George88

It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world.
However, what drives action within a political framework? Power!
What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this.
However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe.
Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com
Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism.
What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't?
Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted.
A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.

The only one who is completely mistaken is you, but I don't really value your perspective or way of thinking.
True Jehovah's Witnesses are truly amused by the desperation of an Ex-Bethelite, it's quite entertaining, LOL!
You're welcome. Now apply the information with its accurate designation, rather than misrepresenting it to mean 587 BC. 
However, I am still eagerly anticipating the evidence, which directly states the occurrence of the Jerusalem destruction in 587 BC, found in any of those tablets. Inform me when you are prepared, despite your continuous effort to avoid and bypass the question.

You criticized my post, but now you're avoiding it as you always do. I trust that the year 19/8th of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 607/6 BC based on a careful analysis of the tablet data, not just because of the year 569/8 BC.
Is the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC mentioned in VAT 4956? I'm still waiting.
Your proposal is irrelevant. Regarding the confirmation of the dates of the kings in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607, it fits.
For more than 10 years, the only person who has been confused is you, not only about incorrect assumptions regarding the misplacement of that data, but also in an uninformed manner.
https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/saros-cycle-solar-eclipse-lunar-eclipse/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill
I am not favoring one thing over the other. The data I posted is not meant to give the impression that I favor one side or the other. It is there to simply demonstrate errors in thinking and calculations.
I couldn't care less about your acceptance. What truly counts is that the public witnesses your mistakes by those illustrations if they can comprehend it.

If you highlighted that sentence to point out your so-called 19-year cycle, then you are most likely extremely confused about the Metonic cycle. It became standardized after the Neo-Babylonian period so that it was well known which years had the extra month, and whether it was added after the 6th month, or the 12th month. Very few specific months were attested in the reigns of kings prior to Nabopolassar, such as during the years of Nabonassar. But from Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father), in all those years, only 12 were still unattested at the time P&D first published in 1942. And P&D made best guesses for them. Since then, more of those tablets were published and the table is now even more accurate. 
A Metonic cycle does not start in only a specific year to repeat 19 years later. It starts EVERY year and repeats 19 years later. For example:
A Metonic cycle started in 608 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 607 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 606 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 605 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 604 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. ... A Metonic cycle started in 590 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 589 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 588 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 587 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 586 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. Technically you don't have to start counting them from the beginning of a year, you could start them in the middle, or any particular day of the year, although it's most convenient to start from a new moon or a full moon to help count the lunations.
Another one started the day you were born, and would repeat when you turn 19 and 38 and 57 etc Another one started on the day I was born in 1957 and would repeat in 1976, 1995, etc. There is nothing special about the Metonic cycle for discovering or helping to discover a specific BCE date for a King's reign, or historical event. It just refers to the fact that the number of solar days is 365+ in a year and the number of lunar days at 12 months to a year would be 354+. So you can't add a full lunar month every year to make up the difference, but if you add an intercalary months every two or three years you will probably have added enough (+/- one lunar month) during those 19 years, to synch up the number of days in lunar years to the number in solar years much more exactly because there are almost exactly 235 lunar months in 19 solar years It's only off by a few hours.
P&D (that you quoted from) actually proves that they did NOT standardize on a set way to take advantage of the Metonic cycle, especially during Nabopolassar's and Nebuchadnezzar's reigns. But they had no choice but to synch up sooner or later, otherwise the lunar calendar would drift completely away from the solar and you'd be having the New Year 11 days earlier every year. Your spring celebration would soon be in winter, then fall, then summer, etc. You couldn't make a "planting" or "harvest" calendar.

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.

BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 6926 B.C.-A.D. 45. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 924, by Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein.
Pp. xiii + 46, The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, 1942.
Every step toward a further clarification of the chronology of the Near East is most welcome, especially when it adds much new data with regard to the reigns of the kings in any particular period. Such is the service rendered by Parker and Dubberstein in their recent study.
The three chapters of the study are entitled, "The Babylonian Calendar," "King's Reigns," and "Tables for the Restatement of Babylonian Dates in Terms of the Julian Calendar." The first chapter begins with a discussion of the difference between the solar year and the lunar year which is about eleven days shorter. The use of intercalary months by the Babylonians to offset this inequality is assigned provisionally by the authors
to the middle of the eighth century B.C. during the reign of Nabonassar. There follows a list of the intercalary months mentioned in the published texts plus some notes on about a dozen as yet unattested though highly probable additional intercalary months. The chapter concludes with a chart of the different intercalary months (either a second Ululu or a second Adaru), both attested and suspected, in each nineteen-year
period from 747 B.C. to 33 A.D.
It's quite amusing to see how dreamers fiercely defend an unattainable position, particularly when they lack the necessary knowledge. It's a laugh, really!

