Can secular chronology be trusted?

[George88]

Stop behaving foolishly and distorting my words. I didn't say that the tablet mentioned 588. What I actually said is that your argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588. The tablet clearly mentions the city of Borsippa which is way further in distance from Jerusalem, which nobody else has mentioned before, and it reveals the conflicts within it that are indicated in that infamous tablet VAT 4956, which Professor Francesca Rochberg is alluding to. 

 

"Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I,"

"Additional reports in this Diary include that someone was killed “by the command of the king,” that a fox entered the city, a wolf killed two dogs in Borsippa, and that there was disease."

I understand that it can be challenging to be proven wrong repeatedly, especially when faced with evidence that can't be easily dismissed. "IN THIS DAIRY" means the same diary. If it's not VAT 4956 it has the same language as VAT 4956.

Are you now refuting VAT 4956?

Your refutation lacks substance and credibility. There are many other aspects of those dates that can be proven, failing your COJ stance.

[BTK59]

39 minutes ago, George88 said:

I understand that it can be challenging to be proven wrong repeatedly, especially when faced with evidence that can't be easily dismissed. "IN THIS DAIRY" means the same diary. If it's not VAT 4956 it has the same language as VAT 4956.

Are you now refuting VAT 4956?

Your refutation lacks substance and credibility. There are many other aspects of those dates that can be proven, failing your COJ stance.

It appears that he is struggling to accept the reality that Borsippa is approximately 15 miles away from Babylon, and depending on who you ask for directions, it is about 617 miles from Jerusalem. Therefore, if VAT 4956 mentions the death of an individual by the order of a king, in Borsippa and disease then we can reasonably assume it was Nebuchadnezzar based on the 37th year language in that secular evidence rather than the Bible, it suggests that the conflicts in the region were more extensive. This clearly demonstrates that no single conflict can be definitively determined or pinpointed solely by relying on that tablet designated to the year 568, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Making an absolute claim would be dishonest if the information contradicts itself.

The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.

[George88]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Therefore, if VAT 4956 mentions the death of an individual by the order of a king, in Borsippa and disease then we can reasonably assume it was Nebuchadnezzar based on the 37th year language in that secular evidence rather than the Bible, it suggests that the conflicts in the region were more extensive.

Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.

[George88]

8 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.

In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies.

Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited.

Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications. 

The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, George88 said:

Stop behaving foolishly and distorting my words. I didn't say that the tablet mentioned 588. What I actually said is that your argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588.

That's completely false.

You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading. 

I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, George88 said:

I didn't say that the tablet mentioned 588.

Try not to manipulate my words with your usual tactics. I said: "I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588."

I said this in direct response to your claim that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said:

"You can reference VAT 4956." . . .  "Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet" . . . "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . .  "Additional reports in this Diary include . . . Borsippa, . . . .This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 . . . "

18 hours ago, George88 said:

What I actually said is that your argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588.

No, you didn't actually say that. Besides I have no argument about 587. I only point out that ALL the astronomical evidence from the entire period shows that this was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. You have never made an argument (either valid or invalid) that "my argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588." 

18 hours ago, George88 said:

The tablet clearly mentions the city of Borsippa which is way further in distance from Jerusalem, which nobody else has mentioned before

Not that it matters in the least, but Borsippa is NOT way further in distance from Jerusalem. It's about 10 miles CLOSER "as the crow flies" and nearly the same distance using the usual travel routes of the time. Perhaps that's why no one mentioned it before. However, even here, I have already posted the entire contents of the tablet, including the reference to Borsippa. Not that it matters. 

18 hours ago, George88 said:

I understand that it can be challenging to be proven wrong repeatedly, especially when faced with evidence that can't be easily dismissed.

I certainly hope so!

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, George88 said:

"IN THIS DAIRY" means the same diary. If it's not VAT 4956 it has the same language as VAT 4956.

Are you now refuting VAT 4956?

Your refutation lacks substance and credibility.

That was convoluted and strange. I assume it was that way on purpose. I have not tried to refute anything from VAT 4956. My "acceptance" of the evidence from VAT 4956 is not the same thing as "refuting" it. Unless you are doing that thing again where you say you can use words to mean whatever you want.

18 hours ago, George88 said:

There are many other aspects of those dates that can be proven, failing your COJ stance.

Now you are doing that thing again where you hope to imply that the stance of 100% of the current "authorities" and "experts" the Watchtower has quoted just happen to agree with COJ. So, in order to make it easier to dismiss the conclusions of all those experts, you need to point out that those experts agree with COJ, therefore you can dismiss their conclusions. 

This is not just stupid. It's dishonest because you have done it before. It's also hypocritical because you have never once ever been able to point out even one sentence from his GTR book that was wrong. When you finally did attempt to prove he was wrong about something, you picked his reference to Nabopolassar's years mentioned in the "Chronicles," you ended up inadvertently showing that COJ was perfectly accurate. That must have been embarrassing.

