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

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Pudgy said:

Apps like SkySafari, Star Walk, and Night Sky

Thanks. A couple of your posts above regarding these apps were moved to here where these types of apps were being discussed.

[Pudgy]

I am well aware that there are some here with no sense of humor, or sense of satire, who will say to themselves “what the hell is he talking about?”, But I’m hoping  enough will … to make the points I’m trying to make.

[xero]

Just checking in. I haven't had a lot of time to pursue this. I would like to know if there are any verifiable astronomical events which all agree tie in to any of these chronologies.

[JW Insider]

21 minutes ago, xero said:

I would like to know if there are any verifiable astronomical events which all agree tie in to any of these chronologies

Yes, there are several.

[xero]

https://biblearchaeology.org/about/abr-research-projects/the-daniel-9-24-27-project?amp;view=category&id=69&start=16

I'm using this thread to organize some things.

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

https://www.rcyoung.org/articles/Eclipse1.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/science/eclipse/Assyrian

[xero]

https://2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

[George88]

@xero

Had I known that you were looking for sources beyond astronomical evidence to support the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC, I would have shared that website with you earlier. I have had this site bookmarked for more than ten years. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the prevailing secular argument of 587 BC is indisputably influenced by the notable work of Dr. Wiseman and Kenneth Kitchen.

Dr. Wiseman was convinced that there were indeed issues in the book of Daniel worth addressing. However, he never doubted his own credibility regarding the book. This is reminiscent of how secular scholars often try to validate their own works over God's word. They often hold the belief that their archaeological data is more reliable simply because it has dates attached to it. Yet, we must remember that these dates were ultimately determined by humans.

Dr. Wiseman's argument about the book of Daniel can be easily resolved using their own secular data and scripture. They simply need to reconsider the timing, which may be viewed as "incorrect" but not necessarily "false" or "wrong."

Notes on some problems in the Book of Daniel -- Wiseman, D. J. (Donald John) -- 1965
"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebu-chadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.’ The problem raised by this statement is twofold. First the defeat of Pharaoh Necho II at Carchemish in 605 sc is stated to be in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Je. 46:2). Secondly, the Babylonian Chronicle seems to preclude any action by Nebuchadyezzar in Judah in 606 Bc and moreover makes no reference to any siege of Jerusalem in that or any year before 597 Bc—Nebuchadrezzar’s seventh and Jehoiakim’s eleventh year. , Many solutions have been proposed. Some assert..that.this statement is an erroneous interpretation by the writer of Daniel of Kings 24:1 combined with 2 Chronicles 36:6—7.48 Others emend the text from ‘three’ (sal6s) to ‘eight’ (s«méneh) on the basis of Josephus’s account of this period.4® In various concordist views the attempt is made to translate ba’ (‘came to’) by ‘leave for’, but this again is countered by the Babylonian Chronicle which, although not giving the date of the departure of the Babylonian army. in 605 Bc for Carchemish, shows that it did not return from a prior campaign until Shebat (January-February) 605 sBc.5° The battle of Carchemish, which opened ‘up the road across the Euphrates, is dated between Nisan (April) and Ab (August) 605 Bc by the same Chronicle and is most likely to have taken place in May-June of that year.5!" pp.16-17

Dr. Wiseman appears to overlook the fact that although secular evidence suggests the battle of Carchemish occurred in 605 BC, providing the Babylonians with access to the west of the Euphrates, scripture indicates that the Babylonians had already gained such access much earlier. This was facilitated by the alliance formed between the kingdoms of Amon, Moab, and Aram, who were used by God to bring about the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem alongside the Babylonians, 2 Kings 24:2.  So, Dr. Wiseman's assessment can be deemed "incorrect," rather than wrong or false, as it is more appropriate terminology for a constructive discussion. Utilizing negative terms like "false" or "wrong" often gives individuals an excuse to ridicule, thus undermining the open exchange of ideas.

Is it possible to prove this with secular evidence? Absolutely. Just examine the path King Nech ll had to follow to aid the Assyrians, which ultimately resulted in the battle of Megiddo. When did this battle occur? Not in 605 BC.

