ComfortMyPeople

I see that you couldn't find anything that showed the WTS is willing to rely on these Olympiads. There was a time when they began to, but as you could see in reading INSIGHT, they reject the dates that Olympiads would have given them. And those BCE dates tied to the Olympiads come from astronomical confirmations, anyway.
It's not like there was an Olympiad "dating system" during the Neo-Babylonian peirod. There were just records from a lot of the Olympic events, undated, just like records from the Babylonian Chronicles, except they were about the games, not about the feats of the kings. From various records about the Olympiads, which didn't have any BCE dates on them, some secular historians well after Nebuchadnezzar, well after Cyrus and after Artaxerxes decided to start pinning some events to them working backwards.
Of course, the WTS rejects their supposed accuracy, by rejecting the Olympiad dates at the time of Artaxerxes, and instead relies on astronomical data instead, according to the INSIGHT book.

Then you agree with exactly what I have stated about the kings lists from the very first page of this topic. There are no BCE dates linked to them. But of course there really is data that could determine the date. That's how the INSIGHT book could determine that the king before Cambyses was Cyrus.
As it turned out, when all the then-contemporary evidence was combined with all the king lists, they turned out to be completely accurate from even before the Neo-Babylonian period. Completely accurate from the Neo-Babylonian period through the Seleucid/Hellenistic period, and could therefore be tied to later eras. They match the TENS OF THOUSANDS of Neo-Babylonian clay tablets. So far, no exceptions.

Some JWs do. Furuli understood this. Gertoux understands it. Don't know about "scholar JW." But there is evidence from three different years on this forum that Cesar Chavez did not know what these differences are. I think he actually does know now, and is so ashamed to admit it that he has changed the subject to Delta-T's.

I did read it, and I think it is true, but it is wrong to limit the message and value of the Scriptures to only a few.
I don't think the NT is just for the anointed ones with a heavenly hope. Naturally, when the entire congregation of JWs was just made up of only the anointed and the anointed Jonadabs who were also going to heaven, then everyone was anointed. Only the anointed Jonadabs were considered a less spiritual class. (Later, in our doctrines, the Jonadabs became the "other sheep" who were after some time no longer considered anointed.) So we had doctrines that emphasized the message of the NT to the anointed. But we have grown away from this teaching and all of us can now appreciate the principles of the NT as applying to all, even if some specific statements were (or are) applied more specifically to the anointed.

This is obviously correct.
And this, too, of course.
This statement is also now true, based on a change the Watchtower made in 2018. This was discussed online here on this forum in early 2018. And the Watchtower changed the teaching later that same year.
Before 2018 it was not true to our teaching. From 1930 to about 2018, this was the teaching:
The meek who inherit the earth do not include Abraham, Noah, Isaac, etc. We taught that only Jesus and the 144,000 inherit the earth, and that the "other sheep" like Abraham do not inherit it but became permanent tenants of the earth that the 144,001 have inherited, holding the earth in "trust" for them. The other sheep who are also meek would receive the opportunity for everlasting life on earth, of course, but do not "inherit" the earth, except in a minor indirect sense where we would have to put "quote marks" around the word.
Note some references from our publications:
*** Watchtower 2009 2/15 p. 7 par. 9 How Jesus’ Sayings Promote Happiness ***
Why are the mild-tempered ones happy? Because “they will inherit the earth,” said mild-tempered Jesus. He is the principal Inheritor of the earth. (Ps. 2:8; Matt. 11:29; Heb. 2:8, 9) However, mild-tempered “joint heirs with Christ” share in his inheritance of the earth. (Rom. 8:16, 17) In the earthly realm of Jesus’ Kingdom, many other meek ones will enjoy everlasting life.—Ps. 37:10, 11.
[The next month 3/15 a kind of temporary correction was made so that the "other sheep" could "inherit" in some minor sense, as long as writers remembered to put quotation marks around the word inherit. But, after that, the other sheep were consistently left out from those who inherit the earth.]
*** w08 5/15 p. 3 par. 4 How Should We Treat Others? ***
The mild-tempered ones are happy because “they will inherit the earth.” Jesus, who was “mild-tempered and lowly in heart,” is the “appointed heir of all things” and is therefore the principal Inheritor of the earth. (Matt. 11:29; Heb. 1:2; Ps. 2:8) It was foretold that the Messianic “son of man” would have associate rulers in the heavenly Kingdom. (Dan. 7:13, 14, 21, 22, 27) As “joint heirs with Christ,” 144,000 mild-tempered anointed ones were to share in Jesus’ inheritance of the earth. (Rom. 8:16, 17; Rev. 14:1) Other mild-tempered ones will be blessed with everlasting life in the earthly realm of the Kingdom.—Ps. 37:11.
*** INSIGHT-1 p. 1201 Inheritance ***
The anointed members of the Christian congregation are spoken of as having a heavenly inheritance, sharing Jesus’ inheritance as his “brothers.” (Eph 1:14; Col 1:12; 1Pe 1:4, 5) This includes the earth.—Mt 5:5.
I suspect that INSIGHT will soon be updated, at least in the online version, so that there is an acknowledgement of the 2018 change.
*** w58 3/1 p. 139 “Blessed Are the Meek” ***
Will that mark the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise: “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”? No, at least not primarily. Those words, first uttered by the psalmist David, apply first of all to the pre-eminently meek One, Jesus Christ, to whom his Father, Jehovah God, said: “Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your own possession.” Inheriting the earth is part of his reward for his meek and faithful course while a man.—Matt. 5:5, AS; Ps. 2:8.
Sharing this inheritance with Jesus Christ will be his “bride,” those footstep followers of his, limited to 144,000, who will receive a heavenly reward. (Rev. 14:1, 3) Thus the apostle Paul tells them: “If, then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ.” Jesus refers to these specially favored followers of his as a “little flock.” However, the principle enunciated at Matthew 5:5 applies also to Jesus’ other sheep who, as meek ones, will receive everlasting life on earth. How so? In that they will hold the earth in trust for Christ and his bride, permanent tenants, as it were.—Rom. 8:17; Luke 12:32; John 10:16.
I don't think any Watchtower reference ever allowed for the "other sheep" to simply inherit the earth except in principle, or an indirect sense until September 2018. (I remember when it was OK to say that the "other sheep" could inherit Paradise and even everlasting life, but there was a prominent brother at Bethel who was very adamant that we should never say that the other sheep inherit the earth.)
*** w74 6/15 pp. 377-378 par. 14 Serve with Eternity in View ***
at Matthew 5:5 Jesus quoted from Psalm 37. Did Christ say that its fulfillment was all in the past? No, for he projected it into the future, saying that the ‘mild-tempered will inherit the earth.’ Yes, those mild-tempered ones who are to be with Christ in his heavenly kingdom will rule over this earth. (Rev. 5:9, 10) . . . Those whom the Lord puts on his right hand as “sheep” have the opportunity to “reside forever” on a paradise earth governed forever from heaven.
*** w66 8/1 p. 451 “Happy Are the Mild-tempered Ones” ***
Who are the mild-tempered that will inherit the earth? Certainly they would include Jesus Christ himself, for, above all men that ever lived on this earth, he was mild-tempered. As he himself said: “Come to me, . . . for I am mild-tempered.” Concerning him and his triumphal ride into Jerusalem, it was written: “Look! Your King is coming to you, mild-tempered.”—Matt. 11:28, 29; 21:5.
That Jesus Christ, as the preeminent mild-tempered one, will inherit the earth other scriptures make clear. Jehovah God has appointed him to be “heir of all things,” including this earth. In fact, ‘the nations are to be his inheritance, and the ends of the earth his possession.’—Heb. 1:2; Ps. 2:7, 8.
This inheritance Jesus Christ shares, even as he does his Kingdom rule, with his anointed footstep followers, for they are to be “heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ.” These are the ones the apostle John saw in vision standing upon heavenly Mount Zion and who number 144,000.—Rom. 8:17; Rev. 14:1.
 
