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

[JW Insider]

54 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

JWI: "Originally, the doctrine was there to prove that 1914 was part of Armageddon and the start of the Great Tribulation. But that part was dropped many years ago."

That's why the statement is clearly false,

*** w56 12/15 p. 755 par. 11 Telling the Good News from Day to Day ***
At the start of the great tribulation upon Satan’s organization in 1914 all such people felt merely the “beginning of pangs of distress,” 

*** w51 3/15 p. 164 Time Better than Money ***
When Christ was enthroned, in 1914, great tribulation was started against Satan and his wicked world organization. If it had then proceeded to completion, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of human flesh that tribulation was shortened or cut short, to allow a period of time for men to take in and give out knowledge of the established heavenly kingdom,

*** ws13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
In the past, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 when World War I started. We thought that Jehovah “cut short” those days in 1918 when the war ended so that the remaining anointed ones on earth could preach the good news to all nations. (Matthew 24:21, 22) After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, . . .

The "Armageddon" error was fixed many years before the "Great Tribulation" part was fixed.

54 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

that was considered the "end of the gentile times" as recorded in scripture, and the start of Christ's reign in Heaven

And for good measure, it should also be added that the 1914 doctrine was NOT to show the start of Christ's reign in Heaven. For about 40 years after the 1914 doctrine was "established," Christ's reign in Heaven had started in 1878. These ideas were repeated into the 1930's, and parts of it into the 1940's. 1878 was still considered a valid prophetic date during the first Tuesday night Book Studies I ever remember attending. We still studied "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" when I was 7 years old. All this was well after 1914. It was just a few years after the famous 1922 Cedar Point convention when the WTS dropped the first hints that the new date for Christ's reign might change to 1914.

 In 1878 God’s favor was withdrawn from the nominal systems. From that time on . . . . Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? Then back to the field, . . .  This is the day of all days. Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom. 

[xero]

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'd still prefer a separate topic about the astronomy evidence for the 13 lunar observations, for example, that would not allow any of the ad hominem stuff and desperate attempts to divert and distract. 

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

[xero]

Just now, George88 said:

I like it as well since we can apply it to just about anyone here, especially Pudgy, lol!

I'm not above throwing some unwarranted shade either.

[xero]

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

I find it amusing that I'm in the same boat as you. However, there's a crucial distinction between us. When things get tough, you have the advantage of being protected by the owner, who happens to ban individuals like me. This is precisely why you don't have to be cautious and your account remains unaffected by the site's rules and regulations. It seems unfair that the warning is intended solely for me, while all the other foolish people here remain untouched.

I think people who trouble themselves to own or run sites have the same kind of character that people who "start new religions" have. I don't know or care about anyone's history. To me talk about people is what tiny-minded people do. <patting my own back>Whereas the smart ones spend their time on the issues</end patting my own back>

So have you looked at the Korean guy's site yet?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Out of curiosity, since you have long tarnished your credibility, particularly among true Jehovah's Witnesses and no one here, could you please point out where in those articles it mentions that "it's part of Armageddon"? It seems logical for tribulation to precede any such event, doesn't it?

You'd think so, right? But originally Armageddon was going to end in 1914. When it no longer looked like that was going to happen on time, that "end" was later pushed to 1915. But that's why I said 1914 is "part of Armageddon." You should read "The Battle of Armageddon" which was also called "The Day of Vengeance" by C.T.Russell. I'm sure you can find the pieces and put it together yourself.

• ". . . the Day of Vengeance ... will end in October, 1914" -- The Battle of Armageddon / The Day of Vengeance, page 547.
• "Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word." The Time Is At Hand, page 101.
• And the Time is at Hand, on page 99, says:

...

Note to self: One more move of the goal posts should be expected.

[JW Insider]

18 minutes ago, George88 said:

Please include the front page of Russell stating that 1914 was NOT the end of the world. Thus, how could Armageddon begin without that event? Can you clarify?

18 minutes ago, George88 said:

It would be fair to include that so that people can make their own informed decisions rather than relying on a biased presentation.

You are free to add whatever you'd like. I knew that when you saw I was right about the GT you would shift focus to Armageddon. I had left a note to myself in the previous post that I expected one more move of the goalposts, but I was not going to worry about any further diversions this weekend. I have company coming in 10 minutes and they are staying for the weekend. So maybe you could do us all a favor and put up the rest of the Armageddon evidence, and I will follow up with you after Armageddon. Thanks. Yes, that was also a "set-up." Enjoy!!

[xero]

Ok, so can anyone tell me why I should prefer 568 BCE over 588 BCE when the astronomical data fully matches 588 BCE but only partially 568 BCE?

