Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction

[JW Insider]

@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." 

[George88]

@JW Insider 

You are just now discovering what has been known about you for a decade, lol!

Please inform me when you are prepared to disprove the historical facts that have been presented to counter your inaccurate position on the year 587 BC.

1. Dr. Wiseman, a renowned scholar, suggests the existence of another Nebuchadnezzar during the reign of King Naboplossar.

2. In addition to correctly determining the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign using the 18-year cycle from 568 BC, astronomical tablets can also provide important insights into other events in that region, excluding China.

3. Dr. Steele, a renowned scholar, acknowledges that there are errors in the reading of certain astronomical data, rendering the interpretation unreliable. This admission mirrors the similar acknowledgments made by Dr. Grayson and Dr. Wiseman.

4. Yes, the Babylonian Chronicles do mention Jerusalem in 597 BC, which a knowledgeable military historian would undoubtedly recognize as significant in understanding military campaigns.

I could continue discussing these matters, but none of these issues have been addressed directly; rather, they have been evaded. Since I'm dealing with a non-scholar, opinions matter very little as to an incorrect position.

[Pudgy]

It is my nature not to complain unless SOMEONE ELSE is also by extension being wronged, or I am hemorrhaging.

There are some exceptions.. 

Please quote ONE EXAMPLE where I have “defended the indefensible”. 

… try not to choke by deflection or projection.

[Pudgy]

What is see is that you, Georgie, as the self appointed “Vicar of Warwick” are trying to support anything that will lead people to agree with the supposition about which EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET WAS WRONG ABOUT that God’s Kingdom by Christ was established circa 1914. A theory of a billion words, but without any factual basis whatsoever.

No real evidence of any type, by anyone, anywhere supports that idea.

WWI was a coincidence … no more.

NO EVIDENCE … zero, zip, nada, goose eggs to the contrary.

I can look out my window and SEE that the Great Tribulation has NOT occurred.

I can look out my window and SEE that Armageddon has not occurred.

I can look out my window and SEE that God’s Kingdom does NOT rule.

(… I trust Jehovah has his reasons …)

I can easily see, as a non-scholar that doesn’t really give a damn, that JWI’s data is better than YOUR data, and easily see that YOUR rhetoric is evasive, deliberately misleading and MOST IMPORTANTLY, entirely Agenda driven.

It’s like watching two guys in a movie arguing about what size tires work best on a 1971 Corvette Convertible pulling a U-Haul trailer at various speeds up to 120 miles an hour …. when the car was destroyed in a collision with reality 37 years ago.

It really, really, REALLY does not matter.

I can easily see with droopy eyelids and ADD that JWI’s data, arguments, and presentation makes more sense than yours.

….. but I can look out the window, or stand in my yard, and see it doesn’t matter.

But that’s OK … I have notebooks full of drawings and data and calculations, teaching myself Celestial Navigation with a Sextant and a Chronometer on the open ocean, and I have no reasonable expectation of ever being on a boat or ocean again before I die.

I think you are entirely wrapped too tight as the self-appointed Vicar of Warwick.

 

[George88]

@BTK59

Pudgy appears to be seeking another altercation, but it would be wise to let it pass. Do not squander your valuable time. These individuals enjoy feigning kindness despite being anything but.

You can also consider incorporating this gem into the potential outcomes for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar by factoring in the same astronomical tablet if the 18th-year cycle is added to 568 BC.

Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as the third, not the second. It is difficult to place him in the same period as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Could there have been a coregency? The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, but historical accounts seem to have confused them.

Imagine if there was a flub by Pinches, mistakenly asserting the third position instead of the second. This oversight would not detract from the significance of a campaign launched during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, especially when considering the presence of another kingdom, unrelated to Jerusalem, which is currently preserved within the esteemed collection of the British Museum.

Carl Olof Jonsson's wild speculation is full of holes, and it would be unwise to draw conclusions based on modern tablets without considering that they could easily be discredited in our understanding of scripture.

And why hasn't this been mentioned before?

Theophilus G. Pinches read a paper, entitled “A new
fragment of the History of Nebuchadnezzar III.”

The Author spoke of the impossibility of writing at the present time a history of Babylonia from native sources, but thought that this desirable object, would, at some future time, probably be accomplished. The following notes, based upon a fragment of a tablet containing one year of the annals of Nebuchadnezzar III., may be taken as an instalment towards this object. 

He attributed the dearth of native records of the Babylonian empire in early ages to the troubled state of the country, which was harassed by both internal and external enemies, and in later times to the use of perishable writing material, such as papyrus, &c. The inscription commences with what would appear to be an address of Nebuchadnezzar to some god, probably Bel, praising him for the many benefits which he had conferred upon the king. It then, speaks of somebody, who, trusting to his army, revolted. The thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar is then mentioned, and it is recorded that somebody, evidently Nebuchadnezzar's general, went down to Mitsir to make battle. 

The reverse of the fragment begins by stating that the king of Mitsir collected [his troops], and from the words which follow, it seems as if the king of Mitsir had bribed the people of the sea-coast (evidently the Mediterranean) to help him, but the mutilated state of the record makes the translation of the passage very doubtful. Soldiers, horses, and chariots (?), are then mentioned, and the next line states that some persons agreed to help him, and that the person helped trusted to them. After this the ends of a few lines only appear, and then the record breaks off altogether.

Now, you will have another historical reference point for Nebuchadnezzar.

[JW Insider]

@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:

19 hours ago, George88 said:

Do not divert the topic; the responsibility to provide proof lies with you, not me. I am already aware of the answer. Now it is your turn to discover it for yourself, without relying on baseless speculation and theories that conveniently favor your claim

7 hours ago, George88 said:

I am not inclined to provide you with the answer

6 hours ago, George88 said:

I have the answer, why don't you?

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. 

[Pudgy]

…. From George88:

@BTK59

“Pudgy appears to be seeking another altercation, but it would be wise to let it pass. Do not squander your valuable time. These individuals enjoy feigning kindness despite being anything but.”

Kindness is in the eye of the beholder.

I will, and have, risked traffic accidents to get a turtle off a road.

I capture spiders in the house and take them outside.

However, I do spray cockroaches with 91% alcohol without remorse.

 

[JW Insider]

@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:

On 2/29/2024 at 1:20 PM, George88 said:

any true scholar who has access to the information that the proud boy COJ overlooked

6 hours ago, George88 said:

It is not me defending COJ by accepting his data, it is you.

On 2/29/2024 at 3:01 PM, George88 said:

individuals like yourself, who persistently spread apostate propaganda

19 hours ago, George88 said:

It is not me who stubbornly supports apostate views; it is evident that you are

19 hours ago, George88 said:

but rather where apostate views apply it.

On 2/28/2024 at 5:11 PM, BTK59 said:

no matter how hard apostates try to change the narrative with random schemes.

It is evident that Carl Olof Jonsson . . . 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Carl Olof Jonsson's wild speculation is full of holes

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.

[JW Insider]

@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]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know that your accusations that I am the one deflecting are untrue

To you, and probably to some here but not the viewers. The concept of deflection is likely recognizable. Therefore, it is evident to them that this answer is indeed deceptive and inaccurate.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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. That wasn't the question, wasn't it? The question you continue to evade is where on those tablets is the explicit mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC? Just as the Babylonian Chronicle specifically notes an attack on Jerusalem in 597 BC, I need similar wording for the event in 587 BC, where are they?

I previously stated that I do not have an issue with secular chronology when it is presented accurately. However, you persist in using an incorrect approach to support 587 BC. If you believe 587 BC is accurate, then state it plainly. If you think it is not, then you are indeed making a truthful statement by rejecting a decade of falsehood by you. 

 

[George88]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

• 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

Is this the person COJ reached out to?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

. . . (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,

Evading the question about the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. You have not yet provided 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" when other battles were being fought to indicate the same year, by using the same information on those tablets. I urge you to support your assertion with credible facts.

 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Now use the information of the Watchtower the right way, and don't distort it to mean 587 BC.

[JW Insider]

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.   

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Is this the person COJ reached out to?

Don't know and don't care. You are the one who clearly cares more about COJ. I suppose you could look it up.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Evading the question about the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. You have not yet provided 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" when other battles were being fought to indicate the same year, by using the same information on those tablets. I urge you to support your assertion with credible facts.

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.