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

JW Insider · February 10

These glaring errors in "enhanced" posts remind me that it is actually quite easy for "AI" scraping tools to even produce false information from wol.jw.org.

For example, it's been pointed out several times in these related discussions that the Insight book often quotes a scholarly source but adds brackets within that quote to insert the special Watchtower chronology, which makes it look like scholarly sources had actually supported the special Watchtower chronology instead of the evidenced chronology. This can fool the AI tools.

For example:*** it-1 p. 94 Ammonites ***

The inscriptions of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III, who ruled in the time of King Jehu (c. 904-877 B.C.E.) of Israel, claim that the forces of “Baʼsa, son of Ruhubi, from Ammon” were among a coalition of kings opposing Assyria in the battle of Karkar. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 279)

The quote appears to use the scholarly reference "Ancient Near Eastern Texts" as support for the special Watchtower dates, but that book would reject those dates. This is all the more important when it's done in a section especially concerned with Chronology and dates.

*** it-1 p. 190 Ashdod ***
A stone prism of Sennacherib of Assyria says that “Mitinti from Ashdod” brought him sumptuous gifts and kissed his feet, and it adds concerning King Hezekiah of Judah (745-717 B.C.E.): “His towns which I had plundered, I took away from his country and gave them (over) to Mitinti, king of Ashdod.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288) Ashdod seems to have been in a weakened state by the time of Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) so that he spoke of “the remnant of Ashdod.” (Jer 25:20) Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in 624 B.C.E. . . .

*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) . . . According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.)

Note that the last one above even includes the phrase: "brackets and parentheses theirs." Yet the special Watchtower dates 632 BCE and 629 BCE, also in parentheses, are rejected by the reference work in favor of the evidenced dates.

*** it-2 pp. 178-179 Kittim ***
This is in harmony with the historical evidence for Phoenician colonies in Cyprus at the time of Isaiah’s prophesying (c. 778–a. 732 B.C.E.). An inscription of Sennacherib relates the flight of King Luli of Sidon to the island of Iadnana (Cyprus) as the result of the Assyrian attack. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288)

And what about cases where no quote marks are used, as in the reference above. How would "AI" know that dates given are NOT supported by the referenced book, and that even here the special Watchtower chronology has taken the evidenced dates and added 20 years to them without admitting it?

Who would know that the following, which make it appear that cuneiform tablets support Watchtower dates, are actually NOT supported by those tablets or the referenced book about such tablets?

*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). He was given to literature, art, and religion.
In his own inscriptions Nabonidus claims to be of noble descent. A tablet found near ancient Haran gives evidence that Nabonidus’ mother or grandmother was a devotee of the moon-god Sin. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 311, 312) As king, Nabonidus showed great devotion to the worship of the moon-god, both at Haran and at Ur, where this god occupied a dominant position.—PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 324.
Cuneiform tablets of the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 617-Nisan 616 B.C.E.) list a certain Nabu-naʼid as the one “who is over the city,” and some historians believe this is the same Nabonidus who later became king. However, this would mean that Nabonidus was a very young man when placed in such administrative position and would make him extremely aged at the fall of Babylon, some 77 years later (539 B.C.E.).
Discussing events in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 605-Nisan 604 B.C.E.), the Greek historian Herodotus (I, 74) describes a treaty negotiated between the Lydians and the Medes by one “Labynetus the Babylonian” as mediator.

And how would one know in the above reference that 20 years was added to every date EXCEPT 539, which creates a bigger problem for that reference to that claim about Nabonidus being 77 years old? It uses the phrase "some historians believe" and implies therefore that some of them believe he would be 77. This is false, of course. Also if one were to look further into it, they would see an even bigger problem with the same Insight article references to Nabonidus' mother (or grandmother). [She evidently died at 104, but inscriptions for her actually list out the number of years she lived under each Babylonian king, and it happens to perfectly match the evidence from King's Lists, all the contemporary business documents, and "Ptolemy's Canon," VAT 4956, all the astronomical tablets, etc.

There are many more of these in Insight, and not just from Pritchard's book. In fact, you can actually backtrack the AI @xero quoted with a likely scrape from Insight here:

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) But it cannot be established whether it relates to the original conquest or a later military action.

That's the most likely place from which "AI" misunderstood to create the following:

3 hours ago, xero said:

37th year referring to a different event: Some argue the 37th year might refer to another campaign or event,

Anyway, this could go on and on. Just shows the danger of reliance on these tools. And there's a good chance it will also be reading what we're writing here. Yikes!

Pudgy · February 10

Refer to JWI’s last post and my previous posts.

By the way, the speed of light in linear statute miles per second is approximately 186,282.397 miles per second.

NOT 186,000 miles per second.

Pudgy · February 11

If you translate from the original Babylonian language it can mean one of two things:

1) “Overlapping generations? Yeah!”, or

2) “ Who gives a crap? Yeah!”.

IF YOU HAD THE CORRECT ANSWER AND COULD PROVE IT, OF WHAT PRACTICAL VALUE WOULD IT BE NOW?

Pudgy · February 11

… At least, knowing the exact speed of light, you can properly calibrate a LIGO.

Pudgy · February 11

You’re reading comprehension is woefully deficient.

What part of “I don’t care” did you not understand?

Even a rational, provable correct answer has absolutely NO PRACTICAL VALUE .

(…. sheesh! …. what do you do with someone who AGREES with your question, but does not answer it …?)

Pudgy · February 11

… at least Joe Biden has a good excuse for forgetting what he’s talking about … he’s in his 80’s and demonstrably senile ….

… when you reply “Exactly.” that means you agreed, Georgie.

Woops! …. let’s make sure I quoted you in context …..

Pudgy · February 11

Who are you agreeing with?

I have NEVER opined on this issue, ever … because I don’t care at all about fuzzy stuff that may or may not have happened 2600 or so years ago.

It’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to be wrong, because I am not promoting ANY date.

I have never “manipulated any calculations”.

It’s very, very simple.

Your agenda driven hatred of me has completely warped your thinking processes.

You see clearly things which do not exist.

Pudgy · February 11

REPLY TO GEORGE88

If you're asking if you are wrong with everything you post, then I agree with you, lol!