Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[Pudgy]

What? ….

Your self-induced trance wearing off?

[BTK59]

8 hours ago, George88 said:

The Bible instructs us to obey God, not individuals who falsely present themselves as Christian and behave dysfunctionally. I will follow God's will and distance myself from people who hold no significance in my Christian life.

It appears that I have offended an excommunicated person who hypocritically claimed to rarely downvote. Could it be that the truth hurts? The next episode will provide a glaring example of meaningless rhetoric by such an individual. The resounding applause of the closed club reverberates through the bustling square. Join us in endorsing our esteemed community member, a true excommunicated trailblazer. LOL!
 

 

7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

You’re even being here,  Georgie,  by your OWN DEFINITION, demonstrates that is a lie.

There it is, a deceitful falsehood coming from a dishonest individual who, despite being just as blatant in their wrongdoings as numerous others, managed to manipulate their defenders into ignoring the truth and banning those that defended God's truth in the past. They even go as far as using curse words but ** blocking a letter or two, falsely believing that the public would be unaware of their true intentions. The conduct exhibited by these Jehovah's Witnesses is truly disgraceful, tarnishing the reputation of God and the entire community of believers. 

You can downvote this one to pudgy.

[Pudgy]

Context is EVERYTHING!

 

[JW Insider]

George/BTK/Alphonse,

Don't worry about responding. I'm just presenting a perspective on some of the things you said for the benefit of others who might be interested. 

On 3/11/2024 at 2:15 PM, George88 said:

The 13 lunar readings are indicative of the commencement of specific kings' reigns.

No they are not. Not even one of the 13 readings of VAT 4956 indicates the commencement of any specific kings' reigns.

On 3/11/2024 at 2:15 PM, George88 said:

By considering secular history alone, we discover that after Nebuchadnezzar's growing disappointment with the kings of Judah, the temple was burned down in 588 BC.

Secular history does not record the burning of the temple. Bible history tells us that this happened in the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. So far, without a direct reference to the burning of the Jewish temple in any surviving or discovered Babylonian Chronicles, all the secular evidence can tell us is that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE, and that his 19th year was 586 BCE. (And that his 37th year was 568 BCE.)

On 3/11/2024 at 2:15 PM, George88 said:

By considering secular history alone, we discover that after Nebuchadnezzar's growing disappointment with the kings of Judah, the temple was burned down in 588 BC. If we follow this same cycle, it becomes clear that the real destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem, occurred in 607 BC.

It makes no sense to say that because the temple was burned down in 588 BCE that there is some "cycle" to follow that makes clear that the destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem happened 19 years earlier, in 607. The only known astronomical cycle that is about 19 years long is the Metonic cycle, and it is never used to shift a date by 19 years, Also, it is not exactly 19 years so you can't even use it to claim that lunar positions seen 19 years earlier or later would be the same. People don't confuse lunar readings from other points on the 19-year cycle because they don't match. Besides, most opposers of the tablet evidence, like Furuli, have tried to move the date exactly 20 years, for which there is no known cycle. <PTW> The only opposers of the tablet data I know of are Furuli, the Watchtower Society, and a person online who presents himself online as Jesus Christ, the Messiah, although he appears to also present himself as transgendered. </PTW>

On 3/11/2024 at 2:15 PM, George88 said:

Thousands of clay bricks in-scribed with the prayers of Nebuchadnezzar have been found, but only a single inscription of historical content is attributed to Nebuchadnezzar by modern scholars:

Velikovsky is very wrong about this. The Babylonian Chronicles for one attribute quite a lot of historical content directly to Nebuchadnezzar for his first 10 or 11 years. And many of the temple inscriptions contain historical content, and there are thousands of secular tablets that contain bits of history about others during his reign that are recorded in terms of the specific years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 

On 3/11/2024 at 2:15 PM, George88 said:

What does this brick prove? According to secular history, King Nebuchadnezzar's reign started in 605 BC, and his 37th year ended in 568 BC. Wow!

The "brick"on its own doesn't prove that. But thousands of other bricks along with astronomical data and links to similar data linked to the Neo-Babylonian kings and others for the next several hundred years do indeed prove that his reign started in 605 and the 37th year was 568 BC. I don't consider evidence as "proof" but it this brick, as you say, "proves" that his 37th year is 568, then it PROVES that his 18th year is 587 BCE. I hope others understand this. 

On 3/11/2024 at 2:15 PM, George88 said:

The tablet does not mention any events or dates related to 587 BC, nor does it provide any evidence for occurrences during that time.

True, but it would then provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is 587 BC. Then it just becomes a matter of whether you trust these particular verses in the Bible.

(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .

On 3/11/2024 at 2:15 PM, George88 said:

Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusions about that particular year based on this tablet. However, what we can confirm from the information provided by the "BRICK" rather than VAT 4956 is that a significant battle took place between Babylon and Egypt in the year 568 BC. This historical event could have been recorded by scribes and astronomers for future reference. It is essential to clarify that these records do not provide any support for the conjectures regarding events in 587 BC, as some speculators may contend.

If as you say, the "Brick" provides evidence that Nebuchadnezzar, in his 37th year, in 568 BC, took part in a significant battle, then you have just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BC, and that his 19th year was 586. If you believe the Bible, then you are saying that Nebuchadnezzar burned the temple of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

(2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.  And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard. 

So your claim about 568 as year 37 puts you in agreement with all the living Babylonian historians you have ever quoted in your entire life. All of them would say that if 568 is his 37th then 586 is his 19th. Therefore, it also puts you in agreement with COJ. 
 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

15 hours ago, George88 said:

I will follow God's will and distance myself from people who hold no significance in my Christian life.

I dunno. From this perspective it appears that glue could not stick to them any tighter.

