In February 2016 The King's Calendar Website was given a new look and you can see the new site HERE. The King's Calendar Writers Journal has a new FRONTPAGE which can be viewed HERE
The New Kingscalendar has access to Various Social Media
Years ago we had to disable comments at kingscalendar because of all the pornographic spam. Today spam filters keep out the unwanted people and allow the rest to make comments, to post to Facebook, Twitter and other social media.
Bible & History & Theology Newsletters
This is a very old section of the old Kingscalendar Website. Newsletters went defunct many years ago. Those newsletters were turned into short articles and the following is a list of those articles.
Could the Pharaoh of the Exodus have been the Grandvisier Rekhmire? Attention was drawn to some particular points in relation to the records found in the Bible, in Josephus, and in Egyptian history, that might support the posit that Rekhmire was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. According to the King's Calendar Reconstruction of Israelite History, the 18th Dynasty Pharaoh Amenhotep II, was the Pharaoh of Egypt at the time of the Exodus. By the measure of Petrie's chronology, for the Exodus to have occurred in 1449 BCE, it would have taken place during Amenhotep II's co-regency during the last two years of the reign of Thothmes III
734 BCE - 586 BCE : Unlike the 4 part series: "The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology" this article does not focus on legal argument, but highlights the weaknesses in Academic Opinion (and therefore 'weaknesses in Law'), in relation to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; King Hezekiah of Judah, and the Syro-Ephraimitic War 734-732 BCE
These are not necesssarily easy articles to read as they are written from a legal perspective. Some have argued that the laws that apply to evidence in a 'criminal proceeding' are more strict than those applied to civil cases, and that 'criminal investigation proceedures' ought not to be applied to archaeological and historical evidence. However it can be argued that when presenting something as 'evidence of solid fact', that the strictest guidelines ought to be applied. As is argued throughout these articles, offering opinions and making assumptions is fine, as long as they are stated to be so rather than specifically stating or implying that they are facts
Newsletter No.20 Is the Bible God Inspired or just the History of Israel? By R.P. BenDedek
My personal opinion is that if G-d did have such a powerful, lasting and personal hand in 'each and every word' recorded in the Bible, then he is fairly incompetent at delivering his message with clarity. This does not mean however that I absolutely 'reject' the concept of Divine Biblical inspiration. I fully accept that the Biblical documents are a true historical record of Israel's national and religious history.
Addressing two small but connected issues in relation to the Biblical Exodus from Egypt: The Hyksos - and - Pharaoh Rameses II: When you calculate the total of reigns to Rameses (which are provided in both year and months of reigns), there expires a total of 254 years
The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts was accomplished in the 3rd Century BCE. While there are some textual differences that derive from the translation process from one language and culture form to another, the major difference is to be found in the chronological 'errors'. For example, According to the authorised version, 1 King's 6:1, tells us that Solomon's 4th year is the 480th year since the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt. The Septuagint however tells us that it is the 440 th. Year. It is worth noting that while both synchronise their chronologies with Solomon's 4th year, the Septuagint does not exactly read the same as the Received Text (Masorete – Authorised Version)
According to the Biblical Record, for Five or Six years prior to Ahab's death, he held the superior hand in military affairs in his region. This is at odds with the Kurkh Stele's reference to BenHadad being the leader of the coalition, if one accepts that Ahab was in fact a part of that coalition. Given that Academics put his death immediately after Qarqar in 853 BCE, Ahab must surely have been BenHadad's superior as the Bible indicates and which would in fact be indicated by the Kurkh Stele's reference to the size of Ahab's Chariot force. While the Academics deny the accuracy of this reference to the strength of his forces, they do accept as reliable that BenHadad was the leader, and continue to maintain that Ahab was a part of the Coalition.
Biblical chronology is so unreliable in the eyes of secular and religious academics that were it not for the lack of other records, they would not rely on the Bible at all. From Solomon's death until 842/841 BCE, there are only Three 'Other' references to events in Israel. These are: Pharaoh 'Shishak's' invasion shortly after Solomon's death; The battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE in Which one of two 'almost identical' archaeological records lists King Ahab as a member of the coalition against the Assyrians; and the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser which identifies Jehu as the King of Israel who paid tribute to him in 841 BCE
Jeremiah 52:12 records that this event occurred on the 10th day of the 5th month of that year, and 2 Kings 25:8 records that it occurred on the 7th day of the 5th month. These are in fact two different chronological perspectives, the one being artificial and the other being the Babylonian. This is but one example of apparently contradictory scriptural references
Josephus' figure of 947 years elapsing between the exodus and the fall of samaria in 722 BCE is written off by everyone as a complete fantasy, for it would require that the exodus occurred in 1669 BCE. While the reference is wrong, it is not fanciful. From his original source quoting a time span of 1062.5 years between the Exodus and the Babylonian Exile, and which he believed to be recorded in True Solar years, Josephus erroneously deducted 115 solar years (701 - 586 BCE), instead of 136 years (722 - 586 BCE), resulting in a 947 year calculation for the period 'Exodus to Fall of Samaria', instead of 914.5 years
An Apparent Bible Contradiction is Jeremiah 32:1 which records that that Jerusalem fell in the 10th year of Zedekiah which was the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar. But 2 Kings 25:8 records that Jerusalem fell in the 11th year of Zedekiah which is the 19th year of Nebuchadrezzar. How can they both be right? Jerusalem did in fact fall in accordance with both of these Scriptural References as can be seen in Appendix 5 Chart. The references refer to different ways of recording time.
The significance of the 'King's Calendar' determination of 606 BCE for Josiah's death, is that from this chronological perspective, Josiah's death and the subsequent events of the following months, can be seen to synchronise with the recorded events in the Babylonian Chronicles for Nabopolassar's 19th year. In July/August of Nabopolassar's 19th year (606 BCE as per King's Calendar), Nebuchadrezzar was in Carchemish and returned to Babylon a month later (August/September). This then appears to be the time in which Necho was on his way to Carchemish, and Josiah was killed. Upon Josiah's death, Jehoahaz his son took the throne, but three months later was removed by Necho, who put Jehoiakim on the throne. According to the Babylonian Chronicles, (BM 22047- Line 12 /13), in Tishri (Sept/Oct) of that year, Nabopolassar mustered his army and traveled to Kimuhu to meet the renewed threat of Egyptian attack down the Euphrates Valley. He captured Kimuhu in Kislev (Nov/Dec). 606 BCE provides a solid foundation for a synchronisation with the record within the Babylonian Chronicles.
Current academic opinion puts Josiah's death in 609 BCE. There are four (4) reasons. The first is that if you calculate the reigns for Manesseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, there are 110 years allotted them, which, if calculated back from the fall of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE, requires that Manesseh commenced to reign in 696/695 BCE and that Josiah died in 609/608 BCE. In relying upon Biblical Chronological details for this period, academics do two extraordinary things. Firstly, they uncharacteristically treat the data as though it were correct, and this, despite the fact that they blatantly and 'justifiably' deny the reliability of all the chronological data for the preceding fifty (50) years, - and - Secondly, to make the data fit, they insist that a two year old child (Manesseh) was made to co-reign with his father (Hezekiah)
Starting with Jotham, we will trace the chronological order of events, and along the way, point out what is true and false in the Biblical chronoloical record. Some people have dated Jotham's governorship to the year 750 BCE, based upon references by Josephus to an earthquake at that time. The 'King's Calendar' commences his governorship in October of 749 BCE. This is the 46th year of his Father Uzziah and the 7th year of Menehem. In his 5th Artificial year commencing in July of 745 BCE, the son of Menehem of Israel commences to reign. Pekahiah commenced to reign in the 50th year of Uzziah, and reigned two years (2 Kings 15:23). In Uzziah's 52nd and last year (7th year of Jotham's governorship), Pekah killed Pekahiah and began to reign for twenty years
There are at least five issues in relation to Manasseh that are problematical for Historians. 1. How to place his reign chronologically - 2. The contradictory Biblical Descriptions of his Character - 3. The description of his treatment - 4. The location of his captivity - Babylon or Ninevah - 5. The chronological circumstances of his captivity and release
Although Josephus did in fact provide erroneous references, the 'King's Calendar' is able to demonstrate that there is in fact a 'logical' basis for the figures he quotes. His figures are not really erroneous, it was his understanding of the application of those figures that lead him into incorrect conclusions, and he is not the only one whose application of little understood data, leads him into wrong conclusions. ALL Biblical Chronologists, historians and archaeologists do the same thing
Jeremiah's prophecy initially refers to the captives sent to Babylon in 604/603 BCE. 2 Chronicles 36:21 however, indicates that the people taken captive in 586 BCE at the time of the destruction of the temple was in accordance with and to fulfill Jeremiah's Prophecy, and that these seventy years were ordained because the land had not received its Sabbath year rests. This inherently implies two things. 1. That Jeremiah's prophecy was given in relation to the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE (not the 603 BCE captivity nor the 596 BCE overthrow of Jehoiachin) and 2. That there had been a period of 490 years during which the 'Sabbath Rest' of the land had not been complied with.. The implications of 2 Chronicles 36:21 are problematical.
No matter what someone might like to assert or claim, there is absolutely no evidence currently in existence, nor likely to be forthcoming, that can demonstrate that the chronology offered by the 'King's Calendar' is impossible, untenable or contrary to the 'evidence'. It has equal merit with any currently suggested construction of Israelite History, with one excelling exception. It can demonstrate itself mathematically. There is only one possible justification for rejecting the 'King's Calendar' Chronology, and that would be to demonstrate that its computer generated mathematical foundation is erroneous in that its determination at some point of history can be proven to be incorrect
Newsletter No.5 Ancient Egypt. The Hyksos, 18th Dynasty, Rameses II By R.P. BenDedek
Few people appreciate the numerous difficulties involved in determining an 'accurate' history of Egypt, and that history is still under challenge with regard to the currently accepted placements of Egyptian Dynasties. For instance, Merenptah's 'Israel Stele', if it is to be believed, records a victory over the 'nation' of Israel, centuries before Israel was a 'nation'. Rohl and James et. al. have been working on providing a more reliable chronology, with James et.al. suggesting that Merenptah's dynasty ought to be shifted to the Eleventh century BCE
Newsletter No.4 Academic Disagreements : Opinions and Assumptions By R.P. BenDedek
The 'King's Calendar', which deals with CHRONOLOGY (not history) is the only proposition which synchronizes all the Biblical chronological references, and for this period of history, it did something which no one else has ever attempted. Instead of insisting that the chronological data was wrong, it maintained that the Name/Identification of certain Jewish kings was wrong. Of the four kings of Judah that reigned during this period, THREE were known to have reigned under names OTHER THAN their real names
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'. 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 sited 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
Opinions, Assumptions and Presumptions are not facts in relation to evidence. Whilst the 'King's Calendar' is a 'theory', it is in fact 'a scientific theory' and can therefore be subjected to scientific testing, under which, should it fail, it would be proven beyond doubt to be false. Too often we just accept what 'The Professionals' tell us, without ever forcing them to make a clear distinction between 'proof' and 'opinion'
Newsletter No.1 Religious Compartmentalisation - Psychological Dysfunction By R.P. BenDedek
Many folk wonder why it is that their children have turned from their religious traditions to new or exotic forms of religious observance, and it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that this is because our materialistic, logical, and science driven society, has robbed us of the inner emotional stability which comes through 'trusting in a higher power'. What facinates me, is that many 'fundamentalists', while publicly preaching the Bible to be the Word of God, will, when confronted by the anomolous situation between the chronological facts of history and the chronological record of the Bible, maintain that biblical chronology is not important, saying "we don't feel that the historical information is important"
Since 2004 he has been writing academic articles, social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both here at KingsCalendar, and formerly as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News (Maine USA) where from 2009 to 2015 he was Stand-in Editor. He currently has a column at iPatriot.com and teaches English to Business English and Flight Attendant College Students in Suzhou City Jiangsu Province People's Republic of China.)
BenDedek originally created the site 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. Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
(The Download book does not contain a section on Seder Olam)
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 5. to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]