Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    444

Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. @xero, I don't know if you are still interested in the question, but I figured out a way to arrive at the answer without making use of any astronomy. I started a thread where I was looking at starting from scratch and just using the Bible at first to figure out the relative chronology that the Bible gives, and using the Bible's synchronisms with Babylonian kings. Basically, you probably worked this same out for yourself already, based on statements in the Bible that say things like: the battle of Carchimish was in the 4th year of Jehoiakim the first year of Evil-Merodach was in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile etc. So I come up with the following, which makes no mention of any BC/BCE years, but still gives the relative points in time for Josiah's death at the end of his 18 year reign, Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar's first year and last year, the beginning of Jehoiachin's exile, the beginning of Evil-Merodach's reign. I didn't have room to tie Manasseh's reign all the way back to it's beginning, but this becomes interesting when we learn that secular inscriptions show Ashurbanipal claiming to take tribute from King Manasseh. But we don't know how long Cyrus ruled, and how long Evil Merodach ruled and we don't know the exact number of years between his reign and Cyrus conquering Babylon. The test will require only 3 or 4 steps. The next step would make use only of the secular, clay business/contract tablets to fill in the known kings of Babylon over this same period shown above. That turns out to be fairly easy because there are thousands of them, and they interconnect and show the order of each king and the lengths of their reign, including their accession year. And then a third step will be to look at any other single inscription, or subset of the tablets, that might verify the record we would get from the overall set of Babylonian contract tablets. Turns out there are about 3 ways to do this, none of which will involve astronomy, or the need to identify any BCE dates. Then the fourth step, after the relative timeline is complete, just pick any ONE date you think is confirmed. Could be 539 BCE, could be the Watchtower's date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, could be a date for Josiah's death, or the fall of Nineveh. Just choose any source you think might be viable, because choosing any one will fill out the rest. Then you can check if the date chosen makes sense for the entire timeline.
  2. If the above claims of R.R.Newton were all true, it would have a devastating effect on the Watchtower's chronology for the events reported about 539 BCE. To avoid the admission that the 539 evidence also lands Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year on 587 BCE, the WTS is forced to ignore most of the evidence data that would easily confirm 539 BCE and instead specifically makes use of the supposedly "fabricated" eclipse from Kambyses 7, listed above. (Note that this is one of only 3 that Newton considers fabricated.) The term "may be fabricated" can also mean the same as "may be genuine" but Newton applies a different percentage of probability to that possibility. Note the use of this very eclipse from "Insight:" *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II. Keep in mind of course that -522 is 523 B.C.E. But also note that while R.R.Newton actually does prove (to my satisfaction) that Ptolemy basically copied a lot of previous information without actually working out the math for himself. He gives himself credit for work that others had already confirmed before him, and in some cases proves his "fraud" by making the same mistakes that others made before him. He did not personally work out all the mathematics or observations found in Almagest. But only two of the eclipses above have any bearing on the discrepancy between Watchtower chronology and the standard chronology of the Biblical accounts. And usually, the only reason we (Witnesses) take much interest in chronology is to help understand the chronology of Biblical accounts. So the only two that are both highly questionable and related to the Biblical accounts are these, below, which he says are fabricated: -620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated -522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated Fortunately, we know that the second one was NOT "fabricated" because it's also on an old copy of a clay tablet from years prior to Ptolemy (as quoted in "Insight"). The "Insight" book is correct. One of the most thorough reviewers of the book said this about it: https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1980JHA....11..133M/0000134.000.html SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) Title: Book-Review - the Crime of Claudius Ptolemy Authors: Moesgaard, K. P. Journal: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 11, pp. 133-135, 1980 Bibliographic Code: 1980JHA....11..133M
  3. I have no expectation that my posts should matter to anyone. But I should make clear that I don't assert that 587 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE as 18th year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. I'll leave it to the Bible to assert whether anything significant is associated with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. And I would say the same for 539 BCE as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon. I don't assert that 539 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 539 BCE as the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, since this is about the preponderance of evidence, it is also good to point out that, compared with 539, there is at least 10 times the evidence for 587 being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As to 612 BCE for the Fall of Nineveh, I couldn't say it's correct either. But I do know that the best evidence does show that 612 BCE is the 14th year of Nabopolassar's reign. They offer a certain convenience, but I still don't think we really need to know any of the BCE dates. They can't be determined without astronomy anyway. Were the apostles supposed to learn astronomy or trust in someone else's claims about astronomy to understand Bible prophecy? It's like someone in service once said about the King James Version Bible: "If it was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me."
