Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, BTK59 said:

why not redirect your attention back to Xero's subject and persist in attempting to substantiate your mistaken interpretation of 587 BC?

BTK59/George88,

I haven't lost track of xero's topic. I had a feeling he was losing interest, especially as the ultimate outcome begins to take shape. There is more than enough there already, but one could easily add 5 times as much evidence to what's already there. 

As I said, this isn't really a problem if you or anyone else wishes to ignore anything written here. I never actually expect you to truly respond to anything. I have learned to expect that whenever I point out a correction that I will be called a liar for telling the truth. That's nothing new here, lol.  It's more about trying to help others who might have a real interest. In the past, while some of your same points were being presented under different names, there actually were a few people who were confused. It was possible to clear up some of that confusion in the past, and I just want to let anyone who is confused by all this know that there is a different side to it, which clears up much of the confusion. Some people get it, and appreciate it; some get it and still fight against it; some get it and won't know what to do with it; and some don't ever seem to get it. I'm not worried, I just want to be supportive again for anyone with a real interest in all sides of these issues.

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As I said, this isn't really a problem if you or anyone else wishes to ignore anything written here. I never actually expect you to truly respond to anything. I have learned to expect that whenever I point out a correction that I will be called a liar for telling the truth. That's nothing new here, lol.  It's more about trying to help others who might have a real interest. In the past, while some of your same points were being presented under different names, there actually were a few people who were confused. It was possible to clear up some of that confusion in the past, and I just want to let anyone who is confused by all this know that there is a different side to it, which clears up much of the confusion. Some people get it, and appreciate it; some get it and still fight against it; some get it and won't know what to do with it; and some don't ever seem to get it. I'm not worried, I just want to be supportive again for anyone with a real interest in all sides of these issues.

I completely agree. If you've ever encountered a situation where someone was banned because of your actions, and then had to create a new name to rejoin because their original account was permanently blocked, it's a clear indication of the truth about what's truly happening here. It ultimately reflects poorly on anyone with the authority to block others simply because they dislike hearing the truth. Why hasn't Pudgy been banned for his outrageous remarks and posts? Yet he remains. 

You should consider granting individuals the same fundamental right to freedom of speech that you enjoy here, rather than imposing bans based on personal preferences. It is quite perplexing to witness the acceptance of certain veiled profanities, especially coming from individuals who identify as Jehovah's Witnesses. This situation not only contradicts your own bylaws but is also rather comical. Using **** does not alter the intent of the word.

The same principle can be applied to historical facts. It is not within anyone's authority to dictate the course of research for individuals who might not be part of an academic institution. This platform does not meet that requirement. It is not an academic class. However, what it provides is a forum that tends to blur the distinction between the Watchtower's beliefs regarding chronology and the accounts of secular history, as presented through written records, archaeological findings, and other forms incorporated into their historical narrative.
Then, you have assumptions about how one should make decisions based on the Bible. This may seem counterintuitive, but individuals are free to believe what they want as long as they do not misrepresent their views and the teachings of the Bible in public forums, as it's being done here. 

Both sides will always disagree due to their use of different methodologies. One fundamental aspect that sets them apart is the timeframe of creation.

The Watchtower utilizes 4026 BC as its standard, whereas secular history generally considers either 4004 or 4000 BC. This conflicting timing creates a clear discrepancy that can result in numerous inconsistencies when making calculations.

When you claim that "I feel Joan Oates" presents a stronger argument for reconciling the discrepancy between King Kandalanu and Nabolopassar, the refutation to this perspective lies in the person's own words. In their book, "BABYLON," the person clearly states their position.

That leaves room for interpretation regarding others who may have claimed kingship at that time. Scholars have had differing opinions from the past to the present. However, that doesn't by any means imply that such a void can be simply dismissed or argued in favor just to win an argument.

When a dismissal of this nature occurs, it becomes disingenuous, and if the public truly comprehends what they are reading, they will also perceive the deceit concealed within the counterarguments.

Hence, apart from those individuals who are fervently endeavoring to refute the Watchtower Chronology, akin to any other apostate across the globe, what advantages are there for those who frequent this website? None! Its sole beneficiaries are the discontented individuals within the closed club. Consequently, let us have the integrity to acknowledge the true intentions within ourselves.

Yes, I used the word "akin". What's wrong with that? lol!

[Pudgy]

You completely miss the point.

We are ALL guests here and can be banned on a whim, a good reason, or no reason at all. 

ANYONE can be legitimately banned because nobody LIKES  them.

We are guests here …. we have no rights here whatsoever.

None.

Don’t want to get banned? Don’t act like an asshole.

[BTK59]

I appreciate your recognition of the hypocrisy in this situation. I suppose those involved, like yourself, enjoy a "friends with benefits" relationship with no way around it. lol!

Therefore, let's refrain from deceiving the public as it is accustomed to here.

[Pudgy]

Written like the truly clueless person(s) you are.

[JW Insider]

43 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

If you've ever encountered a situation where someone was banned because of your actions, and then had to create a new name to rejoin because their original account was permanently blocked, it's a clear indication of the truth about what's truly happening here. It ultimately reflects poorly on anyone with the authority to block others simply because they dislike hearing the truth.

Even if I had the ability to ban or block someone I would never use it. To me it's a lot like shunning and we don't always know when shunning can result in a kind of trauma to people who feel they have rightly invested a lot into the ideas they promote here.

It's the nature of a forum for some to present ideas that someone else might feel should be corrected. People have different ways of responding to ideas they don't like. I've always agreed with something xero recently said about how watching someone who falls back on ad hominems has just made it easier to filter through which posts and ideas are relevant. It's a time-saver, and none of us have unlimited time for this type of activity. 

I heard someone say recently that "labels are for the uneducated." At first I thought it was a joke, because "uneducated" is also a label. But they were talking about putting both pejorative labels on people, and authoritative labels, too. It's sometimes too easy to rely on someone just because they have a label of "expert" or "authority" or "elder." 

And, it's kind of a cliché but I have literally laughed out loud at some of the antics that have gone on in conversations on the forum. Including this one. It's sometimes like a cartoon or sitcom. People also don't seem to realize how much they are giving away about themselves, and it becomes a true deep dive into human nature and psychology. 

59 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

You should consider granting individuals the same fundamental right to freedom of speech that you enjoy here, rather than imposing bans based on personal preferences.

Exactly right. Personally, I don't think you are in any imminent danger. As a moderator I can see when someone has been flagged for "this" or "that." I won't say the words because it might attract undue attention by the real owners or admins. I don't think you have been guilty of any of those things, of if you have, no more than others. I, for one, appreciate that you often take care not to be too direct in those funny phrases that make reference to me: "the astronaut" "that other person." And when you hear things you don't like, you merely kindly suggest that I go back to xero's topic, or go back to the Closed Club, etc. Compared to the days when you used to get banned, I see almost a completely different person. And even then, I didn't think you should be banned. 

[TrueTomHarley]

24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I won't say the words because it might attract undue attention by the real owners or admins.

Oh, don’t worry about it. The Librarian (that old hen) is three sheets to the wind about now.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

The same principle can be applied to historical facts. It is not within anyone's authority to dictate the course of research for individuals who might not be part of an academic institution. This platform does not meet that requirement. It is not an academic class. However, what it provides is a forum that tends to blur the distinction between the Watchtower's beliefs regarding chronology and the accounts of secular history, as presented through written records, archaeological findings, and other forms incorporated into their historical narrative.

