JW Insider

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:

2 hours ago, George88 said:

One must possess a comprehensive understanding of charts in order to avoid becoming an obstructionist or a mere critic. Instead of focusing on correcting others, individuals should reflect on their own knowledge and rectify any of their own mistakes made. It is worth noting that those individuals place the death of King Josiah within the historical context of 609 BC, which inevitably leads to a disagreement in terms of context between the Watchtower's perspective and theirs.

Well said. I couldn't agree more. And I'm glad you understand that the chart is in disagreement with the Watchtower's perspective by promoting the death of King Josiah within the historical context of 609 BCE.

It's no big deal, but if one can ignore the 1844 stuff, the chart is actually a pretty good reference for the standard "evidenced" chronology. But it's not confusing when one understands that some of the various Bible verses are placed in the chart's unused lines only for convenience, and were not meant to be confused with the actual year that they seem to be aligned with. For example: 

• Jeremiah 1:1,2 is listed up on the 633 BCE line of the chart where it mentions the 13th year of Josiah, but further below the chart later shows that the actual date as 628 BCE.
• 2 Kings 22:31 is listed next beginning in the 631 BCE line of the chart, and yet the chart specifically mentions the death of Josiah in 609 BCE, and the 3-month reign of Jehoahaz. But the ACTUAL line mentioning the event is all the way down in 609 BCE. (See picture at and of post)
• Then there is the Daniel 1:1 which you mistakenly thought referred to around 624 because that's where the chartmaker(s) found empty room to place the reference. But note that it  refers to the months just before Nebuchadnezzar became king in 605: The chart says:
  • “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.”  Note: This was during the time Nebuchadnezzar was crown prince with his father. Note 2: This is when Daniel and his three companions were taken captive to Babylon (Read Daniel Chapter 1).  Nebuchadnezzar had certain of the captives of Judah nourished with the king’s meat and wine “three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.”   Daniel and his three companions did not defile themselves with the king’s meat and wine and when they stood before the king after three years they were found ten times wiser.  Because of Daniel’s faithfulness God gave him understanding in visions and dreams.
  • But if you look further down, he actually places this event in 606/605 as already shown from the clipping taken from the chart shown previously.

I've seen a tendency among some Witnesses to imply that others have agreed with the Watchtower chronology, as if this was some kind of evidence for the chronology.

So far, I have never seen any evidence that even one person who has written about chronology has been able to agree with the Watchtower's chronology unless they had a foundation based upon William Miller, the Second Adventists (and sometimes Seventh Day Adventists), "Russell-styled" Bible Students, "Rutherford-styled" Bible Student break-offs, Armstrong's Church of God, or Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. 

But here we have a case where even though the foundation of the chronology begins with the same ideas that affected Second Adventism, we have someone who is able to use the actual standard dates, evidenced by astronomy, and still keep the primary parts of the Second Adventist chronology intact.

For example, this chart shows:

• the first deportation in 605
• Josiah's death in 609
• The first year of Nebuchadnezzar as 604
• The 70 years of servitude to Babylon running from 609 to 539
• The 70 years of desolation (of Judea) running from 605 to 536
• Jehoiachin's exile to Babylon beginning in 598/7 BCE
•  The full destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE 

3 hours ago, George88 said:

However, I understand now why you brought up the reference to 625 and Daniel 1:1, using a chart not associated with Adventists. It seems this individual is solely fixated on Miller and the significance of 1844, which is not relevant to the teachings of the Watchtower.

 I thought you already knew that the persons credited with making the chart (Carlene and Elene Rodgers) were part of the "Kingdom" church, proclaiming the Second Advent, and very opposed to the "Seventh Day Adventists" where Cary Rodgers, Jr, is the Pastor. If it's not associated with Adventists, or Miller, or the significance of 1844, then you might try explaining the following statements from the site:

https://www.pathwaytopeace.net/images/Bible_Sermon_Study_Notes/Great_Controversy/19_Chapter_18_American_Reforme___The_Advent_of_Christ.pdf

------------ end of snippets from the chapter about William Miller -----------

I'm sure you know that Russell believed the same thing about the 1833 meteor shower. Page 120 of "The Finished Mystery" quotes from Russell's Studies in the Scriptures, Volume IV:

6:13. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth.—Literally, the meteoric shower of Nov. 13, 1833, covering 11,000,000 square miles. (D. 588.) 

