The Kingom of David never existed!

by 5go 65 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • mP
    mP

    Lars:

    This is in response to a thread regarding the myth of David and Solomon. This simply boils down to CHRONOLOGY. Evidence of David's campaign shows up in archaeology as the "end of the Philistine pottery period" which Israel Finkelstein dates to "well into the 10th Century BC" meaning 900-950 BC. So there IS evidence of David's Campaign.

    MP:
    The only evidence is that etching with Kingdom of David. Perhaps there was a guy called David. Archeology, particularly Finkeelstein show that he was not grand and theres no palace even though they know where to dig. Egypt was grand we can see hundreds of pyramids and ohter monuments. Israel on the other hand has nothing near as grand. Even the temple we can visit today was not built by t he BIble heros but the villan Herod. We have nothing monumental that compres to Rome or Egypt or Greece from Solomon.

    Finding a scribble on a stone doesnt make the rest of the story true. We have writings w/ the name of Mohammad, doesnt mean i blelieve he flew on a unicorn from Mecca to Jerusalem and then went to heaven all in on night.

    So if Solomon was great, where are the ruins ? How come they cant be found ?

  • never a jw
    never a jw
    So, in a nutshell, what can some of you long-time members tell me about all this?

    Apognophos,

    I have no idea about Larsinger claims regarding VAT4956, however I can assure with only .00001% of doubt that VAT 4956 corresponds to year 568/567 BCE and no other year. I have personally spent weeks doing the research using an astronomical program. I found about 18 planetary matches (this alone nails it to 568/567), 7 time interval matches (lunat threes) and 10 lunar position matches, the solstice and a lunar eclipse. Only two lunar positions don't match. I believe those are the ones that Lars and the WT use to make their arguments for their own years. The problem is that they ignore all the other observations (more than 30)

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    Wow! A few people are following this and discussing this. Great. Thanks for quoting COJ where he actually sort of agrees that on face value, it would seem that Cyrus fulfills the 70 weeks prophecy!

    If we "just stick to the Bible," it seems to point to the Persian king Cyrus. At Isaiah 44:28 Jehovah "saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid" (ASV). And further, in chapter 45, verse 13: "I myself have roused up someone in righteousness [Cyrus], and all his ways I shall straighten out. He is the one that will build my city, and those of mine in exile he will let go, not for a price nor for bribery" (NW).

    Then COJ shows all the secular evidence that contradicts this, including the VAT4956. But... Josephus himself interprets the 70 years for the Jews and thus the Bible. The Jews ought to understand their own writings. Josephus clearly dates the 70 years in connection with those last deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible confirms a deportation in year 23 as well! (Jer. 52:30) This is the period of seventy years when the entire land lay completely desolate.

    Now some claim this is not supported by archaeology. But the history of Ashkelon, one of the cities that was to be destroyed has confirmed it was destroyed by the Babylonians and then rebuilt by the Persians after a period of 70-80 years! Not every city can give a historical record of what happens, but Ashkelon does. So that is one thing that supports the Bible.

    NEVER A JEW SAID: I have no idea about Larsinger claims regarding VAT4956, however I can assure with only .00001% of doubt that VAT 4956 corresponds to year 568/567 BCE and no other year. I have personally spent weeks doing the research using an astronomical program. I found about 18 planetary matches (this alone nails it to 568/567), 7 time interval matches (lunat threes) and 10 lunar position matches, the solstice and a lunar eclipse. Only two lunar positions don't match. I believe those are the ones that Lars and the WT use to make their arguments for their own years. The problem is that they ignore all the other observations (more than 30).

    Never. The issue with the VAT4956 is not those observations that match 568 BCE. Indeed, they do. The question is over those references, already noted by the scholars that don't. That is: Line 3 and Line 14. Now these are passed off as "scribal errors" at first, but the positions of the moon on these specific dates belong to the same lunar cycle and match 511 BCE. NOW. Is this a huge coincidence, or are the creators of the VAT4956 playing games with us? At this point, we ask what on earth is the significance of 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II? If this is just an error, then there should be no relevant significance at all. But guess what? When you use the Bible to date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, then add in the 70 years of desolation where the land must pay back its sabbaths, dated per Josephus to year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II, when the people went off their land, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE. That means year 37 falls in 511 BCE. OOPS! Yet another coincidence? Hardly.

    What I am claiming about the VAT4956 is that it was created as a diary, with lots and lots of references matched to 568 BCE so that it would be accepted and would survive. The "errors" were carefully placed in this text when the Moon passed by sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis which is an excellent measuring place in the zodiac. In this way, they were able to reference back to what must have been the original timeline. So 511 BCE per the VAT4956 would be the date to compare to the Bible's timeline, not 568 BCE. It would, indeed be a threat, but guess what? The Bible also dates year 37 to 511 BCE.

    So we have a confirmation here. At least at this point, this is enough reason to investigate whether there was revisionism during the NB or Persian Periods. But nobody is doing that. But guess what happens when you do? You get situations like "The Delian Problem." This is a math problem that Plato was supposedly consulted to solve in the 2nd year of the PPW in 430 BCE. Problem is, Plato was not born until 428 BCE! So right now, he is being consulted some 2 years before his birth. When we re-date the PPW to 403 BCE, however, which we can do several ways, then Plato is 25 years of age. So note the effect of removing these years from the Greco-Persian Period! You go from something that doesn't work, something clearly the result of revisionism to something that makes sense.

    So the bottom line is, there is now secular evidence in place that also supports that year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II actually occurred in 511 BCE, and when you face removing 82 fake years from the Persian Period, it is quick and easy!

    So am I trying to convince YOU of this? No. The elect read all this and they would have sided with the Bible anyway, dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE. But now they don't have to. The VAT4956 proves that 568 BCE was a fabricated date and all the history we now see are "copies" or revised inscriptions to try to protect the identity of Xerxes who was a Greek target for assasination.

    Or look what happens when you actually look at the archaeology. Per the Bible at Ezra 6:14,15 it says that Darius I only ruled for six years and "Artaxerxes" followed him on the throne and finished the temple. This is thus the "accession year" of Artaxerxes, which was the secondary name for Xerxes. What does Persepolis show us? It shows us that Darius started that comound in his 4th year and barely finished one building, his own palace. Meanwhile, in Babylon, we have documents that show that a palace for the king's son was completed in just two years! So if you didn't know anything about Greek history or the length of certain rulerships, the archaeology would suggest that this king with his co-ruler, Xerxes, died early in his rule, likely his 6th year if his palace only took two years to build. See? Archaeology confirms, not contradicts the false timeline.

    Plus, what am I claiming here? A major conspiracy? Look how many claim the Bible was revised and is not accurate. So I ask, were the Jews the only ones who revised their records? What about the pagans? Let's look at some of their revisions. Of course, as I noted above, when we do, we find the contradictions like with Plato confirmed to be an adult when the PPW began but now is not born yet!

    SO PLEASE! SPARE ME! I'm not someone who just decided to read the Watchtower and that's my only reference. I've looked at everything out there and checked everything and now I have the information to restore the inflated Persian timeline and the NB timeline and those restorations, based on secular sources, mind you, agree with the Bible's timeline when 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus.

    Now don't you think it is a little strange that Lines 3 and 14 can be matched to 511 BCE and that's the same year 37 the Bible is claiming was year 37 of Neb2? All the other 568 BCE matches was just to assure that this text would not be destroyed. It was a way to hide the truth "in plain sight", the best way to hide something! Two other "diaries" were created to do the same thing, including the SK400.

    Now, I don't mind agreeing to disagree. If you think the VAT4956 confirms 568 BCE, then fine. But I'm using it to confirm 511 BCE. I actually have that option to do so. Remember, Lines 3 and 14 had long ago been noted to be non-matches to 568 BCE. So I'm not saying you can match this to either year. It is too specific. You can't guess the precise lunar location in two different months to the same year -- these had to be cpied from observations and they were deliberately inserted. Why? To preserve in a clever way some references to the original timeline, since all the other astronomical texts were to be destroyed.

