JW Insider

"Dad jokes" are supposed to be ultra corny so that their kids groan, mostly in embarrassment. That grizzled farmer one is a "grandfather joke" that I first heard from my grandfather. It's very funny. Although, I'm not sure, but I think it might actually be illegal to laugh at those grandfather jokes these days.

First warning!!! LOL

Not me. I think it can be useful for some people and sometimes can even be funny. It's often entertaining, and it can have serious uses, too. It can be revealing in interesting ways related to psychology and human interaction. I think the world and Witnesses too need to be ready for an onslaught of fake people, fake news, fake information, and no one will have the time to figure out who's really who online, or even on the news. People can scrub their own accounts and try to start fresh (like a certain NYT's "journalist" who was just outed as a propagandist for Israeli intelligence). I don't like Nikki Haley's "true ID" proposal because people use identities as protection from harassment, political persecution, religious persecution, or even from being shunned by loved ones in their local congregation over the things they are learning. Sock puppets don't bother me. I personally don't want to use one. But there are times when their use can be informative. I've seen you use one in a good way, even very recently, to raise a question, and make an informative comment, and sometimes that keeps a conversation going for a good purpose. It's only when people under any of their names are being obnoxious, divisive, causing dissension, being nasty, etc., that I have a problem. Also, there are some people here who don't respond well to a string of downvotes at everything they say. And there are some who use their sock puppets for no other reason than to build up their reputation with upvotes, which doesn't hurt anyone. But I don't like to see a person get discouraged or offended at constant downvotes so I will sometimes "out" a person for doing that because then they will know it's ONLY this or that person, and it's not a "real" response. Here's an example that could feel offensive to @Arauna: Notice that I said nothing controversial, and added that I hoped Arauna would say something to us about how she is doing these days since we hadn't heard from her in a while. But you downvoted it. Is she going to think that some new person doesn't like her and doesn't want to know how she is doing? In the past another one of your identities told her multiple times that she was foolish for disagreeing with you. She got used to that from you. So if she knows it's just you again, she won't be overly concerned.

I think you missed the point. A sock puppet, as you know, is used as a secondary ACTIVE account. Pudgy was the name JTR used AFTER JTR stopped using the JTR account.

Or better yet, approach it from a Biblical perspective.

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. 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

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.

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.

LOL. Pudgy JTR has had two names on this forum, but never used both at the same time.

Reminds me of the image that Allen Smith and BillyTheKid would use here. I think one or two of Allen Smith's names are still active and you can see it for yourself if you click on this: @AllenSmith35 That one above was actually when he used the Wyatt Earp picture. He also used this one as Billy the Kid: He also picked names related to a few other Wild West gunslingers, Texas Rangers, etc. But there were also names from Latin, from Spanish, etc., and several regular-sounding names of people you might never associate with him, until they started posting.

No, he was not Billy The Kid. BTK was "Wally McNasty" as Pudgy called him. He is also George88, Cesar Chavez, Allen Smith, Alphonse, BTK59 [BillyTheKid59], Moise Racette, Dmitar, Boyle, etc, etc. I used to keep track, but I stopped at around 50 names. AlanF never used but that one handle here and evidently in several other forums around the Internet. And he would identify himself with his full name (if you asked) and not just hide behind the handle like some of us. LOL. I never followed him much into those topics about the Flood, the Ice Ages, Evolution, etc., because I'm pretty incompetent about those things and don't care to learn too much just yet about them. Maybe next year. I don't know exactly what you mean by "his good posts." But I looked back through some chronology topics and found dozens of well written polite posts that merely shared information, and all the while he was getting called names by others here. There was some light-hearted bantering between him and scholarJW as they had obviously had a long history of previous discussions elsewhere. But I see a lot of obnoxious posts to him before he responded. But I will start out with one of his absolute worst, because I thought that TTH's response was about the funniest and most memorable retort: But that was after he had developed a kind of persona where he had developed a HISTORY with Cesar, and Arauna and TTH, and we already expected that these were just follow-ups from prior topics. But I go to his old topics in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and he was actually quite helpful in providing sources and resources for information. But a topic couldn't go for 10 pages before he started fighting back. I do see one thing in his favor, in my opinion. Those attacking him were often just offering empty opposition and ignoring his points, or offering "tired" old standby arguments from Young Earth Creationists which he considered totally debunked scientifically. Even though he wasn't attacked with foul language, he was attacked with constant escalating levels of antagonism, and ad hominem stuff. But in the middle of his rather-too-direct responses to those, whenever someone asked a reasonable question, he was right back to giving emotionless straightforward facts to think about. These are the same facts we should be aware of as counter-arguments to, let's say, the Flood, should it ever come up. In the middle of all this bantering, notice how he goes right back to being an encyclopedic resource, even though we don't like the info. Here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/?do=findComment&comment=153844 It's too long to display the contents here, but his follow-up comment is also thought-provoking and I'll quote it in full: That's not faith-building, of course. And it's not stuff I personally want to think about. But it's thought-provoking information and the kind of thing that's useful in a discussion forum, especially if others know how to respond and defend against it (especially the informative post above it with only the link).

That's correct, and you also have things going on in China and Europe at the time. Therefore the events have nothing to do with the fact that this and ALL OTHER astronomical diaries and observations from his time point to 568 as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is the same thing as pointing to 587 as the 18th year, and 586 as the 19th year. It absolutely does not matter what events were going on at the same time. You are right that they have no value for the year stipulated by the tablets. Interestinig isn't it? This has come up before in old topics, that Jeremiah may have meant the expression "70 years" in much the same way as it looks like Isaiah used it. "The typical or "fated" lifespan of a kingdom" like that of Babylon. As if it were already a cliche about Assyria, and the "lifespan" of a kingdom rarely went beyond a dynasty of say, father/son/grandson before a new dynasty would begin. It may not have been literal, a literal, exact 70 years, but just used a way of reminding people that empires and dynasties come and go, and Jehovah will use that same lifespan cycle, of the rise and fall of empires, to both punish and then release his people. In that sense Babylon's "70 years" becomes Judah's "70 years" of reversal. Not that either one needs to be exact or even needs to coincide. The "70 years" given to one is the cause of the "70 years" of the other. I personally don't buy it, though, because it's so obvious that the fall of the Assyrian Empire was most apparent 70 years before the fall of Babylon was most apparent. From 609 to 539 is a much better theory than 587 to 517 for the "flip side" of the 70 years for the Temple. I think you have implied that the Temple might have actually been effectively destroyed in 597 or at least at the Babylonian Chronicle's event associated with 597. It makes for an interesting "compromise" only 10 years off the WTS date, and 10 years off the evidence from all the astronomy dating for NEB II. You said that wrong. Accession year is used so that his 37th regnal year IS also 568 and not 567, according to the way Babylonians were required to count. If you had used a different method of counting regnal years (NON-Accession year counting) then the 37th year would be one year EARLIER not later, because his accession year (the zero-th year) would have already counted as his 1st, therefore his Babylonian counted 10th would be counted in NON-Accession as his 9th. And his 37th would be counted as his 36th. The year earlier was 569 BCE, not 567 BCE. But G88, BTK57, etc., never admit error. He didn't say it was destroyed in 597, though, did he? He said it fell. Just like Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539. It wasn't destroyed then. For most cities, it wasn't worth destroying if they could still be forced to pay tribute, keep the fields planted, keep the vineyards dressed, etc. There is more wealth to transfer to a king when you DON'T destroy the city but take away their elites who keep most of the trading profits from the "people of the land," and replace those elites with soldiers who are required to take most of those same profits back to their king. Also, note that the Bible said it took him about a year and a half of siege to take Jerusalem and finally break through its walls. If you notice the wording carefully in Jeremiah, it appears that most of the ones exiled in 597 were apparently NOT from Jerusalem itself. That happened in year 18/19. (Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.  In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. As you also indicated elsewhere above: the opposite is true. You need to work with the dates by their face value, and not try to disprove them just because you assume certain events must have happened elsewhere at a different time. I can say I was 60 in in 2017 and that I saw a total solar eclipse in NYC, but you can't say I wasn't just because you claim that I should have been 60 during the Viet Nam war, or that there was another total solar eclipse in 1925, so THAT must have been my 60th year. The desired event has nothing to do with the date. My birth certificate doesn't change for any events, my driver's license doesn't change for any events, my passport doesn't change for any events.

