JW Insider

My apologies. But I have removed some more of the "Vicar of Warwick" saga and other posts from xero's Nineveh topic over to here because it's just not close enough to the chronology topic that started there. These posts are not really about forum participants we have known either, but this has already become kind of a catch-all for unnecessary dialogues. @Pudgy @BTK59 @George88 @Srecko Sostar

Always on the attack, aren't you. Always divisive. Always causing contentions. I didn't add the scripture, you did. Turns out that everyone here quotes what people say, even snippets of scripture, or snippets of Watchtower or Insight references. Even you do this: Oh my!! Show me where I ever said these things above that you say I said. I never said them. Should I call you a fraudster because of what you did? Of course not! I hope you see how silly you are sounding. You did the exact same thing when you quoted "me" and showed that I said something I never did. I never said those things. The "Insight" book and "Watchtower" did. But you distorted what I supposedly said by removing the reference pages I gave to "Insight" and to the "Watchtower," and made it look like I said it. All I did is quote from the "Insight" book and all you did is quote from a scripture. However, I apologize for not reminding you that what I was re-quoting the verse from Timothy that you had just quoted. I don't really expect an apology from you for what you did, because I don't want one, it's not a big deal. I recognized what you had quoted from just as I expected you would recognize the scripture you had just quoted from. I will try to be more careful to not follow your own example, and be more careful when requoting scriptures that people might not recognize as scripture.

I think some desperate people are hoping you will get no farther on this. I hope you stick with it without distractions. So I think I will point out the potential distractions in the post above: False. No one in the entire world uses 569 with an 18-year cycle. And the word "opponents" sounds a bit out of place, here. The WTS is the only opponent of the tablets that I have ever heard of. The tablets are most definitely not organized according any 19-year Saros Cycle. First of all there is no such thing as a 19-year Saros Cycle. Obviously not. Although I have a feeling someone would just love to disrupt the observation. It seems you are getting a little too close for comfort, as they say. Maybe trying to figure out what that means is supposed to delay your progress by another week. LOL

As everyone can now see, I didn't make anything up. I simply quoted correctly from what you had just posted a minute or so earlier. I never expected you to admit a mistake. This is a tiny one, but the bigger the mistake the more you dig in your heels and try to project it onto the other person. You should be aware, however, that almost by definition, that a person who is known for projecting their faults and insecurities onto others, ends up revealing a lot more about themselves. No. It had everything to do with my remark. Jesus spoke of the resurrection at the last day, but persons in the first century were believing the times and seasons were in their own jurisdiction and claiming that the resurrection had already occurred, just as you posted. The exact same thing happens with the 1914 doctrine, because we tie that to the claim that the first resurrection has already occurred: *** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! *** That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Can we be more precise? I'm hearing an echolalia. You are repeating what I was saying above, except that you are projecting it back as if you have never been able to admit a mistake and must try to make your mistake stick to the person who pointed it out. Please keep in mind how others perceive a person who is bent on projecting their errors onto others. It's almost like confession. Note again that it was the Watchtower that linked the first resurrection to the 1914 chronology. (See above.) I think everyone is aware that subtext of every discussion of Neo-Babylonian chronology is always the 1914 doctrine.

No. It suspect it was just an issue with your memory. No biggie. We are all getting a bit older every day. No need to be paranoid about a manipulated piece. I don't do that. I have the power to delete comments, but I don't have the power to "add" them, LOL. Since there are none of those instances, it couldn't be one of them. Besides, even if I really had made a mistake and taken it from another post, it wouldn't be fraud and deception. It would have just been a mistake. In this case it was your mistake, not mine, but I am not so paranoid or anxious to accuse others so as to think it would have been fraud or deception. I do think it's a matter of "wishful thinking" on your part, though. You probably "wish" you could accuse me of fraud and deception and actually find evidence for that, even if you have to grasp at straws to do it. This is the same danger I have been talking about when promoting teachings with no evidence, or very weak and faulty evidence. People are always willing to grasp at straws to try to sow doubt on the evidence that doesn't fit their agenda, or they try the old standby ad hominem against the person presenting it. This is exactly what I wish would change. And of course you will continue with the accusations because, if you are anything like your other personas here, you never admit a mistake.