Furuli's data has been taken on by another person or two, and just because it gets slightly adjusted and translated into other languages doesn't make it any more true than it was when he first published it.
Everyone who has actually done the readings for themselves could tell you that almost none of them match 588 unless you fake the months by shifting them all over by one month, and even then you only get very matches on just a few of the less specific readings , and the rest don't match at all. If you do them yourself in Stellarium, or any other software that can give BCE readings, you will find these same results as shown below. 
There are actually 17 lunar readings: 4 readings do not match 568 and 14 do not match 588. Come up with your own criteria for accuracy thresholds, and it will still always show that 568 is MUCH, MUCH better fit, and 588 is very poor.
 

If you get something else, please let me know. OK? 

@xero, So hopefully it's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings fits 568 and does not fit 588 at all. And you have already mentioned the 2nd of the 13 readings, which does not fit either 568 or 588 and has long been considered to be a copyist's error: a 9 for an 8.
So I'll move onto the next one, but I won't skip around like Furuli did. The next measurable line indicates:
Nisanu 14:   On the 14th. one god was seen with the other  Sunrise to moonset 4°
This is shorthand for the sun and the moon are seen together for a period of 4 degrees or 16 minutes. (1 degree = 4 minutes and 4x4=16). (see below for the explanation of this.)
The meaning is that the Moon god [Sin] was seen with the Sun god [Shamash].
As an aside, in the Bible, the Hebrew word for Sun is Shemesh. The Babylonian word for the Moon was Sin, and the Hebrew word was Yareakh, which was also the name of the Ugaritic and Amorite Moon god, Yarakh/Yerakh. 
So, let's look up Nisanu 14 and see how long the sun and moon were seen together.
This time we need to take a picture all the way across the entire sky from one horizon to the other, because the sun will always be opposite the moon near the 14th of any lunar month. That's why there is always a full moon about the time of the Memorial, on Nisanu 14. Also, the 14th was one of the few days when you could have an eclipse. (An eclipse can't happen unless the moon is full, which is half-way between the new moons. 14.75 days from the last new moon and 14.75 days from the next one.)
Here we start at about is 4:30am, and moon hasn't set yet. And the sun hasn't risen yet. So the two gods are not seen together. But if we speed up the time and let it run until 5:27 the moon will set in the west and we will have seen the sun in the east for something like 15 minutes.

 Also, you can check the sunrise for that day, and moonset on the left of the screen in Stellarium.
Click on the moon and it says: Sets at 5:27am.
Click on the sun and it says: Sunrise It says Rises at 5:12 am.
Subtract 5:27 minus 5:12 and that's 15 minutes. 4 degrees is 16 minutes, almost a perfect match. 
Now let's check what happened in 588 BCE. on the date that Furuli wanted to claim was Nisanu 14. The gods were not seen together for any length of time because the moon had already set a half hour earlier!!. [you have to make the videos full screen to see much of anything.]
Hmmm. I wonder why Furuli skipped this line?
 
nisan14F-588.mp4

When I see ad hominems I see a weakness. I like that. It lets me know when people have sh*tty arguments.

I completely agree, especially when individuals manipulate Watchtower articles to suit their own agenda.
JWI: "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."
That's why the statement is clearly false, and it should not be upvoted by anyone that knows the truth about the intent of 1914 that was considered the "end of the gentile times" as recorded in scripture, and the start of Christ's reign in Heaven NOT on earth.
This way, those stupid squirrels chasing their tails around that tree looking to eat a rotten nut won't infect the other squirrels looking for good nuts.

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    
 
 

@xero
Opponents turn to the manipulation of tablets using a 569 with an 18-year cycle. The tablets are organized according to the 19-year Saros Cycle. It concludes in 568 BC, the designated time for their placement. That you have just discovered is something that disrupts the observation. However, when someone attempts to use it in reverse, they immediately protest that it's impossible.
So, I recommend using your own judgment.

Well, Srecko, it seems that there is a certain degree of bias in this specific court. It's quite amusing how both Canada and Australia advocate for utmost privacy. However, when it comes to the Watchtower, they seem to agree and say, "Yes!" Disregard our laws and obey our commands.
As a higher court will certainly hear this argument, the biased post holds no significance.

Does this imply that there might be something faulty in my presentation? Sure, let's use IM then. I comprehend the abundance of tomfoolery and the dearth of education occurring here. Won't these owners still see it, even if they call themselves moderators?
Maybe we should consider a different approach since we are in the lions' den, haha!

@Srecko Sostar
This message is no longer relevant for the participants of the closed club and former members here. Haha, it's been a decade already! 

@George88
Paired with biblical accounts, the secular evidence offers a compelling visual depiction of the period in question, as demonstrated by the Babylonian Chronicles even though it has a 37-year gap.
Providing the alignment between the bible account and the secular account solidifies the identity of the Nebuchadnezzar being referenced.
 
