JW Insider

I don't need to compare the two. I am no longer concerned about the methods of either one. I was skeptical when I read COJ; I was skeptical when I read Furuli. I am aware of what you claim was manipulation, and although I found it amazing that experts would write about how much they appreciated COJ's research and how they say it even added to the field, but I am not at all concerned about it. His discovery that the experts agreed with was totally unnecessary to the overall evidence as far as I'm concerned. Attempts to compare or insult one over the other is not my goal at all. I would prefer to have the discussion based solely on evidence without any reference to various individuals and their supposed expertise or authority. You won't see any deflection, only my claim that COJ never used the Babylonian Chronicles to justify 587 over 607 and refute the Watchtower and neither would I try to do that. I actually consider it a deflection to make a request. It's like saying that you must use a yardstick to refute an ink pen. Why would I care. This should be a discussion about evidence, not about whether the Watchtower or any of its followers have changed their view about 607 BCE. As you probably know, the Watchtower itself changed its view about 607 about 80 years ago. Doesn't make the Watchtower "apostate." If that's true, you should be able to name and quote these historians and show the evidence they had. I'm not saying it's impossible. But the current evidence would show they were in error. No. I said he thought that the "seven times" method to reach modern dates like 1914 was inferior to using "God's dates" that proved 1874. Instead of the "seven times" to reach 1914 he thought it was better to start with 1874, a more proven date (by at least half-a-dozen supposedly independent methods) and to count forward for a 40 year harvest. Then when 1913 came around, he said he was quite willing to abandon the entire idea and hope that people 100 years from then would still see some value in what was being preached. Then when the War broke out he held onto 1914 again, but soon move the predictions to 1915 and even up to a later time. The Watchtower even later printed that The Gentile Times Ended in 1915, before going back to 1914. Russell later conceded that everything he had predicted would happen in 1914 might happen several months or even "YEARS" later. It was not as sacrosanct to him as 1874. 1874 was finally dropped under Knorr/Franz in 1943.

Do you know another explanation for why the Watchtower publications present the year 632 instead of 612 as the date for the fall of Nineveh? It's true that the Watchtower never admits the reason they added 20 years to the evidenced date, but they did explain the reason they add 20 years to the 587 date. It's pretty obvious to me that it's for the same reason. You can't change one date without consequences to the surrounding dates. You just have to figure out where you want to start and stop adding the 20 years. That's something the Watchtower publications have NEVER explained. Claiming someone's explanation "lacks comprehension" without being able to say what specifically was wrong gets us nowhere. It's just an insult that might even give credence to a suspicion that the person trying that tactic can't point out where it's illogical. Until you can, I take it as a tacit admission that my explanation might just as easily be correct as incorrect. You can't say you made any point "precisely" in the past either when you never were able to even try to make a vague point, only an insult, or a false claim that someone was relying heavily on a "person." I rely absolutely ZERO on COJ. That would be stupid. I rely only on evidence. The Babylonian Chronicles contain only relative dates. I think we generally already agree on those relative dates. I would never try to prove a BCE date with a relative date. Also your insult about COJ being a regrettable individual for doing just that is a misdirection. I read his book and he NEVER, EVER claims that the Babylonian Chronicles validate 587 over 607. I'm sure you already agree with COJ about the relative dates presented in those Chronicles. If not, you are free to show me where you disagree with the dates provided within those Chronicles. Again, if you can't specifically show where, I have to assume you can't. This is why I say that empty insults don't help us make any progress on the topic. Don't you think there is always a chance that someone might be able to come along and show why these "incorrect perceptions" are incorrect? What you said gives the impression that you are simply afraid of the evidence. If these were my own private beliefs however I would agree. But these are hardly private beliefs. They are based on the difference between what the Watchtower has publicly claimed and what literally HUNDREDS of other publications have already publicly claimed. There is nothing private about it. There should be nothing to hide. Not only that, the Watchtower itself has encouraged the interest in this claim: *** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One *** This is the first of two articles in consecutive issues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarly questions surrounding the date of the destruction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part series presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzled some readers. “According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?” SO WROTE one of our readers. But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people.

