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

[Pudgy]

All of the above discussions, and every detail of the above discussions by all sides are totally irrelevant. 

World War One and Two, remember?

Anytime you can incinerate 90,000 people in an instant by making a star over their city makes all other previous human combat irrelevant.

The fact that it was about 2600 years ago and the only evidence is a siege ramp of hand thrown stones up to the inner walls of Ninevah, or Massda, or one wall in Jerusalem makes the whole thing ONLY, and I repeat ONLY … an intellectual exercise.

Armageddon didn’t happen in 1914. WWI was a COINCIDENCE.

Nothing argued here will change that.

Nothing!

[George88]

Would you like Srecko to initiate a new discussion about the recent events in Houston, Texas? I have just received an email with information about it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-shooting-reported-at-joel-osteens-lakewood-megachurch-in-houston/ar-BB1i7DGz

 

[George88]

Although Russell never explicitly stated that Armageddon would occur in 1914, it is clear that he did not have a distorted view of the matter, about the end of the Gentile Times. The fact that World War I coincided with that year cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence. Therefore, I strongly believe that there is no justification for paying attention to nonsensical claims.

[Pudgy]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

All of the above discussions, and every detail of the above discussions by all sides are totally irrelevant. 

World War One and Two, remember?

Anytime you can incinerate 90,000 people in an instant by making a star over their city makes all other previous human combat irrelevant.

The fact that it was about 2600 years ago and the only evidence is a siege ramp of hand thrown stones up to the inner walls of Ninevah, or Massda, or one wall in Jerusalem makes the whole thing ONLY, and I repeat ONLY … an intellectual exercise.

Armageddon didn’t happen in 1914. WWI was a COINCIDENCE.

Nothing argued here will change that.

Nothing!

Armageddon did not happen in 1914.

No possible way to ignore that.

THAT makes WWI ONLY A COINCIDENCE.

[George88]

The Biblical World_ Volume 1 -- John Barton -- Routledge Worlds, 2002 

during the same half-century? The questions are easy to formulate but not so easy to answer: Was the territory of Judah completely devastated in the course of the Babylonian conquest? Does the evidence support the thesis of a major depopulation, and thus make it less likely that the infrastructure essential for cultural, intellectual
and cultic activity could have survived? Is the evidence of destruction evenly distributed or is it concentrated in certain regions? And where there does seem to be clear physical evidence for destruction, can we be sure that the Babylonians were the perpetrators?

The task of providing answers to these questions is complicated by the dubious practice of using the Babylonian conquest of 589–586 as the terminus for Iron II, often with nothing between this point and the Persian period. This conventional method of periodizing archaeologically has the disadvantage of focusing exclusively on one quantitatively minor part of the Syro-Palestinian region. It also has the effect not only of insinuating a cultural hiatus in that area, which may or may not have been the case, or may have been the case to a greater or lesser extent, but of leaving most of the Neo-Babylonian period in a kind of limbo. Needless to say, it is not always possible to give as precise a date for material evidence for destruction (typically, a layer of ash) as 586 BC.14 We should therefore not be surprised
that many of the claims advanced for destruction by the Babylonians have been called into question or rejected outright; in which respect we are witnessing a shrinking of the database reminiscent of the old debates about Israelite cities devastated in the wake of Joshua’s army.

We can hardly avoid a feeling of déjà vu (or déjà lu) on rereading such confident statements as the following apropos of the Babylonian conquest: ‘all, or virtually all, of the fortified towns in Judah had been razed to the ground’ or ‘there is not a single known case where a town of Judah proper was continuously occupied through the exilic period’. p.420

The same observation can yield conflicting interpretations, depending on the perspective of the person you ask. However, the mere agreement of others does not validate the observation.

COJ's apostasy does not stem from a mere misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the Babylonian Chronicles for 587 BC. Rather, it is a direct result of his departure from and lack of faith in his own religion. Consequently, we can rightfully label him an apostate, regardless of any errors he may have made in the field of chronological history.

[George88]

Why not simply express your distorted views in the closed club, as you originally suggested to Xero?

[JW Insider]

9 minutes ago, George88 said:

Why not simply express your distorted views in the closed club, as you originally suggested to Xero?

As soon as he answers, or if he decides to ask his question again in the closed club, I'll be happy to participate there. In the meantime, you might want to show exactly which view was distorted. I'm always happy to correct any of my distorted views. But I'll need to know what they are first.

[George88]

The most significant distortion in this game is the gap between Babylon and the Persian empire, which reflects the gap shown in the Babylonian Chronicles from 594 BC-557 BC. Many seek to fill this gap with the commonly accepted year of 587 BC, without considering alternative views that place 606 BC in a better position. It is important to evaluate the differing opinions of ancient historians before reaching a definitive conclusion.

You have the power of choice. There is no need for me to highlight the specifics, as you are already well aware of your argument and its intended direction. However, I must emphasize that though I have no issue with 587/6 BC for valid reasons, I cannot support its association with the destruction of Jerusalem. From a military standpoint, it simply lacks coherence. Considering the multitude of ancient tablets that recount military triumphs, it is more sensible to follow a path guided by reason and evidence, relying on historical records and scripture.

I'm still in Harran, next it will be Riblah.

[George88]

DR. Wiseman fails to acknowledge Nebuchadnezzar's brothers or any potential conflict between them in the palace in the Babylonian Chronicles, leaving this issue unresolved.

Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon -- Wiseman, D. J. (Donald John) -- 1985

The importance of Kimuhu as a control-point is endorsed by the Egyptian reaction to its capture. Following Nabopolassar’s return to Babylon in Shebat (c. February 606 B.C.) they initiated a seige of the Babylonian garrison. The long four month operation may attest the Egyptian use of near-by Carchemish as their base. Nabopolassar sought to counter this move by forming another strong point further south on the Euphrates at Quramati, protected by three villages (Sunadiri, Elammu and Dahammu) captured in Ebir-Nari territory, that is west of the river. Once again on the Babylonian king’s withdrawal the new garrison was attacked by the Egyptians who had crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish, which was now firmly in their hands. The men from Quramati made a strategic withdrawal southwards." In 605 B.C., while his father stayed in Babylonia, Nebuchadrezzar is specifically stated to have taken personal control of the army (pan ummanisu isbat).' His objective is stated to be Carchemish and it is likely that the Egyptians had themselves by now vacated Quramati for the Babylonians would not have bypassed places held by the enemy or left their line of communication up the R. Euphrates bank exposed. Nebuchadrezzar followed the strategy successfully used by his father against Kimuhu. 

Two references to possible ancestors of Nebuchadrezzar occur in economic texts. One is to an Ilu-bani ‘father (i.e. ancestor) of Nebuchadrezzar dated to the twentieth year of Nabopolassar (606/5 B.C.),” the other to a Tabiya ‘father of Nebuchadrezzar’ in the fourteenth year of Sama’-Sum-ukin (654°BCs) elf the latter was a reference to our Nebuchadrezzar it might go some way to explain Berossus’ assertion that Nebuchadrezzar was ‘still in the prime of life’ when sent by his father against Egypt and Syria in 605 B.C. However, Berossus may not be reliable here since he interprets events in accordance with Seleucid experience.* However, if these texts refer to the same Nebuchadrezzar, they would indicate a possible ancestry going back to Nabd-nasir.* 

Nebuchadrezzar’s Family 

 

Nebuchadrezzar had a brother Nabd-Suma-lisir described by his father as ‘his next succeeding brother, my favourite small child, the second born’ (talimsu serram sit libbiya duppusu dadua). Both were present to carry the symbolic basket and hoe when their father inaugurated new work on the ziggurat in Babylon.” In Nebuchadrezzar’s third year the _ broken Babylonian Chronicle makes another allusion to this brother Nabia-Suma-lisir.” While it is possible to conjecture that this marks the commencement of political difficulties caused by a revolt within the palace, the reference could equally be to the death of this brother but not to both.* Both types of events are noted elsewhere in the Chronicle.” Another son _of Nabopolassar, and so brother of Nebuchadrezzar, is Nabt-zér-uSab&i, named in a sale document dated in Nebuchadrezzar’s final (43rd) year. It should be noted that one Nabt-uSabsi governor of Uruk in 650 B.C. had a brother who was also called Nebuchadrezzar.” 
 

