Can secular chronology be trusted?

[TrueTomHarley]

48 minutes ago, George88 said:

the Closed club. It appears that you effortlessly escape from your deceitful statements and misrepresentations there.

No. We grill him mercilessly there and make him squirm mightily, let me tell you.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Can you explain why you consistently misinterpret his words? What's your purpose for doing so? Why are you distorting this ghost's 20-year presence with false representations? What is the reason for a runner 20 years earlier given your stipulation is 568 to 587 for VAT 4956 wouldn't mean to have a runner for a distance of 617 miles, considering that the tablet in question is believed to have been written or dated in 568?

Are you saying you believe in magic like the Pagan Babylonians and somehow Nebuchadnezzar used telepathy to convey an order? So, if anything significant occurred in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar that is linked to 587 by this tablet that apostates and opposers use, Borsippa should also be taken into account for the year 587, except for the fact that you are referring to a distance of 617 miles and transportation back then was with either a chariot or horse and the mention of a king giving an order for Borsippa which is 617 away from Jerusalem as apostates state Nebuchadnezzar was in 587 can't be easily explained unless a runner is used or the King was home in Babylon. Those are the choices.

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, George88 said:

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.

This will be my last point on this topic here, unless you continue to make further references to me, as you have done so many times already. 

After what you have said above, this is a good place to summarize the most important points again. You say that the organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible. This is true, because the Bible offers a fairly complete relative chronology with very few places where one must resort to interpretation to complete a relative chronology from Adam to Zedekiah, or even Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile, or at the very latest, 70 years after the destruction of the Temple, referenced in Zechariah 1:8 landing on the . . .On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus. . .). 

So there is a long stretch of relative dates. But there are no BC/BCE dates in the Bible. There is no Bible-based way to connect any BCE dates to our day, or even to the time of Jesus. There are no indications in the Bible that would give us the BC/BCE dates. Even the WTS relies both directly and indirectly on records from Babylonian/Persian/Greek ASTRONOMY to link the Bible accounts to any BCE date. If we claim they are from unreliable records, then that means that our own claims about any BCE dates are just as unreliable.

So it is wrong to say that the WTS stance is grounded in divine guidance. The Watchtower's BCE dates are grounded in Babylonian astronomy. However, the dates used by the WTS are cherry-picked so that astronomy-based BCE dates are accepted only as long they are AFTER about 560 BCE, and all dates PRIOR to 560 BCE only presented after adding 20 years to them.

Personally, I have no problem with the claim that the 70 years of servitude to Babylon ran from 607 to 587. That seems to be the right time period supported by astronomy. [And I have no problem with the astronomy evidence that says Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587, and the astronomical evidence that Darius' 2nd year was about 518, which would explain the other 70-year period mentioned in Zechariah 1:7-12] And if someone wants to start a 2520 year period from 607, that's just an interpretation. No harm done. But the astronomy evidence the WTS relies on to get 539 also shows that 607 was NOT the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's as we claim, but points to a year in which there was no such thing as a King Nebuchadnezzar. He didn't become king for another two years. 

The claim that the astronomy evidence might be wrong or unreliable is one thing. But it's problematic to claim that only a tiny percentage of that data is correct. Especially because the part we accept is the part that is MOST prone to the errors the WTS makes use of to dismiss the much larger set of excellent evidence. We dismiss literally ALL the evidence which is not as prone to those same errors. We even say we can make "pivotal" dates from the more error-prone evidence, but that we must also ignore the better parts of that same "pivotal" evidence in places where we don't like what it tells us.

If we merely claimed that the WTS has divine guidance and that's what it completely relies on, then that might be a difficult concept for some, but it would not be so problematic. It only becomes problematic when we try to impeach the very evidence we make use of. The WTS uses WT articles that try to show that the same evidence might mean two different things. That shows that we somehow "need" the Babylonian evidence to support us. And we have even followed Furuli's folly in order to make a FALSE claim about VAT 4956. This was really disingenuous, not just because  the claims were 100% FALSE, but because VAT 4956 is only one of a dozen different completely independent sources for the entire set of astronomical dates for Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 

Of course, I can't fault any of us for not understanding this. Very few of us will try to look into it for ourselves. And I'm no expert, and I fell for the same bits of false reasoning that made me think we were right and the rest of the world was wrong. But it's those false claims that we are right because "the Bible tells us so" or that "divine guidance tells us so" that will continue to embarrass us for anyone who goes to the trouble to check out the evidence.

As I said, I'm no expert, but it doesn't take one. It's a very straightforward thing to look up the astronomical evidence for ourselves and tell others what we found. Any junior high school student could do it. You don't need that much education. You don't need to be an expert. So there is obviously a reason that almost no Witnesses will ever go to the trouble of looking up any of the Babylonian observations we pretend to rely on. You haven't done it, or if you have you won't admit what you found. Scholar JW won't do it. The GB won't do it. The GB Helpers won't do it.

JWs are intelligent. And yet almost none of them dare to do it. If they do, they don't dare admit publicly what they found out. There are just a couple of exceptions to that rule. And we see what happens to them.

As for me, I don't think it's right to learn something and not be able to share it. I think that if we love the organization, if we love the brotherhood, and if we love Jehovah who is a lover of truth, we would share our concerns. We shouldn't want the organization to be embarrassed by having made a man-made obsession about something so trivial and unnecessary. The WTS should never have made such a big deal out of a secular, man-made set of dates. 

As for me, I will follow Psalm 26:

²⁶Judge me, O Jehovah, for I myself have walked in my own integrity,
And in Jehovah I have trusted, that I may not wobble.
 ² Examine me, O Jehovah, and put me to the test;
Refine my kidneys and my heart.
 ³  For your loving-kindness is in front of my eyes,
And I have walked in your truth.
 ⁴  I have not sat with men of untruth;
And with those who hide what they are I do not come in.
...
 ⁸ Jehovah, I have loved the dwelling of your house
And the place of the residing of your glory.
...
¹¹ As for me, in my integrity I shall walk.
O redeem me and show me favor.
¹² My own foot will certainly stand on a level place;
Among the congregated throngs I shall bless Jehovah.

[George88]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. We grill him mercilessly there and make him squirm mightily, let me tell you.

Maybe I too should write a book called George vs Apostates but actually mean it. 

[George88]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Can you explain why you consistently misinterpret his words? What's your purpose for doing so? Why are you distorting this ghost's 20-year presence with false representations? What is the reason for a runner 20 years earlier given your stipulation is 568 to 587 for VAT 4956 wouldn't mean to have a runner for a distance of 617 miles, considering that the tablet in question is believed to have been written or dated in 568?

This person will never give you a direct answer. He's beyond reasoning and only seeks to dodge the truth. The information about the tablet has been available for decades, but I chose to bring it up now to refute previous and current criticisms about the limitations of this tablet. The real issue is that he can no longer rely on this insignificant tablet. It's frustrating how much time has been wasted on accepting falsehoods from others.

[George88]

@JW Insider Your summary is irrelevant, as I do not make any assertions regarding BC/AD other than their usage by scholars and in history, as you yourself have also acknowledged on numerous occasions, thus rendering your point invalid and evasive.

The Watchtower leverages external viewpoints, including secular evidence, to substantiate the accuracy of their chronological interpretations.

There are numerous approaches to dating events. Personally, I explore various alternative methods that lead to the same conclusion as the Watchtower. However, the most captivating approach is to utilize secular chronology to arrive at the same outcome. By relying solely on secular chronology, the pattern still aligns, albeit with a distinct interpretation of the available data. Nevertheless, the ultimate result remains unchanged.

This is why when you get upset, when you are proven wrong, you, Tom, and those with the authority to ban take action, because you like others cannot handle the truth. In this case, your infamous tablet VAT 4956 has become useless in this situation.

I do agree with you on one thing: you are not an expert, just like COJ. However, I must admit that this foolish individual was not the first to debate the chronology with the Watchtower and abandon it based on personal beliefs. He simply happened to be the most recent one that's on record.

[BTK59]

15 hours ago, George88 said:

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.

Would it be too much to ask what was the bible students starting point of creation?

[George88]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Would it be too much to ask what was the bible students starting point of creation?

In the era of the Bible Students within the Watchtower, there were numerous beginnings. It is essential to bear in mind that each congregation functioned autonomously, granting the Elders the freedom to assert their own assertions and interpretations.

Most people embraced the principles that Pastor Russell was trying to convey. You could argue that what you are experiencing now, they also experienced back then. The key difference is that unity was interpreted differently. Back then it had value where today there is none.

To address your inquiry, while I cannot recall the exact details, it is believed to have been either 4129 or 4126. Some groups, however, adopted Ussher's 4004. It is worth mentioning that they have now discarded it and revised it to either 3954 or 3958, although I personally find little interest in this matter.

I believe I encountered this information in the book titled "The Time is at Hand," though it may also be referenced in their convention report. Regardless, this is part of their compelling study series 3.

Please take a moment to review and confirm the date. I am currently focused on Riblah.

The Bible Students who firmly believe that Israel is the prophetic sign of Armageddon have made noteworthy adjustments to their chronology. They have included significant dates such as 1947/8 and 1967/8, as well as more recent dates. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, according to their calculations, 2024 holds immense importance. The ongoing tension of Iran targeting Israel directly from its own territory amplifies the gravity of the situation. If their trajectory continues, the subsequent captivating event will occur in 2029, rather than as previously speculated, in 2034 by some.

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Please take a moment to review and confirm the date. I am currently focused on Riblah.

Found it, thanks. You are correct.

[BTK59]

On 4/14/2024 at 3:44 PM, George88 said:

To address your inquiry, while I cannot recall the exact details, it is believed to have been either 4129 or 4126. Some groups, however, adopted Ussher's 4004. It is worth mentioning that they have now discarded it and revised it to either 3954 or 3958, although I personally find little interest in this matter.

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.
 

[BTK59]

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.

[George88]

12 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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.

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.