Jump to content
The World News Media

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


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
14 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 33.1k
  • Replies 679
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let me try to lay this out for you (although this is more for any interested readers' benefit than for yours). The stars, planets, and Moon are components in a giant sky-clock that keeps perfect time.

Since love doesn't keep account of the injury and covers a multitude of sins, I will not go back and show you what you have actually said. Besides, I've never wanted to make this into a contest of who

Most of what CC says is just bluster he finds randomly, evidently by Googling key words. And if it he doesn't quite understand it, he must think others won't understand it either, and therefore he thi

Posted Images

  • Member
1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

That is a matter of opinion.

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.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

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. 

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Are you going to argue that NB Chronology is some sort of Sacred Cow that cannot be challenged , becoming something to further study?

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.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

But that is what COJ has done

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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

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 these terms in the same way that a paper you once recommeded to 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)

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

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.

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

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.

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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

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.

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

as these were designed for different purposes and can only be of relative importance as a secondary source .

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.

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

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.

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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 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.

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

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.

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@scholar JW, I just read what AlanF wrote, and he's right. The most difficult part would be the translation, which I never tried. But Furuli can be trusted to provide the right "Akkadian" translation, which is basically an exact copy from other sources, anyway. Learning the "jargon" on the tablets would be very difficult. The site that Ann O'maly refers to is vat4956.com, and the translation information is excellent there, too. [Edited to acknowledge the correction made below that only the translations from primary sources are excellent but that the site's attempts to overcome these translations are sloppy.] You can also get some experience by looking at translations of other astronomical diaries, where you are neutral about the date being presented in the diary. Only a small bit of the jargon changed over a few centuries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

ScholarJW said:

Quote

You claim that 605 BCE is well established for Neb's accession year by means of at least Ptolemy's Canon

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.

Quote

a comment made by Thiele and two lunar eclipses which you do not give the cataloque number.

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.

Quote

 

Next you move onto 

  3 hours 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.

 

Let's see you do it.

Quote

 

  3 hours 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.

 

Thiele's analysis is mere "blustering comments"? Already you've moved beyond the stated scope of this thread.

Quote

the dates that you give are asserted and not proved

False. Argue with Thiele, Finegan and a host of other scholars. Publish a paper with your claims and see how that flies.

Quote

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.

But that's been done ad nauseum. As you well know. Merely making vague and baseless criticisms doesn't cut it.

Quote

 

  3 hours 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

Quote

COJ remains irrelevant. It is the scholars who supplied the comments who are relevant.

You need to stop making ad hominem comments. They're inappropriate for a scholar of your rank.

Quote

along with Thiele

Ditto.

Quote

then it is equally proper that we cite WT scholars and Furuli

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Your posts show clearly the difference between competence and incompetence in these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, scholar JW said:
5 hours 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.

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.

 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

and the translation information is excellent there

It's pretty sloppy, actually. Some of it is sound, and some is confusing, misleading, or made up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





×
×
  • 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.