JW Insider

1 hour ago, xero said:

I just think that if anyone hasn't done what I already suggested - namely listing the tablet, the translation, the astronomical data in Babylonian Terms, the translation to today's terms, the snapshots of the skies and they have time for bloviating reams of text, then I distrust all of them.

I agree. You can easily collect about 5 different translations all from various sites, but they all say the same thing. The sheer number of tablets with the same terms used over and over again, and then translated into Greek, and Latin over the years, and now German and English, etc., and backed up by similar readings in Egyptian documents, and the Babylonian's own explanations in their own documents allows for a pretty good understanding. 

The snapshots of the skies are the most fun part of this, I hope you will be adding a few. I don't want to just push mine on here in case people think I'm biased, LOL. (Although if you have seen past topics I put here, you will see I have already posted dozens of "Babylonian" screen shots.) 

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.

@xero, When I did a comparison of the readings on VAT 4956, I just decided to jump in an accept whatever Rolf Furuli used as a translation, because he knows enough about Akkadian languages to either translate himself, or critique any questionable translations by others who translated it. Surprisingly he accepts the standard translation unquestioningly. So I expect that you are on safe ground if you just start out with the "official" translation that Furuli used. Sachs and Hunger have translated most of the major tablets themselves, and in so doing have also been able to find and correct some assumptions that are necessary when reading damaged and edge-worn tablets.

There are plenty of translations of VAT 4956 out there, and found only one where someone with an agenda has tried to manipulate meanings of certain terms through inconsistent translations. It's not likely anyone would start with that one. (Although I tried it once here until someone pointed out some major problems with it.)

This translation below is easily accessible and trusted by pretty much everybody:

https://www.lavia.org/english/Archivo/VAT4956en.htm

BTW, although the WTS is the only major opposer of the Babylonian documents. There are a couple other opposers I have seen over time. The other major agenda that I have seen interfere with sound reasoning comes from persons who desperately need the "decree by Cyrus" freeing the Jews from Babylon to be the beginning of the 70 weeks of years, i.e., about 490 BCE if ending in 1 CE, or about 457 BCE if ending around 33 CE. It's tough to make VAT 4956 point to a year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar that would make Cyrus' 1st year 457 BCE or thereabouts, but I have conversed with someone who has tried, and he uses the same kinds of adjustments and claims that Rolf Furuli attempted in his second book on the "Oslo Chronology."

I think it's more fun to just jump in and start trying to figure it out. I hope it's not a waste of space on this topic, but I'd like to just start out with the first one today, and see if there is anything you find questionable about it.

1 hour ago, xero said:

for some reasons of national security

Reasons:

• It saw a picture of the cuneiform on the tablets and thought some of the symbols looked like swastikas.
• Doesn't think Babylonians were a diverse enough lot.
• And they were slaveholders, too.
• Confused   [Nebu]....KO...[v] ID-19 with Covid-19. [The 19th year of the reign of KO-v-ID].  And that somehow implies that the vaccine might not have worked.

21 hours ago, xero said:

@JW InsiderI tried the web version 1st, but that lacked the ability to go back to BCE dates. All the other things (besides my continued dyslexia w/regard to dates BCE - as a developer, I would have fixed that so people didn't have to play with numbers).

What I'm still trying for is what view will show me the on-the-ground view and how to translate "the rule of fist?"=cubit to what I'm looking at.

I see a lot of online claims about the Babylonian and Egyptian measurements using fingers, hand, four-fingers, four-fingers+thumb, double-hands, fist, double-fists, forearm, foot, etc., and not all of them are accurate. It looks like the Egyptians had a specific fist-measure, but I don't see anything in the Babylonian documents that define the fist as a measure. I have deferred to Steele, Neugebauer, Sachs/Hunger, Stephenson/Fatoohi, and a few other resources on the standards of measurement in use. If you have access to the full documents below, I found that these ones were useful:

Pathways into the Study of Ancient Sciences

Isabelle Pingree, John M. Steele, Charles Burnett, DAVID EDWIN PINGREE, Erica Reiner

https://www-jstor-org.azp1.lib.harvard.edu/stable/24398230

The History of Ancient Astronomy Problems and Methods

O. Neugebauer

Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan., 1945), pp. 1-38

https://www-jstor-org.azp1.lib.harvard.edu/stable/542323

We can use the "new moon" -- the transition between waning and waxing -- to not only find the beginning of the new month, but also the beginning of the new year. The new year was the month starting the first day of Nisannu, just like the Hebrew "sacred" new year was started on the first day of Nisan.