As you know, COJ has nothing to do with this discussion. From now on, instead of referring to COJ directly, I think we should just refer call him, "the person that George88 has shown to be accurate." In fact, until you can show even one inaccurate sentence, that's how I will refer to "COJ, the person that George88 has shown to be accurate."

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It appears that he is struggling to accept the reality that Borsippa is approximately 15 miles away from Babylon, . . . about 617 miles from Jerusalem. 

Hallucinations? 

Not that it matters, but it's closer to 11 miles. The claim you made that Borsippa was much further than Babylon from Jerusalem turned out to be a false claim. But I never cared, and never struggled with it, and never made any point about it. If you are trying to make a point that the king was far away from Jerusalem in 588, so what? 

Rather than confusing you, it could merely be thought of as a further agreement with the Bible's account. Notice that there is a difference between the Bible accounts related to Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and/or 19th year attack on Jerusalem, and the Bible accounts related to Nebuchadnezzar's 7th and/or 8th year attack on Jerusalem.

See if you can spot the difference:

Here are some references to the 7th/8th year:

(2 Kings 24:8-12) . . .Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, . . . During that time the servants of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city came under siege. King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to the city while his servants were laying siege to it. King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign. 

(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.  In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . .

And here are the references to the 18th, then the 19th year 

(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,. . .

(2 Kings 25:1, 2) . . .In the ninth year of Zed·e·kiʹah’s reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem. He camped against it and built a siege wall all around it,  and the city was under siege until the 11th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah. 

(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,. . .

Nebuchadnezzar is said to be explicitly interacting with Jerusalem in his 7th/8th year, which astronomy evidence places around 597. Then about 10 years later, which would be about 587, Nebuchadnezzar comes to Jerusalem again, for a long nearly two-year siege. Does he stay for the entire siege? Is he the one who takes the exiles this time, as Jeremiah says he had done in this 7th year?

In fact, about 10 years later, per the Bible's record, this time the city may have been under siege for between 1 and 2 years. Does the king have to sit around with them outside the city for all those months? Or does it become the responsibility of his army and his chief, Nebuzaradan, to come to Jerusalem to take the city when it is finally weakened to the point of surrender?

Per astronomical records the entire siege could have included 589, 588, and 587. Does that mean that Nebuchadnezzar could not order the death of someone in Borsippa, just because a siege of Jerusalem was going on at the time? Did you think the army of an empire like Babylon could not wage wars on several fronts at the same time? 

But all of this argument of yours is nonsense -- it's MOOT -- because it is YOU who are trying to create the confusion. The astronomical records indicate that the 37th year of Babylon is 568, not 588. So this is long AFTER Jehovah has allowed Nebuchadnezzar to "take care" of Jerusalem.

You don't even need to know the BC/BCE years involved. Very explicitly the tablet says this is the 37th year. And the 37th year is long after the 18th and 19th years.

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, BTK59 said:

This clearly demonstrates that no single conflict can be definitively determined or pinpointed solely by relying on that tablet designated to the year 568, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Making an absolute claim would be dishonest if the information contradicts itself.

The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.

Quite an admission on your part.

[JW Insider]

21 hours ago, George88 said:

Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.

Convoluted and muddy thinking again: You say that if we can assume the tablet was 568 this suggests that the king was in his palace to issue the order for Borsippa. But 20 years earlier, a runner would have to run for weeks or a month to get that order from Judah for 588, a date historically suggested for Nebuchadnezzar's army to be sieging Jerusalem. 

So your basic point is that, yes it might make sense for 568, the astronomical date for his 37th year, but if we want his 37th year to be twenty years earlier, in his 17th year in 588, when he might be there with his army at Jerusalem. And even though this is more difficult because a runner would have to take up to a month for the message (and a month to get back), then that means that his 37th year could also be his 17th year, and we can therefore use the 588 date for that same event.

 If anyone here believes that to be a valid argument, they simply have no business discussing the topic.

Besides, your only response always boils down to just name-calling, and flailing on about how I misrepresented your words, while ignoring your own words, and then (ironically) blatantly misrepresenting my words. And everyone can also see the immature "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" projection tactics. Typical. 

[George88]

@JW InsiderYou should stop calling yourself a Jehovah's Witness, as you are disrespecting Jehovah's organization and God with your apostasy. Your pathetic games don't work with me. Impress your apostate fans at the Closed club. It appears that you effortlessly escape from your deceitful statements and misrepresentations there.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Quite an admission on your part.

I acknowledge and accept that apostates can no longer rely on VAT 4956 as an argument. It has been proven that opposers have concealed crucial information within it, discrediting their argument completely. Therefore, I have no problem admitting it.