Biblical Archaeology: Evidence, Rules of Law, Expert Testimony, Eyewitness accounts, Manipulation of Evidence:The Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE is an important event in relation to the Chronology of the Ancient Near East.
The Law, Rules of Evidence and Archaeology Section
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.
Rules of Evidence and Archaeology Series
The four part Laws, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology - Battle of Qarqar 853 BCE listed with headers below, was transferred to the new Kingscalendar Website in 2017 and may be found here:
The Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE is an important event in relation to the Chronology of the Ancient Near East. Current academic placement of King Ahab of Israel at the Battle of Qarqar is based upon completely false foundations. Academics unjustifiably rely upon the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III and in the process contradict everything that they tell us to believe about Israel at this point in history. King Ahab of Israel died in 863 BCE, a decade prior to the Battle of Qarqar (853 BCE).
A Polemical rebuttal of Academic methodology in reconstructing the history of Israel, in relation to the Presence of King Ahab of Israel at 'The Battle of Qarqar' in 853 BCE. Academics use two 'Direct Documentary Evidences' to support King Ahab's presence at the Battle of Qarqar, but their testimonies conflict and thus they are unreliable evidence. But Even if they agreed, they could not legally be considered 'corroborative' evidence, as corroborative evidence must be independent evidence
In this article we will discuss circumstantial evidence that rebuts the testimony of the Kurkh Stela of Shalmaneser III in its' claim that Ahab was at the Battle. (Rules of Evidence and Archaeology: Direct Evidence: Circumstantial Evidence: Law and Regulations: Archaeology and Ancient History of Ancient Near East. All academic chronological reconstructions in relation to the Battle of Qarqar are based upon the presumption that the Bible stories in relation to Jehu, and the deaths of Kings are true, but if they are true and if the Battle of Qarqar occurred in the 23rd year of Jehoshaphat of Judah, and Jehoshaphat commenced reigning in the 4th year of Ahab, and he reigned 22 years and died in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, then King Ahab died 5 years before the battle of Qarqar. The Academic Arguement holds no water.
It is the right of the prosecution and defense to call into question the character of a witness. Since the evidence provided by the witness of Shalmaneser's Kurkh Stele has been shown to at best be 'erroneous' and at worse 'fabricated', it is justifiable to question the 'competency' of this witness (Shalmaneser) in providing testimony on a related matter. Traditional chronologies for Ahab, Ben-Hadad II and Hazael, have all depended on the Kurkh Stele, and the dating for the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE., and the Biblical Narratives, together with the Moabite Stone, and other circumstantial evidence, discredits the 'opinion' that Ahab was at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE and that he died soon thereafter. The same witness (Shalmaneser III) who provided the Documentary evidence to prove that Ben-Hadad II of Syria was present in two battles in 848 BCE and 845 BCE, has already been proven to have been either 'false' or 'inaccurate' in his documentary identification of another king.
Issues in Evidence: People and Events Parts 1-3 (This is a different series to the one above and is not yet on the New Site)
The first thing to note about Nebuchadrezzar, is that no one is certain whether he reigned 43 years or 42 years. The current preferred reading is 43 years, but this is based on a business text relating to his 43rd year, that standing alone, offers no clue as to whether these 43 years "include or exclude" his accession year. The Second thing to note about the length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign, is that the date he commenced his reign, depends on whether he destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BCE or 586 BCE. If one must move the date for Nebuchadrezzar's Burning of Solomon's Temple, from 587 BCE as is fashionably preached today, to 586 BCE., (the former date ascribed to this event), it causes problems in relation to the reigns of Kandalanu and Nabopolassar, Nebuchadrezzar's predecessors.
This is the second of a three part series of articles in relation to the lack of evidence offered by Academics for their chronologies of Ancient Israel. If you find an Academic who uses the Bible to justify any two events that are significantly separated by Biblical Time, you will find that no matter how they use the Bible to justify their claims, the tabulation of the Biblical chronological Data listed as having occurred between the said two events, will not usually match. Since 701 BCE is alleged by the Bible to be the 14th of Hezekiah's 29 years, the only way to make the Biblical Data fit history, is to make Manasseh co-reign with Hezekiah. In other words, the chronological data must be compressed
Those who put no trust at all in the Bible, have as much difficulty with this time period as those who do. The problem is two fold. Firstly, the Biblical Chronologies make no sense, and secondly, the Non Biblical Records don't provide as much detail as the Biblical Ones. Generally speaking, the history of the Ancient Near East at this time in history, is both known and understood. The problem is that when one attempts to make the Biblical Chronological Data and its Narrative (the story that goes with that data) 'fit' what we do know of this period of history, (as opposed to what we suppose), the necessary conclusion reached is that not only do the Biblical 'Synchronisms' fail, but that some of the chronological data is wrong and must be compressed (reduced).
But that there is a mystery is beyond doubt! Even if you don't believe in God there is still a mystery surrounding the chronological data found in the Bible, because the Ancients went to so much trouble to research and record that data. Simple Mathematics demonstrates quite easily that the deliberate synchronisms don't synchronize at all! Why is that? And why do secular academics even bother to quote Biblical chronology to justify their various theories. Can we really believe that the redactors (the people who collected all the records and put them together c.450 BC) were complete idiots and mathematically challenged? Surely Not! There is abundant evidence that they were meticulous in everything.
I would go so far as to say that even the certainties of the past are apt to be rewritten to suit political agendas. The worst of the revisionists are those who prefer to rewrite history to suit their own political ideologies. In "PC Mind Control and Rewriting History" I pointed out that there is quite a lot of historical revisionism taking place in the world today, especially as it relates to Israel and the Bible. Discounting deliberate propaganda, people do have personal opinions and viewpoints which are reflected in the content of what they speak or write. The job of archaeologists and historians, is to sift through the hyperbole, and get as close to the facts of history as possible.
As stated by Professor Wiseman in his writings, the records we have of Nebuchadrezzar are quite incomplete. In fact, the actual length of Nebuchadrezzar's reign is determined by a fragment of a business document which refers to the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar. The Stated aim of this article is to challenge many false academic assumptions which have been accepted by the general community as academic fact. In short, this article strives to demonstrate where the Academics got it wrong! Miller and Hayes (1986, p.74) 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.
Antediluvian First Calendar provides an overview that connects the Mayan calendar with the earliest Bible calendar -- the Antediluvian Patriarchs. Ancient calendars in the Holy Bible had lunar/solar calendar origins. The work at http://www.timeemits.com develops tools from the three oldest known lunar/solar calendars: Jewish, Mayan and Egyptian. Chapter 5 in Genesis lists the ages of the Antediluvian Patriarchs. The "begat" family of Adam measured time with a lunar/solar calendar similar to the Mayan calendar.
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]