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

[JW Insider]

@xero,

It might have been an innocent set of mistakes after mistakes after mistakes by Furuli, who may have been a bit myopic and started out with extreme confirmation bias, believing that the 588 date MUST be right at all costs for the 37th year. After all, this was the same method the Watchtower (above) had suggested in 1969, so it MUST be true. But it still comes across as a "pious fraud." 

But even more serious, I think, than the potential "pious fraud" unquestionably accepted from Furuli, is the method the Watchtower itself used to hide a very important fact. The hidden fact is directly related to the admission that the tablet contains more PLANETARY observations than LUNAR observations. Why are they just barely mentioned and overlooked?

*** 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. These describe the position of the moon or planets in relation to certain stars or constellations. There are also eight time intervals between the risings and settings of the sun and the moon.
Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956.

Really? This last sentence was completely misworded. It should have said the very opposite:

Because lunar positions are more flexible, and more likely to repeat, even coincidentally and sometimes PREDICTABLY from one year to the next and planetary positions often never repeat again for hundreds of years, this would mean that close matches for the planetary observations would therefore be much more important for determining the BCE dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

Instead we see some sleight of hand here about supposedly superior reliability. When it should have said "inferior reliability" or "superior flexibility." 

But here's the kicker. Rolf Furuli ADMITS in his book that the planetary positions can ONLY be a match to 568 BCE. (Not his goal of promoting 588.) In other words, it was always a worthless exercise to try to overcome the lunar data when he already had to admit that the greater number of readings were for the far superior and more reliable planetary data that he could not even attempt to dismiss in any reasonable way.

[BTK59]

On 2/27/2024 at 6:19 AM, JW Insider said:

*** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186 Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time ***
LUNAR ECLIPSES
Lunar eclipses, as found in Ptolemy’s canon and presumably drawn from data in the cuneiform records, have been used in efforts to substantiate the dates usually given for particular years of the Neo-Babylonian kings. But even though Ptolemy may have been able to calculate accurately the dates of certain eclipses in the past, this does not prove that his transmission of historical data is correct. His relating of eclipses to the reigns of certain kings may not always be based on the facts. Additionally, the frequency of lunar eclipses certainly does not add great strength to this type of confirmation.
For example, a lunar eclipse in 621 B.C.E. (April 22) is used as proof of the correctness of the Ptolemaic date for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. However, another eclipse could be cited twenty years earlier in 641 B.C.E. (June 1) to correspond with the date that Bible chronology would indicate for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. Besides, this latter eclipse was total, whereas the one in 621 B.C.E. was partial.

I see no conflict with this observation, as you are dealing with distinct types of observational cycles. Could you also verify a specific starting point with an observer? I believe it is the reader who is conflicted when making assumptions.

[JW Insider]

22 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I see no conflict with this observation,

It's pretty simple.

• Ptolemy said that the Babylonians reported an eclipse that was only PARTIAL in the 5th year of Nabopolassar. 
• Today, that exactly described PARTIAL eclipse can be calculated to 621 BCE. 
• That makes perfect consistent sense because it meshes perfectly with 100 other astronomical observations that would also indicate that 621 BCE is the 5th year of Nabopolassar.
• But the Watchtower claims that 621 BCE is the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, so the WTS needs this eclipse to have happened in 641 BCE, otherwise 1914 doesn't work.
• So a Watchtower contributor or writer looks at the eclipse log for 641 BCE, and lo and behold there was a total eclipse that year. 
• So the Watchtower writer/editor says: Look Ptolemy and Babylon say that a partial eclipse happened in 621, but we found an eclipse that doesn't match that description in 641. Even though it doesn't match, we'll go with it, and say it's even BETTER than the right one that matches, because the 641 eclipse is TOTAL not partial.

It's the same as if this happened, not that it ever would:

• BTK59 says, I found a report with a map of a burial mound of Cherokee Native Americans in Dahlonega, Georgia, USA containing tiny "Indian arrowheads" of the exact shape that the Cherokees made. I wondered if the map was accurate and if I could find one of those tiny arrowheads. And look, it worked, I just found this Cherokee-style arrowhead exactly where the map pointed. 
• JWI says, Wait, No. I just found a large flint spearhead in burial mound of Osage Native Americans in Joplin Missouri. This must be what you were really looking for, because it was found in a burial mound just like you said.
• Now BTK59 has two options here. He could say:
  • BTK59 says: JWI, you are a despicable fool. The map said the tiny arrowheads were in Georgia, and that's where I found an arrowhead exactly matching the description. And now you bring me a large spearhead from hundreds of miles off the map. And you say it's the same just because they were both in burial mounds.
  • Or, BTK59 could say: "I see no conflict with this observation, JWI." 

[BTK59]

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

t's pretty simple.

• Ptolemy said that the Babylonians reported an eclipse that was only PARTIAL in the 5th year of Nabopolassar. 
• Today, that exactly described PARTIAL eclipse can be calculated to 621 BCE. 
• That makes perfect consistent sense because it meshes perfectly with 100 other astronomical observations that would also indicate that 621 BCE is the 5th year of Nabopolassar.
• But the Watchtower claims that 621 BCE is the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, so the WTS needs this eclipse to have happened in 641 BCE, otherwise 1914 doesn't work.

