Srecko Sostar

There is a portion you have skipped between these these two paragraphs above, and it looks like a recap of the proof of Babylonian dominion over many nations around them (just as Jeremiah 25 spoke of). In Jeremiah the 70 years are not for Judea and Jerusalem, but they are 70 years for Babylon. In this recap, Josephus says that the initial desolation (overpowering and taking of captives) had already begun under the rule Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar. Immediately following the sentence about the 70 years:
He then says, "That this Babylonian king conquered Egypt, and Syria, and Phoenicia, and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon and Chaldea." A little after which Berosus subjoins what follows in his History of Ancient Times. I will set down Berosus's own accounts, which are these: "When Nabolassar, father of Nabuchodonosor, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and over the parts of Celesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer; but committing certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then but young, he sent him against the rebel: Nabuchodonosor joined battle with him, and conquered him, and reduced the country under his dominion again. Now it so fell out that his father Nabolassar fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him.
So he is referring to the year 605, and perhaps even a campaign that started in 606. Josephus also mentions that the temple lay desolate for 50 years until the 2nd year of Cyrus which was 537. That places the actual destruction of the temple itself in 587 BCE. But he apparently thinks of the 70 years from about 606 to about 539 (or possibly even 607 to 537). 
Josephus wrote his first history book much earlier, and at that time seemed to think that the temple had been destroyed 70 years before Cyrus, and this is the easier, more common-sense reading of 2 Chronicles, and a possible way to read Jeremiah and Daniel (but not Zechariah). But this time he doesn't actually say the temple was desolate for 70 years, but that it was desolate 'during the 70 years.' And then he specifically speaks of the Temple as "desolate" for 50 years up until Cyrus. That would fit nicely with Zechariah's mention of the 70 years of the Temple itself nearly 20 years after Cyrus. 
(Zechariah 1:12-16) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”  . . . ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “I am zealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great zeal.  . . . “Therefore this is what Jehovah says: ‘“I will return to Jerusalem with mercy, and my own house will be built in her,” declares Jehovah of armies, “and a measuring line will be stretched out over Jerusalem.”’
 
And, nearly 20 years AFTER Cyrus, we also see that the lamentations related to Jerusalem's destruction have now been going on for 70 years:
(Zechariah 7:2-6) . . ., men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?” . . . ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?  And when you would eat and drink, were you not eating for yourselves and drinking for yourselves? 
The Insight book admits that these 5th month and 7th month wailings were for the anniversaries of the final destruction of the Temple and assassination of Gedaliah. There had been 70 years of such wailing now that it was nearly 20 years after Cyrus.
(Zechariah 8:18, 19) . . .The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying:  “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah—festivals of rejoicing. So love truth and peace.. . .
 
*** it-1 p. 812 Fast ***
The Jews established many fasts, and at one time had four annual ones, evidently to mark the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (Zec 8:19) The four annual fasts were: (1) “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) (3) “The fast of the seventh month” was apparently held as a sad remembrance of Gedaliah’s death or of the complete desolation of the land following Gedaliah’s assassination when the remaining Jews, out of fear of the Babylonians, went down into Egypt. (2Ki 25:22-26) (4) “The fast of the tenth month” may have been associated with the exiled Jews already in Babylon receiving the sad news that Jerusalem had fallen (compare Eze 33:21), or it may have commemorated the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar’s successful siege against Jerusalem on the tenth day of that month . . .
 
So assuming 539 is right (and I assume it is) then the Bible chronology supports secular chronology, although Bible chronology contradicts WTS chronology here in Zechariah.

I have to shake my head when I hear a jw say, 'we don't shun family members'.

@xero, You probably noticed by clicking on the Stellarium date/time settings that you can quickly change the view one hour at a time, or one day, or one month, or even one year at a time. In doing this you can quickly see that the moon traverses over nearly the same path from month to month, and therefore readings from one year will seem to recur a few months later and you can often find pretty much the same positions of stars and moon every few years. So it's not surprising that some readings for 588 will also be found in 584 and 580 and 578 and 562 etc., etc. That problem cuts both ways.
That's why lunar readings are not the best test for the kind of comparison being done here. They will not likely appear all that definitive even when the readings fit 568 so much better than 588. 
But some of the planetary observations do not repeat for hundreds of years at a time. That makes them much more reliable for this type of comparison between two proposed years.
So it occurred to me that I don't have the same reason Furuli did to skip the more reliable planetary observations just so that he could focus on the more flexible lunar observations. 
The Watchtower followed Furuli's trick by summarily dismissing the more reliable planetary positions like this:  
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
In addition to the aforementioned eclipse, there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. . . . Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956.
It is actually very obvious why Furuli chose to dismiss the more reliable observations, and call them less reliable. But I won't cherry-pick observations and will go back and include ones that Furuli (and therefore the Watchtower) skipped.
So the next one for me will actually go back to Line 2 that was skipped:
Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of the 3rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [….]

Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of the 3rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [….] So, this is (according to Furuli) May 2, 588 BCE, for the 1st of the month, and therefore May 3rd, 588 for the 2nd of the month. Saturn is in the same position on both days so it won't matter which. Here is the Swallow which is only visible just before sunrise, and isn't above the horizon to see in the evening.
Looking East at just before sunrise there are two planets around the Swallow, but one is Venus and the other is Mercury. Saturn is not in the sky, and won't be visible until long after the Swallow is gone.
Then we check 568 and see the picture in the second image below. This time both Saturn and the Swallow are in the picture. And Saturn is in front of it, rising above the horizon before the Swallow. A clear win for 568. A clear loss for 588.
This position repeats about every 30 years. -626/-625, -596/-595, -567/-566, -538/-537, etc. 

I just figured out why i was getting nearly the same reading every 30 years for Saturn. I just asked Google how long it takes Saturn to orbit the sun:
 
Saturn takes 29.4 Earth years to orbit the sun. This is equivalent to 10,759 Earth days or an average orbital speed of 9.68 kilometers per second. 
Isn't astronomy fun???

…

….

….. and on a related note:

Nice dodge, but I'll repeat: You rely too much on the Babylonian Chronicles which happen to still be missing for the later years of Nebuchadnezzar, including Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. But I have no reason to doubt the Bible when it associates the destruction of the Temple with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. My admission that it is still missing carries no weight at all. But the Bible carries weight with me. I thought it should be the same for you.
And by the way,  don't know if you noticed this, but you just associated 598 with the event the Babylonian Chronicles called Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 8th year must have been 597. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 9th year must have been 596. If his 9th year was 596 then his 19th was 586. 
So you just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 586. So what year was this?
(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.  He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem;. . .
You admit it's 586 BCE, but then you clam up or dodge the question and divert to another subject whenever someone asks you about it.
 
Edited to add: Even your own sock puppet is laughing at you.

I'm not sure if this counts as shade, but here is the expert that the Watchtower used as an authority in the article below:
*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
11. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3.
*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47.
This same expert referenced by the Watchtower as an authority actually wrote a review of Furuli's book: 
Hermann Hunger. Rolf J. Furuli, Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology. 376 pp., with numerous photos and tables. Oslo, Awatu Publishers, 22008. $ 89,00.
The other editors of AfO agree with me that the incredible collection of errors, half-truths and suspicions contained in this book must not remain uncommented. However, since it does not add to knowledge but just creates confusion, we do not want to waste our readers' patience nor the space of our journal to print a detailed review here. Such a review is available on the internet at: http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewHunger.htm; and I am ready to send it electronically to anyone who requests it.
There is only one item from my review which I want to print here because, in my opinion, it may concern the founder of this journal.  
 On p. 290f., we read: "VAT 4956 ... came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin in 1906 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for 'year 37' and 'year 38.' The first line with the name of the king was also manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces, which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding machine was used to try to remedy this."
And on p. 333: "VAT 4956 ... may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in modern time; the obverse side was made by the help of a mold, and the signs on the reverse side and the edges were written by someone."
This accuses an unnamed person of criminal acts: this person at least "has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs," but may even have faked half of tablet. Since the tablet reached the Vorderasiatische Museum in 1906 and was published in 1915 in the condition reflected by the photo in the Museum's archives, the accusation concerns any people working there at this time, including e.g. Ernst Weidner. In defence of him and all others possibly involved, I state that the accusation is utterly groundless, and I express my disgust of an author whose "openmindedness" leads him to such accusations.
Wien. Hermann Hunger.
 
