JW Insider

George/BTK/Alphonse, Don't worry about responding. I'm just presenting a perspective on some of the things you said for the benefit of others who might be interested. No they are not. Not even one of the 13 readings of VAT 4956 indicates the commencement of any specific kings' reigns. Secular history does not record the burning of the temple. Bible history tells us that this happened in the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. So far, without a direct reference to the burning of the Jewish temple in any surviving or discovered Babylonian Chronicles, all the secular evidence can tell us is that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE, and that his 19th year was 586 BCE. (And that his 37th year was 568 BCE.) It makes no sense to say that because the temple was burned down in 588 BCE that there is some "cycle" to follow that makes clear that the destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem happened 19 years earlier, in 607. The only known astronomical cycle that is about 19 years long is the Metonic cycle, and it is never used to shift a date by 19 years, Also, it is not exactly 19 years so you can't even use it to claim that lunar positions seen 19 years earlier or later would be the same. People don't confuse lunar readings from other points on the 19-year cycle because they don't match. Besides, most opposers of the tablet evidence, like Furuli, have tried to move the date exactly 20 years, for which there is no known cycle. <PTW> The only opposers of the tablet data I know of are Furuli, the Watchtower Society, and a person online who presents himself online as Jesus Christ, the Messiah, although he appears to also present himself as transgendered. </PTW> Velikovsky is very wrong about this. The Babylonian Chronicles for one attribute quite a lot of historical content directly to Nebuchadnezzar for his first 10 or 11 years. And many of the temple inscriptions contain historical content, and there are thousands of secular tablets that contain bits of history about others during his reign that are recorded in terms of the specific years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. The "brick"on its own doesn't prove that. But thousands of other bricks along with astronomical data and links to similar data linked to the Neo-Babylonian kings and others for the next several hundred years do indeed prove that his reign started in 605 and the 37th year was 568 BC. I don't consider evidence as "proof" but it this brick, as you say, "proves" that his 37th year is 568, then it PROVES that his 18th year is 587 BCE. I hope others understand this. True, but it would then provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is 587 BC. Then it just becomes a matter of whether you trust these particular verses in the Bible. (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . . If as you say, the "Brick" provides evidence that Nebuchadnezzar, in his 37th year, in 568 BC, took part in a significant battle, then you have just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BC, and that his 19th year was 586. If you believe the Bible, then you are saying that Nebuchadnezzar burned the temple of Jerusalem in 586 BC. (2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .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; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.  And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard. So your claim about 568 as year 37 puts you in agreement with all the living Babylonian historians you have ever quoted in your entire life. All of them would say that if 568 is his 37th then 586 is his 19th. Therefore, it also puts you in agreement with COJ.

I deny any reliance on any chronology, correct or otherwise. COJ's chronology defense is meaningless. The WTS chronology defense is meaningless. I prefer the Biblical stance that "as to the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us." We don't need to know what secular people have said about the exact BCE dates of these events. The Bible is good enough for me on such matters.

I didn't expect the 1950 Awake! article to be as supportive as it was. The entire article gives him the benefit of the doubt, right up to finally including a statement that it includes speculation and unproven ideas. Here is the first part, and I have included the conclusion above.

The "Chronology" book you are quoting is from 1858 by Franke Parker. Before anyone puts too much stock in it, I think one should note that the so-called "absolute date" of 539 BCE has been changed in his book to 559, 560 or 561 BCE. This is in spite of the fact that he claims to make proper use of the Olympiad dating. His date for the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar is about 629 BCE. That's from 40 to 42 years before the astronomical dating of the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, along with the whole gamut of Neo-Babylonian evidence. The Watchtower is only 20 years behind the astronomical evidence and he is more than twice as far off. At least from a "relative" chronology perspective, he understood the sources that claimed only a 49 or 50 year space of time between Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and the last year of Nabonidus (Cyrus' 1st year as "Universal" king).

