Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[George88]

You have demonstrated, JWI, that your perspective aligns more with personal apostasy, catering only to the closed club of like-minded individuals, and those who have been disfellowshipped for frivolous reasons. Your recurrent attempts to distort the truth, especially when confronted with your errors in challenging me, highlight a stubborn resistance to acknowledgment. The judgment of our discourse's merit lies with the public, not within the biased confines of your fellowship, which, regrettably, has separated from the guiding principles of the Watchtower, despite your previous association as a Bethelite.

Your words or posts have never mattered to me because your assertion of 587 BC will always be incorrect, even by secular standards. Should you fail to provide evidence to the contrary, it reflects poorly on your integrity rather than on the validity of the facts presented in a coherent story that even a six-year-old could understand. Nevertheless, you seem aware of this and yet persist in trying to divert attention from your erroneous perspective, attempting to persuade others that your stance—akin to arguing with a phantom—is of greater significance. How amusing!

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, George88 said:

You have demonstrated, JWI, that your perspective aligns more with personal apostasy, catering only to the closed club of like-minded individuals,

No. We’re about to throw him out of there, too, and into the open club.

4 hours ago, George88 said:

Your recurrent attempts to distort the truth, especially when confronted with your errors in challenging me,

That’s nothing. You should see how bad he gets when he’s challenging ME!

[George88]

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. We’re about to throw him out of there, into the open club. One more post on chronology will do it.

Good God, please don't there's enough out here, lol!

 

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

Your words or posts have never mattered to me because your assertion of 587 BC will always be incorrect

I have no expectation that my posts should matter to anyone. But I should make clear that I don't assert that 587 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE as 18th year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. I'll leave it to the Bible to assert whether anything significant is associated with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign.

And I would say the same for 539 BCE as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon. I don't assert that 539 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 539 BCE as the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, since this is about the preponderance of evidence, it is also good to point out that, compared with 539, there is at least 10 times the evidence for 587 being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

As to 612 BCE for the Fall of Nineveh, I couldn't say it's correct either. But I do know that the best evidence does show that 612 BCE is the 14th year of Nabopolassar's reign. 

They offer a certain convenience, but I still don't think we really need to know any of the BCE dates. They can't be determined without astronomy anyway. Were the apostles supposed to learn astronomy or trust in someone else's claims about astronomy to understand Bible prophecy? It's like someone in service once said about the King James Version Bible: "If it was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me."

[Pudgy]

Or… as Abraham Lincoln once said, “ Never trust any historical dates you get from the Internet”.

[BTK59]

@George88

I understand your perspective on referring to certain individuals as authoritative figures who act oppressively. Professor Newton epitomizes this description. He dismissively claims that Ptolemy was essentially a fraud, suggesting we disregard all of his observations. 

It's clear how interpretations can distort the foundation of historical facts.

I also appreciate the enclosure, which could indeed find the VAT 4956 tablet useful if we apply not merely the observations but certain claims and the date of the tablet itself.

I also understand why you might find the language used here reminiscent of Carl Olof Jonsson. At least he dared to stand behind his identity before becoming an apostate, unlike another who, acting both cowardly and a clown, employed similar rhetoric regarding the 20-year gap in his presentation to the Watchtower.

Robert R. Newton - The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy-Johns Hopkins University Press (1977)

LUNAR ECLIPSES FOR WHICH PTOLEMY GIVES THE BABYLONIAN YEAR
Date King Year Authenticity
-720 Mar 19 Mardokempad 1 May be fabricated
-719 Mar 8 Mardokempad 2 Fabricated
-719 Sep 1 Mardokempad 2 May be fabricated
-620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated
-522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated
-501 Nov 19 Darius 20 May be genuine
-490 Apr 25 Darius 31 May be genuine

Now let us see what happens to a modern historian or chronologist who studies Ptolemy's eclipse records. He sees that there is a list of kings and their reigns. He also sees that Ptolemy dates a lunar eclipse in the first year of Mardokempad, for example, on a certain month and day in the Egyptian calendar, t at a certain hour on that day, and he states the fraction of the moon that was shadowed during the eclipse. The historian uses Ptolemy's king list to find the year in our calendar and he uses the Egyptian month and day to find the complete date in our calendar. He then finds by astronomical calculations that there was an eclipse on that date, that it came close to the hour that Ptolemy states, and that the stated amount of shadowing is also close to correct.

This agreement between Ptolemy The historian or chronologist naturally concludes that there is overwhelming evidence confirming the accuracy of Ptolemy's king list, and he proceeds to use it as the basis for Babylonian chronology. Yet there is no evidence at all. The key point is that there may have been no Babylonian record at all. Ptolemy certainly fabricated many of the aspects of the lunar eclipses, and he may have fabricated all of them. When he fabricated them, it did not matter whether he used a correct king list or not. Any king list he used, regardless of its accuracy, would seem to be verified by eclipses. p.374

If we operate under this assumption, it would allow anyone to input any date and time to achieve their desired outcomes, effectively rendering the results counterfeit. Under such a premise, modern software could be deemed obsolete by Newtonian standards, facilitating the manipulation of "facts" by individuals aiming to distort them for personal gain and disseminating their flawed agenda to the masses. I think I like Newton, lol!

However, in addressing this sad professor's assertions, I question whether his conviction pertains to the validity of the King's List or the lunar eclipse observation associated with a particular monarch. Ptolemy's Canon places Nabopolassar's reign between 625 and 605 BC; hence, the relevance of a lunar eclipse observation in 620 BC to Nabopolassar's reign is unclear. In light of contemporary astronomical data, Ptolemy's account could be inaccurate by one year, yet this discrepancy allows room for interpretation when distinguishing between an accession year and a regnal year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings

However, if we embrace this controversy, we must also accept it for all historical records, including those inscribed on parchments and clay tablets and interpreted through modern translations, since it makes no distinction.

I believe Newton discarded logic and common sense in an attempt to establish his reputation, a downfall you suggest affects many seeking recognition. This includes authors, undisciplined bloggers with an abundance of time, and promoters of division and conflict.

This unidentified individual, who corresponded with the Watchtower in the year 2000, not only referenced Newton but also, with authoritative audacity, demanded the retraction of Ptolemy's kings list from their publications. Ironically, this clown also employs the language of the 20-year gap, just as it's demonstrated here, frequently.

It's unlikely that this correspondence is associated with Jonsson, as he typically had no issues with self-identification, and it is probable that he was already disfellowshipped at that point. In contrast, this clown did.

"It is true that secular historians generally date the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity at 586 or 587 B.C.E., and we do not hide this fact. But we do challenge the veracity of their evidence for producing this date. The appendix to chapter 14 of the book "Let Your Kingdom Come," which you have referred to, discusses this matter in some detail. Of course, our understanding of the chronology involved is guided by God's Word, which is very specific about the time involved and what would occur during that time. (2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Jeremiah 25:8-11; Daniel 9:2) Therefore, we believe the chronology we present is in harmony with Biblical timing rather than somewhat problematic secular dating that disagrees with the Scriptures, as explained in the "Kingdom Come" book. Pages 461 to 466 of Insight on the Scriptures, Volume E, also provide some background for this chronology. Additionally, the section "Chronology" beginning on page 447, as well as "Appointed Times of the Nations, on pages 132 to 1.35, covers these subjects in depth. This date of 586 B.C.E. is by no means as well attested to as the pivotal date of 539 B.C.E. for the overthrow of Babylon. Given the pivotal date of 539 B.C.E. and the subsequent release of the Jews in 537 B.C.E., then, with the clear Biblical references to a seventy-year period of desolation of Jerusalem, we are brought to the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's destruction. 

A principal source for accepting the date 586 B.C.E. is the second-century Greek scholar Claudius Ptolemy. Recently, Robert R. Newton of Johns Hopkins University offered proof that many of Ptolemy's observations were "deliberately fabricated." Scientific American magazine noted that "Ptolemy's forgery may have extended to inventing 1he lengths of reigns of Babylonian kings.

Since much modern reconstruction of Babylonian chronology has been based on a list of kings that Ptolemy used to pinpoint the dates of alleged Babylonian observations, according to Newton *all relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence on Ptolemy (king) list must be removed."-Issue of October 1977, page 80.

Thus, as to the difference in approximately 20 years between the Bible's chronology and
that based principally on secular evidence, we choose to be guided primarily by God's Word. As the Kingdon Come book on page 189 comments: "Hi seems evident that the easiest and most..."

In summary, no one here is interested in learning; their only goal is to gather more information to deepen their criticism of the Watchtower, which ultimately will be judged by God.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

-719 Sep 1 Mardokempad 2 May be fabricated
-620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated
-522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated
-501 Nov 19 Darius 20 May be genuine
-490 Apr 25 Darius 31 May be genuine

If the above claims of R.R.Newton were all true, it would have a devastating effect on the Watchtower's chronology for the events reported about 539 BCE. To avoid the admission that the 539 evidence also lands Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year on 587 BCE,  the WTS is forced to ignore most of the evidence data that would easily confirm 539 BCE and instead specifically makes use of the supposedly "fabricated" eclipse from Kambyses 7, listed above. (Note that this is one of only 3 that Newton considers fabricated.) The term "may be fabricated" can also mean the same as "may be genuine" but Newton applies a different percentage of probability to that possibility. 

Note the use of this very eclipse from "Insight:"

*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.

Keep in mind of course that -522 is 523 B.C.E.

But also note that while R.R.Newton actually does prove (to my satisfaction) that Ptolemy basically copied a lot of previous information without actually working out the math for himself. He gives himself credit for work that others had already confirmed before him, and in some cases proves his "fraud" by making the same mistakes that others made before him. He did not personally work out all the mathematics or observations found in Almagest. 

But only two of the eclipses above have any bearing on the discrepancy between Watchtower chronology and the standard chronology of the Biblical accounts. And usually, the only reason we (Witnesses) take much interest in chronology is to help understand the chronology of Biblical accounts. So the only two that are both highly questionable and related to the Biblical accounts are these, below, which he says are fabricated:

-620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated
-522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated

Fortunately, we know that the second one was NOT "fabricated" because it's also on an old copy of a clay tablet from years prior to Ptolemy (as quoted in "Insight"). The "Insight" book is correct.

One of the most thorough reviewers of the book said this about it:

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1980JHA....11..133M/0000134.000.html

SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Title: Book-Review - the Crime of Claudius Ptolemy
Authors: Moesgaard, K. P.
Journal: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 11, pp. 133-135, 1980
Bibliographic Code: 1980JHA....11..133M

 

[George88]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I understand your perspective on referring to certain individuals as authoritative figures who act oppressively. Professor Newton epitomizes this description. He dismissively claims that Ptolemy was essentially a fraud, suggesting we disregard all of his observations. 

At best, Newton's depiction of astronomical evolution can be considered an anomaly, nothing more. Consequently, the origins of Ptolemy's research and his sources are irrelevant. If history has shown us anything, it is that ideas are often borrowed from others. To argue otherwise would be the most obtuse statement a rational individual could make.

The irony lies in questioning from where that ignorant individual obtained his information to criticize Ptolemy's Canon.
Should modern critics then conclude that Herodotus should not have studied the works of Ctesias? Or that Berossus and Manetho should have refrained from consulting the works of Herodotus and Ctesias?

Therefore, it would not have been surprising if Ptolemy delved into the works of Hipparchus of Nicaea, Meton of Athens, Eudoxus of Cnidus, Callippus of Cyzicus, Aristarchus of Samos, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, and Menelaus of Alexandria, provided they were accessible during his time.

What is also amusing is that Newton, as you've stated, considered Ptolemy a fraud in almost every respect, but when it comes to Ptolemy's list, VAT 5946 it is deemed flawless, with no problems whatsoever—quite laughable indeed!

If a rational individual assigns significant importance to illogical reasoning, it would necessitate a reevaluation of that person's mindset. This provokes the question, "Is that truly the best you can do?"

I have read the letter from 2000, sent to the Organization by the individual you refer to as the "phantom writer." Regrettably, the most compelling evidence provided by this person was Carl Olof Jonsson's rather unpersuasive book.
It is baffling why anyone would think the organization would accept the testimony of an apostate and their book, especially considering that the Watchtower had already dismissed such weak research when he was still a poor excuse of a witness that is only compelling to apostates.

[BTK59]

21 hours ago, George88 said:

At best, Newton's depiction of astronomical evolution can be considered an anomaly, nothing more. Consequently, the origins of Ptolemy's research and his sources are irrelevant. If history has shown us anything, it is that ideas are often borrowed from others. To argue otherwise would be the most obtuse statement a rational individual could make.

Discussing criticism, I believe that if Hipparchus were alive today, he would have been appalled by Newton's unconscionable arrogance to the point of physical confrontation, while Strabo would have dismissed him as a fool. lol!

"The Arrangement of the Geographical Fragments It is clear from Strabo° that Hipparchus' criticism of Eratos­ thenes was a work in three books (as was Eratosthenes' own Geography). Berger,* in his collec­tion of the fragments, made no attempt to arrange them according to their probable order in the original three books, but. merely classified them according to subject matter - an arrangement which involved a good deal of unnecessary frag­mentation and repetition. According to Berger,° most of Strabo's quotations, except those taken from the latitude table, come from Hipparchus' first book, in which he also attacked Eratosthenes' 'corrections' of the old maps, his mathematical and physical geography, and his conception of South Asia. In the second book, Berger thinks, Hipparchus attacked Eratos­thenes' ideas on North Asia, Europe and Libya; while in the third book Hipparchus put forward his own ideas for a mathe­matical geography based on astronomical data, and included an eclipse table to assist in the determination of longitudes."

To the contemporary mindset, it would have seemed impossible for intellectuals of the past to grasp concepts that would be out of reach for modern society. Yet, there are those who believe that by inputting numbers into astronomical software, they align themselves with the ancients and the cosmos, considering their findings infallible. That's hilarious!

It also raises the question of who borrowed from whom and whether it matters. Your suggestion of irrelevancy holds weight. Question, certainly, you were referring to VAT 4956 in your remark. Did you input text too quickly? I'd strongly prefer not to endure the annoyance of someone with a childish mentality dwelling on the matter. LoL!

[George88]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Question, certainly, you were referring to VAT 4956 in your remark. Did you input text too quickly? I'd strongly prefer not to endure the annoyance of someone with a childish mentality dwelling on the matter.

Yes, that was a typo—a blunder I happily accept, unlike someone here who makes every effort to point out only my mistakes yet refuses to acknowledge his own. Where is Othello when you need him? Or should it be "The Rocky Horror Picture Show," since he has many minions in his favor? LOL!

It's 5784-85. What do you expect? Stop hounding me. Wait until 5789, then you can grill me all you want, lol!

[George88]

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

To the contemporary mindset, it would have seemed impossible for intellectuals of the past to grasp concepts that would be out of reach for modern society. Yet, there are those who believe that by inputting numbers into astronomical software, they align themselves with the ancients and the cosmos, considering their findings infallible. That's hilarious!

Fundamentally, the Watchtower assigns the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 626/625 BC, a period historically designated to Nabopolassar. This implies that Nabopolassar would be allocated the reign typically attributed to Kandalanu, given the variations identifying Kandalanu either as a Babylonian or Assyrian monarch, or both. Additionally, there is a theory suggesting Kandalanu was the Babylonian name bestowed upon Ashurbanipal. However, the notion of a single monarch ruling in two places simultaneously is debatable.

It also raises the question of whom Ashurbanipal appointed as a vassal in Babylon. History recognizes Nabopolassar as a general, but was he also a governor? Only the desperate and uninformed would mistakenly concentrate on the wrong rationale.

There is a 22-year discrepancy stemming from the Watchtower's proposed date of creation, which is often overlooked by those who selectively remember history. Secular history typically identifies the start of creation as 4004 BC, but those being disingenuous tend to disregard this gap.

Therefore, you can ask "Pekka Mansikka", a person who by all accounts is not associated with the Watchtower in one way or another, to come to a similar conclusion to that of the Watchtower. Remember he is not alone.

New chronology using solar eclipses Historian aputieteet - Pekka Mansikka · 2019

"To determine the time of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign period, other than archeologically confirmed research should be used. The history of Israel tells us that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in the 19th year of his reign, which probably corresponds to his 18th regnal year, according to the Babylonian chronology. Researchers generally agree that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in the 18th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar. Here, too, one can get to know the lunar eclipse in the 5th regnal year of Nabopolassar. If we assume that it was a lunar eclipse recorded in real time despite the fact that it has used the Egyptian calendar, then what can we observe?

If we assume that the 18th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar II was the aforementioned year 608 BC, then a full lunar eclipse can be found on 13 June 642 BC. It would mean that the year in Egypt changed unusually late, in about 15 March. On the other hand, in the case of the year 607 BC, a lunar eclipse can be found on 01 June 641 BC and the beginning of the year would presumably move to 03 March. The latter would be a more likely option. Based on this, the reign period of Nebuchadnezzar II would have begun in the autumn of 625 BC. However, it is unlikely that Nabopolassar' s lunar eclipse would have recorded in real time. There is currently no undeniable archaeological confirmation for the exact time of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign period." p.211

Unfortunately, I've lost the desire to help Xero since he bit the hand that fed him, and I simply don't have time for nonsense.

Thus, the interpretation offered by the Watchtower would be rooted in biblical accounts as opposed to secular ones. If a secular perspective is desired, the narrative shifts to accommodate what is widely recognized. Nonetheless, regardless of the approach, the date of 607 BC is consistently reached, albeit through varying specifics.

Through biblical accounts, there is no 20-year gap, whereas secular reckoning might suggest otherwise. You cannot apply both systems; you must choose one or the other. This dichotomy has been a problem for millennia.

Now, if memory serves me correctly, a particular individual here claimed to have reached out to Pekka Mansikka to discuss his work, yet described the interaction in a manner that overly favored himself, akin to a disingenuous researcher. So, I accept Pekka Mansikka's results through the eye of it being a biblical account.

How about what the next topic should be? The Devil Went Down to Georgia, lol!

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Yes, that was a typo—a blunder I happily accept, unlike someone here who makes every effort to point out only my mistakes yet refuses to acknowledge his own.

 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Therefore, you can ask "Pekka Mansikka", a person who by all accounts is not associated with the Watchtower in one way or another, to come to a similar conclusion to that of the Watchtower. Remember he is not alone.

Hey, slow down—don't mistake me for the inept ones here. I was simply asking, not demanding. lol!

I've heard of similar occurrences from the Babylonian XI Dynasty. Aside from the notable Assurbanipal Lunar Eclipse on August 3, 682 BCE, and the Nabonidus Lunar Eclipse on September 25, 554 BCE, there appears to be little else of significance to examine within that period.

Could this be the reason why, in Pekka Mansikka's revised chronology, he dates the reign of Nabopolassar to 646 BCE?

Seems that we have a discrepancy with the accession year and regnal year again since history assigns Kandalanu's reign to 647 BCE.

Well, enjoy your weekend, I am off to see The Wizard, lol!