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

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This is Georg's frequent practice.

No, you are mistaken. It is actually individuals like you who manipulate the words of others, solely in an effort to divert attention away from the actual issue at hand.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Reports, like this unfortunate event, which takes place in the premises of other churches, show that the claim of JWs that the world hates only them has no basis. This event shows that there are people who hate the members of "Babylon the Great" too.

It's quite humorous that you're comparing one isolated incident with the hundreds of accusations made against JWs. I can't recall anyone persecuting Joel Osteen on the same scale as the ongoing persecution faced by JWs from millions and governments, with supporters like yourself. If you're going to make a comparison, at least find a more valid reason.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Already answered. I don't know where you got the idea that Wiseman ever cited the 18-19 year number. Look back at my posts. I said Wiseman uses the chronology that puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years at 587 and 586. The Chronicles themselves do not contain any BCE-numbered years. They include Nebuchadnezzar's reign from the accession (zero-th") year to his 1st year, his 2nd, etc., on up to his 11th year. Wiseman calls this 11th year 594 BCE and he elsewhere acknowledges that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years.  

You have not provided a proper response. Instead, you are employing your typical evasive tactics to justify your calculations for the wrong purpose. I am specifically asking for the location in the Chronicles where the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC is mentioned. I am aware of Dr. Wiseman's assumption, and just like you, the disloyal COJ, and others who wish to work backward from 568 BC, there are numerous reasons to arrive at a different conclusion.

WHERE IN THE CHRONICLE DOES IT SPECIFICALLY STATE THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM HAPPENED IN 587 bc WITHOUT USING THE DISTORTED CALCULATIONS?

It is significant that the Egyptians were sufficiently strong to deter Nebuchadrezzar from attacking them for some time. The Old Testament implies that Apries, the successor of Necho, invaded Phoenicia and captured Gaza.1_ Also the approach of Egyptian forces caused the Babylonians to raise the siege of Jerusalem for a time in 588-586 B.c.? The only non-Biblical evidence for the eventual Babylonian invasion of Egypt is a fragmentary text, B.M. 33041, which is a religious rather than a ‘ Chronicle’ version of historical events in the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadrezzar (568/7 B.c.). According to this the Babylonian king did battle with Amasis and penetrated Egypt as far as Putu-laman. Because of its importance this text has been republished on Plates XX-XXI (see pages 94 f. below). 

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You should also check the book you most recently cited from Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon) which states the following:

Incorrect, I'm using all of Dr Wiseman's research but mostly concentrating on "Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British -- Wiseman, D. J. "

If you're looking for a tit-for-tat situation, I'm ready to play along.

In August 559 B.c. Neriglissar seized the throne. + It is not yet clear whether this followed a revolution, probably led by the army though with some priestly support,® or whether he succeeded to the throne on the death of his brother-in-law as the next male in the royal line of succession. Neriglissar, the son of a private citizen, Bél-’um-iSkun,* had been an army commander under Nebuchadrezzar’ and was married to a daughter of the same king. He is probably to be identified with Nergal-sharezer who held the office of rab mag at the siege of Jerusalem in 586 B.c.® If, as seems likely, the Neriglissar who is named in contracts of the ninth year of Nebuchadrezzar (596/5 B.c.) is also the same man, he was already middle-aged on his accession.

Your calculation can also demonstrate the significance of the astronomical tablet, which indicates when "Nergal-sharezer held office in Jerusalem in 587/6 BC according to Dr. Wiseman. Your argument falls short.

Could you replace the term "destruction" with the word "siege"? Moreover, what methodology is Dr. Wiseman employing to reach this conclusion, and in which section of the same book does he mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6 BC according to his interpretation of the Babylonian Chronicles?

The contradiction that you have illustrated is quite thought-provoking, coming from a scholar.

(… looks at bulging pressure gauge …) Yep, (checks watch …) two more days ought to do it!

1 hour ago, George88 said:

ongoing persecution faced by JWs from millions and governments,

In this "secular" report JWs volunteers say the opposite. That the people around them are nice, that they approach them and that they chat nicely with them, they say Hi to them, (this remind me on GB command how "simple Hello" is forbidden if you are ex-JW), express their appreciation for what JWs do.

Hey, nobody hates you. Here are your brothers and sisters confirming it George! Wake up!

