by 5go 65 Replies latest watchtower bible
925 BCE is when secular history thinks Shishak's invasion happens, based on 763BCE eclipse.
871 BCE is where the Bible says Shishak's invasion takes place.
871 BCE is where Shishak's invasion takes place based on the 709BCE eclipse.
835 BCE is where Finkelstein dates destruction by Amran-Damascus, abandoning Shishak connection with this layer as he himself had previously established.
JC
BIBLE THUMPER'S PLAIN TALK FOR 5GO.
Hello 5GO. First of all, we think you're just beautiful and thank you for addressing the archaeological discussion for this period!
BUT....
Basically, it's not a mystery why the Bible and "secular" dating contradict. The reason is because for political reasons, to protect Xerxes from an assasination attempt, the Persians found advantage in claiming his alternative throne name of Artaxerxes could be used to claim he was another king! We know this! We know in the process of this political coverup and scam on the Greeks that the chronology and timeline of the Persian Period was revised, expanding it eventually by 82 years, but also they changed the NB Period by 26 years, removing 26 years from the NB kings. THAT'S IT! That's why you have Jewish records reflecting a longer NB Period than the revised secular records. So it's not like it's blind faith or a MYSTERY what happened.
Thus we can correct the timeline if we want to. The 763BCE eclipse dating the entire Assyrian period is misdated by a month. Everybody knows it, even Wikipaedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC
"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"
Fact is, the eclipse in 709BCE was the original eclipse. It occurs in the "normal secular third month" for this period. When we make that adjustment, therefore, Shishak's invasion, which is based on the Assyrian dating, drops down to 871BCE and that is right and precisely where the science is showing us WHEN this event took place. What other evidence do you need?
Now let me explain. When the 763BCE eclipse is used, then the Battle of Qarqar in the 6th of Shalmaneser occurs 90 years earlier in 853BCE. Ahab is mentioned as being present at this time. So the archaeologists, piggy-back from this dating, thinking its reliable, to date the end of Ahab's rule in 853BCE. They then just trace the chronology now from the Bible back to the 5th of Rehoboam when Shishak's invasion takes place, 72 years earlier to 925BCE.
So the 925BCE dating is a pseudo-Biblical dating based on the misdated Assyrian Period. The STRICT BIBLICAL DATING, though, follows Martin Anstey which contradicts the Persian Period dating by 82 years, dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE, limiting the period from the beginning of the rebulding of Jerusalem to the baptism of Christ to only 483 years. The Baptism of Christ clearly established in 29BCE forces the 1st of Cyrus, Biblically speaking, to occur in 455BCE. If that is the case, then the 5th of Rehoboam would fall in 871BCE per the Bible.
On the other hand, if we ignore the 763BCE eclipse as misdated, since it does not occur in the correct month, and relocate that event to 709BCE where the eclipse does occur in the third month of "Simanu" as the text indicates, then Shishak's invasion drops from 925 to 871BCE, the precise dating you get when the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455BCE. Thus you have improved astronomical dating combined with the Bible all pointing to 871BCE for Shishak's invasion. When that is compared to the scientific dating for that event based upon the findings at Rehov, you get a confirmation!
So the presume DISCREPANCY between archaeology and the Bible is simply a HOAX by the anti-Biblical archaeologists, which they cannot pull off unless they distort the Bible's own chronology and when they ignore the revisions from the Greek Period.
Now this is your CLUE that something is wrong with the Greek Period:
DOUBLING THE CUBE, the most famous of the collection, is often referred to as the Delian problem due to a legend that the Delians had consulted Plato on the subject. In another form, the story asserts that the Athenians in 430 B.C. consulted the oracle at Delos in the hope to stop the plague ravaging their country. They were advised by Apollo to double his altar that had the form of a cube. As a result of several failed attempts to satisfy the god, the pestilence only worsened and at the end they turned to Plato for advice.
Plato wasn't born until 428 BCE, so how can he be consulted in 430BCE? Bottom line, the Biblicalists have every reason to move the beginning of this war down to a time when Plato was at least over 20 years of age. We do so quite easily by another eclipse in the first year of this war, redating the war to its original starting period in 403BCE. That dating gives us the death of Darius at Marathon in 434BCE which is his sixth year per the Bible and that establishes the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. We can then use this dating, established by the correction of the Greek Period to establish the Exodus in 1386BCE and Shishak's invasion to 871BCE.
So you see. It's a done deal. COMBINE that with the VAT4956 where there are two "errors" in the text that just happen to align with 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, and it is really a done deal! Why? Because if you have to redate year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE, then his 23rd year falls in 525BCE which forces you to date year 1 of Cyrus to 455BCE, which is 70 years after the last deportation, according to both the Bible and Josephus.
Bottom line, anybody who is smart and has investigated this and knows what is going on is not fooled by what the academic world is trying to claim now. You'd have to pretend to be a total idiot at this point to go along with anybody who doesn't at least consider the clear optional timeline.
Of course, for Finkelstein it is even worse! Why? Because he's promoting an aggressive revision by postexilic Biblical historians! So "revisionism" is part of his theory to resolve the discrepancy between secular history and archaeology. But that opens the door to instead, revisionism by the pagans. But even though there is clear evidence, even beyond contradiction by the Bible that they revised their history, none of the "scholars" out there are addressing it, at least not seriously.
So, sorry, but at this point their credibility is ZERO. Finkelstein's chronology is based upon a chronology where Plato is consulted in a war 3 years before he is born. And he expects us to take him seriously? Sorry, even my imagination is not that creative.
So just know, we Biblicalists, who know the score and have established what the original timeline is, simply are waiting for the rest of you to catch up, even though we're enjoying the keystone cops circus of archaeologists trying to make the fake timeline work. It never will. It can't. Plus they have no challenge against the Bible unless they actually use the Bible's own timeline, which requires the dating of the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. PERIOD. Even if this remains "theoretical", it has to be included as one of the Biblical timeline options. When you do, then it changes the authenticity of David and Solomon when they appear at an appropriately later time 54 years later.
So post on, dream on, but until you actually come to the table and deal with the actual, strict Biblical chronology, and answer questions about discrepancies in the Persian and Greek Periods, these arguments fall on deaf ears. You address nothing but your own confusion here. Even the chronology for the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325BCE if applied to the Bible's chronology would give you great dating! The Exodus in 1386 BCE would date the fall of Jericho to 1346BCE, which is within this archaeologically established range! So you can go directly from this dating to Solomon if you wanted to and you'd get confirmed scientific dating c.871BCE.
So you see, out of several options for Finkelstein and others in the academic field to creative alternative timelines and to look at them from an academic point of view, they don't do it! They make comparisons with other alternative theories though, but only the ones where their own pet theory seems the most logical or only choice. Had they considered ALL the theories though and just made a comparisons, it would be clear that some Biblical timeline dates do not conflict at all with the science.
So, what can I say? Oh I know: I'M DONE HERE. THAAAAAAAAAANKS.... I'm putting on my stockings and high heel shoes now and going out dancing and drinking. Nothing from the fake propaganda world of academic archaeology to worry about here....
Cheerio!
JC
Wait your right there was a Historical Solomon.
"I ascended the Lebanon mountains and cut down the mighty beams of cedar. At that time I carried those cedars from Lebanon and at the gate of the temple of Shulmânu, my lord, I laid them down.
The old temple which Shalmaneser, my father, had built, had become decrepit, and I, in my skill, rebuilt that temple from its foundations to its pinnacles.
The beams of cedar from Lebanon I laid on it.
When this temple becomes old and decrepit, may a future prince renew its decrepit parts and return the inscription to its place."
Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC) was named for the god Shulmânu-Asharêd ("shulmânu is foremost").
Shalmânu is the Assyrian equivalent of Suleiman and thus Solomon.
Problem though he was an assyrian king.
I left the watchtower to get a break, you guys giving me a headache all over again.
Ditto. I suppose someone will read all of that, but not me.
James Michener wrote a book years ago called The Source, and he also "exposed" that King David never existed.
Not that I feel passionately about it one way or another, but it is a huge leap between "no clear evidence" and "never existed".
This is what I love about JWD. Here is a sincere thread to help us, and for the most part, there is no
flaming of comments, but actual contributions. The occasional flame only helps us to decide what to
think about the other comments.
Keyser Soze said what I was thinking. Still, the experts examine the evidence and we just look at it while throwing
our opinions in. This is vastly better than waiting for a dozen men in Brooklyn to tell us what to think about
such evidence.
I don't know anything about this for sure. From what I understand, David (and probably Solomon) was the
leader of a very insignificant group. They didn't even exclusively worship [YHWH or Tetragrammaton].
Secular history doesn't really mention him, because he was so insignificant. He usurped a throne of an
insignificant group, and the throne was in turmoil after his son's death. A little footnote in true history.
David became larger than life because the writers of the Old Testament gave a legendary status to him and to
Solomon. I think they retained too much negative information about him to just make it up. The stories must
have been well-known, so the writers just jazzed them up. Since the writers were priests and servants of
YHWH, they exaggerated David's relations to that god. The writers primarily started gathering stories during
and after the Babylonian captivity, long after David's death.
I don't think the first temple in Jerusalem was ever as grand as described, the tent tabernacle was probably not
much. I doubt that any group of people ever in existence actually followed all the laws set out in the supposed
writings of Moses. I noticed that inconsistency early on. Nobody was able to live up to the law, and there
weren't any real stories of any real effort to do so. Up to David's time, these were a warrior people with valid
reason to break the law all the time. After the people returned to Israel from Babylon, very little about faithfulness
to the law was written until Jesus came along and showed how the law was too extreme.
Also, many stories in the OT were complimentary to "the king" and may have mentioned specific kings or not.
Somewhere along the way, "the king" became generic so as to be able to compliment the next kings. When
they passed along these stories, sometimes "the king" became "the anointed one" or "the messiah" or whatever.
That's where an expectation of "the Christ" came from. Plus all that numerology in Daniel and some of the other
writings.
This is what I love about JWD. Here is a sincere thread to help us, and for the most part, there is no
flaming of comments, but actual contributions. The occasional flame only helps us to decide what to
think about the other comments.
I second that emotion. If there can be no free flow of information, then nothing else is left but, to borrow a term from WTWizard, stagnation.
That's where the WTS made its most egregious error. You simply CANNOT stifle individual thought and expression without serious repercussions.
I enjoy being here. The "deep" threads such as this one, and the "fluff" threads - they all serve a purpose in our journey out of mind control.
Snowbird
Interesting thread...
Indeed it is....
I hope you guys don't jump all over me for saying this, but it seems as good a time as any to finally mention what I've been thinking... *takes deep breath*
I realize that he seems to be in the minority, or possibly a party of one, but JCanon (Larsinger58) seems to state his case very clearly. Has anyone ever really taken him up on his challenges to historical chronology, for instance with the VAT 4956 which he frequently talks about? I've read many threads where he posts this sort of information, and I never see a rebuttal from anyone who seems (from their other posts) to be knowledgeable about the subject. No offense to 5go, but he was really just copy-pasting info from a site which could be considered to be strongly biased. I'm talking about folks like AnnOMaly or Leolaia.
Being a newbie here, I'm sure that there's 50x more that's been said on this subject than what I've already read on JWN and it could be that the other history-oriented members had their debates with Lars long ago and simply stopped responding before I showed up. I'm well aware of Lars' more incredible claims about his own person, but I also don't feel that this entitles me to reject his historical arguments when they seem so rational. At the same time I am ignorant of astronomical calculations, archaeology, etc. and don't feel capable of investigating this on my own, from scratch, when I have a lot of other responsibilities that I'm trying to keep up with from day to day.
So, in a nutshell, what can some of you long-time members tell me about all this?
Yeah he's well read and knowledgeable, but has severe confirmation bias towards his agenda of messiahship, so it kind of negates anything of value.
P.S I'm reading Gentile Times Reconsidered 4th edition again (3rd time) and came upon something the other week which at the time struck me as debunking Lars claims, ..I'll see if i can remember what it was and find it again...
