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

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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.

You criticized my post, but now you're avoiding it as you always do. I trust that the year 19/8th of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 607/6 BC based on a careful analysis of the tablet data, not just because of the year 569/8 BC.

Is the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC mentioned in VAT 4956? I'm still waiting.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Your proposal is irrelevant. Regarding the confirmation of the dates of the kings in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607, it fits.

45 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

For more than 10 years, the only person who has been confused is you, not only about incorrect assumptions regarding the misplacement of that data, but also in an uninformed manner.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/saros-cycle-solar-eclipse-lunar-eclipse/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill

I am not favoring one thing over the other. The data I posted is not meant to give the impression that I favor one side or the other. It is there to simply demonstrate errors in thinking and calculations.

I couldn't care less about your acceptance. What truly counts is that the public witnesses your mistakes by those illustrations if they can comprehend it.

[JW Insider]

9 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

You criticized my post, but now you're avoiding it as you always do.

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. 

12 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I trust that the year 19/8th of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 607/6 BC based on a careful analysis of the tablet data, not just because of the year 569/8 BC.

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." 

26 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Is the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC mentioned in VAT 4956? I'm still waiting.

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."

 

 

[JW Insider]

35 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

For more than 10 years, the only person who has been confused is you, not only about incorrect assumptions regarding the misplacement of that data, but also in an uninformed manner.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/saros-cycle-solar-eclipse-lunar-eclipse/

Thank you for confirming what I wrote earlier about the 18 year cycles and patterns with the above link.

[Pudgy]

….. and on a related note:

[Pudgy]

…

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. I criticized your post. I would not have criticized it if it wasn't completely wrong though.

The only one who is completely mistaken is you, but I don't really value your perspective or way of thinking.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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." 

True Jehovah's Witnesses are truly amused by the desperation of an Ex-Bethelite, it's quite entertaining, LOL!

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Thank you for confirming what I wrote earlier about the 18 year cycles and patterns with the above link.

You're welcome. Now apply the information with its accurate designation, rather than misrepresenting it to mean 587 BC. 

However, I am still eagerly anticipating the evidence, which directly states the occurrence of the Jerusalem destruction in 587 BC, found in any of those tablets. Inform me when you are prepared, despite your continuous effort to avoid and bypass the question.

[Pudgy]

…

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, I am still eagerly anticipating the evidence, which directly states the occurrence of the Jerusalem destruction in 587 BC, found in any of those tablets. Inform me when you are prepared, despite your continuous effort to avoid and bypass the question.

No one saw that coming!! LOL.

[Pudgy]

….

[JW Insider]

@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

[JW Insider]

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 .]

, 

[Pudgy]

…