46 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In this "secular" report JWs volunteers say the opposite. That the people around them are nice, that they approach them and that they chat nicely with them, they say Hi to them, (this remind me on GB command how "simple Hello" is forbidden if you are ex-JW), express their appreciation for what JWs do.

Srecko, it is true that an evil person can sometimes display moments of kindness. However, this does not change their nature of being evil. Take Satan, for example. He may appear pleasant towards those who worship him, but he treats Jehovah's Witnesses with cruelty. He manipulates ex-witnesses to distort matters and orchestrate persecution against the Watchtower, similar to how the Pharisees persecuted Jesus. Unlike the Pharisees, who were nice to their followers but evil in their treatment of Christ and the apostles, these are two entirely distinct situations.

It's relieving to know that there are regions where they are treated with kindness, instead of being met with hostility elsewhere.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

You have not provided a proper response.

All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

I am specifically asking for the location in the Chronicles where the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC is mentioned.

Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC

So please stop asking for something I have claimed is not even there. What if I said I am specifically asking for you to find Isaac Newton's writings in the Quran? If I asked you several times and you couldn't answer, would it be right for me to claim you are just being evasive?  

2 hours ago, George88 said:

and just like you, the disloyal COJ, and others who wish to work backward from 568 BC

I don't work backwards from 568 BCE. 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

WHERE IN THE CHRONICLE DOES IT SPECIFICALLY STATE THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM HAPPENED IN 587 bc WITHOUT USING THE DISTORTED CALCULATIONS?

OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. 

It's as if I asked you again and again: I'm asking you specfically: Please don't be evasive and tell me where in the Quran does it specifically include Sir Isaac Newton's writings?

2 hours ago, George88 said:

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You should also check the book you most recently cited from Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon) which states the following:

Incorrect, I'm using all of Dr Wiseman's research but mostly concentrating on "Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British -- Wiseman, D. J. "

That's good. I meant to say "the book you recently cited from" rather than "the book you most recently cited from." It even occurred to me that I may have noticed a more recent additional citing of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings" which you had already quoted from a few times earlier. After I wrote that phrase, I even wondered if you might try to make an issue of it, but decided it was too trivial to go back and edit. Anyway, I meant the book you recently cited from here, about 16 hours ago from the time I'm writing this:

I like these two books of his. He makes some connections I hadn't seen before. I'm glad you are going through them.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Your calculation can also demonstrate the significance of the astronomical tablet, which indicates when "Nergal-sharezer held office in Jerusalem in 587/6 BC according to Dr. Wiseman. Your argument falls short.

But I agree wholeheartedly with that possibility. So how does agreeing with Dr Wiseman make my argument fall short? Are you saying his argument falls short? Why? It seems like you just want to play some kind of "tit for tat" game instead of having a serious dialogue about the evidence.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

and in which section of the same book does he mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/6 BC according to his interpretation of the Babylonian Chronicles?

There you go again with the same non-sensical question. Wiseman clearly states the same thing I have stated on this forum off and on for over 10 years now, that the portion of the Chronicles covering Nebuchadnezzar falls several years short of his entire reign. In fact there are parts of 33 years that are not in the Chronicle according to Wiseman, from part of the 11th on up to his 43rd year. If he somehow mentioned that something from his 18th year was there after all, that would be quite a contradiction for a scholar. And he has easily earned the right to be called one, not like me.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

The contradiction that you have illustrated is quite thought-provoking, coming from a scholar.

Exactly. Now it seems you get it. 

Doesn't it make your head hurt, Pudgy, to see all this evidence being disregarded? Take, for example, the assumption from 568 BC found in BM 33041, documenting the battle between Egypt and Babylon. It's astonishing how some people insist on using the 18-19-year cycle to backtrack to 587 BC, solely because they desperately want to place the destruction of Jerusalem in that timeframe. Instead, they should simply accept the chronicle for what it is: an account of another military campaign between factions.

I'm eager to review any evidence regarding BM 33041, where it would mention or contain language where Nebuchadnezzar mentions the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC or the use of the 18-19 year cycle. It is a well-established fact that Dr. Wiseman's Babylonian Chronicles restarts at 557 BC with a 37-year gap, meaning that the tablets do not mention 587 BC or 568 BC.

"Battus the founder ruled for 40 years, says Herodotus (4.159), presumably from 640/639 BCE (Eusebius’s date, using Eratosthenes of Cyrene, Chamoux 1953, 121) when the two ships sailed to Plataea, and so was a young man, no doubt of elite background, when he took on the position. He was succeeded by his son, Arcesilas, who ruled for just 16 years, so presumably until about 584/583. Herodotus (4.159) explicitly states that during this long time, the people at Cyrene remained at the same number as in the original settlement.

The result was large numbers of newcomers, and great new tracts of land being claimed away from the territory of the Libyans. Tensions grew. The Libyans were badly treated by the Cyrenaeans, so their king, Adicran, we are told, sought redress not from among other Libyan tribes who might have been sympathetic, but from far‐away, powerful Egypt. Perhaps Adicran had a special relationship with Pharoah Apries, who then sent a great army against Cyrene, concerned perhaps himself about the growing strength of Cyrene, only to be defeated at Irasa by the Greeks, with very few of the Egyptian soldiers returning home alive. For this ill‐considered debacle, Apries was overthrown by an ambitious young leader, named Amasis, with help from Cyrenaica over a three‐year period (570–567 BCE) and two or three battles recorded in Egyptian and Babylonian documents (Boardman 1994, 141 n. 10; “Putu‐Yaman” on the Neo‐Babylonian tablet (BM 33041 and BM 33053) is conventionally identified as Cyrenaica). From a loss by Egyptians to the Cyrenaeans at Irasa, to a victory by Amasis supported by Greeks including a contingent of Cyrenaeans against Apries and his Babylonian ally, Nebukadrezzar II, we suddenly find that Cyrene is no longer a tiny settlement precariously hanging on to its fragile existence, but an actor on a greater world stage. p.347

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In this "secular" report JWs volunteers say the opposite. That the people around them are nice, that they approach them and that they chat nicely with them, they say Hi to them, (this remind me on GB command how "simple Hello" is forbidden if you are ex-JW), express their appreciation for what JWs do.

While I understand that you are highlighting the significance of a specific example, it is essential to acknowledge that it cannot singularly outweigh the numerous evil acts committed by wicked individuals. Although this circumstance may seem noteworthy, it is crucial to recognize that it does not apply universally.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Does your software accurately account for Nabopolassar's ascension to the throne in 626 BC, or is it overlooking that fact? There appears to be significant confusion stemming from incorrect numerical calculations.

Yes, it does. There shouldn't be any confusion. It's a simple calculation. I'm planning on showing @xero exactly which document he can use, and how he can check it with easy to obtain astronomy software.

And after his accession year is calculated, there is a way to double-check independently by using the actual date provided in the Insight book for that rare portion of the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles where the Watchtower has not added the 20-year gap. From that point you can use the information taken from two other Babylonian documents --without even requiring astronomy software -- and see that it will easily provide the same accession year for Nabopolassar of 626 BCE. 

And for good measure, one could even then take an additional Babylonian inscription (stele), and double-check again using simple math, without requiring more astronomy software, and get the same year.

But you do need to use the software at least once to start with at least one year within Nabopolassar's reign. From any known, it's simple to figure out his accession year. After all, if you know his first year was 625 BCE, then it's obvious his accession year must be 626. If you knew his 11th year was 615, then it would still be obvious you could calculate his accession year as 626. The best Babylonian tablet gives us the exact BCE date for his 16th year. 

18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Yes, it does. There shouldn't be any confusion. It's a simple calculation. I'm planning on showing @xero exactly which document he can use, and how he can check it with easy to obtain astronomy software.

Understood. I didn't imply there was confusion with 626 BC, but rather with your use of 568 BC. If we apply your approach, then we should also consider 626 BC. It's essential to avoid distorting evidence to support the incorrect date of 587 BC.

If tablet BM 33041 supports the date 587 BC for you, then the Babylonian Chronicles support 607 BC for me. For me, there is no further debate on the matter.

After 12 pages of discussion/argument about this,  I have lost track which side is “winning” the argument.

But either way, what is the end product of WHY this is apparently so important?

What practical value will knowing the correct answer have?

It seems to me that being able to PROVE MATHEMATICALLY that Christ began ruling in 1914 or 1918, and Armageddon occurred then is useless …. as there is not a single piece of evidence on planet Earth that supports that supposition.

None whatsoever.

World War I and 1914 was, based on everything that is real, was only a coincidence.

For anyone who is interested, I have moved several posts from here that deal more with the "20 year gap" over to a new topic:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90908-the-watchtowers-20-year-adjustment-to-the-standard-neo-babylonian-chronology/