Jump to content
The World News Media

Can secular chronology be trusted?


George88

Recommended Posts

  • Member

I received your email regarding your inquiry. Absolutely! Secular history is indeed trustworthy. There exists ample evidence to validate the accuracy of many historical events mentioned in the Bible. When these events are properly contextualized, they undeniably bear a striking resemblance to reality. The seeds of doubt have only been sown when researchers inadvertently muddle up the dates, leading to understandable uncertainty.

Have you delved into the underlying factors of the events in 629 BC? There are no records of a solar eclipse being sighted in Jerusalem that year.
"In 629 BC, the Babylonian king, Nabopolassar, drove the Assyrians out of Babylon, and two years later Ashurbanipal died." p.152

This should be marked as pivotal.

The Babylonian records document a solar eclipse sighting in -625 BC, but the sighting from 629 BC is still missing.

The same thing can be said about Memphis, Egypt. The same goes for Thebes.

Therefore, solar eclipses are not suitable for that purpose.

In the realm of lunar events, there was a remarkable occurrence - a lunar eclipse. Back in the year -627 BC, to be precise. Hence, when looked upon through the lens of secular history, it is more fitting to refer to this event as taking place in the years 629/628 BC.

Were the biblical scribes truly captivated by secular kings or by Jeremiah's or Habakkuk's profound message of God's judgment? If the scribes' fascination lay with the kings, it would have commenced with King Josiah, not the Assyrian or Babylonian monarchy, only acknowledging them in scripture when absolutely essential.

Dictionary of the Bible
"The conclusion at which he arrives is that Habakkuk delivered his prophecy about the 12th or 13th year of Josiah (B. C. 630 or 629), for reasons of which the following is a summary." p.972

Let's delve into the matter at hand. While it is true that some Bible scholars may find themselves mired in confusion when it comes to pinpointing dates and events, one must question the accuracy of placing the date as 629 BC to Kings versus God's messengers. Yet, among these scholars, there are those who steadfastly cling to the notion of three deportations that commenced in 605, 598, 587 BC. The Babylonian Chronicle mentions 598 BC.

The question arises: given the historical pattern of besieged kingdoms or cities being destroyed or sacked, why did Nubechadnezzar II not follow his natural inclination after the first siege? If Judah and most of Jerusalem had already been destroyed, then the only thing left would have been the deportations.

People cannot simply cherry-pick evidence to fit their narrative, even though historical records have definitively settled on 587 BC. There are no ancient tablets containing year references to support the claim that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in that specific year. The attribution of 587 BC has been added retroactively by later interpreters of historical data.

Ancient historians made calculations based on the resources available to them during their time—a luxury that we no longer possess. Dismissing the ancient historians as flawed simply because modern scholars, driven by ambition, have revised those calculations does not automatically make the revised data more accurate. In fact, the ancient historians were in closer proximity to the events they studied than we are today.

Secular history often lacks the depth and clarity that scripture provides. However, there is a possibility of giving the benefit of the doubt in some cases. Can secular history be proven wrong? The straightforward answer is yes, if one comprehends the Bible and secular history in the manner they were meant to be understood.

The end result is as follows: King Jehoiakim ruled for 11 years, and King Zedekiah also ruled for 11 years, leading to the year 607 BC. When the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar is combined with the old tabulated chronology and supported by the solar eclipse in -625 BC, it leads to the same conclusion of 607 BC. This is the rationale behind the Watchtower's stance and why they also reference 618 BC. It involves utilizing the reigns of Judah's kings and the Babylonian kings from their own Bible perspective.

Do eclipses provide evidence for these events? Yes! Does historical records provide support for them? Yes! Can we accurately establish the chronology, even without combining sources? Yes, if we approach it carefully. Can the year 607 BC be demonstrated using secular history alone, without depending on scripture or the Watchtower's interpretation? YES!


Then you have this kind of modern gem.