Now, the reasons behind Kenneth Kitchen's consideration of Immanuel Velikovsky as the birth of Pseudoscience are worth delving into.

[xero]

@George88It looks to me like it's a judgment call on the part of people who imagine they can use astronomical data to nail down the time frame I'm interested in.  In reading this I get the idea that there's a lot of assumptions that people are making. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2006JAHH....9..145S/0000145.000.html

There are some astronomical events that seem to be of some use, but if these people are disagreeing with the biblical text, I'll pick the biblical text over their sources. These are the same kinds of people who ridiculed the idea of Belshazzar's existence. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91785/did-scholars-doubt-belshazzars-existence-before-1854
https://www.cominguntrue.com/2021/06/after-fact.html

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, xero said:

I'm using this thread to organize some things.

I really like the fact that you are trying to work it out for yourself.

Because I was always so skeptical of the accepted, secular chronology I thought it was important to "start from scratch" and work the whole thing out for myself. 

I think most Witnesses don't realize that ANY time we see a B.C.E. date in the WTS publications, it means that we are relying on SECULAR chronology.

Personally, I'm convinced that the Bible is sufficient on its own to keep us fully equipped, therefore without any need to rely on secular chronology, so I give no special credence or reliance to any specific years with a BCE date attached to them. Doesn't mean they can't be helpful in trying to figure out the order of events, but even here, those secular dates aren't necessary in order to understand the Bible, and figure out the order of Biblical events. 

And from a purely Biblical perspective we aren't going to get any definite mentions of an eclipse or some other astronomical event that is tied to a specific month and day and year of a specific king. Therefore there can be no BCE dates calculated from the Bible. 

In my opinion, there are two main stumbling blocks that always hamper any chronology discussion, and they are related:

1. Witnesses are told that we are defending Biblical chronology based on a pivotal ('absolute') date of 539 BCE and the Biblical 70 years. 
2. When arguing with Witnesses, Non-Witnesses don't (or won't) admit that the most logical and common-sense understanding of the 70 years favors the WTS viewpoint. 

[George88]

2 hours ago, xero said:

It looks to me like it's a judgment call on the part of people who imagine they can use astronomical data to nail down the time frame I'm interested in. 

I completely agree with your assessment. It is crucial to start by referencing scripture and then seek common ground with secular evidence. Certain events align so closely with scripture that they provide a clear understanding of its message. 

That's precisely why I don't consider secular history to be absolute and set in stone. I referenced Dr. Wiseman's work on the Book of Daniels to highlight the potential inaccuracies that people tend to overlook when arguing against the Watchtower chronology, with scholarly works. Scholars can also be incorrect. A.K. Grayson is another Scholar who has placed certain information incorrectly.

Once again, as demonstrated by my example of Dr. Wiseman's view in the Book of Daniel, it forms an incorrect hypothesis. However, the renowned scholar, Professor L.W. King, was the one to originally translate those Babylonian chronicles that Wiseman ended up doing. Regrettably, he passed away before being able to decipher the tablets assigned to him. It's possible that we could have gained a different perspective from those tablets. Dr. Wiseman studied under A.K. Grayson.

Just imagine the fascinating historical perspective of the second siege, which took place around 606 BC. In those ancient times, numerous meticulous scribes relied on vantage points instead of pivotal ones to accurately record significant historical events.

That's why I remain in Harran, and my next stop will be Riblah. I hope that your research will lead you to understand and be satisfied with the reasoning behind all the dates mentioned, even if you believe there is a contradiction.

At times, people go to great lengths to justify a difference of a year or two, as if it would be inconceivable if the "exact" date is not in sync. This is an incorrect approach unless we are open to the idea of time travel. They over-emphasize the considerations, such as the accession year versus the regnal year, and so on. That's why at times we get different views from scribes. However, does it matter to the overall picture of events?

A reputable researcher always questions secular history but should never question the word of God. I hope your aspirations lead you to the perfect opportunity and help you achieve your objective. Hopefully, one day, you will come across my research published.

[George88]

@xero

http://xwalk.ca/exile.html

[George88]

I just checked my library. The first link you posted, F.R. Stephenson has a book that is a good read.