Review Reviewed Work(s): Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology by Rolf J. Furuli Review by: Hermann Hunger Source: Archiv für Orientforschung, 2011, Bd. 52 (2011), pp. 384-385 Published by: Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO)/Institut für Orientalistik Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24595175

To find Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year if you only knew that his 37th year was 568, you would KNOW that his 18th year was 587 BCE. The only reason that Furuli proposed that VAT 4956  was 20 years earlier 588 was so that his 18th year would be 607, also 20 years earler than 587. So it's a circular argument above. And it has nothing to do with "cycles." 
Here is a very similar circular argument I actually heard at a mid-week Book Study several years ago.
Question: "How do we know that 1914 is the year Christ's presence began." Answer: "Because if you count forward 2,520 years from 607 you get 1914." Another hand goes up.
Answer: "Not only that, but if you count backwards 2,520 years from 1914 you get 607." The conductor nodded agreeably and said, that's right, that's another way to prove it. 
 

You'd think so, right? But originally Armageddon was going to end in 1914. When it no longer looked like that was going to happen on time, that "end" was later pushed to 1915. But that's why I said 1914 is "part of Armageddon." You should read "The Battle of Armageddon" which was also called "The Day of Vengeance" by C.T.Russell. I'm sure you can find the pieces and put it together yourself.
". . . the Day of Vengeance ... will end in October, 1914" -- The Battle of Armageddon / The Day of Vengeance, page 547. "Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word." The Time Is At Hand, page 101. And the Time is at Hand, on page 99, says:
...

Note to self: One more move of the goal posts should be expected.

You keep implying that the 1914 doctrine is there to prove that the GT, Big A had begun then, and God's Kingdom has already been "established" -- that the doctrine claims all this has already occurred. 
Originally, the doctrine was there to prove that 1914 was part of Armageddon and the start of the Great Tribulation. But that part was dropped many years ago.
<bloviation> ** begins
However, I'll give you the part of about God's Kingdom:
*** w22 July p. 3 The Kingdom Is in Place! ***
. . . a prophecy that helps us discern when the Kingdom was established, . . . Read Daniel 4:10-17. The “seven times” represent a period of 2,520 years. That time period began in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonians removed the last king from Jehovah’s throne in Jerusalem. It ended in 1914 C.E. when Jehovah enthroned Jesus—“the one who has the legal right”—as King of God’s Kingdom.—Ezek. 21:25-27.
Even here, the Watchtower plays with some nuanced semantics between the expression "established" and "fully established." There is even a sense given that the old Russellites were wrong for believing that the kingdom would be "fully established' in 1914, although it's a bit ambiguous as to whether they were right or not:
*** w84 4/15 p. 3 1914—A Focal Point ***
The March 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence described two events of earthshaking importance that were looked forward to as due to happen in 1914: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.” Hence, many Bible Students expected God’s Kingdom to be fully established in that year.

*** w84 12/1 p. 16 par. 7 Keep Ready! ***
Thus, although he would be ‘present’ and his Kingdom would already have been established, both he and his Kingdom would still have to “come” 
 
 Up until about 1975, the Watchtower always made the bold claim that the Kingdom had already been "fully established." It was about then, that the phrase was only used ambiguously, which I remember once caused a minor problem in the translation departments when they were translating a booklet. I think it was called "One World, One Government Under God's Kingdom," or something like that. The publications started saying "established" in 1914 but only "fully established" when the new heavens and new earth were here, and that became the explanation for the "Lord's prayer" question that came up fairly often: "Should we still pray for God's kingdom to come since it came in 1914?" 
That issue was sort of resolved in the awkward wording of a new song that came out in 2014:
*** sjj song 22 The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come! ***
The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come!
BTW, I couldn't find the wording of that particular 1975 booklet in the Watchtower Library, but I found something quite similar which shows the kind of verb tense ambiguity they were going for. It's similar to the 1984 quote above:
*** w70 10/15 p. 629 par. 17 The Kingdom of Salvation Available Today ***
Former kings, emperors, presidents, governors and dictators on being resurrected may not expect to take over automatically and resume ruling over their onetime subjects or fellow citizens. The old system of things under the Satanic “god of this system of things” is no longer in operation. God’s new system of things under his Messianic kingdom of the heavens is fully established over all the earth. Of necessity, it will have organization of all those on earth . . . 
Note that it looks like (1970) the Watchtower was still saying it was already "fully established" but it's couched in a discussion of the near future, because the previous sentence says: "The old system of things . . . is no longer in operation." 
In previous decades, it was just claimed outright that it was already "fully established" in 1914:
*** w60 1/1 p. 29 par. 9 Part 29—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” ***
. . . In that year [1914] the kingdom of God was to be fully established in the heavens to see that His will should be done on earth. 
*** w51 10/1 p. 583 “Happy Are the Eyes That Behold” ***
Our eyes are far more blessed than even theirs, because we can see by the fulfillment of Bible prophecy that Jehovah’s royal government by his Christ is now fully established
</bloviation> ** ends

Despite my initial resolve not to be interested in Babylonian Astronomy, clay tablets, and conflicting dates circa 500bce to 600 bce, I find myself fascinated that You Guys find it of sufficient interest to pour over it in such detail. Perhaps there is something here that I am missing.
A rough analogy, I suppose would be like Quantum Physics, which I find fascinating, but unknowable, and can only be guessed at by trying to visualize what an esoteric equation is really representing in reality. Also far beyond my ability to comprehend, but at least I can see a practical use for quantum studies. 
Nowadays you need a good understanding of Quantum  Physics to understand Astronomy, or solid state electronics, or even how light behaves. This has PRACTICAL applications, such as Smart Phones, GPS, FTL communications, etc. We use this each and every day in contemporary society.
The people back in Babylonian times have been dead for 2600 and more years, and what they wrote in clay mud with sticks is not relevant anymore.
I can see enjoying knowing, so there is that, but if the subtext of all of this research is to be able to prove that the Great Tribulation, and Armageddon, and God’s Kingdom established has already occurred … it’s a complete waste of time.
You can stand in the street and look around and see those things have not yet happened.
You know, Jonah was super ticked off that he did all that work, hardship and danger, and God changed his mind about Nineveh.
At least he didn’t try to convince people they had been destroyed invisibly.
 

From the time the tablet was discovered this error has been known and discussed for 100 years now. It was considered to be one of at least two copyist's errors that don't work for the conventional 568 date although the vast majority of other readings work perfectly well for the 568 date. Only a very few of the readings also work for other years.
When a copyists mistake is made, there is always a good possibility that the mistaken numbers might work for another year, just as certain positions of the moon will be very nearly repeated year after year. (Meaning the same position relative to the "background" stars which stay in the same place, but not relative to the planets which may not come into that same position again for a hundred years or more.)
So, it's true that this error might coincidentally fit another year, but 588 is not one of those years. For one thing Furuli had to fake the month, shift the calendar, and rename the month Ayyaru and pretend it was Nisanu. Without evidence, Furuli had to pretend that the Babylonians made their largest known leap year mistake ever! -- the extent of which had never happened before, and would never happen again, in all known Neo-Babylonian history. I can explain evidence against it in another post if you like. If Furuli hadn't faked the month, he couldn't claim anything for this year 588. 
But then he also found that he had to fake, not only the month, but also the day. He started the new Spring month, Nisanu (our March/April) in May for this particular year, which is unprecedented. But he also then claims that the first day of Nisanu corresponds with May 2nd. But for a new month to start then, the new moon would have to be visible. It's hard enough to see a new moon that is only half a day old, most sightings take place when the moon is at about 1.5 to 2 days old. That's because it's the sighting at sunset when the sliver of a new moon is so hard to see. Here's why it can't be seen on May 2nd: see first video.
The moon is the blinking thing if it shows up at all just to the left of the sun. It also sets at almost the exact time as the sun. 
But the next video shows it on May 3rd which would have been the actual start of the new month. But not the month Nisanu as required. It would actually Ayyaru the 1st, 588 BCE: see second video.
Neugebauer and others have done experiments and measurements on the first sightings of the new moon, and you can do them yourself by going outside and looking at the beginning of every lunar month. It's based on the actual "waxed" age of the moon and how close it is to the sun. Especially if you live in a dry desert environment you can check for yourself under the very best conditions and see that the formula works well. Also, of course, the dozens of eclipse examples in the tablets tell us the day it was seen, and therefore counting back we can double-check the conditions available on the 1st of each of those months. 
 
 

sundown-may-2-587A.mp4
sundown-may-3-587A.mp4

Sure!
In the next post I will point out which items from both the front and the back were cherry-picked to see if they could fit 588 instead of 568.
The pictures, and translation below are taken from the following site:
https://www.lavia.org/english/Archivo/VAT4956en.htm 
[After this post I will copy a simpler translation for reference that also includes the theorized Julian dates if you are comparing between 568 and 588 BCE]
 

A typical translation is here, for the obverse side. You will see 18 lines, although the last two, as you can see from the picture, are mostly missing. 

 

 

...and then convince everyone in the personal interpretation of that reality. lol

In all of our bloviating, can anyone supply me with the 13 sets of observations the WT is referring to?

Apparently Gemini and Chatgpt think that to share such information would upset the natural order of things and that I should have to go through the bloviating-overeducated-economically-useless to get to it.
 
 

To find out what is REALLY TRUE ….…. just look out the window.

I was afraid to look but when I did I realized the video had been filmed in front of a live studio ostrich.

I expect that this is true of 99% of all Witnesses. Certainly any that I speak with in the congregation would advocate for 607 BC, but the topic hardly comes up any more, and I'm certainly not going to bring it up. It's barely been mentioned in the publications since 2018, although it's been added to the extra material in the new NWT (simplified).
The Witnesses who no longer believe the Barbour/Russell version of 607 (606) are the ones who discuss the evidence in private email groups and closed forums. Not much danger of anyone changing their mind on a forum like this one.
Yes. I think that's about right. I think a lot of Witnesses believe that it's simply a matter of trusting the old Barbour/Russell 2,520, and they don't even give a thought to the fact that our doctrines have completely divorced it from the 1,260. Yet, several years ago, the very last mention of the 1,260 in the Watchtower was with the very verse in Revelation 11 that ties the 1,260 directly to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24, and yet the Watchtower doesn't even mention that fact, only that the 1,260 "Gentile Times' number, should be measured in "days" (from December 1914 to early 1919) as opposed to the 2,520 which gets measured in years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. I think it's a shame that so many of us actually believe it's a "Bible calculation." That's the power of indoctrination and tradition.

I think everyone here is now convinced that this is no more than a big game of obfuscation with you. You responded to absolutely zero of the issues I brought up about the misinformation you provided. Just a lot of false claims from you and then you dodging wildly when they are pointed out. It's almost as if you just made it all up, then took some screenshots of some books to make it look there was some legitimacy to what you claim. It seems like you are willing to make up falsehoods about COJ, in the hopes that someone I defend him against your misinformation so that you can then say, "See, JWI just defended COJ, so now we don't have to look at any of the evidence from Stellarium, or Steele, or Sachs, or Dubberstein that JWI looked at. We're off the hook!!!" 

So, with that in mind, here I go checking the first line of the lunar positions from VAT 4956:

