When we read that some expert says this or that, we are naturally inclined to accept that they know what they are talking about, but in reference to the two cases cited above, the 'fact' of the matter is, that neither religious nor secular academics have ever 'proved' their theories to be correct, and the 'fact' that these points in history are constantly being challenged, examined and argued over, demonstrates clearly enough, that the 'chronological' aspect at the very least, has not yet been satisfied beyond everyone's doubt. - "A powerful theory is one that is highly vulnerable to falsification, and so can be tested in many detailed and specific ways".(Davies. P. [1992 The Mind of G-d. New York. Simon and Schuster. p.25]) The 'King's Calendar' claim that the Biblical Chronological Data is recorded in years of 336 day years, can be demonstrated, by synchronizing all the synchronous material and seeing if it fits into the known history for this period. No one else has ever been able to do it, AND THAT IS A FACT.
KingsCalendar Academic Newsletter No.3 Archaeology and the Bible
In the last newsletter I wrote about Academic opinions and arrogance, and made the statement that academics can refuse to examine an objection to some matter because their noses are out of joint. I also talked about their 'sometimes' failure to draw a clear distinction between 'Opinion' and 'Fact'. (The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Series)
In this issue I want to talk about this issue of 'Opinion versus Fact'.
Academic Opinion Vs. Academic Fact.
In the first Issue I made mention of the Battle of Qarqar and the erroneous opinion that Ahab was party to that Battle; and in the second issue, I made mention of 2 King's 15:30 which refers to the twentieth year of Jotham's reign, but which is rejected by everyone as erroneous.
When we read that some expert says this or that, we are naturally inclined to accept that they know what they are talking about, but in reference to the two cases cited above, the 'fact' of the matter is, that neither religious nor secular academics have ever 'proved' their theories to be correct, and the 'fact' that these points in history are constantly being challenged, examined and argued over, demonstrates clearly enough, that the 'chronological' aspect at the very least, has not yet been satisfied beyond everyone's doubt. [At this point, take note that between Ahab's death (c.853BCE current academic opinion) and the death of Menehem (in Uzziah's 39th year), 123 years elapse. If Ahab died c.853BCE, then Menehem died c.730 BCE. We will come back to this.]
'But what about the evidence?' you ask. Well what about it? The only people in antiquity to have recorded their history in any fashion similar to ourselves (sequentially and synchronously), were the Israelites, but the record that they left is excessive of what is known to have existed for the divided kingdom of Israel (From Solomon's death until Samaria fell in 722BCE).
Every time you see or hear an historian or archaeologist quote chronological material from the Bible, they are 'pulling your chain'. They manipulate your trust in the Bible and direct it toward 'themselves'. You see, THEY not only cannot fit the Biblical chronological data into known history, but as it is currently perceived, it does not in fact, fit into known history. The true history of the Jews was concealed in an artificial calendar, which transformed twelve real years into thirteen artificial years, and thereby lengthened history.
So while in one place they will quote Scripture to back up what they say, in another place, they will simply dismiss what the Bible says, and adjust the figures to suit themselves. The 'King's Calendar' does not do this. It accepts the Biblical Chronological figures as they are, but gives each year a value of 336 days instead of 365 days.
This of course might be considered to be idiotic, but to quote Davies. P. [1992 The Mind of G-d. New York. Simon and Schuster. p.25] ' A powerful theory is one that is highly vulnerable to falsification, and so can be tested in many detailed and specific ways'. The 'King's Calendar' claim that the Biblical Chronological Data is recorded in years of 336 day years, can be demonstrated, by synchronizing all the synchronous material and seeing if it fits into the known history for this period. No one else has ever been able to do it, AND THAT IS A FACT.
So when academics talk about Biblical Times in a 'factual' manner, in fact they are really only giving you their opinion, and some of it is extremely highly qualified. Their opinions are worth hearing, and deliberating upon, and examining, but never be misled into believing that they are speaking 'factually'.
Now take for example the matter of King Uzziah's son Jotham. The Bible makes it plain that he reigned as governor for his father after his father fell ill, and no one knows when the event occurred, except for Josephus' mention of an earthquake around that time. The Bible says that Jotham reigned sixteen years, but most academics will make his reign disappear as a co-regency, because it is the only way they know how to fit his reign into all of the other chronological data.
