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

[JW Insider]

22 hours ago, xero said:

I'm not above throwing some unwarranted shade either.

I'm not sure if this counts as shade, but here is the expert that the Watchtower used as an authority in the article below:

*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
11. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3.

*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47.

This same expert referenced by the Watchtower as an authority actually wrote a review of Furuli's book: 

Hermann Hunger. Rolf J. Furuli, Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology. 376 pp., with numerous photos and tables. Oslo, Awatu Publishers, 22008. $ 89,00.

The other editors of AfO agree with me that the incredible collection of errors, half-truths and suspicions contained in this book must not remain uncommented. However, since it does not add to knowledge but just creates confusion, we do not want to waste our readers' patience nor the space of our journal to print a detailed review here. Such a review is available on the internet at: http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewHunger.htm; and I am ready to send it electronically to anyone who requests it.

There is only one item from my review which I want to print here because, in my opinion, it may concern the founder of this journal.  

 On p. 290f., we read: "VAT 4956 ... came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin in 1906 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for 'year 37' and 'year 38.' The first line with the name of the king was also manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces, which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding machine was used to try to remedy this."

And on p. 333: "VAT 4956 ... may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in modern time; the obverse side was made by the help of a mold, and the signs on the reverse side and the edges were written by someone."

This accuses an unnamed person of criminal acts: this person at least "has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs," but may even have faked half of tablet. Since the tablet reached the Vorderasiatische Museum in 1906 and was published in 1915 in the condition reflected by the photo in the Museum's archives, the accusation concerns any people working there at this time, including e.g. Ernst Weidner. In defence of him and all others possibly involved, I state that the accusation is utterly groundless, and I express my disgust of an author whose "openmindedness" leads him to such accusations.

Wien. Hermann Hunger.

 

Review Reviewed Work(s): Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology by Rolf J. Furuli Review by: Hermann Hunger Source: Archiv für Orientforschung, 2011, Bd. 52 (2011), pp. 384-385 Published by: Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO)/Institut für Orientalistik Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24595175

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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

Do you have written proof of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, similar to the evidence found in the Babylonian Chronicles for 598 BC, or does your admission that it doesn't exist carry any weight? lol!

[BTK59]

BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 6926 B.C.-A.D. 45. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 924, by Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein.
Pp. xiii + 46, The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, 1942.

Every step toward a further clarification of the chronology of the Near East is most welcome, especially when it adds much new data with regard to the reigns of the kings in any particular period. Such is the service rendered by Parker and Dubberstein in their recent study.

The three chapters of the study are entitled, "The Babylonian Calendar," "King's Reigns," and "Tables for the Restatement of Babylonian Dates in Terms of the Julian Calendar." The first chapter begins with a discussion of the difference between the solar year and the lunar year which is about eleven days shorter. The use of intercalary months by the Babylonians to offset this inequality is assigned provisionally by the authors
to the middle of the eighth century B.C. during the reign of Nabonassar. There follows a list of the intercalary months mentioned in the published texts plus some notes on about a dozen as yet unattested though highly probable additional intercalary months. The chapter concludes with a chart of the different intercalary months (either a second Ululu or a second Adaru), both attested and suspected, in each nineteen-year
period from 747 B.C. to 33 A.D.

It's quite amusing to see how dreamers fiercely defend an unattainable position, particularly when they lack the necessary knowledge. It's a laugh, really!

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Do you have written proof of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, similar to the evidence found in the Babylonian Chronicles for 598 BC, or does your admission that it doesn't exist carry any weight? lol!

Nice dodge, but I'll repeat: You rely too much on the Babylonian Chronicles which happen to still be missing for the later years of Nebuchadnezzar, including Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. But I have no reason to doubt the Bible when it associates the destruction of the Temple with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. My admission that it is still missing carries no weight at all. But the Bible carries weight with me. I thought it should be the same for you.

And by the way,  don't know if you noticed this, but you just associated 598 with the event the Babylonian Chronicles called Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 8th year must have been 597. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 9th year must have been 596. If his 9th year was 596 then his 19th was 586. 

So you just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 586. So what year was this?

(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.  He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem;. . .

You admit it's 586 BCE, but then you clam up or dodge the question and divert to another subject whenever someone asks you about it.
 

Edited to add: Even your own sock puppet is laughing at you.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

The chapter concludes with a chart of the different intercalary months (either a second Ululu or a second Adaru), both attested and suspected, in each nineteen-year
period from 747 B.C. to 33 A.D.

If you highlighted that sentence to point out your so-called 19-year cycle, then you are most likely extremely confused about the Metonic cycle. It became standardized after the Neo-Babylonian period so that it was well known which years had the extra month, and whether it was added after the 6th month, or the 12th month. Very few specific months were attested in the reigns of kings prior to Nabopolassar, such as during the years of Nabonassar. But from Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father), in all those years, only 12 were still unattested at the time P&D first published in 1942. And P&D made best guesses for them. Since then, more of those tablets were published and the table is now even more accurate. 

A Metonic cycle does not start in only a specific year to repeat 19 years later. It starts EVERY year and repeats 19 years later. For example:

• A Metonic cycle started in 608 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 607 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 606 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 605 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 604 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• ...
• A Metonic cycle started in 590 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 589 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 588 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 587 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 586 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.

Technically you don't have to start counting them from the beginning of a year, you could start them in the middle, or any particular day of the year, although it's most convenient to start from a new moon or a full moon to help count the lunations.

• Another one started the day you were born, and would repeat when you turn 19 and 38 and 57 etc
• Another one started on the day I was born in 1957 and would repeat in 1976, 1995, etc.

There is nothing special about the Metonic cycle for discovering or helping to discover a specific BCE date for a King's reign, or historical event. It just refers to the fact that the number of solar days is 365+ in a year and the number of lunar days at 12 months to a year would be 354+. So you can't add a full lunar month every year to make up the difference, but if you add an intercalary months every two or three years you will probably have added enough (+/- one lunar month) during those 19 years, to synch up the number of days in lunar years to the number in solar years much more exactly because there are almost exactly 235 lunar months in 19 solar years It's only off by a few hours.

P&D (that you quoted from) actually proves that they did NOT standardize on a set way to take advantage of the Metonic cycle, especially during Nabopolassar's and Nebuchadnezzar's reigns. But they had no choice but to synch up sooner or later, otherwise the lunar calendar would drift completely away from the solar and you'd be having the New Year 11 days earlier every year. Your spring celebration would soon be in winter, then fall, then summer, etc. You couldn't make a "planting" or "harvest" calendar.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Nice dodge, but I'll repeat: You rely too much on the Babylonian Chronicles which happen to still be missing for the later years of Nebuchadnezzar, including Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. But I have no reason to doubt the Bible when it associates the destruction of the Temple with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. My admission that it is still missing carries no weight at all. But the Bible carries weight with me. I thought it should be the same for you.

You criticized my post, but now you're avoiding it as you always do. I trust that the year 19/8th of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 607/6 BC based on a careful analysis of the tablet data, not just because of the year 569/8 BC.

Is the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC mentioned in VAT 4956? I'm still waiting.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

And by the way,  don't know if you noticed this, but you just associated 598 with the event the Babylonian Chronicles called Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 8th year must have been 597. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 9th year must have been 596. If his 9th year was 596 then his 19th was 586. 

Your proposal is irrelevant. Regarding the confirmation of the dates of the kings in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607, it fits.

45 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

If you highlighted that sentence to point out your so-called 19-year cycle, then you are most likely extremely confused about the Metonic cycle.

For more than 10 years, the only person who has been confused is you, not only about incorrect assumptions regarding the misplacement of that data, but also in an uninformed manner.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/saros-cycle-solar-eclipse-lunar-eclipse/

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

I am not favoring one thing over the other. The data I posted is not meant to give the impression that I favor one side or the other. It is there to simply demonstrate errors in thinking and calculations.

I couldn't care less about your acceptance. What truly counts is that the public witnesses your mistakes by those illustrations if they can comprehend it.

[JW Insider]

9 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

You criticized my post, but now you're avoiding it as you always do.

Yes. I criticized your post. I would not have criticized it if it wasn't completely wrong though. I have agreed and upvoted several of your posts that were correct. But I will never avoid that question. Ever. No matter how many times you pretend that I have. That's why I have always answered it directly multiple times, even though you've been repeating the same question so many times, and repeating the false claim that I avoided it so many times. 

12 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I trust that the year 19/8th of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 607/6 BC based on a careful analysis of the tablet data, not just because of the year 569/8 BC.

OK. That's good. That probably wasn't a dodge. Except that you have never explained why you sometimes imply that 607 is the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and sometimes you imply that it is the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It can't be both the 8th and the 19th. Sometimes it seems that you are trying to be clever in that you never write 19/18 or 19th/18th but you always write 19/8th, and then highlight that Nebuchadnezzar may have completed the destruction of the temple in what the Babylonian Chronicles call his 8th year, and continually point out that the 19th year of the Babylonian Chronicles is missing. You have strongly implied, if not stated, that you think the Temple was destroyed in his 8th year. [You asked why he wouldn't complete the destruction in that year if even Wiseman says it was a possible year that we could say Jerusalem "fell" - along with 587.]  (You also often imply that perhaps this was the 19th year of ANOTHER Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps another person associated more directly with Nabopolassar's time.) Since you have not yet been clear about this, I assume it's because you don't want to be clear, and I won't push the issue. 

I think that instead of clarifying, you sometimes prefer to laugh derisively at all those who aren't able to figure out exactly what you are hiding. 

And, I think everyone would be happy to see that so-called "careful analysis of the tablet data." 

26 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Is the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC mentioned in VAT 4956? I'm still waiting.

No you're not. You are falsely pretending that you are still waiting even though I have said multiple times that Jerusalem is not mentioned in any tablet related to Nebuchadnezzar other than the known, existing, non-missing portion of the Babylonian Chronicles. But I'll be happy to say it again with specific reference to VAT 4956: The destruction of Jerusalem is definitely not mentioned in VAT 4956. And yes, I know, you are "still waiting."

 

 

[JW Insider]

35 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

For more than 10 years, the only person who has been confused is you, not only about incorrect assumptions regarding the misplacement of that data, but also in an uninformed manner.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/saros-cycle-solar-eclipse-lunar-eclipse/

Thank you for confirming what I wrote earlier about the 18 year cycles and patterns with the above link.

[Pudgy]

….. and on a related note:

[Pudgy]

…

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. I criticized your post. I would not have criticized it if it wasn't completely wrong though.

The only one who is completely mistaken is you, but I don't really value your perspective or way of thinking.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think that instead of clarifying, you sometimes prefer to laugh derisively at all those who aren't able to figure out exactly what you are hiding. 

And, I think everyone would be happy to see that so-called "careful analysis of the tablet data." 

True Jehovah's Witnesses are truly amused by the desperation of an Ex-Bethelite, it's quite entertaining, LOL!

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Thank you for confirming what I wrote earlier about the 18 year cycles and patterns with the above link.

You're welcome. Now apply the information with its accurate designation, rather than misrepresenting it to mean 587 BC. 

However, I am still eagerly anticipating the evidence, which directly states the occurrence of the Jerusalem destruction in 587 BC, found in any of those tablets. Inform me when you are prepared, despite your continuous effort to avoid and bypass the question.

[Pudgy]

…