We know that Nisan is the start of the new year for both Jews and Babylonians, and in fact they both used the same name for the month Nisan/Nisannu (used to be Datsun, lol).
So the first question is looking for a start of a new month in a year that might be "NEB 37." People talk about the year 568 BCE [-567] and 588 BCE [-587] as possibilities, so rather than check every year, I'll see what I can see for those two years, first and then might start checking other years if these don't seem right. 
So, to an amateur like me, I might not know if Nissanu 1st is in January, February or any month all the way to December. I'll check them all, because all I have to do here is see in what month the new moon becomes visible behind the Bull constellation. I accept the idea (also found in WTS publications that it was a matter of checking for the first opportunity of the new day to see if the new moon was visible, and since the new day started at sunset, about 5:45 pm, that's the time I will start checking. 
As I scroll through the days on Stellarium, from near Babylon, Iraq starting -567/1/1 I set the time to sunset and scroll through the days.
My first new moon is on 1/23 and the Bull constellation is high in the sky and no moon visible anywhere near it. My second new moon shows up on 2/22, I scroll through the minutes to watch the sun go down and the sky get dark, from 5:30pm to 7:30pm and I see that the new moon is so close to the sun that the moon sets when the sun sets and there's no way it would be visible anyway. Besides it is in the "Swallow" constellation, still not near the Bull. Even the next day 2/23 when the moon sliver is slightly more visible and far enough behind the sun to be seen around 6:30pm, it's still in the "Swallow" not near the "Bull". The 3rd new moon I check happens on 3/23, but it's right there with the sun and sets with the sun just after 6pm. But it is getting a bit closer the Bull of Heaven, although still in front of it not behind it. Perhaps it waxes big enough on the next day so that the new month would be considered to have started on 3/24. The moon is still fairly young, meaning only a sliver is showing, and it is still ready to disappear with the sun shining in those few minutes after the sun sets. I'm not sure if it was visible or not. Even if it were, this can't be the month on the tablet because it's still too far in front of the Bull, not behind it. Still on the potential reading for March 24 to be the correct month to start Nisannu the 1st. So I've checked out the same situation from my house when the moon is new and 2.7 days old and the moon is still visible for at least an hour after the sun sets. The new month has definitely started by now, and for all I know a good astronomer might have been able to see it yesterday when it was 1.7 days old, but it was still neither behind the Bull or in front of it. This time it was right there in the middle of the Bull constellation.  see the "mp4" I attached below So on to the next month. The fourth new moon attempted is on 4/22. We must be close. Because this time, the moon almost sets with the sun meaning it was likely impossible to see the nearly non-existent sliver of the new moon, but it would have been behind the Bull, at least. So if there is good visibility "tomorrow" on 4/23, then I expect it to be the best day. Sure enough, the Bull sets with the sun, so no astronomer could see those stars in the light, but they still knew exactly where it was as the sliver of the moon appears just behind it between the Bull and the next constellation that it is still in front of. I choose 4/23 so far as the best candidate so far, so I decide to "cheat" and see if this is the perhaps the same date that the "experts" picked. https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf On page 26, P&D picked the same date I picked for the Nisannu the 1st. 4/23. (His dates are in BCE. and that first date 4/23 is the first month of the new year.  Just for fun I check the rest of the months, and they get farther and farther off. I also decide to check what day the experts say was the official day starting Addaru (in the previous month). I wasn't sure if it would have been a possible sighting on 3/23 or the definitely visible moon on 3/24. P&D says it was 3/24. Of course P&D has the advantage of knowing where the leap months are based on tablets, and whether any tablets were dated Addaru 30 or if they all ended on Addaru 29. And this tablet itself gives us a mention of Nissanu 1 being the same day as Addaru 30.  After seeing the failures of the next months, I notice that P&D never has Nissanu starting before 3/11 or after 4/27, so we are already in a fairly "late" start of spring. I say this because on March 11th, in a few days, we will be in nearly the exact same situation where a new moon appears, but sets so close to the bright sun that we won't likely be able to see it until 3/11 or 3/12. If that's the first of Nisan, then Nisan 14 (and 1+13=14) should be on the 3/11+13 = 3/24. I think that in Judea they wouldn't have been able to detect it until the 12th, but we have more accurate measurements these days and know it was there even if we can't see it for all the sunlight interference. To see the movie (below) from 3/24 568 BCE, you have to make it full screen. The moon is selected so it has the little red rays coming out of it. Trying to show it as a sliver would make it impossible to locate here, so they show it as animating/oscillating from a dot to a white ball and back.
 

moonset-567.mp4

What is the biblical basis for the existence of the status called "unbaptized publisher"?
This is how it is explained in the JW cartoon. Of course, some elements in this interpretation are outdated doctrine that is no longer valid. If we exclude the "small unimportant detail" that "hours no longer count", the question still remains:
Did Jesus become an "unbaptized preacher at the age of 12"? And if so, how?
Key words in this video are: license, approved, elders, desire to be JW = unbaptized publisher. Are those words in Bible, too?
 

pk_E_048_r720P.mp4    
 
 

Regardless of some theological elements associated with Jesus' baptism, because he was "perfect" and came from "Heaven", it still remains as a powerful reminder of the fact that he was baptized at the age of 30.
All the theology of the WTJWorg fails in every element about baptism, because it dared to depart from the path given by Jesus as the only correct MODEL of when to be baptized. If he was baptized as a "perfect man" at the age of 30, how old should an "imperfect man" be before he decides to take such a step of complete dedication to a religion and ideology (which changes more and more anyway, because it has been proven fallible and inaccurate).
Caught in their "own wisdom", GB misdirected and allowed their lawyers to refer and appeal to the UN Charter on Human Rights. Because UN rights have never been theologically justified for the functioning of the WTJWorg administration and their "theocratic and hierarchical system" in which a man (male) rules.
WTJWorg's reference to UN rights has only one-sided meaning; "acknowledge, admit my JW religion and leave me and my sort of worship alone". Having the freedom to stop being Catholic and become a JW is a welcome human right for GB. But when a JW needs the freedom to change his religion and become something else, then WTJWorg wants to abolish all his right to freedom of choice, because it blackmails him with its "theological and doctrinal dictatorship".