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

[JW Insider]

@xero, You probably noticed by clicking on the Stellarium date/time settings that you can quickly change the view one hour at a time, or one day, or one month, or even one year at a time. In doing this you can quickly see that the moon traverses over nearly the same path from month to month, and therefore readings from one year will seem to recur a few months later and you can often find pretty much the same positions of stars and moon every few years. So it's not surprising that some readings for 588 will also be found in 584 and 580 and 578 and 562 etc., etc. That problem cuts both ways.

That's why lunar readings are not the best test for the kind of comparison being done here. They will not likely appear all that definitive even when the readings fit 568 so much better than 588. 

But some of the planetary observations do not repeat for hundreds of years at a time. That makes them much more reliable for this type of comparison between two proposed years.

So it occurred to me that I don't have the same reason Furuli did to skip the more reliable planetary observations just so that he could focus on the more flexible lunar observations. 

The Watchtower followed Furuli's trick by summarily dismissing the more reliable planetary positions like this:  

*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
In addition to the aforementioned eclipse, there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. . . . Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956.

It is actually very obvious why Furuli chose to dismiss the more reliable observations, and call them less reliable. But I won't cherry-pick observations and will go back and include ones that Furuli (and therefore the Watchtower) skipped.

So the next one for me will actually go back to Line 2 that was skipped:

2. Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2^nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of the 3^rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [….]

[JW Insider]

2. Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2^nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of the 3^rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [….]

So, this is (according to Furuli) May 2, 588 BCE, for the 1st of the month, and therefore May 3rd, 588 for the 2nd of the month. Saturn is in the same position on both days so it won't matter which. Here is the Swallow which is only visible just before sunrise, and isn't above the horizon to see in the evening.

Looking East at just before sunrise there are two planets around the Swallow, but one is Venus and the other is Mercury. Saturn is not in the sky, and won't be visible until long after the Swallow is gone.

Then we check 568 and see the picture in the second image below. This time both Saturn and the Swallow are in the picture. And Saturn is in front of it, rising above the horizon before the Swallow. A clear win for 568. A clear loss for 588.

This position repeats about every 30 years. -626/-625, -596/-595, -567/-566, -538/-537, etc. 

[JW Insider]

I just figured out why i was getting nearly the same reading every 30 years for Saturn. I just asked Google how long it takes Saturn to orbit the sun:

 

Saturn takes 29.4 Earth years to orbit the sun. This is equivalent to 10,759 Earth days or an average orbital speed of 9.68 kilometers per second. 

Isn't astronomy fun???

[Pudgy]

…

[Pudgy]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:16 AM, Pudgy said:

 

….. If there was a “UNIVERSAL WAR FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNIVERSE” …. which hasn’t happened yet, we would have seen some sparks …. or at the very least a 24 foot long golden arrow stuck deep into  a burning Abrams or Russian  T-1 Tank.

….. not so much as a surprised mouse, pissing on cotton.

 

ANYONE ….

…. can look out their window and see … 360°, that God’s Kingdom by Christ - using the defining criteria in the Bible, does not yet exist.

ANYONE.

[Pudgy]

It has so far been 34 pages of posts about this topic. I hope everyone is as refreshed as I wish I was…..

[xero]

@JW Insider"17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004, page 186. According to VAT 4956, this eclipse occurred on the 15th of the third Babylonian month, which suggests that the month of Simanu began 15 days earlier. If the eclipse fell on July 15, 588 B.C.E. according to our Julian calendar, then the first day of Simanu would be June 30/July 1, 588 B.C.E. Therefore, the first Babylonian month (Nisanu) would have started the new year two months earlier, on May 2/3. While normally the year of this eclipse would have begun on April 3/4, VAT 4956 states on line 6 that an extra month (intercalary) was added after the twelfth (last) month (Addaru) of the preceding year. (The tablet reads: “8th of month XII₂.”) Therefore, this made the new year actually not start until May 2/3. Thus, the date of this eclipse in 588 B.C.E. well fits the data on the tablet."

So are we saying this isn't true?

 

[xero]

Reading Josephus in Against Apion
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2849/2849-h/2849-h.htm

19. I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories, which records have a great agreement with our books in oilier things also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say: he was by birth a Chaldean, well known by the learned, on account of his publication of the Chaldean books of astronomy and philosophy among the Greeks. This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation, gives us a history of the deluge of waters that then happened, and of the destruction of mankind thereby, and agrees with Moses's narration thereof. He also gives us an account of that ark wherein Noah, the origin of our race, was preserved, when it was brought to the highest part of the Armenian mountains; after which he gives us a catalogue of the posterity of Noah, and adds the years of their chronology, and at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon, and of the Chaldeans. And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia. (Seems to indicate 70 years concluding w/Cyrus @539 BCE)
 
