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

[xero]

I'm just trying to get clarity on what these postulated 13 are, so I can see for myself, but it's like pulling teeth. I wish the WT listed all of these along with snapshots of the tablets as well as snapshots of stellarium and captions explaining what we see.

As you can see from Gemini, for some reasons of national security can't tell me what the 13 positions are.

[JW Insider]

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.

[JW Insider]

@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.

[xero]

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. Don't ever ask me to trust an authority. I may as well go w/Zecharia Sitchin then.

[JW Insider]

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.

 

moonset-567.mp4

[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.) 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

However, VAT 4956 lacks meaning without being connected to a specific event, which it fails to do. The mention of the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar holds no significance . . . 

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. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Critics insist on linking it to 587 BC, citing the Saros cycle of 19 years

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. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

which contradicts the misinterpretation of the Watchtower's intention that proposes an 18-year cycle.

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. 

32 minutes ago, George88 said:

It also rehashes what the sources are for that credible source. We fall back to the likes of Carl Olof Jonnson the bogyman, and what sources were translated from German to English by another known friend of a person here, Ann O'Maly a staunch critic of the Watchtower along with AlanF.

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

32 minutes ago, George88 said:

he [COJ] also criticized Furuli's assertion on the earth's rotation.

What was that criticism? Where is it found?

32 minutes ago, George88 said:

COJ's critique seems biased, as he solely focuses on finding fault with the Watchtower Chronology, neglecting to conduct thorough research.

Are you able to explain why scholars praised him for being so thorough?

32 minutes ago, George88 said:

The most effective strategy to carry out personal research without being influenced by inaccurate information from others is one's own.

There you go!! Something we can agree on.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, George88 said:

Reading material correctly is crucial for proper understanding. While scholars may occasionally make mistakes, I do not have an issue with them.

I think everyone here is now convinced that this is no more than a big game of obfuscation with you. You responded to absolutely zero of the issues I brought up about the misinformation you provided. Just a lot of false claims from you and then you dodging wildly when they are pointed out. It's almost as if you just made it all up, then took some screenshots of some books to make it look there was some legitimacy to what you claim. It seems like you are willing to make up falsehoods about COJ, in the hopes that someone I defend him against your misinformation so that you can then say, "See, JWI just defended COJ, so now we don't have to look at any of the evidence from Stellarium, or Steele, or Sachs, or Dubberstein that JWI looked at. We're off the hook!!!" 

[JW Insider]

Now looking at -587 (588 BCE) for the other possible choice people have claimed for VAT 4956:

• I get nothing close in January,
• or February,
• but March has a slim possiblity for a Nisannu on March 5 which is no where near the Bull, though. At least it's a new moon.
• April is still in front of the Bull at the new moon, so that's not the one in the tablet, although April 3rd or especially the 4th looks like a good start for Nisannu. It matches the closest to the spring equinox, too. 
• May 2, has a possibility, but not likely visible until May 3rd, at which point it's actually nearly in the next constellation so calling it "behind the Bull" might be a possibility but doesn't seem likely. 
• May is outside the range for any known start of Nisan, just as the March possibility was also outside the range making April the most likely candidate. 
• April is indeed the candidate shown by P&D. 
• The rest of the months in 588 BCE are too far off and out of the question.

So the upshot here is that Nisan 1 started in April 3rd or 4th in 588 BCE, but that doesn't match the tablet. We can still keep checking both dates though, because it's only one reading. We should compare all of them.

[TrueTomHarley]

Go Rolf. I always liked the guy.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

I don't owe any explanations to you

Very true. LOL. Besides, I already know the explanation of why you do what you do. You have inadvertently admitted it several times over the last 10+ years. It hasn't changed.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Regarding the criticism of COJ of Fururli, instead of avoiding the topic, why don't you read his book and draw your own conclusions?

I don't need to read COJ's book. I read Furuli's book to draw my own conclusions.  I wrote my own critique after checking my own Sky5 screenshots but didn't put it anywhere but in my own notebooks. (Small parts made it to another topic on this forum.) Later I also read COJ's critique, and the critiques from a few others. The order wasn't so important, but I just didn't want to be dependent on COJ. 

Truth is I don't need VAT 4956. No one does in order to put accurate BCE dates on the Neo-Babylonian chronology or Nebuchadnezzar's reign. All it does is point to the exact same years that a couple dozen other astronomical observations on other tablets already point to. If you threw out or rejected VAT 4956 you'd get the same answer from several other tablets. And for my own purposes I have no reason to worry about what secular BCE date gets applied to any of these Neo-Babylonian reigns, or the Biblical dates in BCE either, for that matter. If the Bible didn't see fit to provide information about the BCE dates, it's clearly not part of what's necessary to keep us fully equipped for every good work. Just because something is obvious doesn't mean it's all that important.  

I've read most of COJ's GTR4 book by now, and don't see much of anything important or new. It's all been done by people before him and after him. It's impressive for an amateur to have been so careful and put it all into words that the rest of us amateurs can easily understand. I like Steele though. He is not so easy to understand, but I am impressed with his math skills and his carefulness, and that he admits clearly what we know and what we don't know. And Steele, like all the others, agrees with COJ, and indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year must be 568, not 588 BCE. 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Are you questioning COJ's mention of errors in reading VAT 4956 that were corrected by other scholars

No. Of course not. I only questioned what I deliberately questioned. Not everything you said was wrong. It was the misinformation I specified that was wrong, and a couple other points too trivial to bother with.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

4 hours ago, George88 said:

he also criticized Furuli's assertion on the earth's rotation.

