- that, and the fact that they diligently recorded their astronomical observations. Further, their observations were always dated - using the regnal day, month and year of the current Babylonian King.
LOL!!!
Anyone actually familiar with ancient astronomical texs knows this statement is a complete inaccuracy. In fact, the concept of noting the year of the king in connection with an astronomical text is the first clue the text is a fake. That is, astronomy, generally, is not concerned with chronology. Only later when astronomy started to contradict revisions in the timeline did the concept of adding the date of the king occur.
Now for the NB Period during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, you have to realize they made nightly observations and placed those observations on small clay tablets, which they likely filed neatly in a tray for a certain year. They didn't bother noting the year of the king on each of those daily tablets. Later on, when they made a summary of astronomical events say over a month, they might have noted the year of the king, but that would be an exception. Only when astronomy became part of the agenda of resetting revised chronology do you find the year of the king associated with astronomy--as I said, a dead give away the purpose of the combination being to redate something.
So #1: Claiming how carefully they dated everything is a patently false concept.
REALITY CHECK: Now everything presented here avoids even what the WTS has to rebut key astronomical texts. That is, even COJ claims the VAT4956 is the "most important" text in these discussions. It dates year 37 of Neb2 to 568 BCE. But that is a "copy" of the astronomical information during the Seleucid Period, some 200+ years after the fact, and most specifically, after the revisions made by Xenophon to the Greek timeline. So even if the Babylonians did meticulously date each text, which they didn't, the key texts now being used for this dating don't come from that period! Where are the tens of thousands of astronomical texts from the NB Period compared to all the surviving business documents we have? The absence is startling.
In that regard, even the WTS has noted that it appears these original astronomical texts were destroyed purposely. That is, we know from the VAT4956 and others that these original texts did exist, but the originals don't exist now. So they were removed from Babylonian archives during the time of Berossus and "copied", i.e. meaning revised, and the new timeline king dates added on in an attempt to harmonize the ancient astronomy with the new timeline, thus creating a "dated" text. So it is fraudulent from the beginning.
Of note, the WTS though, as wrong as they are in many things, gets this observation correct. That is, while the astronomical observations clearly come from original texts, copied accurately to a new clay tablet, that doesn't mean the "historical" information is accurate. That is, that these observations were actually originally occurring in year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. So any "copy" or post-dated text is completely dismissible as fraudulent.
My concern is that this "detail", which is critical, including the WTS dismissal of the key astronomical texts involved, is not mentioned. Instead, the astronomical support for the current timeline is presented as if this comes from contemporary and accurately recorded astronomical texts from that period. Now that might be quite convincing, but it simply is not a true representation of the astronomical evidence.
This is the problem witih COJ. He glosses over critical details, sweeping under the rug what he doesn't want to deal with and then after making many presumptions presents the evidence in that context and it makes it look like this is a slam-dunk dating reality, when it is not. Of course, of concern, is patentl false statements like the one of above to bolster the argument. Seems a bit desperate, therefore, to overqualify the evidence.
THE REALITY: Even so, regardless of what the "copied"/revised astronomical texts say, the Bible has its own internal strict chronology and timeline which dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE. Period. Now the Bible might be incorrect on this point, but that is the Biblical timeline. The Bible also introduces a 70-year period from the 1st of Cyrus back to the last deportation. This is confirmed by Josephus. The WTS twists this to claim the 70 years of desolation and exile begin in year 18, the year they date the fall of Jerusalem. They base this on a clear assumption that the land was desolate after the Jews ran down to Egypt. But Jeremiah 44:14 and 28 clearly states that a remnant of those who ran down to Egypt would return to Judea. So not only does the 70 years begin with the last deportation in year 23, the land was not completely desolated until after year 23.
Here is a strategic deception of note by the WTS in this statement regarding the last deportation:
"Some two months later, after the assassination of Gedaliah, the rest of the Jews left behind in Judah fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah and Baruch along with them. (2Ki 25:8-12, 25, 26; Jer 43:5-7) Some of the Jews also may have fled to other nations round about. Probably from among these nations were the 745 captives, as household heads, exiled five years later when Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehovah’s symbolic club, dashed to pieces the nations bordering Judah. (Jer 51:20; 52:30) Josephus says that five years after the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar overran Ammon and Moab and then went on down and took vengeance on Egypt.—Jewish Antiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7)."
In other words, they use Josephus to historically refer to a 23rd year campaign, wherein Josephus specifically mentiosn the deportation in year 23 from Egypt. The WTS can't afford to have even their sleepy sheeple to think that that last deportation came out of Egypt since that would lead to the logical presumption that these people went via the well known route via Jerusalem back to Babylon. So they clear use "mind control" power of suggestion to invent Jews outside of Judea and no where near Egypt to be deported in year 23, in direct contradiction to Josephus' statement as to where these last deportees came from, that is, the official remnant of those who had fled down to Egypt. This would include Jeremiah and Baruch, of course.
