ComfortMyPeople

Once the WT relies on secular chronology it is no longer wholly Bible-based. And you can't get a date like 539 without secular chronology. And according to INSIGHT, you can't get 539 without readings from astronomy.
I don't reject all of WT chronology, however. Only when it conflicts with the Bible does it matter to me.

There was a mopping up effort, I agree. But show me how we know this was in NEB23, or are you just guessing? And of course even if it was, we have Ezekiel's mention of inhabitants still in Jerusalem.

And Ezekiel 33:21-29 shows that in the December/January following Jerusalem's destruction there were inhabitants living in Jerusalem's ruins. God instructed Ezekiel to tell them a message.

As others have pointed out, if the WT chronology is strong because it works, then it must be weak because it doesn't work. The entire reason, as you keep admitting, is so that 1914 will work. But 1914 doesn't work. Recall that 1914 was predicted to be the end of the Gentile Times. What was predicted failed. The Gentile Times did not end, no matter how many times CC keeps repeating that the Jews took over Palestine in or about 1914. The End of the Gentile Times was predicted to be the total collapse within a few months, and by the end of 1915 at the latest, of all authority within all national governments, kingdoms, and human political institutions around the entire world except for one. That one government that would would not collapse in 1914 would be a Jewish kingdom in Palestine that would not collapse like all the others and would be the only remaining kingdom on earth. The Gentile's time had ended, and only a Jewish government in Palestine would be successful in 1914.
So, one of the biggest failures of the 1914 "prophecy" was the claim that it would be the "end of the Gentile Times." The WTS actually had to change the definition of this phrase to make it seem like the prophecy had not failed.

You keep showing your "cards" which is why it is so easy to see the reason you keep bluffing.
If it goes against 1914, it doesn't matter how strong that cable of chronology is, it's the Devil's work!
That's it in a nut-shell and in a nuts-hell, isn't it?
So. I'll give in and discuss the Watchtower chronology, not just the secular chronology here. (What will follow after this post however will likely show why I didn't want this to be a Biblical discussion yet.)
It turns out that the NB Chronology supports the Bible's version of events very well. The Bible says that Babylon would be dominant in the region for 70 years, and the Bible was right. The Bible is saying that all these exiles (deportations) would be associated with those 70 years. And yes, there was an important exile when Jerusalem was destroyed, and another bigger one 10 years prior to that, and another one almost as big 5 years after that date, and likely another one around 20 years before that date. The last reported exile of Jews from the land was in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, yet the Watchtower publications are forced to make claims that ignore this one, and are therefore are not supported in the Bible:
*** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
Jerusalem came under final siege in Zedekiah’s 9th year (609 B.C.E.), and the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). (2Ki 25:1-8) In the fifth month of that year (the month of Ab, corresponding to parts of July and August) the city was set afire, the walls were pulled down, and the majority of the people were led off into exile. However, “some of the lowly people of the land” were allowed to remain, and these did so until the assassination of Gedaliah, Nebuchadnezzar’s appointee, whereupon they fled into Egypt, finally leaving Judah completely desolate. (2Ki 25:9-12, 22-26) This was in the seventh month, Ethanim (or Tishri, corresponding to parts of September and October). Hence the count of the 70 years of desolation must have begun about October 1, 607 B.C.E., ending in 537 B.C.E. By the seventh month of this latter year the first repatriated Jews arrived back in Judah, 70 years from the start of the full desolation of the land.
The idea that Judah was completely desolate when Jerusalem was destroyed is contradicted by the fact that the land could not have been fully desolated until at least the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar . Almost as many were taken in the 23rd year as the 18th year:
(Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
So we can either accept the Bible chronology which doesn't begin the final desolation of the land until at least NEB23, or we can accept the WT chronology which puts the full desolation of the land in NEB18 (or NEB19 if counting from accession year). Personally, it makes no difference to me which Julian or Gregorian dates that scholars and Christendom and the WTS have put on these events. For me the choice is between the Bible chronology and the Watchtower chronology here. The secular chronology just happens to fit the Bible chronology, but that isn't necessarily so important. In fact this difference of a few years doesn't matter, as long as the WT is not insistent that the mistakes that got it to this point were somehow divinely guided. 
There are actually very, very few areas where I find I must conscientiously choose between the Watchtower and the Bible, but this is one. Another area where I have to accept the Bible account over the WT account is the idea that Jesus was given more authority in 1914 than he had when he claimed all authority in heaven and on earth. I prefer to believe what Paul said about Jesus ruling as king from God's right hand in the first century. (1 Cor 15:25)
It's a simple choice for my own conscience here again: Bible chronology or Watchtower chronology? I find that I can remain a Witness and still advocate for the Bible on these points, although not in the congregation where it would cause unnecessary divisions and contentions. But that is just my own conscience. Some might think it's important enough to advocate within the congregation, but I see this as giving too much attention to false stories and genealogies:
(1 Timothy 1:4) . . .nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith.
I'm not imposing my conscience on anyone else, although I am glad to give an account of my reasons:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . .

Nonsense. It is precisely because this "regnal formula" does not include "King of Babylon" that you should not ignore the formula. Besides, look at how the WTS treats such "formulas" to mean something else, like "with reference to his kingship as it affected the Jewish nation." For Daniel 2:1, you have an example of this in INSIGHT:
*** it-1 p. 1186 Image ***
In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.)
You've already seen Witnesses on this very topic claiming that this would have been shortly after Daniel's exile, which could be dated to about 605 BCE in the standard chronology. That would make this verse mean 603 BCE (standard). The WT claims that this 2nd year mentioned in Daniel 2:1 is about 605 BCE, and that the "real" second year of Nebuchadnezzar is about 622 BCE (WT chronology).
*** it-1 p. 190 Ashdod ***
Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in 624 B.C.E.,
As you can see, INSIGHT gives Nebuchadnezzar two starting dates, 607 BCE and 624 BCE. This is similar to the several starting dates for Cyrus.

(wikipedia)
 

No. Those dates were published by the WT in the 1960's. All the WT had to do was copy the dates straight out of Parker & Dubberstein, a book from 1942, that was already in the Bethel Library when I got there in the 1970's.

You can also find it here:
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf
It was also here in 1938:
Waldo H. Dubberstein, "The chronology of Cyrus and Cambyses," AJSL LV (1938) 417-19.
Also, the WTS admits that this does not give a precise dating for the Return of the Jews.
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
You constantly point out that secular works cannot choose between 586 and 587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th years. You point out that they can't be trusted since they can't get this precisely. It would be very hypocritical of you to not give the same measure of criticism for the fact that the Watchtower publications cannot choose between late in 538 or early in 537 for the decree.

I only briefly scanned this PDF before commenting on it previously. But it has been brought to my attention again, so I am reading it more carefully, and maybe a bit more critically this time.
First of all, I still assume that Michael Gilmour had only made a "sloppy" mistake in comparing the "footnote" rendering in the 1984 NWT and comparing it to the "main rendering" in the revised 2013 NWT. Then he claimed that the 1984 rendering was changed in 2013 to be less susceptible to a Trinitarian understanding. The entire page containing Gilmour's comments was avaliable on Google Books, but the second time I visited that page, it is no longer available in preview mode.
I assumed the reason for the sloppy scholarship was due to a strong prejudicial leaning toward the Trinity doctrine and therefore being a bit too anxious to grasp at straws to prove the NWT wrong. The comments about Gilmour in the PDF indicate that this might have been a mistake or might even have been deceptive on Gilmour's part. That's possible, but it is not such an important point to be deceptive about. He gains very little ground toward his theory that the new NWT is any more non-Trinitarian than the old one. (Which, of course, had actually rendered this verse the same way in both versions, notwithstanding a footnote that disappeared in the 2013 NWT.)
In effect, the NWT didn't "allow for" the translation as an alternative because the footnote disappeared. But when the complete NWT Study Bible is available, there will probably be a comment, again, to the same effect as the 1984 rendering.
Here is the verse in question:
(1 Peter 1:11) 11 They [the prophets] kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.
The underlined phrase in Greek is pretty much just a simple "Spirit of Christ" so that most translations just say:
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (KJV)
The NWT translates "Spirit of Christ" as "the spirit concerning Christ." The possible reasons are defended in the PDF that comments on the verse. And the reasons are "fair" but not definitive. The author of the PDF agrees with "spirit of Christ" as a better translation, but agrees with the idea that this is not a scripture intended to replace the "spirit of God" with "spirit of Christ" as if Christ was personally inspiring the prophets instead of Jehovah.
I agree with this too. The scripture does not support the Trinity or equal deity with Jehovah. It does refer to the "spirit of God about Christ (or concerning Christ)" The NWT gives the sense, instead of giving a pure literal translation, but a translation always has the prerogative of giving the meaning in the context, not just the literal meaning of the words by themselves.
Of course, the PDF tries to show that the words my themselves MIGHT have already "literally" held the same meaning that includes "about" or "concerning" even within the literal word. That's because the word for Christ is in the genitive case, which usually involves ownership, and can often take an "apostrophe s" in English (i.e., Christ's spirit). But the genitive case is sometimes used, especially in classical Greek, to include a meaning more like "concerning." (i.e., "the Christ-concerning spirit.").
But even most of the examples did not stand on their own because there was often an additional word in the sentence that made the "concerning" or "about" more explicit. In fact, examples included the Greek word for "about." (περί) The exception was Acts 19:40 , but the article itself is not able to make a strong case. here. (There are plenty of περί's in this verse, and one of them could easily be applied to the "notion" of the genitive meaning "concerning."
There are several examples in 1 Peter alone, showing that this was not a common construction for him. It would have made 1 Peter 4:14 mean that God's spirit was a spirit concerning glory, instead of a spirit of glory. Not technically incorrect, but how far do you take this. Is the spirit of God, really just a spirit "concerning" God:
(1 Peter 4:14) 14 If you are being reproached for the name of Christ, you are happy, because the spirit of glory, yes, the spirit of God, is resting upon you.
The non-Trinitarian Unitarians have addressed both verses well at this site:
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-peter-1-11
The most relevant part is here:
The spirit that God places upon people takes on different names as it refers to different functions.  This can be abundantly proven.  Nevertheless, the spirit is the same.  God always gives His spirit, and then it is named as it functions.  When it is associated with wisdom, it is called the “spirit of wisdom” (Ex. 28:3; Deut. 34:9; Eph. 1:17).  When it is associated with grace, it is called the “spirit of grace” (Zech.12:10; Heb. 10:29).  When it is related to glory, it is called the “spirit of glory” (1 Pet. 4:14).  It is called the “spirit of adoption” when it is associated with our everlasting life (Rom. 8:15, which is translated as “spirit of sonship” in some versions).  It is called “the spirit of truth” when it is associated with the truth we learn by revelation (John 14:17; 16:13).  When it came with the same power as it brought to Elijah, it was called “the spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15).  These are not different spirits.  All the names refer to the one gift of holy spirit that God gives.  Ephesians 4:4 states clearly that there is “one spirit,” and that spirit is God’s gift of holy spirit given to some people in the Old Testament and to all believers today.
When Peter mentions that “the spirit of Christ” was upon prophets as they “predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow,” it is easy to see that the spirit is called the “spirit of Christ” because it is associated with Christ and foretold of Christ,

Oh my!
Let no one think, not for a moment, that I understand not a small part of what is said, although I see it very interesting.

You are right that this would best be done in another topic. This one was originally intended for just a discussion of the accuracy of the secular evidence, and 1914 becomes a discussion of Biblical interpretation mixed up with secular evidence. But, of course, 1914 is the subtext of 607, 539, the seventy years, etc. To most Witnesses it is the only reason to look trust secular chronology at all, just so we can get to 539 -> 537 -> 607 -> 1914.  And, of course, reject all other points of the same secular chronology -- even the parts that got us to 539 in the first place.
I'll be happy to start a new topic. But it doesn't mean this one is finished. There are still several pieces of evidence to test the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.

Thanks. I started following this thread and then was away for a few days and got so behind that I stopped. As you probably realise, I have yet to properly research this whole topic, it's been on the back burner for a few years now and every time I intend to start something pops up and then I don't get back around to it. Then when I'm ready once more, so much time has passed that I have to start all over again and so round and round it goes. I saw you mention to someone that the whole thing could be figured out in less than a day. This is proof that I must be dumb and need an"explanation for dummies" like the type they do on YouTube, with diagrams and cute pictures 😂
I would not expect something like that from you since you are well above that. Perhaps if you viewed me as your 6 year old grandchild it might work 😁
As you say, most Witnesses haven't personally researched the 1914 topic, and rely on WT articles such as this one: 
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20141001/gods-kingdom-prophecy-1/
Which is supposed to illustrate a "typical" conversation someone might have with a householder, NOT! Not anyone I know.
When one reads both part one and two it makes sense, (to me) so perhaps in another topic one could use these two articles and insert critiques? (In another color). 
 
 

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4828-cyrus
On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as "King of Babylon, King of all the Lands."
In fact, the Watchtower quotes this very point:
*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
On page 404 of Volume 4, The Jewish Encyclopedia says: “Cyrus always conformed to the traditions of the thrones he usurped, and, together with his son Cambyses, rendered homage to the native deities. On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as ‘King of Babylon, King of all the Lands.’”
This makes perfect sense according to Babylonian custom, especially considering the Akitu festival which would have been Nisan (March-April) of 538. In other words, as early as possible in 538:
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub389/entry-5708.html
Gerald A. Larue wrote in “Old Testament Life and Literature”: “The most important religious celebration of Babylon and one that provides a background for understanding II Isaiah was the Akitu festival1 observed annually from the first to twelfth of Nisanu (Hebrew Nisan: March-April). The festal origins may lie in Sumerian times; the rites continued to be observed into the Persian-Greek period. The chief figure in the cult during the Neo-Babylonian era was Marduk, god of Babylon and supreme deity in the empire. His temple, called Esagila ("House of the Uplifted Head"), stood near the great ziggurat. [Source: Gerald A. Larue, “Old Testament Life and Literature," 1968, infidels.org <=>]
The Watchtower that quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia above made use of those same dates to include the following:
*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
If we proceed according to the cuneiform inscriptions, rather than the Bible, we have to take the position that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned concurrently for a time. According to this, the accession year (an incomplete lunar year) of Cyrus as king of Babylon began on October 23 of 539 B.C.E., when he entered the city (by day) after its capture by his troops. Hence his first regnal year (a full lunar year) began on Nisan 1 of 538 B.C.E., or on March 17/18 of 538 B.C.E., Gregorian time.
The cuneiform tablet entitled “Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11” mentions Cyrus’ first regnal year. By this tablet it is calculated that this year began March 17/18, 538 B.C.E., and it ended on March 4/5 of 537 B.C.E., Gregorian time. So Cyrus’ second regnal year began the next day, on March 5/6, 537 B.C.E. In this case Cyrus’ decree must have been made before this latter date that is, late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. See pages 14, 29 of Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, edition of 1956, by Parker and Dubberstein.
These are the same dates given in P&D as referenced in the Watchtower. I agree with them:
Start of 1st year, Nisan 1, 538 BCE = March 17/18, 538 BCE Gregorian = March 23/24, 538 BCE Julian End of 1st year, 1 day before Nisan 1, 537 = March 4/5, 537 BCE Gregorian = March 10/11, 538 BCE Julian

The INSIGHT book gives two choices:
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
So the first choice is that the first year of Cyrus as conqueror of Babylon would be the year when Cyrus made the proclamation decreeing the end of the Jewish exile. But since Daniel 9:1 refers to a first year of DARIUS in this same time period, "the may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and the 'first year of Cyrus' over Babylon." Then the INSIGHT book is even more "iffy" by adding: "If it did, then it would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus' first year from late in 538 BCE.
But then INSIGHT offers a slightly more conclusive solution, which is the one that I accept: "However, if Darius' rule . . . ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E."
There are several ways in which a first year of Darius the Mede could have fit into this timeline between 539 BCE and 538 BCE that would not have interfered with the fact that the Neo-Babylonian calendar places Cyrus accession year over Babylon in 539, and his first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537. Although I could offer the several conjectural reasons why the mention of Darius doesn't need to concern us, I already know that giving these possible reasons will be made to look as if the whole calendar is conjecture, and it isn't.
In addition to the above statement, I also agree with the much more definitive statement about the first year of Cyrus that the INSIGHT book offers:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
So, again, we have Cyrus' first year as 538 BCE, which is effectively from Nisan 1, 538 to (technically) the last day of Addaru, which is one day prior to Nisan 1, 537. The expression in the first INSIGHT quote indicates [the start of] Nisan of 538 to [the start of] Nisan of 537. So Nisan 1, 538 to Nisan 1, 537 is just as good for all practical purposes, unless you are doing this to quibble over a single day.
The Jewish calendar will be easy to surmise, because the Jewish calendar would have effectively become the Babylonian calendar at this time. Especially, since we are taught that all Jews to speak of were already exiled/deported into Babylonian dominated lands at this point. Of course, we must acknowledge, just as INSIGHT acknowledges, that we don't know for sure how well the Jewish and Babylonian calendars matched up until nearly 200 years later, when the Jews adopted the same Metonic cycle that the Babylonians had been using for centuries (including the year from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537):
*** it-1 p. 390 Calendar ***
We do not find record of a definitely fixed or standardized form of Jewish calendar until the fourth century of our Common Era (c. 359 C.E.), when Hillel II specified that the leap years of 13 months should be the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th of each 19 years. Such a 19-year cycle is commonly called the Metonic cycle, after the Greek mathematician Meton (of the fifth century B.C.E.), although there is also evidence that such a cycle was perfected before him by the Babylonians. (See Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, pp. 1, 3, 6.) This cycle takes into account that every 19 years the new and the full moons fall again on the same days of the solar year.
But we do have Biblical evidence that the Jews were already adopting the features of the Babylonian calendar, while exiled in Babylon and after coming back to their own cities in Judea. Some of that evidence is in the form of post-exilic contract tablets from Jewish settlements in Babylon. But it's the Biblical evidence that is more important here. Even more evidence of this trend already seen in the Bible, is also found in the Talmud
*** it-1 p. 392 Calendar ***
In postexilic times the names of the months used in Babylon were employed by the Israelites, and seven of these are mentioned: Nisan, the 1st month, replacing Abib (Es 3:7); Sivan, the 3rd month (Es 8:9); Elul, the 6th (Ne 6:15); Chislev, the 9th (Zec 7:1); Tebeth, the 10th (Es 2:16); Shebat, the 11th (Zec 1:7); and Adar, the 12th (Ezr 6:15).
The postexilic names of the remaining five months appear in the Jewish Talmud and other works. They are Iyyar, the 2nd month; Tammuz, the 4th; Ab, the 5th; Tishri, the 7th; and Heshvan, the 8th. The 13th month, which was intercalated periodically, was named Veadar, or the second Adar.
Imagine that! The Jewish calendar went so far as to name one of their months "Tammuz." That's like Christians using names like Thursday for Thor, Wednesday for Woden, Augustus [Ceasar] for August, etc. In fact, when we say that the Memorial of Jesus' Death is Nisan 14, instead of Abib 14, we are using the Babylonian influenced name for the first month, not the original Hebrew name for the same month, Abib.
So we can assume, fairly safely, that Nisanu 1, 538 and Nisanu 1, 537 would coincide with what the Jewish calendar called Nisan 1, 538 and Nisan 1, 537. (and we can subtract a day from Nisan 1, 537 if we think this gives us more "technical" accuracy.
In translating to Julian and Gregorian calendars we would need to have an idea of when any recent intercalary months had been added. If Addaru 29 or 30, 538 was the last day of Cyrus' accession year then we would need to know if it was actually an intercalary or "second" Addaru (Hebrew "second Adar" or "Ve-Adar"). In fact if either 539 or 538 had fallen into the 17th year of the 19 year Metonic cycle, the Babylonian calendar would have added an additional 6th month (Ululu [Elul] 2) instead of an additional 12th month (Addaru 2).
The INSIGHT book references P&D (Parker & Dubberstein) as an authority for the way in which it represents the Babylonian calendar. This is because there are literally hundreds of tablets, astronomical and otherwise, that make a reference to when the intercalary months have been added to which years in the Babylonian calendar. So it is possible to fix every one of these with a high level of certainty. Even though a couple of these had remained "unproven" or "unsure" up until several years ago, the gaps have now been filled in for every single year. (Some people probably don't realize that this alone provides an additional line of evidence that helps us double-check the accuracy of the Babylonian chronology as presented by many other independent witnesses.)
At any rate, the intercalary months that would effect the Julian & Gregorian reading have easily been identified by P&D for 539 through 537. Therefore we can have a very high level of confidence that the answer is:
[next post, for easier reference]
 

