Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[Pudgy]

CALIBRATION:

Calendars have to be calibrated against something or they “float”.

I have designed complete housing subdivisions and drawn the maps on arbitrary coordinate systems (zero, zero, or 10,000, 5,000 …) which would define each and every lot completely, but when convenient it needed to have those many thousands of coordinates translated and rotated to fit the REAL WORLD. 

Temporal mapping ( commonly known as Calendars …) works the same way

Until you anchor them to something irrefutable ( In this case, astronomical “benchmarks”… ) an epoch calendar can be ANY date in another measurement system.

[BTK59]

On 3/23/2024 at 8:53 PM, George88 said:

There seems to be yet another attempt to distort the truth, which is completely irrelevant to the clear inconsistencies in history. It is quite telling that the focus is on the year 608 BC instead of the actual significant year, which is 609 BC. Such tactics are a prime example of manipulation at its finest. It is not accurate to suggest that the inconsistency between the Bible and secular history regarding the date of 587/586 BC proves a consistent approach to time throughout the millennia.

I have always pondered the origins of the notion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC, as there appears to be a lack of written evidence supporting such a claim from the ancients.

It's funny how he flaunts credentials as if they should hold weight against the Watchtower, but he disregards them when they are used to proving him wrong.

Is Doctor Kildare in the house, lol!

It is indeed intriguing that some historians believe Herodotus obtained certain information from Berossus, considering that Herodotus died at the age of 64 and Berossus is estimated to have lived in the third century BC. It raises the question: was Berossus a young boy conducting research for his thesis at that time? lol!
 

[George88]

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It is indeed intriguing that some historians believe Herodotus obtained certain information from Berossus, considering that Herodotus died at the age of 64 and Berossus is estimated to have lived in the third century BC. It raises the question: was Berossus a young boy conducting research for his thesis at that time?

I would have to say, those opinions might be in reverse. If anything, Herodotus would have been interested in the works of Ctesias, and Berossus along with Manetho would have researched the works of those two.

Ptolemy stands out as a unique figure, with some asserting his originality. Yet, there is speculation that he drew inspiration from the prior contributions of Hipparchus, whom Ptolemy incorrectly acknowledged. It is Kidinnu's work that truly deserves this recognition. Regrettably, only fragments of Kidinnu's contributions survive through secondary references, as his works have been lost, much like numerous others from that era.

If the writings of Berossus and Kininnu had been preserved, our understanding of Babylonian antiquity would likely be more comprehensive, surpassing what can be inferred from ambiguously interpretable tablets. Furthermore, it's conceivable that much of what is now lost to us might have remained accessible well past 100 CE, possibly even into the 12th to 16th centuries AD.

Carl Olof Jonsson's oversight is no laughing matter, with half a century marred by deception. Regrettably, thinking akin to that of apostates continues to pervade the organization. Rather than confronting the Watchtower, individuals should critically examine their own intellectual stagnation and question the motivations behind it.

I will email you outlining a biblical scenario from 588/587 BC that will likely offer you a moment of profound insight due to its simplicity. Strikingly, other renowned publishing houses such as Zondervan, Tyndale, and Harvest, along with numerous other biblical publishers, have this information in print, albeit arranged incorrectly. They persist in making inaccurate assumptions based on erroneous (misplaced) historical data.

Accepting 612 BC as the definitive year for the fall of Nineveh is problematic given historical records that suggest a range of other dates, including 613, 611, 610, 608, 607, and 606 BC, among others. Such discrepancies cast doubt on the notion of an "absolute" year, rendering it, at a minimum, an inaccuracy.

[BTK59]

On 3/25/2024 at 9:02 AM, George88 said:

I will email you outlining a biblical scenario from 588/587 BC that will likely offer you a moment of profound insight due to its simplicity. Strikingly, other renowned publishing houses such as Zondervan, Tyndale, and Harvest, along with numerous other biblical publishers, have this information in print, albeit arranged incorrectly. They persist in making inaccurate assumptions based on erroneous (misplaced) historical data.

I've just finished reading the email you sent.

Wow, I'm speechless. I understand you may be hesitant to share information you're certain of, but have you ever considered writing a book? Your examples are so clear, they make sense even if they aren't the final outcome of your deductions.

Also, I appreciate your mention in the email regarding the destruction of Nineveh in 625 BC. It is indeed perplexing. It also raises questions about how individuals who adamantly assert there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible can refute the year 607 when, by that logic, they should also refute 587. It's troubling to consider the mindset of such people, and even more so when others agree with this misguided notion.

Perhaps it's time to shift our focus and initiate a discussion on a different subject. Let’s explore how secular history often misinterprets various aspects or something along those lines.

I understand that we are both busy, but let's give it some thought. lol!

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It also raises questions about how individuals who adamantly assert there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible can refute the year 607 when, by that logic, they should also refute 587.

The Watchtower Society also adamantly asserts that there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible. [Insight Vol.1: "Chronology"; w69w68 8/15 p. 489; etc.]  It's exactly what my point has been about both 607 BCE and 587 BCE. And it's exactly right. Because the Bible does not refute 607, just as it does not refute 587. Neither does the Bible support either date.

The 607 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy. 

The 587 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy.

BCE/BC dates are only measured in terms of the Gregorian or Julian calendars. Note:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 489-490 pars. 8-15 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***
If events recorded in the Bible were dated according to the Julian or other preceding calendars, it would be a rather simple matter to convert such dates to the Gregorian calendar. But not so.
. . . Please note, the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars. 
 

[Miracle Pete]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I've just finished reading the email you sent.

Wow, I'm speechless. I understand you may be hesitant to share information you're certain of, but have you ever considered writing a book? Your examples are so clear, they make sense even if they aren't the final outcome of your deductions.