  4. I think I did speak to the actual reason. I mentioned that you must have thought this was about the best you could do in finding fault. And in that attempt you utterly failed, and actually showed COJ to be 100% correct. So the actual reason, I must assume, is that you have an unrequited desire to find fault, and this has frustrated you to the point where you merely throw up anything and hope it sticks. In this case you show that COJ was correct about something (years 12 to 16 missing) and say that this is wrong because the chronicle stops at 11 and picks up again at 17. In other words, you are simply showing that COJ was absolutely correct: that 12 to 16 are missing. Then you went ahead and embarrassed yourself by proving him right, quoting his exact words: You highlight that the supposed problem where COJ mentioned that the portion containing the words for 17th year is damaged. His wording here is perfectly in line with scholars, and the WTS accepts the exact same thing. In other words, the Watchtower Society agrees with COJ here. Note: COJ: “. . . and the portion where the words for "seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102 Now the agreement with the WTS publicaitons. Here is "Insight" making the same point: *** it-2 p. 459 Nabonidus *** It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged It is becoming more clear why genuine scholars have had only good things to say about COJ's work, and no genuine scholars have said anything about it being flawed in any aspect. You yourself have just shown it to have been careful and accurate. even in the one spot where you had hoped to point out a mistake. Therefore, I do believe your real concern is that "deep down" you probably know it is accurate and are just lashing out aimlessly.
  5. Actually, I have never seen a person who worked so hard to prove someone wrong, but at the same time, inadvertently confirm that what I have been presenting here is relatively accurate -- so far. Given time, and given the amount of effort you evidently put into finding fault, I assume that someday you really will find something that I am presenting incorrectly, and then I'll be able to learn something useful from it and make the necessary correction. In the past, under other names, you've presented some resource material I hadn't seen before, and I found it very interesting. I'm a patient person. Happy to keep waiting for something useful again. Even if it means putting with all those lies and nonsense from you about banning persons. I'm also happy for the entertainment value, and revelations about human nature, etc. Even if you don't come through again. I have no interest in banning you, nor do I even know for sure if I have that authority as an assigned moderator. If I do have that ability, I have never used it.
  6. That's odd. You find something accurate in COJ's book and then declare it inaccurate. You make me wonder if you have ever found anything inaccurate in COJ's book anywhere. Not that it matters, but have you actually ever found an inaccuracy in COJ's book? If that feeble attempt was any indication of the "best you could do" to find something inaccurate, it comes across as an admission that perhaps COJ's entire book is also accurate. Maybe, as a challenge, you could find something that really is inaccurate, and if you can't find it and produce it here, I will just assume that "deep down" you believe his book is accurate and you are only flailing against it out of some kind of temper tantrum, or something like that. Something like the way you keep making up false information about me.
  7. I'm sure you recall that I never denounced Raymond Philip Dougherty. But I would also not use his works to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BCE. Besides here is what Dougherty said about Nineveh: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008910332 Archives from Erech, 1923 That was his writing in 1923. It was common during the late 1800's and early 1900's to assign the capture and destruction of Nineveh to 606, the year before Carchemish. Evidence from the Nabopolassar Chronicles ("Fall of Nineveh") changed the view to Nabopolassar's 14th year, even though the tablet is not perfectly explicit about exactly what happened then because there is a lot of damage to the tablet at that point where the 14th year would be found. But 6 years later, he wrote: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004069087&seq=164&q1=612 I never denounced him. And i never used him to support 612 BCE. But I think you already knew that. I used the astronomical evidence for the years of Nabopolassar's reign, and tied that to the strong probability that the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" is referring to Nineveh as the destroyed city in his 14th year of reign. I couldn't care less about Dougherty himself, though. There is no "certainty," it's just a matter of working with what is usually considered "best evidence" so far, but always ready to adjust if even better evidence comes along.
  8. There is good evidence that the original was recorded much closer to the actual time of the events being chronicled. Copyists/scribes/scholars were making copies of the tablets as they became too worn out or cracked. The British Museum in the Assyria section has a display of an actual tablet library which shows how they stored the tablets much like we would store books on a bookshelf, complete with the edge marked with the "title" of the tablet, so they could be kept in order. Similar to VAT 4956. But they were as fragile as iPhones, and would have to be recopied when they cracked. You are reading too much into my use of the term BCE/BC. I never opposed it. I only said I preferred the Watchtower's reasons for using BCE instead of BC.
  9. The top part is just the Babylonian kings based on the tens of thousands of contract/business tablets, with no concern as to their BCE dates. Just trying to match up the Biblical events underneath. Then the two unnecessary rows at the bottom offer the standard BCE timeline in green, and the WTS timeline in blue. Note that the WTS timeline agrees with the green standard timeline from 556 onward, but differs from 580 on back. The WTS publications also agree with 580 being part of Evil-Merodach's reign, so I have included that date. But the orange dates refer to the entire reign of Neriglissar which is the only range of standard dates which the WTS leaves open to a 24-year period rather than a 4-year period. The assumption is that there may be one or more unknown kings who reigned for 20 extra years during this period. Like I say, these BCE dates aren't necessary for understanding the Bible. The Bible doesn't use them. I would not stake my life on either one of the timelines. The only thing I would push back on is the false claim that the blue (WTS) have more or better evidence behind them than the green (standard).
  10. That's another astute observation. Even if a stone tablet or inscription had declared that it was precisely the 14th year of Nabonidus when Nineveh fell, and another tablet gave astronomical positions that could only be dated to the 612 BCE, this isn't enough. Who's to say that the those lunar or planetary positions which definitely happened in 612 BCE were actually recorded in the 14th year of Nabonidus, just because they say they were? The celestial positions would still definitely be for 612 BCE, but attributing them to "NABONIDUS 14" could still have resulted from a scribal error (or a conspiracy of scribal errors). And just because the ancient record indicates that Nineveh was actually destroyed in the 14th year of Nabonidus, who's to say that this wasn't wishful thinking on the part of the person recording the events. Perhaps the bulk of Nineveh had been destroyed earlier, perhaps it was an ongoing process and someone just arbitrarily assigned it to a specific year of Nabonidus to make it appear more successful, even though the persons he was after got away to another city. Or who knows whether there was some criteria by which a city was considered captured or destroyed under Assyrian protocol that was different under Babylonian or Judean? However when the Bible speaks of Jerusalem's temple being destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, we probably shouldn't doubt that it was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. But there is an obvious solution to the problem. Just pick any particular date you would like and work from there. See what evidence there is to attach a Julian/Gregorian date to it (B.C.E./B.C.) and see if it fits the rest of the evidence. It's even simpler because the Watchtower publications already agree with all of the standard dates that I have marked in green below throughout the Neo-Babylonian period. Since these are the only two competing timelines that we are worried about, why not just discuss them either as relative dates, the way the Bible does, or offer both BCE dates in the timeline. That's what I have done below when I was trying to work out the relative dates starting from 1 Kings and Jeremiah. I couldn't care less what the actual BCE dates are, so I'll just put them both there as reference. I'll put it in the next post.
  11. The Watchtower Society also adamantly asserts that there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible. [Insight Vol.1: "Chronology"; w69w68 8/15 p. 489; etc.] It's exactly what my point has been about both 607 BCE and 587 BCE. And it's exactly right. Because the Bible does not refute 607, just as it does not refute 587. Neither does the Bible support either date. The 607 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy. The 587 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy. BCE/BC dates are only measured in terms of the Gregorian or Julian calendars. Note: *** w68 8/15 pp. 489-490 pars. 8-15 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates *** If events recorded in the Bible were dated according to the Julian or other preceding calendars, it would be a rather simple matter to convert such dates to the Gregorian calendar. But not so. . . . Please note, the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars.
