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

[George88]

 

(Archimedes_ New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology 45) John M. Steele (auth.) - Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers-Springer (2000)

(Culture and history of the ancient Near East 100.) Haubold, Johannes_ Steele, John M._ Stevens, Kathryn - Keeping watch in Babylon _ the astronomical diaries in context-Brill (2019)

(Scientific writings from the ancient and Medieval world) Hunger, Hermann_ Steele, John M. - The Babylonian astronomical compendium MUL. APIN-Routledge (2018)

(Time astronomy and calendars 6) Steele, John M. - The circulation of astronomical knowledge in the ancient world-Brill (2016)

(Why the Sciences of the Ancient World Matter 2) Christine Proust, John Steele - Scholars and Scholarship in Late Babylonian Uruk-Springer International Publishing (2019)

Calendars and years. 2, Astronomy and time in the ancient -- John Steel, editor -- 2011 -- Casemate Publishers & Book Distributors, LLC

John M. Steele - Calendars and Years_ Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East-Not Avail (2014)

Jonathan Ben-Dov, Wayne Horowitz, John M. Steele - Living the Lunar Calendar-Oxbow Books (2012)

Articles:
A Late Babylonian Normal and Ziqpu Star Text -- N. A. Roughton, J. M. Steele and C. B. F. Walker -- Archive for History of Exact Sciences, #6, 58

A Study of Babylonian Observations Involving the Zodiac -- Steele, J. M.; Gray, J. M. K. -- Journal for the History of Astronomy, #4, 38 pages

Studies on Babylonian goal-year astronomy II_ the Babylonian -- J. M. K. Gray; J. M. Steele -- Archive for History of Exact Sciences, #6, 63 pages

Studies on Babylonian goal-year astronomy I_ a comparison -- J. M. K. Gray; J. M. Steele -- Archive for History of Exact Sciences, #5, 62, pages
 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Thank you for mentioning the MUL.APIN. This is what I was referring to when I said the following to @xero, and highlighted "the Babylonian's own explanation in their own documents."

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

and backed up by similar readings in Egyptian documents, and the Babylonian's own explanations in their own documents allows for a pretty good understanding. 

It's interesting, too, how many constellations have kept similar star groupings and even similar names. I had wondered early on especially, if we really had all the star names mapped correctly between the Babylonian system and our current identification of those same stars. This document provides the support. 

I never knew much of anything about Egyptian astronomy, but just noticed last night that the Egyptians, too, have writings and inscriptions that document their "mapping" of the stars, constellations, etc.

 

Steele has been involved in several projects related to mapping the Babylonian "fixed" stars, and related papers. I have not looked at this first one, but I was suprised to read in the "blurb" that astronomy texts may go as far back as the Old Babylonian Empire (Hammurapi), not just Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian.

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Babylonian Astronomy. II. The Thirty-Six Stars

B. L. van der Waerden

Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Jan., 1949), pp. 6-26

...BABYLONIAN ASTRONOMY . II. THE THIRTY-SIX STARS B. L. VAN DER WAERDEN OUR knowledge of Old Babylonian astronomy is rather scanty. The only text which can with certainty be dated as far back as the Hammurapi Dynasty is represented by the Venus tablets of Ammisaduqa, discussed else...

 

And it's more than just the MUL.APIN texts, too, of course:

 

The Cuneiform Uranology Texts: Drawing the Constellations

JOURNAL ARTICLE

The Cuneiform Uranology Texts: Drawing the Constellations

Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Eckart Frahm, Wayne Horowitz, John Steele

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 107, No. 2, The Cuneiform Uranology Texts: Drawing the Constellations (2017), pp. i-iii, v, vii, ix, 1-33, 35-65, 67-69, 71-83, 85-115, 117-119, 121

.../ Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Eckart Frahm, Wayne Horowitz, John Steele. Description: Philadelphia : the American Philosophical Society, [2018] | Series: Transactions series, ISSN 0065-9746 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018015145 | ISBN 9781606180723 Subjects: LCSH: Astronomy , Assyro- Babylonian . | Astronomy...

 

[George88]

Ulla Koch-Westenholz, Ulla Susanne Koch - Mesopotamian Astrology_ An Introduction to Babylonian & Assyrian Celestial Divination-Museum Tusculanum Press (1994)

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

All the witnesses I have spoken to, excluding the one here, advocate, for the 607 BC destruction of Jerusalem.

I expect that this is true of 99% of all Witnesses. Certainly any that I speak with in the congregation would advocate for 607 BC, but the topic hardly comes up any more, and I'm certainly not going to bring it up. It's barely been mentioned in the publications since 2018, although it's been added to the extra material in the new NWT (simplified).

The Witnesses who no longer believe the Barbour/Russell version of 607 (606) are the ones who discuss the evidence in private email groups and closed forums. Not much danger of anyone changing their mind on a forum like this one.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

While some may not be concerned with the specifics of how that year was arrived at, they do place their trust in the Bible's calculations of 2520. Those who only back a single 1260 are in error.

Yes. I think that's about right. I think a lot of Witnesses believe that it's simply a matter of trusting the old Barbour/Russell 2,520, and they don't even give a thought to the fact that our doctrines have completely divorced it from the 1,260. Yet, several years ago, the very last mention of the 1,260 in the Watchtower was with the very verse in Revelation 11 that ties the 1,260 directly to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24, and yet the Watchtower doesn't even mention that fact, only that the 1,260 "Gentile Times' number, should be measured in "days" (from December 1914 to early 1919) as opposed to the 2,520 which gets measured in years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. I think it's a shame that so many of us actually believe it's a "Bible calculation." That's the power of indoctrination and tradition.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Ultimately, the Watchtower does not compel anyone to believe in 607 BC

True. As long as you believe in 1914, it doesn't matter whether you know how it was calculated.

 *** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. . . .
Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? . . . That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) 

Technically, I have no problem with the approved association requirement, because it says it only includes "those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses." The list included more than just the 1914 doctrine, and one of those other items in the list is already partly obsolete; it included a phrase that is no longer considered Scriptural. I highlighted Revelation 11 because this is the very chapter that associates only 1260, not 2520, with the Gentile Times. 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

However, it is important to highlight that these sources do not provide evidence to discredit the Watchtower's claims concerning 587 BC.

Of course they do provide such evidence that discredits the Watchtower's claims concerning these dates. Why do you think the Watchtower Society is the biggest opposer of all Neo-Babylonian tablets? Why do you think every article about them is written to sow seeds of doubt?

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Nowadays, individuals have turned their attention towards astronomical tablets that recount a vague tale of non-existence, merely because some tablets reference the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar as if it were a remarkable discovery, when in fact, it can be interpreted in various ways.

You can interpret it however you like. Or you can throw the whole thing out. It changes nothing. It's just another line of independent evidence that helps people put a BCE date on all the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. But it's hardly the only one. In another post I'll provide the list that "J Halsey" added to the Internet. I don't know who he is and I never saw this until today. It seems fairly complete. 

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Also, the use of the 18th-19th year cycles is merely a further example of the lengths some people are eager to go to validate their conjectures since if we follow that pattern it intersects with 607/6 BC.

I have never heard anyone use 18 year cycles or 19 year cycles to validate any related conjectures. But if you are saying that if we follow that pattern it intersects with 607/6, then it sounds like you might be saying that you are the example of the lengths some people are eager to go to since you are the one claiming that these patterns intersect with 607/6 BC. I do agree that it's a stretch though, because NONE of these patterns have anything to do with 607/6 BC or 587/6 or 568/7 or 588/7. 

[JW Insider]

For anyone interested in the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology and the support from tablets, the following site looks to be fairly comprehensive. Just looking at one page here might help demolish the misconception that VAT 4956 is somehow important, and that somehow finding errors on it hurts the accepted chronology:

Here's the primary page I am referring to:

https://www.jhalsey.com/jerusalem-book/standard/timeline.html

available as a pdf, too:

For those afraid to look, I will provide some snippets:

[Pudgy]

I was afraid to look but when I did I realized the video had been filmed in front of a live studio ostrich.

[George88]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. I think that's about right. I think a lot of Witnesses believe that it's simply a matter of trusting the old Barbour/Russell 2,520, and they don't even give a thought to the fact that our doctrines have completely divorced it from the 1,260.

I believe the focus should be on the 2520 derived from scripture, rather than the old Barbour/Russell 2520 that you claim to be false. It is important for people to place their trust in scripture rather than being skeptical.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Technically, I have no problem with the approved association requirement, because it says it only includes "those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses." The list included more than just the 1914 doctrine, and one of those other items in the list is already partly obsolete; it included a phrase that is no longer considered Scriptural. I highlighted Revelation 11 because this is the very chapter that associates only 1260, not 2520, with the Gentile Times. 

There is no indication in that text of coercing anyone to believe as you assert in any time period. The Watchtower's persuasive case against the incorrect assertion of 587 BC does not support the genuine significance of 2520 as indicated in the books of Revelation and Daniel. Consequently, the misinterpretation of 1260 by individuals lacking an understanding of scripture is invalid.

Just like with everything else, there is no reason to misrepresent any article from the Watchtower. Presenting it falsely with sarcasm is unnecessary, especially for someone who claims to be a Jehovah's Witness.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Of course they do provide such evidence that discredits the Watchtower's claims concerning these dates. Why do you think the Watchtower Society is the biggest opposer of all Neo-Babylonian tablets? Why do you think every article about them is written to sow seeds of doubt?

I am still waiting for you to prove whether any specific evidence has language pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, despite your acknowledgment that there is none. This is a crucial point, as it concerns the manipulation of presented facts.

Hence, the goal is not to plant doubt in order to accept historical facts that validate Scripture. In my opinion, the act of sowing doubt arises from individuals who feel compelled to defend a failing ideology due to their own pride.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

For anyone interested in the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology and the support from tablets, the following site looks to be fairly comprehensive. Just looking at one page here might help demolish the misconception that VAT 4956 is somehow important, and that somehow finding errors on it hurts the accepted chronology

The presentation was impressive, but I have a question. I noticed that there is a gap between 590 BC and 585 BC in the timeline presented. I was wondering if there is any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC during that period. I understand it mentions 585 BC for the reign of Egyptian King Apries, which I can accept, even though historically it should be 588/587 BC for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Of course, we don't always need to focus on exact numbers, but it would be interesting to know.

For those who are genuinely interested, here's another compelling example that illustrates how this presentation fails to provide any significant information regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, as they claim.

 

[Pudgy]

To find out what is REALLY TRUE ….…. just look out the window.

[George88]

Another important aspect of Jacob Halsey's reference book is that he employed the COJ tactic of posing leading questions to scholars, leaving them with no option but to challenge the information from the Watchtower.

The Watchtower uses the date of 4026 BC, while the more widely accepted date is 4004 BC. This difference is significant and should be noted.

The Watchtower's presentation of facts can be verified through conventional means, standards, and regular chronology. Therefore, the claim of Jerusalem's destruction, as assumed by history and scholars, remains questionable without solid evidence. 

The only difference is the dates, NOT the events themselves.

[xero]

In all of our bloviating, can anyone supply me with the 13 sets of observations the WT is referring to?

Apparently Gemini and Chatgpt think that to share such information would upset the natural order of things and that I should have to go through the bloviating-overeducated-economically-useless to get to it.