    So this is great. Now that we are discussing it, let's DISCUSS IT! Just how strong is the 82-year too long Persian Period? What does te archaeology really show? LOOK AT THIS VIDEO about the VAT4956 which also shows some key issues found at Persepolis that proves or supports that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king! Look at it and criticize it if you wish. But BE INFORMED!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIQ18QrbyYs

    But also be informed there are other issues to consider. For instance, the fact that Nehemiah returned with Zerubbabel, probably around age 30 and lived down into the reign of Darius II. That means he would have to live close to 150 years of age! Scholars try to handle this by claiming the Nehemiah who returned with Zerubbabel is not the same Nehemiah that was cupbearer throughout the entire reign of Artaxerxes! Even so, Nehemiah was the cupbearer to Artaxerxes, which is the same role as the prime minister, and he is depicted in the bas reliefs at Persepolis, which you will see when you look at the above video! But where are the Biblical scholars and others who are identifying Nehemiah here with Artaxerxes? They don't exist! This is one of the weakest and most avoided issues in archaeology, Nehemiah as the cupbearer to Artaxerxes! But that's because it would prove he was also cupbearer during the reign of Darius I! This thus confirms the Bible.

    Believe me. There is so much evidence now supporting the Bible's timeline (not the WTS' timeline!!!) that I don't have to look back. When you know something, you get to the point where if others don't get it, you really don't care. You figure, well, I guess everybody is not that bright after all.

    COJ presents a great discussion and defense for his view, but he skips a lot of things and there is more to what is presented than is stated, including misrepresentations by translators as to what is in the text, thus misleading many and distracting from resolving why the VAT4956 was created in the first place. It fronts as a false astronomical text, but really it was designed to save some original references to the original chronology. This is confirmed, because the Bible dates year 37 to 511 BCE, just like the VAT4956! So it's wonderful! Thus COJ's blanket claim that all archaeologists and all archaeology and all the secular evidence supports this timeline is not accurate. It doesn't. The double-dating in the VAT4956 and the SK400 are issues that need to be discussed. Josephus' specific assignment of the 70 years in line with the last deportation needs to be dismissed aggressively, but you can't do that by claiming the 70 years for the Babylonian dominantion have to be rounded off to 66 years like COJ does. C'mon! This is desperation. It is desperation and it no longer works. His goal is for you not to look further! If you don't, you will think he has proven his point. If you look at everything though, all the issues, then his point is not as strong. But you also have to realize that the WTS used 539 BCE as a "pivotal date" in connection with their own NB timeline, but that date is part of the revised timeline! So as a witness, you have to be willing to accept the facts and realize the WTS is wrong about 539 BCE and wrong about 607 BCE. That's hard for many to do and they find it easy just to ignore all this and have faith in the WTS!

    I put my faith in the Bible and allowed myself to see just what critical secular evidence contradicted the Bible. I tried to thus DISPROVE the Bible! What happened was just the opposite. I ended up proving the Bible true even more! It's fascinating stuff: ancient history and ancient lies!

    Now it used to be nobody checked anything out. They were too busy or just took someone else's word for it. But at least now some people are checking this out for themselves. This is a bad trend for Carl Jonsson and the WTS! But it is a good trend for ME. Because the more facts you know, the more you will have conficence in the Bible's true timeline. I have LOTS of evidence waiting, but really, the VAT4956 is enough to confirm the true dating for the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II!

  • mP
    mP

    Lars: why does everything come back to the destruction of Babylon ? How does discussing whether King David and Solomon existed matter on Babylon.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    Satnus: Hollywood really started around 3000 yrs ago, only they didn't have cameras, yet, so they wrote the bible.

    S

    Satnus, let me give you just one example of what happens when you venture out on your own and take the Bible literally! 1947 ends the 1290 days, and begins the 70th jubilee. That means 1947-1996 is the 70th jubilee of 49 years. That means the 70 jubilees began in 1435 BCE, a period of 3430 years (70 x 49 = 3430). Thus now that we are in the modern age, we can determine precisely when the Exodus occurred, the year 1386 BCE.

    Whoaaa! I trust the Bible. I'm willing to believe the Bible is true, no matter what archaeology shows us! Right? Right! The Bible is always correct. But... just out of curiosity, what does archaeology show us? I wanted to check it out. I wanted to see how 1386 BCE checked out as far as archaeology goes. Well, what did I find? I found this:

    Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
    Israelites, page 262:

    "As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
    that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
    view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
    date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
    of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
    prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

    Kathleen Kenyon found that the evidence showed that Jericho fell at the hand of Joshua between 1350-1325 BCE, which is the "third quarter" of the 14th century B.C. Now that's on the books! But that also means you can date the year range for the Exodus since Jericho fell exactly 40 years after the Exodus. So we just add 40 years to 1350-1325 BCE and get the time of the Exodus from 1390-1325 BCE. Guess what? The Bible's date for the Exodus based on 1947, the most accurate way to date the Exodus, is 1386 BCE, which falls within this range. So archaeology dismisses the Exodus during the reign of Rameses II like some thin,, as well as the chronology based on the inflated Persian Period which dates the Exodus to 1446 BCE, some 60 years too early! Archaeology shows Jericho was still occupied c. 1406 BCE!

    So you see, archaeology supports the Bible in this case! But guess what? Anti-Bible archaeologists are not going to ever link Akhenaten with the Exodus! Why? Because for no other apparent reason, he converted to monotheism! All of Egypt became monotheists after the 10 plagues! That is, when the fall of Jericho is dated between 1350-1325 BCE, then the Exodus occurs during the reign of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten! We thus would look for any evidence of the 10 plagues or the Exodus during this specific time. And what do we find? A dramatic and major religious re-focus to monotheism, which is something almost uniquely associated with the Jews. It inspired Sigmund Freud to write his book "Moses and Monotheism" even!

    So what I'm saying is, if you listen to COJ or Israel Finkelstein who are biased against the Bible, then you will feel convinced the Bible is not accurate and the secular history and archaeological evidence is so overwhelming, that no one with any sense would trust the Biblical history. But that's just their side of it. When you have the true chronology, like I do, then you compare it to archaeology or astronomical texts, then the Bible gets confirmed!

    I try to get people to look at ALL the issues and evidence and then make up their own minds. Those who refuse to contradict me but simply call me "crazy" simply don't want YOU to look for yourself. Because the more you know about chronology and ALL the issues, then the more you will be convinced the Bible's history, that is, the history as recorded by the Jews, is absolutely true and supported by the facts.

    But XJWs are a lot like JWs. Only JWs say: "Don't even read a single word of anything from apostates" and the XJWs say: "Don't listen to anybody who is mentally ill and delusional" as if what I present is the result of hysteria or mania or something. It's joke.

    Am I really an idiot or a moron? Or am I just that one person who wasn't satisfied with the propaganda from anybody and decided to do my own extensive research? I've studied at several universities and libraries that had rare books. I have seen enough to be confident of the Bible's timeline, but also enough to know who is pushing the modern movement to cover up the revisions. Did I hear "freemasons"? Ooops! Just when you were starting to believe me!

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    This is how complex and difficult this is. Here COJ is absolutely right about some things, but not others. So it is hard for the novice to sort through this. This is my comment on this comment from someone who supports the Bible's timeline that dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE:

    COJ: In passing, the Watch Tower Society's application of the 490 years is basically as historically unsound as are those of the others mentioned in this section. The dating of the 20th year of Artaxerxes I to 455 B.C.E. instead of 445 is in direct conflict with a number of historical sources, including several astronomical texts. When, therefore, The Watchtower of July 15, 1994, p. 30, claims that, "Accurate secular history establishes 455 B.C.E. as that year," this is grossly misleading. (Cf. the similar misstatement in Awake!, June 22, 1995, p. 8.) No secular historian today would date the 20th year of Artaxerxes I to 455 B.C.E. (For a refutation of the idea, se the web essay referred to in footnote 14 on page 82 above.) (QUOTE FROM ABOVE)