588 BCE:
https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220583459010

568 BCE:

https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220599019521

 

[JW Insider]

@xero, So hopefully it's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings fits 568 and does not fit 588 at all. And you have already mentioned the 2nd of the 13 readings, which does not fit either 568 or 588 and has long been considered to be a copyist's error: a 9 for an 8.

So I'll move onto the next one, but I won't skip around like Furuli did. The next measurable line indicates:

Nisanu 14:   On the 14th. one god was seen with the other  Sunrise to moonset 4°

This is shorthand for the sun and the moon are seen together for a period of 4 degrees or 16 minutes. (1 degree = 4 minutes and 4x4=16). (see below for the explanation of this.)

The meaning is that the Moon god [Sin] was seen with the Sun god [Shamash].

As an aside, in the Bible, the Hebrew word for Sun is Shemesh. The Babylonian word for the Moon was Sin, and the Hebrew word was Yareakh, which was also the name of the Ugaritic and Amorite Moon god, Yarakh/Yerakh. 

So, let's look up Nisanu 14 and see how long the sun and moon were seen together.

This time we need to take a picture all the way across the entire sky from one horizon to the other, because the sun will always be opposite the moon near the 14th of any lunar month. That's why there is always a full moon about the time of the Memorial, on Nisanu 14. Also, the 14th was one of the few days when you could have an eclipse. (An eclipse can't happen unless the moon is full, which is half-way between the new moons. 14.75 days from the last new moon and 14.75 days from the next one.)

Here we start at about is 4:30am, and moon hasn't set yet. And the sun hasn't risen yet. So the two gods are not seen together. But if we speed up the time and let it run until 5:27 the moon will set in the west and we will have seen the sun in the east for something like 15 minutes.

 Also, you can check the sunrise for that day, and moonset on the left of the screen in Stellarium.

Click on the moon and it says: Sets at 5:27am.

Click on the sun and it says: Sunrise It says Rises at 5:12 am.

Subtract 5:27 minus 5:12 and that's 15 minutes. 4 degrees is 16 minutes, almost a perfect match. 

Now let's check what happened in 588 BCE. on the date that Furuli wanted to claim was Nisanu 14. The gods were not seen together for any length of time because the moon had already set a half hour earlier!!. [you have to make the videos full screen to see much of anything.]

Hmmm. I wonder why Furuli skipped this line?

 

nisan14F-588.mp4

[JW Insider]

@xero, I mentioned that I would make an explanation for why 4 degrees equals 16 minutes. You probably already know but here it is. The Babylonians measured a full circle as 360 degrees. So when the sky makes a full "circle" from sunrise to sunrise (or sunset to sunset) that's 360 degrees, or 24 hours. 24 hours is 1,440 minutes and 4/360=90 so 1/90th of 1,440 minutes is 16 minutes. It's easier of course just to say 1 degree = 4 minutes. 

[JW Insider]

38 minutes ago, xero said:

Ok, so can anyone tell me why I should prefer 568 BCE over 588 BCE when the astronomical data fully matches 588 BCE but only partially 568 BCE?

Furuli's data has been taken on by another person or two, and just because it gets slightly adjusted and translated into other languages doesn't make it any more true than it was when he first published it.

Everyone who has actually done the readings for themselves could tell you that almost none of them match 588 unless you fake the months by shifting them all over by one month, and even then you only get very matches on just a few of the less specific readings , and the rest don't match at all. If you do them yourself in Stellarium, or any other software that can give BCE readings, you will find these same results as shown below. 

There are actually 17 lunar readings: 4 readings do not match 568 and 14 do not match 588. Come up with your own criteria for accuracy thresholds, and it will still always show that 568 is MUCH, MUCH better fit, and 588 is very poor.

 

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

[xero]

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So hopefully it's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings fits 568 and does not fit 588 at all.

1. Line 1: Nisanu 1 = May 2, 588 BCE/ April 22, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Bull of Heaven (Taurus)

568 BCE:

Author's verification value:  The moon is located behind the constellation Taurus according to the celestial body's direction of movement (downwards).

 

Result:  The Moon is behind the constellation Taurus according to celestial direction. -  Same

588 BCE:
"Here, the saying that the moon is 'behind' is related to the movement of celestial bodies. The moon referred to here is the setting moon and is located above Taurus, so Taurus sets first and then the moon sets afterwards ."

Simulated values:  Above is the moon's position at 6:30 PM on May 2, 588 BC. The moon appears to be located in the upper part of Taurus. The central Alpha star has already disappeared, and the moon continues to set above it, giving it an impressive appearance. 

Result:  The Moon is clearly visible behind the constellation Taurus. -  Same

You say that "it doesn't fit at all" , but that's not what it looks like.

[JW Insider]

25 minutes ago, xero said:

You say that "it doesn't fit at all" , but that's not what it looks like.

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

Check out the ACTUAL Nisanu 1, 588 BCE and see what you get. It's nowhere near.