As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I always learned that you don't take sides in politics. In our family, this meant that you also don't discuss politics. Discussing it inevitably turns to offering opinions that favor one ideological side over another. But in a recent topic on the forum, several other JWs and/or those who have been associated with JWs brought up issues that appeared to take sides for or against the two major U.S. presidential candidates, as of April 2024. As factual commentary, this doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, if one favors one candidate over the other, this doesn't bother me either.

But I just had a serious discussion about our (JW) view of politics with an 86-year old Witness, who thinks just like my own family always had. It started with the current jw.org front page article on:

Does Bible Prophecy Point to the Modern State of Israel?

When you read the article you also get pointed to other articles:

Will Armageddon Begin in Israel?—What Does the Bible Say?

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Zionists?

If you read more and go to specific links, you can also find articles on Human Rights Organizations, Russia and the European Court, etc.

Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia

Russia Withdraws From the European Court

Or even end up linked to a mildly amusing article such as:

Who Is to Blame—Russia or the Tourist?

But the conversation, next post, made me think of our general stance on political discussion.

On 4/10/2024 at 1:00 PM, JW Insider said:

I was just in Patterson to see the Bible Village “Museum” tour. It was excellent but too short. They also have a “legally establishing the good news” tour/museum and a Gilead school historical tour which now covers the other schools more extensively than before. 

The last time I was here, they were more ambiguous about taking pictures and sharing them with friends, so I literally took a picture of just about everything and I even posted a set of pictures here. But this time they give stricter unambiguous instructions about the personal and family use of pictures taken, even when you can take a still picture vs a video. And the instruction is now explicitly that they cannot be shared on any social media platform. Sorry.

The 4 "museums" at Warwick are still about the same as before. With a few updates and a few older things cut out. The Bible museum is still the best. Probably the best of its kind anywhere. There is a separate segment on the use of the Divine Name in Bible translations, and it's very good.

There are several bits of interactive equipment that were working perfectly in 2018 and 2019 but are now giving trouble. For example, touchscreens that take your input about all kinds of things, such as whether you have worked on a WTS construction project, or which book you studied in preparation for baptism [e.g., Let God Be True, What Does the Bible Really Teach, Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Paradise ...Regained, etc.] and then it gives statistics on many of these things for everyone to see. [e.g. 68% of all visitors this week have worked on a WTS construction project, etc.]

One thing that bothered me a bit was the reduction of material in a special "Watchtower History" museum that had a lot of pre-1919 information about the persecution mostly starting with the 1917 Finished Mystery book. They changed the name and now start it mostly in 1919. And then cut out a large percentage of interesting stuff. 

Also, they have the big wall-sized "Chart of the Ages" in one of the rooms highlighting Russell's early work. And another wall-sized chart called "Bible Chronology" that Russell's early followers also used in their meeting places. Those charts have the dates on them -- even if some of those dates appear to be embarrassing today.

But now there is a new "Chart of the Ages" I have never seen before in the Patterson museum on a similar historical subject but it seems like the dates have been removed. The chart is still titled "CHART OF THE AGES" and the museum label below it says:

How was the training provided [in Russell's time]? The "Chart of the Ages" was used as the primary basis for practice talks. 

It's evidently a wall sized blow-up of a page from one of the publications, because it still has the pictures of the pyramids on it, but on the chart itself, in says in fine print (on the side):

"For Explanation see The Plan of the Ages published by Bible and Tract Soc'y, Brooklyn N.Y."

Also odd that they left out the word "Watchtower," just Bible and Tract Society. I could be wrong, but it looks like it was edited to remove the embarrassing dates that are on the large one at Warwick.

If I remember, I'll look it up unless someone here already knows if there was a "generic" chart of the ages. 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

All the brothers need to do is look to the past. Genesis 4:3-5.

I can see how some of them might start feeling "angry," but I doubt any of them would feel "dejected."

I'll go to the mid-week meeting here tonight. Last one was attended by Brother Tony Morris III, Sister Sydlik the First, Brothers Ken Cook and Bill Malenfant. Maybe I could get them all into the same committee meeting with me if I answer a question inappropriately. LOL. No chance for Morris, I guess. I would only want Sister Sydlik there because she must know what her husband really thought about the WTS explanations of Daniel's 1260, 1290, 1335 and 2300 days. And they didn't disfellowship him for questioning.