If you read the chapter on William Miller, you will see literally dozens of commonalities between the beliefs promoted on the site, and beliefs that Russell promoted long after he had broken with Barbour (and long after Barbour had broken with Second Adventism). 

Perhaps you didn't notice that the very same chart shows the 2300 days/years ending in 1844:

You can also look at Cary Rodgers' Bible Sermon Notes in Chapter 22:

October 22, 1844 We learned from our previous studies that the time prophecy of Daniel 8:14, 2300 days the sanctuary shall be cleansed and Revelation 14:7 is referring to the investigative phase of judgment. William Miller and many others thought that the cleansing of the sanctuary and the hour of judgment was pointing to the executive phase of judgment in which they concluded was the end of the world and cleansing by fire. Based on the interpretation of Daniel 8:14 in Daniel 9:24 27, they believed that the coming of Jesus was going to take place on October 22, It was not until October 22, 1844 came and went did others realize their mistake that they got the right date but the wrong phase of judgment. What kept the faithful Adventist after the great disappointment rooted and grounded in truth and hope? When the time passed at which the Lord's coming was first expected,--in the spring of 1844,--those who had looked in faith for His appearing were for a season involved in doubt and uncertainty. While the world regarded them as having been utterly defeated and proved to have been cherishing a delusion, their source of consolation was still the word of God. Many continued to search the Scriptures, examining anew the evidences of their faith and carefully studying the prophecies to obtain further light. The Bible testimony in support of their position seemed clear and conclusive. Signs which could not be mistaken pointed to the coming of Christ as near. The special blessing of the Lord, both in the conversion of sinners and the revival of spiritual life among Christians, had testified that the message was of Heaven. And though the believers could not explain their disappointment, they felt assured that God had led them in their past experience. . . .  They did not let go of the hope set before them. Those who already had a personal relation with Christ who already was searching the Bible for themselves found scriptures they needed in this trying time. The world had been looking on, expecting that if the time passed and Christ did not appear, the whole system of Adventism would be given up. But while many, under strong temptation, yielded their faith, there were some who stood firm. The fruits of the advent movement, the spirit of humility and heart searching, of renouncing of the world and reformation of life, which had attended the work, testified that it was of God. They dared not deny that the power of the Holy Spirit had witnessed to the preaching of the second advent, and they could detect no error in their reckoning of the prophetic periods. The ablest of their opponents had not succeeded in overthrowing their system of prophetic interpretation. They could not consent, without Bible evidence, to renounce positions which had been reached through earnest, prayerful study of the Scriptures, by minds enlightened by the Spirit of God and hearts burning with its living power; positions which had withstood the most searching criticisms and the most bitter opposition of popular religious teachers and worldly-wise men, and which had stood firm against the combined forces of learning and eloquence, and the taunts and revilings alike of the honorable and the base. . . . . True, there had been a failure as to the expected event, but even this could not shake their faith in the word of God. What scripture gave them hope in the prophetic timeline that pointed to the second coming of Jesus Christ? Habakkuk 2:1-4 1 I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me,

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

They place Daniel 1:1 around 625/624, but surprisingly, they begin the 70-year desolation period in 605 and conclude it in 539. It seems they are two years off the Watchtower's calculations for the 70 years.

That can easily be misinterpreted. They actually place Daniel 1:1 in 606/605 (see previous post, or see chart). And the chart does not conclude them in 539, as you said, but concludes them in the 4th year of Cyrus, 536 BCE. 

