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

[Pudgy]

I am confused with the protocol.

Should JWI’s answers be accompanied by groveling, or genuflecting?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Please provide evidence from the tablets that pinpoint the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC.

Asked and answered: I never wanted to and I never tried. I will only point you to the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is consistently pointed to in about 20 different ways by astronomy to be 587 BCE. It's still up to you to decide whether the Bible was correct when it states that this was the year that more exiles were taken from Jerusalem, and if the following is correct:

 (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . .

You can quibble about a few months, or whether this was Fall to Fall counting vs. Spring to Spring, or whether the accession year is counted as the first, or not, or whether this was near the beginning of a long siege, or near the end of it. That's all just a dodge to avoid admitting that the BCE year is not more than a few months off.

However, if you want to ask for evidence from the tablets that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE, then that has already been done and there's a whole lot more of that evidence. "Connect the dots and trace out a familiar object." 

I think if you asked around, most people can see that it's simply a diversion, a dodge, to avoid answering the following question:

What  BCE year does ALL the ASTRONOMICAL evidence indicate for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?

Try to answer THAT question and you will begin to understand why almost ALL Witnesses who have any idea of the real answer are avoiding that question.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Your sarcastic assumptions based on the 37th year and 18-year cycle are not supported by historical facts and other relevant factors for that period and region.

I think you are forgetting that a specific, identifiable lunar and/or planetary configuration that happened in a specific year in history actually is a historical fact relevant for that period and region. It's an event.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

The Babylonian chronicles unequivocally mention Jerusalem in 597 BC, providing concrete historical evidence.

That's quite an admission. And I'm sure you know that you could be disfellowshipped if you made this same  "unequivocal" statement and stuck to it publicly in your congregation after "counsel" or "reproof."  So I seriously hope you are careful about it, especially as you earlier mentioned that you hope to have your theory published someday. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Therefore, according to these tablets, Jerusalem met its end in 597 BC, challenging the widely accepted date of 587 BC, as argued by you and other former members.

 Actually, you have found evidence that Jerusalem met it's fall in 597 not it's end, not its destruction that the Bible says came about 10 years later. You haven't proven the Bible wrong yet. Those Babylonian Chronicles mention that Nebuchadnezzar went up against Jerusalem in his 8th year. So if you say his 8th year was 597, where does that put his 18th year, 10 years later. Sounds like 597 minus 10 is 587 is what you are saying his 18th year was. Unless you are manipulating something for other purposes. 

*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, . . . at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Therefore, approach the situation from a military perspective.

Or better yet, approach it from a Biblical perspective.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

Thus far, your so-called astronomical tablets have failed to provide any substantial evidence, and you continue to avoid facing this fact.

Let's turn the tables for a minute. I give all "my" so-called astronomical tablets over to you. Now they are yours. So now you have more than 40 references to several years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign with astronomical observations associated with those years. (Sometimes more than one astronomical reference is found on the same tablet.)

Now find any one of those so-called astronomical tablets that does NOT contain indications that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE.^**

^**(+ or - 1 year, depending on how you wish to count them)

We should very quickly be able to see who is dodging the facts. 

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Now find any one of those so-called astronomical tablets that does NOT contain indications that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE.^**

^**(+ or - 1 year, depending on how you wish to count them)

We should very quickly be able to see who is dodging the facts. 

You responded with a very clever dodge, @George88. Witnesses who don't know will admit they don't know. Simple and honest. Witnesses who DO know the outcome of such a challenge  will dodge it repeatedly. I'm pretty sure it's out of fear of admitting to other Witnesses what they have discovered. 

It's the same with the following question:

What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? 

We've already seen how another poster dodged this question just last week. To me, it says he knows the answer, and therefore MUST dodge the question. I'm assuming you know the answer too because, based on your past dodges, I think you will also not be able to admit the simple answer (+ or - 1 year depending on which method you prefer for counting).

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

It's the same with the following question:

What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? 

I'll try one more time, just so it may be even more obvious to anyone who cares: that even for a Witness who claims the following (below) they will still dodge the question:

12 hours ago, George88 said:

Unlike you, I thoroughly analyze all available data and remain independent, concluding solely from secular evidence and scripture.

Imagine, having made a thorough analysis of all available data, and still being unable to bring yourself to answer a simple question. Instead, you rely on tired old tactics of poisoning the well by calling the evidence "apostate." Or pretending the evidence somehow comes from COJ. Or making the empty claim, without evidence, that the data is being distorted. 

15 minutes ago, George88 said:

I am not inclined to provide you with the answer

Figured as much.

15 minutes ago, George88 said:

speculating on how to interpret ancient tablets without understanding their true purpose

You don't give any evidence about "their true purpose." You appear to disagree with the Insight book where it says that inscriptions about two eclipses are "helpful" in determining chronology (at least when it's a specific BCE date we can agree with). 

So one more time, for you or anyone else who is interested. Find any fellow Witness who has studied the issue and ask the question:

What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? 

[Pudgy]

You know George88, et al, ad nauseum, as much as you choke when asked a simple, direct question that would require a simple, direct answer conflicting with your agenda, you may want to get a portable oxygen tank, and some of that aquarium type air hose for your nose.

I hate Zombie Movies, so I find it disconcerting, yet strangely entertaining, to watch THIS one.

…   and don’t fall asleep while eating a ham sandwich!

 

[BTK59]

Hey! Pudgy, why don't you ask your friend to stop chocking on a simple direct question, that way it won't be ad nauseam either.  As always, it appears that you are once again defending the indefensible. I hope you don't fall asleep eating a ham sandwich either.

If you choose to behave like a bully and interfere when people are wrong, don't be surprised when you are treated the same way. So, please don't complain if you end up being treated in that manner.

[JW Insider]

@George88: It occurred to me that when you point out deflection to someone who thrives on projection, that it probably seems like you are in one of those "infinity mirrors." 

[Pudgy]

It is my nature not to complain unless SOMEONE ELSE is also by extension being wronged, or I am hemorrhaging.

There are some exceptions.. 

Please quote ONE EXAMPLE where I have “defended the indefensible”. 

… try not to choke by deflection or projection.