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

[Pudgy]

So …. to sum it up in one very short conclusion …. what can be said with certainty about all this that is true?

What’s the bottom line?

 

 

 

 

 

[xero]

3 hours ago, Pudgy said:

So …. to sum it up in one very short conclusion …. what can be said with certainty about all this that is true?

What’s the bottom line?

 

 

 

 

 

So far, that I'm considered ill-mannered and impatient, and that moon's do eclipse on a regular basis, even in the past and even in Mesopotamia.

[xero]

@George88

• Your response to "relevance of research based on different regions": This statement holds some truth. While regional differences exist, relevant research from other regions should be evaluated based on its connection to the specific topic and timeframe. Ignoring relevant research solely due to its origin can limit understanding.
• Your response to "Ctesias vs. Berosus and Chronicle of Eusebius": This statement partially reflects historical debates. Ctesias' account was indeed questioned by later historians, and the Chronicle of Eusebius has limitations. However, dismissing their insights entirely without considering their potential value weakens your argument.
• Your response to "Fall of Nineveh": This statement requires further context. While Herodotus may offer a more established timeframe, dismissing alternative perspectives (like using astrological evidence) without critical analysis limits understanding. It's important to evaluate all relevant evidence and interpretations constructively.
• Your response to "Communication between Alexander and Aristotle": This statement is partially true. Conclusive evidence proving the specific claim may be lacking, but dismissing the possibility entirely without considering potential communication forms might be premature.
•  

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Pudgy said:

So …. to sum it up in one very short conclusion …. what can be said with certainty about all this that is true?

I'm certain that the use of "A.I." "enhanced" writing tools will quickly produce a comedy of errors -- but still mixed in with a lot of true statements here and there. And that it is hardly worth the time and effort to try correcting all the errors and diversions those tools can create.

[George88]

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm certain that the use of "A.I." "enhanced" writing tools will quickly produce a comedy of errors -- but still mixed in with a lot of true statements here and there.

Your perception, as usual, is false. Can you indicate which Bible text I posted to support your claim?

[George88]

1 hour ago, xero said:

Your response to "relevance of research based on different regions": This statement holds some truth. While regional differences exist, relevant research from other regions should be evaluated based on its connection to the specific topic and timeframe. Ignoring relevant research solely due to its origin can limit understanding.

You are disregarding crucial evidence regarding the military operations being conducted. In 614 BC, while the Medes attempted to conquer Nineveh unsuccessfully, the Babylonians were engaged with other tribes. The following year, the Babylonians faced attacks from nomads (tribes) supported by Assyria in 613 BC. Simultaneously, Cyaxares seized several provincial cities, including Assur in 614 BC, while Nabopolassar arrived too late to support that campaign. This chain of events ultimately led to the downfall of Nineveh in 612 BC at the hands of both the Babylonians and the Medes. It is pertinent to note that the "remaining forces" relocated to HARRAN, where they regrouped and established it as their new capital.

Research is only meaningful when we have a clear understanding of what we are studying. Events  are documented by ancient historians as well as modern ones.

 

[George88]

It's disappointing that you're resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC in the public forum, especially after inaccurately discussing it in a closed club. Your approach lacks a comprehensive understanding of the astronomical aspect and heavily relies on DJ Wiseman's chronology.

Your assertion and premise contain two crucial inaccuracies.

Other astrological cycles exist, each requiring a starting point, just as the ancient scribes did, driven by specific events.

[xero]

@George88

DJ Wiseman's chronology, particularly surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, has been subject to several critiques and challenges by historians and biblical scholars. Here are some key points of contention:

1. Reliability of Babylonian chronicles: Wiseman heavily relied on the Nabonidus Chronicle and Chronicles of Chaldean Kings to establish his chronology. However, these chronicles present certain issues:

• Fragmentary nature: Both chronicles are fragmentary and lack crucial details, particularly for the relevant period.
• Potential bias: These chronicles were written by Babylonian scribes, raising concerns about potential bias toward their rulers and denigration of enemies like the Jews.
• Dating inconsistencies: Discrepancies exist between different copies of the chronicles, creating uncertainties in exact dates.

2. Interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's reign: Wiseman interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year mentioned in VAT 4956 as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem. However, alternative interpretations exist:

• 37th year refering to a different event: Some argue the 37th year might refer to another campaign or event, not necessarily Jerusalem's destruction.
• Dating of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension: Different interpretations regarding the exact year of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension impact the dating of his regnal years.

3. Archaeological evidence: Archaeological evidence from Jerusalem suggests a destruction date closer to 586 BCE, contradicting Wiseman's 607 BCE conclusion.

4. Lack of independent corroboration: The lack of corroborating evidence from other sources outside the Babylonian chronicles weakens the 607 BCE argument.

5. Theological agenda: Critics argue that Wiseman's chronology was influenced by a theological agenda of aligning biblical narratives with his interpretation of Babylonian sources.

It's important to note that scholarly debate regarding these matters continues. While Wiseman's chronology was influential, it's not universally accepted due to the aforementioned limitations and criticisms.

 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, xero said:

DJ Wiseman's chronology, particularly surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, has been subject to several critiques and challenges by historians and biblical scholars. Here are some key points of contention:

1. Reliability of Babylonian chronicles: Wiseman heavily relied on the Nabonidus Chronicle and Chronicles of Chaldean Kings to establish his chronology. However, these chronicles present certain issues:

• Fragmentary nature: Both chronicles are fragmentary and lack crucial details, particularly for the relevant period.
• Potential bias: These chronicles were written by Babylonian scribes, raising concerns about potential bias toward their rulers and denigration of enemies like the Jews.
• Dating inconsistencies: Discrepancies exist between different copies of the chronicles, creating uncertainties in exact dates.

2. Interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's reign: Wiseman interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year mentioned in VAT 4956 as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem. However, alternative interpretations exist:

• 37th year refering to a different event: Some argue the 37th year might refer to another campaign or event, not necessarily Jerusalem's destruction.
• Dating of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension: Different interpretations regarding the exact year of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension impact the dating of his regnal years.

3. Archaeological evidence: Archaeological evidence from Jerusalem suggests a destruction date closer to 586 BCE, contradicting Wiseman's 607 BCE conclusion.

4. Lack of independent corroboration: The lack of corroborating evidence from other sources outside the Babylonian chronicles weakens the 607 BCE argument.

5. Theological agenda: Critics argue that Wiseman's chronology was influenced by a theological agenda of aligning biblical narratives with his interpretation of Babylonian sources.

It's important to note that scholarly debate regarding these matters continues. While Wiseman's chronology was influential, it's not universally accepted due to the aforementioned limitations and criticisms.

This is another example of "AI enhanced" hallucinations. Whatever source created this response is just so incorrect that I decided to mark each incorrect sentence in red-orange, and each misleading statement in yellow, and each true statement in green.

It's pretty obvious that "AI" tools have scraped from conversations about 607, and often pick up mistaken quotes and will now even potentially pick up their own reprinted mistakes and regurgitate them as if those mistakes have now been validated by their use on a forum even such as this one. 

For a quick explanation of my markup, note the following.

• Wiseman made good use of the Nabonidus Chronicle but did not rely "heavily" on it for dating purposes -- he states that they are only for relative chronologies --  and therefore he never tried to "establish" a chronology from it or other Babylonian Chronicles. Also Wiseman wrote the book "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings;" He did not "rely" on it. I just googled to see if it was written in 1961 and google's AI responded: Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) by D. J. Wiseman was written in 586. 
• The Chronicles are indeed fragmentary, and do not include the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, but this is irrelevant if we are merely trying to pin a BCE date on his 18th/19th year, which is all that Witnesses are interested in. If the Chronicles were either totally accurate or totally inaccurate about Jerusalem specifically, it wouldn't make an iota of difference to us. All we want to do is know the date for his 18th/19th year. If they are fragmentary but still gave us pertinent information to help us date his 8th year, his 1st year, or his 37th, then that is plenty of information from which to derive his 18th19th year. The relevant period is any one that includes Nebuchadnezzar's reign, therefore the Chronicles are particularly good for the relevant period.
•  There is nothing in the Babylonian Chronicles about the Jews in particular, so there is no information that would show bias towards them.
• "Dating inconsistencies" are irrelevant because there aren't any. This happens to be one period of ancient history with the most well-documented and testable chronology. If we didn't think we knew better, we'd say that it must have been providentially Jehovah's will that this period was the most well-documented and easily understood, with literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence all pointing to the same BCE dates, and NOT ONE INCONSISTENCY. The only problem is that we as Witnesses REJECT the obvious conclusion of all this evidence. 
• Wisemen never interprets Neb's 37th year as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem as stated above. Wiseman interprets it according to the prevailing evidence, which would therefore point to a 587/586 destruction of Jerusalem. 
• No one believes the VAT 4956 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 37th year, not JWs, not WIseman, not Furuli. 
• Any differences in interpretation over the exact year of Neb's ascension to the throne have no real impact on the dating of his regnal years. All the evidence is very consistent as to how the Babylonians counted ascension years and regnal years. There is no difference in interpretation for Babylonian documents, which are shown to be perfectly consistent throughout the entire period. This might refer to the Bible's inconsistent use "ordinal" vs. "cardinal" counting of regnal years, as explained in our Aid book and Insight book. 
• Archaeological evidence does indeed point to 587/586 for Neb's 19th year, but Wiseman does NOT contradict this evidence. He makes consistent use of the evidence.
• Lack of independent corroboration weakens the 607 argument? Mostly true, but there is absolutely NO corroboration of the 607 argument to begin with. Much less any additional independent corroboration. There is simply ZERO evidence for the 607 argument, Biblical or otherwise. And the implication about no independent corroboration misses the point that there are SEVERAL INDEPENDENT lines of evidence all consistently pointing to the 587/586 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. 
• Very few really argues that Wiseman has a theological agenda. He does try to support and defend the Bible as history in certain cases of apparent discrepancies. But this has almost no effect on the time period in question. In this case it is those with a traditional Biblical interpretation that goes against evidence who argue against the evidence. 
• There is really no "scholarly" debate at all about the overall time period in question, and especially not about the specific BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This might sound like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but the point is that this period is just too well documented for scholars to debate. Pretend scholars might pretend that it's debatable, and unfortunately their pretensions carry a lot of weight with people who want desperately to believe they are right. It seems that this is because they are in support of a tradition that would create a lot of discomfort to many of us if we had to admit it was a false tradition.
• Wiseman's presentation of the overall evidence about the years of the Neo-Babylonian period is universally accepted by scholars, because he accepts evidence and does NOT accept the "607 argument" as claimed above.  I should mention that a person may be a scholar in a different field and therefore might disagree with scholars in a field that he is not that familiar with. For example, a scholar in the field of Shakespeare Studies might try to find reasons to disagree with a scholar who argues about the Laws of Physics. But if a Shakespeare scholar claims he knows that the speed of light must be closer to 100,000 miles per hour rather than closer to 186,000 miles per second, this doesn't really mean that the "186,000 argument" is not universally accepted by all scholars. 

As I said, it's hardly worth trying to glean the wheat from the chaff on AI enhanced writing. Hope it helps a bit. I won't even make an attempt to respond to the many glaring errors in G88's recent posts. 

[George88]

37 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

This is another example of "AI enhanced" hallucinations. Whatever source created this response is just so incorrect that I decided to mark each incorrect sentence in red-orange, and each misleading statement in yellow, and each true statement in green.

Who made you a linguistic expert? lol! Especially when you have grammar and spelling flaws. Get over yourself. Just remember, you are arguing about an imaginary object that thinks better than you.

[George88]

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Wiseman's presentation of the overall evidence about the years of the Neo-Babylonian period is universally accepted by scholars, because he accepts evidence and does NOT accept the "607 argument" as claimed above.  I should mention that a person may be a scholar in a different field and therefore might disagree with scholars in a field that he is not that familiar with. For example, a scholar in the field of Shakespeare Studies might try to find reasons to disagree with a scholar who argues about the Laws of Physics. But if a Shakespeare scholar claims he knows that the speed of light must be closer to 100,000 miles per hour rather than closer to 186,000 miles per second, this doesn't really mean that the "186,000 argument" is not universally accepted by all scholars. 

I figured this is where your nonsensical debate was headed. I'm glad you proved me correct. Don't you people have anything better to do than distort history to align with your misguided theories in public? 

[George88]

Since you want to falsely argue 607 BC for the benefit of your apostate friends in AD1914, then PROVE, where in the Babylonian Chronicles, it states Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC, if you can by solely using DJ Wiseman's chronicles.