Topic: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
R .P. BenDedek
Administrator
Forumposts: 80
Articles: 581
Comments: 58
What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 07/05/03 at 08:56:05 AEST
There are tons of opinions about the Essenes and the Dead Sea Sect, as well as countless ideas about their Calendar. So what makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Well, in many respects it is no different. It is just another opinion or Theory. The real difference is that THIS THEORY is based in a MATHEMATICAL LINK between a variety of ancient chronological sources.
It is in the ability to verify or falsify its' findings, that makes the 'King's Calendar' different.
I make no claim that what others have written concerning the chronological and calendrical systems of the Dead Sea Sect is incorrect. What I do say however, is that the mathematical link between the 364 day calendar, the 336 day calendar, and the chronologies of the Dead Sea Sect, Josephus and the Bible, is beyond coincidence. Statistically speaking, it is I think impossible to be anything other than deliberate design.
The challenge now is for academia to effectively demonstrate that the results are incorrect. ------------------------------------
I think it is all very interesting and gives people food for thought. I have never believed too much in the bible as such because to do so I need to believe in the unbelievable.
I think most people NEED a " theory " to believe in and if you can give some sort of proof that your theory is as good as another then maybe it is just one more that people can choose from.
-----------------
Lynx
Logged
R .P. BenDedek
Administrator
Forumposts: 80
Articles: 581
Comments: 58
Re: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 07/08/03 at 03:42:14 AEST
Thanks for your comments Lynx. The book is not actually about 'believing in God', but rather concentrates on the historical documents in the Bible. Up to now no-one has been able to work out the chronology of the Bible and so they gave up and said they were all mad.
What I have shown is that they were not mad, just devious. The interesting thing is that the 'King's Calendar' affects more than just the Bible, for it has specific relevance to other Ancient Nations as well.
I hope you enjoy reading it.
-----------------
R.P.BenDedek - Administrator.
Logged
Brian
Guest
Re: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 07/08/03 at 04:21:18 AEST
Everyone claims to have something new and everyone claims that they are right. What makes you so different?
Logged
Angler
Guest
Re: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 07/08/03 at 04:31:09 AEST
This is just what we need to get the minds chugging along. I hope it is taken seriously and stirs up plenty of debate. Good luck with it
Logged
R .P. BenDedek
Administrator
Forumposts: 80
Articles: 581
Comments: 58
Re: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 07/08/03 at 04:43:00 AEST
Thanks Angler!
When I first started discussing my discovery with academics, several blatantly laughed at me.
Professor D.J. Wiseman [ (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London, & (1985) Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. The Schweich Lectures. Oxford University Press ] warned me that every year 2 dozen CRACKPOTS claim to have solved the puzzle. I am indebted to his advice and hope that what I have written and the manner in which it is written will convince the hardest sceptic.
As for our friend Brian, I hope he takes a good look at it, especially Appendices 5 & 13, and sees for himself the possibilities this discovery has.
Best Wishes
-----------------
R.P.BenDedek - Administrator.
Logged
trevorpayne
Level 1
Forumposts: 7
Articles: 0
Comments: 12
Re: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 07/14/03 at 22:34:01 AEST
I have some questions for the Admin.
1. Does the calendar reveal who Nimrod could be. 2. How long does it indicate between the Flood and Abraham: birth of Isaac, giving of promise. etc 3. Could Nimrod be Sargon the Great of Akkad; the first one to really make a name for himself uniting lower Mesopotamia. Especially, as it is highly possible that his city of Agade is contained within the ruins of Babylon.[see Joan Oates: "Babylon" pg32] 4. The moving of Asshur [from Babylon?] to found Nineveh could be because of the "confusing of the languages", and the subsequent dividing of the people to go to their apportioned places.
-----------------
My generic signature...
Logged
R .P. BenDedek
Administrator
Forumposts: 80
Articles: 581
Comments: 58
Re: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 07/15/03 at 00:21:48 AEST
mmmmmmmmm????????? I'll need some time to think about these questions.... but keep an eye out I will answer them.
Thanks for your participation. Do any of the other members have any ideas on these issues???
-----------------
R.P.BenDedek - Administrator.
Logged
R .P. BenDedek
Administrator
Forumposts: 80
Articles: 581
Comments: 58
Re: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 07/15/03 at 06:15:21 AEST
ANSWERS FOR TREVOR CONCERNING THE FLOOD AND NIMROD.
Points 1 & 3 & 4. Re: Nimrod/Sargon/Akkad/Babel:
The ‘King’s Calendar’ can only relate Biblical Chronology to our concepts of the measurement of History Past. If you can link any person or event directly to a Biblical character perhaps I can provide an approximate Chronology.
2. The Flood and Abraham etc….. The ‘King’s Calendar’ converts the Biblical (artificial) Data into ‘real time’. This does not mean however, that the Biblical data (as handed down to us) for the flood event is correct. I shall endeavour to find some links to add to the ‘King’s Calendar’, which will give you some idea of the chronological problem surrounding the ‘flood event’, and this, totally separate from the scientific and theological arguments for and against the event itself.
Josephus’ material is contained in Chapter 20 of the ‘King’s Calendar’ and is not available ‘Free online’. The relevant dates are provided here however as they appear in Appendix 17 and in a Chart in Chapter 20 (the chart themselves don't copy over to this reply).
Antiquities 1:6:5 Abraham was born 292 ARTIFICIAL years after the flood. Josephus lists the ages of the patriarchs at the time of the birth of their sons, with the exception of Nahor for when Terah was born. The total time lapse is 873 years. Based on 292 years the following is the date of the flood:
1731 Flood 2184 or 2205 BCE if 292 yrs is Solar
1731 refers to the line number on the ‘King’s Calendar’ (used for making calculations) 2184 BCE is the year of the flood (if 292 years is ARTIFICIAL. There is no calculation based on the ages of Abraham’s ancestors (ie 873 years + Nahor).
Resultant dates become
1928 Founding of Jerusalem 1915 Birth of Abraham 1846 Promise to Abraham 1846 Abraham leaves Haran 1822 Birth of Isaac 1767 Birth of Jacob 1683 Birth of Joseph 1648 Sojourn commences 1633 Jacob dies 1582 Joseph dies 1554 Hyksos expelled from Egypt 1449 Exodus 1412 Entry into Canaan 1010 Reign of David 1004 Jerusalem captured by David 970 Solomon's Temple begins 586 Babylonian Exile 538 Cyrus 104 Aristobulus 70CE Titus destroys Temple
If you go to the trouble of providing me with chronological links between Biblical persons and events, and extra biblical persons and events, I will convert the chronological data for you.
Best Wishes.
-----------------
R.P.BenDedek - Administrator.
Logged
R .P. BenDedek
Administrator
Forumposts: 80
Articles: 581
Comments: 58
Re: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 07/16/03 at 10:58:44 AEST
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON NOAH AND THE FLOOD - REFER TO THE ARTICLES SECTION OF THE 'KING'S CALENDAR', TO "EXTRA FREE GLIMPSE"
-----------------
R.P.BenDedek - Administrator.
Logged
R .P. BenDedek
Administrator
Forumposts: 80
Articles: 581
Comments: 58
The King's Calendar' is UNCONVINCING
Posted on: 12/17/03 at 16:54:08 AEST
OR SO WROTE someone who wants his name removed IN AN EMAIL TO ME. {link removed}
When comparing texts, one should not mix literary genres. Plato's Republic cannot be looked upon in the same light as Machiavelli's The Prince (though many make this mistake). Plato's book was primarily concerned with ethics and metaphysics. The politics were used as an analogy. He explicity said within the book that his "ideal society" could never exist on earth. Machiavelli's book, on the other hand, was a primer of techniques (moral and immoral) to gain and wield political power.
Similarly, religious books are not the same as history books. As it turns out, the Old Testament is an extremely reliable source of history but it was not created for that purpose. The early church did not canonize them for that purpose. The writers did not write them for that purpose. To properly interpret any work, one must perceive the mind and intent of the writer. It would be unfair to place the criteria of our worldview (and its emphasis on dates) on these Old Testament writers when, clearly, their purpose was to record the actions of the kings of ancient Israel as they related to the Law Of Moses.
C.S. Lewis said in his book Experiment In Criticism, " The first demand any work of art makes of us is surrender. Look. Listen. Receive. Get yrouself out of the way. There is no good asking first whether the work before you deserves such a surrender, for until you have surrendered, you cannot possibly find out."
You claim to have found foulplay (though you offer no proof on your site) when all you may have discovered is a difference in perspectives. I admit that I haven't read every single page on your site but what I've read thus far is quite unconvincing.
MY REPLY TO HIS EMAIL
I take it from your tone that you have decided I am a 'Bible' knocker! In fact I demonstrate that the chronological material is thoroughly reliable.
As for unconvincing, if you know anything about Chronology, you will see from Appendix Chart 5, that I have now 'solved' so many of the alleged 'impossible impasses' in Biblical Chronological History.
There is no one in the world who doubts 'foulplay' as you put it (redactorial adjustment), and the fact that the records DO NOT FIT HISTORY demonstrates this. Your use of the word 'perspectives' is to my way of thinking a nice and Terribly 'inoffensive way' of saying, I don't want to believe that the bible is anything but perfect.
It was through FAITH and perseverance that I entered the journey of discovery, and it was by holding onto the belief that if the mundane things in Scripture could not be trusted, then neither could anything else, that I persevered so long.
You no doubt think I am either a crackpot or one of the ungodly. I'm neither. I'm a realist and my 'faith' is not shattered by challenge.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?????WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT?
-----------------
R.P.BenDedek - Administrator.
Logged
R .P. BenDedek
Administrator
Forumposts: 80
Articles: 581
Comments: 58
Re: What Makes the 'King's Calendar' Different?
Posted on: 12/16/05 at 05:42:16 AEST
Because of malicious and pornographic postings Comments are restricted to members.
R.P.BenDedek
To become a member, just go to the home page and join. The worst that can happen is that you will receive Newsletters (if you sign up for them).
Simca Jacobovici has an interesting film on the Exodus. He places it about 1500 around the eruption of the Santorini Super Volcano and can explain every miracle but one. His chronology is very close to your King's Calendar Date and separates the Isrealites from the Hyksos very nicely.
I've found a site called exodusdecoded.com that has some information on the presentation.
Jacobovici's basis is Archaeology and confirms the King's Calendar dating to within 50 years. All the more reason to trust the Dead Sea Scroll chronology.
Worth a Look at
Logged
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT?
