JW Insider

This is a valid point about the differences of a few months or even one year. I not only concur with Thiele on this, I have now come to agree with nearly all the BCE dates he has chosen for the "Hebrew Kings." Naturally, they stick very close to the astronomical evidence. Therefore he also understands that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar must be 586, but still considers the validity of either 587 or 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple. Thiele puts Josiah's death in 609 BCE. McFall and Rodger Young have made good points in discussing Thiele, especially Young, but Thiele's numbers are good enough to take most of the "mystery" out of it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Numbers_of_the_Hebrew_Kings

That's the spirit!! I agree wholeheartedly. And I appreciate the indirect permission for any of us to "challenge" in the last line there. It's curious to me that you might consider as potentially valid any author who chooses 608 over 609 for Josiah's death. Either date ruins the WTS chronology. The WTS considers both dates to be completely out of the question. *** it-1 p. 450 Chronology *** and Pharaoh Necho’s battle resulting in Josiah’s death likely came in 629 B.C.E. The difference in 608 and 609 is not much of a discrepency at all when you consider that the WTS needs for the date to be about 20 years off for 1914 to work. Authors that use either 608 or 609 are sticking very close to the standard chronology. As you can see: So in 1898, Heinrich Graetz chooses 608 for Josiah's death in a battle with Necho. But that means that he puts the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, as you can see from the bottom of the following from his volume 6. Same, of course, with the other author you quoted: Naturally, if he chooses 608 he is simply sticking close to the standard chronology. As you can see from the same book, where it mentions the usual 586 date for the conquering of Jerusalem.

LOL again. I know that you have opinions that I don't accept as true, and I have opinions that you don't accept as true. But that's no reason to rely so much on the ad hominem as your primary response. We see this type of behavior from you on any point where it can be shown that you claim was wrong, or that you misunderstood something you read. You've already done it whenever a false claim you have made is countered by someone else. I found about 10 such items of misinformation just on the first page of this topic. But you don't merely disagree, or claim that I have misunderstood. Instead, you go right for the name-calling: "he's a chronic liar" "he's a friend of apostates" "he's considered by some to be a false prophet." Obviously it does no good to point out errors to you. If the error is subtle or requires a more complex explanation you usually just deny and give fairly low-key insults. But when the error is easy to spot, and blatant and obvious to anyone, you appear to double down on the insults and ad hominem speech to a much higher degree. Case in point. Here's a recap of just that one minor point about the Battle of the Eclipse: You claimed: "Remember By retracing your steps, you will arrive at the epic 'Eclipse War' that occurred in 589/8 BC." I responded that the battle of the eclipse did not occur in 589 but [if it's truly based on a solar eclipse], then it's identified as May 28, 585 BC:. [I'm sure that doesn't seem like such a big deal, but I mentioned it because I know why you specifically chose the year 589 and I wanted to discuss that choice in a separate post.] I also gave possible dates if it had been confused with a lunar eclipse. (Personally, I think the war and this particular battle happened and so did a total solar eclipse in 585, but I don't trust that Thales actually predicted it. It's the kind of thing that a story could easily be made about after the fact. But that's not pertinent to the point here.) Instead of acknowledging that the term "Eclipse War" or "Battle of the Eclipse" was indeed most likely named after a solar eclipse in 585 per MOST historians, and perhaps offering an explanation as to why you chose to highlight 589 as a possibility, you decided to go with the ad hominem insults and attacks. You said: That I was indulging in childish games. [FALSE]. That I was referring to Rawlinson's interpretation. [FALSE] That I was selectively choosing items to inaccurately oppose. [FALSE] That I was simply making an uninformed assertion. [FALSE] That YOU, George88, can also demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610 BC [FALSE] That it does not seem to be inherent in my genetic makeup to have an honest debate. [FALSE] So, I picked one of the two false claims from above that doesn't look like an ad hominem. I picked the one where you falsely claim that you can demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610. It was obvious that you can't because the very person who had attempted that date admitted that it was a mistake, a "worthless" date, and he was one of the first to realize that the date in 585 was the one that actually fit the historical situation. And even you admitted that the dates for this war primarily included the years 590 to 584. I can see how that particular mistake could be embarrassing: you making a false claim about a date that was long debunked by the very person who came up with it. But when you make a more blatant mistake that anyone can understand (just by reading a paragraph or two) you tend to always go even more wild with the accusations, insults and ad hominem attacks. So instead of trying to explain the mistake you went with the following: That I engage in consistent deceit and twisted storytelling. [FALSE] That I hypocritically persist in distorting the truth. [FALSE] That I pretend that any honest researcher opposing me would succeed [FALSE ????] That I'm a chronic liar who is unwilling to change. [FALSE] That I have spent a significant amount of time fabricating facts [FALSE] That I can't bear the fact that my false claims don't stand up to scrutiny on an academic level. [FALSE] That I am nit-picking the dates. [TRUE, for a specific reason I'll explain later] That I can't stand the fact that my famous astronomical tablets from 568 BC can be used to reflect those other conflicts not just my false narrative of Jerusalem. [FALSE on multiple levels] That I consistently manipulate the facts, manipulating dates that have no relevance just to support my version of events. [FALSE, again, on multiple levels] I point this out as hopefully useful counsel to you. I don't expect you to ever admit a mistake here, and that's OK. That's a "given" with your history here. But I'm not the only person here to have noticed that when your error is easier for anyone to understand, the more you double down on the insults and false claims about the person who points it out, with little to no effort to address the points made, or issues raised. And by the way, I realize I have made many mistakes here. I try to fix them as I learn more about the topics, but some of mine have also been embarrassing. But that's a part of how I learn. I put an opinion out there and those who know better can correct it. I would appreciate any corrections even from persons where I would heretofore have expected no more than a litany of insults.

Me: No, if you remember what you drew in the very first picture. The man should have just hit his finger or thumb with a hammer while trying to hammer a nail in the wall. The woman should be next to the parrot. She should be pointing her left index finger at the parrot's ear, and she should point her right finger at the parrots other ear. But her index fingers should be close enough to be touching the parrot.

Me: I like the black and white version better, and the parrot should be back on a perch which should be just like the first picture you drew, but with the pole a bit shorter so that the women is just slightly taller than the perch, and can more easily put her fingers at each side of the parrots head, but touching the parrots head at each side so it appears that she is trying to stop the parrot from hearing

Me: Keep the same picture, but have the woman holding the index finger of each hand at both sides of the parrot's head as if she is trying to cover the parrot's ears to keep the parrot from hearing whatever the man is saying. I've adjusted the scene according to your instructions. The woman is now holding her index fingers at both sides of the parrot's head, attempting to cover its ears. Not quite. So I try again:

I pay $20 a month to OpenAI to play with their 4.0+ version of ChatGPT. It's not really an expense because I still do some remote consulting for a tech company in Ohio. Today, I decided to try out its ability to draw pictures on demand. I wanted a picture of a man about to curse because he just hit his thumb with a hammer, and I want his wife, to put her fingers in the "ears" of their pet parrot, so that the parrot doesn't pick up any bad words to repeat. So here goes: Prompt: I need a New Yorker style cartoon containing man hammering a nail in the wall and accidentally hitting his thumb. At the same time a woman, presumably his wife, is standing next to a tall perch where a parrot appears oblivious and she, the wife, is putting her fingers in the ears of a parrot. Not terrible, but it didn't get the right idea about the parrot's ears being covered. So I try again:

I am first responding to the claim that there was an "eclipse war" that occurred in 589/8. This is false. There never was one. You might be referring to the Eclipse War or "Battle of the Eclipse" on May 28, 585 BC: . . . . such a battle could have been September 3, 609 BC or July 4, 587 BC. But there is no possible alternative for an eclipse battle to have been in 589/588. These exchanges would be laughable if they weren't so . . . laughable. After my above counter to your claim of 589/8, I got this response although it wasn't a direct response about the eclipse. But then George immediately shows his BTK59 comment really was intended to refer to the eclipse in the next post: So, George says I am inaccurate and my assertion that it didn't happen in 598/8 is an uninformed assertion. Then he himself admits the possibility of Sept 609, which I had already mentioned. George88 also says that he can demonstrate that the battle took place on Sept 30, 610. George is not telling the truth here. He can't demonstrate that. All he can do is find out that someone in the 1800's had tried to demonstrate that date, and it held for 40 years until someone recalculated and discovered his error. The person who had made the mistake of Sept 30 610 BC admitted that his calculations were worthless, and the same person who had made that mistake also then helped confirm the May 28, 585 date. Along with many others since then, including my own version of Stellarium and Sky5. Note: https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1901PA......9..376S/0000378.000.html ... I'll explain why I have picked on this particular mistake of yours in a later post. But I wanted to point out that my main point is still that no such eclipse happened in 589/588. Your response inadvertently indicates that I was right. You tried to produce evidence for two other dates, but you also could not produce evidence for 589/8.