Now as to what I have said before about the temple at Jerusalem, that it was fought against by the Babylonians, and burnt by them, but was opened again when Cyrus had taken the kingdom of Asia, shall now be demonstrated from what Berosus adds further upon that head; for thus he says in his third book: "Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissoor, his sister's husband, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissoor, the person who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned four years; his son Laborosoarchod obtained the kingdom, though he was but a child, and kept it nine mouths; but by reason of the very ill temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world, a plot was laid against him also by his friends, and he was tormented to death. After his death, the conspirators got together, and by common consent put the crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, a man of Babylon, and one who belonged to that insurrection. In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen; but when he was come to the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army; and having already conquered all the rest of Asia, he came hastily to Babylonia. When Nabonnedus perceived he was coming to attack him, he met him with his forces, and joining battle with him was beaten, and fled away with a few of his troops with him, and was shut up within the city Borsippus. Hereupon Cyrus took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls of the city should be demolished, because the city had proved very troublesome to him, and cost him a great deal of pains to take it. He then marched away to Borsippus, to besiege Nabonnedus; but as Nabonnedus did not sustain the siege, but delivered himself into his hands, he was at first kindly used by Cyrus, who gave him Carmania, as a place for him to inhabit in, but sent him out of Babylonia. Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country, and there died."

21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; ( So the 70 years was understood by Josephus to begin 20 years BEFORE the burning of the temple)  but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times of their several kings: "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple; and the testimonies here produced are an indisputable and undeniable attestation to the antiquity of our nation. And I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as are not very contentious.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, xero said:

So are we saying this isn't true?

Of course it isn't true. And it's easy to check this out for yourself. The very book quoted in "support" of the idea shows it isn't true. 

• As already noted, Furul was looking at the FOURTH month of the Babylonian calendar and just pretending it was the THIRD month.  
• VAT 4956 says this eclipse was in the THIRD month.
• Furuli wants to take a FOURTH month eclipse from 20 years earlier (NEB 17) and make it seem like that eclipse was the THIRD month eclipse recorded on VAT 4956.

So all we should have to do is see whether there actually was a FOURTH month eclipse in year 17 that matches the correct THIRD month eclipse in year 37 from VAT 4956, and then we would know where Furuli's claims have gone either right or wrong:

The book that the Watchtower quotes is here:

https://archive.org/details/huber-2004-babylonian-eclipse-observations-from-750-bc-to-1-bc/page/186/mode/2up?view=theater

Here are the eclipses from 586:

Here are the eclipses from 588:

I included all the eclipses in the adjacent years for later reference. 

So, Furuli's FOURTH month eclipse actually did happen back in Nebuchadnezzar's year 17, which was 588 BCE. Since year 17 was 588, then year 37 is 568 BCE. 

But the same reference completely demolishes Furuli's claim in more ways than just a straightforward listing of the eclipses. Go back to page 86, and note that there are other tablets just as important as VAT 4956 in dating Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and most of them also deal with OTHER eclipses. Unfortunately for Furuli, his 588 eclipse is also found on one of these other tablets, and it is dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year on that tablet:

LBAT 1420 contains observations from many years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from his first year to his 29th year and lines 16 to 18 contain Furuli's eclipse: July 15 588, but note that it is also here marked in the correct month, month FOUR not month THREE.

And, of course, every other legible line on LBAT 1420 also consistently points to the "standard" years of Nebuchadnezzar, as if we needed 20 witnesses for a matter to be established instead of just 3 witnesses. None of these 20 additional witnesses supports the WTS/Furuli view. 

 

[xero]

@JW InsiderSo you're saying they are wrong. Got it. 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, xero said:

Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia. (Seems to indicate 70 years concluding w/Cyrus @539 BCE)
 
Now as to what I have said before about the temple at Jerusalem, that it was fought against by the Babylonians, and burnt by them, but was opened again when Cyrus had taken the kingdom of Asia, shall now be demonstrated from what Berosus adds further upon that head; for thus he says in his third book: "Nabuchodonosor,

There is a portion you have skipped between these these two paragraphs above, and it looks like a recap of the proof of Babylonian dominion over many nations around them (just as Jeremiah 25 spoke of). In Jeremiah the 70 years are not for Judea and Jerusalem, but they are 70 years for Babylon. In this recap, Josephus says that the initial desolation (overpowering and taking of captives) had already begun under the rule Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar. Immediately following the sentence about the 70 years:

He then says, "That this Babylonian king conquered Egypt, and Syria, and Phoenicia, and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon and Chaldea." A little after which Berosus subjoins what follows in his History of Ancient Times. I will set down Berosus's own accounts, which are these: "When Nabolassar, father of Nabuchodonosor, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and over the parts of Celesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer; but committing certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then but young, he sent him against the rebel: Nabuchodonosor joined battle with him, and conquered him, and reduced the country under his dominion again. Now it so fell out that his father Nabolassar fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him.