History and Bible: 1. 607 BC, the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar ll / 2 Kings 24
Bible: 2. The Lord sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite, and Ammonite raiders against him to destroy Judah.
Bible: Jeremiah 25 Seventy Years of Desolation begins.
Bible: 2. 604 BC First deportation / Daniel 1:1
History and Bible: 2. 598/7 BC, Nebuchadnezzar orders second deportation, and there is a change of Jerusalem Kings, between Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah.
Application: Several tablets can be applied under the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign in 605 BC. Some notable examples include the Astronomical tablets VAT 4956, BM 33006, MB 41222, and HSM 1899.2.112. Additionally, any other tablet that references the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be considered if we take into account the stipulated 19/8 years if those tablets were created in 568 BC.
History and Bible: 3. 587/6 BC Nebuchadnezzar orders third deportation. Battles recorded in this year by King Cyaxares against the Lydians and Nebuchadnezzae's general battling the king of Mitsir.
Bible: 2 Kings 25:27 King Jehoiachin is released from prison. Solomon's Temple burned, the siege wall was taken down, King Zedekiah was taken prisoner to Reblah, and his sons were killed. Last of Judah Kings.
History: Reference back from 568 BC using a 19-year cycle for King Jehoiachins release.
605-37=568 / 568+19=587
Bible: 4. 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar, ll, leaves Gedaliah as governor over the remaining Judeans.
Does this look like a good time frame?
 

Oh! Tom, we are aware of the influence you and JWI hold in "deletion" when you are confronted with evidence of being mistaken.  The players have been well-known for a considerable period of time. So, your saying is also mine, right back at you, or should I say, many miles.

When AlanF, in full evolutionist mode, savaging anyone who ‘refused to learn,’ made a similar statement, I said, “It’s just you and me, you blowhard! plus maybe a half-dozen more. What! Do you think you are Clarence Darrow, arguing Inherit the Wind?’
Quite a mission you’ve chosen for yourself. Are you having success?
’Come here, come here, gather round—so I can tell you why you shouldn’t be here!’
Yeah. Everyone has their own reason for being here. I use the site as a writing workshop and some of what I create here later appears elsewhere in better form. Meanwhile, I rub shoulders, learn, and share, just like you. Notwithstanding some occasional trash-talking, hopefully I am never mean-spirited in doing so.

Certainly.  To them, it is irrelevant in this context. They are only willing to accept their flawed reasoning.
Dominion Or The Unity and Trinity of the German Race 1857
"The language of the Scythians seems to have been Teutonic, but what were its general peculiarities beyond its supposed Indo-Germanic affiliations seems difficult, at this late day, to discover. Being pressed from the Caspian on the east by the Alans, they dispossessed the Cimmerians of the Crimea about 624 B. C., and about the year 500 B. C. were urged to the west of the Volga into southern Russia. About the year 588 B. C., the Scythians were overcome by Cyaxares, uncle of Cyrus; and about 538 B. C., Cyrus called together the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Askenaz to the attack on Babylon." p.309
By consistently referring to the astronomical tablets as evidence of the 587 BC destruction of Jerusalem, while also considering the 589 BC start of the siege, we can also utilize these tablets to validate the assault on the Scythians by Cyaxares circa 588/7 BC. This timeframe aligns with the renowned tablets that display the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign when we follow the 19/8-year cycle.
Some historical records indicate that the siege occurred from 588 BC to 586 BC. Consequently, these tablets provide no substantial evidence regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, no matter how hard apostates try to change the narrative with random schemes.
It is evident that Carl Olof Jonsson disregarded a significant amount of historical evidence in order to challenge the Watchtower. This makes it particularly ironic when people refer to his work as "scholarly," as it was anything but.

Who can determine, based on this observation, who utilized an ascension year as opposed to a regnal year? Do you think you are making too many assumptions? 

I see no conflict with this observation, as you are dealing with distinct types of observational cycles. Could you also verify a specific starting point with an observer? I believe it is the reader who is conflicted when making assumptions.

I'm not a fan of goal-post shifting, inventing of new goal-posts, or editing of people's comments and arguments. There is a natural flow which gets interrupted when those uncomfortable with a conversation try to steer it or control it. It's stifling and unless Jehovah decides to do it, I'm against it.

In essence, your point is that when we examine the year 539 BC, there is significantly less time for consideration compared to the 2-year timeframe between 607 BC and 605 BC. Additionally, the year 587 BC does not fit into any accurate chronology, as the 70-year period falls within the pattern of less than a year between 537 BC and 607 BC. If we were to consider 587 BC as a potential date, it would only support a 50-year period, which is significantly short of the less than a year proposal, creating a discrepancy of 20 years.

George, in the book you mention on page 105, it states 538 BC rather than 539 BC. Any thoughts?
 

@George88It looks to me like it's a judgment call on the part of people who imagine they can use astronomical data to nail down the time frame I'm interested in.  In reading this I get the idea that there's a lot of assumptions that people are making. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2006JAHH....9..145S/0000145.000.html
There are some astronomical events that seem to be of some use, but if these people are disagreeing with the biblical text, I'll pick the biblical text over their sources. These are the same kinds of people who ridiculed the idea of Belshazzar's existence. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91785/did-scholars-doubt-belshazzars-existence-before-1854
https://www.cominguntrue.com/2021/06/after-fact.html