But you seem to forget that NO ONE relies on VAT 4956 as authoritative evidence. It's just one part of a puzzle made up of at least 50,000 pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces just happen to consistently fit with all the other pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces mitigate against the WTS publications' timeline of Nebuchadezzar and the other 5 Neo-Babylonian kings. It's the sum total of several completely independent lines of evidence --at least a dozen independent lines, where the 50,000 business tablets is counted as only one of those lines of evidence. It's not about any ONE piece of evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline. But most people would think it's akin to a game of foolishness to think of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky as providing authoritative evidence, as you have referenced him above. I have the book "Worlds in Collision" on the shelf behind me and I have skimmed it. You can verify in the May 8, 1950 Awake!, page 27,28, that his ideas were wildly speculative and completely unsupported by evidence. *** dx30-85 Worlds in Collision *** WORLDS IN COLLISION book by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky: g50 5/8 27-28 [moved to the end of the post] That article was overly generous to him because he tried to support Biblical miraculous events with cosmic events in our solar system. Wikipedia gives a good summary of his ideas, some of which were published in "Worlds in Collision" some in "Ramses II and His Time," etc. The causes of these natural catastrophes were close encounters between the Earth and other bodies within the Solar System — not least what are now the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, and Mars, these bodies having moved upon different orbits within human memory. To explain the fact that these changes to the configuration of the Solar System violate several well-understood laws of physics, Velikovsky invented a role for electromagnetic forces in counteracting gravity and orbital mechanics. Some of Velikovsky's specific postulated catastrophes included:[citation needed] A tentative suggestion that Earth had once been a satellite of a "proto-Saturn" body, before its current solar orbit. That the Deluge (Noah's Flood) had been caused by proto-Saturn's entering a nova state, and ejecting much of its mass into space. A suggestion that the planet Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel catastrophe. Jupiter had been the prime mover in the catastrophe that saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Periodic close contacts with a "cometary Venus" (which had been ejected from Jupiter) had caused the Exodus events (c. 1500 BCE) and Joshua's subsequent "sun standing still" (Joshua 10:12–13) incident. Periodic close contacts with Mars had caused havoc in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE.

You got me curious, since I honestly had never even skimmed this portion of COJ's book. I noticed a footnote, on the same page you pointed to, about the famous eight-UK-clergymen December 1917 Manifesto, from their "prophets" conference. This manifesto has been referenced in the WTS publications several times. *** nc pp. 20-21 pars. 36-37 When All Nations Collide, Head On, With God *** Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Dr. F. B. Meyer, and six other well-known clergymen of England, issued a Manifesto, which was republished throughout the earth and which declared: 37 “(1) That the present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles. . . . (5) That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the second coming of our Lord, because all nations will then be subject to His rule. . . .”—Current Opinion, for February 1918. I had already seen this same referenced Manifesto nearly 10 times in different WTS publications. But I had never realized that these "Gentile Times" were not really about 1914, but more specifically about the events of 1917. I hadn't noticed that the context in the WT about the 2520 years, really had nothing to do with this "Gentile Times" manifesto, because it was really more about the supposed fulfillment of the 1,260 days (years) of Revelation 11, which J.A.Brown had predicted 90 years earlier for 1917. (J.A.Brown never connected the 7 times, or 2,520 years, with the Gentile Times.) So I looked up the phrase "present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles" in Google. Mostly it came back with Watchtower Library and jw.org links. And I found a lot of links that showed other religions had used the same Manifesto to show that their prophets were just as good or better (Mormons) and other religions used it to show just how useless and irrelevant those predictions had already become. But the most curious use of the manifesto was from Rutherford, who used it as "proof" that the world noticed the "beginning of the end of the world" in the 1920 book "Millions Now Living Will Never Die," page 40. Rutherford quoted from the Manifesto, and had only good things to say about these particular preachers. He called them honest and faithful and good, as compared to so many other clergymen: Even then, in 1920, it was rare to hear a good word about another preacher from Rutherford. But did he really think they were good, or did he change his mind about them? A TALE OF TWO FCC's [The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Council of Churches] Well, I checked another link, this time to the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, which printed the entire speech of Rutherford in 1926, here, page 339. The speech follows the same logic and context of the 1920 "Millions" book treatment, still pointing out the Zionist fulfillment of prophecy. But this time he points out that "these very distinguished men who signed the manifesto have vehemently spoken against present truth and the Lord's kingdom." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Federal_Communications_Commission/UAwvAAAAMAAJ What is his evidence of the signers of the above showing vehement opposition to "present truth" since then? It is that a different group of clergymen, who did NOT sign the above manifesto, had signed on to the proposal for the U.S. to join the League of Nations. So in January 1919, the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches, had made a "blasphemous" statement in that proposal about the League of Nations, hoping it represented a means to peace in the world: The proposal was drafted by the executive committee of the FCC, and by December 1919 had become a petition to send to the U.S. Senate, where it failed. The proposals even contained wording that might remind you or Rutherford's own words about war. This is found in "Internationalizing the Social Gospel: The Federal Council of Churches and European Protestantism, 1914-1925 Author(s): Ralph L. Pearson" But, naturally, Rutherford doesn't admit that the Watchtower itself had offered the same optimistic idea about the same League of Nations, following some of the same wording of the FCC: One month after the statement of the FCC in January 1919, the February 15, 1919 Watchtower spoke in similar terms: “We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p.51 [Reprints page 6389].

Understanding historical events involves delving into the past to gain insight into the present. A skilled researcher knows exactly where to find the necessary information, much like navigating by the stars. If the destruction of "Nineveh" occurred in 612 BC, what astronomical evidence supports this event? Then you have references to the destruction of Nineveh in 606 BC and the siege of Nineveh in 635 BC. Either we conduct our own research or acknowledge the flawed nature of JWI's research. It is not possible to have it both ways. You mean that was it; that we got them all? Or that this one (requoted above) is one that you also want moved? It's dated Sunday at ?:18 PM, but ? refers to a different time zone from the one I'm in, so I couldn't tell exactly. And the use of VPN's can throw off the time zone on the time stamp. I didn't move it before because it's on topic and it's not to BTK's question, but I'd still be happy to move it if you wish.

As I said, I'll be happy to move as many or as few as you like. Since you still haven't said which ones specifically, I'll move a few more and you can tell me if there are still others. I went back into the conversation for two weeks, but found that this particular subset of the topic only went back for one week. So I moved more of your conversation with BTK going back one week. The others that still remain here are too tightly integrated into the current conversation. I suppose you could always copy information you presented here and repost it over there under the new topic.

See the link above in response to the request. They had already been moved over an hour ago.

As an aside, note that the entire relative timeline from the beginning of Neo-Babylonian to the Persian empire can easily be figured out without any reference to astronomy or even BCE dates. The whole reason the WTS makes such a big deal out of our "traditional" date for the destruction of Jerusalem is based on a relative chronology from 539, not an absolute chronology of the time period. So a relative chronology is all one needs to debunk it. You don't even need to know if 539 was correct or not. You don't need BCE dates at all. Just the widely available archaeology without any need for software or assumptions about any potential copyist's errors, eclipses, planetary positions. The contemporary business documents alone are more than enough to debunk the WTS chronology. And there are tens of thousands of those stone "witnesses" all consistently pointing to the same timeline. That's why the great emphasis in the WTS publications to constantly sow seeds of doubt about those tablets. I think that, as a group, the WTS is the biggest opposer of the tablets -- and the biggest opposer of ALL Neo-Babylonian archaeology.

Imagine, then, that approved association with Jehovah's people MUST include acceptance of a mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology!! *** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? . . .That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. *** w83 1/1 p. 12 par. 5 The Kingdom Issue to the Fore! *** Properly, then, the ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold today. Rather than: (2 Timothy 3:15-17) . . .. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Exactly on each point!!! Now imagine Jehovah telling a "faitfhul slave" or pre-cursor of that "faithful slave" that the only way Jesus is going to distinguish between the 5 wise virgins and the 5 foolish virgins (in our time period) is based on their acceptance of a specific mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology. And it's a chronology that started out as: Oh look how great Ptolemy is; all astronomers agree that his dates are perfectly well-established! Which soon turned into: Look how terrible Ptolemy is; his chronology is suspect because he gives different dates than the ones we need prior to 539. Let's go so far as to highlight a book that calls him a "criminal." Which turned to: Oh look how great the Nabonidus Chronicle is; it proves that Cyrus overtook him in his 17th year. Which turned to: Oh wait, let's stop mentioning the Nabonidus Chronicle; turns out that the number 17 was added by expert secular authorities, and that the same chronicle links him directly to the full length of Neriglissar's reign, which is the one tiny window of vulnerability we still need to raise suspicion about a possible 20 year gap!! Which turned to: Oh look how great Strm. Cambyses is, it tells us directly that 539 is the only absolute date in ancient history!! Which turned to: Whoops! Now we have to admit that this only works if we accept the authority of secular experts to correct numerous known mistakes and copyist errors on that same tablet, the astronomical tablets' understanding, and ancient tablet methods for measurements of two eclipses, and the authority of modern experts to date those eclipses taking into account the slowdown of the earth by about 16,000 seconds, and a non-contemporary King's list (like Ptolemy's) that is assumed to be correct, and some secular business contract tablets that help establish the length of the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses, (and which we reject when used elsewhere) and some [hi]stories by much later Greek historians that we don't really trust on most other matters. Which turned to: Look how great the Olympiad dating system is; if we accept that it has been properly tied to the current BC/AD eras, it appears to tells us that the dates for Cyrus are accurate. Which turns to: Oh wait! We reject the same Olympiad dating system even from much more recent times when it conflicts with our theory of Artaxerxes which we would like to say is 10 years off.

Sure. I moved the "discrepancy-related" posts between you and @BTK59 going back to Wednesday because this was when the topic of discrepancies came up most directly. If I have moved too many or not enough, just let me know. Also, here on this topic, I have left @xero's question to you under this topic here that he started, and your response to it, even though it was based originally on that same back-and-forth between George88 and BTK59. Let me know. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90970-uncovering-discrepancies-in-secular-history/

This topic starts out with posts between @BTK59 and @George88 from the "Nineveh 612" topic. The request to me was to move a couple of posts that were not directly relate to "Nineveh 612." I will likely get some further clarification on which exact posts I should move here because it seems there may be more than two.

So even without checking out any astronomy, just from the tablets alone, we would get exactly the same as "Ptolemy's Canon." We'd get the same length and order of all the kings' reigns.

There is a long inscription attributed to (actually in honor of) Nabonidus' mother, which honors her long life of about 102 to 104 years of age. It says about her life: From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, when I was born, until the 42nd year of Ashurbanipal, the 3rd year of his son Ashur-etil-ili, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Merodach, the 4th year of Neriglissar, during (all) these 95 years in which I visited the temple of the great godhead Sin, king of all the gods in heaven and in the nether world, he looked with favor upon my pious good works and listened to my prayers, accepted my vows. .. He [the moon god Sin] added (to my life) many days (and) years of happiness and kept me alive from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 9th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son whom I bore, (i.e.) one hundred and four happy years (spent) in that piety which Sin, the king of all gods, has planted in my heart’. . . . The ninth year: . . . On the fifth day of the month Nisan the queen mother died in Dur-karashu which (is on) the bank of the Euphrates upstream from Sippar. Therefore, the inscription says: Ashurbanipal reigned 42 years, Ashuretilili reigned 3 years, Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, Awel-Merodach reigned 2 years, Neriglissar reigned 4 years, Nabonidus followed Neriglissar and the queen mother died in his 9th year. This matches the various other contemporary or near-contemporary sources for the lengths of the reign of each king:

It's true that there are tens of thousands of these business tablets, and tablets have been found for every year of the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings. And it's usually on the order of hundreds of them for each year of each king. This means that there are thousands of such tablets covering exactly: 21 years for Nabopolassar 43 years for Nebuchadnezzar 2 years for Evil-Merodach 4 years for Neriglissar 2 months for Labashi-Marduk 17 years for Nabonidus But that doesn't necessarily mean they we have put them in the right order. Without any knowledge of the astronomy tablets, how would contemporary documents show which kings ruled before and after each other? For one thing we have the interlocking dates. The months of the accession year of one king cannot overlap with the last months of the last year of the previous king. But there was an exception to this with those two months of Labashi-Marduk who appears not to have been fully accepted as king in all parts of Babylonia, while Nabonidus was already a contender immediately after Neriglissar's death. There is another exception of a month or so, evidently, when Nebuchadnezzar's son, Evil-Merodach, was already taking over for his father in Nebuchadnezzar's final dying months. It's also conceivable that slight overlaps could happen when the year is already named for the previous king, and the new king is not fully established among royal contenders. We also have inscriptions where Nebuchadnezzar more than once calls himself the son of his father Nabopolassar, and inscriptions where Evil-Merodach calls himself the son of Nebuchadnezzar: *** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach *** There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: “Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.” And inscriptions where Nabonidus calls himself the "ambassador of Nebuchadnezzar." As it turns out, the tablets themselves leave us with many different ways to link from one King to the next. They often reference prior years in contracts regarding loans and interest. The Egibi business entity provides a completely independent link of "presidents" of their banking/real estate company that perfectly matches and supports the order of the kings presented above. And of course, the surviving portions of the Babylonian Chronicles provide a year by year reference that includes the transitions between most of these kings. I'd like to present a few of these "interlocking" tablets that determine the order of the kings, but there is another archaeological discovery that manages the interlocking of these kings in just one inscription . . . next.

In the chart, I will put the BCE years back for reference, with a small word of explanation. The light-green BCE timeline represents the standard timeline, and the light-blue (teal-colored) timeline represents the WTS publications timeline. From 556 BCE onward, however, the WTS publications accept the standard timeline, because the Nabonidus Chronicle has been used as verification of the accepted 539 date for Cyrus. *** ad p. 1197 Nabonidus *** the Nabonidus Chronicle covers events in the period from at least 556 to about the start of 521 B.C.E. But the WTS chronology still remains unique for up to the 4-year reign of Neriglissar, because the dates for Evil-Merodach are tied to the chronology that the WTS gives to Nebuchadnezzar. This leaves 3 to 4 years in the WTS chronology that have not been addressed, and are left blank below. (Although see the last note, about Cyrus, below.) Notes: *** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach *** The Babylonian king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 B.C.E. *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin *** About 32 years later, evidently in 580 B.C.E., Jehoiachin was released from prison by Nebuchadnezzar’s successor Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk) and given a position of favor above all the other captive kings. Thereafter he ate at Evil-merodach’s table and received a daily allowance.—2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34. Babylonian administrative documents have been found listing rations for Jehoiachin and five of his sons. The following article was a bit confusing, but I don't think it counts for the WTS acceptance of the standard chronology, although it doesn't question the fact that a tablet dated to the 33rd year of Nebuchadnezzar is dated 572 BCE. In Watchtower chronology this would be adjusted to 592 BCE. *** mrt article 11 par. 2 Is the Bible’s Depiction of the Jewish Exile in Babylon Accurate? *** Researchers have analyzed over 100 clay tablets that appear to be from ancient Babylon or nearby. The tablets show that many Jewish exiles maintained their cultural and religious identity while peacefully submitting to Babylonian rule. The tablets, dated from 572 to 477 B.C.E., include rental agreements, business ventures, promissory notes, and other financial records. “These documents,” says one reference work, “provide glimpses into the lives of ordinary people in a rural setting: they till the land and build houses, pay taxes, and render services to the king.” Wikipedia presents the following about the tablets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yahudu_Tablets The earliest document in the collection dates back to 572 BCE, about 15 years after the destruction of the Temple, during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.[6] The most recent tablet dates back to 477 BCE, during the reign of Xerxes I, about 60 years after the Return to Zion began and about 20 years before the rise of Ezra the Scribe. Note regarding Cyrus in WTS publications: *** it-1 p. 454 Chronology *** The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.) The acceptance of this particular part of the Olympiad data indicates that the standard chronology is accepted all the way back to 560 BCE, which would close up those 3 years currently left blank in the chart. It does not mean that the reign of Neriglissar is 100% accepted per the tablets however, because these 3 or 4 years still represent the unaddressed period of time in which WTS chronology proposes 23 or 24 years instead of 3 or 4.

Nabonidus, or Nabunaid. But we also see another problem here. Those two months of Labashi-Marduk overlap with Nabunaid. This also happened with some Assyrian kings and has caused a lot of confusion in trying to make sure the order of kings is known or whether there were multiple claimants to the throne at the same time, or even co-rulers. During the time of civil war in Assyria, and the Babylonian ascendancy, there were multiple issues regarding who was the legitimate king during a few years. The Babylonian chronicles claim there was no legitimate king in the year between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar, for example. in this case, other histories have helped to clear up the confusion. And for year-to-year calendar purposes, we would not have included Labashi-Marduk anyway because he never had an official "Year 1." The end of the reign of Nabonidus is fairly well-known because he was king when his co-regent Belshazzar was in Babylon at the time Cyrus conquered Babylon. So he reigned 17 years. There is one tablet that evidently was reported to contain a reference to an 18th year of his reign, but the same tablet is dated at the top to the the 17th year. So we might have a scribal error. Or it was misread by the person who published the tablet. I don't know about this one, but I have seen that some are hard to read. There is another one dated to one day after Cyrus conquered Babylon, and is explained by P&D as follows: With this information we can safely add the 17 years of Nabonidus to the chart.

Now we have one of the most interesting features of the Babylonian system of keeping track of years. Based on the tablets, it was very early after the New Year started on Nisannu 1 that Neriglissar evidently died. Note that the last tablet that P&D knew about when producing this book on Babylonian chronolgy was Nisannu the 2nd. [edited: after this first version of P&D another tablet was published showing Nisannu the 6th of this fourth and last year of his reign.] The next king, Labashi-Marduk, reigned for as little as one to two months, from at least the middle of the second month to the middle of the third month. The tablets noting him as king are only for his "accesssion" year. He never made it to an official "Year 1." [Edited to add, since the first publication of P&D, another tablet was published that showed Labashi-Marduk's first known tablet as the Nisannu the 23rd, so it was parts of 3 months, not just 2 months.] So how is this year counted in the calendar? Because the previous king made it to the New Year, he is "credited" with this particular year in the "count of years." It doesn't mean that you won't find Labashi-Marduk in a king's list somewhere, but you should not find him in a year-by-year "calendar count." Even if 10 kings had ruled for a few days each this year, this year "counted" for Neriglissar. So we don't really update the next year in the chart with his name. We shouldn't, or else the count of years will be off. The next year must only count for a king who is reigning on Nisannu the 1st. And that would be . . .

I think it was around 2018 when I read a news report about a meeting of ex-JWs and non-JW relatives of Witnesses. They met somewhere around Seattle. Several of the attendees supposedly gave reports of suicides among disfellowshipped and shunned teenagers. (And I think there were cases of suicides among those who had suffered sexual abuse either in the congregation or from Witness parents.) I'm sure you are right that it was more than just the shunning that drove them to suicide, but they definitely were presenting a pattern that indicated shunning as a key factor. It was likely exaggerated somewhat, but the report indicated that shunning and suicide became kind of a theme, and there were about a dozen such cases mentioned. It's probably a serious enough problem that the WTS is right now trying to address this issue by making changes to the process of disfellowshipping teenagers.

The next king after Evil-Merodach based on business tablets is Neriglissar. His reign lasted 4 years. Giving us the following update for our chart: [edited: after this first version of P&D another tablet was published showing Nisannu the 6th of this fourth and last year of his reign.]

So our simple chart has been updated with the 2 official years of Amel-Marduk. We will abbreviate with E-M after the Bible's transliteration of the name as Evil-Merodach. We have also added some "events" at the top of the chart: the three exiles mentioned by Jeremiah at Nebuchadnezzar's year 7, 18, and 23. Plus Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile, when he was released.

We already spoke about the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign which transitioned to the beginning of Amel-Marduk (Awil-Marduk). For reference we'll put the beginning and ending for Nebuchadnezzar's reign below AND put both the beginning and ending of Amel-Marduk just below it .What we learn from this is that after the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, the accession year was that same 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar and then he had a first official year and a second official year. Amel-Marduk therefore reigned for only 2 years.

There are other publications that discuss business tablets at greater length and are very interesting, but for now we will just use P&D, because that book focuses on the ones that help determine the beginning and ending of each king's reign. Then we can use that data to fill in our "chart." We'll start with Nabopolassar. According to several contemporary inscriptions, and the Babylonian Chronicles themselves, Nabopolassar was the father of Nebuchadnezzar. Pay no attention yet to the BCE years mentioned, this was only to show that we have a clear-cut record of the beginning of his reign, even mentioning the months of the accession year. Now we move on to the end of his reign, just to figure out how many years he ruled: So we already have Nabopolassar ending his reign at his death in "Year 21" which was also therefore the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, such that the official "Year 1" of Nebuchadnezzar started on Nisan 1, "New Year's Day."