We need to find out why there is confusion between two individuals named Nebuchadnezzar, one being the son of Nabopolassar and the governor of Uruk in 650 BC, and the other being the King of Assyria mentioned in the book of Judith or referred to by some historians as Nebuchadnezzar 3. If that's the case, which Nebuchadrezzar was in charge of Nabopolassar's army in the early years of that king? So, NO! Nothing is definitive at face value.

[JW Insider]

George88: You told me I was sharing distorted views, and I asked you what they were. You answered with . . . 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

The most significant distortion in this game is the gap between Babylon and the Persian empire, which reflects the gap shown in the Babylonian Chronicles from 594 BC-557 BC. Many seek to fill this gap with the commonly accepted year of 587 BC, without considering alternative views that place 606 BC in a better position.

Since I have never said anything about that particular gap between the Babylonian and the Persian empire, who is making the distortion? If it's not me, who were you talking about when you said I was sharing distorted views? Are you saying you have NO examples of views I have distorted, but that you made the claim anyway? 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

There is no need for me to highlight the specifics, as you are already well aware of your argument and its intended direction.

This is in full agreement with what I said very early on in the discussion. That when most Witnesses are aware of the direction the evidence leads to, they no longer wish to consider the specifics, and prefer to divert to other types of evidence. It seems like a kind of fear. I don't see a need to fear it. For me, the tradition about chronology that we have latched onto here is not the core of what we stand for as Jehovah's Witnesses. It's fine for any of us to believe it if we wish, but we shouldn't get too attached to it, because it's not the core of our worship, our love for God and neighbor, the ransom, nor does it change anything about the last days or the good news of the Kingdom.

[George88]

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Since I have never said anything about that particular gap between the Babylonian and the Persian empire, who is making the distortion? If it's not me, who were you talking about when you said I was sharing distorted views? Are you saying you have NO examples of views I have distorted, but that you made the claim anyway? 

Everyone, including you, continues to insist that 587 BC is a fact simply because it is generally accepted. However, if you look at my post, you'll see that it's not a clear-cut case, not even for Dr. Wiseman.

I won't be deceived by your manipulative language. Let's have a mature conversation like adults, or none at all. 

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That when most Witnesses are aware of the direction the evidence leads to, they no longer wish to consider the specifics, and prefer to divert to other types of evidence.

I am thankful that my research remains untainted by the manipulation of facts. I will confidently proceed with my plan and continue to rely on my own observations. If you choose not to acknowledge the irrefutable evidence presented by scholars, or if you believe that your non-scholar status grants you superiority over them, that is your prerogative. I have no need to convince anyone here of anything.

If you believe that Dr. Wiseman is not a scholarly authority, consider the extensive works of reputable historians and Bible scholars.

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It's fine for any of us to believe it if we wish, but we shouldn't get too attached to it, because it's not the core of our worship, our love for God and neighbor, the ransom, nor does it change anything about the last days or the good news of the Kingdom.

I fully support the idea. Am I the one who posted about 612 BC? Did I come up with the 20-year timeframe and the supposed conflict with 607 BC?

I absolutely concur that anyone discussing 607 BC must fully understand its historical context. The Watchtower has meticulously researched this matter and is confident in their conclusions. I find their approach to be convincing. I have no interest in entertaining doubts raised by someone who lacks scholarly expertise over a period of 49 years.

[George88]

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's the same thing I always say about 607 BCE. I have no issue with the date at all. In fact, I think it's a fairly good date with which to start the 70 years of Jeremiah 25.

The distinction can also be clarified by referring to the Babylonian Chronicles. This substantiates its significance in both secular and biblical history. As far as I have observed, no one has accurately connected the dots.

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think it's telling that no one seems to like the direct and excellent evidence for identifying the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, but would rather try to mix in the Babylonian Chronicles and various tablets that recount military triumphs. 

In this particular scenario, we must take action. There is no alternative solution. The key lies in accurately positioning the campaigns referenced in scripture, and independently calculating them based on the true starting point the scribes sought to portray. While there may be some slight exaggeration, it is important to recognize that biblical scribes and secular scribes had distinct motives guiding their work.

After Harran, my next focus will be on Riblah. Moreover, I plan to revisit Dr. Wiseman's works as he presents compelling arguments regarding the book of Daniel.