6 minutes ago, George88 said:

Have you ever considered debating 587 with the brothers at Bethel as assertively as you do here?

lol. Why do you think I’m attracting attention to this forum through their internet network right after making a donation?

About two more weeks and the lake will be gorgeous with greenery all around again. The second picture is my old IBM stomping grounds. The third is back in the far corner of the lobby where my attempts at hacking are out of the limelight. 

The brothers and sisters who have their part in the Bible village museum try to stay in character as if they are in a convention drama even if you ask them a question. They don’t have to of course but some of them have fun with it. One sister doing basket weaving and dyeing yarn for a loom asked me where I was from. I told her New York via California and Missouri and she wasn’t sure if she had heard of such far away places. 

It seems so odd to me that literally about 60% of the male commuter Bethelites have beards. And almost half the regular Bethelites I’ve seen so far. Young and old alike. Even some who appear to be only 16 years old. They are all over 18 of course but they look so much younger now that I am 66. 

9 minutes ago, George88 said:

Does this mean you are going to share the password with your friends in the closed club?

It’s “587BCE”. Just kidding. No I covered it in the picture because I don’t think they really want it shared. 

Speaking of security. It’s much tighter than it was in 2019 when I was here last. There is the iron gate out front and the brother has to make a phone call with your name and appointment confirmation # to another person inside before they open it. Then you must stop for an attendant who asks you for the info again. Then a parking attendant. Then a brother at the main lobby door who only lets you in with a card key. 

I was just in Patterson to see the Bible Village “Museum” tour. It was excellent but too short. They also have a “legally establishing the good news” tour/museum and a Gilead school historical tour which now covers the other schools more extensively than before. 
 

I am back in Warwick now. Got here a bit early so I’m looking out on the lake. Very nice. I’ve worked while looking out on this lake before. But for IBM and not the WTS. IBM is at the other end of the lake. We used to handle our disaster recovery setup with them and I was sent here twice for my secular work. 

I just got into JW.ORG’s Wi-Fi network. That’s because they gave me the password and I’m sitting in the lobby. In fact someone gave me a card with the code on it. All you have to do is express a need for it. Like making a donation. lol. 

12 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Also, thanks, I'll check out Professor O. Neugebauer works.

And you'll find that Neugebauer, Weidner, and hundreds of others also persistently advocate for 587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

However, as previously mentioned, those individuals who persistently advocate for 587 will never alter their viewpoint. What these individuals truly need to do is to align themselves with God rather than with mankind.

I understand why you keep bringing this up, but it's sounds hypocritical.

With very few exceptions you have relied only on authorities who "persistently advocate for 587" as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. So why do you persistently use authorities who advocate for 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, but then say that "these individuals" need to align themselves with God rather than with mankind. You quote F. Richard Stephenson, but I'm sure you know that he also advocates for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year as 587 BCE

Jehovah gave the sun and moon to help people count days and seasons and years. 

(Genesis 1:14) . . .and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years.
 

The ONLY way we have to identify BC/BCE dates (like 587 or 607) is through astronomy. I'm sure you know that. Does it automatically make Stephenson, or Sachs, or Hunger, or Steele unaligned with God, just because 100% of all persons who study Babylonian signs for seasons and days and years will say that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE? If not, why does it suddenly make an individual unaligned with God, just because they agree with all the same authorities you have used to try to bolster your own arguments here?

If at the mouth of two or three witnesses a matter can be established, then why reject evidence just because it is consistent from the mouth of thousands of witnesses?

47 minutes ago, George88 said:

If we apply this principle to the calculation of centuries, how many errors in dates will have been encountered? Just like the foolish individual COJ, some choose to cherry-pick information for convenience. Such practices should be ignored by serious researchers.

One should note that you can't just search through a book and cherry-pick the words like "error" and "assumption." You will end up quoting portions of the book that are actually arguing for the very opposite of the premise you are arguing for.

In places where you highlighted either the words "errors" or "assumption" Stephenson was making the point that placing the intercalary month too early or too late in a metonic-style cycle does NOT keep us from knowing the Julian date in terms of BC/BCE.

His point about the "assumption" of universal time is also a point about just how closely we know how to adjust from that assumption to the correct delta-T calculation. In other words, there is a natural assumption that the earth has been spinning at a constant rate, but we know how to adjust for it precisely because of these astronomical observations which are consistent enough even going all the way back to around 700 BCE.

12 minutes ago, George88 said:

You were simply highlighting the discrepancies in records from 650-50 BC, as stated by him. Particularly those related to his connection with China.

That's a good point that there are really no discrepancies to speak of within that 600-year Babylonian period, when compared with the way the Chinese recorded eclipses. He attributes this to the fact of printing on paper. (Stone and clay lasted a lot longer under typical circumstances.) Even so, there is enough to correlate several of the Chinese dynasties with the Neo-Babylonian period. As Stephenson says:

-------------

Note, that just as with the Babylonian dates, the discrepancy is almost exactly the same, which is less than 22,000 seconds (6 hours is 21,600 seconds).  Based on Babylonian observations, this is exactly what should be expected. This discrepancy provides confirmation outside of Babylonian records that indicates the delta-T adjustments to modern astronomy software for the rotation of the earth is correct for the same period.  Egyptian records and later Greek records confirm the correctness based on the same trend-line of difference in earth's rotation times. 

21 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, in this case, I can also appreciate the words of Professor Richard F. Stephenson's words.

"Babylonian astronomical records come from two distinct periods— a short interval covering the reign of a single king during the first half of the second millennium BC, and an incomplete span of about 600 years between 650 and 50 BC"

Excellent point. I agree completely with Professor F. Richard Stephenson's words, and I think that he explains the Babylonian astronomical records in the most straightforward and easily understood way. Here, attached at the end of the post, is his way of explaining those records from a work in 2000.

What he says is directly related to the topic of why you are correct in stating that secular chronology CAN be trusted, as you stated earlier in this topic. We learn that there are about 2,000 astronomical tablets dating from that era. And 120 different eclipse timings observations published so far. (In another work he said there were closer to 3,000 astronomical tablets. And that doesn't include the 80,000 to 100,000 dated business tablets, which cover every year of every king during the Neo-Babylonian period.)

This is no doubt why Stephenson has no trouble identifying Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year as 587 BCE. 

---------------

16 hours ago, George88 said:

The Ostraca Tablets and the Babylonian Chronicles pose the same dilemma as they are in the same language. The mention of the year of the King's reign becomes the obstacle, leading to ambiguity.

I guess the main point that might be throwing people off is the is claim that they are in the same language (they are NOT) and the mention of the year of the king's reign. These extant ostraca do NOT mention any year of any king's reign. And of course, even though the Babylonian Chronicles do mention the years of the kings' reigns, it's IMPOSSIBLE to attach a BC/BCE date to those years without astronomy. That's why the "Insight" books relies upon astronomy for the reign of Cyrus. Without astronomy, no one can make any claim about Cyrus in 539/538/537, etc.

But the WTS has to be careful about admitting that we can only derive those dates from astronomy. That's because it's part of the exact same set of connected evidence that tells us exactly when Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years occurred. As you say, the mention of the year of the king's reign becomes the obstacle. Does it ever!!! There are upwards of 100,000 known tablets from this period, all with the year of the king's reign on them. It's an overwhelming obstacle because they are all perfectly consistent from Nabopolassar all the way to Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus to Cyrus and beyond. 

As you claim in the beginning of this thread, secular chronology CAN be trusted, but the WTS is forced to claim they don't trust it for every year prior to 559 BCE (astronomy date).

20 hours ago, George88 said:

I have always been skeptical about the authenticity of the Babylonian chronicles since Gadd's time, and the same applies to Jewish antiquity. There have been several documented instances in the past where forged items have been discovered, casting doubt on their validity.

It has often been commented on (by scholars of the period) that the Babylonian Chronicles are more open and honest than the Assyrian Chronicles. Assyria tended to change their history to not admit defeats or withdrawals in a battle. The Babylonians were at least more honest in that they admitted defeat, failure, and withdrawing from battles to regroup for fear of losing.

I don't think there have ever been forged items that had any bearing on the Babylonian Chronicles. Also, it is extremely difficult to fake cuneiform writing without a lot of training as a Babylonian scribe, who over many years, has learned to press a wedge-shaped stylus just the right depth, moving back and forth at exactly 90 degree angles at a very quick pace to complete a document before the clay starts drying, and shrinking.

Also, there is the fact that all the extant Babylonian Chronicles are in perfect harmony with the Bible. There is not one statement in those Chronicles that can be said to actually conflict with the Bible's version of events. 

20 hours ago, George88 said:

Anyway, the process of calculating the year 587 has been extensively debated for about a decade here. People have firmly embraced the incorrect interpretation, while those with faith in God understand the simple calculation of subtracting 70 from 607 to arrive at 537 the desolation period on judgment, just as critics do with 568 to 587. They cannot insist that their decision is right while dismissing the same formula for other dates. Such a stance is ridiculous and unfounded.

This is almost always the subtext for any of us who discuss Babylonian history, isn't it. Not to rehash any details but it's easy to find scholars and Bible commentators who would agree that the 70 year period must refer to a period very close to 607 to 537, at least within a year or two of those dates.  It's almost exactly the time period I prefer, too.

The only difference between the many scholars who use dates within a couple years of 607 to 537 (astronomy dates) versus the 607 date the Watchtower uses, is that those other scholars consider 607 to be the final years of Nabopolassar's reign (astronomy dates) and the Watchtower says 607 is the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

I prefer the dates supported by astronomy, because this is the method that the Watchtower supports for all dates after about 559 BCE, even though the WTS is opposed to all dates supported by astronomy for any particular year prior to 559 BCE. That's the point at which the WTS begins adding 20 years to the astronomy dates. I thought it was over a four-year period, but it turns out that it all boils down to that one year for the WTS.

There is a lot of interesting information surrounding the topic of Assyrian and Babylonian history. I'm always amazed at just how much has been preserved from the dry, arid climates, and preserved mostly due to so many inscriptions and tablets written on clay and stone, buried under sand, etc. 

I'm no expert, but a hundreds of things you have said here are quite out of the ordinary. I'll only comment on just a couple of them. 

15 hours ago, George88 said:

In response to your email, the Ostraca Tablets can be classified in the same category as the Babylonian Chronicles. They share a common language, but offer a unique Jewish perspective.

I'm not sure what category you mean as "the same category" but it's true that they both could be referring to events from the same time period. The Babylonian Chronicles are in a different language, "Akkadian" cuneiform wedges pressed into moist clay. The Lachish ostraca were carbon (almost like a charcoal pencil) writing upon shards of broken pottery. And those were in a Hebrew script. But they do share some similarities of expression between the two different languages.

One thing that makes them different is that the letters mostly describe day-to-day messages going back and forth between outposts and the guards of cities. They don't attempt to provide dates and they don't mention important events.

The Babylonian Chronicles are intended to record major things that happened in each year of each king from a national perspective. Like the tens of thousands of business tablets, the chronicles ae "dated" by the year of the kings' reigns, not like the less formal letters. 

One of the best descriptions to show that is the page found here, with pictures of several of these ostraca overlaid with an English translation.

https://www.bible.ca/ostraca/Ostraca-Lachish-Letters-Jeremiah-YHWH-Egypt-Fire-Signals-Azekah-weakening-hands-nebuchadnezzar-587BC.htm

Of course, you have to watch the translation sometimes, because a small change in choice of translation can make a difference in the way these are seen. For example, one says, basically: "I can't send that person you asked for in your last letter, because so-and-so took him to the City (Jerusalem)." If you translate the word "took" as "seized" which is the translation that some sites use, then you get a different tone to the letter. 

The updated theory is that these letters are more likely based on the re-organization of military outposts soon after Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem exiles (including top military commanders) back in 597 BCE (astronomy dates) or 617 BCE (Watchtower dates). 

The map in my prior post shows where Lachish and Azekah are located, and this is on a strategic outpost road to Jerusalem from the south (Egypt). Note "Insight:"

*** it-2 p. 188 Lachish ***
A Judean city in the Shephelah. (Jos 15:21, 33, 39) Lachish is identified with Tell ed-Duweir (Tel Lakhish), a mound surrounded by valleys and lying some 24 km (15 mi) W of Hebron. Anciently this site occupied a strategic position on the principal road linking Jerusalem with Egypt. 