You posted it just a matter of a minute or so before I quoted it. Surprised you didn't remember posting it just a minute earlier. It was part of what you said here, quoting the scripture. I'll highlight it in red: f

You are very close though. You are only one year off. You are at -568 which is actually 569 BCE. Astronomy dates use a zero year: 1 BCE is 0 [astron.]; 2 BCE -1 [astron.]. So just subtract one for the astronomy date and use -567 to see 568 BCE.

For the record, I do not claim that the resurrection has already taken place. That's part of the 1914 doctrine.

If you're still around @xero, and you reach this post, I think by now you will have seen how "607 vs 587" is played as if it's a game for 607 supporters. Supporters of 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th (or 19th) year must play it as a game of extreme obfuscation. I doubt that anyone will attempt to answer any of the questions and challenges that make the outcome appear too simple. Those must be dodged at all costs because they don't lend themselves to obfuscation. With that in mind, I'm ready to summarize. But I also wanted to clarify my own position on this whole chronology question. My real concern is not the way @George88 or @scholar JW or Rolf Furuli or others defend the 607 doctrine. I don't even have a big problem with the 607 doctrine itself. I have no trouble explaining that, as Witnesses, we believe the 70 years must have ended shortly after 539/8, therefore the 70 year period must have started around 607, and that even if Jerusalem didn't fall precisely in that year, this was still the time period when Babylon brought about an interruption of the Davidic Messianic Kingdom in Jerusalem, but that Jehovah's purpose was to bring back righteous government with a his own Davidic Messianic King's government that would never be brought to ruin. (Daniel 2:44, Ezekiel 21:27) The lesson, even from Daniel 4, still points to Jehovah's sovereignty and purpose and therefore highlights the most common OT reference in the NT: that Jesus was resurrected to rule at God's right hand, until all enemies are brought under his feet, including the last enemy death through the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21 & 22). So it's not difficult to teach the same lesson from all the major verses we currently use, even talking about the generation since the first world war now living at a time when we are all sighing and groaning over the system of things, crying out in these last days for the hope of a new one. It's not important to me to claim that 587/586 is the most probable match for the specific year the Temple was destroyed, or the exact date when the last king at Jerusalem was removed, or that there is really no evidence whatsoever for 607. We have every right to believe something, whether there is evidence of it or not. But I do have a problem when Witnesses go online and make us look stupid by publicly claiming that the best evidence is for 607 BCE, and it's therefore somehow more Biblical, and 587 is somehow "apostate." Claiming there is evidence for our take on 607 is not only untrue, it makes us look like we are trying to prove we are more intellectual and scholarly than the scholars and experts. Or to presumptuously claim that the times and seasons are not just in Jehovah's jurisdiction but also in ours. It's not a matter of having faith like little children, and that Jehovah has hidden something from the wise and intellectual and given it to children. It's the opposite! It's us bragging to the world that we are even more scholarly than the scholars, that we understand intellectual things better. That we are able to judge the evidence and tell you which secular evidence is useful and which secular evidence is not. This is highly presumptuous and haughty, and when the WTS tries to explain itself, we find ourselves backed into a corner where we must try to support some flimsy "pretend" evidence, or pseudo-chronology. We end up being academically dishonest and we end up using logical fallacies and obfuscation. But I don't mean blatantly lying. It's a matter of having previously been told and then accepting that this particular belief about 607 is an important part of our faith. To many of us that would mean that we are going against the faith by even looking at other evidence. So it skews our thinking, and we put blinders on. I think this goes for Watchtower writers, too. They grasp at straws to look for anything that might throw doubt about the existing reasonable evidence. And it makes us appear unreasonable. Every article in the Watchtower on chronology has done this. I quoted the 1969 article where we claimed that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse. Also in the 1969 Watchtower was a reference to the Adad-Guppi inscription, and a bit of academic dishonesty or at least scholastic sloppiness shows up there, too. The article makes a big deal about how much chronological information was damaged and unreadable from the inscription and that we therefore can't use it to support the Neo-Babylonian chronology. However, at the time this was written there were TWO well-known and well-publicized copies of the same inscription, and the one discovered in 1956 had already been published for more than a decade with the years of reigns of kings from the last Assyrian king to Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar up to the last king Nabonidus himself. All the numbers were readable and in good condition on that one. But that one is not mentioned here, or in any follow-up apology for having ignored it. *** w69 2/1 p. 89 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? *** What is thought to be a memorial tablet written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological data for this period, but many portions of the text have been damaged, leaving much to the ingenuity and conjecture of historians. The reader can appreciate how fragmentary the text is by ignoring the bracketed material in the following translation of one section of this memorial—material that represents modern attempts at restoring the missing, damaged or illegible portions:. “[During the time from Ashurbanipal], the king of Assyria, [in] whose [rule] I was born—(to wit): [21 years] under Ashurbanipal, [4 years under Ashur]etillu-ilani, his son, [21 years under Nabopola]ssar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, [2 years under Ewil-Merodach], 4 years under Neriglissar, [in summa 95 yea]rs, [the god was away] till Sin, the king of the gods, [remembered the temple] . . . of his [great] godhead, his clouded face [shone up], [and he listened] to my prayers, [forgot] the angry command [which he had given, and decided to return t]o the temple é-hul-hul, the temple, [the mansion,] his heart’s delight. [With regard to his impending return to] the [temp]le, Sin, the king of [the gods, said (to me)]: ‘Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son [of my womb] [shall] make [me] en[ter/sit down (again)] in (to) the temple é-hul-hul!’ I care[fully] obeyed the orders which [Sin], the king of the gods, had pronounced (and therefore) I did see myself (how) Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the offspring of my womb, reinstalled completely the forgotten rites of Sin, . . . ” Farther along in the text Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) is represented as crediting Sin with granting her long life “from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 6th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son of my womb, (that is) for 104 happy years, . . . ”—Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312. From this very incomplete inscription it can be seen that the only figures actually given are the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and 4 years of Neriglissar’s reign. As to this latter monarch, the text does not necessarily limit his reign to four years; rather it tells of something that happened in his fourth year. This information was rolled out to sow doubt, no doubt. But why bring this one up at all if it hides the real story?

Dr. Wiseman's works on the Babylonian Chronicles are fabricated, is that what you're suggesting? I have harbored that suspicion for a while. This is a very odd question. It's such a well-known fact that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597 BCE. How could they, unless they were prophetic that a new "Christian" era would begin 590-some years later? They do mention what went on in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the first year, the second year, etc,. . . on up to the 11th year when they are broken off and missing from that point through the rest of his reign. This is exactly what I quoted to you from Dr Wiseman. Dr. Wiseman agrees that there are many methods to determine the BCE equivalent of those years, but naturally he would agree with me and everyone else, that the Chronicles themselves on their own do not contain BC/BCE year markings. I can't believe that you might have thought those dates were actually on the Babylonian Chronicles. Those dates are determined from dozens of archaeological references to astronomical events during the Neo-Babylonian empire. They even coincide with Egyptian records, Assyrian records, Persian records, and Greek records. They refer to just almost exactly the same thing. In practice they mean the same. I prefer BCE over BC for the same reasons that the Watchtower does. It's pretty obvious that you aren't understanding the evidence provided by all the authorities and experts that the Watchtower magazine quotes from. I have already explained how the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be associated with his 18th year through simple math. The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with 568 BCE. There is a tablet for his 37th year with many astronomy observations that can ONLY refer to celestial events in 568 BCE. If you can't see that this also associates the prior year, his 36th year with 569 BCE, and his 35th year with 570 BCE, and his 25th year with 580, and his 15th year with 590, and his 18th year with 587 BCE, then I'm pretty sure there is no further use discussing this with you. Perhaps one more question for you to try to answer would clear it up. If you can answer it, then great. We can go on. If you can't or won't answer it, then I see no reason for continuing to discuss the topic with you: If Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is 568 BCE, then what BCE year would be his 18th year?

So far, the Watchtower has not been able to present even one scholarly insight contradicting the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. And yes, I am suggesting that the experts the Watchtower has quoted from as authorities are ALL correct. If it's "my deception" then it is also the deception of ALL the experts the Watchtower has depended on for scholarly insights. Your projection about "mind games" is unnecessary. I have never denied that I agree with the experts and authorities the Watchtower has quoted from and referenced for scholarly insights. You are the one consistently mentioning the 18 years and 587 BC, not me. This seems to be another intentional attempt to contradict me. Are you not weary of distorting other people's statements? As you can see above I said you cannot determine Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year using the 18-year cycle from 568 BCE, whatever that means. There is no 18-year cycle involved here. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE is not based on any 18-year cycles, nor is there any 18-year cycle that would take you from his 37th year to his 18th year. You are evidently confusing any mention of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year with something you are calling an "18-year cycle." When I turned 18 year's old it wasn't based on an 18-year cycle. When I turned 19, it wasn't based on a 19-year cycle. It was simply my 18th year, then my 19th year. No cycles involved. From what I can tell, you like the word "cycles" only because you seem to think it can help you manipulate the simple match I gave you to find a year that's 18 or 19 (or 20) years off from what the simple math actually tells you -- by throwing in an undefined "cycle."

Sounds about right.

It's a mixed bag. There is absolutely ZERO evidence in the Bible for a 607 BC/BCE date for the destruction of Jerusalem. The Bible refers to exiles taken from Judea and Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, 7th year, 18th year and 23rd year. There are no BC/BCE dates in the Bible. There is EXCELLENT evidence from multiple independent sources that tell us that Nebuchadnezzar was NOT even a king until his father died 2 years after 607 BCE, which would be 605 BCE. That was what the Babylonians marked as an "accession year" and it was not counted in their calendar because an accession year had already been named for the king who was still alive on Nisanu 1 of that same year. Therefore we have EXCELLENT evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. Yes. Jeremiah 25 speaks of Seventy Years for Babylon to bring all the nations around them into servitude. It wouldn't happen all at once for each nation, but over the course of those 70 years, all the nations around them would come into servitude, and suffer destruction if they refused. That 70 years for Babylon would therefore be associated with the desolation and destruction Judea and Jerusalem, too, if they did not fully submit to Babylon's yoke over the course of Babylon's 70 years of greatest power. Jehovah was therefore using those 70 years that he was giving to Babylon's as a means by which Judea and Jerusalem would be punished along with those other nations. It appears that the earliest effect on Judea and Jerusalem itself would be around 605 BCE, about two years AFTER 607 BCE. And their exile would be complete when the king of Persia began to reign over Babylon. That would be 539 BCE. So Judea and Jerusalem ended up suffering desolations, exiles, servitude, and vassalage at the hand of Babylon over a course of MOST of Babylon's 70 years of power. About 66 of Babylon's 70 years of power, (605 to 539). The first major disaster upon Judea due to the rise and involvement of Babylon was the fall of the Assyrian Empire in 609, with the death of Josiah on the battlefield of Megiddo. Counting from that point gives you EXACTLY 70 years for Babylon's Empire. The Temple itself was desolated for a period of 70 years which were also a direct result of Babylon's 70 years of power. The Temple grounds lay desolate from about 587 to 517. Yes. The Bible says that some exiles were taken in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Yes. This would be Nebuchadnezzar's "7th year" by the way the Babylonians measured, and the way Bible writers often measured, too. I can't tell what you are saying. The several tablets that can be applied to his 37th year do not show his 37th year in 605, so I assume you meant that if his 37th year is 568, then you can just go back 37 years to show that his accession year is 605 BCE. The last sentence makes no sense about any stipulated "19/8 years" (?!?) but it is agreed that any tablets created in his 37th year were therefore created in 568 BCE. No exact evidence for this, but it appears that the source (mostly Herodotus) places the set of conflicts between the Scythians and the Medes leading up to the war between the Medes and Lydians which ended due to "Thales" solar eclipse usually identified as 585 BCE. Cyaxares is said to have died in that battle, therefore in 585 BCE. There is absolutely NO evidence that Nebuchadnezzar or his general were battling the king of Mitsir (Egypt) during this time. As early as 1879, Thomas Thayer's "Universalist Quarterly" included the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was more than TWENTY YEARS LATER. In 568, therefore his 33rd year was 572, and therefore his 18th year was 587. Not his 37th year. Yes. There is no such thing as a 19-year cycle here. The only 19-year cycle remotely connected to ancient history was the discovery that there were almost exactly 235 full or new moons in every period of 19 years and therefore if you were adding just enough "leap" months every two or three years to a typical 12 lunar month year (228 +7=235) you could be almost exactly back on schedule with the solar year of 365 days if you added 7 leap months. Since there is no such thing as a 19-year cycle related to this, so it has NOTHING to do with finding the date for Jehoiachin's release. The Bible indicates that it would be at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (his death in his 43rd year of reign, 562 BCE) and therefore at the beginning of Evil-Merodach's reign (561 BCE). That would be about the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile (per Jeremiah 52/2 Kings 25). NOT related in any way to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The math you attempted above is not fuzzy. It is clearly wrong. Jehoiachin's exile started in about 598/7 as you say above, so the Bible's mention of his 37th year of exile brings us to about 598-37=561. Perfect alignment with the secular chronology that says Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years and was then succeeded by Evil-Merodach.