No problem. I have found that to be true of most fellow Witnesses when it comes to this topic. It's not comfortable to engage when you know where the evidence is heading. But for others, I will still go ahead and try to respond to your comments about the evidence and questions you have already asked of me.

It absolutely WAS my intention to discuss evidence regarding the 20-year difference that the Watchtower has been forced to add to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology prior to 539 (technically 556, see below). It even goes back further to the dates given to the entire Judean and Israelite kingdom. The most significant of the dates for the Watchtower during this period would be the change from 587 to 607, which is the entire purpose of changing all these other dates you will find specific references for in "Insight" and various other Watchtower articles: The fall of Nineveh (from 612 to 632) The the 14th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 612 to 632) The the 17th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 609 to 629) The death of Josiah (changed from 609 to 629) The 21st year of Nabopolassar (changed from 605 to 625) The last major battle at Carchemish (changed from 605 to 625) The 1st regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 604 to 624) The 7th regnal year "ending" of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 597 to 617) The 19th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 587 to 607) The 43rd regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 562 to 582) Accession year of Evil-Merodach (changed from 562 to 582) Beginning of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 556 to 556) End of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 539 to 539) Note also that, as I mentioned before, these changed dates are directly tied to the Judean (and Israelite) kings, so that the chronology links are changed by 20 years all the way back to David. You can see this in the following Insight quote, that also makes it appear that the most prestigious reference books agree with the Watchtower chronology, even though it's false. Note how the Watchtower adds its changed dates right there within the quotes from Grayson. *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar *** He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2. The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu . . . When you add something to direct quotes and don't clarify or admit that the brackets weren't in the original, it is considered very bad form or even academic dishonesty. The other thing to notice is that the Watchtower publications force the 20-year gap into the smallest possible reigns of only 2 kings Evil-Merodach who reigned only a few months, and Neriglissar who reigned only 4 years. Unfortunately, for the Watchtower's chronology, the greater part of the Neo-Babylonian years from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus are already ruled out by the Bible itself, forcing the Watchtower to try to squeeze that extra 20 years into the most obvious place where it could never fit and would have been the most conspicuous if it actually existed. I think that's very relevant information to start out with for anyone who believes there is any merit to the reasons that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years. (612 to 632 BCE)

If you want to have a serious conversation (and not a "talk show" as a certain V.Putin might call it) then I am quite willing. As long as we continue to discuss evidence rather than personalities and faults and supposed expertise and supposed authority. I don't claim expertise or authority on this topic, but I have long been amazed now at the availability of so much consistent evidence when I used to have the impression that it was all a mess and so much of it contradicted other evidence, and was therefore useless to study. In response to what you say above, I did NOT intend to only mention you. In fact I said: " Pudgy was the one who joined the conversation only to say he wasn't interested in it, and that would therefore include not being interested in facts or evidence about it, one way or another. I usually expect Pudgy to join a conversation like this mostly to make some points about the Democratic Party, and throw in a few memes or cartoons, some of which are his own making and, yes, also to trade insults with you. I have no problem with such additions to topics I have started, but it probably isn't fair to @xero to ask a question and then see most of the responses filled up with unrelated insults. I admit I had you in mind for some of my other observations, based on some of your statements above, but I'm quite willing to start fresh if you wish. And I don't think I am any paragon of virtue in this regard. Look at some of the old "back-and-forth" between me and scholar_jw, or posts referring to Furuli when it comes to this particular topic. I don't control myself very well when I believe I'm seeing academic dishonesty and possibly purposeful diversions and fallacies. In this regard, I understand where you might also be coming from.

