one of the pharoahs that is mentioned in the bible is hophra (aka apries, aka ha'a'ibra wahibra).. jeremiah 44:30 says: "this is what jehovah has said: here i am giving phar aoh hoph ra, the king of egypt, into the hand of his enemies and into the hand of those seeking for his soul, just as i have given zedeki ah the king of judah into the hand of nebuchadrez zar the king of babylon, his enemy and the one seeking for his soul.").
the closest the watchtower society gets to attempting to assign any years to hophra is in a questions from readers article in the 1 october 1970, watchtower (incidentally on page 607 of the bound volume).
it states: "egypt made one last attempt to remain a power in asia.
Thanks for this nice summary. I don't think there is much trouble with the dating of Hophra since it is clear that Amasis was ruling by the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As you said, the expansion would come during the reign of Amasis who must be extended, presumtively, 20-26 years making his rule very long.
JC
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/international/middleeast/05jerusalem.html?ex=1280894400&en=3c435bc7bd0cd531&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
a fellow, a biblical researcher, was on the radio (adler online, for those who tune into it) a few weeks ago saying that king david never existed and at that time, jerusalem only had mud huts.
apparently, he was wrong.
As I mentioned before, this is all "straw man" arguments since Shishak establishes the state of Israel during his day and invasion. You don't list cities conquered and brag about conquering them unless they were significant. These are the cities of the time of Solomon (39th year, 5th of Rehoboam). So we don't have to worry about what they haven't found to confirm this.
Keep in mind that many times, when destroying or rebuilding cities, some builders often stole stones and other materials from other cities to use as fill or even material for rebuilding another place. So if some city had some great near-by materials and they were taken, you are not going to find the usual archaeological history for that site.
In the meantime, we have a record of an Egyptian king who listed many fortified cities of importance that was conquered which establishes the true state of development of the region at the time of Solomon. Jerusalem as it's capital could not have been some obscure city if it was the capital of all these other cities indicating a rather well-developed united monarchy at the time.
So anti-Biblical archaeologists want to claim "there is no evidence" but the Biblicalists point to Shishak and note that he conquered many cities in a highly developed region consistent with an account the Bible relates.
Now to deal with this, the anti-Solomonists want to claim that "Shishak" was really Rameses II or some later king who invades during a later time, but there is too much chronology now that establishes othewise. Shishak is Sheshonq I and when applied it proves the region was as developed as the Bible claims.
The anti-Solomonists may have their doubts, but they can't shout this too loudly because of Shishak's testimony. It's not a critical issue, therefore. There is evidence that confirms the state of the united monarchy during the time of Solomon, thanks to Shishak!
JC
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/international/middleeast/05jerusalem.html?ex=1280894400&en=3c435bc7bd0cd531&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
a fellow, a biblical researcher, was on the radio (adler online, for those who tune into it) a few weeks ago saying that king david never existed and at that time, jerusalem only had mud huts.
apparently, he was wrong.
WOW! THANKS SO MUCH!!! for this article!!! Wonderful!!!
But the anti-Biblicalists are totally ridiculous such as Finkelstein quoted trying to claim Jerusalem was nothing but some small tribes...
Archaeologists debate "to what extent Jerusalem was an important city or even a city in the time of David and Samuel," he said. "Some believe it was tiny and the kingdom unimportant." The site of ancient Jerusalem, stuck between two valleys on a ridge south of the Temple Mount, is very small, less than 10 acres.
Israel Finkelstein, another renowned archaeologist, has suggested that without significant evidence, Jerusalem in this period was "perhaps not more than a typical hill-country village."
Now, we can dismiss this as nonsense since Shishak who invaded Israel during the 39th year of Solomon which was the 5th year of Jeroboam, lists a whole line of fortified cities he conquered that were important enough to brag about! Does that sound like "typical hill-country village"? Of course not. During the United Kingdom Period Solomon was over all those cities. Thus Shishak's inscriptions proves this was a significantly developed area, whether or not the remains of it have been discovered or left for archaeologists to debate over.
Shishak's inscription reflects precisely the state of Israel and Judah at the end of Solomon's reign, a kingdom of many fortified cities not smiply "villages".
But admittedly part of the problem is the poor dating. Up until now, few have taken the reduction of 82 years of fake Persian history seriously which would reduce Solomon's reign down to 910-870BCE, closer to when the archaeologists are saying Jerusalem was more adequately developed. If they are comparing a defective timeline due to revisionism then of course they are going to find contradictions. So maybe for the time period they are claiming it was just small villiages coming out of the Judges Period, but by the time of Solomon great works were being done which they acknowledge appeared later during the time of Omri but not as early as Solomon. When you down-date Solomon by 60 years though, the archaeology and history from the Bible match up just perfectly, including the many cities Shishak mentions in his inscription.
Thanks again for the update! One day they will correct the timeline and find so much archaeology supporting the Bible they will have no choice but to accept reality.
JC
.
is this really a big deal?
i mean ... it's only 1 year.. can 1 year really be that damaging to the society they have to make up a vassal kingship clause?.
There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer too captives in the early period of his reign for the records only indicate this happened in his seventy or eight year of his reign.
Scholar: There is some "evidence" that Nebuchadnezzar took captives from Judah in his accession year per the Babylonian chronicle which states...
In the 'accession year Nebuchadrezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Sebat marched unopposed through the Hatti-land; in the month of Sebat he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti-territory to Babylon. In the month of Nisan he took the hands of Bel and the son of Bel and celebrated the akitu (New Year) festival. ll. 12-14
"Hatti-territory" or "Hatti-land" is Palestine. Of note, Nebuchadnezzar's deportations always take place near the very end of the year, I suppose that was the convenient time to return to Babylon for the New Year's festival. So he did invade Palestine in his accession year and he did take tribute. This is the opportune time for deporting the young children to Babylon to learn Babylonian customs and language. Since there is evidence that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Palestine in his accessino year, year 3 of Jehoiakim which records the deportation of Daniel, you have a confirmation of circumstance here.
Lost Battle with Necho, year 4 of Nebuchadnezzar. If Jehoiakim was a vassal, say late in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar or formally beginning with the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, then three full years of vassalship which could have gone a few months into the 4th year would cover years 4-7 of Jehoiakim. The Babylonian chronicle records the lost battle with Necho in his 4th year which would have been the 7th year of Jehoikim. Thus the general state of things, the challenge of pharoah in Palestine at this time, might have been related to Jehoiakim rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar around his 7th year which would be three years a vassalship.
Interesting. But nothing in secular history contradicts the Bible having Daniel deported in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, in fact, it is supported by the Babylonian chronicle which records his getting tribute from them. This fits the circumstances of the deportatin of Daniel that year.
JC
.
is this really a big deal?
i mean ... it's only 1 year.. can 1 year really be that damaging to the society they have to make up a vassal kingship clause?.
Here's another discussion of the JW problem with this period.
http://www.aomin.org/1914chron.html Very good. This is not an isolated issue it would seem.
JC
.
is this really a big deal?
i mean ... it's only 1 year.. can 1 year really be that damaging to the society they have to make up a vassal kingship clause?.
I found this great site that discusses this issue and aligns the years very close to the Biblical alignment. With GRAPHICS! Check it out!
.
is this really a big deal?
i mean ... it's only 1 year.. can 1 year really be that damaging to the society they have to make up a vassal kingship clause?.
Here's a peripheral historical note that's out there to consdier. It seems that while Nebuchadnezzar chased Necho away at Carchemish, when he alter engaged the pharoah Necho defeated Nebuchadnezzar. Since Jehoiakim had originally been appointed by Necho and was his vassal, he may have felt free to rebel at this time against Nebuchadnezzar, breaking a 3-year vassalship from years 3-5 of Jehoiakim.
God then said because of this, he would be hassled by several different nations and marauder bands for doing this.
1 In his days Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon came up, and so Je·hoi´a·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him. 2 And Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·de´ans and marauder bands of Syrians and marauder bands of Mo´ab·ites and marauder bands of the sons of Am´mon, and he kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken by means of his servants the prophets.
The above, of course, works out much better with an extended period of time with various nations attacking Judah at different times. Certainly not likely to occur in just a few months during a single year, a year in which Nebuchadnezzar himself punished Jehoiakim, so this would not include that last attack. Instead, these marauder bands attacked Judah over an extended period of time until Nebuchadnezzar finally returned and began deportations again and resubjected Jehoiakim, finally replacing him with Jehoiachin who only ruled for 3 months.
Returning to our timeline, if Nebuchadnezzar returned early enough to deport by late in his 7th year, which is the 10th year of Jehoiakim, this period is about 4-5 years, leaving plenty of time for Judah to be harrassed by these marauding bands from four different nations at different times.
Reiterating, Ezekiel was deported near the end of the year, as usual, of the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim did not die until the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 3-month rule of Jehoiachin occurring during the last three months of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar after which Zedekiah was appointed. Thus the exile of Jehoiachin and the rule of Zedekiah which would be parallel for the most part better matches by comparison to the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar. That's why year 11 of Zedekiah is year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, since year 1 of Zedekiah is year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar.
All the above argues against any "vassalship" implied by "reign" or "kingship" as provided in the Bible for dating these events. Again, as noted, the revised Babylonian records which reduce the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II by 2 years also squeezes the events of his accession year and first year into the same year so that the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicle, such as the battle with Necho and the deportation of Jehoiachin happen a year earlier. The chronicles dates this deportation in year 7, the Bible in year 8. This is likely also why there is confusion over the fall of Jerualem with some Babylonian records still extant during the time of Josephus claiming the fall was in year 18 vs year 19.
JC
.
is this really a big deal?
i mean ... it's only 1 year.. can 1 year really be that damaging to the society they have to make up a vassal kingship clause?.
You claim to rely solely on the bible, yet you ignore Daniel 1:1 which states that captives were taken in Jehoiakim's third year (accession year system) in 605BC. But if you really want to talk about evidence, give me the names and reigns (sorry, 'kingships') of the kings for the missing 20 years according to the Society's interpretation with the supporting evidence.
The WTS doesn't know. But it's not quite an open guessing game and the extra years can be identified by comparing several references. First of all, there is a 26-year difference in the timeline for the Bible and Josephus versus the pagan records, which we will presume were revised, the records of the extra years destroyed as best possible by the Persian Government. Josephus says there are 70 years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus, meaning 74 years from the fall of Jerusalem to the first of Cyrus. Secular history represents this period as 48 years, from year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar in 587BCE to the 1st of Cyrus in 539BCE (587-539=48, 74-48=26). Here is one way to make up the 26 years with not necessarily adding any new kings, but simply expanding their reigns. 26 years too short: 1. Nebuchadnezzar II, add 2 years. The Bible says the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile was the year Nebuchadnezzar died. The exile of Jehoiachin closely matched the rulership of Zedekiah whose 11th year matched the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, meaning an 8-year gap. 37 plus 8 = 45. Thus per the Bible you can add 2 years to the 43-year rule for Nebuchadnezzar; down 2, 24 years to go. 2. Evil-Merodach, add 16 years. Evil-Merodach is assigned only 2 years, but Josephus in Antiquities assigns him 18 years. So there is that reference for extending the rule of Evil-Merodach besides the Biblical suggestion of more years. This takes care of another 16 years, leaving 8 more years to make up. 3. Nabonidus, add 2 years. If you combine several references, Nabonidus gets 2 years added to his rule. I won't go into the chronology specific references from eclipse observations right now, but two exist that would specifically date the 2nd year of Nabonidus in 479/478BCE. By that reference his first year falls in 480BCE. A Babylonian references says Cyrus overthrew Astyages in the 6th year of Nabonidus and he ruled for 20 years until he became king in Babylon. Thus the first 20 years of the reign of Cyrus is dated from 559-539BCE. But this would mean a 25-year rule for Nabonidus if you don't include any other king. The Bible establishes a 6-year rule for Darius the Mede before Cyrus comes to the throne, however, so when this is deducted from the 25-year rule, we end up with a 19-year rule for Nabonidus, 2 more than assigned to him by popular history, reducing the 8 years to 6, which is then taken up by the rule of Darius the Mede. 4. Darius the Mede, add 6 years. as noted above, ruled for six year per the Bible (compare Zechariah 1 and 7) where the Jews were still in exile in the 2nd and 4th years of "Darius" (the Mede), yet to return, and Josephus' reference that the 70 years of Jeremiah did not begin until 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem, thus the Jews would return 2 years after the 4th of Darius which would also be the 1st of Cyrus, establishing a 6-year rule for Darius the Mede. That's where you insert the extra 26 years to be compatible with the Bible based upon references. These extra years taken from the NB Period were added to the Persian Period kings. JC
.
is this really a big deal?
i mean ... it's only 1 year.. can 1 year really be that damaging to the society they have to make up a vassal kingship clause?.
Interesting discussion. I'm not quite sure I follow. But if the third year of vassalship was when Daniel was deported, which was the 11th year of Jehoiakim, that means he was deported the same year as Jehoiachin and the other royal family members in year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar. It also means that Ezekiel and the deportation occurring in the 7th year of 3023 Jews. Year 11 of Jehoiakim is year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not consistent with the context of scripture which shows Daniel and the young children being deported first before any.
Interesting that the Bible didn't specify the third year of his being a "vassal" to Nebuchadnezzar or something as that so as not to confuse with his kingship. Sometimes the Bible for clarification will give two references for a year. In this case the "vassalship" is not only not mentioned at Daniel 1:1 but it actually says "kingship"...."In the third year of the KINGSHIP of Jehoiakim."
At verse 2 it mentions the second year of the "kingship" of Nebuchadnezzar. Maybe he was a vassal too under somebody?
This is just a mistake, desperate to make the scriptures work out, the WTS has directly contradicted what the Bible is saying and in so doing corrupted other details of scripture. That might be cause they did not think about the deportations in various years. Here is how it is laid out in the Bible when you use third year of kingship for Jehoiakim for the deportation of Daniel.
If year 11 of Jehoiakim is year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar, then there is a 3-year difference. 8+3=11. In that case the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar which is zero +3 would equal the third year of Jehoiakim. Thus Daniel would be deported during the accession year of Jehoiakim. This is the first deportation.
The second deportation of 3023 souls, including Ezekiel occurs near the end of year 7.
The third deportation in year 8 of more than 10,000 along with Jehoiachin occurs at the very end of year 8.
Then after a siege of Jerusalem in year 9 of Zedekiah, some were deported in year 18 before the city fell, probably some that surrendered, a total of 830 souls (Jeremiah 52:30)
Then of course, some were deported with Zedekiah after Jerusalem fell in year 19.
Some poor people were left in the land to work but ran down to Egypt and refused to return. These were deported by Nebuchadnezzar in his 3rd year upon returning to Judah (Jer. 44:14,28).
JC
has anyone heard this whacky dub belief: eve was created from a rib bone because ribs can regenerate themselves....
is there any scientific evidence of rib regeneration in humans?
or is this another one of those fundie theories like the "dinosaur didn't really exist" crap?
"why did you make her so stupid?" "So SHE would like YOU."
hehe.
ROFL. That's good.....
You know right after they got kicked out of the garden they got a phone. You'll never guess what the first phone number in the Bible was:
Aea Code EDEN: Adam eight one two.
