Pudgy

This is another example of "AI enhanced" hallucinations. Whatever source created this response is just so incorrect that I decided to mark each incorrect sentence in red-orange, and each misleading statement in yellow, and each true statement in green.
It's pretty obvious that "AI" tools have scraped from conversations about 607, and often pick up mistaken quotes and will now even potentially pick up their own reprinted mistakes and regurgitate them as if those mistakes have now been validated by their use on a forum even such as this one. 
For a quick explanation of my markup, note the following.
Wiseman made good use of the Nabonidus Chronicle but did not rely "heavily" on it for dating purposes -- he states that they are only for relative chronologies --  and therefore he never tried to "establish" a chronology from it or other Babylonian Chronicles. Also Wiseman wrote the book "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings;" He did not "rely" on it. I just googled to see if it was written in 1961 and google's AI responded: Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) by D. J. Wiseman was written in 586.  The Chronicles are indeed fragmentary, and do not include the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, but this is irrelevant if we are merely trying to pin a BCE date on his 18th/19th year, which is all that Witnesses are interested in. If the Chronicles were either totally accurate or totally inaccurate about Jerusalem specifically, it wouldn't make an iota of difference to us. All we want to do is know the date for his 18th/19th year. If they are fragmentary but still gave us pertinent information to help us date his 8th year, his 1st year, or his 37th, then that is plenty of information from which to derive his 18th19th year. The relevant period is any one that includes Nebuchadnezzar's reign, therefore the Chronicles are particularly good for the relevant period.  There is nothing in the Babylonian Chronicles about the Jews in particular, so there is no information that would show bias towards them. "Dating inconsistencies" are irrelevant because there aren't any. This happens to be one period of ancient history with the most well-documented and testable chronology. If we didn't think we knew better, we'd say that it must have been providentially Jehovah's will that this period was the most well-documented and easily understood, with literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence all pointing to the same BCE dates, and NOT ONE INCONSISTENCY. The only problem is that we as Witnesses REJECT the obvious conclusion of all this evidence.  Wisemen never interprets Neb's 37th year as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem as stated above. Wiseman interprets it according to the prevailing evidence, which would therefore point to a 587/586 destruction of Jerusalem.  No one believes the VAT 4956 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 37th year, not JWs, not WIseman, not Furuli.  Any differences in interpretation over the exact year of Neb's ascension to the throne have no real impact on the dating of his regnal years. All the evidence is very consistent as to how the Babylonians counted ascension years and regnal years. There is no difference in interpretation for Babylonian documents, which are shown to be perfectly consistent throughout the entire period. This might refer to the Bible's inconsistent use "ordinal" vs. "cardinal" counting of regnal years, as explained in our Aid book and Insight book.  Archaeological evidence does indeed point to 587/586 for Neb's 19th year, but Wiseman does NOT contradict this evidence. He makes consistent use of the evidence. Lack of independent corroboration weakens the 607 argument? Mostly true, but there is absolutely NO corroboration of the 607 argument to begin with. Much less any additional independent corroboration. There is simply ZERO evidence for the 607 argument, Biblical or otherwise. And the implication about no independent corroboration misses the point that there are SEVERAL INDEPENDENT lines of evidence all consistently pointing to the 587/586 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year.  Very few really argues that Wiseman has a theological agenda. He does try to support and defend the Bible as history in certain cases of apparent discrepancies. But this has almost no effect on the time period in question. In this case it is those with a traditional Biblical interpretation that goes against evidence who argue against the evidence.  There is really no "scholarly" debate at all about the overall time period in question, and especially not about the specific BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This might sound like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but the point is that this period is just too well documented for scholars to debate. Pretend scholars might pretend that it's debatable, and unfortunately their pretensions carry a lot of weight with people who want desperately to believe they are right. It seems that this is because they are in support of a tradition that would create a lot of discomfort to many of us if we had to admit it was a false tradition. Wiseman's presentation of the overall evidence about the years of the Neo-Babylonian period is universally accepted by scholars, because he accepts evidence and does NOT accept the "607 argument" as claimed above.  I should mention that a person may be a scholar in a different field and therefore might disagree with scholars in a field that he is not that familiar with. For example, a scholar in the field of Shakespeare Studies might try to find reasons to disagree with a scholar who argues about the Laws of Physics. But if a Shakespeare scholar claims he knows that the speed of light must be closer to 100,000 miles per hour rather than closer to 186,000 miles per second, this doesn't really mean that the "186,000 argument" is not universally accepted by all scholars.  As I said, it's hardly worth trying to glean the wheat from the chaff on AI enhanced writing. Hope it helps a bit. I won't even make an attempt to respond to the many glaring errors in G88's recent posts. 

“Transparent Aluminum” was a fictional material introduced in the movie “Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home”, which formula (at that time was also fictional), traded for some large plexiglass sheets to make a whale carrier.
Transparent aluminum, today, also known as aluminum oxynitride (AlON), is made through a process called hot isostatic pressing (HIP). In this process, aluminum oxide (alumina) powder is subjected to high temperature and pressure in the presence of nitrogen gas. This causes the aluminum oxide to react with nitrogen, forming aluminum oxynitride, which has transparent properties. The resulting material is then cooled and shaped into the desired form. Transparent aluminum is valued for its high strength, transparency, and resistance to damage from extreme environments.