The letters to the commander at Lachish didn't just name Lachish and Azekah but apparently identify that they are from a place near or between the two cities called B-Y-T Ha-R-P-D (meaning House of the R-P-D, vowels unknown). Some scholars for many years had claimed that the contents of the Lachish letters made sense if there was a town or outpost somewhere between the two cities. The site known as Maresha is 5km NE of Lachish, and would be a perfect fit. It has a geographic line of sight to Lachish, but not to Azekah. 

In 1996, hundreds more potsherds from the 4th century BCE with writing (like the Lachish letters) mentioned an administrative outpost called R-P-D from around the same area. The full name was MARESHA R-P-D.  There is still a nearby HIRBET MARASH which preserves a linguistic link. And a nearby Hellenistic burial inscription speaks of "the community of Marisa" in this area.

It's enough evidence for some to validate a theory that was already in place which fits a more natural translation of the Lachish Letter #4 to mean: "From here we can't see the smoke signals from Azekah, so we will watch the signals from [you there in] Lachish."

This takes away some of the drama that may have been "read into" the letters as if they had been based on an attack by Nebuchadnezzar from the north, after he had sacked Jerusalem and now on his way down to Azekah. (Thereby signaling the outpost between them to warn Lachish because they might be next.) But there is no real sense of urgency or warning about a burning city of Jerusalem or Azekah, and in fact the letter seems to very casually mention the fact that there is NO SMOKE visible from Azekah even though they expected to be able to see their signals. If Nebuchadnezzar had just sacked either Jerusalem or Azekah, then there might be nothing but smoke visible.

After a review of all the fortresses and outposts that archaeologists have found from that region in that age (called: Iron II) it turns out that MARESHA/MARASH/MARIS has no possible "line of sight" to Azekah, even if the tallest "watchtowers" were built. But it does have a "line of sight" to Lachish. The tone of the letters makes more sense as if a new team of military commanders is setting up "watch tower" and outpost logistics in case of attack by outside armies, or the need to send signals to other outposts. 

That's why some would now put it in the time of Judean military personnel replacements just after Nebuchadnezzar's 7th/8th year taking of exiles rather than the more dramatic time of his 17th, 18th and 19th year.

To me, this network of watchtowers and "line-of-sight" ability to send signals reminds me of this verse:

(Genesis 31:48, 49) . . .That is why he named it Galʹe·ed, and the Watchtower, for he said: “Let Jehovah keep watch between you and me when we are out of each other’s sight.

Cities themselves were already built on high hills with "watchtowers" on their walls, but between fortified cities there was a network of outposts with watchtowers as implied in this expression:

(2 Kings 18:8) . . .He also defeated the Phi·lisʹtines clear to Gazʹa and its territories, from watchtower to fortified city.
 

22 hours ago, George88 said:

Hence, if an event corresponding to Jerusalem had occurred, a scribe would have likely documented it as follows: "on the 14th day of Tašrîtu in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign," based on an observation from the walls of Lachish, witnessing a raging fire in our neighboring city, Jerusalem. In this context, . . .

This is interesting. Jeremiah said:

Jeremiah 34:6–7: Then Jeremiah the prophet spoke all these words to Zedekiah king of Judah, in Jerusalem, when the army of the king of Babylon was fighting against Jerusalem and against all the cities of Judah that were left, Lachish and Azekah, for these were the only fortified cities of Judah that remained.

When the letters of Lachish were discovered in the mid 1930's, the initial understanding among secular scholars was the same way the "Insight" book explains it:

*** it-2 p. 188 Lachish ***
Captured by Babylonians. When the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar overran Judah (609-607 B.C.E.), Lachish and Azekah were the last two fortified cities to fall before Jerusalem was taken. (Jer 34:6, 7) What are known as the Lachish Letters . . . appear to relate to this period. Letter number IV, evidently directed by a military outpost to the commander at Lachish, reads in part: “We are watching for the signals of Lachish, according to all the indications which my lord hath given, for we cannot see Azekah.” This message suggests that Azekah had already been taken so that no signals were received from there.

That's a very dramatic reading/interpretation of the letters, and would imply the time just after Jerusalem was destroyed. (607? / 587?). People have read them and say that they would thus harmonize with Jeremiah 34. Statements like this are common:

"The archaeological discovery called the “Lachish Letters” support Jeremiah’s verse."

"These words included a draft letter to Jerusalem that harmonizes with Jeremiah 34:7."

"The archaeology at Tel Lachish combines perfectly with biblical history to weave a unified story, supporting what the Bible says."

https://waynestiles.com/blog/lachish-blending-the-bible-history-archaeology

But this ignores the fact that the Lachish letters include a comment about a normal visit from a military official from Jerusalem. And this has bothered some scholars because it more readily contradicts the message from Jeremiah 34. 

So another interpretation has been proposed based on what has been discovered in the decades since the unearthing of the Lachish letters. 

The idea is found here: Does Lachish Letter 4 Contradict Jeremiah XXXIV 7?  The "stable" address for those with a different JSTOR login should be: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585087

There is a good wayback machine link about the actual letters here: https://web.archive.org/web/20121111022237/http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Lakhish_Ostraca,_c._587_BCE

And there is a footnote there to a currently non-existent link at the bottom of that wayback page: 

• Scholars’ Corner: Yadin Presents New Interpretation of the Famous Lachish Letters, Oded Borowski, BAR 10:02, Mar/Apr 1984.

I haven't read Yadin's interpretation yet (from Biblical Archaeological Review - BAR) but it was nearly 20 years prior to the JSTOR link. It might even refer to the same idea, but I like the JSTOR link because it makes sense and gets rid of the potential Jeremiah contradiction. 

If I get a chance after the meeting today, I will post at least a summary of the "new" interpretation. 

23 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I thought I had added that person to my ignore list. I can't help but wonder if seeing his responses are yet another manipulative tactic from those in power.

I'm sure that you never put me on your ignore list. The implication that someone is overriding an ignore list as a manipulative tactic could just as well, itself, be just another manipulative tactic. I can't help but wonder. LOL.

And, as you have already hinted at, if you don't want to hear from anyone else on a topic, simply don't post on a public discussion forum. It makes no sense to just post your presentation without allowing any responses at all. But if you still like the discussion forum format for your presentation, then just make it clear that you don't want any responses until a certain point when your presentation is completed to your satisfaction.

Of course, if this is what you'd like to do, it's probably a good idea not to try to insult others along the way, or even to make any unsupported claims about people. I'd think that most people would be tempted to defend themselves right away if false, insulting or unsupported claims are being made about them. : I suspect G88/BTK will continue using forum to claim "brilliance" and use email ruse to avoid explaining all the brilliant details.

30 minutes ago, George88 said:

Your methods of challenging historical chronology by using nonsensical strategies to discredit and muddy the waters are misleading. Instead of accepting the established historical dates, you personally refute as alternatives without considering the evidence, then your dismissal of the well-documented secular history that refutes your 587 BC is a meaningless endeavor to erase it, since it has been established by various means and your stand on 587 BC which has been established and proven wrong time after time by the very secular chronology you embrace is just more defiance of an unwilling heart.

I have rarely seen a better example of blame-shifting and "projection."

I'll leave the topic open unless another moderator wishes to close the topic to further comments. After all, it's an open discussion forum. You made some public claims on a discussion forum about chronology, some of which are correct, and some of which don't fit any evidence, as far as I can see. I countered with some evidence that hasn't been responded to yet. I never expected you to respond, but someday others might wish to have a chance. Perhaps there is something somewhere someone can find that can still defend your claims. You never know. 

23 hours ago, George88 said:

Using someone else's charts in support of a debate does not imply that an agreement has been reached by anyone, as you are so disgracefully trying to do.

I never thought you fully agreed with them, but I agree that bringing the chart into the topic was useful, as it provides a good reference to the standard chronology and shows how one can fit the reigns of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings under discussion.  

23 hours ago, George88 said:

I don't care about the specific religious affiliations or beliefs. However, since you have decided to remove the clause allowing a person to close a discussion, I request that you close this one. I have no interest in sifting through pages of nonsense.

