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

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Historical writing of history is not the same thing as historiography

That's why I didn't say it was. Why would you think it necessary to say something untrue about what I said?

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

My suggestion, plain and simple is just read Albertz and form your own opinion of his historiography just as i have done!!!

I finished over 100 pages. It is clear enough what he thinks. And it's clear enough that you either misunderstand him, or are being dishonest.

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I have done a post graduate course in Historiography and COJ does not present any such historiography in his tratise, GTR.

Then you absolutely do not know what historiography is. COJ's book is a treatise that combines discussions of the proper use of historiography. There are times when it is limited in how much help it provides, and times when it is so misused as to be subverted. This is why several of his sources are specialists in historiography. Of course, you can always give an example of the historiography you learned about and explain why he does not present any "such" but you already started out telling an easily countered untruth about COJ, and you were caught. So I'm not going to be terribly interested since you can't be trusted anyway.

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I do not care if you mistrust me for you have deviated from the true faith by your endorsement of NB Chronology, a mere string of beads over that strong cable of WT Bible Chronology.

It's an interesting topic that proves nothing to me one way or the other. I like the fact that the strong cable of archaeological evidence confirms the Bible accounts through this period of history. But I don't need that secular evidence personally to trust the Bible. I also think it is revealing that the WTS arbitrary cherry-picking, of which NB dates are good and which are not, has created a pseudo-chronology that is defended by persons who won't look at the data for themselves. If all persons, so far, who defend it will prefer incompetence or dishonesty, instead of looking at the evidence, then this says something about the quality of the evidence, too.

I trust the Bible, and I trust that in Jehovah's good time, this secular, human tradition about 607 will be dropped from our teachings. If not, it doesn't mean it is right, but it is not so important to concern ourselves about. 607 could be absolutely right, but this doesn't make 1914 right.

We are living in the last days, not because of 1914, but because the Bible says we are. Jesus is present, not because of 1914, but because the Bible says he is. Jesus is king of kings and lord of lords, not because of 1914, but because the Bible says he is. Paul said Jesus was ruling at God's right hand until Jehovah puts all enemies under his feet, even Death. That's the time we are awaiting, praying for God's kingdom to come, and not because of a date, or the length of a generation. The end can come at any time, and it is our duty as Jehovahs' Witnesses to be ready. Most prophecies about judgments in the past were predicted by prophets, so that even the time period would be known. Jesus said this particular parousia would come like a thief in the night, like lightning, as if without warning as in the days of Lot leaving Sodom. Our preparation this time has nothing to do with knowing the day or the hour, or the times and seasons, but in our Christian conduct. It's about our love for Jehovah and for our neighbor. It's our love for the ransom, and our love for Jehovah's government. This is the primary message of the Bible:

(2 Peter 3:11, 12) . . .Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . .

(1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider/Outsider

43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's why I didn't say it was. Why would you think it necessary to say something untrue about what I said?

As long as you understand the difference between these two disciplines.

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I finished over 100 pages. It is clear enough what he thinks. And it's clear enough that you either misunderstand him, or are being dishonest.

You have just started so finish reading the entire book.

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Then you absolutely do not know what historiography is. COJ's book is a treatise that combines discussions of the proper use of historiography. There are times when it is limited in how much help it provides, and times when it is so misused as to be subverted. This is why several of his sources are specialists in historiography. Of course, you can always give an example of the historiography you learned about and explain why he does not present any "such" but you already started out telling an easily countered untruth about COJ, and you were caught. So I'm not going to be terribly interested since you can't be trusted anyway.

I know what it is as I have studied it at University as one of the post-graduate Units. COJ's treatise is not historiography as it simply a criticism of WT Chronology and the Gentile Times. COJ is not a scholar and has not undertaken academic work at a University therefor his treatise must be judged on its own merit and has not committed to any proper exegeis of the 70 year textual corpus.

49 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It's an interesting topic that proves nothing to me one way or the other. I like the fact that the strong cable of archaeological evidence confirms the Bible accounts through this period of history. But I don't need that secular evidence personally to trust the Bible. I also think it is revealing that the WTS arbitrary cherry-picking, of which NB dates are good and which are not, has created a pseudo-chronology that is defended by persons who won't look at the data for themselves. If all persons, so far, who defend it will prefer incompetence or dishonesty, instead of looking at the evidence, then this says something about the quality of the evidence, too.

I can see this by your lack of faith and belief in our Chronology preferring the views of modern critics and apostates. You show a failure of what Chronology is as  a discipline being ignorant of its principles and its methodology. You have not got a clue about Chronology whatever its source or form.