  12. It looks like it could be based on a translation issue where Gadd trusted Herodotus and Diodorus to fill in some of the information gaps in the heavily damaged places on the tablet. The tablet credits the alliance between the Babylonians and Medes. But the tablet uses the name Cyaxares, the King of the Medes, as a way to reference to the Medes, but it also uses the term Umman-Manda which may have also meant Medes and not Scythians. Either way, both things could be true, rather than constituting a true conflict. Some are willing to give Herodotus and Diodorus the benefit of the doubt, and some are more skeptical, as was the case of Maurice Price in 1923 who only wanted to derive information from what was actually said on the tablet, not what was inferred through others. It is rather hard to believe that Cyaxares could have forced a true alliance with the Scythians after just murdering their leaders a few years earlier. That assumes that the following was true: (Wikipedia, Cyaxares) The next year, in 625 BCE, Cyaxares overthrew the Scythian yoke over the Medes by inviting the Scythian rulers to a banquet, getting them drunk, and then murdering them all, including possibly Madyes himself. After freeing the Medes from the Scythian yoke, Cyaxares reorganised the Median armed forces . . . .Cyaxares might also have forced the Scythians into an alliance with the Medes after overthrowing their rule, since from 615 BCE onwards the Babylonian records mention the Scythians as the allies of the Medes. Price's skeptical 1923 article on the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" was already quoted from earlier. (Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol 43.)
  13. The main thing to remember in all this discussion is that there are absolutely no BCE dates that can be known without astronomy. NONE. If you make a claim about ANY date in the BCE range, you have relied upon astronomy as the foundation for that date. That's the foundation we start from even for our famous 607 date (WTS chronology). The 539 date. The 632 date we use for the 14th year of Nabopolassar, and therefore the likely Fall of Nineveh. It's all about astronomy if we include a BCE date. The gap does not necessarily widen, at least through the late Neo-Assyrian or the entire Neo-Babylonian era, and every era since: Persian, Greek, Roman, etc. This is where the many readings from astronomy come in. There is often a question about what month of the year a king started his reign in, and if reigns count from a fall new year instead of a spring new year, you could be 6 months off. If you don't know whether the few weeks or months before the new year was counted as the "first year" then you might be a year off. But if the method stayed the same from reign to reign you would not continue to widen any gap, and if the method changed back and forth from reign to reign, the mistakes would essentially cancel each other out. But every few years, and sometimes year after year for several years in a row, we have astronomy readings that identify every BCE year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, every BCE year of Nabopolassar's reign, every BCE year of Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus, right up to Cyrus. The reason those dates match exactly to the years of the eras that Ptolemy used was because he, too, checked them against the astronomy.
  14. I might just try to get my money back. The parrot in the first picture is undoubtedly responding only to the difference between the prompt and the actual cartoon.
  15. Except that Furuli was caught doing exactly as you say above about someone else: This is exactly what one of the secular authorities that the Watchtower used has indicated about Furuli. Furuli also tried to hide his WTS-chronology agenda under the guise of the "Oslo-chronology." I couldn't say whether Furuli lacked sincerity, because no one else can really get into his own mind. But I had already seen that Furuli had told untruths even prior to the book that fooled the WTS into printing misinformation back in 2011. Perhaps that would fit the bill for something else you said: I don't care about Furuli's or Thiele's or Young's or McFall's credentials. I only know that those last three added some interesting points to the body of work on the topic. Furuli is competent in Hebrew from what I've read, but at least he admitted to being an amateur on some of the topics he tackled in his two books on chronology.
  16. Very true. I'm glad you recognize that the 27 year gap runs from Nebuchadnezzar's 10/11th year to his 37th year, because the gap is temporarily closed by VAT 4956 dated, as you show above, to the year 568 BCE. But this is just the "Babylonian Chronicles" themselves, not the actual dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. There is absolutely NO gap in identifying all the BCE years from his very first year to his 43rd year. We know the BCE equivalent of every single one of them. And of course, there is also a gap in the early Babylonian Chronicles for Nabopolassar. We get the first years of his reign and the final years, but his 4th year to his 9th year is missing (622 to 617 BCE). As Freedman puts it in "The Babylonian Chronicle" article (already quoted above): What you are quoting there was written in 1863 and remained even until the 1875 edition. It was fairly typical to get dates off by at least a year or two before more of the Babylonian Chronicles were first discovered and published. Recall that even Charles Russell said that the first year of Cyrus was 536 BCE and it took the WT publications between 60 and 70 years before correcting that date to 538 BCE. I wondered about that too. It seemed odd that you brought up 608 as an alternative to 609 when both dates invalidate the Watchtower's chronology for Josiah's death. I didn't think it was a "tactic" though, but I did wonder why you focused on not one but two authors who happened to use the 608 date. Same goes for going all the way back to the mid-1800's to find someone who is off by two years instead of one. (Or, 22 years instead of 21 years using the Watchtower's chronology.) What you are quoting from Stephanie Dalley there is exactly right. On page 248-249 she is discussing the 37 year exile of Jehoiachin. It's what my calculations get when I start Jehoiachin's 37-year exile in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, therefore the 1st year of his exile is Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year, and the 37th is the first year of Amel-Marduk. With that statement she also agrees with COJ.
  17. The following resource in the Biblical Archaeologist has an nice overview of all the Babylonian Chronicles in only 11 pages of reading with some useful commentary: The Babylonian Chronicle Author(s): David Noel Freedman Source: The Biblical Archaeologist , Sep., 1956, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Sep., 1956), pp. 49-60 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3209218 In the 2nd snippet from there below, you'll see another comment about Josiah possibly needing to show loyalty to Babylon now that he had tried to break free from Assyrian control.
  18. You were quoting Graetz here, as you already noted. You can tell that by wording it this way, Graetz was already aware of the secular history and not just the Biblical history. The Bible doesn't make it clear that Josiah may have battled Necho at least indirectly in support of Babylon at the time. If one were just to read the Bible accounts, they might get a different idea about who Necho was going to fight: (2 Kings 23:29)  In his days Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh the king of Egypt came to meet the king of As·syrʹi·a by the Eu·phraʹtes River, and King Jo·siʹah went out to confront him; but when Neʹchoh saw him, he put him to death at Me·gidʹdo. (2 Chronicles 35:20, 21) . . .After all of this, when Jo·siʹah had prepared the temple, King Neʹcho of Egypt came up to fight at Carʹche·mish by the Eu·phraʹtes. Then Jo·siʹah went out against him. 21 So he sent messengers to him, saying: “What does this have to do with you, O king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but my fight is against another house, and God says that I should hurry. For your own sake, refrain from opposing God, who is with me, or he will bring you to ruin.” It seems to some that Necho was going out to "meet the king of Assyria" in battle, because he "came up to fight at Carchemish." It's only if one knows that secular history that one can realize that he was not going to battle Assyria, but he was going to meet Assyria as an ally in order to band together with Assyria against Babylon. That's why the Insight book adds: *** it-2 p. 118 Josiah *** Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), Pharaoh Necho led his army northward to the aid of the Assyrians. For a reason not revealed in the Bible, King Josiah disregarded “the words of Necho from the mouth of God” and tried to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo, but he was mortally wounded About those alliances developing near the end of the Assyrian empire, the Journal you quoted earlier states: Others have noted that the identification of the Scythians (also by Gadd) is probably an overreach. But the Nabopolassar Chronicle (aka Fall of Nineveh Chronicle) speaks to the alliance: and futher on in the same Journal: And I'll conclude with 2 more snippets because they relate to comments previously made. It's true that Assyrian and Babylon appear allied through much of their history. But this was a time when they weren't. Nabopolassar was appointed by Assyrian rulership, but fought against them for independence, and ultimately won the day -- at least for about a 70 year period (per Jeremiah 25). and also point 4 was relevant: and most especially: This last point is one that I have tried to make for several years in those discussions of the 70 year period for Babylon that ended in 539 BCE. If it ended exactly in 539 then we would expect it to have started in 609 BCE. I've argued before, using these exact same dates, that the fall of Assyria didn't happen all at once but was a process that ran from 612 to 605 BCE. Therefore the hegemony of the Babylonian Empire could easily be seen as running from about 609 (just about the average of the two dates. Or one could just as easily run them from 607 to 537. I'm OK with those dates, too, for the 70 years. Apologies for the long quotes. I know you have already referenced the Journal of the American Oriental Society https://www.google.com/books/edition/Journal_of_the_American_Oriental_Society But a lot of people don't like to go to the links.
  19. This is a valid point about the differences of a few months or even one year. I not only concur with Thiele on this, I have now come to agree with nearly all the BCE dates he has chosen for the "Hebrew Kings." Naturally, they stick very close to the astronomical evidence. Therefore he also understands that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar must be 586, but still considers the validity of either 587 or 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple. Thiele puts Josiah's death in 609 BCE. McFall and Rodger Young have made good points in discussing Thiele, especially Young, but Thiele's numbers are good enough to take most of the "mystery" out of it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Numbers_of_the_Hebrew_Kings
  20. That's the spirit!! I agree wholeheartedly. And I appreciate the indirect permission for any of us to "challenge" in the last line there. It's curious to me that you might consider as potentially valid any author who chooses 608 over 609 for Josiah's death. Either date ruins the WTS chronology. The WTS considers both dates to be completely out of the question. *** it-1 p. 450 Chronology *** and Pharaoh Necho’s battle resulting in Josiah’s death likely came in 629 B.C.E. The difference in 608 and 609 is not much of a discrepency at all when you consider that the WTS needs for the date to be about 20 years off for 1914 to work. Authors that use either 608 or 609 are sticking very close to the standard chronology. As you can see: So in 1898, Heinrich Graetz chooses 608 for Josiah's death in a battle with Necho. But that means that he puts the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, as you can see from the bottom of the following from his volume 6. Same, of course, with the other author you quoted: Naturally, if he chooses 608 he is simply sticking close to the standard chronology. As you can see from the same book, where it mentions the usual 586 date for the conquering of Jerusalem.
  21. LOL again. I know that you have opinions that I don't accept as true, and I have opinions that you don't accept as true. But that's no reason to rely so much on the ad hominem as your primary response. We see this type of behavior from you on any point where it can be shown that you claim was wrong, or that you misunderstood something you read. You've already done it whenever a false claim you have made is countered by someone else. I found about 10 such items of misinformation just on the first page of this topic. But you don't merely disagree, or claim that I have misunderstood. Instead, you go right for the name-calling: "he's a chronic liar" "he's a friend of apostates" "he's considered by some to be a false prophet." Obviously it does no good to point out errors to you. If the error is subtle or requires a more complex explanation you usually just deny and give fairly low-key insults. But when the error is easy to spot, and blatant and obvious to anyone, you appear to double down on the insults and ad hominem speech to a much higher degree. Case in point. Here's a recap of just that one minor point about the Battle of the Eclipse: You claimed: "Remember By retracing your steps, you will arrive at the epic 'Eclipse War' that occurred in 589/8 BC." I responded that the battle of the eclipse did not occur in 589 but [if it's truly based on a solar eclipse], then it's identified as May 28, 585 BC:. [I'm sure that doesn't seem like such a big deal, but I mentioned it because I know why you specifically chose the year 589 and I wanted to discuss that choice in a separate post.] I also gave possible dates if it had been confused with a lunar eclipse. (Personally, I think the war and this particular battle happened and so did a total solar eclipse in 585, but I don't trust that Thales actually predicted it. It's the kind of thing that a story could easily be made about after the fact. But that's not pertinent to the point here.) Instead of acknowledging that the term "Eclipse War" or "Battle of the Eclipse" was indeed most likely named after a solar eclipse in 585 per MOST historians, and perhaps offering an explanation as to why you chose to highlight 589 as a possibility, you decided to go with the ad hominem insults and attacks. You said: That I was indulging in childish games. [FALSE]. That I was referring to Rawlinson's interpretation. [FALSE] That I was selectively choosing items to inaccurately oppose. [FALSE] That I was simply making an uninformed assertion. [FALSE] That YOU, George88, can also demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610 BC [FALSE] That it does not seem to be inherent in my genetic makeup to have an honest debate. [FALSE] So, I picked one of the two false claims from above that doesn't look like an ad hominem. I picked the one where you falsely claim that you can demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610. It was obvious that you can't because the very person who had attempted that date admitted that it was a mistake, a "worthless" date, and he was one of the first to realize that the date in 585 was the one that actually fit the historical situation. And even you admitted that the dates for this war primarily included the years 590 to 584. I can see how that particular mistake could be embarrassing: you making a false claim about a date that was long debunked by the very person who came up with it. But when you make a more blatant mistake that anyone can understand (just by reading a paragraph or two) you tend to always go even more wild with the accusations, insults and ad hominem attacks. So instead of trying to explain the mistake you went with the following: That I engage in consistent deceit and twisted storytelling. [FALSE] That I hypocritically persist in distorting the truth. [FALSE] That I pretend that any honest researcher opposing me would succeed [FALSE ????] That I'm a chronic liar who is unwilling to change. [FALSE] That I have spent a significant amount of time fabricating facts [FALSE] That I can't bear the fact that my false claims don't stand up to scrutiny on an academic level. [FALSE] That I am nit-picking the dates. [TRUE, for a specific reason I'll explain later] That I can't stand the fact that my famous astronomical tablets from 568 BC can be used to reflect those other conflicts not just my false narrative of Jerusalem. [FALSE on multiple levels] That I consistently manipulate the facts, manipulating dates that have no relevance just to support my version of events. [FALSE, again, on multiple levels] I point this out as hopefully useful counsel to you. I don't expect you to ever admit a mistake here, and that's OK. That's a "given" with your history here. But I'm not the only person here to have noticed that when your error is easier for anyone to understand, the more you double down on the insults and false claims about the person who points it out, with little to no effort to address the points made, or issues raised. And by the way, I realize I have made many mistakes here. I try to fix them as I learn more about the topics, but some of mine have also been embarrassing. But that's a part of how I learn. I put an opinion out there and those who know better can correct it. I would appreciate any corrections even from persons where I would heretofore have expected no more than a litany of insults.
  22. Me: No, if you remember what you drew in the very first picture. The man should have just hit his finger or thumb with a hammer while trying to hammer a nail in the wall. The woman should be next to the parrot. She should be pointing her left index finger at the parrot's ear, and she should point her right finger at the parrots other ear. But her index fingers should be close enough to be touching the parrot.
  23. Me: I like the black and white version better, and the parrot should be back on a perch which should be just like the first picture you drew, but with the pole a bit shorter so that the women is just slightly taller than the perch, and can more easily put her fingers at each side of the parrots head, but touching the parrots head at each side so it appears that she is trying to stop the parrot from hearing
  24. Me: Keep the same picture, but have the woman holding the index finger of each hand at both sides of the parrot's head as if she is trying to cover the parrot's ears to keep the parrot from hearing whatever the man is saying. I've adjusted the scene according to your instructions. The woman is now holding her index fingers at both sides of the parrot's head, attempting to cover its ears. Not quite. So I try again:
  25. I pay $20 a month to OpenAI to play with their 4.0+ version of ChatGPT. It's not really an expense because I still do some remote consulting for a tech company in Ohio. Today, I decided to try out its ability to draw pictures on demand. I wanted a picture of a man about to curse because he just hit his thumb with a hammer, and I want his wife, to put her fingers in the "ears" of their pet parrot, so that the parrot doesn't pick up any bad words to repeat. So here goes: Prompt: I need a New Yorker style cartoon containing man hammering a nail in the wall and accidentally hitting his thumb. At the same time a woman, presumably his wife, is standing next to a tall perch where a parrot appears oblivious and she, the wife, is putting her fingers in the ears of a parrot. Not terrible, but it didn't get the right idea about the parrot's ears being covered. So I try again:
×
×
  • 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.