Who can determine, based on this observation, who utilized an ascension year as opposed to a regnal year? Do you think you are making too many assumptions? 

[JW Insider]

13 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Who can determine, based on this observation, who utilized an ascension year as opposed to a regnal year? Do you think you are making too many assumptions? 

That would mean that they counted Nabopolassar's years differently from all the other Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian and Persian kings in Ptolemy's writings and in the original Babylonian inscriptions. Anything's possible. But you appear to be more concerned with whether this Nabopolassar was co-reigning with a different Nebuchadnezzar than the one who claimed he was Nabopolassar's son.

I'm only talking about the mistake the writer made in 1969 in presenting the idea that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse. 

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, George88 said:

Any number of events can be applied to the astronomical tablets VAT 4956 - MB 33006. Even Dr. Wiseman's presentation alludes to certain timeframes that he failed to logically extrapolate in his book of 1 & 2 Kings.

Certainly.  To them, it is irrelevant in this context. They are only willing to accept their flawed reasoning.

Dominion Or The Unity and Trinity of the German Race 1857

"The language of the Scythians seems to have been Teutonic, but what were its general peculiarities beyond its supposed Indo-Germanic affiliations seems difficult, at this late day, to discover. Being pressed from the Caspian on the east by the Alans, they dispossessed the Cimmerians of the Crimea about 624 B. C., and about the year 500 B. C. were urged to the west of the Volga into southern Russia. About the year 588 B. C., the Scythians were overcome by Cyaxares, uncle of Cyrus; and about 538 B. C., Cyrus called together the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Askenaz to the attack on Babylon." p.309

By consistently referring to the astronomical tablets as evidence of the 587 BC destruction of Jerusalem, while also considering the 589 BC start of the siege, we can also utilize these tablets to validate the assault on the Scythians by Cyaxares circa 588/7 BC. This timeframe aligns with the renowned tablets that display the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign when we follow the 19/8-year cycle.

Some historical records indicate that the siege occurred from 588 BC to 586 BC. Consequently, these tablets provide no substantial evidence regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, no matter how hard apostates try to change the narrative with random schemes.

It is evident that Carl Olof Jonsson disregarded a significant amount of historical evidence in order to challenge the Watchtower. This makes it particularly ironic when people refer to his work as "scholarly," as it was anything but.

[BTK59]

On 2/26/2024 at 1:52 PM, JW Insider said:

But there may be a couple more, one of which should touch on Nabopolassar's 14th:

https://www.jenseits-des-horizonts.de/download_pdf/bsa_044_04.pdf

There seems to be an error trying to access this link. Can you download the PDF?

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

There seems to be an error trying to access this link. Can you download the PDF?

It's fairly small (164k) so I'll just post it here:

text-observation-mars-steele.pdf

[BTK59]

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's fairly small (164k) so I'll just post it here:

What software are you using to make your observations as opposed to the ones used by Hunger, Steele, Etc.?

[JW Insider]

54 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

What software are you using to make your observations as opposed to the ones used by Hunger, Steele, Etc.?

Over time, I have used 4 different ones that calculate ancient readings. Some are on old broken laptops and I didn't bother to update because it looked like I would have to buy new versions for my current laptop. The only ones I used for Babylonian and Persian readings that I posted here were from Stellarium and The Sky 5 (maybe 6, too). I never paid attention to the ones Hunger and Steele were using. Apparently, they all give the same results within seconds or maybe a minute of each other. But it takes 4 full minutes for the "night sky" to turn even one degree, so they are all giving the same reading.

[BTK59]

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I never paid attention to the ones Hunger and Steele were using. Apparently, they all give the same results within seconds or maybe a minute of each other. But it takes 4 full minutes for the "night sky" to turn even one degree, so they are all giving the same reading.

I asked for this because Steele corrected previous errors using Hunger and other sources. He thoroughly documented this in his 2019 Sage article, which includes observations of Saturn.

steele-2019-an-early-compilation-of-saturn-observations-from-babylon

"Acknowledgements
I thank the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to study and publish BM 45426. I also
wish to thank Hermann Hunger for his suggestions for improving the reading of the obverse of the
tablet and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. They are not responsible for any
errors that remain."

The commitment to enhance reading comprehension demonstrates his personal perspective on the tablet, which can be better understood within the broader context of any cuneiform tablet.

I believe I have the night sky somewhere. I will give it a try. Thank you.

[JW Insider]

On 2/28/2024 at 12:10 PM, George88 said:

Any number of events can be applied to the astronomical tablets VAT 4956 - MB 33006. . . . 
You have things going on with King Hophra, and then you have things going on with the Median King Cyaxares and the Lydians? Therefore, they have no value for the year stipulated the tablets are.

That's correct, and you also have things going on in China and Europe at the time. Therefore the events have nothing to do with the fact that this and ALL OTHER astronomical diaries and observations from his time point to 568 as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is the same thing as pointing to 587 as the 18th year, and 586 as the 19th year. It absolutely does not matter what events were going on at the same time. You are right that they have no value for the year stipulated by the tablets.

On 2/28/2024 at 12:10 PM, George88 said:

Jeremiah’s seventy-year period of Babylonian rule might be reckoned to begin with Judah’s submission to Babylon in 605 or with the fall of Jerusalem in 597 or 587; it might be reckoned to end with the fall of Babylon in 539, the initiation of a Judahite return in 538, or the completion of the rebuilding of the temple in 517. It is thus possible to argue that Jeremiah was chronologically accurate. But he himself hardly intended the “seventy years” to have a precise chronological reference; nor is there reason to infer that Daniel understood it this way. There is little evidence that seventy years suggests a human lifetime. It does suggest a long but finite and complete period; cf. Isa 23:15; Ps 91:10; also Esarhaddon’s inscription, “Seventy years as the period of its desolation he (Marduk) wrote down (in the book of fate).” p.460

Interestinig isn't it? This has come up before in old topics, that Jeremiah may have meant the expression "70 years" in much the same way as it looks like Isaiah used it. "The typical or "fated" lifespan of a kingdom" like that of Babylon. As if it were already a cliche about Assyria, and the "lifespan" of a kingdom rarely went beyond a dynasty of say, father/son/grandson before a new dynasty would begin. It may not have been literal, a literal, exact 70 years, but just used a way of reminding people that empires and dynasties come and go, and Jehovah will use that same lifespan cycle, of the rise and fall of empires, to both punish and then release his people. In that sense Babylon's "70 years" becomes Judah's "70 years" of reversal. Not that either one needs to be exact or even needs to coincide. The "70 years" given to one is the cause of the "70 years" of the other. 

I personally don't buy it, though, because it's so obvious that the fall of the Assyrian Empire was most apparent 70 years before the fall of Babylon was most apparent. From 609 to 539 is a much better theory than 587 to 517 for the "flip side" of the 70 years for the Temple. I think you have implied that the Temple might have actually been effectively destroyed in 597 or at least at the Babylonian Chronicle's event associated with 597. It makes for an interesting "compromise" only 10 years off the WTS date, and 10 years off the evidence from all the astronomy dating for NEB II.

On 2/28/2024 at 12:10 PM, George88 said:

The tablet mentions the 37th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. According to secular history, his reign started in 605 BC minus 37 equals 568 BC. Accession year used. Regnal year 567 BC. Now people want to go backwards from that tablet. 568 BC plus 18 equals 586 BC. 568 BC plus 19 equals 587 BC. So, people are using a given cycle. Big deal. Those same cycles can also explain other events that were happening at the same time.

You said that wrong. Accession year is used so that his 37th regnal year IS also 568 and not 567, according to the way Babylonians were required to count. If you had used a different method of counting regnal years (NON-Accession year counting) then the 37th year would be one year EARLIER not later, because his accession year (the zero-th year) would have already counted as his 1st, therefore his Babylonian counted 10th would be counted in NON-Accession as his 9th. And his 37th would be counted as his 36th. The year earlier was 569 BCE, not 567 BCE. But G88, BTK59, etc., never admit error.

On 2/28/2024 at 12:10 PM, George88 said:

Notice where this author mentions the fall of Jerusalem in 597 BC. If we take that at face value, why would Nebuchadnezzar want to destroy something in 587 BC when he had the chance to do it in 597 BC?

He didn't say it was destroyed in 597, though, did he? He said it fell. Just like Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539. It wasn't destroyed then. For most cities, it wasn't worth destroying if they could still be forced to pay tribute, keep the fields planted, keep the vineyards dressed, etc. There is more wealth to transfer to a king when you DON'T destroy the city but take away their elites who keep most of the trading profits from the "people of the land," and replace those elites with soldiers who are required to take most of those same profits back to their king. 

Also, note that the Bible said it took him about a year and a half of siege to take Jerusalem and finally break through its walls. If you notice the wording carefully in Jeremiah, it appears that most of the ones exiled in 597 were apparently NOT from Jerusalem itself. That happened in year 18/19.

(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile:

• in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.

•  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.

•  In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.

• In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.

On 2/28/2024 at 12:10 PM, George88 said:

That's what you need to work with, not the dates since by their face value they are meaningless unless you can "disprove" them and erase those other events from history to not consider them as a potential influence on the astronomical tablets.

As you also indicated elsewhere above: the opposite is true. You need to work with the dates by their face value, and not try to disprove them just because you assume certain events must have happened elsewhere at a different time. I can say I was 60 in in 2017 and that I saw a total solar eclipse in NYC, but you can't say I wasn't just because you claim that I should have been 60 during the Viet Nam war, or that there was another total solar eclipse in 1925, so THAT must have been my 60th year. The desired event has nothing to do with the date. My birth certificate doesn't change for any events, my driver's license doesn't change for any events, my passport doesn't change for any events.