It was already answered, by AlanF, and I will go ahead and answer it again in my next post. But you need to understand why "scholar JW" will always claim that it wasn't really answered. This type of question is a kind of game with "scholar JW." He has about 4 of these types of questions from what I can see.
If you have looked up his former behavior on all forums where he brings such things up, you'll see that "scholar JW" believes this must be a trick question. It's easy to answer correctly, and it's easy to answer in perfect agreement with the INSIGHT book. But "scholar JW" thinks he can be sneaky (slippery) by taking advantage of the fact that the INSIGHT book "waffles" on this point. The INSIGHT book is not as definitive as it could be, and "scholar JW" will use the indecision in the INSIGHT book against the person who answers.
Of course, if a person tries to answer in the same way the INSIGHT book answers it, "scholar JW" can point out that the person answering is being INDECISIVE, and is therefore weak and wrong. If you answer decisively according to the best choice offered in the INSIGHT book, "scholar JW" will simply point out that you did not take the other possible choice into account.
This game played by "scholar JW" works only because he counts on the idea that he thinks almost all JWs who watch these discussions are stupid. But JWs are not so stupid as "scholar JW" thinks. What really happens is that most JWs just won't look into it themselves out of their "fear for their comfort:" that they will have to deal with something they weren't prepared for. Another reason, seen in some Witnesses, is the preferred haughtiness of "knowing" they are always right and anyone who challenges that haughtiness, even another one of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be considered automatically wrong. But most JWs aren't stupid about these matters, they just have their reasons for not wanting to look into it.
In the congregation the reason not to look into such questions is "fear for their comfort." But discussion forums tend to attract people who want to show off their knowledge or their discoveries, along with a lot more people who think that they can feel superior by dismissing knowledge and discoveries, usually with something as simple as "That doesn't fit my religion or my ideology. Therefore, you are wrong, I am right, and I am therefore smarter and superior -- without even trying!"
This must be a great trick to feed someone's ego. And on a forum like this, "scholar JW" (and CC, too, for that matter) will have discovered a great secret. No matter what they say, no matter how stupid or how wrong, it will always be considered correct (and "smart") in front of several other forum-visiting Witnesses. On this topic, other Witnesses only have to think about whether it supports the 1914 doctrine (e.g. 607 for NEB18). If anyone can point out that what "scholar JW" claims happens to be inconsistent with the evidence or even with the WTS publications, it won't ever matter. Automatically, someone like "scholar JW" can be right, even though "scholar JW" doesn't even have to be familiar with the evidence. What could be simpler? One can "win" all arguments without even knowing anything. They can run away from evidence, simply deny it, create a diversion, make completely false counter-claims, and yet, even when they tell lies, they can still be considered almost like little "gods" at least to themselves.
And this now becomes a vicarious ego boost to all Witnesses who do not want to look up the information for themselves. The "smarter" that the person with evidence appears to a person like "scholar JW," the better the "win" against them by the "scholar JW's" of the world." (To this end "scholar JW" will make sure that the person with the most evidence is not just called "supposedly intelligent" but is also called an actual "expert" or "the one with the most information" or "the one who should be able to answer this question." After all, "they" (Witness discussion observers) have just vicariously "stood up" against people who thought they could explain supposedly "complex" secular evidence. The more familiar one seems with the secular evidence, the more the ego boost to the Witness who thinks they are siding with the Bible chronology versus secular chronology. The more complex and unexplainable the secular evidence seems, the better and smarter and haughtier they feel for being able to "win" over "complex" evidence without even needing to bother to look into it. 
That's because the Witness can now think: "Aha! We who support 1914 in the face of "complex" evidence are supporting the Watchtower Society, and therefore the Bible, and therefore Jehovah. And look how the Bible evidence that we Witnesses support is so much better and stronger than the evidence of so the called worldly intellectual. This makes us smarter than people with PhD's, smarter than all secular experts."
Later, when I come back, I'll go ahead and answer that question from "scholar JW."

That's completely false. You have repeated it so many times it might actually seem true to you now, but it never was. The banning did happen after your words appeared threatening and after a couple of your posts had already turned to profanity. I also received some messages from a moderator here, where I was asked my opinion about whether you should be banned, and I spoke against it (as I always have, so far).
Even though I think banning is only appropriate when threatening and bullying take place, most of your bile and vilification have been directed at me, anyway, and I don't feel the least bit threatened or bullied by you. I'm only embarrassed about the shame you have brought upon those related to me in the faith. But the more you escalate on topics like this one, at least you show others that you can't be taken all that seriously. So it all actually works out better when you remain on the board to expose yourself.

Actually, it provides excellent evidence that 539 BCE is exactly correct (for Cyrus overthrowing Babylon). It shows that the WTS is correct about that date.

I didn't know anything about it. But I knew you were wrong. So I wasn't concerned. But after seeing Ann O'maly's response to you, it makes me wonder. So often, as I've pointed out, whenever you quote a source to make a point, the source actually makes the opposite point. You do this constantly, so that it is hardly worth looking up the sources you quote, because it almost always turns out to be a waste of time. The only reason I sometimes read your sources and respond is because so often the source is interesting and shows another angle supporting the same point I have been making.
But here you make the same "mistake" when quoting people on this very forum. This tells me that unless you are extremely devious (and I don't believe you are) that it is merely a matter of not being able to read correctly and carefully. This is common, and I know that you (as Allen Smith) have said that you have had problems with dyslexia, which is common. I don't believe you were purposely trying to show people that you are dishonest. But unfortunately that's exactly how this will come across to many people here. If AlanF or Ann O'maly or Srecko had made such a blatant error, they would definitely have been accused of being dishonest. You've done it to me.
However, you inadvertently pointed out that Rolf Furuli was very likely being dishonest. He is the one who actually had the software to test the eclipses of LBAT 1420 and, representing himself as a scholar, made a false claim. That claim could not just be chalked up to pure ignorance, in his case. 
By the way, no matter why you made this blatant error, I already know from your past haughtiness and false representations that you will probably not apologize for the false statements about Ann O'maly's words. I hope I am wrong this time.