And that's exactly why I point out that there is no evidence that it either creates or fills a 20-year gap. It doesn't by any means imply that such a void can simply be dismissed or argued in favor just to win an argument. Touché! Also, true. When a person dismisses the fact that these potential discrepancies neither create nor fill a 20-year gap they may perceive some kind of agenda brewing. I happen to know what the agenda would most likely be, because I've heard it before. Not just from you here, but from my roommate at Bethel, and from myself too. When I first tried every way I could possibly think of to salvage the WTS chronology, my roommate and I delved into some of this, and that was a year before we ever heard that there were others, like COJ who had tried to address the same issue in defense of the WTS. And believe me, when my roommate (a mathematician computer programmer) and I looked into it, our ears perked up, too, when we heard about 18-year cycles, and 19-year cycles. We also thought that they could be somehow used to explain the correctness of the WTS chronology. I see a great advantage in that it aligns us with Jesus' words and Paul's words about the times and seasons. I think we should always pay close attention to ourselves and our teaching, handling the word of God aright. I can't help what apostates believe. There are apostates who don't believe the Trinity, does that mean I have to accept the Trinity as true? It's a sign of deceit to try to make these views "apostate" when they are the views of your own AI response, and they are the views of every current authority on Babylonian chronology that you have ever quoted. Are you quoting apostates here just because those authorities agree with the standard chronology? Was your AI program "apostate" just because it agreed completely with COJ?

Are we back on track here? Yes, there are a couple more assumptions and issues to resolve when trying to use the Bible record to go back that far. There are some sources with numbers all over the place, but ours seem pretty reasonable. Even our use of 607 is only 20 years off the standard astronomical date for Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Exactly. Ultimately, it's the same position in "Babylon" as in the journal article I referenced. Oates is willing to discuss the variant understandings and not be too dogmatic about a single answer. My point was that it doesn't create a discrepancy affecting our understanding of how Bible chronology and secular chronology can sync up. Senacherib and Ashurbanipal and Tiglath-Pileser, and Sargon and Shalmanezer, and Esar-Haddon, etc., are all accounted for in both the Bible record as they link up with Israel's (and Judah's) kings and prophets. More importantly to the trajectory of this discussion, it has no effect on the Neo-Babylonian chronology. If our use of 607 and 539 is correct, then it wouldn't make a difference if Adam was created in 4026 BCE, or 402,600 BCE. Those Neo-Babylonian dates would still be correct, or not, based on their own evidence.

Well said, imo. I have tried to remember to remove links that include an academic institution as part of the login. In the Joan Oates link I remember removing it and just including the JSTOR "stable" link. This might require an academic institution but JSTOR provides a way to download many files each month for free. Sometimes, when an academic journal is linked, you can find the gist of the article in a free review or find it was partially quoted elsewhere through Google Scholar, etc. I'd have to disagree with part of that. I think individuals are free to believe what they want, and that they are also free to either represent or misrepresent their views about the Bible or anything else. For example, I think you misrepresented you own views when you presented views via AI and calling them irrefutable, even though they turned out to be exactly the view I already held, and nearly the opposite of your own. No biggie. I even expect people to misrepresent the views of the Bible here. I've see it done quite a lot. But they should be willing to have that misrepresentation challenged rather than a flippant dismissal of ad hominem. But don't get me wrong, I think people are free to use ad hominems, logical fallacies, labels, misrepresentation of facts, etc. I just hope there is going to be someone to try to clear up any confusion those actions might cause. And the biggest thing about forums is that all of it is just opinion no matter how adamant we are about believing our own opinions and disagreeing with the opinions of others. But we are all free to handle those differences of opinion however we want. I may not like your response, you may not like mine. But big deal. Ultimately, it's just opinions. It's my opinion that certain parts of the evidence create irrefutable facts, but it's still just my opinion.

Even if I had the ability to ban or block someone I would never use it. To me it's a lot like shunning and we don't always know when shunning can result in a kind of trauma to people who feel they have rightly invested a lot into the ideas they promote here. It's the nature of a forum for some to present ideas that someone else might feel should be corrected. People have different ways of responding to ideas they don't like. I've always agreed with something xero recently said about how watching someone who falls back on ad hominems has just made it easier to filter through which posts and ideas are relevant. It's a time-saver, and none of us have unlimited time for this type of activity. I heard someone say recently that "labels are for the uneducated." At first I thought it was a joke, because "uneducated" is also a label. But they were talking about putting both pejorative labels on people, and authoritative labels, too. It's sometimes too easy to rely on someone just because they have a label of "expert" or "authority" or "elder." And, it's kind of a cliché but I have literally laughed out loud at some of the antics that have gone on in conversations on the forum. Including this one. It's sometimes like a cartoon or sitcom. People also don't seem to realize how much they are giving away about themselves, and it becomes a true deep dive into human nature and psychology. Exactly right. Personally, I don't think you are in any imminent danger. As a moderator I can see when someone has been flagged for "this" or "that." I won't say the words because it might attract undue attention by the real owners or admins. I don't think you have been guilty of any of those things, of if you have, no more than others. I, for one, appreciate that you often take care not to be too direct in those funny phrases that make reference to me: "the astronaut" "that other person." And when you hear things you don't like, you merely kindly suggest that I go back to xero's topic, or go back to the Closed Club, etc. Compared to the days when you used to get banned, I see almost a completely different person. And even then, I didn't think you should be banned.

BTK59/George88, I haven't lost track of xero's topic. I had a feeling he was losing interest, especially as the ultimate outcome begins to take shape. There is more than enough there already, but one could easily add 5 times as much evidence to what's already there. As I said, this isn't really a problem if you or anyone else wishes to ignore anything written here. I never actually expect you to truly respond to anything. I have learned to expect that whenever I point out a correction that I will be called a liar for telling the truth. That's nothing new here, lol. It's more about trying to help others who might have a real interest. In the past, while some of your same points were being presented under different names, there actually were a few people who were confused. It was possible to clear up some of that confusion in the past, and I just want to let anyone who is confused by all this know that there is a different side to it, which clears up much of the confusion. Some people get it, and appreciate it; some get it and still fight against it; some get it and won't know what to do with it; and some don't ever seem to get it. I'm not worried, I just want to be supportive again for anyone with a real interest in all sides of these issues.

Good. BTW, although the Assyrian chronology has some good puzzles in it to try to piece together from the evidence, it actually doesn't produce any chronology gaps. It's not quite as tightly understood as the Neo-Babylonian, where we can actually put a definite BCE year on every one of his years and ALL FOUR Neo-Babylonian kings that followed him through Nabonidus in 539 BCE. The problem with the Assyrian period is not the chronology itself, but the names of the the kings as they were known in Assyria and the names of the rulers of Babylonia under them at the time Assyria was in power over Babylon. In some cases, as authors point out, the primary ruler of Assyria must have made himself the official ruler of Babylon and in some cases may have also used a different title as King over Babylon. Assyria is not so well-known for producing or maintaining historical records that might be embarrassing to them. The Babylonian Chronicles have been noted for admitting fears and admitting retreat in battles that they didn't think they could win. That doesn't mean no Assyrian records can be trusted or that all Babylonian records can be trusted. But when you combine Assyrian historical habits and less advanced astronomy and fewer yearly tablets to work from, with more periods of internal, civil war, it leaves "knowledge gaps" about the rulers, but just enough chronology information to understand the period from at least 667 BCE to 612 BCE. That's enough to link it to the beginning of Nabopolassar's reign in Babylon, and even to sync it up with some Egyptian chronology. I've seen the evidence, of course, that Ashurbanipal used the name Kandalanu for the period he ruled directly over Babylon. It fits, (especially because they apparently die at about the same time) but it isn't a necessary theory. Kandalanu might otherwise be a bit mysterious because there is virtually no (separate) information about him, but his reign doesn't produce any extension or gap in the timeline. That's true whether he was more like a governor of Babylon under Ashurbanipal or this was a name that Ashurbanipal used in the Babylonian province when he ruled it directly. I'm glad you know of Joan Oates' book(s). The 24-page journal article I referenced was just prior to the "Babylon" book you quoted. The book was more definitive but I liked the article for the way it starts from scratch with the data, as if we know almost nothing at the start and then build up our theories and accept or dismiss them by how well they fit the next piece of data. I was especially interested in the treatment of the Adad-Guppi inscription which crosses from Nabonidus all the back to Ashurbanipal - crossing from Babylonian kings back to Assyrian kings, even though you might have expected Kandalanu to be named before Nabopolassar.

