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

[JW Insider]

These glaring errors in "enhanced" posts remind me that it is actually quite easy for "AI" scraping tools to even produce false information from wol.jw.org.

For example, it's been pointed out several times in these related discussions that the Insight book often quotes a scholarly source but adds brackets within that quote to insert the special Watchtower chronology, which makes it look like scholarly sources had actually supported the special Watchtower chronology instead of the evidenced chronology. This can fool the AI tools. 

For example:*** it-1 p. 94 Ammonites ***

The inscriptions of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III, who ruled in the time of King Jehu (c. 904-877 B.C.E.) of Israel, claim that the forces of “Baʼsa, son of Ruhubi, from Ammon” were among a coalition of kings opposing Assyria in the battle of Karkar. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 279) 

The quote appears to use the scholarly reference "Ancient Near Eastern Texts" as support for the special Watchtower dates, but that book would reject those dates. This is all the more important when it's done in a section especially concerned with Chronology and dates.

*** it-1 p. 190 Ashdod ***
A stone prism of Sennacherib of Assyria says that “Mitinti from Ashdod” brought him sumptuous gifts and kissed his feet, and it adds concerning King Hezekiah of Judah (745-717 B.C.E.): “His towns which I had plundered, I took away from his country and gave them (over) to Mitinti, king of Ashdod.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288) Ashdod seems to have been in a weakened state by the time of Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) so that he spoke of “the remnant of Ashdod.” (Jer 25:20) Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in 624 B.C.E. . . .

*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) . . . According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.)

Note that the last one above even includes the phrase: "brackets and parentheses theirs." Yet the special Watchtower dates 632 BCE and 629 BCE, also in parentheses, are rejected by the reference work in favor of the evidenced dates. 

*** it-2 pp. 178-179 Kittim ***
This is in harmony with the historical evidence for Phoenician colonies in Cyprus at the time of Isaiah’s prophesying (c. 778–a. 732 B.C.E.). An inscription of Sennacherib relates the flight of King Luli of Sidon to the island of Iadnana (Cyprus) as the result of the Assyrian attack. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288)
 

And what about cases where no quote marks are used, as in the reference above. How would "AI" know that dates given are NOT supported by the referenced book, and that even here the special Watchtower chronology has taken the evidenced dates and added 20 years to them without admitting it?

Who would know that the following, which make it appear that cuneiform tablets support Watchtower dates, are actually NOT supported by those tablets or the referenced book about such tablets?

*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). He was given to literature, art, and religion.
In his own inscriptions Nabonidus claims to be of noble descent. A tablet found near ancient Haran gives evidence that Nabonidus’ mother or grandmother was a devotee of the moon-god Sin. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 311, 312) As king, Nabonidus showed great devotion to the worship of the moon-god, both at Haran and at Ur, where this god occupied a dominant position.—PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 324.
Cuneiform tablets of the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 617-Nisan 616 B.C.E.) list a certain Nabu-naʼid as the one “who is over the city,” and some historians believe this is the same Nabonidus who later became king. However, this would mean that Nabonidus was a very young man when placed in such administrative position and would make him extremely aged at the fall of Babylon, some 77 years later (539 B.C.E.).
Discussing events in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 605-Nisan 604 B.C.E.), the Greek historian Herodotus (I, 74) describes a treaty negotiated between the Lydians and the Medes by one “Labynetus the Babylonian” as mediator. 

And how would one know in the above reference that 20 years was added to every date EXCEPT 539, which creates a bigger problem for that reference to that claim about Nabonidus being 77 years old? It uses the phrase "some historians believe" and implies therefore that some of them believe he would be 77. This is false, of course. Also if one were to look further into it, they would see an even bigger problem with the same Insight article references to Nabonidus' mother (or grandmother). [She evidently died at 104, but inscriptions for her actually list out the number of years she lived under each Babylonian king, and it happens to perfectly match the evidence from King's Lists, all the contemporary business documents, and "Ptolemy's Canon," VAT 4956, all the astronomical tablets, etc.

There are many more of these in Insight, and not just from Pritchard's book. In fact, you can actually backtrack the AI @xero quoted with a likely scrape from Insight here:

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) But it cannot be established whether it relates to the original conquest or a later military action.
 

That's the most likely place from which "AI" misunderstood to create the following:

3 hours ago, xero said:

37th year referring to a different event: Some argue the 37th year might refer to another campaign or event,

Anyway, this could go on and on. Just shows the danger of reliance on these tools. And there's a good chance it will also be reading what we're writing here. Yikes!

[George88]

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

These glaring errors in "enhanced" posts remind me that it is actually quite easy for "AI" scraping tools to even produce false information from wol.jw.org.

If you think about it, you won't get errors if you ask the right question. I believe I illustrated it to Tom. Then, based on the information you receive, you can make your own informed decision on how to make your comments.

[George88]

@Pudgy Am I making it hard for you to understand history? I can describe it in simpler terms, just sing out.

Here's another simple example.

Keep in mind that according to the Babylonian chronicles studied by DJ Wiseman, the first encounter with Jerusalem was in 598 BC, and it was captured in 597 BC. Nebuchadnezzar was a highly skilled military tactician and general. It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would argue that Jerusalem was not destroyed at that time when historically other cities faced the same outcome after being besieged and captured.

Based on the evidence from these records, it is logical to conclude that the traditional dating of 587 BC for the military campaign is inaccurate. The absence of the word "destruction" in the scribes' accounts does not discount the possibility of cities being captured and destroyed without it explicitly being mentioned. Therefore, the reliance on this information forms the basis of a misleading narrative regarding events in 568 BC.

Therefore, if we continue in that mindset to disprove 607 BC, then according to the argument presented, the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 597 BC, as indicated in Wiseman's chronicles B.M.21946. It is important to note that the date of 587 BC cannot be determined from the same chronicles, as they restart with B.M.25124 in the year 557 BC.

[Pudgy]

Refer to JWI’s last post and my previous posts.

By the way, the speed of light in linear statute miles per second is approximately 186,282.397 miles per second.

NOT 186,000 miles per second.

[George88]

This is why JWI and Xero cannot in all conscience prove 587 BC using the modern heavily relied on by apostates the Babylonian Chronicles.

Perhaps that will be funny for JWI to employ AI to see if it changes for him. lol!

[Pudgy]

If you translate from the original Babylonian language it can mean one of two things:

1) “Overlapping generations? Yeah!”, or

2) “ Who gives a crap? Yeah!”.

IF YOU HAD THE CORRECT ANSWER AND COULD PROVE IT, OF WHAT PRACTICAL VALUE WOULD IT BE NOW?

[Pudgy]

… At least, knowing the exact speed of light, you can properly calibrate a LIGO.

[George88]

36 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

2) “ Who gives a crap? Yeah!”.

That's what I say with all the nonsense and false claims that go on here and in the closed club, lol!

36 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

IF YOU HAD THE CORRECT ANSWER AND COULD PROVE IT, OF WHAT PRACTICAL VALUE WOULD IT BE NOW?

Exactly, ask your friend how he can prove 587 BC since an irrational conclusion is of no value. It's been that way since COJ introduced that nonsense.

[Pudgy]

You’re reading comprehension is woefully deficient. 

What part of “I don’t care” did you not understand?

Even a rational, provable correct answer has absolutely NO PRACTICAL VALUE .

(…. sheesh! …. what do you do with someone who AGREES with your question, but does not answer it …?)

[George88]

The part where you think I do, lol!

[Pudgy]

… at least Joe Biden has a good excuse for forgetting what he’s talking about … he’s in his 80’s and demonstrably senile ….

… when you reply “Exactly.” that means you agreed, Georgie.

Woops! …. let’s make sure I quoted you in context …..

[George88]

It seems like the issue of senility extends beyond just Biden. Besides your manipulation of words, I concur that your friend cannot substantiate 587 BC as the accurate date for the destruction of Jerusalem, especially by relying on Dr. Wiseman's work, which does not account for 587 BC. The same works COJ used to refute 607 BC which makes it a significant leap without proper basis since he couldn't have proved it either with that theory. Just like any apostate can't prove it calculating backward from 568 BC since the false interpretation of the cycle used would end up in 578 BC if we accept the recorded facts in the Babylonian Chronicles, not 587 BC as history suggests.

Your ability to manipulate calculations only goes so far, and ultimately they are incorrect. I agree that you are wrong and always have been.