Completely false again. Now we are finally back to the question I kept answering over and over, very directly and explicitly, but you EVADED my answer to pretend I hadn't answered it. So at this point just go back to the posts around February 12th where It's just as I answered before when you brought up Wiseman. You can see yourself flailing in the link below (from February 12th) here because you seemed so angry that I had already answered you, and it must have made it awkward for you to keep pretending that I hadn't. The answer is still going to be the same: We don't have any Babylonian Chronicles for Nebuchadnezzar's 18 or 19th year. In fact, as I pointed out from the pages of same Wiseman book you were quoting from, those Chronicles are cut off, stopped, and missing from about his 11th year on. Wiseman still says that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is 587, and he still puts the actual destruction of Jerusalem in 587, while admitting that there are also ways to calculate the actual destruction of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year in 586 BCE. But I'm not worried about what the Babylonian Chronicles say, or how much you rely on them. It's the Bible that associates Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years with the destruction of Jerusalem. I'm only concerned with what BCE year the Babylonian astronomical evidence associates with his 18th (or 19th) year -- NOT the destruction of Jerusalem. It's up to you whether you want to accept or reject the Bible on that point. Babylonian Chronicles don't even exist for those years. (Or at least they haven't been discovered yet.) I notice that even on February 12th, you had already had this question answered several times: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90904-trying-to-nail-down-612-bce-as-the-date-of-ninevehs-destruction/?do=findComment&comment=189002 You have not provided a proper response. Instead, you are employing your typical evasive tactics to justify your calculations for the wrong purpose. I am specifically asking for the location in the Chronicles where the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC is mentioned. I am aware of Dr. Wiseman's assumption, and just like you, the disloyal COJ, and others who wish to work backward from 568 BC, there are numerous reasons to arrive at a different conclusion. WHERE IN THE CHRONICLE DOES IT SPECIFICALLY STATE THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM HAPPENED IN 587 bc WITHOUT USING THE DISTORTED CALCULATIONS? All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again. Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE.

I agree. With the correction that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597. No Babylonian chronicle or inscription mentions any BCE date, just as the Bible doesn't mention any BCE dates. Only the confirmation from any or all of the tablets containing lunar, solar, and planetary observations can be calculated to indicate the BCE date. The Babylonian chronicles mention Jerusalem in 597 only in the sense that they put the event in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year. And of course, this is the same thing as saying that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is to begin in 587 BCE. You don't even have to be a knowledgeable military historian to know that. 4th grade math is sufficient.

That is correct. But so that this point doesn't mislead anyone, all three of these scholars believe there is more than sufficient evidence confirming that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE.

You cannot determine Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year of reign using the 18-year cycle from 568 BCE. The tablet indicates that his 37th year is 568 BCE. This has nothing to do with any 18-year cycles. If you are referring to records about "Saros cycles" they only help confirm that his 37th year was 568 BCE. Any confirmation that his 37th year is 568 is also confirmation that his 18th year is 587 BCE. Whether these same tablets can provide important insights into other events in the region is fine. I'm more concerned with the astronomical events on the 37th year tablet and several other tablets that ALL consistently indicate that his 18th year is 587 BCE.

I am now going back to a previous post of yours. I will not attempt to disprove historical facts. I am also not concerned with "MY" position on the year 587 BCE. I am still only stating that the evidence points to 587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. It's not my position. It's the position of all the current authorities the Watchtower quotes where they refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. So far, not one exception.

I'd say that every one of those authors and researchers and experts that the Watchtower quoted as authoritative believed that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. No exceptions. Of course, so far I've only been able to find about half of those sources and resources making a specific comment or reference to Nebuchadnezzar's years of reign, and/or the Neo-Babylonian reign as a whole. All the ones I have found, with no exceptions, consistently point to his reign from his accession in 605 BCE, and his calendar regnal years from 604 to 562 BCE. That puts his 18th year exactly in 587 BCE, using only the Watchtower's experts and authorities.

All right. Since you won't try to answer the question yourself, I'll start here with your latest questions and work backwards to the point where I already answered them the first time. Don't know and don't care. You are the one who clearly cares more about COJ. I suppose you could look it up. I am certainly not, as you say: "Evading the question about the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar." The Bible indicates that his reign lasted very close to 43 years; so I believe he had a 43rd year, therefore I believe he had a 37th. There are many business tablets dated to that year, along with one of the oldest and most famous astronomical diaries. I have no problem with any of the information on any of them. I am able to confirm that the diary dated that year does indeed refer to astronomy events that can be calculated to 568 BCE and 567 BCE. Although there are always a few readings that can be quite similar to any other year (even this year, 2024 CE) there are a lot of them that can ONLY have happened in that particular year 568 BCE. I have no way of verifying whether some or any of the historical information is true, meaning whether Nebuchadnezzar himself was actually involved in any campaigns referenced for that same year. At least we know that the Babylonians were more forthright about their defeats and their fears than say, the Assyrian and many Egyptian records, so I am willing to give the information on the astronomical tablet the benefit of the doubt. As to what seems like a specific question that asks for solid evidence solid evidence that the tablets in question that refer to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar were specifically generated for the "destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC" This seems a lot like asking me to provide solid evidence that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were specifically generated to help George Washington win the Revolutionary War in the previous century before Lincoln. Why would I want to find evidence to support something I have never claimed, and a premise that I find completely ridiculous? I will never want to or try to provide evidence that whatever Nebuchadnezzar was reported to have done in his 37th year was specifically generated for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Perhaps you only meant to ask if a tablet that indicates that his 37th year was 568 BCE somehow also provides evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587. Of course it doesn't. All it does is provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. If someone's is proven to be 37 years old this year, then that is absolute PROOF that they were 27 years old 10 years earlier, and that they were 18 years old 19 years earlier. So any true evidence that Nebuchadnezzar was in his 37th year in 568 BCE (if true) is also evidence that 27th year was 10 years earlier, and his 18th year was 19 years earlier, therefore, 587 BCE. If you don't agree with the points I just highlighted in red, above, we probably could just stop the conversation right here and stop wasting each other's time, with your evasions and my need to repeat the same answers over and over. So I'll go on to the next, but I am also asking you if you agree with the points I just highlighted in red in that last paragraph. Are you willing to at least respond to that question about whether you agree to only what's in red? That will give us a place to start, and then we can move on to whether you believe that there is really any TRUE evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568 BCE.