If this is what you're going to falsely manipulate @JW Insider Twisting my words is a way to manipulate it, but it's a false equivalency when taken out of its proper context.

Nope. That's why I would never falsely manipulate it or take it out of context. All I asked you is where he criticized Furuli's assertion on the earth's rotation. [I said: "What was that criticism? Where is it found?"] I suspect you might even be right, that perhaps Furuli tried to make a big deal out of Delta-T and COJ might have recognized that this is pretty meaningless if Furuli needs the same Delta-T calculations for his own theories about 588. If Furuli needed Delta-T to be so far off not to work for 568, then he would need to throw away EVERYTHING in his whole book. 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

He addresses the issue of minor errors despite lacking scholarly expertise.

You don't need scholarly expertise to address minor errors that those with scholarly expertise already addressed. Besides, he made them easy to understand so that you could see why they were minor when you consider the overall set of points. There may easily be 3 or 4 easily recognized errors on VAT 4956. The WTS Insight book claims that another tablet is helpful and reliable for Cambyses' 7th year, when that tablet apparently has many more known errors on it that scholars have corrected. 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

His intention is to convince others that the tablet is reliable, even though it is not.

I'm sure that's true. That was also Stephenson's intention. Steele's intention. Sachs' and Hunger's intention. To make it unreliable you'd have to find more than just a couple of copyist's errors. The various manuscripts of the Bible show us that there have been THOUSANDS of copyists' errors just in the first early centuries in the Bible manuscripts. That doesn't make the Bible unreliable. Most of those errors are minor.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Now, let's reevaluate the previous schemes and enhance them as Steele suggested.

Now you're talking!! Steele, of course, agrees exactly with the dates COJ presents for the entire Neo-Babylonian period, including Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, and Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, and Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, George88 said:

I suggest you thoroughly investigate Steele's revision schemes to comprehend the impact they have on his past data.

I haven't read this book, only the preview pages on Google Books, and a review on an academic site, and the very similar information in some of his other works that I downloaded (and only partly read), including:

1.  

   A LATE BABYLONIAN COMPENDIUM OF CALENDRICAL AND STELLAR ASTROLOGY

   J. M. Steele

   Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 67 (2015), pp. 187-215

   ...LATE BABYLONIAN COMPENDIUM OF CALENDRICAL AND STELLAR ASTROLOGY J. M. Steele (Brown University) Abstract BM 36303+36326, BM 36628+36786+36817+37178+37197, and BM 36988 are three fragments of what was once a large, almost square tablet containing a compendium of astrological texts. The compendium, which dates to some- time after the invention of the...

   • Download
   • Save
2.  

   Studies on Babylonian goal-year astronomy I: a comparison between planetary data in Goal-Year Texts, Almanacs and Normal Star Almanacs

   J. M. K. Gray, J. M. Steele

   Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 62, No. 5 (September 2008), pp. 553-600

   ...62:553-600 DOI 10.1007/S00407-008-0027-9 Studies on Babylonian goal-year astronomy I: a comparison between planetary data in Goal-Year Texts, Almanacs and Normal Star Almanacs J. M. K. Gray • J. M. Steele Received: 20 May 2008 / Published online: 1 July 2008 © Springer- Verlag 2008 1 Introduction A large body of astronomical...

   • Download
   • Save

      

3. A Late Babylonian Normal and Ziqpu Star Text

   N. A. Roughton, J. M. Steele, C. B. F. Walker

   Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 58, No. 6 (September 2004), pp. 537-572

   ...A Late Babylonian Normal and Ziqpu Star Text N. A. Roughton, J. M. Steele , C. B. F. Walker Communicated by A. JONES Introduction The Late Babylonian tablet BM 36609+ is a substantial rejoined fragment of an important and previously unknown compendium of short texts dealing with the use of stars...

   • Download
   • Save

     ----------------

      

     I find it amazing how it's now becoming more and more possible to understand the Babylonian math and its influence on Greek math including Ptolemy and Hypsicles. This is something I just said above to @xero this morning. At first, a couple years ago, when I read Ann O'maly's paper stating that the Babylonians were actually calculating ecliptic, I thought it was an exaggeration, and figured that the Babylonians were probably were just approximating differences from the same amateur "horizon-based" methods that I personally find to be exact enough for my purposes.

      

     The book, unfortunately for your claims, does NOT revise any Neo-Babylonian dates. If anything it makes scholars put even more confidence in Babylonian records because it showed that the Babylonians had been able to manage some of these calculations even though they had to "calculate around" the 23 degree tilt of the earth, and the early use of the Metonic cycle hadn't been standardized yet. Their "manual" use of the 19-year Metonic cycle, didn't likely become standardized for them before 400 BCE. 

      

     Here is that point I made to xero earlier, that I find just amazing, because we usually give most of the credit to Ptolemy for putting the formulas on top of Babylonian estimations: