Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction

[Pudgy]

(… looks at bulging pressure gauge …) Yep, (checks watch …) two more days ought to do it!

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

ongoing persecution faced by JWs from millions and governments,

In this "secular" report JWs volunteers say the opposite. That the people around them are nice, that they approach them and that they chat nicely with them, they say Hi to them, (this remind me on GB command how "simple Hello" is forbidden if you are ex-JW), express their appreciation for what JWs do.

Hey, nobody hates you. Here are your brothers and sisters confirming it George! Wake up!

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, 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.

2 hours ago, 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

So please stop asking for something I have claimed is not even there. What if I said I am specifically asking for you to find Isaac Newton's writings in the Quran? If I asked you several times and you couldn't answer, would it be right for me to claim you are just being evasive?  

2 hours ago, George88 said:

and just like you, the disloyal COJ, and others who wish to work backward from 568 BC

I don't work backwards from 568 BCE. 

2 hours ago, 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. 

It's as if I asked you again and again: I'm asking you specfically: Please don't be evasive and tell me where in the Quran does it specifically include Sir Isaac Newton's writings?

2 hours ago, George88 said:

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You should also check the book you most recently cited from Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon) which states the following:

Incorrect, I'm using all of Dr Wiseman's research but mostly concentrating on "Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British -- Wiseman, D. J. "

That's good. I meant to say "the book you recently cited from" rather than "the book you most recently cited from." It even occurred to me that I may have noticed a more recent additional citing of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings" which you had already quoted from a few times earlier. After I wrote that phrase, I even wondered if you might try to make an issue of it, but decided it was too trivial to go back and edit. Anyway, I meant the book you recently cited from here, about 16 hours ago from the time I'm writing this:

I like these two books of his. He makes some connections I hadn't seen before. I'm glad you are going through them.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Your calculation can also demonstrate the significance of the astronomical tablet, which indicates when "Nergal-sharezer held office in Jerusalem in 587/6 BC according to Dr. Wiseman. Your argument falls short.

But I agree wholeheartedly with that possibility. So how does agreeing with Dr Wiseman make my argument fall short? Are you saying his argument falls short? Why? It seems like you just want to play some kind of "tit for tat" game instead of having a serious dialogue about the evidence.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

and in which section of the same book does he mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6 BC according to his interpretation of the Babylonian Chronicles?

There you go again with the same non-sensical question. Wiseman clearly states the same thing I have stated on this forum off and on for over 10 years now, that the portion of the Chronicles covering Nebuchadnezzar falls several years short of his entire reign. In fact there are parts of 33 years that are not in the Chronicle according to Wiseman, from part of the 11th on up to his 43rd year. If he somehow mentioned that something from his 18th year was there after all, that would be quite a contradiction for a scholar. And he has easily earned the right to be called one, not like me.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

The contradiction that you have illustrated is quite thought-provoking, coming from a scholar.

Exactly. Now it seems you get it. 

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Does your software accurately account for Nabopolassar's ascension to the throne in 626 BC, or is it overlooking that fact? There appears to be significant confusion stemming from incorrect numerical calculations.

Yes, it does. There shouldn't be any confusion. It's a simple calculation. I'm planning on showing @xero exactly which document he can use, and how he can check it with easy to obtain astronomy software.

And after his accession year is calculated, there is a way to double-check independently by using the actual date provided in the Insight book for that rare portion of the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles where the Watchtower has not added the 20-year gap. From that point you can use the information taken from two other Babylonian documents --without even requiring astronomy software -- and see that it will easily provide the same accession year for Nabopolassar of 626 BCE. 

And for good measure, one could even then take an additional Babylonian inscription (stele), and double-check again using simple math, without requiring more astronomy software, and get the same year.

But you do need to use the software at least once to start with at least one year within Nabopolassar's reign. From any known, it's simple to figure out his accession year. After all, if you know his first year was 625 BCE, then it's obvious his accession year must be 626. If you knew his 11th year was 615, then it would still be obvious you could calculate his accession year as 626. The best Babylonian tablet gives us the exact BCE date for his 16th year. 

[Pudgy]

After 12 pages of discussion/argument about this,  I have lost track which side is “winning” the argument.

But either way, what is the end product of WHY this is apparently so important?

What practical value will knowing the correct answer have?

It seems to me that being able to PROVE MATHEMATICALLY that Christ began ruling in 1914 or 1918, and Armageddon occurred then is useless …. as there is not a single piece of evidence on planet Earth that supports that supposition.

None whatsoever.

World War I and 1914 was, based on everything that is real, was only a coincidence.

 

[JW Insider]

For anyone who is interested, I have moved several posts from here that deal more with the "20 year gap" over to a new topic:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90908-the-watchtowers-20-year-adjustment-to-the-standard-neo-babylonian-chronology/

 

[JW Insider]

@George88, I moved your BM 33401 topic over to the new thread, too. If you think it should be discussed back over here, just let me know. For me it makes no difference, but I think it was a good question to get to at some point.

[JW Insider]

30 minutes ago, George88 said:

Thanks, but no, thanks.

All right then, I moved the BM 33041 post back here. 

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, George88 said:

I must emphasize that I have never denied the validity of the 19 years, as it can be used in multiple ways, not just one. For those who insist on using VAT-4956 to refer to 587 BC, it is important to consider a military context within Hatti land, where one can argue for the usage of 626 BC. By studying the language discrepancies, we can potentially derive evidence by analyzing 2 Kings 25:8, which describes Captain Nabuzaradan's entry into Jerusalem to set fire to the house of God and any structures connected to the temple in 588/7 BC.

This would imply that Judah, along with Jerusalem, would have experienced the divine judgment referenced in other passages that we should be familiar with (607/6 BC). According to Dr. Wiseman's Chronicles, during times of military conquest, besieged cities were typically plundered and subsequently destroyed. According to the chronicles in BM 21946, Jerusalem was besieged in 598/7 BC, which falls short of the 19 years mentioned in the Bible.

If you want to challenge the wording in 2 Kings 25:8 to support your view, that's your prerogative. However, I believe that this perspective is inaccurate. I have carefully constructed my conclusion to align perfectly with both secular evidence and scripture, leaving no loose ends.

You've intrigued me with this view before in past years (under different names). I know why you usually bring up Tobit, as you did again here in this topic. And I know why you have brought up multiple persons named Nebuchadnezzar, and you even asked me why I ignored that particular evidence. I also know why you have left a kind of "teaser" here about "never denying the validity of the 19 years," because, as you say, it can be used in another way. And I also realize that there is one particular king of this "Nebuchadnezzar line" whose 19th year, either coincidentally or providentially, happens to land on the actual "astronomically validated" and "evidenced" year of 607 BCE.

It's an interesting and intriguing theory, and I understand why you think it's hardly worthy of being subject to the outside opinions any scholars or non-scholars on this forum. You have even mentioned in the past that you had planned to write it up in a more thoroughly researched and more thoroughly formulated manner in order to present it in some way to the WTS.

Because it still fully supports the 607/606 date, and fully supports judgement against both the kingly and religious seat at Jerusalem, and the full 70 years, it would continue to agree with all the major claims we currently make about the current 607 BCE. teaching. And it has the advantage of not being falsified by astronomical tablets. 

I haven't commented much on it, because I have a feeling you are still working out the details, and i think you are finding some factors that mitigate some of the objections you might expect.

I don't need to tell you the kinds of objections you would have to overcome in convincing those who would make a decision about it's usefulness. @xero, perhaps inadvertently, provided one of the biggest ones when he presented the usual comment about the perceived historical unreliableness of Tobit. Of course, you are not "dependent" on Tobit, it might just be that what seems to be a naming anomaly in Tobit happens to reflect a reality that seems otherwise lost in the secular records. And, as you know, there are some ambiguities and confusions among Babylonian names of Kings with overlapping titles, and therefore overlapping names, because those names often contains titles, or were only used as a part of a longer more formal title. 

There's plenty more to it, and I don't fully dismiss your idea. I understand parts of it. But it's yours to describe, and if I try to guess at the points you are finding in Wiseman and other books that might help support the idea, I'm sure I will get some of it wrong. I'm sure I have got some of the above pieces wrong about it already. Perhaps you have already changed or currently resolved some of the prior issues in a different way than you had tried in the past. 

I would be happy to discuss it seriously, but you would have to be more specific than you have been to date.  

[Srecko Sostar]

11 hours ago, George88 said:

While I understand that you are highlighting the significance of a specific example, it is essential to acknowledge that it cannot singularly outweigh the numerous evil acts committed by wicked individuals. Although this circumstance may seem noteworthy, it is crucial to recognize that it does not apply universally.

So now you back off and tone down your previous claim. Thank you.

[Srecko Sostar]

17 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

11 hours ago, George88 said:

While I understand that you are highlighting the significance of a specific example, it is essential to acknowledge that it cannot singularly outweigh the numerous evil acts committed by wicked individuals. Although this circumstance may seem noteworthy, it is crucial to recognize that it does not apply universally.

So now you back off and tone down your previous claim. Thank you.

According to statistics maintained by WTJWorg there are very few countries where JWs are banned compared to the large number of countries where JWs operate freely. According to this factual situation, we can look at the concept and idea that "the whole world hates JWs" differently and more realistically.

[xero]

I'll go back and read, but I've been busy, and I won't be rushed.
So far I've used https://skyviewcafe.com/ I've entered the coordinates for Hillah, Iraq. It's not looking promising. No visible lunar eclipse according to this software (if I'm using it properly)