BTK59

What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Ayyaru 1 in the year 588 BCE? ChatGPT ChatGPT To estimate the date of Ayyaru 1 in the Babylonian calendar for the year 588 BCE in the Gregorian calendar, we start from what we know about Nisanu, the first month of the Babylonian calendar, which typically began with the new moon following the spring equinox, often placing Nisanu 1 in late March or early April.
The Babylonian calendar was lunisolar, with months beginning on the sighting of the new moon. Ayyaru, the second month, would follow Nisanu and thus would start with the next new moon. Given that a lunar month averages about 29.5 days, we can estimate the beginning of Ayyaru by adding approximately 29 to 30 days to the estimated start of Nisanu.
Without precise astronomical calculations, which I cannot perform directly at the moment, if Nisanu 1 was estimated to be in late March or early April, Ayyaru 1 would generally fall in late April or early May of the Gregorian calendar. This is a general estimation and the exact date might vary slightly based on the actual lunar cycle and the specific criteria used by Babylonian astronomers and priests for the observation of the new moon.

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. 
 

It doesn't fit because that's not Nisanu 1; it's Ayyaru 1. Furuli just called it Nisanu 1 because otherwise he'd have almost nothing for the year 588. In fact, it's not really even Ayyaru 1, because he also had to fake the day and start it one day before Ayyaru 1. It's really Nisanu 30 of 588 BCE.
Check out the ACTUAL Nisanu 1, 588 BCE and see what you get. It's nowhere near.

This comment disregards the misguided claims made in the Watchtower articles, which have been influenced by apostate perspectives. It is important to note that these assertions are being made by an individual who claims to be a Jehovah's Witness but has unfortunately lost all credibility. This person should have been disfellowshipped not because they believe in the Watchtower Chronology, but rather due to their misrepresentation of scripture and God's word.

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.

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

Admitting this only exacerbates the situation for that individual. Why mention that person in any argument when they lack the credentials you have just acknowledged? It is essential that you begin addressing your own mistakes before rushing to correct those of others.

Not to get into this again with you, but VAT 4956 refers to about 30 very specific events. They are astronomical events which the same tablet itself says are tied to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
No critics link it to "the Saros cycle of 19 years" because there is no such thing as a Saros cycle of 19 years. If you ever are able to locate such a reference I'd love to see it. 
The WTS doesn't propose an 18-year-cycle. Nor did they ever mention an intention to propose one. Nor do the publications ever mention "saros" or 18 years in any context about lunar or solar or planetary or astronomical events. 
Trying to tie overwhelming evidence from person's who have no interest in the Watchtower (Steele, Sachs, Hunger, Ptolemy, Stephenson, Parker, Dubberstein, etc.) to persons who are critics of the Watchtower is just an old trick sometimes called "poisoning the well." It's just another logical fallacy people still fall for to avoid looking at the evidence for themselves. In this case it is the Watchtower that is the opposer of the tablets, plain and simple. But it has become necessary to grasp at almost anything to sow doubt about the tablets
What was that criticism? Where is it found?
Are you able to explain why scholars praised him for being so thorough?
There you go!! Something we can agree on.

it does not really matter … at the Branch level and above there is zero financial accountability to the rank-and-file JWs.
Below that, pennies are double counted.

?????

If you have a Smart Phone “Sky Guide” App will do that.
The super cool thing is that for the current time and location the real sky is always directly BEHIND the phone, and what’s on the screen.

The Brothers and Sisters may have left the wedding early because of a disfellowshipped person being present, but if I had any significant money I would bet it all that if the Bride’s insanely rich mafia uncle had showed up with huge presents and a thick envelope and cases of fine wine and an orchestra, they would have partied ‘till dawn.

@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.

You REALLY need to take a “Reading Comprehension” course, Georgie.
What part of “… for the record…” did you not understand?

…

You posted it just a matter of a minute or so before I quoted it. Surprised you didn't remember posting it just a minute earlier. It was part of what you said here, quoting the scripture. I'll highlight it in red:
f

The only thing missing is the maniac laughter and the drool.

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.

I have the same problem JWI with witnesses that come here and make the Watchtower look stupid by claiming 587 BC is the answer, and somehow their words become apostates defending that assertion not the data presented, since they are sowing discourse against the application of scripture. What does James 1:26 mention? 
Therefore, it's not your denial of 607 BC, but you coming here in public supporting a false view, just because you don't understand history the way it should be understood, and you don't want your ego to be bruised since that would mean you have been wrong since the 80s, along with your friends here.
 

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!

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! 

@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!