JW Insider

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

You are free to add whatever you'd like. I knew that when you saw I was right about the GT you would shift focus to Armageddon. I had left a note to myself in the previous post that I expected one more move of the goalposts, but I was not going to worry about any further diversions this weekend. I have company coming in 10 minutes and they are staying for the weekend. So maybe you could do us all a favor and put up the rest of the Armageddon evidence, and I will follow up with you after Armageddon. Thanks. Yes, that was also a "set-up." Enjoy!!

You'd think so, right? But originally Armageddon was going to end in 1914. When it no longer looked like that was going to happen on time, that "end" was later pushed to 1915. But that's why I said 1914 is "part of Armageddon." You should read "The Battle of Armageddon" which was also called "The Day of Vengeance" by C.T.Russell. I'm sure you can find the pieces and put it together yourself. ". . . the Day of Vengeance ... will end in October, 1914" -- The Battle of Armageddon / The Day of Vengeance, page 547. "Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word." The Time Is At Hand, page 101. And the Time is at Hand, on page 99, says: ... Note to self: One more move of the goal posts should be expected.

*** w56 12/15 p. 755 par. 11 Telling the Good News from Day to Day *** At the start of the great tribulation upon Satan’s organization in 1914 all such people felt merely the “beginning of pangs of distress,” *** w51 3/15 p. 164 Time Better than Money *** When Christ was enthroned, in 1914, great tribulation was started against Satan and his wicked world organization. If it had then proceeded to completion, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of human flesh that tribulation was shortened or cut short, to allow a period of time for men to take in and give out knowledge of the established heavenly kingdom, *** ws13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” *** In the past, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 when World War I started. We thought that Jehovah “cut short” those days in 1918 when the war ended so that the remaining anointed ones on earth could preach the good news to all nations. (Matthew 24:21, 22) After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, . . . The "Armageddon" error was fixed many years before the "Great Tribulation" part was fixed. And for good measure, it should also be added that the 1914 doctrine was NOT to show the start of Christ's reign in Heaven. For about 40 years after the 1914 doctrine was "established," Christ's reign in Heaven had started in 1878. These ideas were repeated into the 1930's, and parts of it into the 1940's. 1878 was still considered a valid prophetic date during the first Tuesday night Book Studies I ever remember attending. We still studied "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" when I was 7 years old. All this was well after 1914. It was just a few years after the famous 1922 Cedar Point convention when the WTS dropped the first hints that the new date for Christ's reign might change to 1914. In 1878 God’s favor was withdrawn from the nominal systems. From that time on . . . . Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? Then back to the field, . . . This is the day of all days. Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.

I'd still prefer a separate topic about the astronomy evidence for the 13 lunar observations, for example, that would not allow any of the ad hominem stuff and desperate attempts to divert and distract.

You keep implying that the 1914 doctrine is there to prove that the GT, Big A had begun then, and God's Kingdom has already been "established" -- that the doctrine claims all this has already occurred. Originally, the doctrine was there to prove that 1914 was part of Armageddon and the start of the Great Tribulation. But that part was dropped many years ago. <bloviation> ** begins However, I'll give you the part of about God's Kingdom: *** w22 July p. 3 The Kingdom Is in Place! *** . . . a prophecy that helps us discern when the Kingdom was established, . . . Read Daniel 4:10-17. The “seven times” represent a period of 2,520 years. That time period began in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonians removed the last king from Jehovah’s throne in Jerusalem. It ended in 1914 C.E. when Jehovah enthroned Jesus—“the one who has the legal right”—as King of God’s Kingdom.—Ezek. 21:25-27. Even here, the Watchtower plays with some nuanced semantics between the expression "established" and "fully established." There is even a sense given that the old Russellites were wrong for believing that the kingdom would be "fully established' in 1914, although it's a bit ambiguous as to whether they were right or not: *** w84 4/15 p. 3 1914—A Focal Point *** The March 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence described two events of earthshaking importance that were looked forward to as due to happen in 1914: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.” Hence, many Bible Students expected God’s Kingdom to be fully established in that year. *** w84 12/1 p. 16 par. 7 Keep Ready! *** Thus, although he would be ‘present’ and his Kingdom would already have been established, both he and his Kingdom would still have to “come” Up until about 1975, the Watchtower always made the bold claim that the Kingdom had already been "fully established." It was about then, that the phrase was only used ambiguously, which I remember once caused a minor problem in the translation departments when they were translating a booklet. I think it was called "One World, One Government Under God's Kingdom," or something like that. The publications started saying "established" in 1914 but only "fully established" when the new heavens and new earth were here, and that became the explanation for the "Lord's prayer" question that came up fairly often: "Should we still pray for God's kingdom to come since it came in 1914?" That issue was sort of resolved in the awkward wording of a new song that came out in 2014: *** sjj song 22 The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come! *** The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come! BTW, I couldn't find the wording of that particular 1975 booklet in the Watchtower Library, but I found something quite similar which shows the kind of verb tense ambiguity they were going for. It's similar to the 1984 quote above: *** w70 10/15 p. 629 par. 17 The Kingdom of Salvation Available Today *** Former kings, emperors, presidents, governors and dictators on being resurrected may not expect to take over automatically and resume ruling over their onetime subjects or fellow citizens. The old system of things under the Satanic “god of this system of things” is no longer in operation. God’s new system of things under his Messianic kingdom of the heavens is fully established over all the earth. Of necessity, it will have organization of all those on earth . . . Note that it looks like (1970) the Watchtower was still saying it was already "fully established" but it's couched in a discussion of the near future, because the previous sentence says: "The old system of things . . . is no longer in operation." In previous decades, it was just claimed outright that it was already "fully established" in 1914: *** w60 1/1 p. 29 par. 9 Part 29—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” *** . . . In that year [1914] the kingdom of God was to be fully established in the heavens to see that His will should be done on earth. *** w51 10/1 p. 583 “Happy Are the Eyes That Behold” *** Our eyes are far more blessed than even theirs, because we can see by the fulfillment of Bible prophecy that Jehovah’s royal government by his Christ is now fully established </bloviation> ** ends

@xero No rush, but when you get a chance, you should look into these eclipses of the type that George provided above. Not those ones in particular since they are the wrong ones for VAT 4956, but check out the ones right after that. You probably know that you can calculate lunar and solar eclipses in Stellarium with the icon and when you select the eclipse from the list, you can have Stellarium "watch" the eclipse with the sky, place, direction, and time already set for you: When you compare the LBAT eclipse to VAT 4956 you will have yet another reason to see why 588 is impossible, and 568 BCE is the best fit.

From the time the tablet was discovered this error has been known and discussed for 100 years now. It was considered to be one of at least two copyist's errors that don't work for the conventional 568 date although the vast majority of other readings work perfectly well for the 568 date. Only a very few of the readings also work for other years. When a copyists mistake is made, there is always a good possibility that the mistaken numbers might work for another year, just as certain positions of the moon will be very nearly repeated year after year. (Meaning the same position relative to the "background" stars which stay in the same place, but not relative to the planets which may not come into that same position again for a hundred years or more.) So, it's true that this error might coincidentally fit another year, but 588 is not one of those years. For one thing Furuli had to fake the month, shift the calendar, and rename the month Ayyaru and pretend it was Nisanu. Without evidence, Furuli had to pretend that the Babylonians made their largest known leap year mistake ever! -- the extent of which had never happened before, and would never happen again, in all known Neo-Babylonian history. I can explain evidence against it in another post if you like. If Furuli hadn't faked the month, he couldn't claim anything for this year 588. But then he also found that he had to fake, not only the month, but also the day. He started the new Spring month, Nisanu (our March/April) in May for this particular year, which is unprecedented. But he also then claims that the first day of Nisanu corresponds with May 2nd. But for a new month to start then, the new moon would have to be visible. It's hard enough to see a new moon that is only half a day old, most sightings take place when the moon is at about 1.5 to 2 days old. That's because it's the sighting at sunset when the sliver of a new moon is so hard to see. Here's why it can't be seen on May 2nd: see first video. The moon is the blinking thing if it shows up at all just to the left of the sun. It also sets at almost the exact time as the sun. But the next video shows it on May 3rd which would have been the actual start of the new month. But not the month Nisanu as required. It would actually Ayyaru the 1st, 588 BCE: see second video. Neugebauer and others have done experiments and measurements on the first sightings of the new moon, and you can do them yourself by going outside and looking at the beginning of every lunar month. It's based on the actual "waxed" age of the moon and how close it is to the sun. Especially if you live in a dry desert environment you can check for yourself under the very best conditions and see that the formula works well. Also, of course, the dozens of eclipse examples in the tablets tell us the day it was seen, and therefore counting back we can double-check the conditions available on the 1st of each of those months. sundown-may-2-587A.mp4 sundown-may-3-587A.mp4

I believe you were under the same misconception in the past, perhaps under a different name. As I recall O'maly saying on this forum, she claimed NOT to have done the actual translation herself, but was involved in getting the professional translation published. Sorry I didn't correct you earlier.

These are taken from Ann O'maly's fact-check against a claim by someone who tried a slightly different method than Furuli's interpretations. This is why a few of the other readings were included below. The 13 referred to in the Watchtower are matched to Furuli's original list, numbered in red. Only the astronomically relevant info is summarized/paraphrased. 1. Line 1: Nisanu 1 = May 2, 588 BCE/ April 22, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Bull of Heaven (Taurus) 2. Line 3: Nisanu 9 = May 10, 588 BCE / April 30, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon 1 cubit in front of β Virginis x. Line 4: Nisanu 14 = May 16, 588 BCE / May 6, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset 4° 3. Line 8: Ayyaru 1 = June 1, 588 BCE / May 22, 568 BCE Moon crescent ‘thick,’ visible ‘while the sun stood there’ … … 4 cubits below β Geminorum ... Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed x. Line 11: Ayyaru 26 = June 27, 588 BCE / June 17, 568 BCE Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed 4. Line 12: Simanu 1 = June 30, 588 BCE / June 20, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Cancer, ‘thick’ crescent …… Sunset to moonset 20° 5. Line 14: Simanu 5 = July 4, 588 BCE / June 24, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon passed east 1 cubit β Virginis 6. Line 15: Simanu 8 = July 7, 588 BCE / June 27, 568 BCE First part of night, Moon 2½ cubits below β Librae 7. Line 16: Simanu 10 = July 9, 588 BCE / June 29, 568 BCE First part of the night, Moon balanced 3½ cubits above α Scorpii x. Line 17: Simanu 15 = July 15, 588 BCE / July 5, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset: 7°30', ‘omitted’ lunar eclipse reverse: 8. Line 5’: Šabatu 1 = February 22, 587 BCE / February 12, 567 BCE Moon visible in the Swallow (southern Pisces) …… Sunset to moonset: 14°30' 9. Line 6’: Šabatu 6 = Feb. 27, [587 BCE / February 17, 567 BCE] First part of the night, Moon surrounded by halo; Pleiades, the Bull of Heaven, and the Chariot [stood in it .... ] 10. Line 7’: Šabatu ? = March 4, 587 BCE / February 22, 567 BCE α Leonis balanced 1 cubit below Moon x. Line 8’: Šabatu 13 or 14 = March 8 or 9, 587 BCE / February 25 or 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 17° (text: 7), not watched 11. Line 12’: Addaru 1 = March 24, 587 BCE / March 14, 567 BCE Moon visible behind Aries ‘while the sun stood there’ … … measured sunset to moonset 25° 12. Line 13’: Addaru 2 = March 25, 587 BCE / March 15, 567 BCE First part of the night,41 Moon balanced 4 cubits below η Tauri (Alcyone) x. Line 14’: Addaru 7 = March 30, 587 BCE/ March 20, 567 BCE Moon surrounded by halo. Praesepe and α Leonis [stood] in [it ....] 13. Line 16’: Addaru 12 = April 5, 587 BCE / March 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 1°30’.

Sure! In the next post I will point out which items from both the front and the back were cherry-picked to see if they could fit 588 instead of 568. The pictures, and translation below are taken from the following site: https://www.lavia.org/english/Archivo/VAT4956en.htm [After this post I will copy a simpler translation for reference that also includes the theorized Julian dates if you are comparing between 568 and 588 BCE] A typical translation is here, for the obverse side. You will see 18 lines, although the last two, as you can see from the picture, are mostly missing.