I you were directing that statement at me, I am not resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC. It's a fact that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years from 612 to 632 for only ONE purpose: in order to support the change for the fall of Jerusalem by 20 years from 587 to 607. *** 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.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end. . . . 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.) I could be wrong, but so far, every time a Witness brings up the difference between Watchtower chronology and the standard accepted chronology, they are invariably referring to the 20-year gap that the Watchtower chronology creates for itself. @xero can correct me if this is a misconception on my part. Put simply, the Watchtower chronology takes every Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian-era date for which there is archaeological or historical evidence prior to 539 BCE and simply adds 20 years to it. This is only done in order to try to resolve (or even "cover up") the fact that there is excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE but the Watchtower needs it to be 607 BCE. Otherwise they would have to dismiss the idea that the Bible "predicted" 1914. I think the GB will not be able to extricate themselves very easily from this tradition. Even though the Watchtower has claimed that OTHER dates they promoted were even more sure than 1914, they have dropped those dates. Russell indicated that 1874 was more sure and anchored date than 1914 but that date was finally dropped. Rutherford claimed that there was more proof and evidence for 1925 than for 1914, but that date was also dropped. Therefore, the only "sure" date left, then, is 1914 and it would likely be too much of a disappointment for most Witnesses to have to admit we were wrong all along about this supposed "prophecy" -- the only "sure" dated prophecy we have left. Those with good access to that evidence often have trouble knowing what to do with it. So when the topic comes up they try to "run interference" by brining up people instead of evidence. (One person, R.Furuli, as a last resort against the evidence published by COJ, did try to run interference against the evidence itself.) But normally, from those who have tried to understand the evidence, you instantly start seeing phrases about people JWI, xero, COJ (Carl O Jonsson), apostates, rather than any real attempt to present evidence. Did you really think people would fall for the idea that it was Carl Jonsson who "introduced" this nonsense when it was already known by the preponderance of existing evidence since the early 1800's. And now that even more consistent and corroborating evidence has been found, the chronology is now agreed upon by the scholars who have looked into that evidence for over 100 years already. The Watchtower was already commenting on people who wrote to Russell and Rutherford about this same evidence long before COJ was born. So it's not about people and their flaws or even scholars and experts who agree with one another. It's about the evidence. That said, you did make a point or two in this thread about evidence and since some of those points were directed at me personally, so I will respond.

@xero I'd love to respond further because I think there is quite a lot of real evidence that would answer your original question more definitively than you might have expected. I wouldn't mind copying or moving the relevant posts to the closed forum due to the inevitable and constant distractions by those with a different agenda: those who are anxious to make it clear they aren't interested in the topic and/or they aren't interested in relevant facts or evidence, but merely wish to pompously bloviate and criticize the flaws of humans who are supposedly disgruntled (or worse). Of course, you may have had your own reasons for asking this in the open forum, and I respect that. I sometimes prefer the open forum because the ultimate goal of sharing my opinion is the hope (and reward) that even from an unexpected source, someone can come along and prove me wrong or make me think more about where I could learn more. In spite of George88's tactics of running interference and thriving on confrontation and insults, he himself has sometimes offered up links or material that will shed a different light on a topic.

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: 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!

This is another example of "AI enhanced" hallucinations. Whatever source created this response is just so incorrect that I decided to mark each incorrect sentence in red-orange, and each misleading statement in yellow, and each true statement in green. It's pretty obvious that "AI" tools have scraped from conversations about 607, and often pick up mistaken quotes and will now even potentially pick up their own reprinted mistakes and regurgitate them as if those mistakes have now been validated by their use on a forum even such as this one. For a quick explanation of my markup, note the following. Wiseman made good use of the Nabonidus Chronicle but did not rely "heavily" on it for dating purposes -- he states that they are only for relative chronologies -- and therefore he never tried to "establish" a chronology from it or other Babylonian Chronicles. Also Wiseman wrote the book "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings;" He did not "rely" on it. I just googled to see if it was written in 1961 and google's AI responded: Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) by D. J. Wiseman was written in 586. The Chronicles are indeed fragmentary, and do not include the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, but this is irrelevant if we are merely trying to pin a BCE date on his 18th/19th year, which is all that Witnesses are interested in. If the Chronicles were either totally accurate or totally inaccurate about Jerusalem specifically, it wouldn't make an iota of difference to us. All we want to do is know the date for his 18th/19th year. If they are fragmentary but still gave us pertinent information to help us date his 8th year, his 1st year, or his 37th, then that is plenty of information from which to derive his 18th19th year. The relevant period is any one that includes Nebuchadnezzar's reign, therefore the Chronicles are particularly good for the relevant period. There is nothing in the Babylonian Chronicles about the Jews in particular, so there is no information that would show bias towards them. "Dating inconsistencies" are irrelevant because there aren't any. This happens to be one period of ancient history with the most well-documented and testable chronology. If we didn't think we knew better, we'd say that it must have been providentially Jehovah's will that this period was the most well-documented and easily understood, with literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence all pointing to the same BCE dates, and NOT ONE INCONSISTENCY. The only problem is that we as Witnesses REJECT the obvious conclusion of all this evidence. Wisemen never interprets Neb's 37th year as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem as stated above. Wiseman interprets it according to the prevailing evidence, which would therefore point to a 587/586 destruction of Jerusalem. No one believes the VAT 4956 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 37th year, not JWs, not WIseman, not Furuli. Any differences in interpretation over the exact year of Neb's ascension to the throne have no real impact on the dating of his regnal years. All the evidence is very consistent as to how the Babylonians counted ascension years and regnal years. There is no difference in interpretation for Babylonian documents, which are shown to be perfectly consistent throughout the entire period. This might refer to the Bible's inconsistent use "ordinal" vs. "cardinal" counting of regnal years, as explained in our Aid book and Insight book. Archaeological evidence does indeed point to 587/586 for Neb's 19th year, but Wiseman does NOT contradict this evidence. He makes consistent use of the evidence. Lack of independent corroboration weakens the 607 argument? Mostly true, but there is absolutely NO corroboration of the 607 argument to begin with. Much less any additional independent corroboration. There is simply ZERO evidence for the 607 argument, Biblical or otherwise. And the implication about no independent corroboration misses the point that there are SEVERAL INDEPENDENT lines of evidence all consistently pointing to the 587/586 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. Very few really argues that Wiseman has a theological agenda. He does try to support and defend the Bible as history in certain cases of apparent discrepancies. But this has almost no effect on the time period in question. In this case it is those with a traditional Biblical interpretation that goes against evidence who argue against the evidence. There is really no "scholarly" debate at all about the overall time period in question, and especially not about the specific BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This might sound like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but the point is that this period is just too well documented for scholars to debate. Pretend scholars might pretend that it's debatable, and unfortunately their pretensions carry a lot of weight with people who want desperately to believe they are right. It seems that this is because they are in support of a tradition that would create a lot of discomfort to many of us if we had to admit it was a false tradition. Wiseman's presentation of the overall evidence about the years of the Neo-Babylonian period is universally accepted by scholars, because he accepts evidence and does NOT accept the "607 argument" as claimed above. I should mention that a person may be a scholar in a different field and therefore might disagree with scholars in a field that he is not that familiar with. For example, a scholar in the field of Shakespeare Studies might try to find reasons to disagree with a scholar who argues about the Laws of Physics. But if a Shakespeare scholar claims he knows that the speed of light must be closer to 100,000 miles per hour rather than closer to 186,000 miles per second, this doesn't really mean that the "186,000 argument" is not universally accepted by all scholars. As I said, it's hardly worth trying to glean the wheat from the chaff on AI enhanced writing. Hope it helps a bit. I won't even make an attempt to respond to the many glaring errors in G88's recent posts.

If anyone wishes to participate, I'd like to have a more serious discussion about the 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology. There may be several posts already made by @George88 and @scholar JW that are more related to this topic than @xero's topic about the Fall of Nineveh where several of them were, before being moved here. If anyone wants to participate they are welcome of course, and if anyone wants to continue some of the related and unrelated topics back on xero's thread, that's fine too. Unrelated topics here can even be moved over there if that seems OK.

I'm certain that the use of "A.I." "enhanced" writing tools will quickly produce a comedy of errors -- but still mixed in with a lot of true statements here and there. And that it is hardly worth the time and effort to try correcting all the errors and diversions those tools can create.