Over time, I have used 4 different ones that calculate ancient readings. Some are on old broken laptops and I didn't bother to update because it looked like I would have to buy new versions for my current laptop. The only ones I used for Babylonian and Persian readings that I posted here were from Stellarium and The Sky 5 (maybe 6, too). I never paid attention to the ones Hunger and Steele were using. Apparently, they all give the same results within seconds or maybe a minute of each other. But it takes 4 full minutes for the "night sky" to turn even one degree, so they are all giving the same reading.

I'm trying to see your perspective here, and it made me go back and look through the threads that I remembered him in pretty well. I was surprised to notice that in the worst-case posts I had recalled, that he wasn't the one who started it. Others were being nasty, and calling him a "fool" before he responded in kind, but he was less apt to watch his vocabulary even if others were escalating. I also noticed that he was adamant that someone should try to respond to his point rather than constantly dodging and weaving and diverting. But I recall once seeing him refer to Arauna as foolish in a chronology topic, and either Tom or I let him know he was picking on "sweet old lady." (Sorry if that offends, Arauna.) He responded that it didn't matter how old anyone is, if they is going to spout nonsense with such conviction, then age is no excuse; she is going to hear where she is wrong. It's true that it's easier to ignore empathy and emotion in an online discussion if you are just here to defend your [strong] opinions against the [strong] opinions of others. I know a couple of people who are brilliant intellectually, but who are "on the [autism] spectrum" and have that exact trouble in real life, and they are always getting in trouble with others. I counseled one who has problems at work because he does OK with others in a meeting format, and one-on-one, but he writes scathing emails, and raises his voice with co-workers on the phone. I had also noticed that at meetings he did better when he looked at people's faces when disagreeing with them. I told him about this, as a way to help, but he said he grew up with "Asperger's" and would never look at a person's face when he talked to them. As a moderator I remember having to warn Alan a couple of times and sent that warning up the flagpole to the admins: But who's counting? LOL Unlike others who got warnings (who would dig in their heels and get suspended), AlanF would respond humbly and contritely and explain himself without making excuses.

FYI, I have moved some of the posts about AlanF and the ensuing discussion about errors, behavior, forgiveness, prodigality, etc., over to a new topic: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90947-forum-participants-we-have-known/ I believe that, so far, this move only affected some posts by @BTK59, @Many Miles, @TrueTomHarley, and @Srecko Sostar

It's fairly small (164k) so I'll just post it here: text-observation-mars-steele.pdf

That would mean that they counted Nabopolassar's years differently from all the other Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian and Persian kings in Ptolemy's writings and in the original Babylonian inscriptions. Anything's possible. But you appear to be more concerned with whether this Nabopolassar was co-reigning with a different Nebuchadnezzar than the one who claimed he was Nabopolassar's son. I'm only talking about the mistake the writer made in 1969 in presenting the idea that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse.

It's pretty simple. Ptolemy said that the Babylonians reported an eclipse that was only PARTIAL in the 5th year of Nabopolassar. Today, that exactly described PARTIAL eclipse can be calculated to 621 BCE. That makes perfect consistent sense because it meshes perfectly with 100 other astronomical observations that would also indicate that 621 BCE is the 5th year of Nabopolassar. But the Watchtower claims that 621 BCE is the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, so the WTS needs this eclipse to have happened in 641 BCE, otherwise 1914 doesn't work. So a Watchtower contributor or writer looks at the eclipse log for 641 BCE, and lo and behold there was a total eclipse that year. So the Watchtower writer/editor says: Look Ptolemy and Babylon say that a partial eclipse happened in 621, but we found an eclipse that doesn't match that description in 641. Even though it doesn't match, we'll go with it, and say it's even BETTER than the right one that matches, because the 641 eclipse is TOTAL not partial. It's the same as if this happened, not that it ever would: BTK59 says, I found a report with a map of a burial mound of Cherokee Native Americans in Dahlonega, Georgia, USA containing tiny "Indian arrowheads" of the exact shape that the Cherokees made. I wondered if the map was accurate and if I could find one of those tiny arrowheads. And look, it worked, I just found this Cherokee-style arrowhead exactly where the map pointed. JWI says, Wait, No. I just found a large flint spearhead in burial mound of Osage Native Americans in Joplin Missouri. This must be what you were really looking for, because it was found in a burial mound just like you said. Now BTK59 has two options here. He could say: BTK59 says: JWI, you are a despicable fool. The map said the tiny arrowheads were in Georgia, and that's where I found an arrowhead exactly matching the description. And now you bring me a large spearhead from hundreds of miles off the map. And you say it's the same just because they were both in burial mounds. Or, BTK59 could say: "I see no conflict with this observation, JWI."

Sometime today or tomorrow, I will likely move some of the very off-topic posts over to here that are currently in a topic about Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, because they are about people and other unrelated topics.

@xero, It might have been an innocent set of mistakes after mistakes after mistakes by Furuli, who may have been a bit myopic and started out with extreme confirmation bias, believing that the 588 date MUST be right at all costs for the 37th year. After all, this was the same method the Watchtower (above) had suggested in 1969, so it MUST be true. But it still comes across as a "pious fraud." But even more serious, I think, than the potential "pious fraud" unquestionably accepted from Furuli, is the method the Watchtower itself used to hide a very important fact. The hidden fact is directly related to the admission that the tablet contains more PLANETARY observations than LUNAR observations. Why are they just barely mentioned and overlooked? *** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** In addition to the aforementioned eclipse, there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. These describe the position of the moon or planets in relation to certain stars or constellations. There are also eight time intervals between the risings and settings of the sun and the moon. Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956. Really? This last sentence was completely misworded. It should have said the very opposite: Because lunar positions are more flexible, and more likely to repeat, even coincidentally and sometimes PREDICTABLY from one year to the next and planetary positions often never repeat again for hundreds of years, this would mean that close matches for the planetary observations would therefore be much more important for determining the BCE dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Instead we see some sleight of hand here about supposedly superior reliability. When it should have said "inferior reliability" or "superior flexibility." But here's the kicker. Rolf Furuli ADMITS in his book that the planetary positions can ONLY be a match to 568 BCE. (Not his goal of promoting 588.) In other words, it was always a worthless exercise to try to overcome the lunar data when he already had to admit that the greater number of readings were for the far superior and more reliable planetary data that he could not even attempt to dismiss in any reasonable way.

@xero, here is the comparison done by Ann O'maly. I got almost exactly the same results running the tests on "Stellarium" and "The Sky." Keep in mind, that the moon pretty much travels across the same path from night to night, so there will ALWAYS be other years when very similar lunar/stellar configurations are seen by coincidence alone. In fact, every 18 years 11 days 8 hours the moon will repeat an eclipse, very often with an additional eclipse usually visible 5 or 6 months from that 18 year cycle. You are always going to get SOME very similar readings in ANY two years that are compared. The paper is much longer but it is well summarized with the chart I copied there and here: Posted December 11, 2020 The older the diary, the more it has been recopied, and the more likely a few errors would creep into it. This will be true of VAT 4956 for which the planetary positions interspersed throughout certain lines of the diary provide excellent evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568/7 BCE. But the lunar positions on other interspersed lines of the same diary match only 17 dates of the 23 lunar positions, and 17 out of those 23 positions are a match (73.9%). These are discussed very well here, where the author ("Ann O'maly") has compared the accuracy score, to another proposed date, 20 years further back for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year: https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com The final tabulation is almost identical to the results anyone can get with computer-based astronomy programs. The final column on the right is the score given to the lunar positions for 568/7 which matches the timeline above. (Green is good, red is not.) The left column is a good indication of how well (actually, how poorly!) the lunar positions might match a date 20 years earlier, or even perhaps for any other random year. This attempt to make it match another date scores about 5 out of the 23 positions (21.7% vs 73.9% for the more accurate year).

