Jump to content
The World News Media

Can secular chronology be trusted?


George88

Recommended Posts

  • Member
23 hours ago, George88 said:

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.

I never thought you fully agreed with them, but I agree that bringing the chart into the topic was useful, as it provides a good reference to the standard chronology and shows how one can fit the reigns of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings under discussion.  

23 hours ago, George88 said:

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.

I didn't know that you could no longer close a discussion. But my comments were not added for you. I think most people here know how you have always responded to evidence. They are intended for your benefit, of course, but I mostly added the comments for anyone who might have become confused by certain claims. 

And I was commenting because I appreciated the opening statement in this topic:

On 4/1/2024 at 8:31 PM, BTK59 said:

Hopefully, this one will be free from the onslaught of false claims and misinterpretations.

I took that to mean that you should be willing to welcome any responses to false claims and misinterpretations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 2k
  • 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
30 minutes ago, George88 said:

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 have rarely seen a better example of blame-shifting and "projection."

I'll leave the topic open unless another moderator wishes to close the topic to further comments. After all, it's an open discussion forum. You made some public claims on a discussion forum about chronology, some of which are correct, and some of which don't fit any evidence, as far as I can see. I countered with some evidence that hasn't been responded to yet. I never expected you to respond, but someday others might wish to have a chance. Perhaps there is something somewhere someone can find that can still defend your claims. You never know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, George88 said:

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

Let's continue our discussion over email. This person is determined to sabotage a productive debate with their usual nonsense.

Let's delve into Jeremiah 1, 2, and 3 for 629 BC, as recorded by another individual, since it would be unproductive to introduce information here for those who lack knowledge. By doing so, we can avoid any confusion and maintain the integrity of our discussions. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Jeremiah 22 for 610 BC provides another interesting example that could be beneficial to include in our analysis. Exploring the theory behind this specific passage would further enhance our understanding.

I must say, your submission of another chart is indeed an excellent example of a well-designed chart. I understand your point about agreeing with Jeremiah for 629 BC, supported by biblical evidence in Jeremiah 1:2, and where you disagree with the author's determination of 586 BC based on their understanding of chronology.

I believe the original focus here was King Josiah and the prophet Jeremiah before it was tarnished, correct?

I thought I had added that person to my ignore list. I can't help but wonder if seeing his responses are yet another manipulative tactic from those in power.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
23 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I thought I had added that person to my ignore list. I can't help but wonder if seeing his responses are yet another manipulative tactic from those in power.

I'm sure that you never put me on your ignore list. The implication that someone is overriding an ignore list as a manipulative tactic could just as well, itself, be just another manipulative tactic. I can't help but wonder. LOL.

And, as you have already hinted at, if you don't want to hear from anyone else on a topic, simply don't post on a public discussion forum. It makes no sense to just post your presentation without allowing any responses at all. But if you still like the discussion forum format for your presentation, then just make it clear that you don't want any responses until a certain point when your presentation is completed to your satisfaction.

Of course, if this is what you'd like to do, it's probably a good idea not to try to insult others along the way, or even to make any unsupported claims about people. I'd think that most people would be tempted to defend themselves right away if false, insulting or unsupported claims are being made about them. : I suspect G88/BTK will continue using forum to claim "brilliance" and use email ruse to avoid explaining all the brilliant details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
49 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Let's continue our discussion over email. This person is determined to sabotage a productive debate with their usual nonsense.

👍

49 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I thought I had added that person to my ignore list. I can't help but wonder if seeing his responses are yet another manipulative tactic from those in power.

Whether you did something or not, it holds no significance except to provide the shameless with more ammunition. This individual is resolute in finding faults in everyone but himself, although that is precisely where his attention should be focused, rather than identifying himself as a Jehovah's Witness.

Why does everyone in this group, including the close club, think they have the right to disrespect the word of God? Moreover, why is Tom only using it against me and not against others? It seems hypocritical, especially considering that he needs the support of the same audience to achieve success. Holier than thou, in the devil's house, more is needed.

If by any chance I cannot currently access my email, please share it here since I'm always interested in the funny things Srecko posts here. Therefore, chances are I'll see them here before I see them there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, George88 said:

If by any chance I cannot currently access my email, please share it here since I'm always interested in the funny things Srecko posts here. Therefore, chances are I'll see them here before I see them there.

The email discussion was very productive. I don't have a problem posting this portion.

Look at the following?

Consult the book "Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC" by Alan R. Millard for information about the top generals and governors. Afterward, compare the findings with Glassner's work.

There is a discrepancy regarding Aššur-etel-ilani and Sin-šumu-lišir, according to Glassner.

This is why I accept Glassner's view.

EPONYM LISTS
Assyria was distinctive in that it invented its own dating system, which it maintained faithfully for a millennium and a half: the “eponym” system. In this, years were named after high officers of state. Drawn at first by lot, they were later determined according to a strict hierarchical order, which, however, kings might sometimes change. Eponym lists were drawn up as chronological reference works but were no more exempt from error than Babylonian lists.75

KING LISTS
These made it possible to fix the order of succession of kings and generally went beyond the span of one dynasty. However, the mention of royal names alone was insufficient to make them useful for chronographers, and historians wishing to locate events in time and to find a way to date them added the number of years of each reign. The king lists stretched from the end of the third millennium to the Seleucid era. Among them, synchronous lists set the reigns of Assyrian and Babylonian kings in parallel.76

The key issues here are, first who is ( Aššur-etel-ilani) and is it Ashurbanipal or a relative of his and what was his age and did Sin-šumu-lišir appoint himself as King, just like Nabopolassar did. However, he is listed as having been a "General." Therefore, it raises the question: who truly held the crown between 631-627 when Jeremiah began prophesying in 629?

You can consult the works of Frame, Grayson, and Parpola for further information. However, for the sake of simplicity, I would recommend looking into the works of Potts.

It is important to acknowledge that Ashurbanipal's ascension to the kingship was a transformative event, marked by a civil war and internal conflicts. However, we must also consider the subsequent reign of Kandalanu, which adds another dynamic to this narrative.  We also have evidence showing that Aššur-etel-ilani was a young son of Ashurbanipal, but he allowed himself to be manipulated by his advisor Sin-šumu-lišir, the chief eunuch. Who among them assumed the role of acting king, Sin-šumu-lišir or Aššur-etel-ilani? Therefore, it would be misleading to make absolute assertions without compromising the integrity of legitimate research.

"Sin- šumu- lišir, the chief eunuch, [one who had deserved well] of my father and be[getter, who had led me constantly like a father, installed me] safely on the throne of my father and begetter [and made the people of Assyria, great and small, keep] watch over my kingship during my minority, and respected my royalty.350"

Why is all of this important? It calls into question the true reign of Nabopolassar amidst such confusion. Did he take on the mantle of kingship while serving as a general or governor around 648/647 BC, at a time when internal strife was tearing apart the bonds between brothers and family members?

What makes people question whether a person highly esteemed by the King would not be considered a king, especially since a king had the authority to appoint anyone he desired to delegate the affairs of the state to anyone in his absence? Furthermore, one must consider whether anyone with enough courage to take the throne just as Nabopolassar did. I will subsequently send you the result of that secular discrepancy, which poses another method to disprove 587, bringing it into alignment with both secular and biblical occurrences, by utilizing the same historical information.

You might want to take into consideration the works of Finkel, Reade and I already mentioned Parpola. as well. So, the answer again is yes! Secular history has merits for those that wish to view it the correct way.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Let's continue our discussion over email. This person is determined to sabotage a productive debate with their usual nonsense.

Let's delve into Jeremiah 1, 2, and 3 for 629 BC, as recorded by another individual, since it would be unproductive to introduce information here for those who lack knowledge. By doing so, we can avoid any confusion and maintain the integrity of our discussions. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Jeremiah 22 for 610 BC provides another interesting example that could be beneficial to include in our analysis. Exploring the theory behind this specific passage would further enhance our understanding.

The email discussion was very productive. I don't have a problem posting this portion.

Look at the following?

Consult the book "Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC" by Alan R. Millard for information about the top generals and governors. Afterward, compare the findings with Glassner's work.

There is a discrepancy regarding Aššur-etel-ilani and Sin-šumu-lišir, according to Glassner.

This is why I accept Glassner's view.

EPONYM LISTS
Assyria was distinctive in that it invented its own dating system, which it maintained faithfully for a millennium and a half: the “eponym” system. In this, years were named after high officers of state. Drawn at first by lot, they were later determined according to a strict hierarchical order, which, however, kings might sometimes change. Eponym lists were drawn up as chronological reference works but were no more exempt from error than Babylonian lists.75

KING LISTS
These made it possible to fix the order of succession of kings and generally went beyond the span of one dynasty. However, the mention of royal names alone was insufficient to make them useful for chronographers, and historians wishing to locate events in time and to find a way to date them added the number of years of each reign. The king lists stretched from the end of the third millennium to the Seleucid era. Among them, synchronous lists set the reigns of Assyrian and Babylonian kings in parallel.76

The key issues here are, first who is ( Aššur-etel-ilani) and is it Ashurbanipal or a relative of his and what was his age and did Sin-šumu-lišir appoint himself as King, just like Nabopolassar did. However, he is listed as having been a "General." Therefore, it raises the question: who truly held the crown between 631-627 when Jeremiah began prophesying in 629?