The new year started Nisannu the 1st, and the month Nisannu was the month that started closest to the spring equinox. Therefore the first full moon after the spring equinox should always be within a day of Nisan 14. That's because there are 29.5 days in a lunar month, so months typically alternated between 29 and 30 days for an average of 29.5. The middle of a 29-day month could land closer to the 14th, and the middle of a 30-day month could land closer to the 15th. Also, it depended on whether there was a delay in actually seeing the new moon sliver which could easily delay by a day.

Note the Watchtower's comment on Nisan 14 here:

*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. For example, in 1975 the Memorial date, as calculated fourteen days from the new moon (nearest the spring equinox) visible in Jerusalem, was Thursday, March 27, after sundown. Appropriately, there was also a full moon on Thursday, March 27, 1975. The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown. The full moon also occurs on this same date. So if, in the future, any of Jehovah’s people should be out of touch with the governing body, they could determine the Memorial date with fair accuracy from local calendars that show the first full moon after the spring equinox. The celebration would then take place after sundown of the day on which the full moon occurs.

So a fun experiment is to see if you can use just observation in the software program to find the date of the new year. You can probably find Nisannu just by looking for the exact time the phase changes from waning to waxing (the new sliver) and find the one closest to the Spring Equinox. That always puts the first full moon after the spring equinox in March or April, and very rarely, early in May.

If you scroll through the dates, you find the first new moon is on January 23, -567. The next one is on February 22nd. Still too early. The next one is on March 23rd. A good candidate. And the next one is on April 23rd. Also a good candidate. And we have to know something about Babylonian observations to figure out which one of those last two is the best candidate. But we can take a good guess and see if it matches the scholars later. 

After guessing, we can check it against page 26 of Parker and Dubberstein: https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf

P & D had the advantage of checking hundreds of dated clay tablets to be able to know which years had the leap month, and that produced a much more sure version of the Babylonian calendar. 

What Stellarium will let you do is see how much the sun's glare might have interfered with the ability to see a new moon sliver. If it couldn't be seen, the month started the next day. Also, they new it was due if the previous month had 30 days. But some months would have only 29 which would pretty much mean the next month should have 30.

One more important thing is to click on the Moon (also called SIN in this Sky Culture, because the Moon god was named SIN). You will be able to see one of the lines of information showing the phase of the moon which will be very important. At this time on January 1st, the phase is: "Moon Age: 8.1 days old (Waxing Gibbous)"

That means that at 7pm, when I took this screenshot, it was now 8.1 days since the new moon sliver began, and the sliver was "waxing" or growing bigger (prior to the full moon). After the full moon the phase becomes "Waning Gibbous," getting smaller again until the moon disappears and starts a new sliver (new moon) for a new month.

@xero, i don't know how far along you are but Stellarium is a great tool for this, and I see you are using the Mul.Apin Sky Culture. It saves time from having to keep track of the Babylonian star names yourself.

I suspect there will be some others here who might try the Stellarium software, too. If so, they should know that it's good to get more than use the online web version. It's great, but the desktop version gives you everything you need.

It's free. Although you are allowed to donate. 

You can download and install the latest version 23.3 or 23.4 from here: https://stellarium.org/release/2023/09/25/stellarium-23.3.html

Once installed, you will want to change the location to somewhere near Babylon. The city @xero picked is below:

Once you install it, you can hover your mouse over the bottom left edge of the screen and select the icon just under the clock:

"Sky and Viewing Options [F4]"

Then select "Sky Culture" from the top of that newly opened window, and pick Babylonian -- MUL.APIN:

Now when you close that window, pick the clock icon you saw earlier. 

Start with any BCE date you like, but I think most people will try either 588 BCE or 568 BCE if the first thing they want to check is VAT 4956:

Along the bottom of the screen, if you hover the mouse over the bottom left edge of the screen you will see some other options:

The first two highlighted ones will toggle the borders of the constellations on, which is helpful. The second one toggles the names on and off. But you will also probably want to experiment with the imagery and the horizon/landscape settings which you can make disappear or make  almost transparent. You can also use the arrow keys and Page Up and Page Down to zoom in and out and turn the orientation so that you are facing due West which is my favorite place to start. 

The last thing to do after orienting your screen is to go back to that Clock icon and set the year, month, day, and time. If you want to check 568 BCE first, then type the following into the date and time boxes. For purposes of VAT 4956 I would start on January 1, 568 BCE. In astronomy dates 568 BCE is written as -567, due to the zero year issue. So that's actually written as -567:01:01 -- 00:00:01. You don't have to spin it all the way back; you can type numbers into the fields. Here I will set it for 4:45 in the afternoon.

16:45 (4:45pm) is pretty close to sundown on January 1, but you can "spin" the dial forward to just after sundown so that you can actually see the visible stars:

If you make it even later after sundown, the glow of the sun is gone, and you can see more constellations fall below the horizon. Just for fun I have also toggled the ecliptic lines which might come in handy for later:

That's pretty much the set-up although there's a ton of other things to play with.

On 3/4/2024 at 5:43 PM, xero said:

Position Relative to the Moon: When an astronomer described a star as one cubit in front of the Moon, they meant the star appeared roughly the width of your fist away from the Moon. The Moon itself is about half a degree in angular width, so a cubit was probably around 8-10 degrees of angular separation.

It might be good to read at least the first page of this work: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41670130

You won't need a log-in to JSTOR for it, because it's all on the preview page.

Basically, the point is that a "cubit" is indeed a unit of angular measure, but the paper uses a more stringent method of measuring it accurately by looking at the 200 or so planetary references in Babylonian documents, since planets move slower than the moon and some planets were only visible for a short period of time, and therefore we can know the time window of the observation more accurately.  

Basically, as you can see in the summary of the document, the cubit had been considered to be about 2 degrees, and a finger would be ¹/₂₄^th of a cubit. The paper will more accurately offer evidence of 2.2 degrees per cubit, a difference of only 10%. 

Also, on the question of what is in front of or behind, the following will likely make the most sense to you after you have looked at enough observations and compared them with your Stellarium screen (or any other software that does this).a

Even though it's easier to envision the horizon rather than the ecliptic, it still generally works out that words Babylonians used in their "astronomy" mapped as follows:

• North=Above,
• South=Below,
• East=Behind,
• West=In Front. 

For the parts of the sky closest to the horizon, especially towards the west,  it therefore works out like the old "Western" movie cliche, where "the sun sinks slowly into the west." So it's easy to imagine that most of the heavenly objects are sinking in that direction therefore the sun was in front of all the stars that will also "sink" in that general direction. Therefore all the stars along MOST of the sky that are still farther east are behind, heading racing toward the horizon. And they will also be in the same "in front" or "behind" positions when  they appear to come up on the eastern horizon the next morning. 

19 hours ago, xero said:

Not so much. <inside joke>If you calculate 2520 years back from July 26, 1931, would be approximately July 26, 589 B.C.E</inside joke>

-589 [astron.] -- "July 26," 590 B.C.E. 😉

My apologies. But I have removed some more of the "Vicar of Warwick" saga and other posts from xero's Nineveh topic over to here because it's just not close enough to the chronology topic that started there. These posts are not really about forum participants we have known either, but this has already become kind of a catch-all for unnecessary dialogues.

@Pudgy @BTK59 @George88 @Srecko Sostar

9 hours ago, George88 said:

It's evident to everyone that you've manipulated my words by adding scripture to create a misleading statement, and now you're attempting to rectify the situation.

Always on the attack, aren't you. Always divisive. Always causing contentions. I didn't add the scripture, you did.

Turns out that everyone here quotes what people say, even snippets of scripture, or snippets of Watchtower or Insight references. Even you do this:

On 3/1/2024 at 6:25 PM, George88 said:

On 3/1/2024 at 2:56 PM, JW Insider said:

• Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202.
• Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid

On 3/1/2024 at 4:52 PM, JW Insider said:

. . . (An Astronomical Observer’s Text of the 37th Year Nebuchadnezzar II), by Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst F. Weidner, pages 67-76, . . . (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000,

Oh my!! Show me where I ever said these things above that you say I said. I never said them. Should I call you a fraudster because of what you did? Of course not!

I hope you see how silly you are sounding. You did the exact same thing when you quoted "me" and showed that I said something I never did. I never said those things. The "Insight" book and "Watchtower" did. But you distorted what I supposedly said by removing the reference pages I gave to "Insight" and to the "Watchtower," and made it look like I said it. All I did is quote from the "Insight" book and all you did is quote from a scripture. 

However, I apologize for not reminding you that what I was re-quoting the verse from Timothy that you had just quoted. I don't really expect an apology from you for what you did, because I don't want one, it's not a big deal. I recognized what you had quoted from just as I expected you would recognize the scripture you had just quoted from. 

I will try to be more careful to not follow your own example, and be more careful when requoting scriptures that people might not recognize as scripture. 

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

@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.

I think some desperate people are hoping you will get no farther on this. I hope you stick with it without distractions. 

So I think I will point out the potential distractions in the post above:

Quote

Opponents turn to the manipulation of tablets using a 569 with an 18-year cycle.

False. No one in the entire world uses 569 with an 18-year cycle. And the word "opponents" sounds a bit out of place, here. The WTS is the only opponent of the tablets that I have ever heard of. 

Quote

The tablets are organized according to the 19-year Saros Cycle.

The tablets are most definitely not organized according any 19-year Saros Cycle. First of all there is no such thing as a 19-year Saros Cycle. 

Quote

That you have just discovered is something that disrupts the observation.

Obviously not. Although I have a feeling someone would just love to disrupt the observation. It seems you are getting a little too close for comfort, as they say.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, when someone attempts to use it in reverse, they immediately protest that it's impossible.

Maybe trying to figure out what that means is supposed to delay your progress by another week. LOL

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Oh Okay, it has to do with you making up things, got it,

As everyone can now see, I didn't make anything up. I simply quoted correctly from what you had just posted a minute or so earlier.

I never expected you to admit a mistake. This is a tiny one, but the bigger the mistake the more you dig in your heels and try to project it onto the other person. You should be aware, however, that almost by definition, that a person who is known for projecting their faults and insecurities onto others, ends up revealing a lot more about themselves.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

since none of that has to do with your remark. Perhaps you had something different in mind,

No. It had everything to do with my remark. Jesus spoke of the resurrection at the last day, but persons in the first century were believing the times and seasons were in their own jurisdiction and claiming that the resurrection had already occurred, just as you posted. The exact same thing happens with the 1914 doctrine, because we tie that to the claim that the first resurrection has already occurred:

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Can we be more precise?
 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

and your recollection might be faltering, but it's perfectly natural.

I'm hearing an echolalia. You are repeating what I was saying above, except that you are projecting it back as if you have never been able to admit a mistake and must try to make your mistake stick to the person who pointed it out. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

He is a fraudster, . . . Furthermore, he is not only manipulating scripture but also distorting its context, linking it to chronology.

Please keep in mind how others perceive a person who is bent on projecting their errors onto others. It's almost like confession. Note again that it was the Watchtower that linked the first resurrection to the 1914 chronology. (See above.)

I think everyone is aware that subtext of every discussion of Neo-Babylonian chronology is always the 1914 doctrine. 

6 hours ago, George88 said:

Or is it a manipulated piece to prompt a response from you? I know you have the power to add or erase other people's comments. Could this be one of those instances, or was it taken from another post? Such actions would indicate fraud and deception."

No. It suspect it was just an issue with your memory. No biggie. We are all getting a bit older every day. No need to be paranoid about a manipulated piece. I don't do that. I have the power to delete comments, but I don't have the power to "add" them, LOL. Since there are none of those instances, it couldn't be one of them. Besides, even if I really had made a mistake and taken it from another post, it wouldn't be fraud and deception. It would have just been a mistake. 

In this case it was your mistake, not mine, but I am not so paranoid or anxious to accuse others so as to think it would have been fraud or deception. I do think it's a matter of "wishful thinking" on your part, though. You probably "wish" you could accuse me of fraud and deception and actually find evidence for that, even if you have to grasp at straws to do it. This is the same danger I have been talking about when promoting teachings with no evidence, or very weak and faulty evidence. People are always willing to grasp at straws to try to sow doubt on the evidence that doesn't fit their agenda, or they try the old standby ad hominem against the person presenting it.  

This is exactly what I wish would change. And of course you will continue with the accusations because, if you are anything like your other personas here, you never admit a mistake.

3 hours ago, George88 said:

"When did I post that?

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:

3 hours ago, George88 said:

To those who have left their faith, the words of scripture no longer hold meaning. But should those who represent God hold the same belief?

2 Timothy 2:14-4:5 New International Version
Dealing With False Teachers
14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

f

48 minutes ago, xero said:

 I picked Hillah, Iraq for the location, rolled back to April 22, 568 BCE and I'm not seeing what I'm supposed to see.

 

You are very close though. You are only one year off. You are at -568 which is actually 569 BCE. Astronomy dates use a zero year: 1 BCE is 0 [astron.]; 2 BCE -1 [astron.]. So just subtract one for the astronomy date and use -567 to see 568 BCE.  

5 minutes ago, George88 said:

. . . who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

For the record, I do not claim that the resurrection has already taken place. That's part of the 1914 doctrine.

If you're still around @xero, and you reach this post, I think by now you will have seen how "607 vs 587" is played as if it's a game for 607 supporters. Supporters of 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th (or 19th) year must play it as a game of extreme obfuscation. 

I doubt that anyone will attempt to answer any of the questions and challenges that make the outcome appear too simple. Those must be dodged at all costs because they don't lend themselves to obfuscation. 

With that in mind, I'm ready to summarize. But I also wanted to clarify my own position on this whole chronology question. 

My real concern is not the way @George88 or @scholar JW or Rolf Furuli or others defend the 607 doctrine.

I don't even have a big problem with the 607 doctrine itself. I have no trouble explaining that, as Witnesses, we believe the 70 years must have ended shortly after 539/8, therefore the 70 year period must have started around 607, and that even if Jerusalem didn't fall precisely in that year, this was still the time period when Babylon brought about an interruption of the Davidic Messianic Kingdom in Jerusalem, but that Jehovah's purpose was to bring back righteous government with a his own Davidic Messianic King's government that would never be brought to ruin. (Daniel 2:44, Ezekiel 21:27) The lesson, even from Daniel 4, still points to Jehovah's sovereignty and purpose and therefore highlights the most common OT reference in the NT: that Jesus was resurrected to rule at God's right hand, until all enemies are brought under his feet, including the last enemy death through the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21 & 22). 

So it's not difficult to teach the same lesson from all the major verses we currently use, even talking about the generation since the first world war now living at a time when we are all sighing and groaning over the system of things, crying out in these last days for the hope of a new one. 

It's not important to me to claim that 587/586 is the most probable match for the specific year the Temple was destroyed, or the exact date when the last king at Jerusalem was removed, or that there is really no evidence whatsoever for 607. We have every right to believe something, whether there is evidence of it or not. 

But I do have a problem when Witnesses go online and make us look stupid by publicly claiming that the best evidence is for 607 BCE, and it's therefore somehow more Biblical, and 587 is somehow "apostate." Claiming there is evidence for our take on 607 is not only untrue, it makes us look like we are trying to prove we are more intellectual and scholarly than the scholars and experts. Or to presumptuously claim that the times and seasons are not just in Jehovah's jurisdiction but also in ours. 

It's not a matter of having faith like little children, and that Jehovah has hidden something from the wise and intellectual and given it to children. It's the opposite! It's us bragging to the world that we are even more scholarly than the scholars, that we understand intellectual things better. That we are able to judge the evidence and tell you which secular evidence is useful and which secular evidence is not. 

This is highly presumptuous and haughty, and when the WTS tries to explain itself, we find ourselves backed into a corner where we must try to support some flimsy "pretend" evidence, or pseudo-chronology. We end up being academically dishonest and we end up using logical fallacies and obfuscation. But I don't mean blatantly lying. It's a matter of having previously been told and then accepting that this particular belief about 607 is an important part of our faith. To many of us that would mean that we are going against the faith by even looking at other evidence. So it skews our thinking, and we put blinders on. 

I think this goes for Watchtower writers, too. They grasp at straws to look for anything that might throw doubt about the existing reasonable evidence. And it makes us appear unreasonable. Every article in the Watchtower on chronology has done this. I quoted the 1969 article where we claimed that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse.

Also in the 1969 Watchtower was a reference to the Adad-Guppi inscription, and a bit of academic dishonesty or at least scholastic sloppiness shows up there, too.

The article makes a big deal about how much chronological information was damaged and unreadable from the inscription and that we therefore can't use it to support the Neo-Babylonian chronology. However, at the time this was written there were TWO well-known and well-publicized copies of the same inscription, and the one discovered in 1956 had already been published for more than a decade with the years of reigns of kings from the last Assyrian king to Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar up to the last king Nabonidus himself. All the numbers were readable and in good condition on that one. But that one is not mentioned here, or in any follow-up apology for having ignored it.

*** w69 2/1 p. 89 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? ***
What is thought to be a memorial tablet written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological data for this period, but many portions of the text have been damaged, leaving much to the ingenuity and conjecture of historians. The reader can appreciate how fragmentary the text is by ignoring the bracketed material in the following translation of one section of this memorial—material that represents modern attempts at restoring the missing, damaged or illegible portions:.
“[During the time from Ashurbanipal], the king of Assyria, [in] whose [rule] I was born—(to wit): [21 years] under Ashurbanipal, [4 years under Ashur]etillu-ilani, his son, [21 years under Nabopola]ssar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, [2 years under Ewil-Merodach], 4 years under Neriglissar, [in summa 95 yea]rs, [the god was away] till Sin, the king of the gods, [remembered the temple] . . . of his [great] godhead, his clouded face [shone up], [and he listened] to my prayers, [forgot] the angry command [which he had given, and decided to return t]o the temple é-hul-hul, the temple, [the mansion,] his heart’s delight. [With regard to his impending return to] the [temp]le, Sin, the king of [the gods, said (to me)]: ‘Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son [of my womb] [shall] make [me] en[ter/sit down (again)] in (to) the temple é-hul-hul!’ I care[fully] obeyed the orders which [Sin], the king of the gods, had pronounced (and therefore) I did see myself (how) Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the offspring of my womb, reinstalled completely the forgotten rites of Sin, . . . ”
Farther along in the text Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) is represented as crediting Sin with granting her long life “from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 6th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son of my womb, (that is) for 104 happy years, . . . ”—Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312.
From this very incomplete inscription it can be seen that the only figures actually given are the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and 4 years of Neriglissar’s reign. As to this latter monarch, the text does not necessarily limit his reign to four years; rather it tells of something that happened in his fourth year.
 

This information was rolled out to sow doubt, no doubt. But why bring this one up at all if it hides the real story? 

8 hours ago, George88 said:

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

With the correction that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597

Dr. Wiseman's works on the Babylonian Chronicles are fabricated, is that what you're suggesting?

I have harbored that suspicion for a while.

This is a very odd question. It's such a well-known fact that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597 BCE. How could they, unless they were prophetic that a new "Christian" era would begin 590-some years later?  They do mention what went on in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the first year, the second year, etc,. . . on up to the 11th year when they are broken off and missing from that point through the rest of his reign. This is exactly what I quoted to you from Dr Wiseman. Dr. Wiseman agrees that there are many methods to determine the BCE equivalent of those years, but naturally he would agree with me and everyone else, that the Chronicles themselves on their own do not contain BC/BCE year markings.

8 hours ago, George88 said:

I'm not completely certain, but in the upper left-hand corner you can see B.C., doesn't that indicate BCE?

I can't believe that you might have thought those dates were actually on the Babylonian Chronicles. Those dates are determined from dozens of archaeological references to astronomical events during the Neo-Babylonian empire. They even coincide with Egyptian records, Assyrian records, Persian records, and Greek records.

8 hours ago, George88 said:

Do you perceive a distinction between the terms "Before Christ" and "Before the Common Era"? If so, kindly clarify how these two expressions differ from their literal interpretations.

  They refer to just almost exactly the same thing. In practice they mean the same. I prefer BCE over BC for the same reasons that the Watchtower does.

8 hours ago, George88 said:

You continuously demonstrate your reliance on deceptive tactics. While the answer "NOWHERE" is accurate for 587 BC, it is NOT accurate for the year 598/7 BC. However, until you can provide evidence from those "astronomical tablets" that clearly state how the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, along with the 18 years you constantly emphasize, establishes the standard for 587 BC, your argument lacks credibility. It is important to consider other factors that could potentially yield the same interpretation using the same data for 587 BC.

It's pretty obvious that you aren't understanding the evidence provided by all the authorities and experts that the Watchtower magazine quotes from. I have already explained how the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be associated with his 18th year through simple math. 

The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with 568 BCE. There is a tablet for his 37th year with many astronomy observations that can ONLY refer to celestial events in 568 BCE. 

If you can't see that this also associates the prior year, his 36th year with 569 BCE, and his 35th year with 570 BCE, and his 25th year with 580, and his 15th year with 590, and his 18th year with 587 BCE, then I'm pretty sure there is no further use discussing this with you. 

Perhaps one more question for you to try to answer would clear it up.

If you can answer it, then great. We can go on. If you can't or won't answer it, then I see no reason for continuing to discuss the topic with you:

If Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is 568 BCE, then what BCE year would be his 18th year?

10 hours ago, George88 said:

The Watchtower has incorporated numerous scholarly insights, all contradicting the idea of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, as you are suggesting with those same experts. Your actions continue to perpetuate deception.

So far, the Watchtower has not been able to present even one scholarly insight contradicting the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. And yes, I am suggesting that the experts the Watchtower has quoted from as authorities are ALL correct. If it's "my deception" then it is also the deception of ALL the experts the Watchtower has depended on for scholarly insights. 

10 hours ago, George88 said:

As an advocate for that authority, you are in fact supporting it. So, there's no need to play mind games anymore.

 Your projection about "mind games" is unnecessary. I have never denied that I agree with the experts and authorities the Watchtower has quoted from and referenced for scholarly insights. 

10 hours ago, George88 said:

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You cannot determine Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year of reign using the 18-year cycle from 568 BCE. The tablet indicates that his 37th year is 568 BCE. This has nothing to do with any 18-year cycles. If you are referring to records about "Saros cycles" they only help confirm that his 37th year was 568 BCE. Any confirmation that his 37th year is 568 is also confirmation that his 18th year is 587 BCE.

You are the one consistently mentioning the 18 years and 587 BC, not me. This seems to be another intentional attempt to contradict me. Are you not weary of distorting other people's statements?

As you can see above I said you cannot determine Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year using the 18-year cycle from 568 BCE, whatever that means. There is no 18-year cycle involved here. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE is not based on any 18-year cycles, nor is there any 18-year cycle that would take you from his 37th year to his 18th year. 

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Can you please explain why you are deliberately manipulating other people's words by contradicting their statements? Do you see what you are writing?

JWI: You cannot determine Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year of reign using the 18-year cycle

JWI: all three of these scholars believe there is more than sufficient evidence confirming that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE.

605-37=568 / 568+18=586 / 568+19=587

Please be consistent in your statements and avoid creating confusion with the data.

You are evidently confusing any mention of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year with something you are calling an "18-year cycle." When I turned 18 year's old it wasn't based on an 18-year cycle. When I turned 19, it wasn't based on a 19-year cycle. It was simply my 18th year, then my 19th year. No cycles involved. From what I can tell, you like the word "cycles" only because you seem to think it can help you manipulate the simple match I gave you to find a year that's 18 or 19 (or 20) years off from what the simple math actually tells you -- by throwing in an undefined "cycle."

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Bible: 4. 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar, ll, leaves Gedaliah as governor over the remaining Judeans.

Sounds about right.

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Does this look like a good time frame?

It's a mixed bag. 

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

History and Bible: 1. 607 BC, the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar ll / 2 Kings 24

There is absolutely ZERO evidence in the Bible for a 607 BC/BCE date for the destruction of Jerusalem. The Bible refers to exiles taken from Judea and Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, 7th year, 18th year and 23rd year. There are no BC/BCE dates in the Bible. There is EXCELLENT evidence from multiple independent sources that tell us that Nebuchadnezzar was NOT even a king until his father died 2 years after 607 BCE, which would be 605 BCE. That was what the Babylonians marked as an "accession year" and it was not counted in their calendar because an accession year had already been named for the king who was still alive on Nisanu 1 of that same year. Therefore we have EXCELLENT evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. 

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Bible: 2. The Lord sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite, and Ammonite raiders against him to destroy Judah.

Yes.

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Bible: Jeremiah 25 Seventy Years of Desolation begins.

Jeremiah 25 speaks of Seventy Years for Babylon to bring all the nations around them into servitude. It wouldn't happen all at once for each nation, but over the course of those 70 years, all the nations around them would come into servitude, and suffer destruction if they refused. That 70 years for Babylon would therefore be associated with the desolation and destruction Judea and Jerusalem, too, if they did not fully submit to Babylon's yoke over the course of Babylon's 70 years of greatest power. Jehovah was therefore using those 70 years that he was giving to Babylon's as a means by which Judea and Jerusalem would be punished along with those other nations. It appears that the earliest effect on Judea and Jerusalem itself would be around 605 BCE, about two years AFTER 607 BCE. And their exile would be complete when the king of Persia began to reign over Babylon. That would be 539 BCE. So Judea and Jerusalem ended up suffering desolations, exiles, servitude, and vassalage at the hand of Babylon over a course of MOST of Babylon's 70 years of power.  About 66 of Babylon's 70 years of power, (605 to 539). The first major disaster upon Judea due to the rise and involvement of Babylon was the fall of the Assyrian Empire in 609, with the death of Josiah on the battlefield of Megiddo. Counting from that point gives you EXACTLY 70 years for Babylon's Empire. The Temple itself was desolated for a period of 70 years which were also a direct result of Babylon's 70 years of power. The Temple grounds lay desolate from about 587 to 517. 

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Bible: 2. 604 BC First deportation / Daniel 1:1

Yes. The Bible says that some exiles were taken in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

History and Bible: 2. 598/7 BC, Nebuchadnezzar orders second deportation, and there is a change of Jerusalem Kings, between Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah.

Yes. This would be Nebuchadnezzar's "7th year" by the way the Babylonians measured, and the way Bible writers often measured, too.

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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.

I can't tell what you are saying. The several tablets that can be applied to his 37th year do not show his 37th year in 605, so I assume you meant that if his 37th year is 568, then you can just go back 37 years to show that his accession year is 605 BCE. The last sentence makes no sense about any stipulated "19/8 years" (?!?) but it is agreed that any tablets created in his 37th year were therefore created in 568 BCE. 

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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.

No exact evidence for this, but it appears that the source (mostly Herodotus) places the set of conflicts between the Scythians and the Medes leading up to the war between the Medes and Lydians which ended due to "Thales" solar eclipse usually identified as 585 BCE. Cyaxares is said to have died in that battle, therefore in 585 BCE.

There is absolutely NO evidence that Nebuchadnezzar or his general were battling the king of Mitsir (Egypt) during this time. As early as 1879, Thomas Thayer's "Universalist Quarterly" included the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was more than TWENTY YEARS LATER. In 568, therefore his 33rd year was 572, and therefore his 18th year was 587. Not his 37th year. 

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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.

Yes.

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

History: Reference back from 568 BC using a 19-year cycle for King Jehoiachins release.

605-37=568 / 568+19=587

There is no such thing as a 19-year cycle here.

The only 19-year cycle remotely connected to ancient history was the discovery that there were almost exactly 235 full or new moons in every period of 19 years and therefore if you were adding just enough "leap" months every two or three years to a typical 12 lunar month year (228 +7=235) you could be almost exactly back on schedule with the solar year of 365 days if you added 7 leap months. 

Since there is no such thing as a 19-year cycle related to this, so it has NOTHING to do with finding the date for Jehoiachin's release. 

The Bible indicates that it would be at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (his death in his 43rd year of reign, 562 BCE) and therefore at the beginning of Evil-Merodach's reign (561 BCE). That would be about the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile (per Jeremiah 52/2 Kings 25). NOT related in any way to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The math you attempted above is not fuzzy. It is clearly wrong. 

Jehoiachin's exile started in about 598/7 as you say above, so the Bible's mention of his 37th year of exile brings us to about 598-37=561. Perfect alignment with the secular chronology that says Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years and was then succeeded by Evil-Merodach. 

4 hours ago, George88 said:

The question you continue to evade is where on those tablets is the explicit mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC? Just as the Babylonian Chronicle specifically notes an attack on Jerusalem in 597 BC, I need similar wording for the event in 587 BC, where are they?

Completely false again.

Now we are finally back to the question I kept answering over and over, very directly and explicitly, but you EVADED my answer to pretend I hadn't answered it. So at this point just go back to the posts around February 12th where It's just as I answered before when you brought up Wiseman. You can see yourself flailing in the link below (from February 12th) here because you seemed so angry that I had already answered you, and it must have made it awkward for you to keep pretending that I hadn't.

The answer is still going to be the same: We don't have any Babylonian Chronicles for Nebuchadnezzar's 18 or 19th year. In fact, as I pointed out from the pages of same Wiseman book you were quoting from, those Chronicles are cut off, stopped, and missing from about his 11th year on. Wiseman still says that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is 587, and he still puts the actual destruction of Jerusalem in 587, while admitting that there are also ways to calculate the actual destruction of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year in 586 BCE. But I'm not worried about what the Babylonian Chronicles say, or how much you rely on them. It's the Bible that associates Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years with the destruction of Jerusalem. I'm only concerned with what BCE year the Babylonian astronomical evidence associates with his 18th (or 19th) year -- NOT the destruction of Jerusalem. It's up to you whether you want to accept or reject the Bible on that point. Babylonian Chronicles don't even exist for those years. (Or at least they haven't been discovered yet.) 

I notice that even on February 12th, you had already had this question answered several times:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90904-trying-to-nail-down-612-bce-as-the-date-of-ninevehs-destruction/?do=findComment&comment=189002

On 2/12/2024 at 12:12 PM, George88 said:

On 2/12/2024 at 3:46 AM, JW Insider said:

Already answered. I don't know where you got the idea that Wiseman ever cited the 18-19 year number. Look back at my posts. I said Wiseman uses the chronology that puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years at 587 and 586. The Chronicles themselves do not contain any BCE-numbered years. They include Nebuchadnezzar's reign from the accession (zero-th") year to his 1st year, his 2nd, etc., on up to his 11th year. Wiseman calls this 11th year 594 BCE and he elsewhere acknowledges that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years.  

You have not provided a proper response. Instead, you are employing your typical evasive tactics to justify your calculations for the wrong purpose. I am specifically asking for the location in the Chronicles where the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC is mentioned. I am aware of Dr. Wiseman's assumption, and just like you, the disloyal COJ, and others who wish to work backward from 568 BC, there are numerous reasons to arrive at a different conclusion.

WHERE IN THE CHRONICLE DOES IT SPECIFICALLY STATE THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM HAPPENED IN 587 bc WITHOUT USING THE DISTORTED CALCULATIONS?

On 2/12/2024 at 3:04 PM, JW Insider said:

On 2/12/2024 at 12:12 PM, George88 said:

You have not provided a proper response.

All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again.

On 2/12/2024 at 12:12 PM, George88 said:

I am specifically asking for the location in the Chronicles where the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC is mentioned.

Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC

  On 2/12/2024 at 12:12 PM, George88 said:

WHERE IN THE CHRONICLE DOES IT SPECIFICALLY STATE THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM HAPPENED IN 587 bc WITHOUT USING THE DISTORTED CALCULATIONS?

OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. 

8 hours ago, George88 said:

Yes, the Babylonian Chronicles do mention Jerusalem in 597 BC, which a knowledgeable military historian would undoubtedly recognize as significant in understanding military campaigns.

I agree. With the correction that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597. No Babylonian chronicle or inscription mentions any BCE date, just as the Bible doesn't mention any BCE dates. Only the confirmation from any or all of the tablets containing lunar, solar, and planetary observations can be calculated to indicate the BCE date. The Babylonian chronicles mention Jerusalem in 597 only in the sense that they put the event in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year. And of course, this is the same thing as saying that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is to begin in 587 BCE. 

You don't even have to be a knowledgeable military historian to know that. 4th grade math is sufficient.