It's not that Jehovah doesn't "watch" errors, but he is all-knowing and all-understanding and has provided the ransom as a means for forgiveness. So he doesn't watch for errors to slap us down like a human boss might, and he doesn't judge by the number of errors. But there is one exception for humans. We are to watch for errors in "teaching." And since ours is a teaching ministry, even for the youngest among us, we MUST watch for errors when it comes to teaching wrong doctrine and the possibility of misleading others: (Matthew 16:12) . . .Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of bread, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . . (James 3:1) . . .Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. (Galatians 6:1) . . .Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. . . . (Ephesians 4:14, 15) . . .So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. But speaking the truth. . . (Matthew 23:15) . . .Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves. (Hebrews 13:17) . . .Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you. (Matthew 18:6) But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea.

Spoiler alert, @xero: Most of the readings are a much better fit for 568, and only a few can be said to be OK for 588. Except for the single well-documented, copyist's error, that was recognized 100 years ago, most of the other supposed "matches" for 588 require that we also believe the Babylonians had made a mistake in starting their new year more than a month later than it should have been started. Not only is there no evidence that this EVER happened, the Babylonians were much more careful and meticulous about which lunar month started the New Year than the Hebrew calendar. The Hebrews never added the leap month except just after the 12th month. The Babylonians to make sure the New Year always started even closer to the Spring Equinox, would often add the leap month just after the 12th month but sometimes calibrated to add it just after the 6th month when necessary. (This is done because the lunar months only provide about 354 days in the year, so that loss of 11 days from the solar year requires a leap month every 3 years or so.) But we already have excellent evidence for the exact method the Babylonians were already using for their leap months, because the thousands of business tablets identified whether there had just been a month 6 or month 12 leap month. (aka intercalary month) That means that even most of the "coincidental" readings are bogus, even though Ann O'maly generously allowed the 588 readings themselves to be compared against 568, anyway, in spite of the fact that they weren't real readings because the month was impossible.

Yes. It's one of the first sets of items I ever checked against the astronomy applications. It's a summary of Rolf Furuli's book. And this is an even bigger embarrassment to the WTS than the Nabopolassar 5th year eclipse that I mentioned in my previous post. The article was smart not to use Furuli's name, because his previous book on chronology had also been full of some amateur errors. (And in order to hide the fact that he was merely trying to create "scholarly-looking" support for the WT chronology he said he was developing the "Oslo Chronology." That's where he's from.) And using his name would have led people to the Internet, where his book and his theory had already been thoroughly debunked. And, in the worst-case scenario, it would have potentially driven more Witnesses to do what you are doing, obtaining software to look it up for themselves. But unfortunately, while removing Furuli's name, the article tends to imply a kind of "editorial 'we'" which implicates the WTS itself, and the article therefore implies that the WTS knows others who have validated Furuli, or has itself tried to verify these readings. Obviously, they didn't or they would discover exactly what you will discover when you check it out for yourself. The problem starts with the fact that there is a well known copyist's error on the tablet. (Most all the astronomy tablets we have are copies, or even copies of copies.) There is actually more than one error, but none of the others are significant. This copyists error is considered to be off by one day, although some experts say that it may actually be that it was the name of the star that is off, and it is still the correct day. (When I use the term "experts" I mean many of the same people that the WTS quotes as experts in "Insight" etc.) I wrote up my own findings, but they are not as well-documented and well-presented as has been done by others. The person who presented it best in my opinion has been on this forum. Her name is Ann O'maly, although I expect that's a "screen name" meant to be a pun on the word "anomaly." Her write-up on it is on academia.com, and we also discussed it here on the forum. I'll point you to both in the next couple of posts, and we can discuss it again from there.

I really do agree with that whole-heartedly. That's why I wanted to create a topic that skipped all the usual diversions about various events and ONLY focus on the strength of the evidence for the BCE dates in the Neo-Babylonian chronology. I had hoped to avoid the usual mess we get into by trying to decide between 586 and 587, or exactly when the 70 years started or ended, or exactly how long it took Cyrus to make the decree in his first year. We can always have other discussions that get into those things. But then when someone comes on to talk about some of those other topics, I always give in. Perhaps you wanted to shift the paradigm in another way. If so, I'm all ears. (And not enough in between.)