On the forum we have previously discussed astronomical evidence for the entire NeoBabylonian period which included astronomical dates in Nabopolassar's accession year (626 BCE) and his 18th year (608 BCE). Naturally, if current astronomical software indicates that his 18th year was 608 BCE, that puts his 14th year only 4 years earlier at 612 BCE. (i.e., 608+4=612) It included a chart I made for that topic and I have linked to a post in that topic below:

I notice that you haven't yet specifically responded to the post I offered with a PREMISE, another PREMISE and a CONCLUSION. But you did offer the following response. I think that's the best approach, too. As you say, you need at least one verifiable astronomical event, and to have it associated with a specific regnal year of a relevant king during this period. (Especially a rare solar eclipse tied to a specific regnal year, or a more common lunar eclipse or star/planet combination tied to a specific month and day of a regnal year.) And it would be best if there are multiple sources (with no contradicting sources) that indicate this is the correct time period for that king and the event in question. It turns out that we do have astronomical events tied to specific years of Nabopolassar's reign, which indicate "NABO 14" as 612 BCE. It's also true that we have sources corroborating that the EVENT in question happened during a specifically indicated year of Nabopolassar's reign. And we have no contemporary sources contradicting 1 and 2. I'll get to specifics, but hope you'll first offer a response to the post with the two premises and the conclusion drawn from those premises. The response to my post about BM 21901 (see ABC 3 here: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-3-fall-of-nineveh-chronicle/ ) was good, imo. At least it is in full agreement with everything I said about how we would go about tying a specific BCE date to "NABO 14" (the 14th regnal year of Nabopolassar.)

Here is one method that I find to be the easiest to understand and support. .PREMISE: Babylon was destroyed in 539 BCE (Won't go into it here, but there are many ways to reach this date. Even the Watchtower "accepts" this date, in spite of the fact that the Watchtower does NOT accept the evidence for it. Because accepting the evidence for it means rejecting 607 BCE as NEB 18.) PREMISE: Babylon was to have its period of greatest domination over all the surrounding nations for 70 years. Biblically supported by direct statements in Jeremiah 25:8-17 and accepted by the Watchtower publications as shown in the following statement found here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200270023/388/2 *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. CONCLUSION: If the Babylonian Empire ended in 539, we can count back 70 years and see that it must have started when the Assyrian Empire fell in 539+70 = 609. That means NABO 17 (fall of final Assyrian capital Harran) = 609, therefore NABO 14 (the fall of Nineveh) = 612 BCE

The basic method starts out with the Babylonian Chronicle currently in the British Museum labeled B.M. 21901. It's just a relative chronology covering several years of Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father). All we get from this is that there were specific events recorded about his dealings with the Assyrians from his 10th year to his 18th year. (I'll call those years NABO 10 to NABO 18). Basically we learn that: NABO 10: Nabo defeats Assyria in a battle but Egypt comes up to help the Assyrian king (Sinsharishkun) and Nabo withdraws rather than fight Egypt (Psammetichus). NABO 12: The Medes defeat Assyria at Asshur (the prior capital). Nabo wanted to join their fight, but was delayed and the Medes won that battle by themselves. Nabo joins the Medes (Cyaxares) as allies against Assyria. NABO 14: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Nineveh, where the Assyrian king dies within the city. His successor (Assuruballit) flees to Harran and calls it the new Assyrian capital. NABO 16/17: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Harran. Assuruballit joins with Egypt (Necho) and is unsuccessful as taking Harran back, and Assyria is considered fully defeated therefore, by NABO 17. (This would also be the same year that Judean King Josiah died.) So, now if we accept the premise that Nineveh was destroyed in the year "NABO 14" then all we have to do is find a way to attach a "BCE" date to NABO 14. cue scholar jw

Sounds like a familiar quest. I had the same experience when I first tried to figure out why the 612 date was used everywhere except the Watchtower, which uses 632 instead. (Because 632 is needed as part of the foundation for our traditional claim that 1914 was pointed to in the book of Daniel.) But it turns out that, for me, there were at least 3 basic ways to reach a date within one year of 612 for the destruction of Nineveh. (Making the date either 613, 612, or 611.) However, it's been my experience on this forum that if a statement about ancient chronology includes any concept that takes more than a minute to understand, it is immediately dismissed, so that we can fall back on whatever is more comfortable for our traditional belief system. I don't think that about you, but it should help manage the expectations of anyone who might start to read this type of discussion.

What I like about the video is that it not only tells us about the engineer himself, but also has some of the best, easy-to-follow diagrams that teach about the engineering process and the actual physics of the designs:

This story is about a fairly unknown R&D engineer at a Japanese company. So naturally, I'll start off by somehow making this about myself. Just kidding. I'll make it about my father. Just kidding . . .well, almost. From 1964 to 1984 my father ran a couple of electronics labs for the University of Missouri. This was great fun for him and even more fun for me and my brother. The world was transferring from tubes to transistors, and my father invented a "semiconductor curve tracer" onto a simple oscilloscope screen that made testing transistors as easy or even easier than the old ways of testing vacuum tubes. The University got a patent for it. And from 1984 to 2004 he designed amplifiers and sound systems for a company in California, and also for several Assembly Halls. I had fun with the electronics stuff, but never really learned it very deeply. Mostly because I quit school when I was 15 to start regular pioneering, and then I went off to Bethel to draw pictures for the publications and then do library research. But my brother was a few years older than I was, and graduated HS and went into an electronics company immediately. He went to Bethel just after I did and he was assigned electronics projects and had a little research lab which was a mini version of what my father had. In the 1990's My father was always going on about how they make transistors and spoke about gallium arsenide "doping," silicon "doping" and other terms I had never heard of. In the mid-1990's a company sent him some blue LEDs. He said even one small one cost a few hundred dollars. Blue LEDs were a kind of "holy grail" of LEDs. If one could be made with the same brightness control and at the same cost of Green and Yellow LEDs, then any color could be mixed. (With paint and ink you can create almost any color by mixing red/magenta, yellow, and blue/cyan -- but with light you can only get any color by mixing red, yellow, and green.) My father used to try to fake the blue by putting a blue transparent plastic cap on a bright red/green combination, because red+green=yellow, and a blue cap would then make a blue-green color, but not bright enough or "true" enough to mix well with the other colors. Anyway that brings me to the video of the blue LED hero. The story would also make a great story of a working-man hero standing up against the stronger and more monied corporate powers. Someone has probably made a book about him, or they should.

I see the face of a housecat carrying a black-tailed Chihuahua-Terrier puppy in her mouth. Or perhaps it's a Great-Horned Owl that just swooped into someone's backyard to grab the puppy, probably because it was so cute, and wanted to make friends. But I have to say that, from the original full-size picture, it's easier for me to see a four-eyed KKK member in a worn-out sheet, than to see an image of Christ there.

Maybe Nathan Knorr had just a slice of that pie. Or maybe he started out with just Knorr's Wiener Schnitzel Company and then shortened it to Nathan's Hot Dogs. Maybe they should have tried my marketing idea: Pizza and Hot Dogs -- For Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner It's Always Food At The Proper Time!

For $2.99 anyone can have Knorr on their pizza!

Definitely was. Although I got mine for free. But it's hilarious. (I never knew it was that comedian who authored the book.)

At first I thought it might be Alvin. Alvin the Chipmunk:

Father Guido Sarducci on SNL had a skit called "Find the Pope in the Pizza." A woman sold her actual slice of pizza with an apparent image scorched onto the back for $28,000 on eBay. There have been similar occurrences with Jesus' face on a slice of toast, for example. https://birdinflight.com/en/world/20160525-litso-boga.html Well I had my own very similar experience today, when I sliced a pear in half.

It's 1:30 AM and I just got back from NYC and realized what I had done. My apologies for starting this post outside the JW Closed Club. I was in that club and clicked "start a new topic" although I now vaguely recall that I probably had to start the new topic a second time because I had accidentally clicked off the page, due to an oversensitive trackpad that sometimes thinks I am clicking something just because my thumb gets too close to it. Anyway, I will be restarting this topic under the JW Closed Club. Sorry about that BillyTheKid59 and your doppelganger, Alphonse.