52 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I trust the Bible, and I trust that in Jehovah's good time, this secular, human tradition about 607 will be dropped from our teachings. If not, it doesn't mean it is right, but it is not so important to concern ourselves about. 607 could be absolutely right, but this doesn't make 1914 right.

The date 607 is well established as part of Biblical Theology and History and it works being calcuable to 1914 which is the poster boy for us living in the last days. Unlike 586 or 587 which are simply 'dead ends' we have a date that is rock solid giving faith in our Heavenly Father who knows the times and the seasons and reveals such matters alone to His servants.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

True, there are no dates on tablets.

Actually there are likely about 50,000  Neo-Babylonian tablets, and MOST of them have dates on them.

The dates are in the form of the YEAR, the MONTH and the DAY of the month. The YEAR is in the form of the King's name and whether it is his accession year or which year of his reign we are in. The accession year was the equivalent of saying Year ZERO, the year before the official reign began.

It's the same as if the United States dated all years by the President's name and Presidential year. For example, 50-some years since 1933 would be named like this:

FDR0 to FDR12, TRUMAN0 to TRUMAN8, IKE0 to IKE8, JFK0 to JFK2, LBJ0 to LBJ6, NIXON0 to NIXON5, , FORD0 to FORD3, CARTER0 to CARTER4, REAGAN0 to REAGAN8.

So let's say a person was born in "1933" and died in "1982" but they only used dates of the presidencies.

They would say they were born in the year FDR0 (accession of FDRs presidency) and died in the year REAGAN2. If you wanted to know how old that person was you would say they lived for all 12 years of FDR, 8 under TRUMAN, 8 under IKE, 2 under JFK, 6 under LBJ, 5 under NIXON, 3 under FORD, 4 under CARTER, and 2 under REAGAN. That's 12+8+8+2+6+5+3+4+2= 50. They died in their 50th year. We would also say the person was 49 years old, but it is also accurate to say they were in their 50th year. That checks out 1982 - 1933 is 49.

Their own memory or community memory would supply the order of the presidents (or NB kings) and later historians would make sure to make a president's list to keep them in order. (Although in truth, flipping two or more of the presidents into the wrong order could still give you the right answer.)

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

They usually refer to some great local event...most of these, in our time cannot be tracked. 

You are probably referring to royal inscriptions. Most of the nearly 50,000 dated tablets don't refer to some great local event. They may only say things like:

"NEBUCHADNEZZAR YEAR 7, MONTH 1 (Nisannu) DAY 12 - Received 20 bushels of wheat and 10 bushes of barley from Uruk"

You can't necessarily track these to our time. But if you get an average of say 400 of them for every year of the near 90 years of the full Neo-Babylonian timeline, you could easily put together a full timeline for those 90 years, especially if several of them crossed over between the reign of two kings. And if you find that about two dozen of these years are also marked on other tablets with unique astronomical positions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars then you can track the year in our own time.

For example, as you say, you can't tell the year of the mundane tablet above, but if another tablet (like LBAT 1420) says:

NEBUCHADNEZZAR YEAR 4, MONTH 1, DAY 13: [with a lunar position described in such detail that it could only belong to an observation on April 11, 601 BCE]

So now you have evidence --not proof-- but evidence that if NEB4 was 601 BCE then NEB7 above was 598 BCE. You now have a date to put on the mundane tablet.

Although you are only dealing with evidence, not proof, what would you say if you tested 40 of these astronomical settings and every single one of them consistently supported each of the others in putting together the order of the NB timeline? And what if every one of the 50,000 tablets fit perfectly into this timeline without an exception?

You probably would feel that the evidence was like a strong cable.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Check again, and this time use accurate knowledge as your guide.

If you see a place where I made a mistake, be specific about where and how. Otherwise it will look like you are just pretending.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

If you haven't figured out a simple mathematical equation, how can you argue absolute proof.

I haven't argued absolute proof. And it's clear to me that you don't need any mathematical equation. You can just find ANY observed and/or predicted date in Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and then find every other year of his reign by counting from one of those predicted and/or observed dates.

The WTS uses a "kinked" mathematical equation: It adds 20 to the archaeological evidence for all events prior to 539 BCE. It adds 0 to the years after 539 BCE until some 10-year exceptions are needed around 455 BCE, and then it goes back to the archaeological evidence again.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Isn't "Comfortmypeople" related to you and a teacher? Ask her how to properly subtract starting with 747 BC, or is it Anna in disguise, maybe both.

As far as I know, "Comfortmypeople" is a Witness from Spain. I don't think he is Anna, just as I don't think I am Arauna.

You don't need to subtract starting with 747 BCE.

As I said, you can simply forget about 747 and go directly to any of the other years that are directly pointed to by the archaeological evidence for Nebuchadnezzar. If you want to know Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year because the Bible says that a certain thing happened in that year, then you can go directly to any one year shown in a piece of archaeological evidence (LBAT 1420) to see that his . . .

• 1st year started in 604 BCE (according to the eclipse reading)
• 2nd year started in 603 . . .
• 3rd ... 602...
• 4th ... 601...
• 5th ... 600...
• 10th ...595...
• 11th ...594...
• 12th ...593...
• 13th ...592...
• 14th ...591...
• 15th ...590...
• 16th ...589...
• 25th ...580...
• 26th ...579...
• 27th ...578...
• 28th ...577...
• 29th ...576...

So if you want to know his 18th year, you can use the "natural history" from the archaeological evidence to determine that his 1st year was 604 BCE and then go forward 17 more years and get 587 BCE. (587+17=604). Just to double-check, you might want to check the reading for his 16th year and you will see that the "natural history" recorded on the archaeological evidence points to 589 for his 16th. So if you want the 18th just move 2 more years forward and you will get 587 BCE again (587+2=589). You can resolve any of Nebuchadnezzar's 43 years, even his accession year (of course), from any one of the readings shown above.

If you wish, you can even double-check if VAT 4956 fits the above for his 37th year. It does. Then you can go see if LBAT 1419 supports the dates of his reign as shown above. It does. Then you can go see if LBAT 1421 supports the dates of his reign as shown above. It does. Then you can check the planetary tablet SBTU VII 171 to see if it supports the dates of his reign as shown above. It does.

In fact you could throw out VAT 4956, SBTU..., LBAT 1420, and LBAT 1421, and still you would have the same years shown above from remaining archaeological evidence. You really only need one item to fill out all the other years. But, as it turns out, you have several with dozens of individual points to check, and they all point to the dates above --and any one date fills in all the missing years, too.

 

[AlanF]

7 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Only degenerates and animalistic people use foul language. Get a life while the getting is still good. 

How about "offspring of a viper" and "whitewashed grave"? That's how Jesus described the foul, lying Pharisees. That's how I describe foul, lying scumbags like you and ScholarJW Pretendus. As well as using the common vernacular, which is far more descriptive.

[ComfortMyPeople]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

As far as I know, "Comfortmypeople" is a Witness from Spain. I don't think he is Anna, just as I don't think I am Arauna.

 

This was a real case, in a kingdom hall. He was going to start the circuit overseer's talk. A little boy approached to say something to him and he, complacent, did as he attended, smiled and soon he got on the platform for his talk.

The overseer was surprised to see the faces of those seated in the front rows. They made gestures and signs with their faces, surreptitiously. In the end, he discovered the problem: he was wearing his trouser fly open.

The little one, as "he was at the right height" realized the problem, which no one else did. But, as I said before, the overseer ignored him. Too bad, it would have saved the embarrassment. The lesson: you learn from everyone, even the most seemingly insignificant.

I say all of the above because if even a little one can teach us, if we are humble enough, I have learned a lot from some of those who write in this forum. I am not ashamed to admit that I have learned a lot from @JW Insider. There are things that I don't quite understand because they are out of my reach, like all this enormous amount of technical information about chronology. And, by the way, in some things I disagree with him, although they are very few, really.

But I don't only value jwi posts. I have learned things too, and I have enjoyed reading those of many others, it would be unfair to quote them because it would leave me some.

Regarding Allen Smith aka CC and many more aliases. More than once you feel anger because some of us support the arguments of those who do not agree with you. The only answer I can give to people with your personality is this:
 

(Proverbs 26:4) . . .Do not answer @César Chávez according to his foolishness, So that you do not put yourself on his level.

 

 

 

[AlanF]

59 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

You have no God given right to use scripture with me, boy. You have gone beyond being equated to the Pharisees. What you are  is a blasphemer against God's Holy Spirit. Like I said, enjoy life while life is still good.

HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!

"Mah Big Daddy gon' kikyo ass!"

[Jean Luc DESSONS]

Il y a 21 heures, JW Insider a dit :

Cela me rappelle un point majeur que les publications de la Watchtower et aucun Témoin n'ont encore tenté d'expliquer.

Il existe des dizaines de milliers de tablettes «datées» de la période néo-babylonienne. Ils ne sont pas répartis uniformément, mais une grande partie provient du règne de Nabuchodonosor, qui est de toute façon celui qui nous intéresse le plus. Il y a aussi des dizaines d'autres de ces lectures astronomiques qui indiquent toutes exactement la même chronologie que j'ai indiquée plus tôt. J'ai comparé plusieurs autres éclipses, et toutes donnent une excellente preuve cohérente que toutes les preuves archéologiques sont exactes.

	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
	NABOPOLASSAR (21 ans)																					NEBUCHADNEZZAR II (a régné pendant 43 ans)																																											EM		Nerig- lissar				NABONIDE (17)																	CYRUS
	1	2	3	4	5	6	sept	8	9	dix	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	sept	8	9	dix	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	591	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	sept	8	9	dix	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	2	3	4	5	6	sept	8	9

 

Avec les comprimés «contractuels» seuls, il y a littéralement des dizaines de milliers de comprimés qui prennent en charge la chronologie ci-dessus. Il n'y a aucun des dizaines de milliers qui discréditerait ou falsifierait la chronologie ci-dessus.

Nous pouvons donc dire avec certitude que la chronologie étayée par l'archéologie est celle illustrée ci-dessus et que la chronologie de la Watchtower n'est absolument pas prise en charge pour chaque année antérieure à 539. Les publications WTS soutiennent les 17 ans de Nabonide, et les 43 ans de Nabuchodonosor, et la première année de Evil-Merocach. Cela laisse donc un écart de 20 ans entre l'EM2 et le NERI4. Un écart de 20 ans à trouver quelque part dans ces 5 années que les preuves archéologiques indiquent.

Imaginez qu'il y ait environ 30 000 comprimés qui soutiennent les près de 90 ans de la chronologie néo-babylonienne. S'ils étaient répartis uniformément, cela signifierait environ 333 comprimés par an. Si l'écart imaginé arbitrairement par la Watchtower existait réellement, cela signifierait que 6 666 comprimés sur les 30 000 trouvés sont toujours manquants. Si ces comprimés provenaient tous d'un même endroit, cela pourrait être une possibilité. Mais beaucoup viennent de grands temples, et beaucoup d'autres sont issus de contrats commerciaux personnels de centaines de personnes différentes.

Et bien sûr, si cet écart était une chose réelle, cela signifierait que toutes ces éclipses n'auraient jamais pu être prédites correctement, et que toutes les lectures astronomiques avant et après l'écart auraient été impossibles à simuler. Il n'y a absolument aucune raison d'imaginer un écart arbitraire de 20 ans. Les preuves bibliques correspondent très bien à ce qui précède, mais il serait presque impossible d'expliquer si l'écart imaginé théorisé par le WTS avait réellement existé.

Toutes les preuves indiquent que l'écart promu par la Watchtower est impossible. En fait, il n'est même pas possible de proposer où un écart d'un an pourrait aller.

La plupart du temps, la chronologie séculaire de l'histoire biblique n'est pas très bonne. On pourrait même supposer que s'il y avait une période de l'histoire où Jéhovah voulait que nous connaissions la date absolue et définitive de la 18e ou 19e année de Nabuchodonosor, par exemple, alors ce serait la période où toutes ces dizaines de milliers de les documents étaient protégés des éléments.

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

@Jean Luc DESSONS Je vous remercie

Thank you beaucoup.

[JW Insider]

A couple of posts between @AlanF and @Arauna that drifted into another topic were moved here:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-153371

 

[JW Insider]

17 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Is this the point in time when you are losing miserably with your analogies that you start to move things around in order to get ready to kick people like me out that you can't handle with facts?

I would never kick you out. Not just because I don't have that ability, but because I think your posts are some of the most revealing. You probably don't even realize how much they help people realize the  of the depths of dishonesty that even a Witness will stoop to, in order to try to defend the WTS chronology here. Your writing is one of the strongest evidences against the WTS chronology for those who may not have the time to consider the facts and evidence.

Also, if you look, you will see that the post I moved was only because Arauna wrote up a very good defense of creation and against AlanF, who was trying to make a big deal out of a typo again. Just click on the link and go to page 7 or 8, and you'll see why the posts were moved. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/page/7

17 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Either way, as you have proven, how your influence has made even ignorant french go to the dark side with your posts. 

"Ignorant French"?? Are your prejudices showing?

17 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

What did Satan do with the angels he influenced? Are you any different?

Goodness! I don't know what he did with them. Did you know that Rutherford thought that people were Satanic if they didn't agree with him about 1925? Calling someone Satanic is simply the ultimate ad hominem. It's usually good evidence that there is something wrong with the thing you are trying to defend. Especially if the only other defense is gibberish.

[JW Insider]

58 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

"Nebuchadnezzar II reigned 9-I8 years earlier. or perhaps even 10 years later • to which extent his reign period is determined by the current chronology. In addition to them, there are a few later lunar eclipse*, but they are very unlikely due to their late time." Pekka Mansikka

This vague attempt to twist the narrative is beneath a good researcher, when seeking the truth.

What Mansikka says here is not just vague, it's flat out false.