You can consult the works of Frame, Grayson, and Parpola for further information. However, for the sake of simplicity, I would recommend looking into the works of Potts.

It is important to acknowledge that Ashurbanipal's ascension to the kingship was a transformative event, marked by a civil war and internal conflicts. However, we must also consider the subsequent reign of Kandalanu, which adds another dynamic to this narrative.  We also have evidence showing that Aššur-etel-ilani was a young son of Ashurbanipal, but he allowed himself to be manipulated by his advisor Sin-šumu-lišir, the chief eunuch. Who among them assumed the role of acting king, Sin-šumu-lišir or Aššur-etel-ilani? Therefore, it would be misleading to make absolute assertions without compromising the integrity of legitimate research.

"Sin- šumu- lišir, the chief eunuch, [one who had deserved well] of my father and be[getter, who had led me constantly like a father, installed me] safely on the throne of my father and begetter [and made the people of Assyria, great and small, keep] watch over my kingship during my minority, and respected my royalty.350"

Why is all of this important? It calls into question the true reign of Nabopolassar amidst such confusion. Did he take on the mantle of kingship while serving as a general or governor around 648/647 BC, at a time when internal strife was tearing apart the bonds between brothers and family members?

What makes people question whether a person highly esteemed by the King would not be considered a king, especially since a king had the authority to appoint anyone he desired to delegate the affairs of the state to anyone in his absence? Furthermore, one must consider whether anyone with enough courage to take the throne just as Nabopolassar did. I will subsequently send you the result of that secular discrepancy, which poses another method to disprove 587, bringing it into alignment with both secular and biblical occurrences, by utilizing the same historical information.

You might want to take into consideration the works of Finkel, Reade and I already mentioned Parpola. as well. So, the answer again is yes! Secular history has merits for those that wish to view it correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
14 hours ago, George88 said:

Why is all of this important? It calls into question the true reign of Nabopolassar amidst such confusion. Did he take on the mantle of kingship while serving as a general or governor around 648/647 BC, at a time when internal strife was tearing apart the bonds between brothers and family members?

 

14 hours ago, George88 said:

I will subsequently send you the result of that secular discrepancy, which poses another method to disprove 587, bringing it into alignment with both secular and biblical occurrences, by utilizing the same historical information.

Double Post, you got my attention, lol!

Doesn't that mean C1-B1 NBK 33-38 doesn't align with the proposed assumption of 598/597, as stated?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Double Post, you got my attention, lol!

I just wanted to make it abundantly clear you would receive it. :D

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Doesn't that mean C1-B1 NBK 33-38 doesn't align with the proposed assumption of 598/597, as stated?

If the assumption remains consistent with the secular pattern, then it is logical. However, those who engage in critical thinking may arrive at a different consensus, suggesting 597/596 instead of 598/597.

These researcher's charts make it possible for C1-B1 to align those tablets. Here's a sample. I won't use any of the information, as I don't want an unscrupulous person to falsely claim that these individuals are a "Witness, Adventist, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Martian" or any other ridiculous notions, since I'm relying solely on the information presented by the individuals.

Given that other educators have cited these individuals in their work, I see no issue with including them in my own.

Book of Zephaniah completed - 648
Jeremiah commissioned as prophet Jeremiah - 647
Nebuchadnezzar becomes king of Babylon - 625
Jehoiachin becomes king of Judah - 618

What is the question, then? Did ancient historians utilize King Zedekiah's birthdate as a chronological reference?

I can easily find at least 12 other works that reference King Jehoiachin in 618 BC without even making an effort.

I hope this provides clarity on any concerns you may have. One person may share the same chart and results, while others may concur with these interpretations by using the same dates.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 hours ago, George88 said:

I just wanted to make it abundantly clear you would receive it. :D

😂

8 hours ago, George88 said:

I hope this provides clarity on any concerns you may have. One person may share the same chart and results, while others may concur with these interpretations by using the same dates.
 

I understand the point. If King Zedekiah and King Jehoiachin's reigns overlapped or ran concurrently, their proximity in age could have influenced the chronology. In essence, ancient scribes may not have provided an accurate account of history due to assumed dates, according to secular reckoning. Dates that are calculated and asserted without certainty of their accuracy.

A Bible scribe may have incorporated a birthdate or significant biblical event that warranted attention, whereas secular scribes would document specific events occurring at a given time. By merging these sources, errors inevitably arise. Given the absence of a detailed daily account of King Josiah and Prophet Jeremiah, it is possible that certain scribal interests went undocumented, but perhaps they were utilized to peak an interest in time.

This person's method is certainly an unexpected choice for the calculation.

Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate (2nd Ed.) -Darren Thompson · 2007-Page 35

"It would appear that after documenting the timeline through the period of the kings of
Judah to 390 B.C. (the end of the reign of Zedekiah, 3577 M.)"

He mentioned 3577 M., which I believe refers to Anno Mundi. This places King Zedekiah's reign in 404 BC in the reign of Darius. Therefore, according to the language in his book, this is likely the beginning of the reign. Despite this, he mentions 390 BC, although 11 years would actually end in 393 BC.

He also doubts the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586. I guess he is either a JW or an Adventist, lol!

"chronologists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar occurred in the year 586 B.C. This time is partially based on tracing the reigns of the kings of the Persian and Babylonian empires as outlined in Ptolemy's book Almagest. The Almagest was written to describe a mathematical model for predicting the motion of heavenly bodies. This book documented eclipses that occurred during the reigns of Babylonian and Persian kings that Ptolemy used to demonstrate his model. Therefore Almagest was not so much a history book as it was a book on mathematics."

I have come across other references elsewhere, even coming close to that date 404 BC. I believe the title does not align with the theology. lol!

This one definitely falls into the controversial category. I decided to try it with "AI" and this was the response I received. It's quite amusing!

This content is discussing the potential inaccuracies in historical accounts due to assumptions made about the ages and reigns of ancient kings. In this case, the reigns of King Zedekiah and King Jehoiachin are being examined, and it is suggested that their close proximity in age could have influenced the chronology of their reigns. The content suggests that ancient scribes may not have provided an accurate account of history because they made assumptions about dates without certainty of their accuracy. This highlights the importance of critically analyzing historical sources and considering potential biases or inaccuracies in chronologies. 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 hours ago, BTK59 said:

He also doubts the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586. I guess he is either a JW or an Adventist, lol!

Here is another example where the Bible and secular history can agree if you honestly place the historical facts in the right context.

As previously mentioned, the most straightforward method to establish the 70 years of desolation is by starting with the presumed year 539. This choice is justified by its proximity to the year 537. To simplify the process, we can look to history for answers. It is a historical fact that Cyrus issued his decree for the Jews in 538. How can this be proven by biblical facts, Ezra 1. Upon reflection, we might wonder why he waited instead of immediately commanding the Jews to depart. The delay can be attributed to his need to be convinced and shown that a higher power was at work.

Furthermore, in addition to the devastating loss of his wife, another blow struck our protagonist when a loyal confidant and trusted subject passed away right after 539. In the midst of such heart-wrenching circumstances, one can't help but ponder the appropriate duration of mourning that our protagonist endured. Historical records indicate that his wife's mourning period spanned until approximately March 538. Henceforth, it is plausible to assume that the implementation of the decree took place shortly thereafter, as the weight of sorrow started to lift.

(The Cambridge Ancient History 4) John Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond, D. M. Lewis, M. Ostwald - The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 4_ Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, c.525 to 479 BC

"lf Ugbaru and Gubaru in the Chronicle are identical, then this personage (presumably the figure from which the Gobryas of Xenophon (Cyr. 1v.6.1) is ultimately derived) is definitely not the same person as the later governor (also named Gubaru) of'Babylonia and the Land Beyond the River' (below. pp. 125-8), since his death on 6 November 539 is reported by the chronicle (col. iii.22). Immediately after Ugbaru's death the death of the king's (i.e. Cyrus') wife is reported; the mourning for her death lasted into the next year (Cyrus' first regnal year) until 26 March 538." p.122

Critics tend to avoid discussing this factual aspect and often assert that the number 539 can only mean 539, offering a misrepresentation of the facts. However, following the edict and the necessary preparations for the Jews to return home, which would have taken about 5–6 months, it is reasonable to conclude that the year would have been 537 when the altar of God was erected in Jerusalem, regardless of critics' and former members' acceptance.

Simply by identifying the conclusion of the time of desolation in 537, we can easily backtrack the 70 years, just as has been done with the astronomical tablet for 568.

History has clearly demonstrated the events following Cyrus after 539. What does VAT 4956 prove? It proves to be "The earliest observation of the Aurora Borealis." Wow!

What is the relevance of these observations to 587, and particularly 539, when tracing back from 568 to 587 is too short of time for the 70-year desolation, and according to historical events leading to 537 can be traced back to 607 according to the accurate timeline provided by scripture and supported by historical facts?

If critics truly value scholarly works, then they should undoubtedly extend their respect to the works of John Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond, D. M. Lewis, M. Ostwald as well. Have I adequately addressed your inquiry?

Proving the year 607 through 539 is easier for me than 530. It's perplexing that no one can align historical facts for 607.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 4/2/2024 at 10:35 AM, George88 said:

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

Tom just pulls out his hair and screams, like the guy from Planet of the Apes, ‘It’s a madhouse! A madhouse!’’

Then he retreats to the sanctity of the closed club, its atmosphere as restful as an undiscovered tomb.

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...




×
×
  • 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.