I didn't know that you could no longer close a discussion. But my comments were not added for you. I think most people here know how you have always responded to evidence. They are intended for your benefit, of course, but I mostly added the comments for anyone who might have become confused by certain claims. 

And I was commenting because I appreciated the opening statement in this topic:

On 4/1/2024 at 8:31 PM, BTK59 said:

Hopefully, this one will be free from the onslaught of false claims and misinterpretations.

I took that to mean that you should be willing to welcome any responses to false claims and misinterpretations.

In the above chart, I still have a six-month to one year difference in a couple of places that I haven't resolved to my satisfaction, but the above chart shows two BCE timelines in the middle. The green one is the secular, standard timeline, tied to all the astronomy readings (about 50 of them). The one below that is partly blue and shows the 20 year difference with the Watchtower's timeline. The Watchtower accepts all the standard dates after Neriglissar, or possibly the years of his reign after 580. So those dates are in Green because they are accepted by both the Watchtower and the standard chronology.

3 hours ago, George88 said:

For instance, let's consider the example I mentioned earlier: the year 645 BC. This date is quite close to the reign of Kandalanu, suggesting that it could potentially be attributed to Nabopolassar's reign instead, thereby shifting Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 626/625 BC.

That would require a complete rejection of the Babylonian Chronicles that state that Kandalanu reigned all the way up until one year before Nabopolassar, and that there was one year prior to Nabopolassar's accession where there was no official king. This is confirmed by several contract tablets which have been discovered, where the last official year of the tablets are dated "KANDALANU 20 + month + day" but the next year is called "AFTER KANDALANU 21 + month + day."

If this is what is being done, you might wonder what would happen in the first few months of the NEXT year, Nabopolassar's accession year, but before the first tablets under him would have been marked "NABOPOLASSAR ACCESSION + month + day." And sure enough, within the proper months before his accession, we find at least one tablet marked "AFTER KANDALANU 22 + month + day."

If Kandalanu was indeed a throne name to cover for a king of Babylon still assigned by Assyria at that time, it would more likely have been a Babylonian throne name for Ashurbanipal so that the Babylonians could continue to use Babylonian "kings" for their own chronology after the death of Shamash-shum-ukin (who had himself been assigned to govern Babylonia by Assyrian king Esar-haddon). Note what "Insight" says here, although not mentioning Kandalanu:

*** it-1 p. 758 Esar-haddon ***
Before his death Esar-haddon had made arrangements to ensure a smooth succession to the throne by proclaiming his son Ashurbanipal crown prince, while assigning another son, Shamash-shum-u-kin, to be king of Babylon. Thus, upon Esar-haddon’s death, Ashurbanipal became Assyria’s next monarch.

And the Aid book added the following about Kandalanu:

*** ad p. 329 Chronology ***
In a reverse direction, tablets were sometimes evidently dated to a king after his reign had ended. Of the reign of Kandalanu, who preceded Nabopolassar as king of Babylon, some tablets are dated as to the 21st or the 22d year “after” Kandalanu, and it is suggested by some that Kandalanu’s reign “was carried artificially on to fill the interregnum up to the accession of Nabopolassar.” 
 

16 hours ago, George88 said:

Then you have this kind of modern gem.

Israel God's Ensign to Nations Dickson Agedah · 2014

THE FALL OF ASSYRIA, THE RISE OF BABYLON 
The seizure of the Babylonian throne by Nabopolassar in about 645 BC

This person, Dickson Agedah, keeps switching back and forth between Watchtower chronology and the astronomically evidenced chronology, as if both were right. I have no idea if the person is just mixing up references to Watchtower publications, or has been a Witness in the past.

In the case of Pekka Mansikka, I know what's going on because of private communications I won't reveal. But he sent me his books and I did start a long topic here once showing how Mansikka was so desperate to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian timeline. He first added the 20 years to Nabonidus' reign, so that it ended in a 37th year when Cyrus overthrew him instead of the 17th year. When this was shown to be impossible, even by the Watchtower's accepted evidence, he revised his book(s) to say that there was another unknown Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 20 years after Evil-Merodach.  

As far as I can tell so far, the differences between the Watchtower chronology and the standard "astronomically evidenced" chronology is shown in the following chart: