JW Insider

LOL. Too easy. There are about 25 different ways to check this with Stellarium. The best one is to notice that the eclipse in question (Furuli's eclipse) was not observed, even though they knew it was happening (below the horizon). But the second one just 6 months later in 587 BCE was not only observed but is indicated to have been seen in the early morning watch and set fully eclipsed after 2 hours and 20 minutes. I have to admit that I wouldn't have thought to check this one if I hadn't recently read a page put up by Carl Olof Jonsson that addresses Furuli's theory here: http://kristenfrihet.se/kf2/review.htm For that reason, I will just copy what he said, but I'll check out Stellarium right after posting this: The second eclipse in month X – six months after the first – took place on January 8, 587 BCE. This date, therefore, corresponded to the 13th of month X in the Babylonian calendar. This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1st of month X (Tebetu) fell on 26/27 December in 588 BCE. The Babylonians divided the 24-hour day into 12 beru or 360 USH (degrees), so one beru was two hours and 5 USH (= degrees of four minutes each) were 20 minutes. According to the tablet, then, this eclipse began 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunrise. It was total (“All of it was covered”), and it “[set eclips]ed,” i.e., it ended after moonset. What do modern computations of this eclipse show? My astroprogram shows that the eclipse of January 8, 587 BCE began “in the morning watch” at 04:51, and that sunrise occurred at 07:12. The eclipse, then, began 2 hours and 21 minutes before sunrise – exactly as the tablet says. The difference of one minute is not real, as the USH (time degree of 4 minutes) is the shortest time unit used in this text. [The USH was not the shortest time unit of the Babylonians, of course, as they also divided the USH into 12 “fingers” of 20 seconds each.] The totality began at 05:53 and ended at 07:38. As moonset occurred at 07:17 according to my program, the eclipse was still total at moonset. Thus the moon “set while eclipsed.” Furuli attempts to dismiss the enormous weight of evidence provided by this tablet in just a few very confusing statements on page 127 of his book. He erroneously claims that the many eclipses recorded “occurred in the month before they were expected, except in one case where the eclipse may have occurred two months before.” There is not the slightest truth in this statement. Both the predicted and the observed eclipses agree with modern computations. The statement seems to be based on the gross mistakes he has made on the previous page, where he has misidentified the months on LBAT 1421 with disastrous results for his calculations.

There is a portion you have skipped between these these two paragraphs above, and it looks like a recap of the proof of Babylonian dominion over many nations around them (just as Jeremiah 25 spoke of). In Jeremiah the 70 years are not for Judea and Jerusalem, but they are 70 years for Babylon. In this recap, Josephus says that the initial desolation (overpowering and taking of captives) had already begun under the rule Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar. Immediately following the sentence about the 70 years: He then says, "That this Babylonian king conquered Egypt, and Syria, and Phoenicia, and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon and Chaldea." A little after which Berosus subjoins what follows in his History of Ancient Times. I will set down Berosus's own accounts, which are these: "When Nabolassar, father of Nabuchodonosor, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and over the parts of Celesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer; but committing certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then but young, he sent him against the rebel: Nabuchodonosor joined battle with him, and conquered him, and reduced the country under his dominion again. Now it so fell out that his father Nabolassar fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him. So he is referring to the year 605, and perhaps even a campaign that started in 606. Josephus also mentions that the temple lay desolate for 50 years until the 2nd year of Cyrus which was 537. That places the actual destruction of the temple itself in 587 BCE. But he apparently thinks of the 70 years from about 606 to about 539 (or possibly even 607 to 537). Josephus wrote his first history book much earlier, and at that time seemed to think that the temple had been destroyed 70 years before Cyrus, and this is the easier, more common-sense reading of 2 Chronicles, and a possible way to read Jeremiah and Daniel (but not Zechariah). But this time he doesn't actually say the temple was desolate for 70 years, but that it was desolate 'during the 70 years.' And then he specifically speaks of the Temple as "desolate" for 50 years up until Cyrus. That would fit nicely with Zechariah's mention of the 70 years of the Temple itself nearly 20 years after Cyrus. (Zechariah 1:12-16) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”  . . . ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “I am zealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great zeal.  . . . “Therefore this is what Jehovah says: ‘“I will return to Jerusalem with mercy, and my own house will be built in her,” declares Jehovah of armies, “and a measuring line will be stretched out over Jerusalem.”’ And, nearly 20 years AFTER Cyrus, we also see that the lamentations related to Jerusalem's destruction have now been going on for 70 years: (Zechariah 7:2-6) . . ., men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?” . . . ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?  And when you would eat and drink, were you not eating for yourselves and drinking for yourselves? The Insight book admits that these 5th month and 7th month wailings were for the anniversaries of the final destruction of the Temple and assassination of Gedaliah. There had been 70 years of such wailing now that it was nearly 20 years after Cyrus. (Zechariah 8:18, 19) . . .The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying:  “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah—festivals of rejoicing. So love truth and peace.. . . *** it-1 p. 812 Fast *** The Jews established many fasts, and at one time had four annual ones, evidently to mark the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (Zec 8:19) The four annual fasts were: (1) “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) (3) “The fast of the seventh month” was apparently held as a sad remembrance of Gedaliah’s death or of the complete desolation of the land following Gedaliah’s assassination when the remaining Jews, out of fear of the Babylonians, went down into Egypt. (2Ki 25:22-26) (4) “The fast of the tenth month” may have been associated with the exiled Jews already in Babylon receiving the sad news that Jerusalem had fallen (compare Eze 33:21), or it may have commemorated the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar’s successful siege against Jerusalem on the tenth day of that month . . . So assuming 539 is right (and I assume it is) then the Bible chronology supports secular chronology, although Bible chronology contradicts WTS chronology here in Zechariah.

Of course it isn't true. And it's easy to check this out for yourself. The very book quoted in "support" of the idea shows it isn't true. As already noted, Furul was looking at the FOURTH month of the Babylonian calendar and just pretending it was the THIRD month. VAT 4956 says this eclipse was in the THIRD month. Furuli wants to take a FOURTH month eclipse from 20 years earlier (NEB 17) and make it seem like that eclipse was the THIRD month eclipse recorded on VAT 4956. So all we should have to do is see whether there actually was a FOURTH month eclipse in year 17 that matches the correct THIRD month eclipse in year 37 from VAT 4956, and then we would know where Furuli's claims have gone either right or wrong: The book that the Watchtower quotes is here: https://archive.org/details/huber-2004-babylonian-eclipse-observations-from-750-bc-to-1-bc/page/186/mode/2up?view=theater Here are the eclipses from 586: Here are the eclipses from 588: I included all the eclipses in the adjacent years for later reference. So, Furuli's FOURTH month eclipse actually did happen back in Nebuchadnezzar's year 17, which was 588 BCE. Since year 17 was 588, then year 37 is 568 BCE. But the same reference completely demolishes Furuli's claim in more ways than just a straightforward listing of the eclipses. Go back to page 86, and note that there are other tablets just as important as VAT 4956 in dating Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and most of them also deal with OTHER eclipses. Unfortunately for Furuli, his 588 eclipse is also found on one of these other tablets, and it is dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year on that tablet: LBAT 1420 contains observations from many years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from his first year to his 29th year and lines 16 to 18 contain Furuli's eclipse: July 15 588, but note that it is also here marked in the correct month, month FOUR not month THREE. And, of course, every other legible line on LBAT 1420 also consistently points to the "standard" years of Nebuchadnezzar, as if we needed 20 witnesses for a matter to be established instead of just 3 witnesses. None of these 20 additional witnesses supports the WTS/Furuli view.

This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc.

@Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled. But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc.. The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan. Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)

I just figured out why i was getting nearly the same reading every 30 years for Saturn. I just asked Google how long it takes Saturn to orbit the sun: Saturn takes 29.4 Earth years to orbit the sun. This is equivalent to 10,759 Earth days or an average orbital speed of 9.68 kilometers per second. Isn't astronomy fun???

Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of the 3rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [….] So, this is (according to Furuli) May 2, 588 BCE, for the 1st of the month, and therefore May 3rd, 588 for the 2nd of the month. Saturn is in the same position on both days so it won't matter which. Here is the Swallow which is only visible just before sunrise, and isn't above the horizon to see in the evening. Looking East at just before sunrise there are two planets around the Swallow, but one is Venus and the other is Mercury. Saturn is not in the sky, and won't be visible until long after the Swallow is gone. Then we check 568 and see the picture in the second image below. This time both Saturn and the Swallow are in the picture. And Saturn is in front of it, rising above the horizon before the Swallow. A clear win for 568. A clear loss for 588. This position repeats about every 30 years. -626/-625, -596/-595, -567/-566, -538/-537, etc.

@xero, You probably noticed by clicking on the Stellarium date/time settings that you can quickly change the view one hour at a time, or one day, or one month, or even one year at a time. In doing this you can quickly see that the moon traverses over nearly the same path from month to month, and therefore readings from one year will seem to recur a few months later and you can often find pretty much the same positions of stars and moon every few years. So it's not surprising that some readings for 588 will also be found in 584 and 580 and 578 and 562 etc., etc. That problem cuts both ways. That's why lunar readings are not the best test for the kind of comparison being done here. They will not likely appear all that definitive even when the readings fit 568 so much better than 588. But some of the planetary observations do not repeat for hundreds of years at a time. That makes them much more reliable for this type of comparison between two proposed years. So it occurred to me that I don't have the same reason Furuli did to skip the more reliable planetary observations just so that he could focus on the more flexible lunar observations. The Watchtower followed Furuli's trick by summarily dismissing the more reliable planetary positions like this: *** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** In addition to the aforementioned eclipse, there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. . . . Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956. It is actually very obvious why Furuli chose to dismiss the more reliable observations, and call them less reliable. But I won't cherry-pick observations and will go back and include ones that Furuli (and therefore the Watchtower) skipped. So the next one for me will actually go back to Line 2 that was skipped: Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of the 3rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [….]

There was another piece to the observation for Ayyaru 1 of Year 37, that doesn't really favor either year, where the moon is said to have traversed 4 cubits below β Geminorum . … 4 cubits below β Geminorum However, instead of 4 cubits, this was 4.48 cubits in 588 BCE and 3.41 cubits in 568 BCE. Both off by about half a cubit out of 4. I suspect that's because they tried to estimate about where it had been after the sun set, because you can't really see stars while the sun is still there in the sky. In both cases (both year readings) they are about the same angle away on either side of the 4 cubit measure, so both of these have been considered "borderline" in terms of accuracy. I have taken a picture with the sun setting in 568 with the "cursor" around beta-Geminorum (the brightest star in the Gemini [Twins] constellation). Of the two main stars in that constellation it's the one on the left. You can see the proximity to the moon in the picture too. While the sun is in the sky, no stars are seen, not even for a couple of minutes after sunset if you are looking to that part of the sky. However. it could still refer to the visibility right after sunset. In that case recall that the moon is already out of the picture completely in 588 as seen in the video in my last post. So it would have been a difficult if not impossible observation in 488. But in 568, you can see there is actually the possibility of seeing the moon and Gemini together. Even though this makes it better for 568, I don't make too much of this particular fact because it's also possible that the Babylonians already knew where that constellation was, having just seen how the moon set with it from the night before, and it would have been easily confirmed anyway a minute or so after the moon also set. Below is also 568, but after the sun has set. A much more likely reading than June 1 588 BCE. And on the actual month of Ayyar 1, thirty days earlier, which Furuli didn't use, the numbers for 588 would have been so far off they'd be off the charts. Even if Furuli had used the correct day (June 2 instead of June 1) for this particular wrong month, the angled distance would would be MUCH further away than those 4 cubits. I included a picture of the difference below, where it appears that the moon is several times further away from Gemini (Great Twins) on June 2 588 BCE: [Stellarium puts a tree on the horizon in just the wrong spot or I would move forward another 10 minutes or so to let the sky get darker for a more visible reading .] ,

@xero, So to review so far: 1. It's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings is an excellent fit for 568 and does not fit 588 at all. 2. The 2nd of the 13 readings does not fit either 568 or 588 and has long been considered to be a copyist's error: a 9 for an 8. 2A. This one was near perfect for 568 and totally impossible for 588, even if you allow the Furuli date manipulations. Furuli skipped this one for reasons that might be pretty obvious. [Nisanu 14: On the 14th. one god was seen with the other Sunrise to moonset 4°] So where were we? Line 8: 3. Line 8: Ayyaru 1 = June 1, 588 BCE / May 22, 568 BCE Moon crescent ‘thick,’ visible ‘while the sun stood there’ … It's another first of the month test. It appears to address the very issue that the Babylonians had at the first of every month because a new moon is nearly impossible to see on it's first "existing" day [the beginning of the waxing crescent] because it isn't thick enough yet, and it is invariably too close to the sun, and therefore only visible, if at all, just a few minutes after sundown, when the moon also sets right next to the sun. The very fact that it is written this way implies, of course, that the moon was thick enough on this day to see just before the sun went down. That indicates a far enough distance (angle) from the sun and just enough "thickness" referring to the percentage of the crescent. To me -- and this is not important at all to the reading -- it implies something additional. It's a comment defending why the first of the month was started today and not yesterday. Perhaps there was cloud cover yesterday and someone had already argued that it might have actually been visible behind the clouds yesterday and maybe one astronomer even claimed to have detected it. It basically says that we couldn't confirm it yesterday, but today it was thick enough to see even while the sun was still visible. In hindsight, we now have the calculations to show that it was nigh near impossible to see that previous day, and that they got it right. Astronomers have also conducted numerous experiments to find the least possible crescent thickness and smallest angle from the sun to determine what was possible. And there are enough dated eclipses to verify exactly when the first of the month was counted just by counting backward from the eclipse date. If the eclipse happened on the 14th we know the exact conditions they saw on the 1st and the day before when the crescent couldn't be seen. If the eclipse happened on the 15th we know the exact conditions that first allowed them to see the new moon crescent, etc. So now let's compare the two. Furuli still claims of course that the start of the second month, Ayyaru 1, is on June 1st, using his unprecedented, if not impossible calendar shift. In reality Ayyaru 1 started a month earlier. But even giving Furuli the benefit of the doubt, he still fails to find a better reading in 588 than in 568. Here's why: The first short video is Furuli's reading on June 1st. The moon (with the red blinking cursor) is at about the thinnest possible to be able to detect, but also much too close to the sun for Babylonians astronomers. Maybe they set a record with this one and were able to see it for those few seconds after the sun set. But the tablet says the sun was still visible too. The second video is for 568. Note that here, the angle to the sun creates enough distance to match other known verified readings and the moon is a day older and therefore thick enough. Slightly thicker than some known, first new moon readings. Even if one tried to argue exceptional conditions and eyesight, and perhaps some additional viewing instruments we don't know about that were unable to detect the moon under similar conditions at other times, we still have a much better reading in 568, and we have the very fact that the tablet makes special note of the thickness of the crescent, not the unusual thinness that Furuli would effectively be arguing for here. O'maly used software that allowed for "pictures" of the difference in the moon's magnitude at the different times: Here is the "thick"crescent on Furuli's date: Here is the thick crescent in 568, almost exactly 3 times thicker in 568 than in 588: 6-1-588sundown.mp4 5-22-568sundown.mp4

No one saw that coming!! LOL.

Thank you for confirming what I wrote earlier about the 18 year cycles and patterns with the above link.

Yes. I criticized your post. I would not have criticized it if it wasn't completely wrong though. I have agreed and upvoted several of your posts that were correct. But I will never avoid that question. Ever. No matter how many times you pretend that I have. That's why I have always answered it directly multiple times, even though you've been repeating the same question so many times, and repeating the false claim that I avoided it so many times. OK. That's good. That probably wasn't a dodge. Except that you have never explained why you sometimes imply that 607 is the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and sometimes you imply that it is the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It can't be both the 8th and the 19th. Sometimes it seems that you are trying to be clever in that you never write 19/18 or 19th/18th but you always write 19/8th, and then highlight that Nebuchadnezzar may have completed the destruction of the temple in what the Babylonian Chronicles call his 8th year, and continually point out that the 19th year of the Babylonian Chronicles is missing. You have strongly implied, if not stated, that you think the Temple was destroyed in his 8th year. [You asked why he wouldn't complete the destruction in that year if even Wiseman says it was a possible year that we could say Jerusalem "fell" - along with 587.] (You also often imply that perhaps this was the 19th year of ANOTHER Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps another person associated more directly with Nabopolassar's time.) Since you have not yet been clear about this, I assume it's because you don't want to be clear, and I won't push the issue. I think that instead of clarifying, you sometimes prefer to laugh derisively at all those who aren't able to figure out exactly what you are hiding. And, I think everyone would be happy to see that so-called "careful analysis of the tablet data." No you're not. You are falsely pretending that you are still waiting even though I have said multiple times that Jerusalem is not mentioned in any tablet related to Nebuchadnezzar other than the known, existing, non-missing portion of the Babylonian Chronicles. But I'll be happy to say it again with specific reference to VAT 4956: The destruction of Jerusalem is definitely not mentioned in VAT 4956. And yes, I know, you are "still waiting."

If you highlighted that sentence to point out your so-called 19-year cycle, then you are most likely extremely confused about the Metonic cycle. It became standardized after the Neo-Babylonian period so that it was well known which years had the extra month, and whether it was added after the 6th month, or the 12th month. Very few specific months were attested in the reigns of kings prior to Nabopolassar, such as during the years of Nabonassar. But from Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father), in all those years, only 12 were still unattested at the time P&D first published in 1942. And P&D made best guesses for them. Since then, more of those tablets were published and the table is now even more accurate. A Metonic cycle does not start in only a specific year to repeat 19 years later. It starts EVERY year and repeats 19 years later. For example: A Metonic cycle started in 608 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 607 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 606 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 605 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 604 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. ... A Metonic cycle started in 590 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 589 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 588 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 587 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. A Metonic cycle started in 586 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that. Technically you don't have to start counting them from the beginning of a year, you could start them in the middle, or any particular day of the year, although it's most convenient to start from a new moon or a full moon to help count the lunations. Another one started the day you were born, and would repeat when you turn 19 and 38 and 57 etc Another one started on the day I was born in 1957 and would repeat in 1976, 1995, etc. There is nothing special about the Metonic cycle for discovering or helping to discover a specific BCE date for a King's reign, or historical event. It just refers to the fact that the number of solar days is 365+ in a year and the number of lunar days at 12 months to a year would be 354+. So you can't add a full lunar month every year to make up the difference, but if you add an intercalary months every two or three years you will probably have added enough (+/- one lunar month) during those 19 years, to synch up the number of days in lunar years to the number in solar years much more exactly because there are almost exactly 235 lunar months in 19 solar years It's only off by a few hours. P&D (that you quoted from) actually proves that they did NOT standardize on a set way to take advantage of the Metonic cycle, especially during Nabopolassar's and Nebuchadnezzar's reigns. But they had no choice but to synch up sooner or later, otherwise the lunar calendar would drift completely away from the solar and you'd be having the New Year 11 days earlier every year. Your spring celebration would soon be in winter, then fall, then summer, etc. You couldn't make a "planting" or "harvest" calendar.

Nice dodge, but I'll repeat: You rely too much on the Babylonian Chronicles which happen to still be missing for the later years of Nebuchadnezzar, including Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. But I have no reason to doubt the Bible when it associates the destruction of the Temple with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. My admission that it is still missing carries no weight at all. But the Bible carries weight with me. I thought it should be the same for you. And by the way, don't know if you noticed this, but you just associated 598 with the event the Babylonian Chronicles called Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 8th year must have been 597. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 9th year must have been 596. If his 9th year was 596 then his 19th was 586. So you just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 586. So what year was this? (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;. . . You admit it's 586 BCE, but then you clam up or dodge the question and divert to another subject whenever someone asks you about it. Edited to add: Even your own sock puppet is laughing at you.

I'm not sure if this counts as shade, but here is the expert that the Watchtower used as an authority in the article below: *** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** 11. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3. *** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47. This same expert referenced by the Watchtower as an authority actually wrote a review of Furuli's book: Hermann Hunger. Rolf J. Furuli, Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology. 376 pp., with numerous photos and tables. Oslo, Awatu Publishers, 22008. $ 89,00. The other editors of AfO agree with me that the incredible collection of errors, half-truths and suspicions contained in this book must not remain uncommented. However, since it does not add to knowledge but just creates confusion, we do not want to waste our readers' patience nor the space of our journal to print a detailed review here. Such a review is available on the internet at: http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewHunger.htm; and I am ready to send it electronically to anyone who requests it. There is only one item from my review which I want to print here because, in my opinion, it may concern the founder of this journal. On p. 290f., we read: "VAT 4956 ... came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin in 1906 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for 'year 37' and 'year 38.' The first line with the name of the king was also manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces, which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding machine was used to try to remedy this." And on p. 333: "VAT 4956 ... may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in modern time; the obverse side was made by the help of a mold, and the signs on the reverse side and the edges were written by someone." This accuses an unnamed person of criminal acts: this person at least "has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs," but may even have faked half of tablet. Since the tablet reached the Vorderasiatische Museum in 1906 and was published in 1915 in the condition reflected by the photo in the Museum's archives, the accusation concerns any people working there at this time, including e.g. Ernst Weidner. In defence of him and all others possibly involved, I state that the accusation is utterly groundless, and I express my disgust of an author whose "openmindedness" leads him to such accusations. Wien. Hermann Hunger. Review Reviewed Work(s): Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology by Rolf J. Furuli Review by: Hermann Hunger Source: Archiv für Orientforschung, 2011, Bd. 52 (2011), pp. 384-385 Published by: Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO)/Institut für Orientalistik Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24595175

What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Ayyaru 1 in the year 588 BCE? ChatGPT ChatGPT To estimate the date of Ayyaru 1 in the Babylonian calendar for the year 588 BCE in the Gregorian calendar, we start from what we know about Nisanu, the first month of the Babylonian calendar, which typically began with the new moon following the spring equinox, often placing Nisanu 1 in late March or early April. The Babylonian calendar was lunisolar, with months beginning on the sighting of the new moon. Ayyaru, the second month, would follow Nisanu and thus would start with the next new moon. Given that a lunar month averages about 29.5 days, we can estimate the beginning of Ayyaru by adding approximately 29 to 30 days to the estimated start of Nisanu. Without precise astronomical calculations, which I cannot perform directly at the moment, if Nisanu 1 was estimated to be in late March or early April, Ayyaru 1 would generally fall in late April or early May of the Gregorian calendar. This is a general estimation and the exact date might vary slightly based on the actual lunar cycle and the specific criteria used by Babylonian astronomers and priests for the observation of the new moon.

@xero, I tried the same question in ChatGPT: What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE? ChatGPT ChatGPT Determining the exact Gregorian date for Nisanu 1 in the Babylonian calendar for the year 588 BCE requires a bit of calculation since the Babylonian calendar was a lunisolar calendar that depended on the cycles of the moon and the sun. This calendar was used in Mesopotamia for centuries by various civilizations, including the Babylonians. The months began with the first sighting of the new moon, and an intercalary month was added as necessary to keep the calendar in sync with the solar year and agricultural cycles. To find the Gregorian date equivalent for Nisanu 1 in 588 BCE, we can use the fact that the Babylonian New Year typically started with the first new moon after the spring equinox. The spring equinox usually occurs around March 20/21 in the Gregorian calendar. Therefore, Nisanu 1 would have been around the first visible new moon after this date. However, the exact date can vary based on astronomical calculations, including the observation of the moon and the equinox. Let's perform a calculation to estimate the Gregorian date for Nisanu 1, 588 BCE. This will involve determining the date of the spring equinox and then identifying the first new moon that followed. It seems I encountered an error trying to perform the calculation due to a limitation in my current environment. I'm unable to access the Skyfield library here, which is necessary for precise astronomical calculations. However, I can guide you through the general approach to find this date using astronomical software or online tools that provide historical astronomical data. Identify the Spring Equinox of 588 BCE: The spring equinox occurs when the sun crosses the celestial equator from south to north, around March 20/21 in the Gregorian calendar. This marks the beginning of spring in the Northern Hemisphere. Determine the First New Moon After the Spring Equinox: The Babylonian month of Nisanu began with the first sighting of the new moon following the spring equinox. This could vary based on the observer's location, but generally, it's possible to find this date using astronomical software by checking moon phases immediately after the equinox. For a precise date, you would typically use astronomical software like Stellarium or websites that allow historical astronomical calculations. These tools can provide detailed lunar phase data and equinox dates back to 588 BCE. Even without the exact calculation, it's generally understood that Nisanu 1 in 588 BCE would have fallen in late March or early April by the Gregorian calendar, depending on the precise timing of the new moon closest to the equinox. For historical and academic studies, referring to astronomical tables or software specifically designed for historical dates is recommended for the most accurate conversion.

To find Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year if you only knew that his 37th year was 568, you would KNOW that his 18th year was 587 BCE. The only reason that Furuli proposed that VAT 4956 was 20 years earlier 588 was so that his 18th year would be 607, also 20 years earler than 587. So it's a circular argument above. And it has nothing to do with "cycles." Here is a very similar circular argument I actually heard at a mid-week Book Study several years ago. Question: "How do we know that 1914 is the year Christ's presence began." Answer: "Because if you count forward 2,520 years from 607 you get 1914." Another hand goes up. Answer: "Not only that, but if you count backwards 2,520 years from 1914 you get 607." The conductor nodded agreeably and said, that's right, that's another way to prove it.

The reason why BTK59/George88 couldn't find any evidence to support this is because it doesn't exist.

AI models pick up what they read, and the only mention of Nisanu 1 and 588 in the same context is the claim by Furuli and supporters. Try a few other methods: Here's a look at 588 BCE in the corresponding Hebrew calendar: http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar/?roman=588 BC#:~:text=September 29%2C 588 B.C.%2C 9:31 p.m.. Winter,parts%2C December 27%2C 588 B.C.%2C 9:39 a.m.. Notice that Nisanu 1 is April 5, 588 BCE not May 2, 588 BCE. Also, the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) had looked at hundreds of clay tablets to see which years were leap years and after which month the intercalary month was added. You will notice that there was never any evidence that the Babylonians screwed up so badly that they ever started the New Year in May. P&D kept finding new tablets since there are thousands of them, and were able to make an updated version of the calendar in 1956 after the 1942 version. I only have the older one but it's the same here. https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf Notice that the Nisanu month of 588 BC started on 4/4 (April 4th) and the next month Ayyaru started on 5/4 (May 4th)

It doesn't fit because that's not Nisanu 1; it's Ayyaru 1. Furuli just called it Nisanu 1 because otherwise he'd have almost nothing for the year 588. In fact, it's not really even Ayyaru 1, because he also had to fake the day and start it one day before Ayyaru 1. It's really Nisanu 30 of 588 BCE. Check out the ACTUAL Nisanu 1, 588 BCE and see what you get. It's nowhere near.

Furuli's data has been taken on by another person or two, and just because it gets slightly adjusted and translated into other languages doesn't make it any more true than it was when he first published it. Everyone who has actually done the readings for themselves could tell you that almost none of them match 588 unless you fake the months by shifting them all over by one month, and even then you only get very matches on just a few of the less specific readings , and the rest don't match at all. If you do them yourself in Stellarium, or any other software that can give BCE readings, you will find these same results as shown below. There are actually 17 lunar readings: 4 readings do not match 568 and 14 do not match 588. Come up with your own criteria for accuracy thresholds, and it will still always show that 568 is MUCH, MUCH better fit, and 588 is very poor. If you get something else, please let me know. OK?

@xero, I mentioned that I would make an explanation for why 4 degrees equals 16 minutes. You probably already know but here it is. The Babylonians measured a full circle as 360 degrees. So when the sky makes a full "circle" from sunrise to sunrise (or sunset to sunset) that's 360 degrees, or 24 hours. 24 hours is 1,440 minutes and 4/360=90 so 1/90th of 1,440 minutes is 16 minutes. It's easier of course just to say 1 degree = 4 minutes.

@xero, So hopefully it's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings fits 568 and does not fit 588 at all. And you have already mentioned the 2nd of the 13 readings, which does not fit either 568 or 588 and has long been considered to be a copyist's error: a 9 for an 8. So I'll move onto the next one, but I won't skip around like Furuli did. The next measurable line indicates: Nisanu 14: On the 14th. one god was seen with the other Sunrise to moonset 4° This is shorthand for the sun and the moon are seen together for a period of 4 degrees or 16 minutes. (1 degree = 4 minutes and 4x4=16). (see below for the explanation of this.) The meaning is that the Moon god [Sin] was seen with the Sun god [Shamash]. As an aside, in the Bible, the Hebrew word for Sun is Shemesh. The Babylonian word for the Moon was Sin, and the Hebrew word was Yareakh, which was also the name of the Ugaritic and Amorite Moon god, Yarakh/Yerakh. So, let's look up Nisanu 14 and see how long the sun and moon were seen together. This time we need to take a picture all the way across the entire sky from one horizon to the other, because the sun will always be opposite the moon near the 14th of any lunar month. That's why there is always a full moon about the time of the Memorial, on Nisanu 14. Also, the 14th was one of the few days when you could have an eclipse. (An eclipse can't happen unless the moon is full, which is half-way between the new moons. 14.75 days from the last new moon and 14.75 days from the next one.) Here we start at about is 4:30am, and moon hasn't set yet. And the sun hasn't risen yet. So the two gods are not seen together. But if we speed up the time and let it run until 5:27 the moon will set in the west and we will have seen the sun in the east for something like 15 minutes. Also, you can check the sunrise for that day, and moonset on the left of the screen in Stellarium. Click on the moon and it says: Sets at 5:27am. Click on the sun and it says: Sunrise It says Rises at 5:12 am. Subtract 5:27 minus 5:12 and that's 15 minutes. 4 degrees is 16 minutes, almost a perfect match. Now let's check what happened in 588 BCE. on the date that Furuli wanted to claim was Nisanu 14. The gods were not seen together for any length of time because the moon had already set a half hour earlier!!. [you have to make the videos full screen to see much of anything.] Hmmm. I wonder why Furuli skipped this line? nisan14F-588.mp4