Can secular chronology be trusted?

[JW Insider]

20 hours ago, George88 said:

I have always been skeptical about the authenticity of the Babylonian chronicles since Gadd's time, and the same applies to Jewish antiquity. There have been several documented instances in the past where forged items have been discovered, casting doubt on their validity.

It has often been commented on (by scholars of the period) that the Babylonian Chronicles are more open and honest than the Assyrian Chronicles. Assyria tended to change their history to not admit defeats or withdrawals in a battle. The Babylonians were at least more honest in that they admitted defeat, failure, and withdrawing from battles to regroup for fear of losing.

I don't think there have ever been forged items that had any bearing on the Babylonian Chronicles. Also, it is extremely difficult to fake cuneiform writing without a lot of training as a Babylonian scribe, who over many years, has learned to press a wedge-shaped stylus just the right depth, moving back and forth at exactly 90 degree angles at a very quick pace to complete a document before the clay starts drying, and shrinking.

Also, there is the fact that all the extant Babylonian Chronicles are in perfect harmony with the Bible. There is not one statement in those Chronicles that can be said to actually conflict with the Bible's version of events. 

20 hours ago, George88 said:

Anyway, the process of calculating the year 587 has been extensively debated for about a decade here. People have firmly embraced the incorrect interpretation, while those with faith in God understand the simple calculation of subtracting 70 from 607 to arrive at 537 the desolation period on judgment, just as critics do with 568 to 587. They cannot insist that their decision is right while dismissing the same formula for other dates. Such a stance is ridiculous and unfounded.

This is almost always the subtext for any of us who discuss Babylonian history, isn't it. Not to rehash any details but it's easy to find scholars and Bible commentators who would agree that the 70 year period must refer to a period very close to 607 to 537, at least within a year or two of those dates.  It's almost exactly the time period I prefer, too.

The only difference between the many scholars who use dates within a couple years of 607 to 537 (astronomy dates) versus the 607 date the Watchtower uses, is that those other scholars consider 607 to be the final years of Nabopolassar's reign (astronomy dates) and the Watchtower says 607 is the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

I prefer the dates supported by astronomy, because this is the method that the Watchtower supports for all dates after about 559 BCE, even though the WTS is opposed to all dates supported by astronomy for any particular year prior to 559 BCE. That's the point at which the WTS begins adding 20 years to the astronomy dates. I thought it was over a four-year period, but it turns out that it all boils down to that one year for the WTS.

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, George88 said:

The Ostraca Tablets and the Babylonian Chronicles pose the same dilemma as they are in the same language. The mention of the year of the King's reign becomes the obstacle, leading to ambiguity.

I guess the main point that might be throwing people off is the is claim that they are in the same language (they are NOT) and the mention of the year of the king's reign. These extant ostraca do NOT mention any year of any king's reign. And of course, even though the Babylonian Chronicles do mention the years of the kings' reigns, it's IMPOSSIBLE to attach a BC/BCE date to those years without astronomy. That's why the "Insight" books relies upon astronomy for the reign of Cyrus. Without astronomy, no one can make any claim about Cyrus in 539/538/537, etc.

But the WTS has to be careful about admitting that we can only derive those dates from astronomy. That's because it's part of the exact same set of connected evidence that tells us exactly when Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years occurred. As you say, the mention of the year of the king's reign becomes the obstacle. Does it ever!!! There are upwards of 100,000 known tablets from this period, all with the year of the king's reign on them. It's an overwhelming obstacle because they are all perfectly consistent from Nabopolassar all the way to Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus to Cyrus and beyond. 

As you claim in the beginning of this thread, secular chronology CAN be trusted, but the WTS is forced to claim they don't trust it for every year prior to 559 BCE (astronomy date).

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Yet, scholars haven't given this discrepancy a second thought since they continue to assert the years 589-587 for these tablets. This is just another example of how scholars don't understand scripture as much as they think they do. Therefore, you are absolutely correct; this belongs to the realm of conspiracy theories.

It is truly disheartening to witness how individuals exploit tablets as a way to validate their assumptions regarding the year 587. However, the evident error within the Lachish tablets serves as a confirmation. Nevertheless, apostates relentlessly strive to manipulate the actual content of these tablets in order to portray a disheartening scenario of their own fabrication. The chronological order they employ, such as 605, 598, 587, and 568, is completely misplaced.

But, as you mentioned, they do serve a valuable purpose when the information is used correctly. However, in that regard, the Babylonian Chronicles, along with the Ostraca Tablets, fall short. I also understand what you mean about the similarity of language, as historians want us to believe that these items, although separate, relate to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587. Yet, there is no indication on them to support this claim, especially the Lachish letters, which scholars have clearly misinterpreted and falsely adapted to scripture.

Perhaps we could refer to 559 BC, when the books of magical arts were reportedly seized by Croesus and subsequently burned, as documented by historians of the time, but that might invoke the melancholic accounts of the Elcipse War, lol!

This is precisely why we should conduct our own research and not depend on someone else's skewed perspective. Now, I truly appreciate the meticulous research that the Watchtower has conducted.

However, in this case, I can also appreciate the words of Professor Richard F. Stephenson's words.

"Babylonian astronomical records come from two distinct periods— a short interval covering the reign of a single king during the first half of the second millennium BC, and an incomplete span of about 600 years between 650 and 50 BC"

Well I'm off to see today's Solar Eclipse, have a good day!

[George88]

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Well I'm off to see today's Solar Eclipse, have a good day!

I really hope you had a great time. It's quite remarkable that this is the final opportunity for us to witness a complete solar eclipse before things get really bad. It's rather melancholic, as I would have given anything to witness the ones that occurred in 763 BC and 554 BC.

[JW Insider]

21 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, in this case, I can also appreciate the words of Professor Richard F. Stephenson's words.

"Babylonian astronomical records come from two distinct periods— a short interval covering the reign of a single king during the first half of the second millennium BC, and an incomplete span of about 600 years between 650 and 50 BC"

Excellent point. I agree completely with Professor F. Richard Stephenson's words, and I think that he explains the Babylonian astronomical records in the most straightforward and easily understood way. Here, attached at the end of the post, is his way of explaining those records from a work in 2000.

What he says is directly related to the topic of why you are correct in stating that secular chronology CAN be trusted, as you stated earlier in this topic. We learn that there are about 2,000 astronomical tablets dating from that era. And 120 different eclipse timings observations published so far. (In another work he said there were closer to 3,000 astronomical tablets. And that doesn't include the 80,000 to 100,000 dated business tablets, which cover every year of every king during the Neo-Babylonian period.)

This is no doubt why Stephenson has no trouble identifying Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year as 587 BCE. 

---------------

Historical eclipses and the Earth's rotation F. RICHARD STEPHENSON 

Science Progress Vol. 83, No. 1, Millennium Issue (2000), pp. 55-76 (22 pages)

 

 

 

[George88]

23 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, in this case, I can also appreciate the words of Professor Richard F. Stephenson's words.

"Babylonian astronomical records come from two distinct periods— a short interval covering the reign of a single king during the first half of the second millennium BC, and an incomplete span of about 600 years between 650 and 50 BC"

This is precisely why I prefer not to rely on other people's work. When you share your ideas, others can misinterpret them. I understand what you were trying to convey with Professor F. Richard Stephenson's work. You were simply highlighting the discrepancies in records from 650-50 BC, as stated by him. Particularly those related to his connection with China.

The table of observations he has is for solar observations in Assyria from the time of "Chau" all the way to Hipparchus in Babylon during "Han". As a result, there is no direct correlation to events in Babylonian time.

Then he presents a more specific timeline. This clearly demonstrates the inconsistencies in his argument, similar to those found in other scholarly work. Consequently, this flawed ideology should be dismissed as a mere conspiracy theory. Therefore, it holds no merit.

However, as previously mentioned, those individuals who persistently advocate for 587 will never alter their viewpoint. What these individuals truly need to do is to align themselves with God rather than with mankind.

I can also use Professor F. Richard Stephenson's observation negatively. Therefore, there's nothing absolute about it.

" 1.5.1. Solar Eclipses 
The earliest reliable observations are reported in the Ch'un- ch’iu (‘Spring and Autumn Annals’), the annals of the state of Lu. More than 30 solar eclipses are recorded in this period, mostly without any descriptive details, but allowing for minor errors of intercalation at this early period, the correct date is almost always given. Three eclipses are re¬ ported as total (in 709, 601 and 549 bc). The account of the earliest of these is:"

"The system of time known as Universal Time (ur) is based on the assumption that the length of the day is constant. Half a century ago, before the full realisation that the Earth’s rotation is irregular, it was customary to speak of both the acceleration of the Sun and Moon (cf Fotheringham 1920, de Sitter 1927)."

"There have been numerous attempts to extrapolate the sunspot cycle backwards in time, notably by Schove (1947, 1955, 1961, 1962), and most recently by Hill (1977). Eddy (1977) has questioned the validity of the techniques used to backdate solar cyclic behaviour, since they are based on the assumption that there has always been about nine cycles per century, whether or not there is observational evidence for them."

If we apply this principle to the calculation of centuries, how many errors in dates will have been encountered? Just like the foolish individual COJ, some choose to cherry-pick information for convenience. Such practices should be ignored by serious researchers.

[JW Insider]

12 minutes ago, George88 said:

You were simply highlighting the discrepancies in records from 650-50 BC, as stated by him. Particularly those related to his connection with China.

That's a good point that there are really no discrepancies to speak of within that 600-year Babylonian period, when compared with the way the Chinese recorded eclipses. He attributes this to the fact of printing on paper. (Stone and clay lasted a lot longer under typical circumstances.) Even so, there is enough to correlate several of the Chinese dynasties with the Neo-Babylonian period. As Stephenson says:

-------------

Note, that just as with the Babylonian dates, the discrepancy is almost exactly the same, which is less than 22,000 seconds (6 hours is 21,600 seconds).  Based on Babylonian observations, this is exactly what should be expected. This discrepancy provides confirmation outside of Babylonian records that indicates the delta-T adjustments to modern astronomy software for the rotation of the earth is correct for the same period.  Egyptian records and later Greek records confirm the correctness based on the same trend-line of difference in earth's rotation times. 

[JW Insider]

47 minutes ago, George88 said:

If we apply this principle to the calculation of centuries, how many errors in dates will have been encountered? Just like the foolish individual COJ, some choose to cherry-pick information for convenience. Such practices should be ignored by serious researchers.

One should note that you can't just search through a book and cherry-pick the words like "error" and "assumption." You will end up quoting portions of the book that are actually arguing for the very opposite of the premise you are arguing for.

In places where you highlighted either the words "errors" or "assumption" Stephenson was making the point that placing the intercalary month too early or too late in a metonic-style cycle does NOT keep us from knowing the Julian date in terms of BC/BCE.

His point about the "assumption" of universal time is also a point about just how closely we know how to adjust from that assumption to the correct delta-T calculation. In other words, there is a natural assumption that the earth has been spinning at a constant rate, but we know how to adjust for it precisely because of these astronomical observations which are consistent enough even going all the way back to around 700 BCE.

[BTK59]

55 minutes ago, George88 said:

This is precisely why I prefer not to rely on other people's work. When you share your ideas, others can misinterpret them. I understand what you were trying to convey with Professor F. Richard Stephenson's work. You were simply highlighting the discrepancies in records from 650-50 BC, as stated by him. Particularly those related to his connection with China.

I apologize for any confusion my previous statement may have caused. After carefully reviewing the evidence you shared with me via email, it has become clear to me that your point is valid.

Then the question revolves around the proficiency of the scribes and astronomers in mathematical calculations. The Babylonians utilized a base-60 computation system, which is a stark contrast to the binary 1's and 0's we employ for coding purposes. It's important to note that the concept of zero did not exist for them. They used 1 and 10.

"There was no zero employed in the system and there was no decimal point (no ‘sexagesimal point’), and therefore the context was essential."

"The example above illustrates the cuneiform notation and represents the number 60 + 10 + 1 ¼ 71. The Babylonians used the base 60 system for computation, and this base is still in use today in the division of hours into minutes and the division of minutes into seconds. One possible explanation for the use of the base 60 notation is the ease of dividing 60 into parts. It is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30. They were able to represent large and small numbers and had no difficulty in working with fractions (in base 60) and in multiplying fractions. The Babylonians maintained tables of reciprocals (i.e. 1/n, n ¼ 1, . . . 59) apart from numbers like 7, 11, etc. which cannot be written as a finite sexagesimal expansion (i.e. 7, 11, etc. are not of the form 2a3b5g)"

Did this mean that they had a mathematician with them wherever they went, or did observers return to the palace and inform a mathematician, saying, "This is my observation, now work your magic?" I can foresee errors occurring in either of these scenarios.

Also, thanks, I'll check out Professor O. Neugebauer works.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

However, as previously mentioned, those individuals who persistently advocate for 587 will never alter their viewpoint. What these individuals truly need to do is to align themselves with God rather than with mankind.

I understand why you keep bringing this up, but it's sounds hypocritical.

With very few exceptions you have relied only on authorities who "persistently advocate for 587" as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. So why do you persistently use authorities who advocate for 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, but then say that "these individuals" need to align themselves with God rather than with mankind. You quote F. Richard Stephenson, but I'm sure you know that he also advocates for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year as 587 BCE

Jehovah gave the sun and moon to help people count days and seasons and years. 

(Genesis 1:14) . . .and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years.
 

The ONLY way we have to identify BC/BCE dates (like 587 or 607) is through astronomy. I'm sure you know that. Does it automatically make Stephenson, or Sachs, or Hunger, or Steele unaligned with God, just because 100% of all persons who study Babylonian signs for seasons and days and years will say that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE? If not, why does it suddenly make an individual unaligned with God, just because they agree with all the same authorities you have used to try to bolster your own arguments here?

If at the mouth of two or three witnesses a matter can be established, then why reject evidence just because it is consistent from the mouth of thousands of witnesses?

[JW Insider]

12 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Also, thanks, I'll check out Professor O. Neugebauer works.

And you'll find that Neugebauer, Weidner, and hundreds of others also persistently advocate for 587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year.

[George88]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

I apologize for any confusion my previous statement may have caused. After carefully reviewing the evidence you shared with me via email, it has become clear to me that your point is valid.

No need to apologize. I understand that it wasn't your fault, so there is no forgiveness required. However, I do appreciate you considering me important enough to apologize to. Allow me to assure you, "They call me Mister Nobody" - just a little humor!

As can be seen, ignorance is bliss when the same information from scholars that supports the argument for 587 can also be applied to any other date, such as 607. This is the essence of cherry-picking, based on a false assumption much like relying on the words of scholars regarding assumptions.

These behavioral patterns merely serve as an illustration of ignorance by an individual who openly admits their lack of expertise. Quite contradictory. Once again, such a mindset should be disregarded by a genuine researcher.