Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[JW Insider]

On 3/15/2024 at 12:10 PM, George88 said:

It really comes down to how you perceive Borger and Frame. There exists a 20-year gap where it is uncertain who held the title of puppet King in Babylon.

I looked over everything I could find from Borger and Frame, and there does not seem to exist any 20 year gap that you speak of. Perhaps you can point me to a specific page in a specific book. I understand the one-year-gap that the Babylonian Chronicles speaks about just before Nabopolassar. I understand that there appears to be a potential overlap or co-rulership during the last elderly years of Ashurbanipal's long reign. Kings that may have potentially used two different titles do not account for any gap near as long as 20 years.

Of course, it's always possible, I just can't find anything about a 20-year gap. 

Also, it wouldn't seem to matter in WTS chronology because that chronology paints itself into a corner such that the only gap that would help would be to find 24 years inside the 4 year reign of Neriglissar. There is no possible gap to discover anywhere else that would help the WTS chronology in the slightest. In fact, if found anywhere else within the Neo-Babylonian period, it would destroy the WTS chronology even further. 

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If you look at the context, you will see that you were laughing at the fact that no one would be able to refute the "AI" response you posted from a prompt you gave to AI on Bing.

Whatever, you must be AI then, lol! Are you going to degrade yourself any further?

[BTK59]

When it comes to the other impractical data, try to manipulate and analyze the data from different angles. There's a vast amount of knowledge to acquire in the field of research. 

I am familiar with the literary works of "Oates" regarding Iraq. However, I have a profound comprehension of "Finch" and "Beaulieu" during the tumultuous era where kings were met with their demise and the battle for the crown ensued. Hence, it is not merely Kandalanu and Nabopolassar who should be taken into account. There are numerous other noteworthy contenders to consider.

Paul's description is better suited for that tumultuous time.

Beaulieu, Paul-Alain - A history of Babylon, 2200 BC-AD 75-Wiley-Blackwell (2017_2018)

"Therefore the documentation on clay tablets, in spite of its relative abundance, gives us a partial view of Babylonian society and culture at that time.

Ashurbanipal died probably in 630, leaving the empire in the hands of his heir Ashur‐etel‐ilani, who reigned only four years. In or around 628 another son of Ashurbanipal, Sin‐sharru‐ishkun rebelled against his brother and laid claim to the Assyrian throne. By 627–626 the political situation showed further instability with the rise of another pretender called Sin‐shumu‐lishir, who did not stem from the royal family. To add to the confusion the Babylonian puppet ruler Kandalanu died in 627, leaving the throne unoccupied. Some legal documents from the year 626–625 are dated by “the year after Kandalanu” and Chronicle 21 states that “for one year there was no king in the country.” Soon, however, a new claimant to the Babylonian throne by the name of Nabopolassar (Nabu‐apluusur “O Nabu, preserve the heir”) appeared on the scene. 

According to the Uruk King List, Sin‐shumu‐lishir and Sin‐sharru‐ishkun reigned one year concurrently between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar. Chronicle 20 states that “after Kandalanu, the year of Nabopolassar’s accession, troubles took place in Assyria and Akkad; a state of war was prolonged; there was a succession of battles.” Chronicle 21 and Babylonian documents reckon the balance of the year 626–625 as the “accession year of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon,” the official date of his accession being the twenty‐sixth day of the month Arahsamnu (eighth month), corresponding to November 23, 626 in the Julian calendar. pp.222-223

There was an absence on the throne, so who assumed power in 627 BC? Scholars posit that anyone who was officially granted the authority to act as King would be acknowledged as such by the people. This could include a distinguished General, a Governor, a Crown Prince, and so on. Nabolopassar, in fact, fulfills at least two of these roles even prior to claiming the title of King of Babylon. 

So, NO! There's no clear-cut assertion when Nabopolassar had control of the Crown. Also, in 626 BC, Nabopolassar took the Crown, it wasn't given to him. That brings into focus his legitimacy.

Was George referring to the 20-year difference you insist on regarding the Watchtower, or was he discussing gaps in the tablet records? You have a certain way of manipulating sentences to mean something else.

Now, the article on Iraq is referenced by Joan Oates, who also mentions "Kandalanu" as a mysterious king in the book "Babylon."

Babylon -- Oates, Joan -- 1979
"The terrible slaughter over, Assurbanipal cleansed and purified the city, and resettled there the survivors of the carnage. A mysterious ruler by the name of Kandalanu now appears as king of Babylon (647-627), but it is generally accepted that this was a throne-name adopted in Babylonia by Assurbanipal himself, who thus reverted to the practice of direct rule and reigned in Babylon until his death." p.123

Any attempt to divert attention from the actual issues is unproductive.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If you look at the context, you will see that you were laughing at the fact that no one would be able to refute the "AI" response you posted from a prompt you gave to AI on Bing.

Whatever, you must be AI then, lol! Are you going to degrade yourself any further?

I had a feeling you would merely try to distract and divert from your mistake.

My concern was that you didn't even notice that you posted my own perspective (via AI) as if it were your own unimpeachable, irrefutable perspective. But then to "LOL" about it, shows that you are not taking any of the material you are reading seriously. You pretend to rely on various authorities, pretending that even one of those authorities actually supports the actual chronology position you are proposing. The only reason to call you out on this is that it does nothing more than muddy the waters for anyone who might want to take the topic seriously. I suspect that this is the actual primary purpose. 

But overall, you have started a topic about uncovering discrepancies in secular history that mainly looks through books that discuss levels of accuracy and inaccuracy in astronomical readings, and which discuss the problematic timeline of late Assyria. Or even books from the mid-1800's when authors were still floundering and flailing about with data and evidence they obviously could not understand until more of it became available decades after they wrote. In the worst cases, you have referenced misinformation from Velikovsky, and completely obsolete information from the 1858 "Chronology" book by Franke Parker, likely because at the time he tried to combine several flawed sources, even though they result in contradictions. 

But then you (and George, of course) keep trying to tie all this supposed questionability to "18-year cycles," "19-year cycles," and "20-year" gaps as if there is going to be some magical reason that sows a seed of doubt about the standard chronology of the period, but magically moves the timeline according to some imaginary 18, 19, or 20 year adjustment. You imply in a later post that this might not be the ultimate goal, but then why pick a supposed 20-year gap when you can't point to any specific 20-year gap? Why speak of 18 and 19 year cycles pretending these irrelevant cycles might have some relationship to the chronology of any specific tablets in question? (The 20 year gap, plus or minus one year, is the same goal that Furuli worked on, same as the WTS, and the same as a previous "BTK" on this forum.)

I'm sure you know that I already understand why this attempt of yours is not really an honest one that tries to make real use of the evidence, and I'm sure that it merely confuses those who are just getting interested. I think your real goal is to make sure that no one looks too deeply into the actual evidence of the period. The way you quote long passages from books and then speak only in vague, teasing terms about what they might possibly mean to you, tells me that you don't understand much of what you are reading, or that you hope others are stupid enough not to check it out for themselves. I can't understand the ultimate goal of that type of behavior except that maybe you think it impresses people who you think are very stupid, or you really just don't understand it yourself.  

[Pudgy]

For a change …. let’s get down to the real nitty-gritty, where the rubber meets the road  … the birds eye low down on this caper ….

1.)   All participants and interested observers here KNOW for a fact who is/are the straight-shooters with hard facts … and who is/are the bloviating agenda driven fakers.

2.)  I know it, JWI knows it, TTH knows it, BTK59 knows it, George88 knows it … it’s obvious who has the facts, and who has the bluster. Anyone who follows along will soon see from the honesty and directness of specific answers.

3)  Even Ah knows, and ah  don’t care what the case really is, as it has NOTHING to do with today, or the last 200 years.

The only thing that interests me is watching the fools cluelessly betray themselves, pretending to themselves they can win through bluster and clever wordplay.

I can look out the window and see what the case REALLY IS … without a single word.

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

Anyone who follows along will soon see from the honesty and directness of specific answers.

Although I think you have quoted an expression about blind pigs and truffles/acorns, or the number of times a stopped clock can be right in a day. 

I still find the topic fascinating, and often, or at least every once in a while, I find persons coming across details that really interest me. As you know, I like the topic because it ultimately proves a point to me that everyone who has ever dabbled in time-related prophecy has also necessarily dabbled in dishonesty. It's a shame, but that has included entire religions like Second Adventists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Latter-Day Saints, Russellite/Rutherfordite Bible Students, and many others along the way. The only case I know of where the religion generally "came clean" after prophetic failures was the "Worldwide Church of God" under Armstrong, Sr. It's not easy to admit our own culpability here, but I think, as an organization, it's better to clean out some of these cobwebs, sooner than later, rather than continue to be embarrassed by "facts." 

So, I'll keep participating as long as G88/BTK59/etc wants to go on. There are persons at Bethel who try to track down some of those who try to shed light on some of these supposedly controversial topics, and I think some of them can learn something along the way. The primary Bethel "Internet Detective" was recently dismissed from Bethel, as you may know. Maybe the next one will be able to detect something useful in a conversation like this one. 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Any attempt to divert attention from the actual issues is unproductive.

Good.

BTW, although the Assyrian chronology has some good puzzles in it to try to piece together from the evidence, it actually doesn't produce any chronology gaps. It's not quite as tightly understood as the Neo-Babylonian, where we can actually put a definite BCE year on every one of his years and ALL FOUR Neo-Babylonian kings that followed him through Nabonidus in 539 BCE. The problem with the Assyrian period is not the chronology itself, but the names of the the kings as they were known in Assyria and the names of the rulers of Babylonia under them at the time Assyria was in power over Babylon. In some cases, as authors point out, the primary ruler of Assyria must have made himself the official ruler of Babylon and in some cases may have also used a different title as King over Babylon. 

Assyria is not so well-known for producing or maintaining historical records that might be embarrassing to them. The Babylonian Chronicles have been noted for admitting fears and admitting retreat in battles that they didn't think they could win. That doesn't mean no Assyrian records can be trusted or that all Babylonian records can be trusted. But when you combine Assyrian historical habits and less advanced astronomy and fewer yearly tablets to work from, with more periods of internal, civil war, it leaves "knowledge gaps" about the rulers, but just enough chronology information to understand the period from at least 667 BCE to 612 BCE. That's enough to link it to the beginning of Nabopolassar's reign in Babylon, and even to sync it up with some Egyptian chronology. 

I've seen the evidence, of course, that Ashurbanipal used the name Kandalanu for the period he ruled directly over Babylon. It fits, (especially because they apparently die at about the same time) but it isn't a necessary theory. Kandalanu might otherwise be a bit mysterious because there is virtually no (separate) information about him, but his reign doesn't produce any extension or gap in the timeline. That's true whether he was more like a governor of Babylon under Ashurbanipal or this was a name that Ashurbanipal used in the Babylonian province when he ruled it directly. I'm glad you know of Joan Oates' book(s). The 24-page journal article I referenced was just prior to the "Babylon" book you quoted. The book was more definitive but I liked the article for the way it starts from scratch with the data, as if we know almost nothing at the start and then build up our theories and accept or dismiss them by how well they fit the next piece of data. I was especially interested in the treatment of the Adad-Guppi inscription which crosses from Nabonidus all the back to Ashurbanipal - crossing from Babylonian kings back to Assyrian kings, even though you might have expected Kandalanu to be named before Nabopolassar.

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I had a feeling you would merely try to distract and divert from your mistake.

No! Deceiving others seems to be a recurrent tendency for you whenever you find yourself entangled in a web of falsehoods. I've never encountered a more deceitful former Bethelite than you.

If you insist on indulging in your childish games, why not redirect your attention back to Xero's subject and persist in attempting to substantiate your mistaken interpretation of 587 BC?

[George88]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

No! Deceiving others seems to be a recurrent tendency for you whenever you find yourself entangled in a web of falsehoods. I've never encountered a more deceitful former Bethelite than you.

If you insist on indulging in your childish games, why not redirect your attention back to Xero's subject and persist in attempting to substantiate your mistaken interpretation of 587 BC?

BTK, simply disregard that incurable, apostate-friendly fake witness JWI. It's not worth your time.

He is referring to Rawlinson's interpretation, which asserts that the battle of the eclipse took place in 585 BC. But can we trust a website where anyone can make changes at any time? History is satisfied with this interpretation. But is it factual?

Once again, he selectively chooses items to inaccurately oppose, simply to make an uninformed assertion for his closed club audience. I can also demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610 BC, and according to "Basahquet," it occurred on May 28, 584 BC. Therefore, what is the purpose of his argument? To muddy the waters.

"It is also possible that a lunar eclipse happened on the day of the battle, right before night fell. Taking this into account, the date of the Battle of the Eclipse could have been September 609 B.C."

The battle, according to some historians, lasted between three and six years. This indicates that the battle could have taken place anywhere from 590 to 584 BC. Therefore, it is clear that the historical account can be interpreted to fit different dates in time.

The most accurate estimate for the battle involving Babylon and Egypt is either 589/588 or 588/587 BC alongside the Median and Lydian wars. Multilateral wars were going on at that time. Then you have those who believe that the eclipse was seen as early as 610/609 BC.

It's time for JWI to mature. Nobody who values honesty believes in his deceitfulness. If he were truly committed to his good research instead of being negligent, he would discover the years ranging from 590 to 584 BC. 

I decided to disregard JWI's comments as they hold no significance. For the past ten years, they have offered nothing but falsehoods and manipulation, with no genuine insight.

If you also wish to disregard him so that you can stop sending me emails about his nonsense, you can easily do so by going to your settings, selecting the option to ignore the user, and following the provided instructions. In case you encounter any difficulties, feel free to email me for assistance. Rest assured that I no longer wish to be informed about JWI's anymore.

[BTK59]

46 minutes ago, George88 said:

If you also wish to disregard him so that you can stop sending me emails about his nonsense, you can easily do so by going to your settings, selecting the option to ignore the user, and following the provided instructions. In case you encounter any difficulties, feel free to email me for assistance. Rest assured that I no longer wish to be informed about JWI's anymore.

Okay, I understand what you're saying, but I think it's best to let it be for now. I have decided to refrain from sending you any further emails regarding his comments.

Perhaps the creation of the astronomical tablet in 568 BC can be attributed to the incident where Babylon supposedly attacked Egypt, as suggested by "Cunningham." This explanation seems more logical than using it merely as a reference for cycles, doesn't it?

However, I have noticed he enjoys using carefully chosen words to misrepresent your intentions. He has done it again, so I will refrain from contacting you by email about his manipulative behavior. I understand that you were also mentioning King Apries concerning the date that he denies and lies about with the Eclipse war.

It is evident that he is fervently attempting to distort other historical records from the period between 589-586 BC in order to affirm that the tablet from 568 BC solely signifies the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Quite amusing, indeed!

[BTK59]

7 hours ago, George88 said:

He is referring to Rawlinson's interpretation, which asserts that the battle of the eclipse took place in 585 BC. But can we trust a website where anyone can make changes at any time? History is satisfied with this interpretation. But is it factual?

Yes, you're absolutely correct. It is indeed fascinating to see how Rawlinson and numerous other scholars subscribe to the interpretation of Thales of Miletus' prophecy regarding May 28, 585 BC. On another note, have you come across any notable information about Nineveh in the year 609 BC? I hope the other person doesn't attempt to manipulate your words about Rawlinson. lol!
 

[George88]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

es, you're absolutely correct. It is indeed fascinating to see how Rawlinson and numerous other scholars subscribe to the interpretation of Thales of Miletus' prophecy regarding May 28, 585 BC. On another note, have you come across any notable information about Nineveh in the year 609 BC? I hope the other person doesn't attempt to manipulate your words about Rawlinson.

I haven't found specific predictions for Nineveh in 609 BC, but I can continue to research and see if any historical records or interpretations exist. Perhaps there are alternative sources or historical accounts that shed light on this period.

I mentioned Rawlinson precisely because of his preoccupation with the 18th and 19th centuries and their supposed errors, which makes Rawlinson relevant within that context, even though a lot of that is still used for the 20th and 21st centuries. Ancient scripts and historical facts continue to shed light and remain essential today.

So, he may declare that I am mistaken, that it is untrue, or any other meaningless remarks he can conceive of. I simply ask: do I truly concern myself?