@George88Also, you can throw out your reliance on COJ as a boogeyman, and just use the "expert" ,, researchers, and authorities that the Watchtower Society quotes instead: *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, . . . D. D. Luckenbill: . . .—Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia . . . A. T. Olmstead, . . .—Assyrian Historiography, . . . Professor A. W. Ahl (Outline of Persian History). . . . Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975 . . . . .A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . . (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, . . . Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) . . .The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. . . . . . . D. J. Wiseman Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, p. 1) . . . Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971 . . . Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler . . . Professor O. Neugebauer . . . —The Exact Sciences in Antiquity,. . . . George Rawlinson . . . . P. J. Wiseman, [same as D. J. Wiseman, above.] Or we can use persons on the following lists of experts, researchers and authors found in the 2011 Watchtower about VAT 4956: *** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** [all text snippets below taken directly from the article's footnotes, with only a few repetitions] Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, published 1975, 2000 reprint, page 8. Neo-Babylonian Business and Administrative Documents, by Ellen Whitley Moore, published 1935, page 33. Archimedes, Volume 4, New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, “Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers,” by John M. Steele, published 2000, page 36. Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1972, page 3. . . . Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, pages 3, 90, 106. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VIII, (Tablets From Sippar 3) by Erle Leichty, J. J. Finkelstein, and C.B.F. Walker, published 1988, pages 25, 35. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VII, (Tablets From Sippar 2) by Erle Leichty and A. K. Grayson, published 1987, page 36. Neriglissar—King of Babylon, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1994, page 232. The month on the tablet is Ajaru (second month). —Nabonidus and Belshazzar—A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by Raymond P. Dougherty, published 1929, page 61. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 2, No. 4, 1948, “A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,” by A. Sachs, pages 282-283. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History,” by R. J. van der Spek, pages 94, 102. 16. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47. 17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004, . . . (An Astronomical Observer’s Text of the 37th Year Nebuchadnezzar II), by Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst F. Weidner, pages 67-76, . . . (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, (“The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis,” by F. R. Stephenson and David M. Willis, in Under One Sky—Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen, This analysis was made with the astronomy software entitled TheSky6™. In addition, the analysis was augmented by the comprehensive freeware program Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts (CDC) and a date converter provided by the U.S. Naval Observatory. . . . I just found another: *** w69 3/15 p. 187 Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time *** The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, E. R. Thiele, p. 53. So, let's forget about your precious need for COJ's association with the dates in question, and only make use of the same resources and authorities that the Watchtower thought useful to list.

@George88, You also still attempt the same thing scholarJW attempted several times with me in the past by trying to claim that this is apostate data, that it is COJ methodology. This time around, even scholarJW admitted that COJ only repeated the standard evidence given by others. So I doubt that this particular "ruse" is working so well any more. Here are just some of your examples: It's a clever ruse, only for those who don't realize that Carl Olof Johnson had nothing to do with this data. In the next post I'll supply some names of persons that the WTS thinks are better to quote from. None of them have ever shown support for the WTS Chronology, however.

