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

[Pudgy]

Who are you agreeing with?

I have NEVER opined on this issue, ever … because I don’t care at all about fuzzy stuff that may or may not have happened 2600 or so years ago.

It’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to be wrong, because I am not promoting ANY date.

I have never “manipulated any calculations”.

It’s very, very simple.

Your agenda driven hatred of me has completely warped your thinking processes.

You see clearly things which do not exist.

[George88]

If you're asking if you are wrong with everything you post, then I agree with you, lol!

If you're asking if JWI is wrong along with you in your assumption about AI, then I agree with you.

If you're asking if people in the closed club have nothing better to do than distort the truth, then I agree with you.

If you're suggesting that disaffected witnesses and excommunicated individuals share similar views to apostates, then I agree with you.

If you think that misrepresenting facts to assert false claims about chronology because you don't understand how to interpret history correctly, then I agree with you.

Can we agree on that?

[Pudgy]

REPLY TO GEORGE88

If you're asking if you are wrong with everything you post, then I agree with you, lol!

🔄 Answer: No. You are seeing things which do not exist.

If you're asking if JWI is wrong along with you in your assumption about AI, then I agree with you.

🔄 Answer: No. You are seeing things which do not exist.

If you're asking if people in the closed club have nothing better to do than distort the truth, then I agree with you.

🔄 Answer: No. You are seeing things which do not exist.

If you're suggesting that disaffected witnesses and excommunicated individuals share similar views to apostates, then I agree with you.

🔄 Answer: No. You are seeing things which do not exist.

If you think that misrepresenting facts to assert false claims about chronology because you don't understand how tointerpret history correctly, then I agree with you.

🔄 Answer: No. You are seeing things which do not exist.

Can we agree on that?

🔄 Answer: No. You are seeing things which do not exist.

[Pudgy]

🔄 Answer: No. You are seeing things which do not exist.

[Pudgy]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

Who are you agreeing with?

I have NEVER opined on this issue, ever … because I don’t care at all about fuzzy stuff that may or may not have happened 2600 or so years ago.

It’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to be wrong, because I am not promoting ANY date.

I have never “manipulated any calculations”.

It’s very, very simple.

Your agenda driven hatred of me has completely warped your thinking processes.

You see clearly things which do not exist.

 

[George88]

The difference is clear, Pudgy. Unlike others, I refuse to distort the truth or manipulate scripture to serve my resolve. Instead, I simply shed light on the flaws of those disgruntled and former witnesses who fail to recognize their shortcomings while they criticize. The truth is right there in front of you, but you choose to turn a blind eye to it. By hiding from the truth, you only make yourself invisible. It's time to face the reflection in the mirror. 

The fact you want to run interference for others to prevent the truth from being heard, reveals your strong bias and driven agenda, but as you said, I don't care for anything you have to offer.

You seem to thrive on confrontation and insults, believing that you and everyone here, including apostates like Srecko have the exclusive privilege to do so because of your safety net. I'll leave you to argue with your invisible man in your mirror, lol!

Meantime, I agree with you, you should take a cognitive test.

[JW Insider]

@xero I'd love to respond further because I think there is quite a lot of real evidence that would answer your original question more definitively than you might have expected.

I wouldn't mind copying or moving the relevant posts to the closed forum due to the inevitable and constant distractions by those with a different agenda: those who are anxious to make it clear they aren't interested in the topic and/or they aren't interested in relevant facts or evidence, but merely wish to pompously bloviate and criticize the flaws of humans who are supposedly disgruntled (or worse). 

Of course, you may have had your own reasons for asking this in the open forum, and I respect that. I sometimes prefer the open forum because the ultimate goal of sharing my opinion is the hope (and reward) that even from an unexpected source, someone can come along and prove me wrong or make me think more about where I could learn more. In spite of George88's tactics of running interference and thriving on confrontation and insults, he himself has sometimes offered up links or material that will shed a different light on a topic. 

[Srecko Sostar]

25 minutes ago, George88 said:

You seem to thrive on confrontation and insults, believing that you and everyone here, including apostates like Srecko have the exclusive privilege to do so because of your safety net. I'll leave you to argue with your invisible man in your mirror, lol!

Was Jesus an "apostate" or a "whistleblower"?

 

apostasy- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apostasy

The act of giving up your religious or political beliefs and leaving a religion or a political party.

apostate - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/apostate

An apostate is someone who has abandoned their religious faith, political loyalties, or principles.

JWs agree with the general view that Jesus founded Christianity, thus a religion distinct from the Jewish religion. This would mean that Jesus belongs to the category of apostates and more. Not only did he abandon the religion of his fathers, but he founded another, the opposite of the one to which he belonged.

