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

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, xero said:

There are some astronomical events that seem to be of some use, but if these people are disagreeing with the biblical text, I'll pick the biblical text over their sources.

Turns out that ALL the astronomical events recorded for the entire period agree perfectly well with the Biblical text. Remember that the Biblical text has no BCE dates. There is NO real contradiction between the astronomical events recorded and the Biblical text regarding the Babylonian period.

In fact, the WTS would do much better to follow the same pattern it does for all the other areas where secular history supports the Bible's own version of history. It could be used as evidence to show that there is additional external support for the Bible's accuracy that might have been overlooked.

It's true that there were naysayers about the existence of Belshazzar by Bible skeptics looking for excuses not to trust the Bible. Turns out there wasn't really that much evidence for outright denial, but a lot of skepticism based on other issues with Daniel. But the WTS is guilty of similar skepticism coming from another perspective -- and I don't just mean the admission that no one can identify this Darius the Mede, nor the fact that the WTS rejects the Bible's own chronology of Daniel 1:1 and 2:1. 

Here's an example for another time from "Insight." The Hebrew term transliterated "Ahasuerus" in the Bible is pretty much an expected transliteration for the Persian "Xerxes." (Which can also refer to Artaxerxes.) But notice how the WTS publications deny that the Bible's use of Xerxes/Artaxerxes (Ahasuerus) can refer to him in Ezra, but says it does refer to him in Esther:

*** it-2 p. 613 Persia, Persians ***

From Cyrus’ Death to Darius’ Death. The reign of Cyrus the Great ended in 530 B.C.E. when he died while on a warring campaign. His son Cambyses succeeded him to the throne and was successful in conquering Egypt. Though not referred to by the name Cambyses in the Bible, he is evidently the “Ahasuerus” to whom the opposers of the temple work sent false accusations against the Jews, as stated at Ezra 4:6.

*** it-2 p. 613 Persia, Persians ***

The Reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes. Xerxes, Darius’ son, is evidently the king called Ahasuerus in the book of Esther.

As it turns out, there is really no good reason for the Watchtower to speculate that Ahasuerus/Xerxes is Cambyses in Ezra and Ahasuerus/Xerxes is Xerxes in Esther. The WTS could just as easily have made them both Xerxes and Ezra would actually be giving an even clearer timeline without the unnecessary speculation. I just include it to show how easily and sometimes nonchalantly the WTS will speculate about "outside" history that they believe is contradicted in the Bible. In this case the WTS creates a kind of Bible contradiction about who Ahasuerus was. 

If anyone wishes to discuss, and has the time, there are a few more of these types of WTS-created Bible contradictions, some which might come up anyway in a full discussion of the chronology of the period.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, xero said:

There are some astronomical events that seem to be of some use, but if these people are disagreeing with the biblical text, I'll pick the biblical text over their sources.

Actually, @George88 has shown you with the link he just gave that it's very common for PRO-BIBLE commentators to use EXACTLY the dates given by the astronomical data. Notice how every date given in George's link here fits the Biblical text AND fits the dates provided by the Babylonian record.  

5 hours ago, George88 said:

http://xwalk.ca/exile.html

I don't agree with the current prophetic dates given like 1948 and 1967, but if you read his content and especially if you click on the link in the article (  http://xwalk.ca/dates.html ) he is very, very accurate with the Biblical and Babylonian explanations.

[Pudgy]

I appreciate and respect high precision calculations …. but every year the Moon is about 1-1/4 inches further away, and will not escape Earth orbit for AT LEAST 100 Billion years.

Except for the pesky fact that by then our Sun will have gone Nova, and both the Earth and Moon will have been vaporized as the Sun expands out to about the orbit of Mars. 

These exercises ARE valuable for understanding orbital mechanics, astronomy, and time …. but if the end result is to show that God’s Kingdom was established ANYTIME before this moment, they are USELESS.

You can look out the window, or stand on your front porch and see that did not happen.

LOOK AROUND!

It just flat DID NOT HAPPEN.

No “Great Tribulation”

No “Armageddon”

No “Paradise Earth”

For this reason I am introducing a new aphorism, parable, “law”, (… thinking about Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics”, etc.), or whatever …

“PUDGY’s LAW OF REALITY - A Billion Clever Words Or Precision Calculations Will Not Change What Is Real.”

The official acronym will be “PLOR”.

 

[Pudgy]

The “long version” will officially be (following the tradition of TANSTAAFL), PLORABCWOPCWNCWIR.

It’s pronounced, just like it’s spelled!

😀

[xero]

When I go to a restaurant and it's busy and there are a lot of people waiting, I might eat my meal more quickly. But this isn't the same thing.

[BTK59]

7 hours ago, George88 said:

I just checked my library. The first link you posted, F.R. Stephenson has a book that is a good read.

George, in the book you mention on page 105, it states 538 BC rather than 539 BC. Any thoughts?
 

[BTK59]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

For me, the year 537 BC is the most plausible explanation.

In essence, your point is that when we examine the year 539 BC, there is significantly less time for consideration compared to the 2-year timeframe between 607 BC and 605 BC. Additionally, the year 587 BC does not fit into any accurate chronology, as the 70-year period falls within the pattern of less than a year between 537 BC and 607 BC. If we were to consider 587 BC as a potential date, it would only support a 50-year period, which is significantly short of the less than a year proposal, creating a discrepancy of 20 years.

[JW Insider]

There is NO Bible evidence for 539 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 587 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 607 BCE. I think most of us understand that by now. So, I propose a thread/topic where we shift the focus almost exclusively to the basic, fundamental question about the strength of the secular evidence in the Neo-Babylonian period. Why do we rely on it? Why does the WTS rely on secular Babylonian astronomer's evidence for Cyrus in 539? Why does the WTS reject the same evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?  Is the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's years actually 10 times better than for Cyrus?

When that question is solved, it also resolves the entire question about the 70 years, the WTS 20-year gap, the years of those kings that came just before and just after. And it will automatically link to the resolution of dates for events like the Fall of Nineveh, the Battle of Carchemish, the death of Josiah, the years of Zedekiah, the BCE dates for the three different exile events reported in Jeremiah 52. And , of course, it should answer the question about the complete lack of evidence for 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year.  

So in this new thread/topic there would need to be NO discussion of:

• the 70 years of Jewish Exile, or the 70 years of Babylonian domination over other nations
• the purpose of the WTS 20-year gap
• 1914
• Daniel 4, Gentile Times, the length of the 7 times/years, the length of the 2,520 days making up those 7 years
• Not even any discussion of Bible prophecies or references in: Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel. 

Just the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Any discussion of other topics can be moved back to this topic/thread.

[xero]

I'm not a fan of goal-post shifting, inventing of new goal-posts, or editing of people's comments and arguments. There is a natural flow which gets interrupted when those uncomfortable with a conversation try to steer it or control it. It's stifling and unless Jehovah decides to do it, I'm against it.

[xero]

https://hal.science/hal-03090272v5/file/Mesopotamian-chronology revised.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256488025_Dating_the_fall_of_Babylon_and_Ur_thanks_to_Astronomical_Events

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, xero said:

https://hal.science/hal-03090272v5/file/Mesopotamian-chronology revised.pdf

Excellent point made here in the link you provided:

"The durations of the Babylonian reigns, from Eriba-Marduk (770-761) to Nabonidus (556-539), are all known. The chronology of these Babylonian kings is anchored on the dates set by the astronomy of five precisely described lunar eclipses."

Sometimes when we read about Babylonian or Mesopotamian chronology being revised, we think of the Neo-Babylonian period which, unfortunately for the WTS tradition, has been "set in stone" and therefore can't really be revised. 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, xero said:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256488025_Dating_the_fall_of_Babylon_and_Ur_thanks_to_Astronomical_Events

And, as discussed previously about Gerard Gertoux on the forum, the above link you provided gets into some of those exact details that show how the Neo-Babylonian chronology is "set in stone:"

In your link, Gertoux states:

The fall of the Assyrian empire, which took place in October 609 BCE after the battle of Harran, is characterized by a quadruple synchronisms, since the year of Assur-uballit II corresponds to year 17 of Nabopolassar to Josiah's year 31 and year 1 of Necho II.

According to the biography of Adad-Guppi12, mother of Nabonidus, Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, then Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Amel-Marduk 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years just before Nabonidus. According to the Hillah's stele there were 54 years between the destruction of the temple of Sin, in Harran, and the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus. According to a Babylonian chronicle (BM 21901) and Adad-Guppi's stele, the temple of Harran was destroyed in the year 16 of Nabopolassar.

Dated lunar eclipses are: year 1 and 2 of Merodachbaladan (March 19/20 721 BCE, March 8/9 and September 1/2 720 BCE); year 5 of Nabopolassar (April 21/22 621 BCE); year 2 of !ama#-#uma-ukîn (April 10/11 666 BCE); year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar (March 2/3 562 BCE). A diary (VAT 4956) contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar dated from astronomy in 568 and 567 BCE. An astronomical journal (BM 38462)17 list some lunar eclipses in the years 1 to 27 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated from 604 to 578 BCE.

I think it was pretty brave of Gerard Gertoux to stand up against the WTS tradition publicly and show just why the accepted, evidenced chronology is so difficult to change and try to discredit.