But also note why Carl Jonsson is dismissed as being biased here. How so? Because to introduce a 70-year interval back to year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II ending the 1st of Cyrus is a direct and complete contradiction to the NB timeline which is some 25-26 years shorter! That is, to keep it simple, the current NB timeline dates year 18 to 587 BCE. From 587 BCE to 537 BCE, the year of the return, is 50 years. Per Josephus, is 70 years begins in year 23, then you have a 76 to 75-year interval from year 18 down to the return.
18 + 5 = 23
70 + 5 = 75
75 - 50 = 25
So this is typical Freemasonry "handwaving"; that is, to deligently focus on a side point while ignoring totally the critical issue, which is that you have a secular discrepancy between the Bible and the Persian "copies" of NB records of some 25-26 years! The Bible and Josephus' NB Period is 25 years longer than the current popular dating. But, once you observe this, the next step is to qualify the NB records. When you start to do that, everything from the VAT4956, SK400, the Babylonian Chronicle, Cyrus Cylinder and Nabonidus Chronicle are all "copies" from the Persian Period. So it is clear the Persians revised the NB timeline, at some point removing 25-26 years from the Neo-Babylonian kings.
Some of this is in direct contradiction with the Bible, critically:
1. The Bible dates the rule of Nebuchadnezzar at 45 years rather than 43 years. That is, year 37 of the exile of Jehoiachin ends in the accession year of Evil-Merodach. The exile of Jehoichin corresponds with the rule of Zedekiah who was in his 11th year in year 19 of Nebucadhenzzar, an 8-year interval. 37 plus 8 is 45, not 43.
2. The Bible accords a 6-year rule to Darius the Mede before Cyrus begins to rule over Babylon. I'll spare you the details for now.
So is 539 BCE a true date in ancient history? Maybe? But is it challenged? Yes!
VAT4956 ICING ON THE CAKE: But there's one more thing. As I noted, when you use the Bible to date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE. That means year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, per the Bible would fall in 511 BCE. Now is that in any way supported by any ancient evidence?
YES!
The VAT496! You see, in lines 3 and 14, you have two lunar references that match 511 BCE. That's the problem with the VAT4956. It was designed to preserve the original timeline in the form of a diary. The same with the SK400 which shows year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II falling in 541 BCE. So besides changing the dates on some of these astronomical texts, some, likely fearing the original chronology would be lost forever, used diaries to hide secret references to the original timeline where there was a close coincidence, as in the case of year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. So now you can independently use the VAT4956 to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 511 BCE. Critical here is once you start dealing with reveisionism, you can't just move dates around to the best fit. You have to first date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE, alternatively, and work around that. This true date would thus challenge the Bible's timeline more than 539 BCE or 587 BCE. But turns out there is no challenge. That's because using the VAT4956 to date year 37 to 511 BCE means the original dating for year 23, the year of the last deportation, is 525 BCE, which means the 1st of Cyrus 70 years later must fall in 455 BCE.
So it is clear Jehovah must have had some Jewish astronomers create this text so we would have direct evidence of the original timeline, otherwise, there would only be the Bible to support the 455 BCE chronology.
Having noted that, all the original history has been recovered. The 26 missing years from the NB kings is easily replaced, and the extra 82 years of persian history (455 vs 537 BCE = 82) is easily dismissed using the Bible and other astronomical comparisons. Basically you remove 30 years each from Darius I and Artaxerxes II, and combine the 21-year rule of Xerxes with Artaxerxes, since they were the same king. That removes 81 years right off the bat. Easily done. Archaeology from Persepolis does not support the 36-year rule of Darius I, but instead shows he died early in his reign. Per the Bible (Ezra 6:14,15) he died in his 6th year.
IN SUMMARY: It is one thing to present conflicting and contradictory secular evidence, it is another thing to grossly misrpresent that evidence to fool those who don't know any better.
You want to discuss 539 BCE? Let's do it. But it is shark-infested waters. The true fall of Babylon occurred in 562 BC, followed by a 6-year rule of Darius the Mede from 561 to 455 BCE before Cyrus came to the throne. 539 BCE is the new date as a result of Persian revisionism. The WTS was unfortunate enough not to realize this was an incorrect date, though they are very good at coming up with their own dates for everything else, such as the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE or the 20th of Artaxerxes in 455 BCE rather than 445 BCE! If every other date is unreliable per the WTS, how on earth could they think 539 BCE wasn't revised as well?
Thanks for the propaganda!!! 539 BCE is a joke like 607 BCE!
Trust me.
LS