Chart is here: https://www.pathwaytopeace.net/images/EBooks/E_Book_Pdf_The_Evidence.pdf

Coincidentally, William Miller started them in 596, but thought the first year of Cyrus was in 526, not 536, per Barbour/Russell, and so ran them from 596 to 526 (which would also have been 606 to 536 after the "10-year correction" to his dates): 

8. The seventy years' captivity prophesied of by Jeremiah, Jer. xxv. 11, were fulfilled between B.C. 596 and 526.

9. Nebuchadnezzar's seven times were foretold by Daniel, and fulfilled in seven years. See Daniel iv. 25 and Josephus.

http://www.earlysda.com/miller/views2.html

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It seems they are two years off the Watchtower's calculations for the 70 years.

Not exactly. The event that started them in the chart was the first accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, Carchemish, etc. The Watchtower calculates that same date as 625, not 605. And the Watchtower ends them in the second year of Cyrus 537, not the 4th year as in the chart. So the time between those same two chart's events, by Watchtower calculations, is closer to 88 years, not 70 years.

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

"Pathway to Peace Ministry" portray Jeremiah's ministry in their impressive charts starting in 629/628.

Their site generally follows the Second Adventist dates of WIlliam Miller, with some exceptions, including many of the ideas that Nelson Barbour (and therefore C T Russell) carried from Second Adventist chronology. Their chart ENDS the dates pretty much the same as William Miller and keeps 1844 as a significant prophetic fulfillment, but the BCE dates in the Neo-Babylonian period have been adjusted per the astronomy evidence.

Note that they were able to do this without the 20 extra years the Watchtower adds to the timeline [added somewhere within the timeline of the conventional 4-year reign of King Neriglissar]. 

For example, the Watchtower portrays Jeremiah's ministry starting in 647 BCE, and their chart you quoted shows 628/627 BCE.

*** it-2 p. 30 Jeremiah ***
Commissioned as Prophet. Jeremiah was called to be a prophet when a young man, in 647 B.C.E., in the 13th year of the reign of King Josiah of Judah (659-629 B.C.E.).

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

They place Daniel 1:1 around 625/624, but surprisingly, they begin the 70-year desolation period in 605 and conclude it in 539.

You are misinterpreting the chart. If you look again you'll see that it puts Daniel 1:1 in the third year of Jehoiakim, which the chart places in 606 BCE. The chart often makes use of unused lines to place the various references, but the ACTUAL reference is found at the regnal years of the specific kings: 

6 hours ago, George88 said:

There are no ancient tablets containing year references to support the claim that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in that specific year. The attribution of 587 BC has been added retroactively by later interpreters of historical data.

That was the reason for my clarification above. If, as you say, the 7th year was 598 BCE, then you are claiming that his 18th year is 587 BCE. Those later interpreters of historical data have no choice but to call his 18th year 587, if they are calling his 7th year 598 BCE. So they aren't adding it retroactively except in the exact same way that the same interpreters have added 598 retroactively to the statement in the Chronicles about his 7th year. They are merely using the same date you used for his 7th, but also trusting the Bible when it adds:

• (Jeremiah 52:29)  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
• (2 Kings 25:8, 9)  In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; . . .
• *** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
  (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year)
   

6 hours ago, George88 said:

Yet, among these scholars, there are those who steadfastly cling to the notion of three deportations that commenced in 605, 598, 587 BC. The Babylonian Chronicle mentions 598 BC.

For some clarification, most scholars cling to THREE deportations in 598, 587 and 582 BCE, and it's scholars who also refer to a FOURTH deportation who will also include 605 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's accession year when he was also attacking Jerusalem according to Daniel 1:1 and 2 Kings 24:1, 2 Chr 36:6 indicating the time around the 3rd and 4th year of Jehoiakim.

Also for clarification, I'll mention again that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 598 BC. The Babylonian Chronicles just say it was the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar (from Spring of 598 to Spring of 597), in the portion of the Chronicle that refer to the early years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 

In the seventh year, in the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against the City of Judah and on the ninth day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice and taking heavy tribute brought it back to Babylon.

There is no astronomy data in the Babylonian Chronicles, therefore the date 598 BCE cannot be determined from them. In fact, the Watchtower chronology claims that the Babylonian Chronicles are referring to 618 BCE, here.

*** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
In 618 B.C.E., or during Jehoiakim’s third year as tributary ruler, Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem. (2Ki 24:1; 2Ch 36:6)

You would have no way of knowing whether this was really 598 BCE, as you say, or if the Watchtower was right in saying it was 618 BCE. It's only because there is so much evidence from astronomical observations recorded during several of Nebuchadnezzar's years of reign, that we could consistently determine that all the evidence points to his 1st year as 604 BCE and his 43rd year as 562 BCE, and would also determine all the years in between. Therefore it's all the evidence from astronomy, and not the Babylonian Chronicles themselves that would determine that Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year is 598 as you say, and not 618 as the Watchtower claims. And therefore we have astronomical evidence for ALL the years of Nebuchadnezzar from 1 to 43.  

If one says that the Babylonian Chronicles are calling his 7th year 598, as you say, then that's the same thing as saying his 18th year was 587, not the Watchtower's year of 607 BCE and his first year would be 605 not the Watchtower's year of 625 BCE, and the 37th year from VAT 4956 would be 568 not the Watchtower's year of 588 BCE. 

18 hours ago, The Librarian said:

This is what I was told when I was younger and I think about it every time I hear this song.....

I hate to say it, but I think of the TV series "Breaking Bad" every time I hear that song.

But I pioneered with a good friend during the years 1973-1976 when this book (1968 edition) reached its peak circulation. The brother was a Led Zeppelin fan, to the consternation of most of us who shared a car group with him. He always tried to convince people that their 1971 song "Stairway to Heaven" was written because someone from the group knew about the "Truth" book. The only words that partly fit were the following, assuming that the book was the "piper" and that "soon" there would be a "new day dawn" and there's still time to "change the road you're on" and get on the road that leads to eternal life, to paradise earth when "forests will echo with laughter."

Quite a stretch, imo, because I figured the song was completely unrelated to "truth."

And it's whispered that soon if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to reason
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forests will echo with laughter

. . . 

Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on

@xero, I don't know if you are still interested in the question, but many people have figured out a way to arrive at the answer without making use of any astronomy. I started a thread where I was looking at starting from scratch and just using the Bible at first to figure out the relative chronology that the Bible gives, and using the Bible's synchronisms with Babylonian kings. Basically, you probably worked this same out for yourself already, based on statements in the Bible that say things like:

• the battle of Carchimish was in the 4th year of Jehoiakim
• the first year of Evil-Merodach was in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile
• etc.

So I come up with the following, which makes no mention of any BC/BCE years, but still gives the relative points in time for Josiah's death, Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar's first year and last year, the beginning of Jehoiachin's exile, the beginning of Evil-Merodach's reign. But we don't know how long Cyrus ruled, and how long Evil Merodach ruled and we don't know the exact number of years between his reign and Cyrus conquering Babylon.

The test will require only 3 or 4 steps. 

The next step would make use only of the secular, clay business/contract tablets to fill in the known kings of Babylon over this same period shown above. That turns out to be fairly easy because there are thousands of them, and they interconnect and show the order of each king and the lengths of their reign, including their accession year.

And then a third step will be to look at any other single inscription, or subset of the tablets, that might verify the record we would get from the overall set of Babylonian contract tablets. Turns out there are about 3 ways to do this, none of which will involve astronomy, or the need to identify any BCE dates.

Then the fourth step, after the relative timeline is complete, just pick any ONE date you think is confirmed. Could be 539 BCE, could be the Watchtower's date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, could be a date for Josiah's death, or the fall of Nineveh. Just choose any source you think might be viable, because choosing any one will fill out the rest. Then you can check if the date chosen makes sense for the entire timeline.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

-719 Sep 1 Mardokempad 2 May be fabricated
-620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated
-522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated
-501 Nov 19 Darius 20 May be genuine
-490 Apr 25 Darius 31 May be genuine

If the above claims of R.R.Newton were all true, it would have a devastating effect on the Watchtower's chronology for the events reported about 539 BCE. To avoid the admission that the 539 evidence also lands Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year on 587 BCE,  the WTS is forced to ignore most of the evidence data that would easily confirm 539 BCE and instead specifically makes use of the supposedly "fabricated" eclipse from Kambyses 7, listed above. (Note that this is one of only 3 that Newton considers fabricated.) The term "may be fabricated" can also mean the same as "may be genuine" but Newton applies a different percentage of probability to that possibility. 

Note the use of this very eclipse from "Insight:"

*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.

Keep in mind of course that -522 is 523 B.C.E.

But also note that while R.R.Newton actually does prove (to my satisfaction) that Ptolemy basically copied a lot of previous information without actually working out the math for himself. He gives himself credit for work that others had already confirmed before him, and in some cases proves his "fraud" by making the same mistakes that others made before him. He did not personally work out all the mathematics or observations found in Almagest. 

But only two of the eclipses above have any bearing on the discrepancy between Watchtower chronology and the standard chronology of the Biblical accounts. And usually, the only reason we (Witnesses) take much interest in chronology is to help understand the chronology of Biblical accounts. So the only two that are both highly questionable and related to the Biblical accounts are these, below, which he says are fabricated:

-620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated
-522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated

Fortunately, we know that the second one was NOT "fabricated" because it's also on an old copy of a clay tablet from years prior to Ptolemy (as quoted in "Insight"). The "Insight" book is correct.

One of the most thorough reviewers of the book said this about it:

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1980JHA....11..133M/0000134.000.html

SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Title: Book-Review - the Crime of Claudius Ptolemy
Authors: Moesgaard, K. P.
Journal: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 11, pp. 133-135, 1980
Bibliographic Code: 1980JHA....11..133M

12 hours ago, George88 said:

Your words or posts have never mattered to me because your assertion of 587 BC will always be incorrect

I have no expectation that my posts should matter to anyone. But I should make clear that I don't assert that 587 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE as 18th year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. I'll leave it to the Bible to assert whether anything significant is associated with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign.

And I would say the same for 539 BCE as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon. I don't assert that 539 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 539 BCE as the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, since this is about the preponderance of evidence, it is also good to point out that, compared with 539, there is at least 10 times the evidence for 587 being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

As to 612 BCE for the Fall of Nineveh, I couldn't say it's correct either. But I do know that the best evidence does show that 612 BCE is the 14th year of Nabopolassar's reign. 

They offer a certain convenience, but I still don't think we really need to know any of the BCE dates. They can't be determined without astronomy anyway. Were the apostles supposed to learn astronomy or trust in someone else's claims about astronomy to understand Bible prophecy? It's like someone in service once said about the King James Version Bible: "If it was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me."

1 hour ago, George88 said:

I encourage you to present to the public the actual reason for my inclusion of 12-16 in my remarks.

I think I did speak to the actual reason. I mentioned that you must have thought this was about the best you could do in finding fault. And in that attempt you utterly failed, and actually showed COJ to be 100% correct. So the actual reason, I must assume, is that you have an unrequited desire to find fault, and this has frustrated you to the point where you merely throw up anything and hope it sticks. In this case you show that COJ was correct about something (years 12 to 16 missing) and say that this is wrong because the chronicle stops at 11 and picks up again at 17. In other words, you are simply showing that COJ was absolutely correct: that 12 to 16 are missing. Then you went ahead and embarrassed yourself by proving him right, quoting his exact words:

You highlight that the supposed problem where COJ mentioned that the portion containing the words for 17th year is damaged. His wording here is perfectly in line with scholars, and the WTS accepts the exact same thing. In other words, the Watchtower Society agrees with COJ here. Note:

COJ: “. . . and the portion where the words for "seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102 

Now the agreement with the WTS publicaitons. Here is "Insight" making the same point:

*** it-2 p. 459 Nabonidus ***
It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Of course, in my opinion, COJ's work is fundamentally flawed in every aspect. I could even argue that he, his research, and his book are a mockery and an insult to genuine scholars.

It is becoming more clear why genuine scholars have had only good things to say about COJ's work, and no genuine scholars have said anything about it being flawed in any aspect. You yourself have just shown it to have been careful and accurate. even in the one spot where you had hoped to point out a mistake. 

Therefore, I do believe your real concern is that "deep down" you probably know it is accurate and are just lashing out aimlessly.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Have you reached the point where you're considering banning me, as you have done with many others in the past while claiming that I have multiple accounts like those individuals? lol!

Actually, I have never seen a person who worked so hard to prove someone wrong, but at the same time, inadvertently confirm that what I have been presenting here is relatively accurate -- so far. Given time, and given the amount of effort you evidently put into finding fault, I assume that someday you really will find something that I am presenting incorrectly, and then I'll be able to learn something useful from it and make the necessary correction. In the past, under other names, you've presented some resource material I hadn't seen before, and I found it very interesting. I'm a patient person. Happy to keep waiting for something useful again. Even if it means putting with all those lies and nonsense from you about banning persons. I'm also happy for the entertainment value, and revelations about human nature, etc. 

Even if you don't come through again. I have no interest in banning you, nor do I even know for sure if I have that authority as an assigned moderator. If I do have that ability, I have never used it.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

However, in A.K. Grayson's translation of ABC-7 (BM 35382), the inscription ceases in Nabonidus's 11th year and resumes in his 17th year. This contrasts with the Chronicles of Early (COJ) assertion, which inaccurately assigns the period as years 12 to 16.

That's odd. You find something accurate in COJ's book and then declare it inaccurate. You make me wonder if you have ever found anything inaccurate in COJ's book anywhere. Not that it matters, but have you actually ever found an inaccuracy in COJ's book? 

If that feeble attempt was any indication of the "best you could do" to find something inaccurate, it comes across as an admission that perhaps COJ's entire book is also accurate.

Maybe, as a challenge, you could find something that really is inaccurate, and if you can't find it and produce it here, I will just assume that "deep down" you believe his book is accurate and you are only flailing against it out of some kind of temper tantrum, or something like that. Something like the way you keep making up false information about me.

12 hours ago, George88 said:

However, that individual previously denounced the works of Raymond Philip Dougherty as flawed, yet now embraces them to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, quite the turnaround.

I'm sure you recall that I never denounced Raymond Philip Dougherty. But I would also not use his works to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BCE. 

Besides here is what Dougherty said about Nineveh:

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008910332

Archives from Erech, 1923

That was his writing in 1923. It was common during the late 1800's and early 1900's to assign the capture and destruction of Nineveh to 606, the year before Carchemish. Evidence from the Nabopolassar Chronicles ("Fall of Nineveh") changed the view to Nabopolassar's 14th year, even though the tablet is not perfectly explicit about exactly what happened then because there is a lot of damage to the tablet at that point where the 14th year would be found.

But 6 years later, he wrote: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004069087&seq=164&q1=612

I never denounced him. And i never used him to support 612 BCE. But I think you already knew that. I used the astronomical evidence for the years of Nabopolassar's reign, and tied that to the strong probability that the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" is referring to Nineveh as the destroyed city in his 14th year of reign. I couldn't care less about Dougherty himself, though. 

There is no "certainty," it's just a matter of working with what is usually considered "best evidence" so far, but always ready to adjust if even better evidence comes along. 

9 hours ago, George88 said:

The Babylonian Chronicles are a good example that consists of tablets that were most likely recorded during the time of Darius.