@George88: I know that your accusations that I am the one deflecting are untrue, and I'm pretty sure that the 3+ people on this forum who might still be following the conversation also figured that out many, many pages ago. But I will go ahead and answer your questions one more time, even though I already responded directly to all of them. Perhaps, by comparison, it will serve to further highlight your attempts to divert and evade and dodge. I will mention up front however, that I already knew that you and scholarJW would do nothing but evade such a simple question, but the more important point is that this type of evasion is true of ALL Witnesses who know the answer. It's even seen in the very careful wording of the Insight book's Chronology article. Once you do more research on your own, you begin to realize that the WTS publications, especially since 1981, had to start choosing their words much more carefully so as to avoid admitting what they now knew to be true, and what they didn't want readers to know. I'm embarrassed by the technique, because it's also a type of evasion. The 1969 Watchtower eclipse mistake and the 2011 Watchtower that fell for Fururi's fumbling fiasco were also embarrassing, but the culprit was probably just a lot of "wishful thinking." Agenda driven research is typically myopic. So I will answer your questions one more time in one of my next posts, but before I do, I will remind our expansive audience that the simple question to you was: What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? Here are your responses: You simply evade, evade, evade, and then try to claim that I am the one evading. Also, you can throw out your reliance on COJ as a boogeyman, and just use the "expert" authors and researchers that the Watchtower Society quotes instead: *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, . . . D. D. Luckenbill: . . .—Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia . . . A. T. Olmstead, . . .—Assyrian Historiography, . . . Professor A. W. Ahl (Outline of Persian History). . . . Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975 . . . . .A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . . (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, . . . Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) . . .The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. . . . . . . (Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, p. 1) . . . Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971 . . . Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler . . . Professor O. Neugebauer . . . —The Exact Sciences in Antiquity,. . . . George Rawlinson . . . . P. J. Wiseman, Or we can use persons on the following lists of experts, researchers and authors found in the 2011 Watchtower about VAT 4956: *** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** [all text snippets below taken directly from the article's footnotes, with only a few repetitions] Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, published 1975, 2000 reprint, page 8. Neo-Babylonian Business and Administrative Documents, by Ellen Whitley Moore, published 1935, page 33. Archimedes, Volume 4, New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, “Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers,” by John M. Steele, published 2000, page 36. Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1972, page 3. . . . Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, pages 3, 90, 106. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VIII, (Tablets From Sippar 3) by Erle Leichty, J. J. Finkelstein, and C.B.F. Walker, published 1988, pages 25, 35. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VII, (Tablets From Sippar 2) by Erle Leichty and A. K. Grayson, published 1987, page 36. Neriglissar—King of Babylon, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1994, page 232. The month on the tablet is Ajaru (second month). —Nabonidus and Belshazzar—A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by Raymond P. Dougherty, published 1929, page 61. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 2, No. 4, 1948, “A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,” by A. Sachs, pages 282-283. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History,” by R. J. van der Spek, pages 94, 102. 16. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47. 17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004, . . . (An Astronomical Observer’s Text of the 37th Year Nebuchadnezzar II), by Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst F. Weidner, pages 67-76, . . . (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, (“The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis,” by F. R. Stephenson and David M. Willis, in Under One Sky—Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen, This analysis was made with the astronomy software entitled TheSky6™. In addition, the analysis was augmented by the comprehensive freeware program Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts (CDC) and a date converter provided by the U.S. Naval Observatory. . . . So, let's forget about your precious need for COJ's association with the dates in question, and only make use of the same resources that the Watchtower thought useful to list.

@George88: It occurred to me that when you point out deflection to someone who thrives on projection, that it probably seems like you are in one of those "infinity mirrors."

I'll try one more time, just so it may be even more obvious to anyone who cares: that even for a Witness who claims the following (below) they will still dodge the question: Imagine, having made a thorough analysis of all available data, and still being unable to bring yourself to answer a simple question. Instead, you rely on tired old tactics of poisoning the well by calling the evidence "apostate." Or pretending the evidence somehow comes from COJ. Or making the empty claim, without evidence, that the data is being distorted. Figured as much. You don't give any evidence about "their true purpose." You appear to disagree with the Insight book where it says that inscriptions about two eclipses are "helpful" in determining chronology (at least when it's a specific BCE date we can agree with). So one more time, for you or anyone else who is interested. Find any fellow Witness who has studied the issue and ask the question: What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign?