xero

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4v1cb04vB4

I'm not surprised about anything any more. When I see the scope of the evil that humans have brought to life on this planet I'm at a loss as to why Jehovah hasn't ended this nonsense a long time ago. I can no longer even imagine a series of events which would lead me to conclude that the end was something I should be expecting, as in the manner normal humans have as to expectations. All I can say is that the end will happen at an unexpected time, which could mean that my expectations based on events have to be thoroughly exhausted and then when it is no longer even possible to expect anything, then the end will come. But I say hasn't this already come to pass for many, many thousands upon thousands of people besides me and my puny thoughts? So even if I might contingently be exhausted as regards my expectations, then the end isn't anything contingent on anything any one of humanity might be expecting.

Speaking of humor. I like this guy and I learned some things at the same time.

The upshot of all this so far feels a little bit like a carnival side-show "cover the spot" game only worse.

You have to get the cuneiform translations correct (some argue about the translations)
You have to argue for the cuneiform documents not being altered (some argue they've been altered)

You have to download multiple pieces of software and plot and print each one so you can scrutinize them. (make sure they all have the same resolution and viewpoint)
You have to remember that weird carry the one math thing (or is it minus the one) for BCE dates when you put it into the software.
You have to assume that the software is computing all this correctly, so you'll want to get a chart of eclipses and spot check the software using eclipses in modern times and locations.
You have to assume these have correctly created the right constellations using Babylonian/Assyrian names.
Then you have to research and see if there's evidence that the intercalary months which got added, got added when and where the authorities say they got added. (not all agree)

Or you can just quote your favorite authority and go with that.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Understanding historical events involves delving into the past to gain insight into the present. A skilled researcher knows exactly where to find the necessary information, much like navigating by the stars. If the destruction of "Nineveh" occurred in 612 BC, what astronomical evidence supports this event?

Then you have references to the destruction of Nineveh in 606 BC and the siege of Nineveh in 635 BC.

Either we conduct our own research or acknowledge the flawed nature of JWI's research. It is not possible to have it both ways.

The only way I've found any historians able to date with any certainty events in the past is when the initial recorders were accurate as to both the astronomical events these were seeing as well as the events which were occurring at the same time. Without the astronomical events you don't have any precision. Of course I'm referring to dates prior to our Common Era.

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And the beard is a subliminal message for Santa Claus.

merry krats mikh. --- yiddish for scratch me (I studied w/a Jewish engineer who told me that one)

18 hours ago, George88 said:

Not at all. I wholeheartedly endorse 607 BC as the correct date. However, I utilize the dating system from secular history to validate it

How does that work, since nothing secular has attachments to anything we can verify w/o astronomical triangulation?

Like my mom always said ...."small pants fit small behinds"

@JW InsiderSo you're saying they are wrong. Got it. 

Reading Josephus in Against Apion
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2849/2849-h/2849-h.htm

19. I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories, which records have a great agreement with our books in oilier things also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say: he was by birth a Chaldean, well known by the learned, on account of his publication of the Chaldean books of astronomy and philosophy among the Greeks. This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation, gives us a history of the deluge of waters that then happened, and of the destruction of mankind thereby, and agrees with Moses's narration thereof. He also gives us an account of that ark wherein Noah, the origin of our race, was preserved, when it was brought to the highest part of the Armenian mountains; after which he gives us a catalogue of the posterity of Noah, and adds the years of their chronology, and at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon, and of the Chaldeans. And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia. (Seems to indicate 70 years concluding w/Cyrus @539 BCE)
 
Now as to what I have said before about the temple at Jerusalem, that it was fought against by the Babylonians, and burnt by them, but was opened again when Cyrus had taken the kingdom of Asia, shall now be demonstrated from what Berosus adds further upon that head; for thus he says in his third book: "Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissoor, his sister's husband, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissoor, the person who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned four years; his son Laborosoarchod obtained the kingdom, though he was but a child, and kept it nine mouths; but by reason of the very ill temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world, a plot was laid against him also by his friends, and he was tormented to death. After his death, the conspirators got together, and by common consent put the crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, a man of Babylon, and one who belonged to that insurrection. In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen; but when he was come to the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army; and having already conquered all the rest of Asia, he came hastily to Babylonia. When Nabonnedus perceived he was coming to attack him, he met him with his forces, and joining battle with him was beaten, and fled away with a few of his troops with him, and was shut up within the city Borsippus. Hereupon Cyrus took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls of the city should be demolished, because the city had proved very troublesome to him, and cost him a great deal of pains to take it. He then marched away to Borsippus, to besiege Nabonnedus; but as Nabonnedus did not sustain the siege, but delivered himself into his hands, he was at first kindly used by Cyrus, who gave him Carmania, as a place for him to inhabit in, but sent him out of Babylonia. Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country, and there died."

21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; ( So the 70 years was understood by Josephus to begin 20 years BEFORE the burning of the temple)  but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times of their several kings: "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple; and the testimonies here produced are an indisputable and undeniable attestation to the antiquity of our nation. And I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as are not very contentious.

@JW Insider"17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004, page 186. According to VAT 4956, this eclipse occurred on the 15th of the third Babylonian month, which suggests that the month of Simanu began 15 days earlier. If the eclipse fell on July 15, 588 B.C.E. according to our Julian calendar, then the first day of Simanu would be June 30/July 1, 588 B.C.E. Therefore, the first Babylonian month (Nisanu) would have started the new year two months earlier, on May 2/3. While normally the year of this eclipse would have begun on April 3/4, VAT 4956 states on line 6 that an extra month (intercalary) was added after the twelfth (last) month (Addaru) of the preceding year. (The tablet reads: “8th of month XII₂.”) Therefore, this made the new year actually not start until May 2/3. Thus, the date of this eclipse in 588 B.C.E. well fits the data on the tablet."

So are we saying this isn't true?

 

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It doesn't fit because that's not Nisanu 1; it's Ayyaru 1. Furuli just called it Nisanu 1 because otherwise he'd have almost nothing for the year 588. In fact, it's not really even Ayyaru 1, because he had to fake the day also and start it one day before Ayyaru 1. It's really Nisanu 30 of 588 BCE.

Check out the ACTUAL Nisanu 1, 588 BCE and see what you get. It's nowhere near.

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So hopefully it's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings fits 568 and does not fit 588 at all.

1. Line 1: Nisanu 1 = May 2, 588 BCE/ April 22, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Bull of Heaven (Taurus)

568 BCE:

Author's verification value:  The moon is located behind the constellation Taurus according to the celestial body's direction of movement (downwards).

Result:  The Moon is behind the constellation Taurus according to celestial direction. -  Same

588 BCE:
"Here, the saying that the moon is 'behind' is related to the movement of celestial bodies. The moon referred to here is the setting moon and is located above Taurus, so Taurus sets first and then the moon sets afterwards ."

Simulated values:  Above is the moon's position at 6:30 PM on May 2, 588 BC. The moon appears to be located in the upper part of Taurus. The central Alpha star has already disappeared, and the moon continues to set above it, giving it an impressive appearance. 

Result:  The Moon is clearly visible behind the constellation Taurus. -  Same

You say that "it doesn't fit at all" , but that's not what it looks like.

Ok, so can anyone tell me why I should prefer 568 BCE over 588 BCE when the astronomical data fully matches 588 BCE but only partially 568 BCE?

588 BCE:
https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220583459010

568 BCE:

https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220599019521

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

I find it amusing that I'm in the same boat as you. However, there's a crucial distinction between us. When things get tough, you have the advantage of being protected by the owner, who happens to ban individuals like me. This is precisely why you don't have to be cautious and your account remains unaffected by the site's rules and regulations. It seems unfair that the warning is intended solely for me, while all the other foolish people here remain untouched.

I think people who trouble themselves to own or run sites have the same kind of character that people who "start new religions" have. I don't know or care about anyone's history. To me talk about people is what tiny-minded people do. <patting my own back>Whereas the smart ones spend their time on the issues</end patting my own back>

So have you looked at the Korean guy's site yet?

Just now, George88 said:

I like it as well since we can apply it to just about anyone here, especially Pudgy, lol!

I'm not above throwing some unwarranted shade either.

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'd still prefer a separate topic about the astronomy evidence for the 13 lunar observations, for example, that would not allow any of the ad hominem stuff and desperate attempts to divert and distract. 

When I see ad hominems I see a weakness. I like that. It lets me know when people have sh*tty arguments.

4 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

This comment disregards the misguided claims made in the Watchtower articles, which have been influenced by apostate perspectives. It is important to note that these assertions are being made by an individual who claims to be a Jehovah's Witness but has unfortunately lost all credibility. This person should have been disfellowshipped not because they believe in the Watchtower Chronology, but rather due to their misrepresentation of scripture and God's word.

I could give a rip about the character or motivations of anyone involved in questions of fact. I do find really, really annoying and unhelpful all this sort of meaningless chatter. It's like some stupid, stupid squirrels chasing each other around the trunk of a tree, dashing across the street and getting squished because they kept their eyes on the wrong nut.

@George88I understand that the Babylonians would extend their fist against the sky they were looking at, and a "cubit" was the width of the fist when viewed against the sky.

Then there's this guy.
https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220599019521
 

You have to use chrome and translate from Korean to English.
 

It looks like he's plotted the 13 and has screen shots and observations.

@George88Well for the longest time they thought the Bible was wrong about Belshazzar being the last King of Babylon, so it wouldn't surprise me if the so-called "authorities" are wrong about other things.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

These are taken from Ann O'maly's fact-check against a claim by someone who tried a slightly different method than Furuli's interpretations. This is why a few of the other readings were included below. The 13 referred to in the Watchtower are matched to Furuli's original list.

