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

[Ann O'Maly]

24 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

That is simply your opinion on the matter. Furuli's research differs from yours and that remains the problem.

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

25 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Learn how to - like everyone else. 🙄

I cannot be bothered.

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

[scholar JW]

Ann O'Maly

43 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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

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

45 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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

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

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I'm allowing you

Thanks, lol.

14 hours ago, César Chávez said:

605 BC is a focus, yet some here "refuse" to accept archeological findings supporting a 605 BC deportation.

I have no problem accepting a possible 605 BCE deportation. The Babylonian Chronicles provide some evidence that heavy tribute of some kind from near the area would have happened in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Berossus and others also indicate that this heavy tribute from an area relatively near to Judea included a deportation/exile at that time. So 605 makes sense, because the combined evidence of all the archaeological findings point to 605 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.

14 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, that makes the Watchtower off by 2 years. Yet, since the Watchtower uses 625 BC, there is no possible way to include such determination.

Yes, I agree. It's unfortunate that the Watchtower uses the date 625 for Nebuchadnezzar's accession year instead of 605. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but this must be why the Watchtower goes to great lengths to avoid discussing any possible deportation in 625, or even 605 for that matter.

Not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but the relative chronology of the timeline appears to be solidly correct. And no one here has come up with any evidence that it isn't. This means that if someone could turn the solid relative chronology into an absolute chronology with a date, like 538 for the first year of Cyrus, then we could see where 625 falls on the timeline. In order to do this one would have to extend farther back into the past to the beginning of the reign of Nabopolassar.

If it formats correctly, you should see those BCE dates on the top row.

625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536	535	534	533	532	531	530
N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years)																					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	C Y R U S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

I put a darker blue mark at 625, 605, and also at the range from 539-537. It seems that even many Witnesses don't usually realize that if 539 is correct, then the Watchtower's date for the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne, actually lands all the way back in the first year of Nabopolassar. And even dates like 607 and 605 also occur at the end of the reign of Nabopolassar.

[JW Insider]

On 12/12/2020 at 3:43 PM, scholar JW said:

OK. Then on that basis and the definition then WT Chronology can also be properly termed an 'Absolute Chronology' Would you not agree?

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

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

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

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

On 12/12/2020 at 3:43 PM, scholar JW said:

However, the Insight quote begins with "The claim is made" thus this is not a statement of fact but something that is claimed only.

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

On 12/12/2020 at 3:43 PM, scholar JW said:

It is impossible to create any Absolute Chronology for any period of history , this is simply creating myth and pretentiousness.

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

On 12/12/2020 at 3:43 PM, scholar JW said:

I agree. Falsification is what true science is about so how then does none falsify NB Chronology?

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

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

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

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

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

On 12/12/2020 at 3:43 PM, scholar JW said:

Ann O Maly could fly over and teach me or Alan F or your good self

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

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Are these lines of evidence truly independent?. So we have an established date so why not stick to that as presented in WT publications? Is it not ABSOLUTE enough?

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

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

*** kc pp. 186-187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***

• Ptolemy’s Canon: Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived in the second century C.E. His Canon, or list of kings, was connected with a work on astronomy that he produced. Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns . . .. Evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from the Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon. . . . .Ptolemy’s figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period.
• Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.
• VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. . . .
• Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.
• From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E.

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

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

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

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

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

It would simply be a Chronology just like any others.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

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

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

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

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

Either way it is difficult so best left alone.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

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

scholar JW

[AlanF]

On 12/12/2020 at 8:55 AM, César Chávez said:

Yet, you contradict yourself by NOT accepting the first deportation in 605 BC.

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

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

and some decades later comes Rolf Furuli who has confirmed mush of this precautionary statement.

Touché! Typo imitates truth!

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

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

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan F

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

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

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

scholar JW

[AlanF]

24 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

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

A deportation that results in captivity IS an Exile.

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