Also, I appreciate your mention in the email regarding the destruction of Nineveh in 625 BC. It is indeed perplexing. It also raises questions about how individuals who adamantly assert there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible can refute the year 607 when, by that logic, they should also refute 587. It's troubling to consider the mindset of such people, and even more so when others agree with this misguided notion.

Perhaps it's time to shift our focus and initiate a discussion on a different subject. Let’s explore how secular history often misinterprets various aspects or something along those lines.

I understand that we are both busy, but let's give it some thought. lol!

I’m fairly new here but this is the same person talking to themselves isn’t it? Hilarious. Very very weird but hilarious. 

[Pudgy]

Yeah … he also has other logins to upvote himself and other logins to downvote others …

…. he thinks no one notices ….

[JW Insider]

On 3/25/2024 at 11:02 AM, George88 said:

Accepting 612 BC as the definitive year for the fall of Nineveh is problematic given historical records that suggest a range of other dates, including 613, 611, 610, 608, 607, and 606 BC, among others. Such discrepancies cast doubt on the notion of an "absolute" year, rendering it, at a minimum, an inaccuracy.

That's another astute observation. Even if a stone tablet or inscription had declared that it was precisely the 14th year of Nabonidus when Nineveh fell, and another tablet gave astronomical positions that could only be dated to the 612 BCE, this isn't enough. Who's to say that the those lunar or planetary positions which definitely happened in 612 BCE were actually recorded in the 14th year of Nabonidus, just because they say they were? The celestial positions would still definitely be for 612 BCE, but attributing them to "NABONIDUS 14" could still have resulted from a scribal error (or a conspiracy of scribal errors). And just because the ancient record indicates that Nineveh was actually destroyed in the 14th year of Nabonidus, who's to say that this wasn't wishful thinking on the part of the person recording the events. Perhaps the bulk of Nineveh had been destroyed earlier, perhaps it was an ongoing process and someone just arbitrarily assigned it to a specific year of Nabonidus to make it appear more successful, even though the persons he was after got away to another city. Or who knows whether there was some criteria by which a city was considered captured or destroyed under Assyrian protocol that was different under Babylonian or Judean? 

However when the Bible speaks of Jerusalem's temple being destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, we probably shouldn't doubt that it was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

But there is an obvious solution to the problem. Just pick any particular date you would like and work from there. See what evidence there is to attach a Julian/Gregorian date to it (B.C.E./B.C.) and see if it fits the rest of the evidence. 

It's even simpler because the Watchtower publications already agree with all of the standard dates that I have marked in green below throughout the Neo-Babylonian period. Since these are the only two competing timelines that we are worried about, why not just discuss them either as relative dates, the way the Bible does, or offer both BCE dates in the timeline. That's what I have done below when I was trying to work out the relative dates starting from 1 Kings and Jeremiah. I couldn't care less what the actual BCE dates are, so I'll just put them both there as reference. I'll put it in the next post.

 

[JW Insider]

The top part is just the Babylonian kings based on the tens of thousands of contract/business tablets, with no concern as to their BCE dates. Just trying to match up the Biblical events underneath. Then the two unnecessary rows at the bottom offer the standard BCE timeline in green, and the WTS timeline in blue. 

Note that the WTS timeline agrees with the green standard timeline from 556 onward, but differs from 580 on back. The WTS publications also agree with 580 being part of Evil-Merodach's reign, so I have included that date. But the orange dates refer to the entire reign of Neriglissar which is the only range of standard dates which the WTS leaves open to a 24-year period rather than a 4-year period. The assumption is that there may be one or more unknown kings who reigned for 20 extra years during this period. 

Like I say, these BCE dates aren't necessary for understanding the Bible. The Bible doesn't use them. I would not stake my life on either one of the timelines. The only thing I would push back on is the false claim that the blue (WTS) have more or better evidence behind them than the green (standard).  

[Pudgy]

When I was a young man and the “end of the conveyor belt” was over the horizon I was intensely interested in such things. 

Now I am only interested in provable reality, as I can see the end of the “conveyor belt”, and everybody’s predictions have been 100% wrong, 100% of the time.

So ….. what’s the point?

I am sitting in my car outside WalMart, and I can look around and see the Great Tribulation has NOT OCCURRED.

I can look around and see Armageddon has  NOT OCCURRED.

I can look at the bag of pills on the front seat and see that God’s Kingdom ruling has NOT OCCURRED.

A thousand iterative calculations “PROVING” IT DID, and all the hopes and dreams, and wishful theories are wrong.

When it happens you will know it.

Really!

Really

[Pudgy]

Alphonse:

Having downvoted what I consider statements of irrefutable fact … please feel free to correct any and/or all points.

Otherwise, you prove yourself a Troglodyte.

[BTK59]

5 hours ago, Miracle Pete said:

I’m fairly new here but this is the same person talking to themselves isn’t it? Hilarious. Very very weird but hilarious.

It's rather amusing to observe how individuals such as Pudgy, Tom, JWI, Many Miles, Xero, or members of the closed club are compelled to support apostates here through alternate accounts. Quite humorous, indeed! In this case, it appears you are Pudgy's or Many miles, maybe even Tom's sock puppet as they like to refer to it, and since you have posted it, PROVE IT, don't just make accusations, lol!

Please refrain from engaging in verbose rhetoric, discussing login, timing, or infringing upon others' privacy rights, as done by moderators like JWI as proof. Let's avoid any further nonsense if that intent is going to be applied.

This type of behavior typically emerges right before they expel someone, primarily because they cannot tolerate being proven wrong. They resorted to using sock puppets for hurling insults, and carrying out their malicious deeds. Consequently, they deceive people by claiming that no one has been banned due to their actions, which is not only false but also an outright lie.

So, I'll just block you right now, you can speak with your other self at will.