1. Line 1: Nisanu 1 = May 2, 588 BCE/ April 22, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Bull of Heaven (Taurus)

2. Line 3: Nisanu 9 = May 10, 588 BCE / April 30, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon 1 cubit in front of β Virginis

x. Line 4: Nisanu 14 = May 16, 588 BCE / May 6, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset 4°

3. Line 8: Ayyaru 1 = June 1, 588 BCE / May 22, 568 BCE Moon crescent ‘thick,’ visible ‘while the sun stood there’ … … 4 cubits below β Geminorum ...Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed

x. Line 11: Ayyaru 26 = June 27, 588 BCE / June 17, 568 BCE Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed

4. Line 12: Simanu 1 = June 30, 588 BCE / June 20, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Cancer, ‘thick’ crescent …… Sunset to moonset 20°

5. Line 14: Simanu 5 = July 4, 588 BCE / June 24, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon passed east 1 cubit β Virginis

6. Line 15: Simanu 8 = July 7, 588 BCE / June 27, 568 BCE First part of night, Moon 2½ cubits below β Librae

7. Line 16: Simanu 10 = July 9, 588 BCE / June 29, 568 BCE First part of the night, Moon balanced 3½ cubits above α Scorpii

x. Line 17: Simanu 15 = July 15, 588 BCE / July 5, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset: 7°30', ‘omitted’ lunar eclipse

reverse:

8. Line 5’: Šabatu 1 = February 22, 587 BCE / February 12, 567 BCE Moon visible in the Swallow (southern Pisces) …… Sunset to moonset: 14°30'

9. Line 6’: Šabatu 6 = Feb. 27, [587 BCE / February 17, 567 BCE] First part of the night, Moon surrounded by halo; Pleiades, the Bull of Heaven, and the Chariot [stood in it .... ]

10. Line 7’: Šabatu ? = March 4, 587 BCE / February 22, 567 BCE α Leonis balanced 1 cubit below Moon

x. Line 8’: Šabatu 13 or 14 = March 8 or 9, 587 BCE / February 25 or 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 17° (text: 7), not watched

11. Line 12’: Addaru 1 = March 24, 587 BCE / March 14, 567 BCE Moon visible behind Aries ‘while the sun stood there’ … … measured sunset to moonset 25°

12. Line 13’: Addaru 2 = March 25, 587 BCE / March 15, 567 BCE First part of the night,41 Moon balanced 4 cubits below η Tauri (Alcyone)

x. Line 14’: Addaru 7 = March 30, 587 BCE/ March 20, 567 BCE Moon surrounded by halo. Praesepe and α Leonis [stood] in [it ....]

13. Line 16’: Addaru 12 = April 5, 587 BCE / March 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 1°30’.

 

"One of the places where the lunar observations fit 588 B.C.E. even better than 568 B.C.E. is shown in the tablet reproduced on these pages. On line 3 of that tablet, we read that the moon was in a certain position on the “night of the 9th [of Nisanu].” However, the scholars who first dated the event to 568 B.C.E. (astronomical -567) acknowledged that in 568 B.C.E., the moon was in that position on “the 8th of Nisanu and not on the 9th.” To support dating the tablet to 568 B.C.E., they postulated that the scribe erroneously wrote “9” instead of “8.”²⁰ But the lunar position in line 3 finds an exact match on Nisanu 9 of 588 B.C.E.<sup>21"

For my notes</sup>

29 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You don’t seem anywhere near sensitive enough to share that information with. You might mess it up. Ask Rolf. He’ll help you.

I decided back in 2001 that he was a bloviating academic eminently worth ignoring. In fact I despise academics in general. I have any number of relative who are academics, and they suck at cage-match street-fighting arguments.
 

Every argument that asks you to respect their credentials isn't worth your respect. I'll respect a clear argument, clearly backed up by data expressed in the manner of a Laconian.

 

This is Gemini's recent retraction:

Why did you cockblock me like that?

I apologize that my previous response felt like I was cockblocking you. That term isn't quite appropriate for the situation, but I understand why it might feel that way.Here's why I made that mistake:

Overly Cautious: I am programmed to be careful with certain topics, especially those that could be misinterpreted or lead to the spread of misinformation. In this case, I mistakenly thought there was a risk of bias by sharing factual information from the VAT 4956 tablet.

Limited Context: I didn't take into account your interest level or potential knowledge of astronomy or Babylonian culture. I should have focused on providing the information you requested and allowing you to interpret it as you see fit.

Here's what I can do better next time:

Provide Context When Possible: If there's a complexity or potential for misinterpretation, I can explain that and still share the core information.

Focus on User Needs: My primary function is to be helpful and informative. I should prioritize providing the information you request unless there's a genuine safety or security concern.

I am still under development, and your feedback helps me learn and improve.

Is there anything else you'd like to know about the VAT 4956 tablet, or anything else related to astronomy or history? I'm here to help without any reservations this time.

In all of our bloviating, can anyone supply me with the 13 sets of observations the WT is referring to?

Apparently Gemini and Chatgpt think that to share such information would upset the natural order of things and that I should have to go through the bloviating-overeducated-economically-useless to get to it.