Historical Manipulation of the Bible


The KingsCalendar The Secret of Qumran
The King’s Calendar is Available by Download

If you are new to the King’s Calendar Research, then you would do well to read Synchronous Chronology of Ancient Israel and Judah before proceeding any further. That article on the old site was titled ‘What is the King’s Calendar?’ and explains succinctly the foundation of all articles I write about the Ancient Near East.

The article on this page was originally published years ago on the old Kingscalendar website under the title: Historians Deceive us and Manipulate Biblical Chronology and was an excerpt from How long did King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon Reign?

The purpose of this excerpt is to challenge many false academic assumptions which have been accepted by the general community as academic fact. In short, it strives to demonstrate where the academics got it wrong!

Note: Nothing in this article actually contradicts the Egyptian, Assyrian or Babylonian records of events that transpired during the period from 609 BC to 562 BC. This article does not in any way dispute the archaeological evidence.

What Most People Don’t Realize about History and Archaeology

Students of history have a duty to recognize that not all of our knowledge of history is actually based on irrefutable evidence, but as pointed out by Sir Alan Gardiner [James P. Thorpe.I.J., Kokkinos.N., Morkot.R., Frankish.J. (1991) Centuries of Darkness. Rutgers Uni Press. New Jersey. p.222] in reference to Egyptian History, our knowledge is based in a collection of rags and tatters.

That there are probably many errors and circular arguments in relation to ancient history is attested to by many, including Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge University (James Et. Al. 1991 : foreword pages.xiii-xv)

As pointed out by Peet. T.E. [1924) Egypt and the Old Testament. University Press of Liverpool. p 75]:

“Archaeology is not an exact science, and deals more often in probabilities and possibilities than in irrefutable demonstrations.”

Whilst it is understandable therefore that some conclusions might be occasionally incorrect, it remains a fact however that it is sometimes difficult for scholars to admit to errors. (Aharoni. Y. (1978) The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia. Westminster Press. p.183)

A good example of this is provided by James et.al. (1991, p.250) in ‘Centuries of Darkness,’ which cites Mazar (Mazar. B. (1986) The Early Biblical Period. Jerusalem Exploration Society. pp231/47) in relation to Mazar’s preference for accepted dating despite his own evidence to the contrary.

Sir Charles Marston (Marston. C. (1935) The Bible is true: The lessons of the 1925-34 excavations in Bible lands summarized and explained. Australia. Angus and Robertson. p.156) made similar comments in relation to prejudiced refutation of evidence in reference to potsherds from Jericho that indicated a 15th century Exodus. His point was that rather than change the then current academic opinion, the system of pottery dating indicating a 15th century Exodus was considered questionable.

In short, the evidence itself was disbelieved in preference for current academic opinion.

Unfortunately however there is a bigger problem than merely losing a little face at having to admit that some conclusion or other was incorrect. Miller and Hayes (Miller,J.M., Hayes,J.M. (1986) A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. USA. Westminster Press. p.74 ‘Taking the Account as It Stands’) whilst offering an honest and even-handed approach to their examination of various historical matters, offer us insights into some of the less than scientific approaches that are taken by some academics that lead one to speculate that for some, admitting that the scriptural record of history might be right, may be sufficient incentive to ensure that that Scriptural Record be summarily rejected.

James et.al. (1991, p.162) are quite straightforward in their criticisms of Academic “poor methodology, hypercritical treatment of Scripture, blindness, prejudice and a sectarian like rejection of the Biblical Record.”

Such observations lead us to consider that some historians and archaeologists would rather provide us a factually incorrect history, than one which might cause us to give credence to anything recorded in the Bible.

What is hypocritical however is when many of these same academics quote the very Scriptures which they consider to be fictional, to support their many and various hypotheses.

In this excerpt, we see through the use of a computer generated mathematical artificial calendar, (What is the King’s Calendar?) that without any contradiction to any ancient historical record, that the chronological data recorded in the Bible, for the period from 609 BC to 586 BC, is correct, and that some of the chronological conclusions reached by historians are incorrect.

Academic Mathematical BS
(From: How long did King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon Reign? Point 6)

In this Section, which forms a natural bridge between the two invasions of Jerusalem, [596 BC & 586 BC] I want to demonstrate academic mathematical fudging.

Academics know that Nebuchadrezzar’s reign ended in 562 BC, and they (incorrectly) assign him a 43 year reign preceeded by an ascension year in 605 BC. Therefore his First Regnal Year commences in 604 BC. From this they can calculate that the Babylonian captivity commenced in 587 BC.

But Note from the chart below that there is no ‘one’ academic opinion. Look at the notes on the right about Wiseman and Thiele. They do not agree concerning the accession and first regnal year of Nebuchadrezzar.

Historians manipulate Nebu 2

Furthermore, because both Zedekiah and Jehoiakim each had 11 year reigns, by adding these 22 years to 587 BC, they can determine that Jehoiakim ascended the throne of Judah in 609 BC, which by implication, is the year in which King Josiah died.

Furthermore, they use Jeremiah 46:2 to support their claim that Jehoiakim’s 4th year was Nebuchadrezzar’s Accession year. It is Not. Jeremiah 25:1 is correct.

The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon.

Jeremiah 46:2 Against Egypt, against the army of Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah.

(Jer 46:2 speaks of an event that occurred in the accession year of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign – whilst Jeremiah 25:1 given the following year refers to the future judgment at the hands of Nebuchadrezar)

If you accept the academic position in relation to 587 BC being the date that Judah fell, and the resulting chronological position in relation to Nebuchadrezzar and Jehoiakim, then the following is what happens:

587 BC – Zedekiah’s 11th year – Babylonian Exile
588 BC – Zedekiah’s 10th year
589 BC – Zedekiah’s 9th year
590 BC – Zedekiah’s 8th year
591 BC – Zedekiah’s 7th year
592 BC – Zedekiah’s 6th year
593 BC – Zedekiah’s 5th year
594 BC – Zedekiah’s 4th year
595 BC – Zedekiah’s 3rd year
596 BC – Zedekiah’s 2nd year
597 BC – Zedekiah’s 1st year

From the figures above we can see that in 597 BC, which is supposed to be Nebuchadrezzar’s 7th year and the one in which he campaigned against Jehoiakim for refusing to pay tribute, and during which year he set Jehoiachin on the throne of Judah, it was actually King Zedekiah who was ruling. So what happened to Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin?

As many historians will tell you, this is not really a problem, because obviously Zedekiah really only reigned 10 years not 11 years.

So let’s change this calendar a little and delete one year from Zedekiah’s Reign.

587 BC – Zedekiah’s 10th year (not 11th)
588 BC – Zedekiah’s 9th year
589 BC – Zedekiah’s 8th year
590 BC – Zedekiah’s 7th year
591 BC – Zedekiah’s 6th year
592 BC – Zedekiah’s 5th year
593 BC – Zedekiah’s 4th year
594 BC – Zedekiah’s 3rd year
595 BC – Zedekiah’s 2nd year
596 BC – Zedekiah’s 1st year.
597 BC – Jehoiakim’s 11th year
598 BC – Jehoiakim’s 10th year
599 BC – Jehoiakim’s 9th year
600 BC – Jehoiakim’s 8th year
601 BC – Jehoiakim’s 7th year
602 BC – Jehoiakim’s 6th year
603 BC – Jehoiakim’s 5th year
604 BC – Jehoiakim’s 4th year (Not according to Historians)
605 BC – Jehoiakim’s 3rd year
606 BC – Jehoiakim’s 2nd year
607 BC – Jehoiakim’s 1st year
608 BC – Josiah’s Last year Out by 1 year
609 BC – Josiah dies 609 BC in the history books

So the first thing to notice is that adding the 22 years assigned in the Bible to Zedekiah and Jehoiakim interfers with current academic chronology which puts the Death of Josiah in 609 BC. Not to worry though. many Academics will just say Josiah died around 609 BC, perhaps in 608 BC. It is one way to solve a problem (and reject the historical reliability of the Bible), but in the process, it creates another problem.

The Other Problem:

By the reckoning of the chronology provided above, Jehoiakim’s 4th year, the year which apparently corresponds to Nebuchadrezzar’s accession year, (as per Jeremiah 46:2) is now 604 BC, not 605 BC. Coincidently, this happens to be the year insisted upon by The King’s Calendar.

To correct this faulty chronology historians would have to assign Zedekiah a 10 year reign and Jehoiakim a 12 year reign.

587 BC – Zedekiah’s 10th year – not 12th
588 BC – Zedekiah’s 9th year
589 BC – Zedekiah’s 8th year
590 BC – Zedekiah’s 7th year
591 BC – Zedekiah’s 6th year
592 BC – Zedekiah’s 5th year
593 BC – Zedekiah’s 4th year
594 BC – Zedekiah’s 3rd year
595 BC – Zedekiah’s 2nd year
596 BC – Zedekiah’s 1st year
597 BC – Jehoiakim’s 12th year
598 BC – Jehoiakim’s 11th year
599 BC – Jehoiakim’s 10th year
600 BC – Jehoiakim’s 9th year
601 BC – Jehoiakim’s 8th year
602 BC – Jehoiakim’s 7th year
603 BC – Jehoiakim’s 6th year
604 BC – Jehoiakim’s 5th year
605 BC – Jehoiakim’s 4th year That’s Fits Better
606 BC – Jehoiakim’s 3rd year
607 BC – Jehoiakim’s 2nd year
608 BC – Jehoiakim’s 1st year
609 BC – Death of Josiah At last the desired outcome.

But what if 596 BC is the year of the first Babylonian Captivity?
(597 BC is the 7th year of Nebuchadrezzar when he marched toward Jerusalem where he replaced Jehoiakim with Jehoiachin and then quickly replaced him with Zedekiah. This date is in issue in relation to the timing of Nebuchadrezzar’s actions as well as the King’s Calendar determination which appears in a chart further down.)

586 BC – Zedekiah’s 11th year
587 BC – Zedekiah’s 10th year
588 BC – Zedekiah’s 9th year
589 BC – Zedekiah’s 8th year
590 BC – Zedekiah’s 7th year
591 BC – Zedekiah’s 6th year
592 BC – Zedekiah’s 5th year
593 BC – Zedekiah’s 4th year
594 BC – Zedekiah’s 3rd year
595 BC – Zedekiah’s 2nd year
596 BC – Zedekiah’s 1st year
597 BC – Jehoiakim’s 11th year Fits Nicely
598 BC – Jehoiakim’s 10th year
599 BC – Jehoiakim’s 9th year
600 BC – Jehoiakim’s 8th year
601 BC – Jehoiakim’s 7th year
602 BC – Jehoiakim’s 6th year
603 BC – Jehoiakim’s 5th year
604 BC – Jehoiakim’s 4th year Not according to Historians
605 BC – Jehoiakim’s 3rd year
606 BC – Jehoiakim’s 2nd year
607 BC – Jehoiakim’s 1st year

608 BC – No King at all!

609 BC – Josiah’s Last Year

This synchronism also does not fit the picture painted for us by historians. At the End of the day, the academics we trust so much are just pulling the wool over our eyes.

Refer to: James et.al. (1991, p.162) comments in relation to hypercritical treatment of the biblical narratives, and poor methodology. See also Miller & Hayes (1986, p.74) in relation to ‘attitudes’ of historians.

The King’s Calendar Position

Historians manipulate Nebu 1
In this chart you should firstly note the year 595. Within that solar year two artificial years commence, so in the Yellow Section on the right, the Solar Years for Nebuchadrezzar, one of those years is blank. Note that his reign is measured in both Artificial and Solar years. Note also Josiah’s last year is 607 with the artificial year commencing in December and running into 606. Note also that Jehoiakim and Zedekiah both reigned 11 artificial years.

Did Nebuchadrezzar Reign 42 or 43 years.

Appendix 6 on the Chapter Precis page provides some comments and two charts which will help you visualize the historical situation at this point. One of those charts is reproduced here the first part of which you have already seen.

It is important to realize here that there is absolutely no actual evidence to prove that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 years. It is an academic opinion provided to smooth away chronological problems.

The apologetics for that statement relate to the reign of Kandalanu which was also discussed in How long did King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon Reign? found on the old Kingscalendar Website.

How Many years did Nebuchadrezzar Reign

The ‘King’s Calendar’ insists that Nebuchadrezzar reigned Forty-Two (42) regnal years not forty-three (43) regnal years. In looking at the chart above it is important to remember that it’s purpose is to ‘synchronise’ the Biblical Data with Nebuchadrezzar’s reign, the most certain date for which is 562 BC, the year he died.

Also note that:

1. Jehoiachin’s Captivity is recorded in the Bible in artificial years not solar years.

2. Jehoiachin was not in prison for 37 solar years, but 35 solar years.

3. Academic chronologies use solar years, and thus, if Amel-Marduk’s accession year were 562 BC, Jehoiachin could not have been held in captivity for thirty-seven solar years.

4. Thiele [Thiele.E.R. (1966) The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: a reconstruction of the chronology of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Paternoster Press p.216 , Appendix ‘G’] bases his chronology on Ptolemy’s Canon and places Nebuchadrezzar’s reign between 604 BC and 562 BC. which is Forty-Two (42) Solar Years.

5. Thiele (1966, p.218, Appendix ‘H’), in relation to eclipses that establish the chronology of the ancient Near East, refers to an event in 568 BC as having occurred in Nebuchadrezzar’s 37th year. By Thiele’s standard this is actually his 36th Regnal year, not 37th year, unless Thiele includes the Accession year.

6. Wiseman [Wiseman.D.J. (1985) Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. The Schweich Lectures. Oxford University Press. p.36] also refers to an event recorded in Nebuchadrezzar’s astronomical diary for his 38th year, which by his standard must be 567 BC.

7. The accession and first year dates for Nebuchadrezzar provided in this chart are as they should be since 562 BC is recognised as Nebuchadrezzar’s last year.

8. The reigns of the Kings of Judah only synchronise with Nebuchadrezzar’s first regnal year when that 1st Regnal year commences in Nisan of 603 BC.

9. It should be remembered that the regnal years referred to in the columns relating to Wiseman and Thiele, have as their starting date, the First of Nisan, which occurs in March or April.

Article Summary

Academic opinion and guesswork play a huge part in the writing of history books and therefore one should be careful when reading what academics actually say. Presuming that someone meant something in particular is not the same as reading a definitive statement to the same effect.

Academics USE the Biblical narratives and chronologies to assist them with their theories but do so without any conviction in relation to the truth of what the Bible records.

It is hypocritical for academics to use one Scripture verse to support their theories and then outright reject or insist on modifying another verse which causes them problems.

The King’s Calendar uses a particular mathematical model and accepts as is, the chronological statements recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles. That synchronization demonstrates that the chronological material is 99% accurate and that 1% which is not is actually understandable within the context of history.

I hope you have enjoyed this article. The Synchronous chart of the Divided Kingdom can be found HERE on the old site.

Directly related Pages:

The Death of King Josiah
Chapter Precis Page:
Chapter Two : The Starting Point
Appendix 6 : Nebuchadrezzar’s 42 year Reign & Babylonian Chronicles
Appendix 2 : Research Proposal

KingsCalendar Bibliography
Academic Articles on the NEW KingsCalendar Website

The KingsCalendar The Secret of QumranR.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
History of Israel Articles on NEW KingsCalendar
Articles at iPatriot.com

Author of
The King’s Calendar : The Secret of Qumran
“Finding Myself in China: A Politically Incorrect Story”

Author: R.P. BenDedek

R.P. BenDedek was born in 1953 and grew up in Brisbane Australia. 2003 to 2017 he has been teaching in The People's Republic of China. Along with photographic stories from China he has been writing social and political commentaries since 2004. He was the temporary editor of Magic City Morning Star from 2009 - 2016 and currently has a column at iPatriot.com. He is the author of a chronological history of ancient Israel titled 'the King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' and author of 'Finding Myself in China: A Politically Incorrect Story.' He is divorced; has 5 children and 16 grandchildren. He is a 4th generation Australian from a racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse family. He has no time for Sociopathic Ideologues or Useful Idiots.

1 thought on “Historical Manipulation of the Bible”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *