Jump to content
The World News Media

George88

Member
  • Posts

    600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

George88 last won the day on February 24

George88 had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

421 profile views

George88's Achievements

  1. If you aim to manipulate others' words like a deceitful individual, it could certainly give that impression. However, I am merely employing your own reasoning, nothing beyond that. Nevertheless, individuals like yourself, who persistently spread apostate propaganda, should have been disfellowshipped long ago, as it goes against the principles we uphold. You can't add Pudgy, but comformypeople is also a good candidate. Lack of understanding of military campaigns often leads to irrational thinking. I have no intention of discrediting the Bible as you seem to be. Thus far, your so-called astronomical tablets have failed to provide any substantial evidence, and you continue to avoid facing this fact.
  2. Srecko, you made a thought-provoking statement. Instead of pondering whether adults should engage in foolish behavior to protect their fragile egos, let's consider this: Why do people in this community prefer hearing comforting lies rather than uncomfortable truths? It appears that they crave agreement rather than facing the flaws in their beliefs, even when presented by someone who exposes those fallacies like a true Christian. This pattern of behavior can be described as nothing other than resentment. Take, for instance. Tom and JWI's approach to identity suggests that they expect people to maintain a consistent online persona. It seems as if they believe that anyone who deviates from their established identity by their design of deletion is deserving of their contempt, as they can then easily identify the individual to discard them at any given moment.
  3. Are you suggesting that I should be naive enough to trust the manipulated data? It is obvious who is behind this manipulation. Regardless of how you look at it, any true scholar who has access to the information that the proud boy COJ overlooked will not be convinced by its present form. Prove where in the astronomical tablets, like the Babylonian Chronicles, it specifically states that the observations were used for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, just as the Chronicle does for 597 BC. When promoting an ideology, it's essential to provide clear evidence to support your view rather than working around it. Show the facts and prove it to the viewer. I'm not concerned about myself, but rather about the reader who is being misled by the inaccurate presentation of the facts. This should concern everyone, especially when someone who identifies as a Jehovah's Witness is involved.
  4. Please provide evidence from the tablets that pinpoint the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Your sarcastic assumptions based on the 37th year and 18-year cycle are not supported by historical facts and other relevant factors for that period and region. So far, your argument lacks a factual basis and remains speculative. The Babylonian chronicles unequivocally mention Jerusalem in 597 BC, providing concrete historical evidence. Therefore, according to these tablets, Jerusalem met its end in 597 BC, challenging the widely accepted date of 587 BC, as argued by you and other former members. Answer that question with your astronomical evidence. Absolutely! I enjoy contemplating strategies that go beyond the typical approach of a military commander, rather than just passively observing historical events. If you're unable to comprehend the significance of these tablets, it's important to note that they contain not only astronomical data, including weather patterns, but also detailed accounts of military campaigns in the Babylonian Chronicles. Therefore, approach the situation from a military perspective. Throughout secular history, it is possible to find alignment for those who seek to present thorough research rather than relying on information from a non-scholar who has repeatedly missed the mark. You have the right to reject any information that challenges your beliefs, just as I have the right to dismiss any non-conformist viewpoint on this matter. It should be irrelevant to a Jehovah's Witness to consider it from the perspective of a former member, and that is being promoted by a non-expert here. However, this relevance is exclusive to you alone. Thus, in order to validate that these tablets were indeed created to document the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, regardless of the approach employed, it is imperative that the tablets explicitly mention this event. Just as the Babylonian Chronicles mentioned the year 597 BC, where is the evidential proof you seek? If you desire to judge based on specific evidence, then let us delve into the specifics. Provide me with that evidence.
  5. Moreover, the observations of the perceptions are being inaccurately made. Dr. Wiseman's interpretation of the Bible is typically employed to challenge the Watchtower chronology, making it a compelling example to be refuted. 1 & 2 Kings -- Donald J. Wiseman [Wiseman, Donald J.] (x) The important series of Babylonian Chronicle tablets for the years 625–595 give background details for the history of this time. They provide evidence for the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC, and of the Assyrians on whose behalf Egypt intervened with military forces, marching to relieve Harran in 609 BC. In the course of that intervention Josiah met his untimely death, an event thus firmly dated to that year (2 Kgs 23:29). The same source records the battle of Carchemish in 605 BC and the first attack by Nebuchadnezzar II on Jerusalem. "been an Egyptian, not Assyrian, base from 646 BC. Archaeological evidence shows that the sole fortification there (Level II, Area C) was probably Egyptian.46 Thus Necho II warned Josiah that the Egyptian army was en route to a ‘fortified base’ (possibly Carchemish, 2 Chr. 35:20–22) and thence to help (rather than AV ‘against’) Ashur-uballit who had fallen back west to Harran following the sack of Nineveh by Medes and Babylonians in 612 BC. Josiah’s plan to block the Egyptian advance by the Wadi ‘Ara pass near Megiddo (Magiddu), rather than a more southerly Magdol near Ashkelon on the Egyptian border (the Magdalus of Herodotus ii.159), failed. At this time Necho II held Gaza and sacked Mesad Hashavyahu (Yabne Yam). He failed, however, to reach Harran in time in 610/9 BC and four years later was defeated by the Babylonians at Carchemish. It could be that the capture of Harran and the appearance of a new pharaoh emboldened Josiah to act. The Chronicler interprets Josiah’s death as due to his failure to heed Necho’s warning ‘from the mouth of God’ (2 Chr. 35:22), but the anti-Egyptian people of the land of Judah supported him and chose as his successor a younger son Jehoahaz considered as less pro-Egyptian than his older brother Eliakim (Jehoakim, v. 34)." He frequently contradicts himself when using his Babylonian chronicles in other of his publications.
  6. Any number of events can be applied to the astronomical tablets VAT 4956 - MB 33006. Even Dr. Wiseman's presentation alludes to certain timeframes that he failed to logically extrapolate in his book of 1 & 2 Kings. You have things going on with King Hophra, and then you have things going on with the Median King Cyaxares and the Lydians? Therefore, they have no value for the year stipulated the tablets are. Urartu; -- Piotrovskiĭ, B. B. (Boris Borisovich), 1908-1990 -- 1969 "When he built this new fortress Rusa II recorded his achievements on the walls of the main temple, deposited in it treasure brought from other Urar-tian fortresses, and adorned the temples with ornamental shields bearing inscriptions in the name of his predecessors. The inscriptions of Rusa II are the last Urartian lapidary inscriptions known to us: for the later period we have only cuneiform documents on clay tablets and brief texts inscribed on bronze objects. This period, however, was of considerable length. The last occurrence of Rusa II’s name in the Assyrian annals of Ashurbanipal’s reign is in connection with events in the year 654 B.C., and his son Sarduri III is recorded as coming to Assyria in the year 639: we may conclude, there-fore, that between Rusa II’s death and the fall of Urartu in 590-585 B.C. there elapsed a period of some sixty years. During this period the Urartian throne was occupied by five kings, of whom nothing is known beyond their names." P.195 "In a continuation of this text, written on another tablet and giving an account of events from 608 to 605 B.C., there is a further reference to an expedition by Nabupalasar into the mountainous area of Bit-Hanunia, “a district in the land of Urartu”. It is possible that these expeditions by the Babylonians against Urartu were confined to the frontier areas. At any rate the kingdom of Urartu was still in existence at the beginning of the 6th century B.C., and a passage in the Book of Jeremiah dated to the fourth year of the reign of King Zedekiah (i.e., 594 B.C.) talks of calling together against Babylon the Medes, the Urartians (“Ararat”), the Mannaeans (“Minni”) and the Scythians (“Ashchenaz”). It is noteworthy that the Scythians are now referred to in association with other nations of western Asia. Excavations in Iran have revealed, in the Ziwiye treasure, an important collection of material belonging to the Scythians of western Asia, reflecting a syncretic art style in which both ancient Oriental and Scythian elements are clearly evident. In the same burials were found Assyrian articles of the mid-8th century B.C., captured by the Scythians when they destroyed the Assyrian cities." pp.198/9 Daniel, Volume 30 "In Esther, G takes אחשורוש to refer to Artaxerxes, while in Tob 14:15 Ασυηρος (Asueros) denotes Uvakštra (Cyaxares), the Median conqueror of Nineveh in 612.49 He might be seen as Darius the Mede’s predecessor/ancestor/father, and אחשורוש is actually as close a transliteration of Uvakštra (Akk. U-aksa- tar) as it is of K· šayarša.50 2 The resumptive opening phrase may simply arise from grammatical need (Th. omits it); yet v. 1 is not so very long, and perhaps the phrase suggests that this year is the very year in which fulfillment of Jeremiah’s promise was due. Jeremiah’s seventy-year period of Babylonian rule might be reckoned to begin with Judah’s submission to Babylon in 605 or with the fall of Jerusalem in 597 or 587; it might be reckoned to end with the fall of Babylon in 539, the initiation of a Judahite return in 538, or the completion of the rebuilding of the temple in 517. It is thus possible to argue that Jeremiah was chronologically accurate. But he himself hardly intended the “seventy years” to have a precise chronological reference; nor is there reason to infer that Daniel understood it this way. There is little evidence that seventy years suggests a human lifetime. It does suggest a long but finite and complete period; cf. Isa 23:15; Ps 91:10; also Esarhaddon’s inscription, “Seventy years as the period of its desolation he (Marduk) wrote down (in the book of fate).” p.460 Notice where this author mentions the fall of Jerusalem in 597 BC. If we take that at face value, why would Nebuchadnezzar want to destroy something in 587 BC when he had the chance to do it in 597 BC? So, VAT 4956 is rendered meaningless. It only proves Neduchadnazzer's reign started in 605 BC, and according to this author, Judah was subdued in 605 BC the same year described in the tablet. Therefore, if we go backward to end in 587 BC as stipulated, then we have to acknowledge the first siege to be the devastating one in 597 BC. So, people of all levels of education who use words like "destruction" and "completely" need to understand in war, when a foreign army comes in or invades, they don't set out to subdue a nation with kindness but to remove the ruling party with whatever means necessary. So, if history shows 597 BC as the first incursion, then we have to accept those words. However, there's also a reason why 607 BC would have been the first incursion. You also have Egyptian King Hophra convincing the King of Judah to revolt. Those events would have been recorded by historical scribes within that time. The tablet mentions the 37th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. According to secular history, his reign started in 605 BC minus 37 equals 568 BC. Accession year used. Regnal year 567 BC. Now people want to go backwards from that tablet. 568 BC plus 18 equals 586 BC. 568 BC plus 19 equals 587 BC. So, people are using a given cycle. Big deal. Those same cycles can also explain other events that were happening at the same time. The only difference with this writer is that he is uncertain if the fall of Jerusalem was in 597 or 587, with the conjunction "or." That's what you need to work with, not the dates since by their face value they are meaningless unless you can "disprove" them and erase those other events from history to not consider them as a potential influence on the astronomical tablets.
  7. What can be demonstrated with HSM 1899.2.112? Can it prove that it was the 39th year of Nebuchadnezzar's Reign? Does the tablet specify that people should use 568/7 BC as a reference point for the destruction of Jerusalem? Continuing with the same sequence, it becomes evident that both 607/6 BC and 587/6 BC would be a valid outcome from 568/7 BC. However, it is important to note that this does not serve as conclusive evidence for anything. Therefore, if people are going to use a 19/8-year cycle with a starting point of 568/7 BC, for 587/6 BC, then in all conscience, they should continue to 607/6 BC. There is also a similar extrapolation about MB 41222. However, you may find the data from H. Hunger (the editor) quite intriguing for your exploration of Nineveh in 612 BC. It is worth noting that this source does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, the mention of a siege of Jerusalem in 598/7 BC in The Babylonian Chronicles undermines the argument for 587 BC, as there is no mention of an event in that year. Therefore, it is important to carefully consider the historical evidence before deciding that the actual event in scripture could have been the one mentioned in 598/7 BC solely based on this mention. It would seem farfetched.
  8. The alignment of secular and biblical viewpoints could be improved slightly. However, the presentation has merits. Interesting fact: Both secular history and biblical texts indicate that Naboplassar started his reign around 626/5 BC, the same time that Prophet Jeremiah began prophesying against Jerusalem. Hence, for the biblical scribes, the identity of the reigning king in 626/5 BC was of little consequence other than Jeremiah prophesying the destruction and comparing the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's name being associated with the year 607 BC, marking Jerusalem's destruction. This can be attributed to a straightforward explanation. Another issue pointed out in Dr. Wiseman's reference book is the presence of another person connected to Nabopolassar with the name Nebuchadnezzar, which critics are ignoring even though it is clearly documented. It is suggested that Nebuchadnezzar could have been referred to as an Assyrian King. This raises questions about the dating of 626/5 BC. What implications does this hold? So, nothing in secular history is absolute as some are claiming. In particular, when considering the 19/8-year scenario, this becomes even more significant. It also ends in 607/6 BC.
  9. @xero Now for your astronomical research, if you care to further study his book which I'm referencing is Gerard Gertoux - Moses and the Exodus Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence (2015) "Chronology of Assyrian reigns can therefore be fully reconstructed starting from Aššur-uballiṭ II (612-609) up to Erišu I (N° 33), since all the years of reign between these two kings are known, being aware that Assyrian years are solar up to Aššur-dân I (1179-1133) and lunar prior to this king. The durations of four reigns are missing (N° 65, 66, 37, and 38), but they can be calculated through synchronisms from Assyrian annals that indicate the exact length between the reconstruction of some famous temples." p220
  10. @xero I have always questioned the reliability of Gérard GERTOUX's research due to his reliance on the Babylonian chronicles. The issue does not lie solely in the accuracy of the dates, but rather in the flawed way the information is presented within those dates. Now, I'm uncertain about whether he ultimately obtained his Ph.D. in Archaeology and History, but it truly will hold no significance, much like it doesn't for Dr. Wiseman. Thus, any efforts he makes to appear credible are simply in line with the practices of secular scholars.
  11. As I mentioned earlier, I don't consider a one or two-year difference significant unless we were present at that time. For me, the year 537 BC is the most plausible explanation. According to secular evidence, Cyrus captured Babylon towards the end of the year 539 BC. This means that his decree to the Jews would have been issued in 538 BC, the year mentioned in Stephenson's book. Since the scriptures reference Jeremiah, it is important to understand that Jeremiah had to convince King Cyrus, a Persian, of God's will first (as the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia). Considering this, it is unlikely that Cyrus would have immediately accepted Jeremiah's word without giving it further thought and consideration. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the decree was initiated in 538 BC. If that isn't a logical comprehension, then Rome was constructed in a day. Only those who don't want to acknowledge the truth would try to find excuses for why it won't have taken King Cyrus so long to issue the decree after 539 BC. Some might argue that he suddenly ordered the Jews to leave without even consulting Jeremiah's message. However, it is more reasonable to consider that King Cyrus was occupied with celebrating his victory and securing Babylon during November and December. He needed to ensure that there were no remnants of the Babylonian army trying to regain power. It is highly unlikely that King Cyrus would have issued the decree without first addressing this matter by seeing the stage in the conquest he was in. Let us not forget that Jeremiah had the challenging task of convincing a non-Jewish person about the will of the Jewish God. You now have a relatively brief window of time from October/November 539 BC to 537 BC. How long did it take the Jews to prepare for a journey of 5 to 6 months, and how long was the journey itself from 538 BC after the decree? Ultimately, they would have arrived at the beginning of the year 537 BC. There is no mystery to the limited time provided. We all have our theories. It's important to consider who among us is using secular and Biblical history accurately to justify those events. According to the Jewish calendar, the distinction between 539/538 BC and 538/537 BC is not significant. How we apply it is, and for what reason? Now some modern chronologists make an effort to link the Jewish wars of 1947/8 and 1967/8 to justify their independence from the Gentiles, without acknowledging the historical context that led to the restoration of Jewish sovereignty alongside the British in 1914. There are instances where critics incorrectly argue that history never demonstrated any such link to those dates, despite it being substantiated by numerous means. Since this chronology is based on the belief that God himself reveals to us, we should not accept whatever humanity might think of it, but what his faithful followers should know about his word, and how chronology worked in the past for the benefit of our present time.
  12. I just checked my library. The first link you posted, F.R. Stephenson has a book that is a good read.
  13. I completely agree with your assessment. It is crucial to start by referencing scripture and then seek common ground with secular evidence. Certain events align so closely with scripture that they provide a clear understanding of its message. That's precisely why I don't consider secular history to be absolute and set in stone. I referenced Dr. Wiseman's work on the Book of Daniels to highlight the potential inaccuracies that people tend to overlook when arguing against the Watchtower chronology, with scholarly works. Scholars can also be incorrect. A.K. Grayson is another Scholar who has placed certain information incorrectly. Once again, as demonstrated by my example of Dr. Wiseman's view in the Book of Daniel, it forms an incorrect hypothesis. However, the renowned scholar, Professor L.W. King, was the one to originally translate those Babylonian chronicles that Wiseman ended up doing. Regrettably, he passed away before being able to decipher the tablets assigned to him. It's possible that we could have gained a different perspective from those tablets. Dr. Wiseman studied under A.K. Grayson. Just imagine the fascinating historical perspective of the second siege, which took place around 606 BC. In those ancient times, numerous meticulous scribes relied on vantage points instead of pivotal ones to accurately record significant historical events. That's why I remain in Harran, and my next stop will be Riblah. I hope that your research will lead you to understand and be satisfied with the reasoning behind all the dates mentioned, even if you believe there is a contradiction. At times, people go to great lengths to justify a difference of a year or two, as if it would be inconceivable if the "exact" date is not in sync. This is an incorrect approach unless we are open to the idea of time travel. They over-emphasize the considerations, such as the accession year versus the regnal year, and so on. That's why at times we get different views from scribes. However, does it matter to the overall picture of events? A reputable researcher always questions secular history but should never question the word of God. I hope your aspirations lead you to the perfect opportunity and help you achieve your objective. Hopefully, one day, you will come across my research published.
  14. @xero Had I known that you were looking for sources beyond astronomical evidence to support the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC, I would have shared that website with you earlier. I have had this site bookmarked for more than ten years. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the prevailing secular argument of 587 BC is indisputably influenced by the notable work of Dr. Wiseman and Kenneth Kitchen. Dr. Wiseman was convinced that there were indeed issues in the book of Daniel worth addressing. However, he never doubted his own credibility regarding the book. This is reminiscent of how secular scholars often try to validate their own works over God's word. They often hold the belief that their archaeological data is more reliable simply because it has dates attached to it. Yet, we must remember that these dates were ultimately determined by humans. Dr. Wiseman's argument about the book of Daniel can be easily resolved using their own secular data and scripture. They simply need to reconsider the timing, which may be viewed as "incorrect" but not necessarily "false" or "wrong." Notes on some problems in the Book of Daniel -- Wiseman, D. J. (Donald John) -- 1965 "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebu-chadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.’ The problem raised by this statement is twofold. First the defeat of Pharaoh Necho II at Carchemish in 605 sc is stated to be in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Je. 46:2). Secondly, the Babylonian Chronicle seems to preclude any action by Nebuchadyezzar in Judah in 606 Bc and moreover makes no reference to any siege of Jerusalem in that or any year before 597 Bc—Nebuchadrezzar’s seventh and Jehoiakim’s eleventh year. , Many solutions have been proposed. Some assert..that.this statement is an erroneous interpretation by the writer of Daniel of Kings 24:1 combined with 2 Chronicles 36:6—7.48 Others emend the text from ‘three’ (sal6s) to ‘eight’ (s«méneh) on the basis of Josephus’s account of this period.4® In various concordist views the attempt is made to translate ba’ (‘came to’) by ‘leave for’, but this again is countered by the Babylonian Chronicle which, although not giving the date of the departure of the Babylonian army. in 605 Bc for Carchemish, shows that it did not return from a prior campaign until Shebat (January-February) 605 sBc.5° The battle of Carchemish, which opened ‘up the road across the Euphrates, is dated between Nisan (April) and Ab (August) 605 Bc by the same Chronicle and is most likely to have taken place in May-June of that year.5!" pp.16-17 Dr. Wiseman appears to overlook the fact that although secular evidence suggests the battle of Carchemish occurred in 605 BC, providing the Babylonians with access to the west of the Euphrates, scripture indicates that the Babylonians had already gained such access much earlier. This was facilitated by the alliance formed between the kingdoms of Amon, Moab, and Aram, who were used by God to bring about the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem alongside the Babylonians, 2 Kings 24:2. So, Dr. Wiseman's assessment can be deemed "incorrect," rather than wrong or false, as it is more appropriate terminology for a constructive discussion. Utilizing negative terms like "false" or "wrong" often gives individuals an excuse to ridicule, thus undermining the open exchange of ideas. Is it possible to prove this with secular evidence? Absolutely. Just examine the path King Nech ll had to follow to aid the Assyrians, which ultimately resulted in the battle of Megiddo. When did this battle occur? Not in 605 BC. Now, the reasons behind Kenneth Kitchen's consideration of Immanuel Velikovsky as the birth of Pseudoscience are worth delving into.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.