The fact of the matter is, that between 750BCE and 701 BCE (Hezekiah's fourteenth year) when Sennacherib invaded Judah, everything recorded in the Bible 'appears' to be topsy turvy, and no one has yet been able to figure it all out.
Currently historians require Menehem of Israel to be alive in either 743 BCE or 738BCE (depending on which historian you follow), and his last year according to the bible was the 49th of the 52 years that Uzziah reigned. (Refer: The Syro-Ephraimitic War : 734 BCE to 732 BCE.)
Therefore until 701 BCE which is Hezekiah's 14th year, 49 years must pass; being the three years left to Uzziah, the sixteen year reign of Jotham, the sixteen year reign of Ahaz and Hezekiah's fourteen years.
Therefore, Menehem (if we follow ordinary solar years) must have died in 750 BCE (not 730BCE as mentioned previously),
but this is an impossibility from an historical point of view because he could not have had dealings with Tiglath-Pileser III, because he did not take the throne of Assyria until 745 BCE.
So there is a problem.
Everyone makes guesses, they opinion, and they presume, but they don't actually know how it all fits together, and to this day they continue to argue over this and that in an effort to marry all the chronological and historical data. And should you check the lengths of the reigns that they assign to the various kings of this period, you will see that they don't agree with what the Bible says, let alone each other, but they will still use the Biblical quotes to prove that they are right.
At the end of the day, they are not offering 'facts', just 'learned opinion', and as far as that is concerned, they are even still arguing over when the various dynasties of Egypt ruled, disagreeing with each other by up to 200 years, and caught up in that disagreement, is the whole question of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt under Moses.
In the final analysis, despite what they appear to say, the boys in the 'know', don't actually 'KNOW'; they are still trying to work it all out.
The 'King's Calendar' on the other hand, relying totally on the CHRONOLOGICAL information provided in the Bible, has been able to demonstrate that it is correct, and that apart from some small disagreements with CURRENT OPINION, demonstrates that the history recorded within it, neatly fits within (broadly speaking) the understanding of Ancient Near Eastern History.
Copyright 2013 is held by the nominated authors on this article page.
About the KingsCalendar Publisher
R.P.BenDedek is the owner and Editor of KingsCalendar.com which was originally set up to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran'.
Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air Academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
During the current economic downturn, this book has been dramatically reduced in price but will eventually rise as the economy improves.
Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
R.P. BenDedek writes social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News in Maine USA.
He has been teaching English to Chinese Students in China since 2003 and currently (2013) is teaching in Suzhou City Jiangsu Province.
Definition: King's Calendar Chronological Research
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix Five to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
General formula for Biblical Data conversion:
The formula for constructing the artificial calendar was:
'X' times 364 equals 'Y' days'Y' days divided by 336 equals 'Z' artificial years.Values are:'X' = any given number of 'real/solar' years364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar'Y' = number of days calculated336 = number of days in an artificial year'Z' = artificial years = 1.083'X' and represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.To reverse the process by hand:'Z' years times 336 equals 'Y' divided by 364 equals the Number of 'X' years converted.
To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5:Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE:
The Principle of Linear Causality
The King's Calendar is a very simple approach to Biblical Chronology. It substitutes a value of 336 days for every year listed in Scripture. As far as the Divided Kingdom is concerned, when you use this 336 day year value, the synchronisms actually work. To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
Because it is a mathematical system, the King's Calendar must abide by certain mathematical rules, the most important of which, is that if you change any date for any day, month, or year every other day, month, or year is effected and must also change. It's like a 'domino effect'. Chronological references cannot be 'forced' to fit, and nor can they simply be ignored or 'compressed' as is the usual case with historians and archaeologists.
If any King's Calendar chronological determination disagrees with anything in the history books, it must argue the case as to why the history books are wrong, or why the evidence for an assertion is untrustworthy. If the King's Calendar successfully defends its' position, then the history books cannot be treated as definitive, and if the King's Calendar is 'proven' wrong, then every other chronological reference it provides is also wrong.
Because of this, the King's Calendar Chronological Reconstruction of Israel's history is unique, in that its' methodology can be scientifically (mathematically) tested and demonstrated to be either true or false. Its' chronological predictions are able to be 'proved' or 'disproved'.
The Download book does not contain a section on Seder Olam
Part 1. The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 2. The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 3. The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 4. The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology
