Can secular chronology be trusted?

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

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.

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diluvium

I wonder what he meant by this, since -3101 corresponds to the year 880 BC, during Asa's and Zimri's reigns.
Kali Yuga, also known as Kaliyuga, refers to the concept in Hinduism that signifies the impending destruction of the Earth or humanity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga

According to Hindu cosmology, it is predicted that at the end of the Kali Yuga, Lord Shiva will destroy the universe and the physical body will undergo a great transformation. After the dissolution, Lord Brahma will recreate the universe, and humankind will become the Beings of Truth once again.

I am curious about the time period we are discussing. I cannot recall any catastrophic events mentioned in the Bible around 880 BC, unless it was intended to illustrate the story of how Zimri annihilated the entire family of Baasha.

Can he have meant 588 BC, if so, he's off since it is placed in -3393

The puzzling thing, is: Febr. 17 = julian day 588,465 

If I use 588.465,

The calendar date for 588,465 is 12:0:0.00 UT on July 5, -4711.

If I use 880 BC as a reference point, I get 1400050.2933

It's not a match. Perhaps I too should embrace a skeptical mindset! lol!

[George88]

21 hours ago, BTK59 said:

LOL! That's hilarious how O. Neugebauer mentions

Absolutely! I frequently uncover the humor in the elaborate ways scholars use to present their unfounded claims. These academics are often perceived as flawless, but in reality, they and their work are far from it. The best humor often comes from junior achievers, lol!

[George88]

On 4/10/2024 at 6:29 AM, BTK59 said:

I am curious about the time period we are discussing. I cannot recall any catastrophic events mentioned in the Bible around 880 BC, unless it was intended to illustrate the story of how Zimri annihilated the entire family of Baasha.

Have you examined the writings of Francesca Rochberg? This person adds a unique perspective to the works of Hunger, Sachs, and Steele. It is truly enlightening to observe Ptolemy's fascination with that particular era in Tetr. 2.3.
It's fascinating how they still refer to Piches and Johannes' works, especially with additional information and further footnotes. 

[BTK59]

27 minutes ago, George88 said:

Have you examined the writings of Francesca Rochberg?

I can't believe it! You actually sent me a staggering six reference books and an impressive dozen articles. I'm not a fast reader, haha!
 

[BTK59]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

Have you examined the writings of Francesca Rochberg? This person adds a unique perspective to the works of Hunger, Sachs, and Steele. It is truly enlightening to observe Ptolemy's fascination with that particular era in Tetr. 2.3.

I'm having trouble locating the other post regarding discrepancies. I'm going to share this discrepancy here. Perhaps I didn't search thoroughly enough.

Did you mean to say that there is no clear indication of how a celestial observer or scribe could be defined according to Francesca Rochberg as an astrologer? I'm curious if they did require assistance from mathematicians then. What would happen if a scribe was illiterate and not an astrologer, but a record needed to be made because no astrologer was available to record an urgent event?

"The title “t.upˇsar En¯uma Anu Enlil,” although easily yet only literally translated as “scribe of En¯uma Anu Enlil,” is difficult to define. The common translation, “astrologer,” by focusing on only one aspect of the En¯uma Anu Enlil scribe’s activities, conveys an inadequate and one-sided picture. No one-word English translation of t.upˇsar En¯uma Anu Enlil adequately defines the field of expertise of the En¯uma Anu Enlil scribe without implying an anachronistically sharp distinction between astrologer and astronomer, and an implied distinction between pseudoscientist and scientist."

This observation was not limited to Mesopotamian scribal scholarship in general, but also extended to a similar concern for Babylonian culture.

"Textual sources from which one can piece together the range of responsibilities and expertise of a scribe of En¯uma Anu Enlil are fortunately not limited to those on which the title appears, as these are surprisingly rare. In the Neo-Assyrian period, the available texts include one letter mentioning the “reports of the t.upˇsar En¯uma Anu Enlils,”37 one Babylonian report in which the writer ˇSum¯aia is the “scribe of En¯uma Anu Enlil from the new team,”38 and one administrative document listing the employees of the court in which seven t.upˇsar En¯uma Anu Enlils head the list, two of whom are well known from the court correspondence and the astrological reports, that is, Iˇstar-ˇsuma-¯ereˇs and Balasˆı."

How do modern scholars make adjustments if they have no way of knowing the mental state of the ancient scribes? They must grapple with the uncertainty of the formulas used or not used. It seems that a great deal of interpretation is based on conjecture, leading to disagreements among scholars. This uncertainty certainly impacts certain areas of scholarly interpretation.

It seems that they took their records seriously, but can we truly rely on them if we consider that the scribe may not have been a scholar?

[JW Insider]

On 4/1/2024 at 6:36 PM, George88 said:

"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.

Page 152 of the book Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, edited by Kathryn Bard has the following information. You quoted from this in the first post of this topic, as I just requoted above, and you said it should be marked as pivotal. 

I'm wondering why you consider a date to be pivotal when, if pivotal, it would completely demolish the "chronology" used by the Watchtower.  

Your source for the "pivotal" timeline quote. Page 152.	Watchtower publications. Dates are 20 years different from your "pivotal" ones.
	*** ad p. 325 Chronology *** to synchronize Assyrian and Biblical history . . . particularly for the period . . . to 649 B.C.E [Assyrian power ends around 649 per WTS, not your pivotal timeline in 629] *** ad p. 175 Babylon *** Under the control of the Assyrian World Power, Babylon figured in various struggles and revolts. Then . . . Nabopolassar founded a new dynasty in Babylon about 645 B.C.E. [Note 645 here, not 625 when Nabopolassar began per your pivotal timeline in the fourth year after Ashurbanipal died in 629.] *** it-1 p. 205 Assyria *** . . . in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.) [Note 632 here, not 612 per your pivotal information], Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.):  *** it-2 pp. 482-483 Necho(h) *** A pharaoh of Egypt . . . Nechos (Necho) was the son of Psammetichus (Psamtik I) and succeeded his father as ruler of Egypt. Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), [Note 630/629 here, not 610 per your pivotal information] Pharaoh Necho was on his way to help the Assyrians at the river Euphrates.    *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon *** In 632 B.C.E. Assyria was subdued by this new Chaldean dynasty, with the assistance of Median and Scythian allies. In 625 B.C.E., [note 625 here, not 605 per your pivotal information] Nabopolassar’s eldest son, Nebuchadnezzar (II), defeated Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, and in the same year he assumed the helm of government.

I find it a bit hypocritical when you attempt all this name-calling, and attempts to insult anyone who accepts the evidence for the timeline on the left. Yet you yourself call that timeline "pivotal."

If you accept that the evidence for it is pivotal, fine. But why insult and denigrate anyone else who happens to agree with that timeline?

You will note that 607 is PRIOR to the 605 battle of Carchemish by two years in your pivotal timeline. Yet the Watchtower publications put that 605 battle in 625. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. (Per your own pivotal timeline.)

[George88]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

How do modern scholars make adjustments if they have no way of knowing the mental state of the ancient scribes? They must grapple with the uncertainty of the formulas used or not used. It seems that a great deal of interpretation is based on conjecture, leading to disagreements among scholars. This uncertainty certainly impacts certain areas of scholarly interpretation.

It seems that they took their records seriously, but can we truly rely on them if we consider that the scribe may not have been a scholar?

I can only recommend you pay close attention to Francesca Rochberg own words without misrepresenting its intent and true nature of the discussion in this reference book. Perhaps you haven't read it yet.

"The aim of this book is to raise and explore questions about observing and interpreting, theorizing and calculating what we think of as natural phenomena in a world in which there was no articulated sense of nature in our terms, no reference or word for it. This seems to be the case in the cuneiform world. What I mean by the cuneiform world is nothing more (or less) than that which is represented by the cuneiform corpus of the Babylonian and Assyrian literati, the scholarly specialists in bodies of knowledge relating to the phenomena."

"The sources in question come from a variety of textual corpora produced by elite Assyro- Babylonian scribes from the last two millennia bce. While the texts of these diverse corpora have their distinct content, form, purpose, orthographic style, intellectual goals and attitudes, the phrase the cuneiform world can serve to evoke the context of cuneiform scholarship in contrast to that of other corpora from antiquity. The purpose of raising questions of knowing, predicting, explaining, and interpreting the phenomena is to reflect on the nature and aim of knowledge in cuneiform sources and the relationship between that complex body of knowledge and the broad scope of the history of science."

I recall you mentioning the naked eye and fingers. I took the initiative to delve into my vast digital library and found the information you were looking for, and I linked it to your question. Here it is. You can reference VAT 4956.

"Saturn observation text from sixth- century Uruk includes first and second stations to the first and last visibilities during the period from year 28 to 31 of Nebuchadnezzar II.118 During this period, on the basis of the few extant planetary observation texts, the practice of citing planets with respect to a certain set of Normal Stars and the use of cubits, fingers, and degrees (UŠ) was still in the process of standardization.119"

"Before circa 500 bce, the Path of the Moon was the preferred reference for the moon and planets in such texts as MUL.APIN as well as in the over five hundred u’ila￣ti reports and nearly as many letters of the Neo- Assyrian scholars.51 Nearly all the fixed stars mentioned in the reports belong to the Path of the Moon. The practice of observing the moon or a planet with respect to a fixed star, later made quantitative in the Diaries with numbers of cubits or fingers below or above, in front of or behind a more extensive set of ecliptical stars (Normal Stars, see below), is found in the following report from an unknown writer: “Mars stan[ds] below the right foot of the Old Man (= Perseus). It has not ente[red] it, but stan[ds] in the area.”

Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet, particularly because there have been additional reports emanating from it.

"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."

This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 was not confined to the area they keep debating about; it also extended to Borsippa. How far is that city? The interpretation of this information is open to manipulation, but it does not alter the actual locations. The city of Borsippa cannot be ignored or erased, and this is not the sole tablet in existence.

Francesca Rochberg's reference to VAT 4956, although not explicitly stated, shows a striking similarity in language. The absence of any mention of Borsippa is quite intriguing, as it sheds light on conflicts and disease in regions beyond the commonly focused on Jerusalem. Furthermore, Rochberg's assertion of additional reports in the same diary adds to the significance of the argument.

[George88]

It is both hypocritical and foolish to obsess over the word "pivotal" without grasping its intended meaning. Even more baffling is your relentless defense of 587, failing to acknowledge other influential factors. It's time to put an end to your unfounded arguments.

Either learn or give it a rest.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

It is both hypocritical and foolish to obsess over the word "pivotal" without grasping its intended meaning.

If you intended a different meaning for the word "pivotal" you should have either said so, or not used the word "pivotal".

12 hours ago, George88 said:

Even more baffling is your relentless defense of 587

With respect to Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, how can you find it baffling for anyone to defend 587 if every one of the current authorities you have made use of also defends 587?

Every one of the Watchtower Society's quoted authorities also defends 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Through the years, as I showed in another post, the WTS quotes at least 12 different current authorities on the topic of Babylonian history and chronology. 100% of those authorities defend 587, and 0% defend 607.

So why are you still baffled?

[George88]

Who do you think you are to try to control how I use words? You're just an impostor pretending to be an authority figure. Therefore, don't ever try to dictate what I can or cannot say.

I have listened to your misguided remarks, but I remain unmoved by them. My posts are intended to benefit those who might be swayed by your apostate mindset, as well as by the influence of individuals like comfortmypeople.

There is nothing mysterious about Nebuchadnezzar's reign beginning in 626/625 instead of the 605 date assigned by scholars rather than scripture. Similarly, it is not bewildering if Nabopolassar's reign began in 647 or 645 due to the existing historical confusion for that period, which has already been verified. It matters not if this is not agreeable to you; you are neither an expert nor a person in authority.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Who do you think you are to try to control how I use words?

LOL. I’m not telling you how to use words. That’s up to you. I’m just reminding you that if you want to be understood it’s best to let people know in advance that you are intending to use words with your own or different or even incorrect meanings. I’m not suggesting that you even necessarily want to be understood. If you want to be misunderstood, that’s up to you too. 

If I wanted to say that a certain timeline was NOT pivotal by saying that the timeline IS pivotal you would probably say I was being dishonest. I shouldn’t say something is “important” or “useful” and then say that I am using those words to mean that the thing is NOT important or NOT useful. 

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . . . in this Diary . . . in 588

I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588. There are a couple of scribal errors on the copied diary, and not even these anomalies point to 588. The only reason anyone would ever try to suggest that is because they are obsessed with trying to “create” false evidence that Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year would land in 607.

But it’s dishonest. And it’s easy to understand why it’s hypocritical to suggest it. Here’s why.

What if they discovered the diary for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year and 30 observations pointed to 607. That would be amazing and I’m sure we would all be thrilled. But what if there were two scribal errors on the tablet and I said that with only some twisting I could make a case that those two anomalies point to 587 and therefore the whole tablet must be for 587. 
 

You’d obviously say I was dishonest and obsessed with 587. You’d say I was stupid for ignoring the other 30 observations.  Yet that is almost exactly what is being done in the other direction by Furuli and those who fell for his pseudo-chronology.