Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[BTK59]

@Miracle Pete

Thank you for participating. I've now added both you and Pudgy to my "Ignore" list, haha!

[Miracle Pete]

45 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

@Miracle Pete

Thank you for participating. I've now added both you and Pudgy to my "Ignore" list, haha!

Can I just check if both of you have blocked me or just this identity? You really should write a book someday. Wow. I’m speechless. 

[Pudgy]

I would never suggest blocking or banning The Vicar of Warwick, Wally McNasty and his doppelgänger minion troupe of whack-a-mole up and downvoting mute sock puppets.

It could only be better with recorded squirrel noises and rubber bulb bicycle horns in both hands.

[George88]

Yes, you don't have to look hard to know I ignore fools, Pudgy, lol!

Isn't it fascinating when Pudgy starts denying any involvement in the banning process, only to enable it through an alternate persona? lol!

[George88]

10 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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.

It seems that the individual now favors the use of BC, despite previously opposing it. I have no issue with employing BC, even though the ancients couldn't have linked it with "Before Christ" or "Before the Common Era," as they could not have foreseen that modern calculations would transition to "Anno Domini" or "Common Era." Therefore, I concur with the Watchtower's stance on historical chronology.

When were the tablets first recorded, and what additional information did newer scribes incorporate into previously documented tablets? If the original tablet was damaged, to what extent did scribes rely on interpretative translation to restore its content?

The Babylonian Chronicles are a good example that consists of tablets that were most likely recorded during the time of Darius.

However, that individual previously denounced the works of Raymond Philip Dougherty as flawed, yet now embraces them to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, quite the turnaround.

However, in A.K. Grayson's translation of ABC-7 (BM 35382), the inscription ceases in Nabonidus's 11th year and resumes in his 17th year. This contrasts with the Chronicles of Early (COJ) assertion, which inaccurately assigns the period as years 12 to 16.

The question arises: Without relying on the tablet itself, how is Nabonidus 14 calculated to correspond to 612 BC? In this case, I accept the advice of "Brinkman" and "Glassner."

Now scholars like "Beaulieu" reference the works of "Parpola" but he does mention the lack of the Neo-Babylonian period in Nineveh.

"Unfortunately, research on the Neo-Babylonian period is often hampered by the aridity of the sources. Building inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian rulers seem opaque and lifeless when compared to Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and annals, which, despite their partiality and the need to use them cautiously, provide a chronological sequence of events and a wealth of information on NeoAssyrian political and military history. Research on the Neo-Assyrian period is further enhanced by the partial survival of the state archives of Kalhu and Nineveh, invaluable sources for the political structure of the Sargonid empire. The lack of equivalent source material for the Neo-Babylonian period—only a handful of documents have been discovered in the remains of the royal palace at Babylon—means that the political history of the Neo-Babylonian empire remains an enigma to historians. Nevertheless, a few areas for future research likely to produce outstanding results can be delineated."

Therefore, I fully support the Watchtowers chronology that begins in 4026 BC with that of the secular chronology that starts in 4004 BC.
 

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, George88 said:

The Babylonian Chronicles are a good example that consists of tablets that were most likely recorded during the time of Darius.

There is good evidence that the original was recorded much closer to the actual time of the events being chronicled. Copyists/scribes/scholars were making copies of the tablets as they became too worn out or cracked. The British Museum in the Assyria section has a display of an actual tablet library which shows how they stored the tablets much like we would store books on a bookshelf, complete with the edge marked with the "title" of the tablet, so they could be kept in order. Similar to VAT 4956. But they were as fragile as iPhones, and would have to be recopied when they cracked.

9 hours ago, George88 said:

It seems that the individual now favors the use of BC, despite previously opposing it.

You are reading too much into my use of the term BCE/BC. I never opposed it. I only said I preferred the Watchtower's reasons for using BCE instead of BC. 

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

However, that individual previously denounced the works of Raymond Philip Dougherty as flawed, yet now embraces them to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, quite the turnaround.

I'm sure you recall that I never denounced Raymond Philip Dougherty. But I would also not use his works to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BCE. 

Besides here is what Dougherty said about Nineveh:

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008910332

Archives from Erech, 1923

That was his writing in 1923. It was common during the late 1800's and early 1900's to assign the capture and destruction of Nineveh to 606, the year before Carchemish. Evidence from the Nabopolassar Chronicles ("Fall of Nineveh") changed the view to Nabopolassar's 14th year, even though the tablet is not perfectly explicit about exactly what happened then because there is a lot of damage to the tablet at that point where the 14th year would be found.

But 6 years later, he wrote: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004069087&seq=164&q1=612

I never denounced him. And i never used him to support 612 BCE. But I think you already knew that. I used the astronomical evidence for the years of Nabopolassar's reign, and tied that to the strong probability that the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" is referring to Nineveh as the destroyed city in his 14th year of reign. I couldn't care less about Dougherty himself, though. 

There is no "certainty," it's just a matter of working with what is usually considered "best evidence" so far, but always ready to adjust if even better evidence comes along. 

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, George88 said:

However, in A.K. Grayson's translation of ABC-7 (BM 35382), the inscription ceases in Nabonidus's 11th year and resumes in his 17th year. This contrasts with the Chronicles of Early (COJ) assertion, which inaccurately assigns the period as years 12 to 16.

That's odd. You find something accurate in COJ's book and then declare it inaccurate. You make me wonder if you have ever found anything inaccurate in COJ's book anywhere. Not that it matters, but have you actually ever found an inaccuracy in COJ's book? 

If that feeble attempt was any indication of the "best you could do" to find something inaccurate, it comes across as an admission that perhaps COJ's entire book is also accurate.

Maybe, as a challenge, you could find something that really is inaccurate, and if you can't find it and produce it here, I will just assume that "deep down" you believe his book is accurate and you are only flailing against it out of some kind of temper tantrum, or something like that. Something like the way you keep making up false information about me.

[George88]

Indeed, your distorted perception is peculiar. However, as usual, you focus on the incorrect aspects by manipulating the context or making unwarranted additions, much like a subpar researcher.

This is a feeble attempt to undermine my post, resulting in a disappointing outcome. I encourage you to present to the public the actual reason for my inclusion of 12-16 in my remarks. Carl Olof Jonsson wrote about it, even though the tablet clearly states the 11th year and the 17th year, not referring to 612 BC as you claim. Are you dismissing his words while simultaneously defending him vehemently? Is this the diversion you're aiming for?

I guess I'll post that part you forgot to include. 

The Gentile Times Reconsidered -- Jonsson, Carl Olof -- 4th ed., rev. and exp, 2004

"The last chronicle (B.M. 35382), the famous Nabonidus Chronicle, covers the reign of Nabonidus, who was the father of Belshazzar. This chronicle unfortunately is damaged. The portion covering Nabonidus’ twelfth year to his sixteenth year of rule is lacking, and the portion where the words for “seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102

Nevertheless, we have the option to review whatever remains from the seventeenth year under Grayson. Additionally, one could regard the statement from COJ as dubious. Shall we?

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/

Of course, in my opinion, COJ's work is fundamentally flawed in every aspect. I could even argue that he, his research, and his book are a mockery and an insult to genuine scholars.

Have you reached the point where you're considering banning me, as you have done with many others in the past while claiming that I have multiple accounts like those individuals? lol!

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Have you reached the point where you're considering banning me, as you have done with many others in the past while claiming that I have multiple accounts like those individuals? lol!

Actually, I have never seen a person who worked so hard to prove someone wrong, but at the same time, inadvertently confirm that what I have been presenting here is relatively accurate -- so far. Given time, and given the amount of effort you evidently put into finding fault, I assume that someday you really will find something that I am presenting incorrectly, and then I'll be able to learn something useful from it and make the necessary correction. In the past, under other names, you've presented some resource material I hadn't seen before, and I found it very interesting. I'm a patient person. Happy to keep waiting for something useful again. Even if it means putting with all those lies and nonsense from you about banning persons. I'm also happy for the entertainment value, and revelations about human nature, etc. 

Even if you don't come through again. I have no interest in banning you, nor do I even know for sure if I have that authority as an assigned moderator. If I do have that ability, I have never used it.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

I encourage you to present to the public the actual reason for my inclusion of 12-16 in my remarks.

I think I did speak to the actual reason. I mentioned that you must have thought this was about the best you could do in finding fault. And in that attempt you utterly failed, and actually showed COJ to be 100% correct. So the actual reason, I must assume, is that you have an unrequited desire to find fault, and this has frustrated you to the point where you merely throw up anything and hope it sticks. In this case you show that COJ was correct about something (years 12 to 16 missing) and say that this is wrong because the chronicle stops at 11 and picks up again at 17. In other words, you are simply showing that COJ was absolutely correct: that 12 to 16 are missing. Then you went ahead and embarrassed yourself by proving him right, quoting his exact words:

You highlight that the supposed problem where COJ mentioned that the portion containing the words for 17th year is damaged. His wording here is perfectly in line with scholars, and the WTS accepts the exact same thing. In other words, the Watchtower Society agrees with COJ here. Note:

COJ: “. . . and the portion where the words for "seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102 

Now the agreement with the WTS publicaitons. Here is "Insight" making the same point:

*** it-2 p. 459 Nabonidus ***
It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Of course, in my opinion, COJ's work is fundamentally flawed in every aspect. I could even argue that he, his research, and his book are a mockery and an insult to genuine scholars.

It is becoming more clear why genuine scholars have had only good things to say about COJ's work, and no genuine scholars have said anything about it being flawed in any aspect. You yourself have just shown it to have been careful and accurate. even in the one spot where you had hoped to point out a mistake. 

Therefore, I do believe your real concern is that "deep down" you probably know it is accurate and are just lashing out aimlessly.

[TrueTomHarley]

14 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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

He’s mine.

We manipulators in the closed club drew straws for him, and I won.