Let me start off by saying that it is not that simple to
debate VAT4596. There are too many variables to consider. If it was that clear
cut, then the majority of Archeologist, chronologist, historians, and
theologians would be on the same page. A page that would end a debate that
started in the 70’s, with people such as Olof Jonsson, Franz, Penton, and
Manson to name a few apostates.
The O’Malley point of view is generally based on Mason’s
assertions.
You would need to study very hard on ancient times
pertaining to astrology, calendar year, and language.
There are many ancient tablets that tell us a story of
ancient time, such as ABC 5, 7, 13, BM21901, BM22047, BM25127, BM33066,
BM58872, BM61325, BM75106, BM75489, BM80920, Lachish Letters, Cambyses tablet,
Dairy No 651 etc., and most recent discoveries by Filip Vukosavovic. (CUSAS 28)
The point to make, is how people interpret this tablets.
There are also many variables on ancient writers, historians
such as the patriarchs to Berossus, Herodotus, Flavius Josephus, Ptolemy,
Ussher, Pinches, Saggs, Winkler etc. and modern historians from Brinkman,
Glassner Grayson, Mitchell, Pritchard, Sachs, Thiele, and Wiseman etc.
Then you have tablets like the Walker Saturn tablet bm76738
that gets the picture just a little closer to reality.
Then you have the Oslo conspiracy Furuli. A linguist that
happen to agree with the time certain religions use by his own mathematical
computations.
The book presents new
chronological schemes for the Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian empires
the conclusion
drawn on the basis of the study of thousands of cuneiform tablets is that the
length of the Neo-Babylonian Empire must be expanded by twenty years. This
means that the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II is 625 and not 605 BCE, as
is almost universally believed. The Neo-Assyrian and Egyptian empires are
pushed back by twenty years as well.
Then you have confusion like the Egibi
business tablets from the house of Egibi a Family realtor from the 6th
century B.C. that named Nebuchadnezzar III and IV to the time presented here.
That would mean Nebuchadnezzar II would have reigned much earlier by modern
scholars estimate as mentioned in the Oslo chronology and ancient historians.
1.
Every
assertion made is based on one principle, the start of creation. Here you’ll
find dozens of variations.
2.
Who used
what type of calendar? Accession-Regnal year’s scenario. 354, 360, 362, 364, Autumn
to Autumn, Spring to Spring, start of Winter or Fall year used. The mistakes on
identifying the kings correctly. Identifying lost kingdoms within that time. Were
the observations of eclipses started with Mercury, Venus, Saturn, and point of
origin, Etc.?
3.
Who
interpreted language variations? Remember written language was in its infancy,
from shapes to letters.
I had a debate with a
ringer that goes by the tag of Jeffro long ago and his argument was the only
truth to considered, as though he was God. So at the end, it’s not all that
clear cut after all. To say it is, is being disingenuous. Your opinion or
conclusion will be based on someone else’s word, unless you spend decades
attempting to draw parallels from ancient history and the bible as the ancient
historians did. Something that’s lacking in modern time. All in all, people
will find a way to disagree with progress, unless someone happens to build a
time machine to go back to see who ultimately was right. Wouldn’t it be funny
if certain religions were? What would people say then?