Well said, imo. I have tried to remember to remove links that include an academic institution as part of the login. In the Joan Oates link I remember removing it and just including the JSTOR "stable" link. This might require an academic institution but JSTOR provides a way to download many files each month for free. Sometimes, when an academic journal is linked, you can find the gist of the article in a free review or find it was partially quoted elsewhere through Google Scholar, etc. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Then, you have assumptions about how one should make decisions based on the Bible. This may seem counterintuitive, but individuals are free to believe what they want as long as they do not misrepresent their views and the teachings of the Bible in public forums, as it's being done here. 

I'd have to disagree with part of that. I think individuals are free to believe what they want, and that they are also free to either represent or misrepresent their views about the Bible or anything else. For example, I think you misrepresented you own views when you presented views via AI and calling them irrefutable, even though they turned out to be exactly the view I already held, and nearly the opposite of your own. No biggie. I even expect people to misrepresent the views of the Bible here. I've see it done quite a lot. But they should be willing to have that misrepresentation challenged rather than a flippant dismissal of ad hominem. But don't get me wrong, I think people are free to use ad hominems, logical fallacies, labels, misrepresentation of facts, etc. I just hope there is going to be someone to try to clear up any confusion those actions might cause. And the biggest thing about forums is that all of it is just opinion no matter how adamant we are about believing our own opinions and disagreeing with the opinions of others. But we are all free to handle those differences of opinion however we want. I may not like your response, you may not like mine. But big deal. Ultimately, it's just opinions. It's my opinion that certain parts of the evidence create irrefutable facts, but it's still just my opinion. 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

The Watchtower utilizes 4026 BC as its standard, whereas secular history generally considers either 4004 or 4000 BC. This conflicting timing creates a clear discrepancy that can result in numerous inconsistencies when making calculations.

Are we back on track here? Yes, there are a couple more assumptions and issues to resolve when trying to use the Bible record to go back that far. There are some sources with numbers all over the place, but ours seem pretty reasonable. Even our use of 607 is only 20 years off the standard astronomical date for Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

When you claim that "I feel Joan Oates" presents a stronger argument for reconciling the discrepancy between King Kandalanu and Nabolopassar, the refutation to this perspective lies in the person's own words. In their book, "BABYLON," the person clearly states their position.

Exactly. Ultimately, it's the same position in "Babylon" as in the journal article I referenced. Oates is willing to discuss the variant understandings and not be too dogmatic about a single answer. My point was that it doesn't create a discrepancy affecting our understanding of how Bible chronology and secular chronology can sync up. Senacherib and Ashurbanipal and Tiglath-Pileser, and Sargon and Shalmanezer, and Esar-Haddon, etc., are all accounted for in both the Bible record as they link up with Israel's (and Judah's) kings and prophets. More importantly to the trajectory of this discussion, it has no effect on the Neo-Babylonian chronology. If our use of 607 and 539 is correct, then it wouldn't make a difference if Adam was created in 4026 BCE, or 402,600 BCE. Those Neo-Babylonian dates would still be correct, or not, based on their own evidence.

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

That leaves room for interpretation regarding others who may have claimed kingship at that time. Scholars have had differing opinions from the past to the present. However, that doesn't by any means imply that such a void can be simply dismissed or argued in favor just to win an argument.

And that's exactly why I point out that there is no evidence that it either creates or fills a 20-year gap. It doesn't by any means imply that such a void can simply be dismissed or argued in favor just to win an argument. Touché!

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

When a dismissal of this nature occurs, it becomes disingenuous, and if the public truly comprehends what they are reading, they will also perceive the deceit concealed within the counterarguments.

Also, true. When a person dismisses the fact that these potential discrepancies neither create nor fill a 20-year gap they may perceive some kind of agenda brewing. I happen to know what the agenda would most likely be, because I've heard it before. Not just from you here, but from my roommate at Bethel, and from myself too. When I first tried every way I could possibly think of to salvage the WTS chronology, my roommate and I delved into some of this, and that was a year before we ever heard that there were others, like COJ who had tried to address the same issue in defense of the WTS. And believe me, when my roommate (a mathematician computer programmer) and I looked into it, our ears perked up, too, when we heard about 18-year cycles, and 19-year cycles. We also thought that they could be somehow used to explain the correctness of the WTS chronology.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Hence, apart from those individuals who are fervently endeavoring to refute the Watchtower Chronology, akin to any other apostate across the globe, what advantages are there for those who frequent this website? None! Its sole beneficiaries are the discontented individuals within the closed club. Consequently, let us have the integrity to acknowledge the true intentions within ourselves.

I see a great advantage in that it aligns us with Jesus' words and Paul's words about the times and seasons. I think we should always pay close attention to ourselves and our teaching, handling the word of God aright. I can't help what apostates believe. There are apostates who don't believe the Trinity, does that mean I have to accept the Trinity as true? It's a sign of deceit to try to make these views "apostate" when they are the views of your own AI response, and they are the views of every current authority on Babylonian chronology that you have ever quoted. Are you quoting apostates here just because those authorities agree with the standard chronology? Was your AI program "apostate" just because it agreed completely with COJ?

[George88]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I appreciate your recognition of the hypocrisy in this situation. I suppose those involved, like yourself, enjoy a "friends with benefits" relationship with no way around it. lol!

Therefore, let's refrain from deceiving the public as it is accustomed to here.

I find it quite disheartening to see that what I keep encountering is simply an array of repetitive excuses and justifications for safeguarding individuals whom one favors, while unhesitatingly deleting those whom one disapproves of. Such a situation offers no room for alternative perspectives or meaningful dialogue.

What would James/Pudgy say? lol!

Let's refocus on our topic and eliminate any distractions or unnecessary information.

So far, the events of 609 BC in Nineveh, particularly the unsuccessful attempt by Assyrian King Ashur-uballit, aided by the Egyptians, to retake the city, are documented in ABC-3. Other historical accounts also suggest the possibility of another attempt, potentially in 606 BC, which adds further intrigue to the ultimate destruction of Nineveh.

When I come across language like this in books, I often find myself wondering about the individuals being referred to by the ancient writers. Here, we have a clear example of pluralism, as the author is clearly discussing the time of Assyrian rule.

"From the moment they do appear, they are Assyria's uncompromising foes, —hardened rebels, from her point of view, always spoken of with a bitter rancor, betokening some degree of respect and fear. Not so with Babylon, the relations to which, if not always smooth and peaceable, were, on the whole, patronizingly neighborly. The kings of Babylon are unmistakably vassals of Nineveh; as such they are chastised when refractory but received into favor again the moment they send in their tribute and submission. The Assyrian kings sacrifice in state at the great sanctuaries-to them also national ones, -at Babylon, Borsip, Sippar, Kutha, and they esteem it a favor of the " great gods " to be permitted to do so . It is like going on pilgrimages. It has been suggested that Babylon and the other great cities had become, in a great measure, resigned to a rule, which , after all, could not exactly be called a foreign one, since there was the bond of race and religion to take the greatest odium from it , while the people of the lowlands and the sea- coast had maintained a feeling of independence which kept them stubbornly on the defensive, until the moment when they should be able to assert themselves aggressively."

Arguing about gaps is pointless unless we grasp what lies in between. It seems that some individuals fail to comprehend this, or they are genetically programmed to insist on being wrong for nearly half a century.

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And that's exactly why I point out that there is no evidence that it either creates or fills a 20-year gap. It doesn't by any means imply that such a void can simply be dismissed or argued in favor just to win an argument.

This applies only if you lack the knowledge to fill those gaps with factual information. You are hindering your progress by constantly battling against yourself, attempting to validate a 20-year difference and an inaccurate storyline regarding 587 BC.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I see a great advantage in that it aligns us with Jesus' words and Paul's words about the times and seasons. I think we should always pay close attention to ourselves and our teaching, handling the word of God aright.

When people are misled here, how does that become the words of Jesus and echoed by Paul?