There is good evidence that the original was recorded much closer to the actual time of the events being chronicled. Copyists/scribes/scholars were making copies of the tablets as they became too worn out or cracked. The British Museum in the Assyria section has a display of an actual tablet library which shows how they stored the tablets much like we would store books on a bookshelf, complete with the edge marked with the "title" of the tablet, so they could be kept in order. Similar to VAT 4956. But they were as fragile as iPhones, and would have to be recopied when they cracked.

9 hours ago, George88 said:

It seems that the individual now favors the use of BC, despite previously opposing it.

You are reading too much into my use of the term BCE/BC. I never opposed it. I only said I preferred the Watchtower's reasons for using BCE instead of BC. 

The top part is just the Babylonian kings based on the tens of thousands of contract/business tablets, with no concern as to their BCE dates. Just trying to match up the Biblical events underneath. Then the two unnecessary rows at the bottom offer the standard BCE timeline in green, and the WTS timeline in blue. 

Note that the WTS timeline agrees with the green standard timeline from 556 onward, but differs from 580 on back. The WTS publications also agree with 580 being part of Evil-Merodach's reign, so I have included that date. But the orange dates refer to the entire reign of Neriglissar which is the only range of standard dates which the WTS leaves open to a 24-year period rather than a 4-year period. The assumption is that there may be one or more unknown kings who reigned for 20 extra years during this period. 

Like I say, these BCE dates aren't necessary for understanding the Bible. The Bible doesn't use them. I would not stake my life on either one of the timelines. The only thing I would push back on is the false claim that the blue (WTS) have more or better evidence behind them than the green (standard).  

On 3/25/2024 at 11:02 AM, George88 said:

Accepting 612 BC as the definitive year for the fall of Nineveh is problematic given historical records that suggest a range of other dates, including 613, 611, 610, 608, 607, and 606 BC, among others. Such discrepancies cast doubt on the notion of an "absolute" year, rendering it, at a minimum, an inaccuracy.

That's another astute observation. Even if a stone tablet or inscription had declared that it was precisely the 14th year of Nabonidus when Nineveh fell, and another tablet gave astronomical positions that could only be dated to the 612 BCE, this isn't enough. Who's to say that the those lunar or planetary positions which definitely happened in 612 BCE were actually recorded in the 14th year of Nabonidus, just because they say they were? The celestial positions would still definitely be for 612 BCE, but attributing them to "NABONIDUS 14" could still have resulted from a scribal error (or a conspiracy of scribal errors). And just because the ancient record indicates that Nineveh was actually destroyed in the 14th year of Nabonidus, who's to say that this wasn't wishful thinking on the part of the person recording the events. Perhaps the bulk of Nineveh had been destroyed earlier, perhaps it was an ongoing process and someone just arbitrarily assigned it to a specific year of Nabonidus to make it appear more successful, even though the persons he was after got away to another city. Or who knows whether there was some criteria by which a city was considered captured or destroyed under Assyrian protocol that was different under Babylonian or Judean? 

However when the Bible speaks of Jerusalem's temple being destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, we probably shouldn't doubt that it was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

But there is an obvious solution to the problem. Just pick any particular date you would like and work from there. See what evidence there is to attach a Julian/Gregorian date to it (B.C.E./B.C.) and see if it fits the rest of the evidence. 

It's even simpler because the Watchtower publications already agree with all of the standard dates that I have marked in green below throughout the Neo-Babylonian period. Since these are the only two competing timelines that we are worried about, why not just discuss them either as relative dates, the way the Bible does, or offer both BCE dates in the timeline. That's what I have done below when I was trying to work out the relative dates starting from 1 Kings and Jeremiah. I couldn't care less what the actual BCE dates are, so I'll just put them both there as reference. I'll put it in the next post.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It also raises questions about how individuals who adamantly assert there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible can refute the year 607 when, by that logic, they should also refute 587.

The Watchtower Society also adamantly asserts that there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible. [Insight Vol.1: "Chronology"; w69w68 8/15 p. 489; etc.]  It's exactly what my point has been about both 607 BCE and 587 BCE. And it's exactly right. Because the Bible does not refute 607, just as it does not refute 587. Neither does the Bible support either date.

The 607 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy. 

The 587 BCE date can only be derived from a foundation of astronomy.

BCE/BC dates are only measured in terms of the Gregorian or Julian calendars. Note:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 489-490 pars. 8-15 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***
If events recorded in the Bible were dated according to the Julian or other preceding calendars, it would be a rather simple matter to convert such dates to the Gregorian calendar. But not so.
. . . Please note, the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars. 
 

On 3/23/2024 at 12:46 AM, BTK59 said:

I have noticed that there is a conflict in the narratives as well. For instance, while some scholars and historians attribute the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC to the Babylonians and Medes, it is worth noting that Gadd's BM21901 tablet also mentions the Scythians who marched against it along the other two allies.

It looks like it could be based on a translation issue where Gadd trusted Herodotus and Diodorus to fill in some of the information gaps in the heavily damaged places on the tablet. The tablet credits the alliance between the Babylonians and Medes. But the tablet uses the name Cyaxares, the King of the Medes, as a way to reference to the Medes, but it also uses the term Umman-Manda which may have also meant Medes and not Scythians. Either way, both things could be true, rather than constituting a true conflict. Some are willing to give Herodotus and Diodorus the benefit of the doubt, and some are more skeptical, as was the case of Maurice Price in 1923 who only wanted to derive information from what was actually said on the tablet, not what was inferred through others.

It is rather hard to believe that Cyaxares could have forced a true alliance with the Scythians after just murdering their leaders a few years earlier. That assumes that the following was true: (Wikipedia, Cyaxares)

The next year, in 625 BCE, Cyaxares overthrew the Scythian yoke over the Medes by inviting the Scythian rulers to a banquet, getting them drunk, and then murdering them all, including possibly Madyes himself. After freeing the Medes from the Scythian yoke, Cyaxares reorganised the Median armed forces . . . .Cyaxares might also have forced the Scythians into an alliance with the Medes after overthrowing their rule, since from 615 BCE onwards the Babylonian records mention the Scythians as the allies of the Medes.

 Price's skeptical 1923 article on the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" was already quoted from earlier. (Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol 43.) 

12 hours ago, George88 said:

A single year may not appear significant at first glance, although some dissenters may argue even down to the month. However, if we were to consistently follow this pattern over time, the gap would inevitably widen. Consequently, this discrepancy would pose a significant challenge when it comes to synchronizing the king's regnal years and history.

The main thing to remember in all this discussion is that there are absolutely no BCE dates that can be known without astronomy. NONE.

If you make a claim about ANY date in the BCE range, you have relied upon astronomy as the foundation for that date. That's the foundation we start from even for our famous 607 date (WTS chronology). The 539 date. The 632 date we use for the 14th year of Nabopolassar, and therefore the likely Fall of Nineveh. It's all about astronomy if we include a BCE date.

The gap does not necessarily widen, at least through the late Neo-Assyrian or the entire Neo-Babylonian era, and every era since: Persian, Greek, Roman, etc. This is where the many readings from astronomy come in. There is often a question about what month of the year a king started his reign in, and if reigns count from a fall new year instead of a spring new year, you could be 6 months off. If you don't know whether the few weeks or months before the new year was counted as the "first year" then you might be a year off. But if the method stayed the same from reign to reign you would not continue to widen any gap, and if the method changed back and forth from reign to reign, the mistakes would essentially cancel each other out. 

But every few years, and sometimes year after year for several years in a row, we have astronomy readings that identify every BCE year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, every BCE year of Nabopolassar's reign, every BCE year of Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus, right up to Cyrus. The reason those dates match exactly to the years of the eras that Ptolemy used was because he, too, checked them against the astronomy.

I might just try to get my money back. The parrot in the first picture is undoubtedly responding only to the difference between the prompt and the actual cartoon.