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

[George88]

To a diligent researcher, the year 633/2 BC marked the siege of Nineveh by the clash between the Scythians and the Medes. Which sources support these? Who was present in 612 BC?

There should be no excuse for conducting thorough research that is of interest to individuals, absolutely none.

[Pudgy]

That last sentence reminds me of a sympathetic person of younger age with a poor memory who doesn’t think about what is actually being stated.

29 minutes ago, George88 said:

There should be no excuse for conducting thorough research that is of interest to individuals, absolutely none.

[Pudgy]

4 hours 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!

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

You see things so clearly, which do not exist.

[George88]

Given that no evidence has been found to definitively link astronomical phenomena to the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, it is clear that you, I, and Xero are well aware we cannot link it that way. We have to rely on historical evidence. The main idea is to consider the information that ancient historians had access to when making their claims, which has since been lost. It is important not to immediately dismiss their calculations due to new sources of information that contradict previous beliefs.

"The chronology which can be deduced from the data found in the announcements of the two prophets gives us the period from 640 to 625 B.C. for the invasion of Hither Asia by the Scythians, and this completely agrees with the statements of Herodotus. In order to avenge the death of his father Phraortes, who fell, with the greater part of his army, before the Assyrians, Cyaxares, according to Herodotus, immediately after his accession, i. e. in the year 633 B.C., set out against Nineveh. During his siege of Nineveh, the incursion of the Scythians into Media took place. According to this, Herodotus placed the commencement of the invasion of Media by the Scythians in the year 633 B.C. or 632 B.C. The chronographers, Eusebius and Hieronymus, put the invasion at the same time; they observe, the first at the year 632 B.C., the second at the year 634 B.C., that "the Scythians forced their way as far as Palestine." Syncellus gives only the general statement, that in the days of king Josiah, Palestine was overrun by the Scythians, and the city of Bethshan taken by them, whence its name.

The name Scythians, as has been already remarked, was applied by the Greeks and Romans in a wider sense to all the nomadic and equestrian tribes of the North; it was a comprehensive title for almost all the whole complex of the northern nations. To which nation of the Scythians, we may ask, did these hordes belong, which in the period just fixed, i. e. between 632 and 625 B.C., invaded and laid waste Hither Asia, from the Caucasus to Egypt? According to Herodotus, they were the ancestors of the Scythians between the Danube and the Don, the Scoloti."

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

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.

If you want to have a serious conversation (and not a "talk show" as a certain V.Putin might call it) then I am quite willing. As long as we continue to discuss evidence rather than personalities and faults and supposed expertise and supposed authority. I don't claim expertise or authority on this topic, but I have long been amazed now at the availability of so much consistent evidence when I used to have the impression that it was all a mess and so much of it contradicted other evidence, and was therefore useless to study. 

In response to what you say above, I did NOT intend to only mention you. In fact I said: "

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

. . . 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 . . . 

Pudgy was the one who joined the conversation only to say he wasn't interested in it, and that would therefore include not being interested in facts or evidence about it, one way or another. I usually expect Pudgy to join a conversation like this mostly to make some points about the Democratic Party, and throw in a few memes or cartoons, some of which are his own making and, yes, also to trade insults with you. I have no problem with such additions to topics I have started, but it probably isn't fair to @xero to ask a question and then see most of the responses filled up with unrelated insults.

I admit I had you in mind for some of my other observations, based on some of your statements above, but I'm quite willing to start fresh if you wish.

And I don't think I am any paragon of virtue in this regard. Look at some of the old "back-and-forth"  between me and scholar_jw, or posts referring to Furuli when it comes to this particular topic. I don't control myself very well when I believe I'm seeing academic dishonesty and possibly purposeful diversions and fallacies. In this regard, I understand where you might also be coming from.

[George88]

59 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

(and not a "talk show" as a certain V.Putin might call it) then I am quite willing.

Just to be clear, it was Xero, JWI, and your attack dog that started the sideshow, not me.

Considering the history of reading on this site your posts over many years, nothing of interest would appeal to me due to the denials you make when presented with evidence, as if you have scholarly authority.

[JW Insider]

10 minutes ago, George88 said:

nothing of interest would appeal to me

No problem. I have found that to be true of most fellow Witnesses when it comes to this topic. It's not comfortable to engage when you know where the evidence is heading. 

But for others, I will still go ahead and try to respond to your comments about the evidence and questions you have already asked of me.

[George88]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Pudgy was the one who joined the conversation only to say he wasn't interested in it, and that would therefore include not being interested in facts or evidence about it, one way or another. I usually expect Pudgy to join a conversation like this mostly to make some points about the Democratic Party, and throw in a few memes or cartoons, some of which are his own making and, yes, also to trade insults with you. I have no problem with such additions to topics I have started, but it probably isn't fair to @xero to ask a question and then see most of the responses filled up with unrelated insults.

We should not downplay Pudgy's insults and your feeble defense of him. Xero's behavior with his strong rejection as though he has scholarly authority, especially when he does not was wrong and you know it. Your excuses and justifications are not acceptable.

[George88]

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

No problem. I have found that to be true of most fellow Witnesses when it comes to this topic. It's not comfortable to engage when you know where the evidence is heading. 

I am open to discussing the matter with any reasonable individual. However, I have not encountered anyone, either here or in the closed club, who fits this description. Instead, all I have come across are individuals who deny the facts as presented and are unwilling to acknowledge their distortions.

[George88]

From the first incursion in Nineveh by King Cyaxares in 633/2 BC to take revenge for the death of his father King Phraortes, by the hands of the Assyrians through the Scythian garrison and the decisive victory with the aid of the Babylonians in 613/2 BC, how much time elapsed? This information is crucial for refuting the historical evidence if one wishes.

Also "prove" the existence of 587/6 BC using the Babylonian Chronicles.

What was the other little evidence we know from history that I just posted?

"The chronology which can be deduced from the data found in the announcements of the two prophets gives us the period from 640 to 625 B.C. for the invasion of Hither Asia by the Scythians, and this completely agrees with the statements of Herodotus. In order to avenge the death of his father Phraortes, who fell, with the greater part of his army, before the Assyrians, Cyaxares, according to Herodotus, immediately after his accession, i. e. in the year 633 B.C., set out against Nineveh. During his siege of Nineveh, the incursion of the Scythians into Media took place. According to this, Herodotus placed the commencement of the invasion of Media by the Scythians in the year 633 B.C. or 632 B.C. The chronographers, Eusebius and Hieronymus, put the invasion at the same time; they observe, the first at the year 632 B.C., the second at the year 634 B.C., that "the Scythians forced their way as far as Palestine." Syncellus gives only the general statement, that in the days of king Josiah, Palestine was overrun by the Scythians, and the city of Bethshan taken by them, whence its name." REPOST

When did Jeremiah start his mission? Is this evidence also refutable?

[George88]

This is why the information I shared applies to both situations. The chronicles primarily focus on military actions. To conduct thorough research on the topic, it's essential to adopt a military perspective.

I can provide support for the dates 607 BC and 587 BC by referring to both the Babylonian Chronicles and astronomical data. I am confident in the accuracy of these dates as they align with historical and biblical events in a meaningful and coherent manner. That is why I am currently going through a transformative phase in HARRAN.

[George88]

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

You won't see any deflection, only my claim that COJ never used the Babylonian Chronicles to justify 587 over 607 and refute the Watchtower and neither would I try to do that. I actually consider it a deflection to make a request. It's like saying that you must use a yardstick to refute an ink pen. 

I was also making that point. You are deflecting by distorting words, not COJ. That's why I suggested proving 587 BC using the Babylonian Chronicles, which COJ claims to use to refute 607 BC. You are now stalling and deflecting, despite denying it.

26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Why would I care. This should be a discussion about evidence, not about whether the Watchtower or any of its followers have changed their view about 607 BCE. As you probably know, the Watchtower itself changed its view about 607 about 80 years ago. Doesn't make the Watchtower "apostate."

Do you have an example of the Watchtower refuting or denying the dating of 607 BC, similar to what apostates and disgruntled witnesses claim?

28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

No. I said he thought that the "seven times" method to reach modern dates like 1914 was inferior to using "God's dates" that proved 1874. Instead of the "seven times" to reach 1914 he thought it was better to start with 1874, a more proven date (by at least half-a-dozen supposedly independent methods) and to count forward for a 40 year harvest.

Why should you care about this? Why bother mentioning it if you already disagree with 2520?