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

[xero]

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Understanding historical events involves delving into the past to gain insight into the present. A skilled researcher knows exactly where to find the necessary information, much like navigating by the stars. If the destruction of "Nineveh" occurred in 612 BC, what astronomical evidence supports this event?

Then you have references to the destruction of Nineveh in 606 BC and the siege of Nineveh in 635 BC.

Either we conduct our own research or acknowledge the flawed nature of JWI's research. It is not possible to have it both ways.

The only way I've found any historians able to date with any certainty events in the past is when the initial recorders were accurate as to both the astronomical events these were seeing as well as the events which were occurring at the same time. Without the astronomical events you don't have any precision. Of course I'm referring to dates prior to our Common Era.

[Pudgy]

In Land Surveying it works the same way in spatial location as in temporal location.

You have to have solid data in both systems to fit “System A” to “System B”, and only then can you translate and rotate so there are no gaps or overlap.

Without a solid “benchmark” in BOTH systems, your data will not match.

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, George88 said:

The new topic should be "Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History" or something along those lines. Thank you.

Sure. I moved the "discrepancy-related" posts between you and @BTK59 going back to Wednesday because this was when the topic of discrepancies came up most directly. If I have moved too many or not enough, just let me know. Also, here on this topic, I have left @xero's question to you under this topic here that he started, and your response to it, even though it was based originally on that same back-and-forth between George88 and BTK59. Let me know.

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90970-uncovering-discrepancies-in-secular-history/

 

[xero]

The upshot of all this so far feels a little bit like a carnival side-show "cover the spot" game only worse.

You have to get the cuneiform translations correct (some argue about the translations)
You have to argue for the cuneiform documents not being altered (some argue they've been altered)

You have to download multiple pieces of software and plot and print each one so you can scrutinize them. (make sure they all have the same resolution and viewpoint)
You have to remember that weird carry the one math thing (or is it minus the one) for BCE dates when you put it into the software.
You have to assume that the software is computing all this correctly, so you'll want to get a chart of eclipses and spot check the software using eclipses in modern times and locations.
You have to assume these have correctly created the right constellations using Babylonian/Assyrian names.
Then you have to research and see if there's evidence that the intercalary months which got added, got added when and where the authorities say they got added. (not all agree)

Or you can just quote your favorite authority and go with that.

[Pudgy]

The BIG question is …

… is it worth all that effort to prove something happened that really didn’t happen,  in 1914?

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, xero said:

The upshot of all this so far feels a little bit like a carnival side-show "cover the spot" game only worse.

Exactly on each point!!!

Now imagine Jehovah telling a "faitfhul slave" or pre-cursor of that "faithful slave" that the only way Jesus is going to distinguish between the 5 wise virgins and the 5 foolish virgins (in our time period) is based on their acceptance of a specific mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology.

And it's a chronology that started out as:

• Oh look how great Ptolemy is; all astronomers agree that his dates are perfectly well-established!

Which soon turned into:

• Look how terrible Ptolemy is; his chronology is suspect because he gives different dates than the ones we need prior to 539. Let's go so far as to highlight a book that calls him a "criminal." 

Which turned to:

• Oh look how great the Nabonidus Chronicle is; it proves that Cyrus overtook him in his 17th year.

Which turned to: 

• Oh wait, let's stop mentioning the Nabonidus Chronicle; turns out that the number 17 was added by expert secular authorities, and that the same chronicle links him directly to the full length of Neriglissar's reign, which is the one tiny window of vulnerability we still need to raise suspicion about a possible 20 year gap!!

Which turned to:

• Oh look how great Strm. Cambyses is, it tells us directly that 539 is the only absolute date in ancient history!!

Which turned to:

• Whoops! Now we have to admit that this only works if we accept the authority of secular experts to correct numerous known mistakes and copyist errors on that same tablet, the astronomical tablets' understanding, and ancient tablet methods for measurements of two eclipses, and the authority of modern experts to date those eclipses taking into account the slowdown of the earth by about 16,000 seconds, and a non-contemporary King's list (like Ptolemy's) that is assumed to be correct, and some secular business contract tablets that help establish the length of the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses, (and which we reject when used elsewhere) and some [hi]stories by much later Greek historians that we don't really trust on most other matters.

Which turned to:

• Look how great the Olympiad dating system is; if we accept that it has been properly tied to the current BC/AD eras, it appears to tells us that the dates for Cyrus are accurate.

Which turns to:

• Oh wait! We reject the same Olympiad dating system even from much more recent times when it conflicts with our theory of Artaxerxes which we would like to say is 10 years off.

 

[JW Insider]

Imagine, then, that approved association with Jehovah's people MUST include acceptance of a mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology!!

*** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
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.

*** w83 1/1 p. 12 par. 5 The Kingdom Issue to the Fore! ***
Properly, then, the ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold today.
 

Rather than:

(2 Timothy 3:15-17) . . .. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

[George88]

8 hours ago, xero said:

The only way I've found any historians able to date with any certainty events in the past is when the initial recorders were accurate as to both the astronomical events these were seeing as well as the events which were occurring at the same time. Without the astronomical events you don't have any precision. Of course I'm referring to dates prior to our Common Era.

You underestimate the extent of the missing pieces. It is crucial to acknowledge that the accuracy of the story hinges on the reliability of the scribe who shared it, without adding exaggerated details about the Kings or events. Additionally, the precise compilation of various tablets by the copyist is pivotal in ensuring the correctness of the account. The point here is, how committed were those secular scribes to providing accurate records as the scribes of the Bible.

Moreover, additional events were included in previous ones on tablets. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate, similar to how multiple people witnessing an accident provide different accounts. What impact does this have on the proposition?

How does it benefit me to know that a total eclipse was documented in 554 BC because scribes interpreted it as an omen for the King at that time in connection to 568 BC, 587 BC, 598 BC, or 607 BC? Calculations are plentiful, as are cycles. We can mold any number of them to signify anything. 

[George88]

When individuals present a distorted interpretation of history and scripture, it appears as if they are putting on a distracting spectacle.

I'm still waiting on JWI to have my post moved.

[JW Insider]

As an aside, note that the entire relative timeline from the beginning of  Neo-Babylonian to the Persian empire can easily be figured out without any reference to astronomy or even BCE dates.

The whole reason the WTS makes such a big deal out of our "traditional" date for the destruction of Jerusalem is based on a relative chronology from 539, not an absolute chronology of the time period. So a relative chronology is all one needs to debunk it. You don't even need to know if 539 was correct or not. You don't need BCE dates at all. Just the widely available archaeology without any need for software or assumptions about any potential copyist's errors, eclipses, planetary positions.

The contemporary business documents alone are more than enough to debunk the WTS chronology. And there are tens of thousands of those stone "witnesses" all consistently pointing to the same timeline. That's why the great emphasis in the WTS publications to constantly sow seeds of doubt about those tablets. I think that, as a group, the WTS is the biggest opposer of the tablets -- and the biggest opposer of ALL Neo-Babylonian archaeology.

 

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

I'm still waiting on JWI to have my post moved.

See the link above in response to the request. They had already been moved over an hour ago.

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

*** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
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?

What is the purpose of this demonstration for the public? Is it acceptable to surround yourself with negative influences? Wouldn't it be more comprehensive to include the beginning of the article, rather than just selecting a specific section to cater to your skeptical perspective? You should emphasize, for instance, not associating with people who act and behave like Pharisees. The article's main focus is precisely that. Did the Pharisees truly possess God's truth?

Why on earth would a Jehovah's Witness want to associate with someone who behaves in a way that goes against scripture?