If anyone wishes to participate, I'd like to have a more serious discussion about the 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology. There may be several posts already made by @George88 and @scholar JW that are more related to this topic than @xero's topic about the Fall of Nineveh where several of them were, before being moved here.  If anyone wants to participate they are welcome of course, and if anyone wants to continue some of the related and unrelated topics back on xero's thread, that's fine too. Unrelated topics here can even be moved over there if that seems OK. 

I'm certain that the use of "A.I." "enhanced" writing tools will quickly produce a comedy of errors -- but still mixed in with a lot of true statements here and there. And that it is hardly worth the time and effort to try correcting all the errors and diversions those tools can create.

So …. to sum it up in one very short conclusion …. what can be said with certainty about all this that is true?
What’s the bottom line?
 
 
 
 
 

Did I ever mention that I have a Polaroid picture of Fred Flintstone?  I know it’s authentic, it’s dated and signed!

I really, really miss having an intense interest in such things. 
I stopped when I realized if you assume EVERYBODY is a quack, especially about things that have NO PRACTICAL VALUE … the reward is peace and contentment.
Sleeping beside me on the sofa as I write this are three happy dogs.
…. it’s more than enough.

Unfortunately, directly linking "NABO 14" to a specific BCE date isn't as straightforward as simply finding a specific event mentioned in the chronicle. Here's why:
Challenges with the Babylonian Chronicle:
Relative Chronology: The Babylonian Chronicle you mentioned only provides a relative timeline within the reign of Nabopolassar, lacking absolute calendar dates. While it details events between NABO 10 and 18, it doesn't tell us which year corresponds to which year BCE. Missing information: Even within NABO 14, the specific month or day of Nineveh's destruction isn't mentioned. This further complicates pinpointing a precise date. Approaches to Date Determination:
Despite these challenges, historians do use various methods to estimate the probable date of Nineveh's fall:
Astronomical References: While the chronicle itself doesn't mention them, other Babylonian records sometimes document lunar eclipses or other celestial phenomena. Identifying and dating such events can provide reference points for historical timelines. Inscriptions and Records: Analyzing inscriptions from rulers involved in the conflict, like the Medes or Egyptians, can sometimes offer clues about chronology through mentions of specific campaigns or events. Cross-Cultural Comparisons: Comparing Babylonian records with contemporary sources from other cultures, like Assyrian or Egyptian records, can sometimes reveal overlapping events that help establish timeframes. Important Notes:
Even with these methods, estimating the date of Nineveh's fall remains an exercise in probability, not certainty. Different scholars might reach slightly different conclusions based on their interpretations of the evidence. The most commonly accepted timeframe for Nineveh's destruction falls between 614 BCE and 612 BCE. While "NABO 14" might not directly translate to a specific BCE date, historians use evidence from various sources to place the event within this timeframe.

I appreciate your feedback and willingness to share information about your research on Harran and its connection to astronomy. However, I must reiterate that my statement regarding the lack of evidence for Alexander sending astronomical tables to Aristotle remains accurate.
True statements: It's correct that Babylonians recorded celestial observations and utilized the zodiac system. Ptolemy did indeed rely on Babylonian eclipse records for his astronomical work. There's documented evidence of astronomical observations during the reign of Asshurbanapal. Uncertain/Debatable statements: Claiming "fragments of a library at Agade were preserved at Nineveh" requires further context and source verification. We need to know where and how these fragments are identified as belonging to Agade. Attributing specific knowledge about constellation names used "even then" requires careful analysis of the fragments and potential interpretations. Direct comparisons with modern names might be misleading. I appreciate you sharing the additional information on Ctesias and the Fall of Nineveh.
Regarding Ctesias:
You are correct that while Ctesias wrote about Assyria and Persia, there is no strong evidence he linked them to the Trojan War for precise astronomical calculations. Historians generally reject his timeline for the Trojan War as unreliable. The linked JSTOR article provides valuable information about Ctesias and his account of the Fall of Nineveh. However, it's important to note that his writings often contain inaccuracies and exaggerations, hence why historians approach them with caution.

There are some truths and some inaccuracies in the statements you provided:
Nabonassar's astronomical canon:
True: Nabonassar, the founder of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, did commission astronomical observations around 747 BCE. These observations formed the basis for later Babylonian astronomical records. False: Herodotus, a Greek historian from the 5th century BCE, did not mention Nabonassar's canon dating back to 606 BCE. His writings mention observations starting with the reign of Nabonassar but don't specify a date. Ctesias and the Trojan War:
False: Ctesias, a Greek physician and historian from the 5th century BCE, did not use the Trojan War for precise astronomical calculations. While he wrote about Assyria and Persia, there's no evidence he connected them to the Trojan War for astronomical purposes. Book of Tobit:
Uncertain: The Book of Tobit is a deuterocanonical text included in some Bibles but not others. Its historical accuracy is debated, and its events might be fictional or embellished. It doesn't provide reliable information about Nineveh's destruction. Alexander and Aristotle:
Unlikely: There's no known record of Alexander sending astronomical tables to Aristotle. While both figures were interested in astronomy, there's no evidence of such a specific exchange. Nineveh in astronomical tables:
Unclear: It's possible that some ancient astronomical tables might have mentioned Nineveh, but without specific sources or details, it's impossible to verify this claim. Overall:
The statements contain a mix of truth and fiction. While Nabonassar's astronomical observations are well-documented, the other claims lack clear historical evidence or contain inaccuracies. When studying historical events, it's crucial to rely on credible sources and critically evaluate the information presented.

