Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
  • Posts

    7,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    445

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
  2. Like
    JW Insider got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    @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 [….]
  3. Upvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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 .]


  4. Upvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    @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
  5. Haha
  6. Haha
    JW Insider got a reaction from Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    No one saw that coming!! LOL.
  7. Upvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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."
     
     
  8. Upvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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.
  9. Haha
    JW Insider got a reaction from BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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."
     
     
  10. Upvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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."
     
     
  11. Upvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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.

  12. Downvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from George88 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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.
  13. Haha
    JW Insider got a reaction from George88 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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.

  14. Upvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    The reason why BTK59/George88 couldn't find any evidence to support this is because it doesn't exist. 
  15. Like
    JW Insider got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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
  16. Haha
    JW Insider got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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. 
     
  17. Haha
    JW Insider got a reaction from BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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
  18. Haha
    JW Insider got a reaction from BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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.
  19. Downvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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. 
     
  20. Sad
    JW Insider got a reaction from Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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. 
     
  21. Downvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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.
  22. Upvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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.
  23. Haha
    JW Insider got a reaction from George88 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    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? 
  24. Downvote
    JW Insider got a reaction from George88 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    @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
  25. Haha
    JW Insider reacted to xero in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Ok, so can anyone tell me why I should prefer 568 BCE over 588 BCE when the astronomical data fully matches 588 BCE but only partially 568 BCE?

    588 BCE:
    https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220583459010
    568 BCE:
    https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220599019521


     
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.