607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[Ann O'Maly]

On ‎21‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 11:27 PM, tromboneck said:

I am surprised he numbered his BM's and could remember them.Did he keep a ledger?

The BM numbers will have already been written in the reference works he consulted. But this raises the issue of how the same tablet can be assigned different numbers depending on how they were catalogued and the publication they appeared in, and it can make research pretty challenging for somebody initially trying to find their way around this subject.

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

On 12/21/2017 at 6:27 PM, tromboneck said:

I am surprised he numbered his BM's and could remember them.Did he keep a ledger?

The BM numbers will have already been written in the reference works he consulted. But this raises the issue of how the same tablet can be assigned different numbers depending on how they were catalogued and the publication they appeared in, and it can make research pretty challenging for somebody initially trying to find their way around this subject

I'm afraid that @tromboneck had his mind in the toilet with that particular comment. He was thinking of BM in another sense:

• (Song of Solomon 5:4, KJV) ". . . and my bowels were moved for him.."

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

He was thinking of BM in another sense:

I realize he is just playing. This is no slam on him. But

I like the Peter Sellers movie Being There in which Chauncy very slowly explains to political leaders how one season follows another. They treat him with the greatest deference, and assume that he is speaking so slowly so as to allow them to grasp the economic implications of allowing the business cycle to play out.

In actuality, he is a mentally challenged man who has difficulty recalling the order of the seasons.

[JW Insider]

16 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In actuality, he is a mentally challenged man who has difficulty recalling the order of the seasons.

In this case, I happen to know that he is not slow as some people consider slowness. I happened to catch a glimpse of some of his more short-lived posts that the moderators disallowed. This particular one, slipped through the crack, as it were.

[TrueTomHarley]

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In this case, I happen to know that he is not slow as some people consider slowness. I happened to catch a glimpse of some of his more short-lived posts that the moderators disallowed. This particular one, slipped through the crack, as it were.

Have they disallowed some? I thought that was only @allensmith28 or allen of some other number. Gasp! Has it ever happened to me (beyond the one obvious one)?

I haven't entirely figured out Trom. Not only must I apply the finishing touches but also the starting touches. No matter. I like him. There's a great many I haven't figured out.

[Ann O'Maly]

51 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm afraid that @tromboneck had his mind in the toilet with that particular comment. He was thinking of BM in another sense:

• (Song of Solomon 5:4, KJV) ". . . and my bowels were moved for him.."

LOL. Whoosh.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Have they disallowed some? I thought that was only @allensmith28 or allen of some other number. Gasp! Has it ever happened to me (beyond the one obvious one)?

I've had my own comments disallowed specifically for discussing moderation policy, which is often a sensitive subject for moderators. And some for engaging with a poster who appears bent on spamming his or her own blog address, and I'm inadvertently helping them out by discussing their blog.

And of course, that might mean that this very response won't last long. But I bring it up anyway because it was in this very thread where @allensmith28 (##?) was minding his own business and got an earful from @tromboneck. (I say, "earful" because it had somethng to do with a corn cob, if I remember correctly.) So, allen was actually the one being "protected" by the moderators. Not that allen needs protecting -- he can handle himself -- and not that tromboneck had really pushed the envelope as far as others have, either. Moderation can never be totally fair, and this is one of the reasons that I often wish it had never been used. When the topic of a discussion forum takes a turn toward the totally absurd, as this one nearly had, it often just means that some people are just too tired or too uncomfortable to deal with it seriously. Silliness sometimes sends a serious message.

[Foreigner]

8 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The Babylonian Chronicles do not tell the whole story - that is true. But we were talking about an astronomical diary, weren't we? You seem to have confused two categories of texts. You were casting doubt on the diary's trustworthiness because "no one was there to authentic[ate] what was 'copied'" and because of some errors and "linguistic incompatibilities" (whatever that means). The same criticisms could be (and are) levelled at Bible texts. But surely, ancient writings should be taken on their merits and cross-checked with other contemporary writings. The fact remains that the astronomical data on VAT 4956 are representative of celestial observations made in 568-7 BCE. This isn't about subjective theological interpretation; nor is it about incomplete historical narratives or how a nation's history is spun; this is data that can be scientifically verified. 

Aside from Furuli, perhaps suggesting the clay tablet has been tampered with in modern times? I don’t need VAT4956 to know the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar since the last 18 years of the King were documented as an uneventful time for the king from Herodotus, and Berosos for the entire land of Judah. VAT 4956 at “best” confirms the chronicled “besieged of Jerusalem” in an around the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar. At best by secular chronology, they have proven that in the final point of that siege, Nebuchadnezzar ordered the temple destroyed. Why? Who knows, perhaps out of frustration of having to deal with disloyal Judean Kings, and having no further “fear” of the Hebrew God that gave him that Kingdom to begin with? Does that in itself “PROVE” King Nebuchadnezzar was PRESENT at each engagement? NO! It does NOT!! You can’t claim that either with the Babylonian Chronicles. VAT4956 doesn’t have any importance to relate to the substance in the destruction of Jerusalem as Carl Olof Jonsson might imply, or from, ANY ex-witnesses that embellish on a *false” premise for that tablet. Does it mention the 37^th year of King Jeconiah captivity? History does.

http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm

Am I attempting to discredit the tablet? not at all. ItÂ’s just another piece of a puzzle. Does it in anyway mention the destruction of Jerusalem BEFORE the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Show me where it claims this extraordinary insight in the tablet!!

[Foreigner]

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Have they disallowed some? I thought that was only @allensmith28 or allen of some other number. Gasp! Has it ever happened to me (beyond the one obvious one)?

