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

[JW Insider]

@xero, So hopefully it's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings fits 568 and does not fit 588 at all. And you have already mentioned the 2nd of the 13 readings, which does not fit either 568 or 588 and has long been considered to be a copyist's error: a 9 for an 8.

So I'll move onto the next one, but I won't skip around like Furuli did. The next measurable line indicates:

Nisanu 14:   On the 14th. one god was seen with the other  Sunrise to moonset 4°

This is shorthand for the sun and the moon are seen together for a period of 4 degrees or 16 minutes. (1 degree = 4 minutes and 4x4=16). (see below for the explanation of this.)

The meaning is that the Moon god [Sin] was seen with the Sun god [Shamash].

As an aside, in the Bible, the Hebrew word for Sun is Shemesh. The Babylonian word for the Moon was Sin, and the Hebrew word was Yareakh, which was also the name of the Ugaritic and Amorite Moon god, Yarakh/Yerakh. 

So, let's look up Nisanu 14 and see how long the sun and moon were seen together.

This time we need to take a picture all the way across the entire sky from one horizon to the other, because the sun will always be opposite the moon near the 14th of any lunar month. That's why there is always a full moon about the time of the Memorial, on Nisanu 14. Also, the 14th was one of the few days when you could have an eclipse. (An eclipse can't happen unless the moon is full, which is half-way between the new moons. 14.75 days from the last new moon and 14.75 days from the next one.)

Here we start at about is 4:30am, and moon hasn't set yet. And the sun hasn't risen yet. So the two gods are not seen together. But if we speed up the time and let it run until 5:27 the moon will set in the west and we will have seen the sun in the east for something like 15 minutes.

 Also, you can check the sunrise for that day, and moonset on the left of the screen in Stellarium.

Click on the moon and it says: Sets at 5:27am.

Click on the sun and it says: Sunrise It says Rises at 5:12 am.

Subtract 5:27 minus 5:12 and that's 15 minutes. 4 degrees is 16 minutes, almost a perfect match. 

Now let's check what happened in 588 BCE. on the date that Furuli wanted to claim was Nisanu 14. The gods were not seen together for any length of time because the moon had already set a half hour earlier!!. [you have to make the videos full screen to see much of anything.]

Hmmm. I wonder why Furuli skipped this line?

 

nisan14F-588.mp4

[JW Insider]

@xero, I mentioned that I would make an explanation for why 4 degrees equals 16 minutes. You probably already know but here it is. The Babylonians measured a full circle as 360 degrees. So when the sky makes a full "circle" from sunrise to sunrise (or sunset to sunset) that's 360 degrees, or 24 hours. 24 hours is 1,440 minutes and 4/360=90 so 1/90th of 1,440 minutes is 16 minutes. It's easier of course just to say 1 degree = 4 minutes. 

[JW Insider]

38 minutes ago, xero said:

Ok, so can anyone tell me why I should prefer 568 BCE over 588 BCE when the astronomical data fully matches 588 BCE but only partially 568 BCE?

Furuli's data has been taken on by another person or two, and just because it gets slightly adjusted and translated into other languages doesn't make it any more true than it was when he first published it.

Everyone who has actually done the readings for themselves could tell you that almost none of them match 588 unless you fake the months by shifting them all over by one month, and even then you only get very matches on just a few of the less specific readings , and the rest don't match at all. If you do them yourself in Stellarium, or any other software that can give BCE readings, you will find these same results as shown below. 

There are actually 17 lunar readings: 4 readings do not match 568 and 14 do not match 588. Come up with your own criteria for accuracy thresholds, and it will still always show that 568 is MUCH, MUCH better fit, and 588 is very poor.

 

If you get something else, please let me know. OK? 

[xero]

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So hopefully it's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings fits 568 and does not fit 588 at all.

1. Line 1: Nisanu 1 = May 2, 588 BCE/ April 22, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Bull of Heaven (Taurus)

568 BCE:

Author's verification value:  The moon is located behind the constellation Taurus according to the celestial body's direction of movement (downwards).

 

Result:  The Moon is behind the constellation Taurus according to celestial direction. -  Same

588 BCE:
"Here, the saying that the moon is 'behind' is related to the movement of celestial bodies. The moon referred to here is the setting moon and is located above Taurus, so Taurus sets first and then the moon sets afterwards ."

Simulated values:  Above is the moon's position at 6:30 PM on May 2, 588 BC. The moon appears to be located in the upper part of Taurus. The central Alpha star has already disappeared, and the moon continues to set above it, giving it an impressive appearance. 

Result:  The Moon is clearly visible behind the constellation Taurus. -  Same

You say that "it doesn't fit at all" , but that's not what it looks like.

[JW Insider]

25 minutes ago, xero said:

You say that "it doesn't fit at all" , but that's not what it looks like.

It doesn't fit because that's not Nisanu 1; it's Ayyaru 1. Furuli just called it Nisanu 1 because otherwise he'd have almost nothing for the year 588. In fact, it's not really even Ayyaru 1, because he also had to fake the day and start it one day before Ayyaru 1. It's really Nisanu 30 of 588 BCE.

Check out the ACTUAL Nisanu 1, 588 BCE and see what you get. It's nowhere near.

[xero]

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It doesn't fit because that's not Nisanu 1; it's Ayyaru 1. Furuli just called it Nisanu 1 because otherwise he'd have almost nothing for the year 588. In fact, it's not really even Ayyaru 1, because he had to fake the day also and start it one day before Ayyaru 1. It's really Nisanu 30 of 588 BCE.

Check out the ACTUAL Nisanu 1, 588 BCE and see what you get. It's nowhere near.

"What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE?

Generally, Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE is assigned to around May 2nd on the Julian calendar.

Here's why:

• Babylonian Calendar: The Babylonians used a lunar calendar, meaning their months began with the first sighting of the new moon. This makes direct conversion to our modern Gregorian calendar tricky, as the dates would shift slightly each year.
• Astronomical Calculations: To pinpoint the equivalent date for Nisanu 1 in a specific year, historians and astronomers use complex astronomical calculations. These involve factors like the positions of celestial bodies and recorded lunar events from that time period.

Important Note: The precise date can vary by a day or two depending on the specific calculations and assumptions used. For most historical purposes, the approximate date of May 2nd, 588 BCE is sufficient."

Looks like May 2nd, from here.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, xero said:

"What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE?

Generally, Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE is assigned to around May 2nd on the Julian calendar.

AI models pick up what they read, and the only mention of Nisanu 1 and 588 in the same context is the claim by Furuli and supporters. Try a few other methods:

Here's a look at 588 BCE in the corresponding Hebrew calendar:

http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar/?roman=588 BC#:~:text=September 29%2C 588 B.C.%2C 9:31 p.m.. Winter,parts%2C December 27%2C 588 B.C.%2C 9:39 a.m..

Notice that Nisanu 1 is April 5, 588 BCE not May 2, 588 BCE. 

Also, the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) had looked at hundreds of clay tablets to see which years were leap years and after which month the intercalary month was added. You will notice that there was never any evidence that the Babylonians screwed up so badly that they ever started the New Year in May. P&D kept finding new tablets since there are thousands of them, and were able to make an updated version of the calendar in 1956 after the 1942 version. I only have the older one but it's the same here.

https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf

Notice that the Nisanu month of 588 BC started on 4/4 (April 4th) and the next month Ayyaru started on 5/4 (May 4th)

[BTK59]

The reason why 568 BC seems nonsensical is because of the way it is being approached. The argument against 607 BC made by the Korean scholar is based on a cycle that predates that date. This cycle of 19/8 years from 607 BC would end in 588/7 BC, which explains why his findings align with that period. By following the same pattern, we would arrive at 569/8 BC. This is the reason why the data does not match from 587-568 BC, as it was not intended to fit within that timeframe. The mistake lies in erroneously using VAT 4956 as a reference, which mentions the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. According to historical records, Nebuchadnezzar's reign began in 605 BC, and it would end those observations in 568 BC with that assumed cycle. 

When looking at the same scenario, the data reinforces the notion of his reign beginning in 605 BC. Some individuals theorize that by working backward from 568 BC, they would reach 587/6 BC. However, this presumption holds weight, as the same pattern also implies the potential for 588 BC from 607 BC.

So, which "cycle" does the data support? It doesn't align with Furuli's suggestion of 568 BC to 587 BC, which was his main point. It does align with the intended cycle of 607 to 588 BC. However, what we have now are disingenuous individuals distorting not only his work but also misrepresenting the findings of numerous others.
If you consult with Furuli, he will not dispute the date of 607 BC, but he will elucidate the reasons why VAT 4956 cannot be deemed a dependable tablet for any specific occurrence.
 

The key lies in understanding the cycle and how those observations truly reinforce it. It does not have support for 587 BC.

[JW Insider]

4 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

The reason why 568 BC seems nonsensical is because of the way it is being approached. . . . This cycle of 19/8 years from 607 BC would end in 588/7 BC, which explains why his findings align with that period. 

The reason why BTK59/George88 couldn't find any evidence to support this is because it doesn't exist. 

[JW Insider]

37 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

However, this presumption holds weight, as the same pattern also implies the potential for 588 BC from 607 BC.

To find Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year if you only knew that his 37th year was 568, you would KNOW that his 18th year was 587 BCE. The only reason that Furuli proposed that VAT 4956  was 20 years earlier 588 was so that his 18th year would be 607, also 20 years earler than 587. So it's a circular argument above. And it has nothing to do with "cycles." 

Here is a very similar circular argument I actually heard at a mid-week Book Study several years ago.

• Question: "How do we know that 1914 is the year Christ's presence began."
• Answer: "Because if you count forward 2,520 years from 607 you get 1914."

Another hand goes up.

• Answer: "Not only that, but if you count backwards 2,520 years from 1914 you get 607."

The conductor nodded agreeably and said, that's right, that's another way to prove it. 

 

[JW Insider]

@xero, I tried the same question in ChatGPT:

What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE?

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Determining the exact Gregorian date for Nisanu 1 in the Babylonian calendar for the year 588 BCE requires a bit of calculation since the Babylonian calendar was a lunisolar calendar that depended on the cycles of the moon and the sun. This calendar was used in Mesopotamia for centuries by various civilizations, including the Babylonians. The months began with the first sighting of the new moon, and an intercalary month was added as necessary to keep the calendar in sync with the solar year and agricultural cycles.

To find the Gregorian date equivalent for Nisanu 1 in 588 BCE, we can use the fact that the Babylonian New Year typically started with the first new moon after the spring equinox. The spring equinox usually occurs around March 20/21 in the Gregorian calendar. Therefore, Nisanu 1 would have been around the first visible new moon after this date. However, the exact date can vary based on astronomical calculations, including the observation of the moon and the equinox.

Let's perform a calculation to estimate the Gregorian date for Nisanu 1, 588 BCE. This will involve determining the date of the spring equinox and then identifying the first new moon that followed.

It seems I encountered an error trying to perform the calculation due to a limitation in my current environment. I'm unable to access the Skyfield library here, which is necessary for precise astronomical calculations. However, I can guide you through the general approach to find this date using astronomical software or online tools that provide historical astronomical data.

1. Identify the Spring Equinox of 588 BCE: The spring equinox occurs when the sun crosses the celestial equator from south to north, around March 20/21 in the Gregorian calendar. This marks the beginning of spring in the Northern Hemisphere.

2. Determine the First New Moon After the Spring Equinox: The Babylonian month of Nisanu began with the first sighting of the new moon following the spring equinox. This could vary based on the observer's location, but generally, it's possible to find this date using astronomical software by checking moon phases immediately after the equinox.

For a precise date, you would typically use astronomical software like Stellarium or websites that allow historical astronomical calculations. These tools can provide detailed lunar phase data and equinox dates back to 588 BCE.

Even without the exact calculation, it's generally understood that Nisanu 1 in 588 BCE would have fallen in late March or early April by the Gregorian calendar, depending on the precise timing of the new moon closest to the equinox. For historical and academic studies, referring to astronomical tables or software specifically designed for historical dates is recommended for the most accurate conversion.

[JW Insider]

What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Ayyaru 1 in the year 588 BCE?

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

To estimate the date of Ayyaru 1 in the Babylonian calendar for the year 588 BCE in the Gregorian calendar, we start from what we know about Nisanu, the first month of the Babylonian calendar, which typically began with the new moon following the spring equinox, often placing Nisanu 1 in late March or early April.

The Babylonian calendar was lunisolar, with months beginning on the sighting of the new moon. Ayyaru, the second month, would follow Nisanu and thus would start with the next new moon. Given that a lunar month averages about 29.5 days, we can estimate the beginning of Ayyaru by adding approximately 29 to 30 days to the estimated start of Nisanu.

Without precise astronomical calculations, which I cannot perform directly at the moment, if Nisanu 1 was estimated to be in late March or early April, Ayyaru 1 would generally fall in late April or early May of the Gregorian calendar. This is a general estimation and the exact date might vary slightly based on the actual lunar cycle and the specific criteria used by Babylonian astronomers and priests for the observation of the new moon.