[Pudgy]

Yeah!

Yeah!

You could take Georgie and BTK and his/their memographed minions, ball them up in duct tape, encase them in concrete and drop them in the Pacific Ocean Mariana Trench, and in two days they would be back here for another round of Whack-A-Mole.  

 

[BTK59]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No they are not. Not even one of the 13 readings of VAT 4956 indicates the commencement of any specific kings' reigns.

I can't help but wonder if George really meant what you think, especially considering your inclination to take things out of context. Why not post the entire context?

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If as you say, the "Brick" provides evidence that Nebuchadnezzar, in his 37th year, in 568 BC, took part in a significant battle, then you have just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BC, and that his 19th year was 586. If you believe the Bible, then you are saying that Nebuchadnezzar burned the temple of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

Do you really think this unconventional approach could work for you? After all, if we keep going in that direction, we could also prove 607 BC. Which comes first?

It is important for people to understand the workings of a non-Christian mindset. However, considering the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, can shed light on other significant battles in 588/587 BC that you seem to overlook, which weakens your argument.

[BTK59]

20 hours ago, George88 said:

Here we have a historical inconsistency within an inconsistency. The author claims the destruction of Nineveh in 611 BC but also acknowledges the existence of numerous tablets dated to 612 BC from Nineveh.

Here we can witness how individuals can perceive a distinct interpretation of the terms "besiege," "sack," and "destruction." This author suggests that the palaces were initially ravaged in 612 BC, preceding the actual downfall of Nineveh in 611 BC.

Here is another example of an encyclopedia documenting the destruction of Nineveh in approximately 607 BC. It seems likely that they were referring to the same information, which mentions 606 BC.

Chambers_s_Encyclopædia 

"Having treacherously murdered their chiefs , he expelled their warriors. Then, in alliance with Nabopolassar , king of Babylon, he overthrew the Assyrian empire by capturing Nineveh about 607 B.C." p.113

Although there are references that suggest the destruction of Ninveh taking place in 612 BC, it is important to note some author's believe that the city was not completely destroyed until King Aššur-uballiṭ II was defeated in Harran in 610/609 BC.

So, what are we up to? We have 606, 607, 608, 611, 612 BC for the destruction of Nineveh. Let's go for broke and find something for 610 BC. lol!

[JW Insider]

27 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No they are not. Not even one of the 13 readings of VAT 4956 indicates the commencement of any specific kings' reigns.

I can't help but wonder if George really meant what you think, especially considering your inclination to take things out of context. Why not post the entire context?

You can go back and see it for yourself. Whenever I quote someone here, it shows the date and time of the post, so it's easy to find. This was the very first post on this thread. For easy reference, I'll be happy to do it for you. And I will try to highlight in bold, the place where the quote is found within the context:

On 3/11/2024 at 2:15 PM, George88 said:

On 3/10/2024 at 2:04 PM, BTK59 said:

I trust that the year 19/8th of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 607/6 BC based on a careful analysis of the tablet data, not just because of the year 569/8 BC.

BTK, are you suggesting that 568 BC is an invalid date? We can make good use of VAT 4956 since the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be found in other historical content, not just that insignificant astronomical tablet.

Apostates often misuse that date to support the claim of 587 BC, but let's explore its true significance. The 13 lunar readings are indicative of the commencement of specific kings' reigns. Some historians mention the starting reign of King Waphres in 589/8 BC, and he died in 568/7 BC. By considering secular history alone, we discover that after Nebuchadnezzar's growing disappointment with the kings of Judah, the temple was burned down in 588 BC. If we follow this same cycle, it becomes clear that the real destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem, occurred in 607 BC.

Hence, relying on VAT 4956 as authoritative evidence is akin to playing a game of foolishness.

 

[George88]

31 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

So, what are we up to? We have 606, 607, 608, 611, 612 BC for the destruction of Nineveh. Let's go for broke and find something for 610 BC. lol!

Nope, that would be a fool's bet. However, you can add 610 BC to your list. Haha!

 

[JW Insider]

34 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If as you say, the "Brick" provides evidence that Nebuchadnezzar, in his 37th year, in 568 BC, took part in a significant battle, then you have just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BC, and that his 19th year was 586. If you believe the Bible, then you are saying that Nebuchadnezzar burned the temple of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

Do you really think this unconventional approach could work for you? After all, if we keep going in that direction, we could also prove 607 BC. Which comes first?

That question is meaningless.

First, it is the conventional approach, the same approach used by 100% of all the current authors and authorities you have ever quoted. Even Furuli and the Watchtower and the transgendered Messiah have used this approach. It's the very reason Rolf Furuli himself tried so hard to move the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar from 568 to 588. Otherwise, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year would be 586. have used, on the topic that you have ever quoted have used.

Second, if you keep going in that conventional direction you would continue to disprove, rather than prove, that 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. 

39 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It is important for people to understand the workings of a non-Christian mindset. 

Not really. Math works pretty much the same whether you are a Muslim, a Buddhist, Jewish, Moon-worshiper, or atheist.

41 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

However, considering the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, can shed light on other significant battles in 588/587 BC that you seem to overlook, which weakens your argument.

I don't understand why you think this is an argument. If my own 37th year can be proven to be 1957+37=1994, then that alone proves that my 19th year was 1957+19=1976. Whether I had gone to battle in Viet Nam in 1976, or gone to Bethel in Brooklyn in 1976, the math would still work out.  

[George88]

@JW Insider

I agree with VAT 4956, which can portray the "battles" fought in 588/587 BC between Egypt, Lydia, and Medes. It is clear to me that this tablet should not be associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, as you mistakenly suggested. In fact, anyone who uses this tablet to support such a claim, including your friend Carl Olof Jonsson and yourself, must be truly misguided.