I really, really miss having an intense interest in such things. 
I stopped when I realized if you assume EVERYBODY is a quack, especially about things that have NO PRACTICAL VALUE … the reward is peace and contentment.
Sleeping beside me on the sofa as I write this are three happy dogs.
…. it’s more than enough.

I really, really miss having an intense interest in such things. 
I stopped when I realized if you assume EVERYBODY is a quack, especially about things that have NO PRACTICAL VALUE … the reward is peace and contentment.
Sleeping beside me on the sofa as I write this are three happy dogs.
…. it’s more than enough.

Sounds like a familiar quest. I had the same experience when I first tried to figure out why the 612 date was used everywhere except the Watchtower, which uses 632 instead. (Because 632 is needed as part of the foundation for our traditional claim that 1914 was pointed to in the book of Daniel.)
But it turns out that, for me, there were at least 3 basic ways to reach a date within one year of 612 for the destruction of Nineveh. (Making the date either 613, 612, or 611.) 
However, it's been my experience on this forum that if a statement about ancient chronology includes any concept that takes more than a minute to understand, it is immediately dismissed, so that we can fall back on whatever is more comfortable for our traditional belief system. I don't think that about you, but it should help manage the expectations of anyone who might start to read this type of discussion.

I get relative measurements w/regard to regnal years and the like as that will allow you shift right or left, but no matter where I look, I get bloviating when it comes to how this exact date was decided upon. I need to know what they used as a starting point. I haven't found any astronomical events used, I'm not taking anyone's word for it, or "Experts agree". I need to see the argument in the form of premise, premise, conclusion.  I want all the connecting dots, not an inky wash of academic bloviance.

What I like about the video is that it not only tells us about the engineer himself, but also has some of the best, easy-to-follow diagrams that teach about the engineering process and the actual physics of the designs:
 

Blue LEDs: Born from gallium, nitrogen, indium. Light through electroluminescence; electrons meet holes, birth photons. Gallium Nitride (GaN), wide band gap, emits blue. Indium Gallium Nitride (InGaN), mix alters hue. Early '90s, a breakthrough; high-brightness, efficient. Akasaki, Amano, Nakamura: Pioneers, Nobel laureates. Blue to white, with phosphor; illumination revolutionized. Hard materials tamed, blue light mastered.

See the Chihuahua?

Wiener Schnitzel and Beef Franks sounds like “overlapping” Tube Steaks to me!

I found it super interesting to see the unearthed walls of Nineveh.... 
I remember seeing the Assyrian burnt walls in the Louvre as well years ago.
Agape!
p.s. - I'll try to link this up to Jonah chapter 1 one of these days somehow.

Looks like Maralyn Monroe to me.

I see the face of a housecat carrying a black-tailed Chihuahua-Terrier puppy in her mouth. Or perhaps it's a Great-Horned Owl that just swooped into someone's backyard to grab the puppy, probably because it was so cute, and wanted to make friends.
But I have to say that, from the original full-size picture, it's easier for me to see a four-eyed KKK member in a worn-out sheet, than to see an image of Christ there.

Maybe Knorr had shares in that company? lol

See the Chihuahua?

It should be noted that in this article, "Reader's Questions", there are only 6 quotations from the NT, and for which, the authors of the article, defending their positions on the issue of blood, look for support in 28 quotations from the OT.
This is not an insignificant matter, because it indicates the existence of a parallel religion that is "true", which is the Jewish religion. JWs reject every religion that exists today, or has existed for these 2 thousand years, as wrong, false.
I already pointed out in a comment on another topic, that Jesus never publicly renounced his Jewish religion. He was born as a Jew and he died as a Jew. He was baptized in the Jordan, that's right, but he didn't leave his religious background. He did not go to the synagogue and announced that he was leaving the Jewish faith. He did not write a letter asking the priests to delete him from the genealogy and list of religious members. He did not tell others or ask them that they should renounce the Jewish faith in order to be baptized in water or in the spirit.
The exact opposite of this is the practice of WTJWorg, which requires proof that a candidate for baptism has manifested himself by his public rejection of his former religion.
Infiltration of Judaism? No, we can't judge it like that. Without Judaism there is no "true religion", because it is the "true religion" for all those who believe in Abraham and Jesus.
The problem arises later, in corruption. And every religion, even the "true" one, is subject to corruption and eventually becomes corrupt, whether we like it or not.

Actually, it's an Alien. A sign that they're coming!