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

[JW Insider]

8 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.  

This might be true to a very small extent, but if true, it means that the WTS has no right to claim that 539 BCE was some kind of absolute, pivotal year. 539 is based wholly, 100% on these judgment calls and assumptions. Besides, the date of 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar is at least 10 times better documented than the 539 BCE date (for the accession year of Cyrus). 

8 hours ago, xero said:

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 assumptions used, it's true. But these adjustments or "calibrations" to account for the slowing down of the earth have been known about for a long time. And if we were to use calculations from astronomy today and didn't know about the rate of slowing, we would only be off by about 6 hours going back more than 2700 years. 

That means that the eclipses recorded by Neo-Babylonian/Persian/Greek scholars would still have happened on the same day, but the background stars which were also reported in these records would have passed them up 6 hours earlier. The article you point to is admitting the same thing as this article:

https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-eclipses-show-earth-s-rotation-slowing

Overall, Earth's spin has slowed by about 6 hours in the past 2740 years, 

 

----- and here comes the tldr; part to ignore ----------

Even without this data we already knew that the earth's day was getting longer just from satellite data from year to year. Even though the day lengthens by only microseconds at a time, it adds up to hundreds of seconds of difference when you go back several centuries. And when you go back 2,700 years (27 centuries) it's a difference that approaches 20,000 seconds (5.5 hours).

That means that when you look for an eclipse, even if you had a good record of the observation for 685 BCE, trying to calculate it without knowing about the earth's slower rotation, would be about 5.75 hours off from the time you expected. That doesn't seem like much time to be off, but it means that the eclipse will likely be seen on the correctly calculated day, but against a background of stars that are nearly half-way across the sky.

The Babylonian "scholars" recorded those stars in the background, so it makes the eclipse seem like it doesn't match any eclipses in the year given.  That is, until you notice that the same pattern holds for ALL the eclipses and that they make a much better fit for the observation when you realize the earth rotated just a wee bit faster back then.

But it's pretty consistent throughout this period:

• Near 700 BCE observations hovered around 20,000 seconds off, or 5.5 hours
• Near 600 BCE observations hovered around 19,000 seconds off or 5.25 hours
• Near 500 BCE observations hovered around 18,000 seconds off, or 5 hours
• Near 400 BCE observations hovered around 17,000 seconds off, or 4.75 hours
• Near 300 BCE observations hovered around 16,000 seconds off, or 4.5 hours

Although I'm rounding to the nearest thousand and relying on the article's regression-line analysis to "average" out the anomalies, you can easily see the pattern. And by the time you reach AD/CE readings you would expect closer to 3 hours off, and that's right where the readings end up.

But those lunar eclipse readings can be double-checked by the half-dozen solar readings during the period from 350 to 150 BCE and these line up even closer to the regression line, helping to confirm the same calculations of "delta-T" [change in time].

The point is that this slowdown of the earth's rotation is only a few hours, not days, but when these calibrations are added to the observations and predictions already observed and recorded in ancient Assyria/Babylon/Persia you can now set a specific formula to account for that curve (parabola). That formula is built into all the major astronomy applications which is why they all give the same results. And it turns out that when you do this, the calculations are further confirmed by making an excellent accounting not just of both the lunar and solar data, but also various planetary calculations that the Babylonians also recorded.

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, xero said:

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.

Turns out that ALL the astronomical events recorded for the entire period agree perfectly well with the Biblical text. Remember that the Biblical text has no BCE dates. There is NO real contradiction between the astronomical events recorded and the Biblical text regarding the Babylonian period.

In fact, the WTS would do much better to follow the same pattern it does for all the other areas where secular history supports the Bible's own version of history. It could be used as evidence to show that there is additional external support for the Bible's accuracy that might have been overlooked.

It's true that there were naysayers about the existence of Belshazzar by Bible skeptics looking for excuses not to trust the Bible. Turns out there wasn't really that much evidence for outright denial, but a lot of skepticism based on other issues with Daniel. But the WTS is guilty of similar skepticism coming from another perspective -- and I don't just mean the admission that no one can identify this Darius the Mede, nor the fact that the WTS rejects the Bible's own chronology of Daniel 1:1 and 2:1. 

Here's an example for another time from "Insight." The Hebrew term transliterated "Ahasuerus" in the Bible is pretty much an expected transliteration for the Persian "Xerxes." (Which can also refer to Artaxerxes.) But notice how the WTS publications deny that the Bible's use of Xerxes/Artaxerxes (Ahasuerus) can refer to him in Ezra, but says it does refer to him in Esther:

*** it-2 p. 613 Persia, Persians ***

From Cyrus’ Death to Darius’ Death. The reign of Cyrus the Great ended in 530 B.C.E. when he died while on a warring campaign. His son Cambyses succeeded him to the throne and was successful in conquering Egypt. Though not referred to by the name Cambyses in the Bible, he is evidently the “Ahasuerus” to whom the opposers of the temple work sent false accusations against the Jews, as stated at Ezra 4:6.

*** it-2 p. 613 Persia, Persians ***

The Reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes. Xerxes, Darius’ son, is evidently the king called Ahasuerus in the book of Esther.

As it turns out, there is really no good reason for the Watchtower to speculate that Ahasuerus/Xerxes is Cambyses in Ezra and Ahasuerus/Xerxes is Xerxes in Esther. The WTS could just as easily have made them both Xerxes and Ezra would actually be giving an even clearer timeline without the unnecessary speculation. I just include it to show how easily and sometimes nonchalantly the WTS will speculate about "outside" history that they believe is contradicted in the Bible. In this case the WTS creates a kind of Bible contradiction about who Ahasuerus was. 

If anyone wishes to discuss, and has the time, there are a few more of these types of WTS-created Bible contradictions, some which might come up anyway in a full discussion of the chronology of the period.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, xero said:

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.

Actually, @George88 has shown you with the link he just gave that it's very common for PRO-BIBLE commentators to use EXACTLY the dates given by the astronomical data. Notice how every date given in George's link here fits the Biblical text AND fits the dates provided by the Babylonian record.  

5 hours ago, George88 said:

http://xwalk.ca/exile.html

I don't agree with the current prophetic dates given like 1948 and 1967, but if you read his content and especially if you click on the link in the article (  http://xwalk.ca/dates.html ) he is very, very accurate with the Biblical and Babylonian explanations.

[Pudgy]

I appreciate and respect high precision calculations …. but every year the Moon is about 1-1/4 inches further away, and will not escape Earth orbit for AT LEAST 100 Billion years.

Except for the pesky fact that by then our Sun will have gone Nova, and both the Earth and Moon will have been vaporized as the Sun expands out to about the orbit of Mars. 

These exercises ARE valuable for understanding orbital mechanics, astronomy, and time …. but if the end result is to show that God’s Kingdom was established ANYTIME before this moment, they are USELESS.

You can look out the window, or stand on your front porch and see that did not happen.

LOOK AROUND!

It just flat DID NOT HAPPEN.

No “Great Tribulation”

No “Armageddon”

No “Paradise Earth”

For this reason I am introducing a new aphorism, parable, “law”, (… thinking about Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics”, etc.), or whatever …

“PUDGY’s LAW OF REALITY - A Billion Clever Words Or Precision Calculations Will Not Change What Is Real.”

The official acronym will be “PLOR”.

 

[Pudgy]

The “long version” will officially be (following the tradition of TANSTAAFL), PLORABCWOPCWNCWIR.

It’s pronounced, just like it’s spelled!

😀

[xero]

When I go to a restaurant and it's busy and there are a lot of people waiting, I might eat my meal more quickly. But this isn't the same thing.

[BTK59]

7 hours ago, George88 said:

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

George, in the book you mention on page 105, it states 538 BC rather than 539 BC. Any thoughts?
 

[George88]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

George, in the book you mention on page 105, it states 538 BC rather than 539 BC. Any thoughts?

As I mentioned earlier, I don't consider a one or two-year difference significant unless we were present at that time. For me, the year 537 BC is the most plausible explanation. According to secular evidence, Cyrus captured Babylon towards the end of the year 539 BC. This means that his decree to the Jews would have been issued in 538 BC, the year mentioned in Stephenson's book. Since the scriptures reference Jeremiah, it is important to understand that Jeremiah had to convince King Cyrus, a Persian, of God's will first (as the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia). Considering this, it is unlikely that Cyrus would have immediately accepted Jeremiah's word without giving it further thought and consideration. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the decree was initiated in 538 BC. 

If that isn't a logical comprehension, then Rome was constructed in a day.

Only those who don't want to acknowledge the truth would try to find excuses for why it won't have taken King Cyrus so long to issue the decree after 539 BC. Some might argue that he suddenly ordered the Jews to leave without even consulting Jeremiah's message. However, it is more reasonable to consider that King Cyrus was occupied with celebrating his victory and securing Babylon during November and December. He needed to ensure that there were no remnants of the Babylonian army trying to regain power. It is highly unlikely that King Cyrus would have issued the decree without first addressing this matter by seeing the stage in the conquest he was in. Let us not forget that Jeremiah had the challenging task of convincing a non-Jewish person about the will of the Jewish God.

You now have a relatively brief window of time from October/November 539 BC to 537 BC. How long did it take the Jews to prepare for a journey of 5 to 6 months, and how long was the journey itself from 538 BC after the decree? Ultimately, they would have arrived at the beginning of the year 537 BC. There is no mystery to the limited time provided.

We all have our theories. It's important to consider who among us is using secular and Biblical history accurately to justify those events. According to the Jewish calendar, the distinction between 539/538 BC and 538/537 BC is not significant. How we apply it is, and for what reason?

Now some modern chronologists make an effort to link the Jewish wars of 1947/8 and 1967/8 to justify their independence from the Gentiles, without acknowledging the historical context that led to the restoration of Jewish sovereignty alongside the British in 1914.

There are instances where critics incorrectly argue that history never demonstrated any such link to those dates, despite it being substantiated by numerous means.

Since this chronology is based on the belief that God himself reveals to us, we should not accept whatever humanity might think of it, but what his faithful followers should know about his word, and how chronology worked in the past for the benefit of our present time.

[BTK59]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

For me, the year 537 BC is the most plausible explanation.

In essence, your point is that when we examine the year 539 BC, there is significantly less time for consideration compared to the 2-year timeframe between 607 BC and 605 BC. Additionally, the year 587 BC does not fit into any accurate chronology, as the 70-year period falls within the pattern of less than a year between 537 BC and 607 BC. If we were to consider 587 BC as a potential date, it would only support a 50-year period, which is significantly short of the less than a year proposal, creating a discrepancy of 20 years.

[JW Insider]

There is NO Bible evidence for 539 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 587 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 607 BCE. I think most of us understand that by now. So, I propose a thread/topic where we shift the focus almost exclusively to the basic, fundamental question about the strength of the secular evidence in the Neo-Babylonian period. Why do we rely on it? Why does the WTS rely on secular Babylonian astronomer's evidence for Cyrus in 539? Why does the WTS reject the same evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?  Is the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's years actually 10 times better than for Cyrus?

When that question is solved, it also resolves the entire question about the 70 years, the WTS 20-year gap, the years of those kings that came just before and just after. And it will automatically link to the resolution of dates for events like the Fall of Nineveh, the Battle of Carchemish, the death of Josiah, the years of Zedekiah, the BCE dates for the three different exile events reported in Jeremiah 52. And , of course, it should answer the question about the complete lack of evidence for 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year.  

So in this new thread/topic there would need to be NO discussion of:

• the 70 years of Jewish Exile, or the 70 years of Babylonian domination over other nations
• the purpose of the WTS 20-year gap
• 1914
• Daniel 4, Gentile Times, the length of the 7 times/years, the length of the 2,520 days making up those 7 years
• Not even any discussion of Bible prophecies or references in: Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel. 

Just the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Any discussion of other topics can be moved back to this topic/thread.

[xero]

I'm not a fan of goal-post shifting, inventing of new goal-posts, or editing of people's comments and arguments. There is a natural flow which gets interrupted when those uncomfortable with a conversation try to steer it or control it. It's stifling and unless Jehovah decides to do it, I'm against it.

[xero]

https://hal.science/hal-03090272v5/file/Mesopotamian-chronology revised.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256488025_Dating_the_fall_of_Babylon_and_Ur_thanks_to_Astronomical_Events