Israel God's Ensign to Nations Dickson Agedah · 2014

THE FALL OF ASSYRIA, THE RISE OF BABYLON 
The seizure of the Babylonian throne by Nabopolassar in about 645 BC marked an end of Assyrian suzerainty over Babylon and the establishment of a new dynasty, generally known as the Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean dynasty. Although the Assyrian military machine continued to be highly effective instrument for almost two decades, Nabopolassar successfully defended Babylonian's independence. p.8

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 1.8k
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

LOL! That's hilarious how O. Neugebauer mentions: (B) “‘diluvium’’: actually Kaliyuga 1, Chaitra 1 = —3101 Febr. 17 = julian day 588,465  I'm still working on the hypothesis. Diluvium: https

I received your email regarding your inquiry. Absolutely! Secular history is indeed trustworthy. There exists ample evidence to validate the accuracy of many historical events mentioned in the Bible.

This person, Dickson Agedah, keeps switching back and forth between Watchtower chronology and the astronomically evidenced chronology, as if both were right. I have no idea if the person is just mixin

Posted Images

  • Member
1 hour ago, George88 said:

I received your email regarding your inquiry. Absolutely! Secular history is indeed trustworthy. There exists ample evidence to validate the accuracy of many historical events mentioned in the Bible. When these events are properly contextualized, they undeniably bear a striking resemblance to reality. The seeds of doubt have only been sown when researchers inadvertently muddle up the dates, leading to understandable uncertainty.

Oh, fantastic! I see that you've started a fresh topic. Hopefully, this one will be free from the onslaught of false claims and misinterpretations.

Isn't Habakkuk actually depicted much later, around 610 by secular reckoning? However, it's interesting to note that the good fellows from "Pathway to Peace Ministry" portray Jeremiah's ministry in their impressive charts starting in 629/628. They place Daniel 1:1 around 625/624, but surprisingly, they begin the 70-year desolation period in 605 and conclude it in 539. It seems they are two years off the Watchtower's calculations for the 70 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, George88 said:

Yet, among these scholars, there are those who steadfastly cling to the notion of three deportations that commenced in 605, 598, 587 BC. The Babylonian Chronicle mentions 598 BC.

For some clarification, most scholars cling to THREE deportations in 598, 587 and 582 BCE, and it's scholars who also refer to a FOURTH deportation who will also include 605 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's accession year when he was also attacking Jerusalem according to Daniel 1:1 and 2 Kings 24:1, 2 Chr 36:6 indicating the time around the 3rd and 4th year of Jehoiakim.

Also for clarification, I'll mention again that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 598 BC. The Babylonian Chronicles just say it was the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar (from Spring of 598 to Spring of 597), in the portion of the Chronicle that refer to the early years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 

In the seventh year, in the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against the City of Judah and on the ninth day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice and taking heavy tribute brought it back to Babylon.

There is no astronomy data in the Babylonian Chronicles, therefore the date 598 BCE cannot be determined from them. In fact, the Watchtower chronology claims that the Babylonian Chronicles are referring to 618 BCE, here.

*** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
In 618 B.C.E., or during Jehoiakim’s third year as tributary ruler, Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem. (2Ki 24:1; 2Ch 36:6)

You would have no way of knowing whether this was really 598 BCE, as you say, or if the Watchtower was right in saying it was 618 BCE. It's only because there is so much evidence from astronomical observations recorded during several of Nebuchadnezzar's years of reign, that we could consistently determine that all the evidence points to his 1st year as 604 BCE and his 43rd year as 562 BCE, and would also determine all the years in between. Therefore it's all the evidence from astronomy, and not the Babylonian Chronicles themselves that would determine that Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year is 598 as you say, and not 618 as the Watchtower claims. And therefore we have astronomical evidence for ALL the years of Nebuchadnezzar from 1 to 43.  

If one says that the Babylonian Chronicles are calling his 7th year 598, as you say, then that's the same thing as saying his 18th year was 587, not the Watchtower's year of 607 BCE and his first year would be 605 not the Watchtower's year of 625 BCE, and the 37th year from VAT 4956 would be 568 not the Watchtower's year of 588 BCE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, George88 said:

There are no ancient tablets containing year references to support the claim that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in that specific year. The attribution of 587 BC has been added retroactively by later interpreters of historical data.

That was the reason for my clarification above. If, as you say, the 7th year was 598 BCE, then you are claiming that his 18th year is 587 BCE. Those later interpreters of historical data have no choice but to call his 18th year 587, if they are calling his 7th year 598 BCE. So they aren't adding it retroactively except in the exact same way that the same interpreters have added 598 retroactively to the statement in the Chronicles about his 7th year. They are merely using the same date you used for his 7th, but also trusting the Bible when it adds:

  • (Jeremiah 52:29)  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
  • (2 Kings 25:8, 9)  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; . . .
  • *** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
    (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year)
     
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

"Pathway to Peace Ministry" portray Jeremiah's ministry in their impressive charts starting in 629/628.

Their site generally follows the Second Adventist dates of WIlliam Miller, with some exceptions, including many of the ideas that Nelson Barbour (and therefore C T Russell) carried from Second Adventist chronology. Their chart ENDS the dates pretty much the same as William Miller and keeps 1844 as a significant prophetic fulfillment, but the BCE dates in the Neo-Babylonian period have been adjusted per the astronomy evidence.

Note that they were able to do this without the 20 extra years the Watchtower adds to the timeline [added somewhere within the timeline of the conventional 4-year reign of King Neriglissar]. 

For example, the Watchtower portrays Jeremiah's ministry starting in 647 BCE, and their chart you quoted shows 628/627 BCE.

*** it-2 p. 30 Jeremiah ***
Commissioned as Prophet. Jeremiah was called to be a prophet when a young man, in 647 B.C.E., in the 13th year of the reign of King Josiah of Judah (659-629 B.C.E.).

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

They place Daniel 1:1 around 625/624, but surprisingly, they begin the 70-year desolation period in 605 and conclude it in 539.

You are misinterpreting the chart. If you look again you'll see that it puts Daniel 1:1 in the third year of Jehoiakim, which the chart places in 606 BCE. The chart often makes use of unused lines to place the various references, but the ACTUAL reference is found at the regnal years of the specific kings: 

daniel.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

They place Daniel 1:1 around 625/624, but surprisingly, they begin the 70-year desolation period in 605 and conclude it in 539. It seems they are two years off the Watchtower's calculations for the 70 years.

That can easily be misinterpreted. They actually place Daniel 1:1 in 606/605 (see previous post, or see chart). And the chart does not conclude them in 539, as you said, but concludes them in the 4th year of Cyrus, 536 BCE. 

Chart is here: https://www.pathwaytopeace.net/images/EBooks/E_Book_Pdf_The_Evidence.pdf

Coincidentally, William Miller started them in 596, but thought the first year of Cyrus was in 526, not 536, per Barbour/Russell, and so ran them from 596 to 526 (which would also have been 606 to 536 after the "10-year correction" to his dates): 

8. The seventy years' captivity prophesied of by Jeremiah, Jer. xxv. 11, were fulfilled between B.C. 596 and 526.

9. Nebuchadnezzar's seven times were foretold by Daniel, and fulfilled in seven years. See Daniel iv. 25 and Josephus.

http://www.earlysda.com/miller/views2.html

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It seems they are two years off the Watchtower's calculations for the 70 years.

Not exactly. The event that started them in the chart was the first accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, Carchemish, etc. The Watchtower calculates that same date as 625, not 605. And the Watchtower ends them in the second year of Cyrus 537, not the 4th year as in the chart. So the time between those same two chart's events, by Watchtower calculations, is closer to 88 years, not 70 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Isn't Habakkuk actually depicted much later, around 610 by secular reckoning? However, it's interesting to note that the good fellows from "Pathway to Peace Ministry" portray Jeremiah's ministry in their impressive charts starting in 629/628. They place Daniel 1:1 around 625/624, but surprisingly, they begin the 70-year desolation period in 605 and conclude it in 539. It seems they are two years off the Watchtower's calculations for the 70 years.

Sometimes Habakkuk is mentioned in that context. However, using a different approach leads us to the same outcome.

Once again, we find ourselves faced with misleading interpretations of secular evidence, BTK. This person truly seems impervious to correction. However, I understand now why you brought up the reference to 625 and Daniel 1:1, using a chart not associated with Adventists. It seems this individual is solely fixated on Miller and the significance of 1844, which is not relevant to the teachings of the Watchtower. That sad tactic of just throwing things out just to see what sticks is a lame ploy.

That is one of the reasons why Pastor Russell disassociated himself from Barbour—a result of Barbour returning to some of his former Adventist views. This divergence was publicly expressed through various published articles. While not strictly chronological, these differing views were ones that Russell deemed incorrect.

Let's focus on facts and avoid distorting the truth. If I come across any divergences from the subject, I will close the discussion.

However, I find their chart to be impressive as well. It must have taken them a lot of effort to put it together. Although, in some instances, I do disagree with its presentation.

Here's an alternative perspective on the chart. However, it appears that the invisible man is insinuating that you are promoting the chart instead of presenting another viewpoint. It seems he is resorting to deceit in order to hold his audience's attention.

Indeed, it occurred during King Josiah's reign as prophesied by Jeremiah. One can also interpret the chart by clearing one's mind of any irrelevant information.


625 bc.jpg

3350 AM under King Josiah's reign. The end of 9th and the begining of 10th. p.114

2 Kings 23:34,36 "And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there. 36 Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Zebudah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah." Note: Shortly after Pharaohnechoh made Jehoiakim king, Nebuchadnezzar came and Jehoiakim became his servant.

This would be according to their chart Jeremiah's prophetic year 628 BC

3357 AM under King Josiah's reign. The end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th. What's next, the famous 18th year.

Daniel 1:1 "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it." Note: This was during the time Nebuchadnezzar was crown prince with his father.
Note: This is when Daniel and his three companions were taken captive to Babylon (Read Daniel Chapter 1). Nebuchadnezzar had certain of the captives of Judah nourished with the king's meat and wine "three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. Daniel and his three companions did not defile themselves with the king's meat and wine and when they stood before the king after three years they were found ten times wiser. Because of Daniel's faithfulness, God gave him understanding in visions and dreams.

This would be according to their chart Jeremiah's prophetic year 625/624 BC

It seems that you are simply acknowledging their alignment or placement of biblical texts that correspond to historical and secular data. This is an acceptable theological perspective.

One must possess a comprehensive understanding of charts in order to avoid becoming an obstructionist or a mere critic. Instead of focusing on correcting others, individuals should reflect on their own knowledge and rectify any of their own mistakes made. It is worth noting that those individuals place the death of King Josiah within the historical context of 609 BC, which inevitably leads to a disagreement in terms of context between the Watchtower's perspective and theirs.

However, as previously mentioned and highlighted, there are numerous additional inconsistencies in secular history that can be debated. For instance, let's consider the example I mentioned earlier: the year 645 BC. This date is quite close to the reign of Kandalanu, suggesting that it could potentially be attributed to Nabopolassar's reign instead, thereby shifting Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 626/625 BC.


So, the speculation is drawn from the obstructionist of secular history, not scripture. A false statement elsewhere was made about learning, this untruth reflects on just wanting to criticize the Watchtowers presentation of historical facts as they understand it from the ancients, not the distorted revisions made by modern scholars.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, George88 said:

However, I understand now why you brought up the reference to 625 and Daniel 1:1, using a chart not associated with Adventists. It seems this individual is solely fixated on Miller and the significance of 1844, which is not relevant to the teachings of the Watchtower.

 I thought you already knew that the persons credited with making the chart (Carlene and Elene Rodgers) were part of the "Kingdom" church, proclaiming the Second Advent, and very opposed to the "Seventh Day Adventists" where Cary Rodgers, Jr, is the Pastor. If it's not associated with Adventists, or Miller, or the significance of 1844, then you might try explaining the following statements from the site:

https://www.pathwaytopeace.net/images/Bible_Sermon_Study_Notes/Great_Controversy/19_Chapter_18_American_Reforme___The_Advent_of_Christ.pdf

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

------------ end of snippets from the chapter about William Miller -----------

I'm sure you know that Russell believed the same thing about the 1833 meteor shower. Page 120 of "The Finished Mystery" quotes from Russell's Studies in the Scriptures, Volume IV:

6:13. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth.Literally, the meteoric shower of Nov. 13, 1833, covering 11,000,000 square miles. (D. 588.) 

If you read the chapter on William Miller, you will see literally dozens of commonalities between the beliefs promoted on the site, and beliefs that Russell promoted long after he had broken with Barbour (and long after Barbour had broken with Second Adventism). 

Perhaps you didn't notice that the very same chart shows the 2300 days/years ending in 1844:

image.png

You can also look at Cary Rodgers' Bible Sermon Notes in Chapter 22:

October 22, 1844 We learned from our previous studies that the time prophecy of Daniel 8:14, 2300 days the sanctuary shall be cleansed and Revelation 14:7 is referring to the investigative phase of judgment. William Miller and many others thought that the cleansing of the sanctuary and the hour of judgment was pointing to the executive phase of judgment in which they concluded was the end of the world and cleansing by fire. Based on the interpretation of Daniel 8:14 in Daniel 9:24 27, they believed that the coming of Jesus was going to take place on October 22, It was not until October 22, 1844 came and went did others realize their mistake that they got the right date but the wrong phase of judgment. What kept the faithful Adventist after the great disappointment rooted and grounded in truth and hope? When the time passed at which the Lord's coming was first expected,--in the spring of 1844,--those who had looked in faith for His appearing were for a season involved in doubt and uncertainty. While the world regarded them as having been utterly defeated and proved to have been cherishing a delusion, their source of consolation was still the word of God. Many continued to search the Scriptures, examining anew the evidences of their faith and carefully studying the prophecies to obtain further light. The Bible testimony in support of their position seemed clear and conclusive. Signs which could not be mistaken pointed to the coming of Christ as near. The special blessing of the Lord, both in the conversion of sinners and the revival of spiritual life among Christians, had testified that the message was of Heaven. And though the believers could not explain their disappointment, they felt assured that God had led them in their past experience. . . .  They did not let go of the hope set before them. Those who already had a personal relation with Christ who already was searching the Bible for themselves found scriptures they needed in this trying time. The world had been looking on, expecting that if the time passed and Christ did not appear, the whole system of Adventism would be given up. But while many, under strong temptation, yielded their faith, there were some who stood firm. The fruits of the advent movement, the spirit of humility and heart searching, of renouncing of the world and reformation of life, which had attended the work, testified that it was of God. They dared not deny that the power of the Holy Spirit had witnessed to the preaching of the second advent, and they could detect no error in their reckoning of the prophetic periods. The ablest of their opponents had not succeeded in overthrowing their system of prophetic interpretation. They could not consent, without Bible evidence, to renounce positions which had been reached through earnest, prayerful study of the Scriptures, by minds enlightened by the Spirit of God and hearts burning with its living power; positions which had withstood the most searching criticisms and the most bitter opposition of popular religious teachers and worldly-wise men, and which had stood firm against the combined forces of learning and eloquence, and the taunts and revilings alike of the honorable and the base. . . . . True, there had been a failure as to the expected event, but even this could not shake their faith in the word of God. What scripture gave them hope in the prophetic timeline that pointed to the second coming of Jesus Christ? Habakkuk 2:1-4 1 I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, George88 said:

One must possess a comprehensive understanding of charts in order to avoid becoming an obstructionist or a mere critic. Instead of focusing on correcting others, individuals should reflect on their own knowledge and rectify any of their own mistakes made. It is worth noting that those individuals place the death of King Josiah within the historical context of 609 BC, which inevitably leads to a disagreement in terms of context between the Watchtower's perspective and theirs.

Well said. I couldn't agree more. And I'm glad you understand that the chart is in disagreement with the Watchtower's perspective by promoting the death of King Josiah within the historical context of 609 BCE.

It's no big deal, but if one can ignore the 1844 stuff, the chart is actually a pretty good reference for the standard "evidenced" chronology. But it's not confusing when one understands that some of the various Bible verses are placed in the chart's unused lines only for convenience, and were not meant to be confused with the actual year that they seem to be aligned with. For example: 

  • Jeremiah 1:1,2 is listed up on the 633 BCE line of the chart where it mentions the 13th year of Josiah, but further below the chart later shows that the actual date as 628 BCE.
  • 2 Kings 22:31 is listed next beginning in the 631 BCE line of the chart, and yet the chart specifically mentions the death of Josiah in 609 BCE, and the 3-month reign of Jehoahaz. But the ACTUAL line mentioning the event is all the way down in 609 BCE. (See picture at and of post)
  • Then there is the Daniel 1:1 which you mistakenly thought referred to around 624 because that's where the chartmaker(s) found empty room to place the reference. But note that it  refers to the months just before Nebuchadnezzar became king in 605: The chart says:
    • “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.”  Note: This was during the time Nebuchadnezzar was crown prince with his father. Note 2: This is when Daniel and his three companions were taken captive to Babylon (Read Daniel Chapter 1).  Nebuchadnezzar had certain of the captives of Judah nourished with the king’s meat and wine “three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.”   Daniel and his three companions did not defile themselves with the king’s meat and wine and when they stood before the king after three years they were found ten times wiser.  Because of Daniel’s faithfulness God gave him understanding in visions and dreams.
    • But if you look further down, he actually places this event in 606/605 as already shown from the clipping taken from the chart shown previously.

I've seen a tendency among some Witnesses to imply that others have agreed with the Watchtower chronology, as if this was some kind of evidence for the chronology.

So far, I have never seen any evidence that even one person who has written about chronology has been able to agree with the Watchtower's chronology unless they had a foundation based upon William Miller, the Second Adventists (and sometimes Seventh Day Adventists), "Russell-styled" Bible Students, "Rutherford-styled" Bible Student break-offs, Armstrong's Church of God, or Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. 

But here we have a case where even though the foundation of the chronology begins with the same ideas that affected Second Adventism, we have someone who is able to use the actual standard dates, evidenced by astronomy, and still keep the primary parts of the Second Adventist chronology intact.

For example, this chart shows:

  • the first deportation in 605
  • Josiah's death in 609
  • The first year of Nebuchadnezzar as 604
  • The 70 years of servitude to Babylon running from 609 to 539
  • The 70 years of desolation (of Judea) running from 605 to 536
  • Jehoiachin's exile to Babylon beginning in 598/7 BCE
  •  The full destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE 

jehoahaz.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 hours ago, George88 said:

Then you have this kind of modern gem.

Israel God's Ensign to Nations Dickson Agedah · 2014

THE FALL OF ASSYRIA, THE RISE OF BABYLON 
The seizure of the Babylonian throne by Nabopolassar in about 645 BC

This person, Dickson Agedah, keeps switching back and forth between Watchtower chronology and the astronomically evidenced chronology, as if both were right. I have no idea if the person is just mixing up references to Watchtower publications, or has been a Witness in the past.

In the case of Pekka Mansikka, I know what's going on because of private communications I won't reveal. But he sent me his books and I did start a long topic here once showing how Mansikka was so desperate to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian timeline. He first added the 20 years to Nabonidus' reign, so that it ended in a 37th year when Cyrus overthrew him instead of the 17th year. When this was shown to be impossible, even by the Watchtower's accepted evidence, he revised his book(s) to say that there was another unknown Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 20 years after Evil-Merodach.  

As far as I can tell so far, the differences between the Watchtower chronology and the standard "astronomically evidenced" chronology is shown in the following chart:

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

In the above chart, I still have a six-month to one year difference in a couple of places that I haven't resolved to my satisfaction, but the above chart shows two BCE timelines in the middle. The green one is the secular, standard timeline, tied to all the astronomy readings (about 50 of them). The one below that is partly blue and shows the 20 year difference with the Watchtower's timeline. The Watchtower accepts all the standard dates after Neriglissar, or possibly the years of his reign after 580. So those dates are in Green because they are accepted by both the Watchtower and the standard chronology.

3 hours ago, George88 said:

For instance, let's consider the example I mentioned earlier: the year 645 BC. This date is quite close to the reign of Kandalanu, suggesting that it could potentially be attributed to Nabopolassar's reign instead, thereby shifting Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 626/625 BC.

That would require a complete rejection of the Babylonian Chronicles that state that Kandalanu reigned all the way up until one year before Nabopolassar, and that there was one year prior to Nabopolassar's accession where there was no official king. This is confirmed by several contract tablets which have been discovered, where the last official year of the tablets are dated "KANDALANU 20 + month + day" but the next year is called "AFTER KANDALANU 21 + month + day."

If this is what is being done, you might wonder what would happen in the first few months of the NEXT year, Nabopolassar's accession year, but before the first tablets under him would have been marked "NABOPOLASSAR ACCESSION + month + day." And sure enough, within the proper months before his accession, we find at least one tablet marked "AFTER KANDALANU 22 + month + day."

If Kandalanu was indeed a throne name to cover for a king of Babylon still assigned by Assyria at that time, it would more likely have been a Babylonian throne name for Ashurbanipal so that the Babylonians could continue to use Babylonian "kings" for their own chronology after the death of Shamash-shum-ukin (who had himself been assigned to govern Babylonia by Assyrian king Esar-haddon). Note what "Insight" says here, although not mentioning Kandalanu:

*** it-1 p. 758 Esar-haddon ***
Before his death Esar-haddon had made arrangements to ensure a smooth succession to the throne by proclaiming his son Ashurbanipal crown prince, while assigning another son, Shamash-shum-u-kin, to be king of Babylon. Thus, upon Esar-haddon’s death, Ashurbanipal became Assyria’s next monarch.

And the Aid book added the following about Kandalanu:

*** ad p. 329 Chronology ***
In a reverse direction, tablets were sometimes evidently dated to a king after his reign had ended. Of the reign of Kandalanu, who preceded Nabopolassar as king of Babylon, some tablets are dated as to the 21st or the 22d year “after” Kandalanu, and it is suggested by some that Kandalanu’s reign “was carried artificially on to fill the interregnum up to the accession of Nabopolassar.” 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I am fully aware of their contradictions and your tendency to go off-topic just to make feeble attempts at derailing a meaningful discussion about historical chronology, not someone's interpretation of chronology.

Using someone else's charts in support of a debate does not imply that an agreement has been reached by anyone, as you are so disgracefully trying to do.

Share your own ideas and express any falsehoods that you desire on your own topic. Is this what TOM upholds in place of God?

I don't care about the specific religious affiliations or beliefs. However, since you have decided to remove the clause allowing a person to close a discussion, I request that you close this one. I have no interest in sifting through pages of nonsense.

Your methods of challenging historical chronology by using nonsensical strategies to discredit and muddy the waters are misleading. Instead of accepting the established historical dates, you personally refute as alternatives without considering the evidence, then your dismissal of the well-documented secular history that refutes your 587 BC is a meaningless endeavor to erase it, since it has been established by various means and your stand on 587 BC which has been established and proven wrong time after time by the very secular chronology you embrace is just more defiance of an unwilling heart.

I see no value in your information, nor do I appreciate your effort to manipulate the topic to please a select group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.