 

whistleblower - https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/

On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing. A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company “insider” is not essential to serving as a whistleblower. What matters is that the individual discloses information about wrongdoing that otherwise would not be known.  

Because of his constant criticism of the religious leaders and the revelation of their hypocrisy and the injustices they inflicted on the people, Jesus would also be included under this category because of his actions.

[George88]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

In spite of George88's tactics of running interference and thriving on confrontation and insults,

Funny how you only mention me, when Xero, JWI, Srecko, and especially Pudgy thrive for confrontation and insult me for stating the truth. So, include yourself before criticizing me and defending your sad friends.

I was willing to help Xero until he decided to forcefully and negatively reject my research material. So, let's not get sanctimonious about it.

I agree, get back to the original topic so you people can learn something worthwhile.

"One of the earliest records of a solar eclipse, believed to have been made contemporaneously with the celestial event, is on a Babylonian terra-cotta tablet. There it is recorded that on: the twenty-sixth day of Sivan, day was turned into night, and fire appeared in the midst of the heavens.

This apparently describes the 3-minute-56-secondlong total solar eclipse of July 31, 1063 B.C. (Saros 38).25
Another tablet in the British Museum collection containing an eclipse record is part of the Assyrian book known as the Eponym Canon from Nineveh and on it a scribe wrote that in the: Eponymy of Bur-sagale [(fl. c. 763 B.C.)], governor of Gozan, a revolt in Assur took place in the month of Sivan and the Sun was eclipsed.
The record thus describes the 5-minute long total solar eclipse on June 15, 763 B.C. (Saros 44). This historical
record has allowed historians to fix other ancient dates mentioned in other Assyrian tablets.26 This eclipse was
also mentioned in the biblical Book of Amos. In this book (Amos 8:9), the minor prophet Amos (fl. c. 750 B.C.) wrote:
And it shall come to pass that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the Sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth on a clear day.27

These independent references to the same solar eclipse allow historians to pinpoint historical dates and events before and after this eclipse with a high level of accuracy."

Don't just google it for your research and don't rely heavily on personal opinions. That will get you nowhere. Find reputable scholarly research that hasn't been tainted by erroneous personal opinions.

[George88]

54 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Was Jesus an "apostate" or a "whistleblower"?

To the Pharisees, he was considered an apostate for the wrong reason. In your case, it's for the right reason. So, don't equate yourself to a perfect man.

56 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

An apostate is someone who has abandoned their religious faith, political loyalties, or principles.

Since this applies to you, thank you for agreeing with me. Verbally, Pudgy has abandoned his faith even when he was an active witness, so the term also applies to him.

59 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JWs agree with the general view that Jesus founded Christianity, thus a religion distinct from the Jewish religion. This would mean that Jesus belongs to the category of apostates and more. Not only did he abandon the religion of his fathers, but he founded another, the opposite of the one to which he belonged.

The same twisted logic was used by the Pharisees. But, there's a difference that you are blind to: Jesus didn't absolve the teaching of the ancients; he reshaped them to their original form of understanding. Learn to distinguish the two.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing. A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company “insider” is not essential to serving as a whistleblower. What matters is that the individual discloses information about wrongdoing that otherwise would not be known.  

Does that encompass exaggeration, distortion, and manipulation? This is what governments are blind to, with the assistance of the devil and individuals like yourself.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Because of his constant criticism of the religious leaders and the revelation of their hypocrisy and the injustices they inflicted on the people, Jesus would also be included under this category because of his actions.

Since you are blaming Christ, then you speak like a true apostate.

Now, let's let Xero have his post back. If you want to continue your nonsense, make your topic, and we will address your cognitive behavior there.

[JW Insider]

On 2/10/2024 at 10:00 AM, George88 said:

It's disappointing that you're resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC

I you were directing that statement at me, I am not resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC.

It's a fact that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years from 612 to 632 for only ONE purpose: in order to support the change for the fall of Jerusalem by 20 years from 587 to 607.

*** 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.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end. . . .
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.) 
 

I could be wrong, but so far, every time a Witness brings up the difference between Watchtower chronology and the standard accepted chronology, they are invariably referring to the 20-year gap that the Watchtower chronology creates for itself.  @xero can correct me if this is a misconception on my part. 

Put simply, the Watchtower chronology takes every Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian-era date for which there is archaeological or historical evidence prior to 539 BCE and simply adds 20 years to it. This is only done in order to try to resolve (or even "cover up") the fact that there is excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE but the Watchtower needs it to be 607 BCE. Otherwise they would have to dismiss the idea that the Bible "predicted" 1914. I think the GB will not be able to extricate themselves very easily from this tradition. Even though the Watchtower has claimed that OTHER dates they promoted were even more sure than 1914, they have dropped those dates. Russell indicated that 1874 was more sure and anchored date than 1914 but that date was finally dropped. Rutherford claimed that there was more proof and evidence for 1925 than for 1914, but that date was also dropped. Therefore, the only "sure" date left, then, is 1914 and it would likely be too much of a disappointment for most Witnesses to have to admit we were wrong all along about this supposed "prophecy" -- the only "sure" dated prophecy we have left. 

Those with good access to that evidence often have trouble knowing what to do with it. So when the topic comes up they try to "run interference" by brining up people instead of evidence. (One person, R.Furuli, as a last resort against the evidence published by COJ, did try to run interference against the evidence itself.) But normally, from those who have tried to understand the evidence, you instantly start seeing phrases about people JWI, xero, COJ (Carl O Jonsson), apostates, rather than any real attempt to present evidence.

22 hours ago, George88 said:

you want to falsely argue 607 BC for the benefit of your apostate friends . . . if you can by solely using DJ Wiseman's chronicles.

14 hours ago, George88 said:

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

16 hours ago, George88 said:

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

Did you really think people would fall for the idea that it was Carl Jonsson who "introduced" this nonsense when it was already known by the preponderance of existing evidence since the early 1800's. And now that even more consistent and corroborating evidence has been found, the chronology is now agreed upon by the scholars who have looked into that evidence for over 100 years already. The Watchtower was already commenting on people who wrote to Russell and Rutherford about this same evidence long before COJ was born.  

So it's not about people and their flaws or even scholars and experts who agree with one another. It's about the evidence. 

That said, you did make a point or two in this thread about evidence and since some of those points were directed at me personally, so I will respond. 

[George88]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I you were directing that statement at me, I am not resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC.

It's a fact that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years from 612 to 632 for only ONE purpose: in order to support the change for the fall of Jerusalem by 20 years from 587 to 607.

*** 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.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end. . . .
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.) 

Why are you arguing about 607 BC if that wasn't your intention? Why mention 632 BC at all? Who are you trying to persuade?

You have inadvertently reinforced my suspicion with your illogical explanation about 632 BC. It is clear that you lack comprehension, just as you did when discussing 607 BC, which was precisely the point I was making when you relied so heavily on COJ. To validate your claims, show us how the Babylonian Chronicles, which that regrettable individual used to dispute 607 BC, actually provide evidence for 587 BC. You are distorting words in an attempt to defend your incompetence in my view.

If you disagree with the Watchtower's calculation method, it's better to keep your beliefs private or discuss them within your closed club. Avoid spreading your incorrect perceptions in public.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

(One person, R.Furuli, as a last resort against the evidence published by COJ, did try to run interference against the evidence itself.)

Ruruli made insightful linguistic observations, while the uneducated COJ did not. Therefore, comparing the two is unjustified. COJ's attempt to manipulate experts with leading questions to support his claims against the Watchtower's use of experts creates a valid reason to be skeptical about COJ's approach.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But normally, from those who have tried to understand the evidence, you instantly start seeing phrases about people JWI, xero, COJ (Carl O Jonsson), apostates, rather than any real attempt to present evidence.

You are the 607 BC denier. It's not up to me to show evidence but for you to prove how 587 BC is justified by using the same method COJ used with the Babylonian Chronicles to refute the Watchtower. So far, what I'm seeing is deflection.

Are you denying COJ isn't an apostate? Do you have proof of that? Are you denying Srecko isn't an apostate? Are you denying the refutation of 607 BC isn't an apostate view?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Did you really think people would fall for the idea that it was Carl Jonsson who "introduced" this nonsense when it was already known by the preponderance of existing evidence since the early 1800's. And now that even more consistent and corroborating evidence has been found, the chronology is now agreed upon by the scholars who have looked into that evidence for over 100 years already. The Watchtower was already commenting on people who wrote to Russell and Rutherford about this same evidence long before COJ was born.  

Do you honestly believe, I accept the misinterpretation of historical facts by an uneducated individual that made it famous for the ex-witness world? 

I cannot entertain your irrational thoughts. Historians have evidence showing that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC, 606 BC, and 605 BC, even dating back to the 1800s.

So, now you're saying Russell favored 587 BC over 606 BC?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

So it's not about people and their flaws or even scholars and experts who agree with one another. It's about the evidence. 

That said, you did make a point or two in this thread about evidence and since some of those points were directed at me personally, so I will respond. 

So far, I have not received any information from you other than accepting the ideas of an uninformed individual who did not thoroughly research the topic. If he had, he would have realized the flaws in his views.

But, as you mentioned to Xero, you should keep this kind of nonsense in the closed club.