So he is referring to the year 605, and perhaps even a campaign that started in 606. Josephus also mentions that the temple lay desolate for 50 years until the 2nd year of Cyrus which was 537. That places the actual destruction of the temple itself in 587 BCE. But he apparently thinks of the 70 years from about 606 to about 539 (or possibly even 607 to 537). 

Josephus wrote his first history book much earlier, and at that time seemed to think that the temple had been destroyed 70 years before Cyrus, and this is the easier, more common-sense reading of 2 Chronicles, and a possible way to read Jeremiah and Daniel (but not Zechariah). But this time he doesn't actually say the temple was desolate for 70 years, but that it was desolate 'during the 70 years.' And then he specifically speaks of the Temple as "desolate" for 50 years up until Cyrus. That would fit nicely with Zechariah's mention of the 70 years of the Temple itself nearly 20 years after Cyrus. 

(Zechariah 1:12-16) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”  . . . ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “I am zealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great zeal.  . . . “Therefore this is what Jehovah says: ‘“I will return to Jerusalem with mercy, and my own house will be built in her,” declares Jehovah of armies, “and a measuring line will be stretched out over Jerusalem.”’
 

And, nearly 20 years AFTER Cyrus, we also see that the lamentations related to Jerusalem's destruction have now been going on for 70 years:

(Zechariah 7:2-6) . . ., men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?” . . . ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?  And when you would eat and drink, were you not eating for yourselves and drinking for yourselves? 

The Insight book admits that these 5th month and 7th month wailings were for the anniversaries of the final destruction of the Temple and assassination of Gedaliah. There had been 70 years of such wailing now that it was nearly 20 years after Cyrus.

(Zechariah 8:18, 19) . . .The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying:  “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah—festivals of rejoicing. So love truth and peace.. . .
 

*** it-1 p. 812 Fast ***
The Jews established many fasts, and at one time had four annual ones, evidently to mark the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (Zec 8:19) The four annual fasts were: (1) “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) (3) “The fast of the seventh month” was apparently held as a sad remembrance of Gedaliah’s death or of the complete desolation of the land following Gedaliah’s assassination when the remaining Jews, out of fear of the Babylonians, went down into Egypt. (2Ki 25:22-26) (4) “The fast of the tenth month” may have been associated with the exiled Jews already in Babylon receiving the sad news that Jerusalem had fallen (compare Eze 33:21), or it may have commemorated the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar’s successful siege against Jerusalem on the tenth day of that month . . .
 

So assuming 539 is right (and I assume it is) then the Bible chronology supports secular chronology, although Bible chronology contradicts WTS chronology here in Zechariah.

[JW Insider]

46 minutes ago, xero said:

So you're saying they are wrong. Got it. 

LOL. Too easy. There are about 25 different ways to check this with Stellarium. The best one is to notice that the eclipse in question (Furuli's eclipse) was not observed, even though they knew it was happening (below the horizon). But the second one just 6 months later in 587 BCE was not only observed but is indicated to have been seen in the early morning watch and set fully eclipsed after 2 hours and 20 minutes.

I have to admit that I wouldn't have thought to check this one if I hadn't recently read a page put up by Carl Olof Jonsson that addresses Furuli's theory here: http://kristenfrihet.se/kf2/review.htm

For that reason, I will just copy what he said, but I'll check out Stellarium right after posting this:

The second eclipse in month X – six months after the first – took place on January 8, 587 BCE. This date, therefore, corresponded to the 13^th of month X in the Babylonian calendar. This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1^st of month X (Tebetu) fell on 26/27 December in 588 BCE. The Babylonians divided the 24-hour day into 12 beru or 360 USH (degrees), so one beru was two hours and 5 USH (= degrees of four minutes each) were 20 minutes. According to the tablet, then, this eclipse began 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunrise. It was total (“All of it was covered”), and it “[set eclips]ed,” i.e., it ended after moonset. What do modern computations of this eclipse show?

My astroprogram shows that the eclipse of January 8, 587 BCE began “in the morning watch” at 04:51, and that sunrise occurred at 07:12. The eclipse, then, began 2 hours and 21 minutes before sunrise – exactly as the tablet says. The difference of one minute is not real, as the USH (time degree of 4 minutes) is the shortest time unit used in this text. [The USH was not the shortest time unit of the Babylonians, of course, as they also divided the USH into 12 “fingers” of 20 seconds each.] The totality began at 05:53 and ended at 07:38. As moonset occurred at 07:17 according to my program, the eclipse was still total at moonset. Thus the moon “set while eclipsed.”

Furuli attempts to dismiss the enormous weight of evidence provided by this tablet in just a few very confusing statements on page 127 of his book. He erroneously claims that the many eclipses recorded “occurred in the month before they were expected, except in one case where the eclipse may have occurred two months before.” There is not the slightest truth in this statement. Both the predicted and the observed eclipses agree with modern computations. The statement seems to be based on the gross mistakes he has made on the previous page, where he has misidentified the months on LBAT 1421 with disastrous results for his calculations.