    Note that both I and the WTS date the "70 weeks" (490 years) as beginning in 455 BCE. There is little choice here since Christ's baptism occurs at the beginning of the 70th week in 29 CE. So it is simple math. Only the WTS dates year 455 BC to the 20th of Artaxerxes, when Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem to repair the walls, a task that took only 52 days! COJ is absolutely correct, though, that the current timeline dates year 20 of Artaxerxes 10 years later in 445 BCE! But the WTS moves his rule up by 10 years by a very substantiated archaeological reference, which COJ doesn't mention specifically. That is, they note that Xerxes and Darius I were definitely co-rulers!!! In the Aid to Bible Understanding they show this bas-relief to prove it along with a comment from an archaeologist that confirms that this represents a co-rulership!

    The fact that the two rulers are on a platform together, and their heads or the same height are considered indicative of a co-rulership. In another bas-relief, below, we see Xerxes is actually holding on to the throne, which is clearly an indication that he is a co-ruler, that is, he is sharing the throne with Darius I!

    Notice how Xerxes is with Darius I, but he is holding onto the back of the throne, which is more obviously a reference to him being a co-ruler than his just having his hand behind the throne.

    FIRST POINT: Archaeologists ignore this clear indication of a co-rulership. The WTS uses this to introduce a 10-year co-rulership which then allows them to move the 20th of Artaxerxes back in time from 445 BCE to 455 BCE! Now they are right about the co-rulership, but not about the length of the co-rulership. COJ, however, ignores this evidence of a co-rulership which points to revisionism.

    SECOND POINT: Why is it that Xerxes is clearly holding on to the throne in one scene, but has his hand turned sidewise in another? The reason is because his holding onto the throne is the natural indication of the co-rulership between the two kings. But Xerxes, that is, Artaxerxes, had an unusual right hand! It was longer than his left. That is why when Xerxes started going as "Artaxerxes" he became known as "Artaxeerxes LONGIMANUS" which means long hand. So the change in gesture of Xerxes, who should have demonstrated the co-rulership by holding onto the back of the throne as in one scene, changes because it was more significant to display his famous longer right hand! That's why tghe gesture was changed, and that goes to show you that Xerxes and Artaxerxzes were really the same king! So the bas-reliefs, the artwork is more truthful than the "inscriptions" which are easy to change, and of course, would have been changed once Xerxes claimed that Artaxerxes was his son!

    THIRD POINT: There was, indeed a co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius I, but not ten years! That's because Darius I only ruled for six years per the Bible! Note the WTS along with pagan history still accord Darius I those 36 years instead of just six, directly contradicting the Bible! So, per the Bible, if the 1st of Cyrus occurs in 455 BCE, then the 6-year rule of Darius I would be from 439-434 BCE! We establish the beginning of the rule of Artaxerxes/Xerxes from Greek sources based on when the Peloponnesian War began, which was originally in 403 BCE. Artaxerxes dies in year 8 of the war, which would be 396 BCE. Xerxes/Artaxerxes ruled for 41 years, which dates back to 437 BCE. Thus Xerxes was co-ruler with Darius I for 4 years from 437-434 BCE, years 3 through 6 of Darius I! Again, we know that Darius I did not begin to build Persepolis until his 4th year so Xerxes would have been his co-ruler by now.

    Artaxerxes was 59 years of age when he died after ruling 41 years, so he was 18 when he became co-ruler with Darius I. So we add 18 years to 437 BCE to find out the year he was born: 437 + 18 = 455 BCE! Thus, if Nehemiah was around 30 years of age when he returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel, he would have been only 89 years old when Artaxerxes I died and would have been in his early to mid 90's during the first part of the rule of Darius II! See how that works?

    But also note that while Darius I and Xerxes were co-rulers from as early as year 4 of Darius I, Darius I only finished one building, his palace! But many other buildings, including those showing Darius and Xerxes together, had to be finished by Xerxes! The palace only took 2 years! LYING historians and archaeologists thus want us to believe those buildings were all "under construction" for over 30 years during which time Darius was not abale to finisn any of those bildings except his palace! OH PA-LEEZE. So you see how dishonest archaeologists are?

    So the WTS is right -- there was a co-rulership. The fact this is ignored by Persian historians proves revisionism! But the co-rulership could not have been 10 years since Darius I only ruled for six years. Correcting the Greek timeline confirms the co-rulership of 4 years! See how that works?

    FORTH POINT: We haven't even gotten into the fact that the cupbearer to Xerxes, the person directly behind him holding the cup towel is neither Mede nor Persian. Everybody had their distinctive national garb in these bas-reliefs at Persepolis. We can see the captain of the guard standing there in line after the cupbearer has a rounded hat, so he is a Mede. Of course, Xerxes and Darius I have the fluted caps, so that identifies them as Persian. But the cupbearer, who has the highest court position, immediately behind the kings, is neither Mede nor Persian. Now guess who this is? It is none other than NEHEMIAH, the Jew! This proves Nehemiah was cupbearer during the reign of Darius I during the co-rulership and that Xerxes and Artaxerxes are the same king! That's because you can see this same Jewish cupbearer alone with Artaxerxes! No problem if Xerxes and Artaxerxes are the same king! Otherwise, you have the same cupbearer for say 32 years of the the reign of Darius I and then another 21 years with Xerxes, 53 years, before he becomes cupbearer to Artaxerxes who ruled for 41 years, meaning he was cupbearer for a period of some 95 years! Now Darius I didn't start his rule until after a 9-year rule by Cyrus followed by a 7-year rule by Cambyses, which is 16 years. Add 16 yo 95 and you get 106 years! As pointed out by the WTS, persons who held the position of Nehemiah, the "Tirshatha" were likely at least 30 years of age. So you are now looing at 136 years to cover this expanded period. Plus we have to add the first four years of Darius I that we didn't include, which is 140 years, plus how many years into the rule of Darius II did Nehemiah survive? The records suggest about 5 years at least. See? We're looking at 145 years of age for Nehemiah to cover this period!

    FIFTH POINT - SECULAR HISTORY CONTRADICTED BY PERSEPOLIS: Finally, please note that historians and archaeologists ignore the contradictoin here at Persepolis. The fake historical story is that Darius I married Atossa when he inherited her in the king's harem, and Xerxes was born in his first year. Because of that, Xerxes was chosen over his brothers as co-ruler/king. Well, if that was the case, when Darius began to build Persepolis in his 4th year, Xerxes would have only been 4 years old, but here we see he is an adult. Actually he was 19-20 years old at this time. But he certainly was not an infant! So the archaeology contradicts the history! But few challenge secular history on this point or try to correct this. They ignore Xerxes' age and they ignore the co-rulership! But there is a coincidence here and the basis for that reference! That is, we know that Xerxes was born in the 1st year of Cyrus! Now that was much more a significant kingship since that is when all the other kings in the empire, including Zerubbabel, took on the title of "governor" and the only king n the land was thus Cyrus! So this was the beginning of a brand new empire! So Xerxes being born after Cyrus became king over all of Persia was a big deal. He was the first royal heir. So the legal argument for choosing Xerxes after Cyrus became king is relevant. But that got twisted to his being born in the first year of Darius, his father, rather than Cyrus, his grandfather!! So Persepolis in now way supports secular history, not the 36-year rule of Darius I, not the age of Xerxes in his 4th year, and ignores Nehemiah and the obvious co-rulership. So can we trust lying archaeologists? NO!

    See? When you do your own research, the Bible becomes the best historical source and totall is supported by the evidence, not the distroted evidence. Inscriptions here are easily changed, but not the artwork, not the buildings!! These are things COJ likes to avoid.

  • *lost*
    *lost*

    Gently Feral

    Hi.

    Isn't the 'one people' 'one religion' to mean one people as in the pure of heart. that's the chosen race, those of us that are striving to believe and practice what God, Jesus taught us so that we will know the real 'truth' to follow what Jesus told us, not what man is telling us. He told us to watch out for these things.

    This point seems to be why now so many of us are asking these questions. we have the knowledge but the truth has been kept from us.

    which all ties in with the time of the end .... close up the book daniel .... many will roam about ...... searching .... the word of god. Not jesus an organissed religion, but a movement away from traditions of men .... towards seeking of 'the truth'.

    wwhat's your thoughts ?

    lost

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    MP:
    The only evidence is that etching with Kingdom of David. Perhaps there was a guy called David. Archeology, particularly Finkeelstein show that he was not grand and theres no palace even though they know where to dig. Egypt was grand we can see hundreds of pyramids and ohter monuments. Israel on the other hand has nothing near as grand. Even the temple we can visit today was not built by t he BIble heros but the villan Herod. We have nothing monumental that compres to Rome or Egypt or Greece from Solomon.

    mP: Who is coaching you? You seem to know so much but know little details! Now this is how this works. Finkelstein himself in his book claims that "full statehood" worthy of Solomon and the great monuments at Meggido belong to the "early 9th century BC" (900-867 BCE)! This massive structures, particularly at Gezer, Hazor and Meggido required an empire. That is, a government that had enough organization to organize the work force to do this work, it wasn't a small town. When he misdates David and Solomon, which is a half century too early, the evidence is that Israel was not that developed, and it wasn't. But he has the wrong dates. David and Solomon should be dated a half century later than they are dating them because of the expansion of the Persian Period!!! The Assyrian eponym eclipse needs to be dated to 709 BCE and not 763 BCE!!

    At any rate, Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo are ancillary cities! These are not the capital! So for this level of building at the secondary cities, it is clear this was a very wealthy empire during this time!

    What you seem to want to do is to dismiss the Bible's record across the board while ignoring the facts in place.

    Simply stated, Israel Finkelstein had a choice. He could claim David and Solomon were myths, or he could simply challenge the timeline and re-date David and Solomon a half century later which matches their works! Now your presumption that Israel was never a great empire nor attained "full statehood" directly contradicts Finkelstein and the evidence we find at cities like Meggido and other places!

    Also, Shishak's campaign is documented in Egypt! It showed lots and lots of cities in this region that it destroyed! So Israel was a major and richlyl developed empire when Shishak came along!

    It's one thing to use some facts that might contradict the Bible. It's another to invent false evidence and use that to contradict the Bible, which is apparently what you are trying to do. The only problem Finkelstein has is he is using the 763 BCE eclipse to date the Assyrian Period rather than the 709 BCE eclipse. So his dating of David and Solomon is a half century off. When he corrects this, then evidence of David's campaign against the Philistines is confirmed at the correct time, and the buildings at Hazro, Gezer and Meggido become the works of Solomon. But he's dishonest and doesn't want to do this, or is too lazy. He's a great archaeologist but a biased historian and chronologist.

    YOU, are just not wanting to face the reality that some archaeological evidence confirms the Bible! When you use the wrong dates, it looks like the Bible is not accurate. When you use the true timeline, which is MY timeline, then everything gets confirmed!

    SORRY.... But please, check your facts and spare me the jive! This is my area of expertise -- you'll have to do better mP!

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58
    APO: I agree, even if he's wrong, his posts make it clear that he's quite intelligent.

    Well thanks. My position is not whether I'm right or wrong, but getting people to know the different timeline theories and what the Bible really says, and what out there supports and contradicts it. Practically everybody out there talking about all this has an agenda. I do too! But I also have information that supports my position. My position is to follow the Bible and to vindicate the Bible. The WTS half tries to do this while still supporting the false secular history. My position is stronger than that. It is like Martin Anstey who can see that Cyrus should be dated to 455 BCE since the "70 weeks" clearly should begin that year.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    Here is my comment on another statement by Carl O. Jonsson that was quoted above:

    That the Persian kings mentioned in the Royal Canon really did exist has been proved beyond all doubt by archeological discoveries in modern times.6 This is an instructive illustration of the necessity of considering the historical evidence in relation to biblical time prophecies. Although this special application of the seventy weeks seemed very biblical and very convincing, it has been refuted by historical facts and therefore cannot be correct.

    One thing we know for sure from examining the archaeology at Persepolis and where the tombs are at Naqshi-Rustam, is that Artaxerxes followed Darius I on the throne and thus Artaxerxes and Xerxes were the same king. Carl Jonsson does not address this. Also, per the Bible, Ezra 6:14,15 is not addressed by the WTS nor Jonsson as indicating that Darius I, per the Bible, only ruled for six years followed by a king named "Artaxerxes." We have an extant document dated to year 38 of an "Arses also known as Artaxerxes" which proves that the double name for Xerxes was Artaxerxes!

    So here COJ is siding with secular history to disprove the Bible. The Bible's "70 weeks" prophecy directly presents a different timeline than does the secular history. COJ is trying to make it seem the Bible really doesn't contradict the secular history. Case in point is the 70 years of desolation! COJ wants us to think this is the length of the NB Period, though we must round off 70 years to 66 years to make it work! Ridiculous on its face. On the other hand, he ignores the Jewish traditional historical reference as to when these 70 years took place. That is, he never asks how the Jews interpreted this or if there is any Jewish historical reference as to when these 70 years take place? Josephus does mention the seventy years several times and is very specific when the 70 years are to take place. They are served by those last deported off the land and thus begin in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II! So the question of how to interpret the 70 years is a moot point! What we have is a clear contradiction between the Bible and Jewish traditional history and the Babylonian records! Only thing is, the Babylonian records are not the originals but "copies" from the Persian Period! So that tells us right up front, there is nothing to legitimately challenge the history of Josephus or the Bible, because these are not original records from Babylon. "Copies" at this point automatically means "revision."

    What COJ is doing, is trying to prevent the average person from looking into the actual facts or considering that the Bible has a different timeline. Once that timeline is taken seriously and you start to investigate, then indeed, you are able to see how easy it is and just where to remove the extra 82 years in the Persian Period, and where to re-insert the 26 years removed from the Neo-Babylonian Period.

    Now, again, my position is to believe what source you wish, but don't mischaracterize what the Bible's timeline is. If 455 BCE is just a ridiculous date for the 1st of Cyrus, then fine. Reject the Bible, but don't try and manipulate the Bible's timeline to agree with the NB timeline!

    This is all moot now though. Because when you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, then add 70 years per Josephus back to year 23 of Neb2, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE. That means year 37 falls in 511 BCE. 511 BCE matches Line 3 and Line 14 of the VAT4956, the two "errors" that had been noted before that do not match 568 BCE!!! That's no coincidence. That is merely a confirmation that the Bible reflects what was the original timeline before it was changed.

    COJ wants to avoid a direct contradiction or confrontation between the Bible and the sucular history. I'm doing just the opposite; I want people to understand the Bible's own timeline and if that contradicts the secular timeline, so be it. You have a choice. But now, really, there is no choice because the VAT4956 not only provides the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, it also confirms that year 568 BCE, which is the current timeline's year 37, is fabricated! TheVAT4956 is extant secular evidence of the original timeline and that timeline is the same as the Bible's! It's just that simple.

    Keep in mind, the weakest points in the revised timeline is Persepolis, where you can identify Nehemiah with Darius I as the Jewish cupbearer, and in turn, that will point to Akhenaten as the pharaoh who ruled right after the 10 plagues, which is what caused him to become a monotheist and start to worship Yahweh in the form of "Aten." COJ wants us to think the secular history wasn't revised! It either was or it wasn't. Let's look closely at everything and then decide for ourselves!! Trying to harmonize the Bible with the secular is an attempt to resolve the issue without looking at what the Bible's actual "absolute" chronology is.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit