editions of the marvellous Creation book. He made a simple admission/statement that has come back to haunt him and then he protests about being misquoted. One thing I have found common in all atheistic/evolutionary writings that such cannot igore either theistic or metaphysical terms or language in trying to explain the subject matter.

scholar JW emeritus