Although I think you have quoted an expression about blind pigs and truffles/acorns, or the number of times a stopped clock can be right in a day. I still find the topic fascinating, and often, or at least every once in a while, I find persons coming across details that really interest me. As you know, I like the topic because it ultimately proves a point to me that everyone who has ever dabbled in time-related prophecy has also necessarily dabbled in dishonesty. It's a shame, but that has included entire religions like Second Adventists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Latter-Day Saints, Russellite/Rutherfordite Bible Students, and many others along the way. The only case I know of where the religion generally "came clean" after prophetic failures was the "Worldwide Church of God" under Armstrong, Sr. It's not easy to admit our own culpability here, but I think, as an organization, it's better to clean out some of these cobwebs, sooner than later, rather than continue to be embarrassed by "facts." So, I'll keep participating as long as G88/BTK59/etc wants to go on. There are persons at Bethel who try to track down some of those who try to shed light on some of these supposedly controversial topics, and I think some of them can learn something along the way. The primary Bethel "Internet Detective" was recently dismissed from Bethel, as you may know. Maybe the next one will be able to detect something useful in a conversation like this one.

Whatever, you must be AI then, lol! Are you going to degrade yourself any further? I had a feeling you would merely try to distract and divert from your mistake. My concern was that you didn't even notice that you posted my own perspective (via AI) as if it were your own unimpeachable, irrefutable perspective. But then to "LOL" about it, shows that you are not taking any of the material you are reading seriously. You pretend to rely on various authorities, pretending that even one of those authorities actually supports the actual chronology position you are proposing. The only reason to call you out on this is that it does nothing more than muddy the waters for anyone who might want to take the topic seriously. I suspect that this is the actual primary purpose. But overall, you have started a topic about uncovering discrepancies in secular history that mainly looks through books that discuss levels of accuracy and inaccuracy in astronomical readings, and which discuss the problematic timeline of late Assyria. Or even books from the mid-1800's when authors were still floundering and flailing about with data and evidence they obviously could not understand until more of it became available decades after they wrote. In the worst cases, you have referenced misinformation from Velikovsky, and completely obsolete information from the 1858 "Chronology" book by Franke Parker, likely because at the time he tried to combine several flawed sources, even though they result in contradictions. But then you (and George, of course) keep trying to tie all this supposed questionability to "18-year cycles," "19-year cycles," and "20-year" gaps as if there is going to be some magical reason that sows a seed of doubt about the standard chronology of the period, but magically moves the timeline according to some imaginary 18, 19, or 20 year adjustment. You imply in a later post that this might not be the ultimate goal, but then why pick a supposed 20-year gap when you can't point to any specific 20-year gap? Why speak of 18 and 19 year cycles pretending these irrelevant cycles might have some relationship to the chronology of any specific tablets in question? (The 20 year gap, plus or minus one year, is the same goal that Furuli worked on, same as the WTS, and the same as a previous "BTK" on this forum.) I'm sure you know that I already understand why this attempt of yours is not really an honest one that tries to make real use of the evidence, and I'm sure that it merely confuses those who are just getting interested. I think your real goal is to make sure that no one looks too deeply into the actual evidence of the period. The way you quote long passages from books and then speak only in vague, teasing terms about what they might possibly mean to you, tells me that you don't understand much of what you are reading, or that you hope others are stupid enough not to check it out for themselves. I can't understand the ultimate goal of that type of behavior except that maybe you think it impresses people who you think are very stupid, or you really just don't understand it yourself.

I looked over everything I could find from Borger and Frame, and there does not seem to exist any 20 year gap that you speak of. Perhaps you can point me to a specific page in a specific book. I understand the one-year-gap that the Babylonian Chronicles speaks about just before Nabopolassar. I understand that there appears to be a potential overlap or co-rulership during the last elderly years of Ashurbanipal's long reign. Kings that may have potentially used two different titles do not account for any gap near as long as 20 years. Of course, it's always possible, I just can't find anything about a 20-year gap. Also, it wouldn't seem to matter in WTS chronology because that chronology paints itself into a corner such that the only gap that would help would be to find 24 years inside the 4 year reign of Neriglissar. There is no possible gap to discover anywhere else that would help the WTS chronology in the slightest. In fact, if found anywhere else within the Neo-Babylonian period, it would destroy the WTS chronology even further.

I looked over everything I could find from Borger and Frame, and there does not seem to exist any 20 year gap that you speak of. Perhaps you can point me to a specific page in a specific book. I understand the one-year-gap that the Babylonian Chronicles speaks about just before Nabopolassar. I understand that there appears to be a potential overlap or co-rulership during the last elderly years of Ashurbanipal's long reign. Kings that may have potentially used two different titles do not account for any gap near as long as 20 years. Of course, it's always possible, I just can't find anything about a 20 year gap. Also, it wouldn't seem to matter in WTS chronology because that chronology paints itself into a corner such that the only gap that would help would be to find 24 years inside the 4 year reign of Neriglissar. There is no possible gap to discover anywhere else that would help the WTS chronology in the slightest. In fact, if found anywhere else, it would destroy the WTS chronology even further.

You didn't ask me, I know, but there is no discrepancy between these two. There are some issues to resolve during the rough transition between the Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings for dating purposes, but not these two kings. These late Assyrian and early Neo-Babylonian issues have been discussed in many books. Attempts to resolve some of the unknown pieces in the 1800's and early 1900's can now be shown to have been wrong based on further evidence. I thought that Joan Oates did one of the best jobs, pretty much starting from scratch with the known evidence, and looking at what theories get ruled out. There are plenty of other good books on it, but I thought this one explained it best. Assyrian Chronology, 631-612 B.C. Author(s): Joan Oates Source: Iraq, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Autumn, 1965), pp. 135-159 Published by: British Institute for the Study of Iraq Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4199788

On to the fifth post of this topic, also on page 1: The first line quotes Gerard Gertoux above. But what you added was convoluted. This valuable timepiece highlights 588 BC, and refers to the 37th year mentioned on the tablet from 569/8? There is no tablet that highlights 588! Perhaps you can explain that sentence in different words. According to the Bible, King Jehoiachin wasn't released until the 37th year of his exile in Babylon which started in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year and since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years, it would therefore have ended in 581 or 580 under Awel-Marduk. (Or 601 BCE using WTS chronology.) You are therefore indicating above that the event of his release by Awel-Marduk marked the "conclusion of the destruction" whatever that means. Another 50 years from there would be 531/530 or 551 BCE using WTS chronology. 70 years (a score and a jubilee) from that event would be 511/510 BCE or 531 using WTS chronology. None of what you are saying here fits either the standard chronology or WTS chronology. It's closer to some of the more confused attempts to reconstruct the period done in the 1800's before the discovery of so many more dated tablets.

So now on to the fourth post on this topic, still back from page 1: I had already written up comments based exactly on this section of this book a few weeks ago under another topic. I agree wholeheartedly with everything they said in the section you quoted. My comments dealt more specifically with the accuracy of the full eclipse timing. For me, just as for Huber/DeMeis it seems they are in favor of the idea that the Babylonian observers used the naked eye, and that this partly accounts for why they often rounded to the nearest 5 degrees. As you quoted from their book: The very fact that we can tell their timing errors were 5 degrees or 5 minutes, sometimes above and sometimes below is an excellent indication that we are also able to translate these observations to the correct dates. You added: Seems to me that this does not follow at all from what you just quoted. Perhaps you intended to make 568 seem less possible than 588 on VAT 4956 with a throw-away statement. But remember that 588 doesn't fit, and 568 does for the particular tablet you have been questioning. And if it doesn't seem to fit the naked eye theory, would 588 have been better somehow on that same count even though it was 20 years earlier? Your quote from the book shows that the accuracy remained almost the same over a period of 7 centuries, with Nebuchadnezzar's time landing closer to the middle of that period. It has seemed to be almost a recurring theme with you, even back to the days when you used the name Allen Smith. More often than not, you seem to quote something that gives evidence for just the opposite of what claim the material is indicating to you.

So, on to the third post of this topic, back on page 1. If you look at the context, you will see that you were laughing at the fact that no one would be able to refute the "AI" response you posted from a prompt you gave to AI on Bing. I, too, was laughing out loud at this one, because what you are asking to haver refuted is exactly what COJ, and all current Babylonian "authorities" already believe. You are acting like AI was so brilliant to give you such an irrefutable answer about the desolation of Judea and destruction of Jerusalem between 605 and 587/586. Didn't you realize that it was already answering exactly what I believed? Why would I need to refute it? It's like you are saying, "Ha! Ha! Ha! Me and AI [and COJ] believe THIS about the subject and I bet you can't refute it. Just try to refute it. LOL!" That's laughable, but only because it's so ludicrously confused. I had planned to respond to more of your posts in this thread especially because I am referenced so many times, but this kind of confusion gives me a good reason not to take you seriously enough to respond. Just for reference, and in case you decide to delete the embarrassment, I will requote the entire response you got from AI/Bing: Then you say: There is no good refutation for this one. It's exactly what all the evidence shows to be true. If you agree with it, and you think it can't be refuted, then you agree whole-heartedly with COJ, and all the current experts you have been been quoting.

I believe I have now commented enough on the first post of this topic. Moving on to this second post of this topic I am first responding to the claim that there was an "eclipse war" that occurred in 589/8. This is false. There never was one. You might be referring to the Eclipse War or "Battle of the Eclipse" on May 28, 585 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Eclipse If one reads the description by Herodotus of the event as a solar eclipse, then based on modern astronomical calculations it can be identified with the solar eclipse of May 28, 585 BC (known as Eclipse of Thales), hence yielding the exact date of the battle. It is completely unrelated to VAT 4956, of course. It's about a battle between the Lydians and the Medes. Also if Herodotus mistook a report of a predicted lunar eclipse instead of an expected full moon, and only thought it was a predicted solar eclipse, then such a battle could have been September 3, 609 BC or July 4, 587 BC. But there is no possible alternative for an eclipse battle to have been in 589/588. Also, there are no lunar or planetary indications on VAT 4956 that fit 588 BC, or 587 BC, or 609 BC. Such a statement implies you have never read a translation of VAT 4956. This is a ludicrously false claim about it. It's false to say that VAT 4956 provides substantial historical facts, rather than mere astronomical conjectures. It provides almost ZERO historical facts. It is almost exclusively about astronomical events, weather events, and things as mundane as a possible disease-carrying fox that somehow got into to city. "Fox News." If you could find something remotely related to "history" in it, I'm sure you could point it out. Also, it contains mostly astronomic observations, not conjectures. A conjecture is something like assuming that it refers to 588 BC instead of 568 even though there are ZERO observations that actually fit that year. Another conjecture is assuming there are at least two copyists errors on the tablet because 2 of the 30 astronomical observations don't fit 568. (They also don't fit 588.)

Do you really think this unconventional approach could work for you? After all, if we keep going in that direction, we could also prove 607 BC. Which comes first? That question is meaningless. First, it is the conventional approach, the same approach used by 100% of all the current authors and authorities you have ever quoted. Even Furuli and the Watchtower and the transgendered Messiah have used this approach. It's the very reason Rolf Furuli himself tried so hard to move the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar from 568 to 588. Otherwise, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year would be 586. have used, on the topic that you have ever quoted have used. Second, if you keep going in that conventional direction you would continue to disprove, rather than prove, that 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. Not really. Math works pretty much the same whether you are a Muslim, a Buddhist, Jewish, Moon-worshiper, or atheist. I don't understand why you think this is an argument. If my own 37th year can be proven to be 1957+37=1994, then that alone proves that my 19th year was 1957+19=1976. Whether I had gone to battle in Viet Nam in 1976, or gone to Bethel in Brooklyn in 1976, the math would still work out.

I can't help but wonder if George really meant what you think, especially considering your inclination to take things out of context. Why not post the entire context? You can go back and see it for yourself. Whenever I quote someone here, it shows the date and time of the post, so it's easy to find. This was the very first post on this thread. For easy reference, I'll be happy to do it for you. And I will try to highlight in bold, the place where the quote is found within the context: BTK, are you suggesting that 568 BC is an invalid date? We can make good use of VAT 4956 since the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be found in other historical content, not just that insignificant astronomical tablet. Apostates often misuse that date to support the claim of 587 BC, but let's explore its true significance. The 13 lunar readings are indicative of the commencement of specific kings' reigns. Some historians mention the starting reign of King Waphres in 589/8 BC, and he died in 568/7 BC. By considering secular history alone, we discover that after Nebuchadnezzar's growing disappointment with the kings of Judah, the temple was burned down in 588 BC. If we follow this same cycle, it becomes clear that the real destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem, occurred in 607 BC. Hence, relying on VAT 4956 as authoritative evidence is akin to playing a game of foolishness.