Yes. I do remember. And I agree that it wasn't really fair to you. The only time I think a person should be banned is when they are threatening to hurt someone, or if it is obvious they are bullying someone. I don't like the strong language because it's distracting and it gives people an excuse to judge the person making the argument, without having to consider the argument. And profanity drives people away.
But it doesn't mean people should be banned over it. Just a reminder should be enough. This is why I never thought that you should have been banned over the strong language. I only see a few examples from "Allen Smith" where you used profanity. It wasn't enough to ban you over.

So back to check whether all the different, independent witnesses to the Neo-Babylonian timeline are really as consistent as secular experts and specialists claim they are. We have checked the sources that give us a complete relative timeline for the period. And we checked points from an astronomical tablet LBAT 1419 which clearly gave excellent identifiable BCE dates to various parts of the timeline, including the dates to attach to Nebuchadnezzar's rule. I also chose to check about half the eclipse dates on the LBAT 1420 tablet, and so far they give us several more direct astronomical dates to attach to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. I wanted to check at least one more of these for good measure, although there has not really been any question yet that we are dealing with an excellent matchup for the entire dating of Nebuchadnezzar that is consistent with the first dates given on LBAT 1419.
So now we will look at the eclipses reported for NEB28 (Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year of reign).

For the first one we would expect Month THREE to have an eclipse on the 14th of the lunar month, which will be typical since the eclipse falls on the full moon. The portion that tells just how many degrees of eclipse to expect or at exactly the time is damaged. But the fact that it set eclipsed is evidence that the moon is setting when the sun comes up, and the moon will still be eclipsed when it sets below the horizon. Let's see if that turns out to be true of the Month THREE eclipse in the year following his 27th year which turned out to be 578 BCE. The year after 578 BCE is 577 BCE, so we'll look there first.
In the THIRD month, on the 14th day since the new moon was visible (14th day) we see that there is a lunar eclipse that must have started it visible partial eclipsing as early as midnight. here are some shots of the hours from midnight until the moon sets (below the horizon), so we can check if it is still eclipsed when it was setting.

No doubt that the Month THREE eclipse was still eclipsed (almost fully) when it set below the horizon, which was at sunrise, as expected. That happened on June 14, 577.
So what about the second eclipse described for the same year (577 BCE) but the NINTH month? We should expect a full eclipse visible from 7 hours after sunset. (3.5 beru). The 9th month would land in December, since the 3rd month landed in June. And here is what we have at the full moon in December 577 BCE:
Here is the sun going down at exactly 5 pm on December 7 577 BCE, and we can see the earth's shadow is very far away from the moon. But this is near the winter solstice so it is going to be a long night:

Here are the readings from 1 hour after sunset to 7 hours after sunset:

We also read that it will clear in the West some time before morning. So we trace the next few hours, the 8th hour after sunset, until just an hour before the moon itself sets as the sun rises.

Even though the exact hour before morning when the the moon was cleared or released from the eclipse was missing from the tablet, we see that it was "cleared in the west" and this was between 3 and 4 hours before sunrise. The reading is nearly perfect for December 8 577 BCE.
Since I had some time, and the software is getting easier to use, I checked the remaining complete eclipse descriptions on LBAT 1420. As expected, they all match 577 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year (NEB28).

CC, I know you weren't asking me, but I appreciated that this section showed the value of VAT 4956 as a true astronomical diary, much closer in format to the style and content of later diaries, so that it would not be classed with what John Steele would call the proto-diaries from the previous centuries when the format of these diaries was not so well established. For context I am providing the final two paragraphs of his summary. I highlighted the area I assume you were asking about. (BTW, I thought this whole article was excellent, but not until reading it in its entirety.)

And the chart on page 45:

 

That reminds me . . . a few posts back, AlanF mentioned an article on JSTOR that was behind a paywall, and a lot of JSTOR documents are very expensive. I have full access to JSTOR as a college alumni, but I am required to follow the university's instructions about "fair use" doctrines, or I could lose the privilege, and the same university allows access to a lot of other databases.
But the point is that everyone should know that (since nearly the beginning of Covid-19) JSTOR has been offering everyone, student or individual researcher, free access to up to 100 articles a month, and a few downloads too. They have extended this offer into next year, which was originally going to stop this year.
Also, there are a lot of articles, books and journals referenced on Academia.edu that are free, but there are a lot that are referenced but haven't been uploaded due to copyright issues. In fact, when I noticed that John Steele's article in "Keeping Watch in Babylon" was not available, I made a request through Academia.edu and it wasn't John Steele that answered but Kathryn Stevens.
At any rate, Kathryn Stevens wrote back within an hour saying:
Kathryn Stevens    University of Oxford       Faculty Member, Faculty of Classics, Ancient History     4 days Kathryn Stevens Dear xxxxx xxxxxxxxx,
I saw you requested an upload of my book with John Steele and Johannes Haubold on the Astronomical Diaries – for copyright reasons I can't upload it to academia.edu but would be very happy to share a pdf via email/WeTransfer if you would like one! My email address is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@ccc.ox.ac.uk if you want to contact me that way.
Best wishes,
Kathryn Sometimes it's easier to get material for discussion than people might think. Scholars are often happy to have their work discussed online. (It's also available illegally, I think, on dokument.pub or some such site.)

Several of our less enlightened posters have made claims that are quite ridiculous, and indicate a nearly complete lack of familiarity with what they're talking about. Arauna, for example, focuses on the vague notion -- which she never explains coherently -- that the Greek Olympiads are somehow a better source for dating the reign of Cyrus the Great than are astronomical tablets in conjunction with Persian contract tablets and other contemporary documents. But the Watchtower Society disagrees, as I will now show.
Watchtower publications contain several mentions of the Greek Olympiads, such as these:
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 447
<< The Greeks figured time by means of four-year periods called Olympiads, starting from the first Olympiad, calculated as beginning in 776 B.C.E. Additionally, they often identified specific years by referring to the term of office of some particular official. >>
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 566
<< Cyrus succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan, which was then under the suzerainty of the Median king Astyages. Diodorus (first century B.C.E.) places the start of Cyrus’ reign in the first year of the 55th Olympiad, or 560/559 B.C.E. >>
Note that the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus is referenced as the source of the statements about the Olympiads.
A question that arises is, How reliable are the histories of Diodorus Siculus? Note what the Watchtower Society had to say about these:
The Watchtower, April 1, 1969, pp. 222-223
<< But what about the later historians of the Greeks and the Romans? Do they supply chronology that is sufficiently exact that it poses a serious challenge to the Bible’s record? Among them we may consider Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.). Of the original forty books of his history, only fifteen have come down to us. Five of these deal with the mythic history of Egypt, Assyria, Ethiopia and Greece, and the remainder chronicle the second Persian war and extend to the time of Alexander the Great’s successors. It is said of Diodorus that “he has been at little pains to sift his materials, and hence frequent repetitions and contradictions may be found in the body of the work. . . . In the chronology of the strictly historical period he is occasionally inaccurate.”—The Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume 7, page 245. >>
So the Society itself argues that Diodorus' histories must be taken with a good grain of salt.
Nevertheless, any ancient source like Diodorus can be quite accurate in its chronology. Diodorus, it turns out, is accurate for at least the period in question here, 539 BCE through about 485 BCE. Note what the Society said about how Diodorus' dating by Olympiads matches up with dating by various other ancient documents:
The Watchtower, May 15, 1971, p. 316
<< Other sources, including Ptolemy’s canon, point to the year 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. For example, ancient historians such as Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius show that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/59 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/30 B.C.E.). (The years of the olympiads ran from approximately July 1 to the following June 30.) Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon. This would harmonize with the accepted date for the start of his rule over Babylon in 539 B.C.E.
Though the year is not found in the Nabonidus Chronicle itself, the available evidence is nevertheless sufficient for accepting 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. >>
Next note what the Insight book had to say about this:
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 454
<< The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.). Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14; see comments above under “Babylonian Chronology,” also PERSIA, PERSIANS. >>
Pretty much the same as the above 1971 Watchtower said.
However, this description of the evidence for 539 BCE was incomplete (more complete information was given on page 453). Another Watchtower publication also gave more complete information:
The Watchtower, October 1, 2011, p. 28
<< A PIVOTAL DATE IN HISTORY
The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of:
Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily (c. 80-20 B.C.E.) wrote that Cyrus became king of Persia in “the opening year of the Fifty-fifth Olympiad.” (Historical Library, Book IX, 21) That year was 560 B.C.E. The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 485-425 B.C.E.) stated that Cyrus was killed “after he had reigned twenty-nine years,” which would put his death during his 30th year, in 530 B.C.E. (Histories, Book I, Clio, 214) Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death. Thus, nine years prior to his death in 530 B.C.E. takes us back to 539 B.C.E. as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon.
Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon. >>
Note clearly that the second point uses astronomical dating to arrive at 539 BCE for the first year of Cyrus' ruling Babylon: Two eclipses, 523 and 522 BCE, point to the 7th year of Cambyses, so his 1st year was 529, and the 9th year of his predecessor Cyrus was 530 BCE, thus arriving at 538 BCE as Cyrus' 1st year, and 539 as his accession year (counted as year zero in the Babylonian dating system).
Thus, this 2011 Watchtower article was forced to admit that a contemporary Persian astronomical tablet, along with cuneiform documents and contract tablets that establish that Cambyses reigned for seven years and Cyrus reigned for nine years, solidly point to the date that the Watchtower Society uses as "a pivotal date in history".
Also note that the above Watchtower material admits that the Royal Canon of Ptolemy accurately shows the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.
That these sources all converge on 539 BCE as the date of Babylon's overthrow is agreed to in the following Watchtower material:
All Scripture Is Inspired, pp. 282-283
<< 28 Pivotal Date for the Hebrew Scriptures. A prominent event recorded both in the Bible and in secular history is the overthrow of the city of Babylon by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. The Bible records this event at Daniel 5:30. Various historical sources (including Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and the Babylonian tablets) support 539 B.C.E. as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus. The Nabonidus Chronicle gives the month and day of the city’s fall (the year is missing). Secular chronologers have thus set the date for the fall of Babylon as October 11, 539 B.C.E., according to the Julian calendar, or October 5 by the Gregorian calendar.
29 Following the overthrow of Babylon, and during his first year as ruler of conquered Babylon, Cyrus issued his famous decree permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem. In view of the Bible record, the decree was likely made late in 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would give ample opportunity for the Jews to resettle in their homeland and to come up to Jerusalem to restore the worship of Jehovah in “the seventh month,” Tishri, or about October 1, 537 B.C.E.—Ezra 1:1-4; 3:1-6. >>
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 454
<< The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.). Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14; see comments above under “Babylonian Chronology,” also PERSIA, PERSIANS. >>
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 458
<< Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.) >>
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 566
<< Cyrus succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan, which was then under the suzerainty of the Median king Astyages. Diodorus (first century B.C.E.) places the start of Cyrus’ reign in the first year of the 55th Olympiad, or 560/559 B.C.E. >>
The Watchtower, May 15, 2003, p. 4
<< One pivotal date is 539 B.C.E., the year when Persian King Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Secular sources for the time of his reign include Babylonian tablets and documents of Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy. >>
Quoted above, but here it is again:
The Watchtower, May 15, 1971, p. 316
Other sources, including Ptolemy’s canon, point to the year 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. For example, ancient historians such as Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius show that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/59 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/30 B.C.E.). (The years of the olympiads ran from approximately July 1 to the following June 30.) Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon. This would harmonize with the accepted date for the start of his rule over Babylon in 539 B.C.E.
Though the year is not found in the Nabonidus Chronicle itself, the available evidence is nevertheless sufficient for accepting 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. 
And finally we have the Society's authoritative and more detailed statement summarizing the above information:
Insight, Vol. 1, pp. 452-453
<< Babylonian Chronology. Babylon enters the Biblical picture principally from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II onward. The reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar marked the start of what is called the Neo-Babylonian Empire; it ended with the reigns of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar and the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. This period is of great interest to Bible scholars since it embraces the time of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the greater part of the 70-year period of Jewish exile.
Jeremiah 52:28 says that in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar) the first group of Jewish exiles was taken to Babylon. In harmony with this, a cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2Ki 24:1-17; 2Ch 36:5-10.) (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) For the final 32 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, there are no historical records of the chronicle type except a fragmentary inscription of a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year.
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year.
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. >>
Note that all of the above material proves that the Watchtower Society agrees that Cyrus' accession year began about October 539 BCE, and his 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 538 BCE.
The poster "ScholarJW" has vaguely implied that in some unspecified way the rule of Darius the Mede must be fit in with that of Cyrus. Obviously, the Society disagrees, since it says nothing about Darius the Mede in any of the above material. In some older Watchtower publications the identity of Darius the Mede is discussed, but in no case does that change the dates for Cyrus' reign.
I hope this material provides some useful source material for our astute posters.

Let me try to lay this out for you (although this is more for any interested readers' benefit than for yours). The stars, planets, and Moon are components in a giant sky-clock that keeps perfect time. The 'fixed' stars are like the numbers spaced out on the clock's face. The planets and Moon are like the hands on the clock. Through their cyclical alignments with each other and against the 'fixed' starry backdrop, we can tell the time - the year, the month, the day.
Now, to be a 'competent' astrologer in ancient times, you had to be a competent astronomer. You had to interpret what you saw rather than what you wished you had seen. A bad astrologer would lose his job (or his life) if he faked his observations and his report to the court. It was a serious business involving years of rigorous training from childhood (remember Daniel?).
Not only that, but the Babylonians depended on genuinely dated observations over centuries to develop their mathematical astronomy/'science' that was eventually passed on to the Greeks and built upon by others. How were those observations dated? They used their calendar, i.e. the name and regnal year of the current ruler, the month, the day, even the time of night the observation took place. Any astrological interpretations coming from those observations have no bearing on the veracity of the celestial phenomena they witnessed.
So, when there is a dated astronomical text, we can check those observations, pin them to a BCE date, and hey presto! we can know in modern calendar terms when a king ruled. Thus, the 'stars' are reliable tools for dating kings' reigns.

Most of what CC says is just bluster he finds randomly, evidently by Googling key words. And if it he doesn't quite understand it, he must think others won't understand it either, and therefore he thinks it might impress people. He has pretty much proven that it is almost all fake blustering with him. More than half the time when he adds quotes from some secular reference, or displays a book cover with an impressive title, the source actually give evidence against his theories. To me that indicates that he couldn't have read or understood the sources he quotes from. Otherwise, that would indicate that he is just plain dishonest, so I prefer to think that he just doesn't understand most of what he reads.
Also, if CC was right that these eclipse calculations are not right unless you use his own more stable basis for calculating them, then he is rejecting the very ones that the Insight book uses that will ultimately give you 539 BCE for Cyrus conquering Babylon. I know that because the software I am using gives me exactly 539 BCE for Cyrus and exactly 587 BCE, instead of 607 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, for example. He probably doesn't realize that if a new calculation was off for Nabonidus or Nebuchadnezzar by even one year, then Cyrus is also off by one year. If Nebuchadnezzar is off by 20 years, then Cyrus is also off by 20 years. You can't get around that.

True. But Biblical chronology cannot give you a BCE/CE date like 539 BCE, 607 BCE, 33 CE, etc.