In a discussion board. Any input is of value. That determines the individuality of society. It appears Allen’s enumeration, could be attributed to the many time HE/SHE has been deleted. Critical historical documentation is of GREAT VALUE. No one has the right to minimize that value, just because of his/her, bias.

If that were the case, there would be no historical value to anything related to antiquity. (I.e. Babylonian Chronicles, VAT4956, etc.) Documentation that we in modern times thrive on, has been exhaustively documented for historical value. So, it should be counterproductive to censor one over another that has possibly continued, unimpeded in this forum for the same circumstance.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Aside from Furuli, perhaps suggesting the clay tablet has been tampered with in modern times?

I'm not attempting to respond to the points you made in response to @Ann O'Maly. Still, I'm glad you pointed out some of the things you did. I think these points are often missed. I think that it's easy for people to think that Furuli has somehow given good evidence that VAT 4956 actually points to 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would be pretty much the same as saying that 607 is correct because: 588+37-18=607. But 100% of scholars who have studied the tablet believe that the majority of the astronomical dates on the calendar point to 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would be pretty much the same as saying that 607 is incorrect because 568+37-18=587.

I think that a lot of people still don't know that Furuli actually claims that the MOST valuable/critical of the astronomical dates (readings/observations) on this tablet point to 587 as his 18th year, and that the tablet therefore mostly shows that 607 is incorrect. To repeat, the point that is often missed is this:

• FURULI admits that the most valuable/critical readings on VAT4956 show 587 as the correct date for Jerusalem's destruction.
• FURULI admits that most valuable/critical readings on VAT4956 show 607 as the incorrect date for the destruction of Jerusalem.

I think a lot of people are still surprised that Furuli actually admits this. This is why, even after [incorrectly] claiming that SOME the data on the tablet, the lunar data, fits the WT 607 date, he still has to overcome the MOST valuable and critical of the data, the planetary data.  So even after making a claim about the lunar data which proves to be demonstrably false, he still has to claim that the tablet might have been tampered with anyway!

How silly is that? If he still has to admit that much of the tablet's data still goes against the WTS 607 date, then why go to the trouble of making a claim that denigrates only a part of the data? If he can't get rid of ALL the data and is stuck with admitting that he still needs a second theory that the text was tampered with, then why worry about the first theory, that only covers a portion? How would anyone know that it wasn't the lunar data that had been tampered with to make them look like they might support the WTS 607 date? (Of course, neither side was actually tampered with, and both sides actually show what Furuli only admits about all the lunar data on one side: that the tablet shows that the WTS 607 date is incorrect.)

------------------------

Imagine how honest you would think I was if I had a coin that had 587 stamped on both sides. One side is clearly and unmistakably stamped 587, but the other side is a bit worn out, so I go around telling people that this coin might actually be from 607. Here's my imaginary conversation about such a coin:

• YOU: Why do you say that this coin is actually from 607, when everyone who has studied it says that it reads: 587?
  • ME: Because if you look at the worn-out side, and squint just right, you can see that a 5 looks a bit like a 6, and if you put a line through a 0 it can look like an 8, so I think date on the worn-out side of the coin is actually 607.
• YOU: But if you flip the coin over, it says 587 even bigger and more clearly on that other side.
  • ME: That's because someone in modern times must have tampered with the coin.
• YOU: Then how do you know they didn't tamper with the worn-out side?
  • ME: Because 1914!

 

[JW Insider]

3 minutes ago, tromboneck said:

you are a regular Sherlock Holmes

I suppose that's better than being an irregular Sherlock Holmes.

[Foreigner]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Imagine how honest you would think I was if I had a coin that had 587 stamped on both sides. One side is clearly and unmistakably stamped 587, but the other side is a bit worn out, so I go around telling people that this coin might actually be from 607. Here's my imaginary conversation about such a coin:

That’s understandable. However, what if one side of a coin only showed a face without a date, and the other side did? WouldnÂ’t we have to learn the history of that person on the coin to come to a reasonable conclusion? The United States still uses the images of the founding fathers. Can we guarantee, a 100% certainty with a currency of 1925 versus 1975 if it had no dates of usage? versus the date, it was printed by the mint.

This is why VAT4956 holds little value to the destruction of Jerusalem with the increments of 18-19 years. It works both ways. The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37^th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his fatherÂ’s kingdom in 605BC. That in itself doesnÂ’t discredit 607BC since the beginning siege of Jerusalem started by historical reckoning in 589BC. Keep in mind, I'm using terminology outside of the Lunar/Solar calendar.

This is why, as with any historical evidence, it becomes a matter of scholarly, opinion. Meaning, there shouldnÂ’t be more weight placed on the credibility, given by D.J Wiseman or A.K. Grayson by having a different perspective in scholarly chronology than that of a linguist scholar. What counts, how many of these secular observations can we use to agree with scriptures chronology if it has become that important for any one individual to know.

Remember ABC 5 puts the father and son around the Zargos Mountains around 607/8BC. Does that mean Nebuchadnezzar needed to be there for the “destruction of Jerusalem” in 607BC? Scripture tells a different story of how God SENT Judah’s neighboring kingdoms to DESTROY it. But why state “in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time”. Could it be the *scribe* wrote down this evidence years “after” it had occurred? Or is there something that prompted this person to recognize Prince Nebuchadnezzar as a King around that time. History shows, he was made “general” of his own army around 610BC. Also, what is the significance of the ancient cities Haran, and Hamah around 609/10BC? It would imply Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were chasing after their enemies around that time with the end battle of Carchemish in 605BC. So, 605BC was a very busy year for this King. But, how could he roam freely in the Hatti land if he didn’t have *control* over all that land? Meaning, before 605BC.