So of course it is TRUE that the 144,000 inherit the earth. But the continued insistence that the other sheep do not inherit should probably not have been emphasized so much, because it seemed almost to disenfranchise the other sheep a bit. And it implied that the Christian Greek Scriptures (NT) were only for the anointed, which might have even discouraged others from gaining the same level of encouragement.
So this update should be welcome and refreshing, because it does reflect the idea that you mentioned above, that the Christian Greek Scriptures are wonderfully beneficial for ALL.
 

🤦‍♀️ CC, if you still can't understand something so basic as the astronomical dating convention for BCE dates, what are you doing here? 
@JW Insider is correct. You are wrong. And what is '599/8/7 BC' about? Are you aware that lunar eclipses can only occur at full moon and that only lunar eclipses can be included in a lunar eclipse cycle?
Here, I've drawn a diagram for you:

You're welcome.

You say that the date is set in stone. Of course this is impossible without at least one astronomical reading. I agree with Cyrus' death in 530 BCE and I expect that almost everyone on this part of the forum agrees, too.
But I already posted from the Insight book, that the WTS only accepts this date because WTS/Insight relies on an astronomical reading that identifies one of the BCE years of Cambyses. (Just as there are several more that identify the BCE years by counting from Nebuchadnezzar.) Without that piece of secular, astronomy evidence from Cambyses the WTS would not be able to put a BCE date on Cambyses. And without trusting the Babylonian Chronicles and the various secular historians, and the secular king lists, there would be no ability to say that Cambyses was the son of Cyrus, nor that Cambyses directly followed Cyrus. Without the king lists and the Babylonian Chronicles and secular historians we wouldn't even know if this was the "right" Cyrus or the "right" Cambyses, or that Cyrus had died. The evidence that there was a Cyrus that ruled from the time his accession year and for another 9 regnal years is evidenced by several of the tens of thousands of stone business tablets. But those tablets don't give us 539 to 530 BCE. We get that from the astronomy, counting up from readings during the time of Nebuchadnezzar or backwards from Cambyses. You have the king lists and secular historians that tell us that Cambyses directly followed his father Cyrus. But those don't give a BCE date either.
With that in mind, when you read the section from the Insight book, you will probably understand why I quoted from Insight earlier:
*** INSIGHT-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
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.
You already can see from reading "Insight" that the WTS relies on a Babylonian clay tablet to get the astronomy reading of an eclipse to find a certain year in Cambyses' reign. They also rely on the fact that there are no missing business/contract tablets, in order to claim that Cyrus ruled for only 9 years. (Yet the WTS also relies on the NECESSITY that there are 20 missing years of these tens of thousands of tablets. The writer from Finland that CC quoted earlier would put these missing years in the reign of Nabonidus, who immediately preceded Cyrus. )
And some of the other information Insight (WTS) relies on would be obvious from a reading of the source material like Parker & Dubberstein where the entire Babylonian calendar has been recreated, based on hundreds of tablets and inscriptions. These sources include astronomical diaries and king lists. The WTS can't know that the order of kings was Nabonidus, Cyrus, Cambyses, for example, without relying on the king lists (or relying on others who relied on them). They are also relying on other secular sources to determine the length of these reigns.
Is there even one word of what I just said that you think is not true? If so, please let me know what it is that you don't believe.

I said (bolded):
And you responded (bolded):
I'm not trying to twist your words. I went to some trouble trying to get you (Allen Smith) to see this the last time you presented information about -607 and tried to pass it off as 607 BCE. -607 is 608 BCE!  So your inclusion of -625 is also therefore 626 BCE!
Actually, it was Ann O'maly who was the first person who corrected you (Allen Smith) on this exact same problem, the very last time this came up.
I'll look it up again, but I believe the last time you refused to believe or admit that you had made a mistake. This time I expect either the same, or if you look this up and find out I am right, then I expect that you might just say you intentionally meant 608 BCE all along for some reason. But then, of course, you lose the satisfaction of claiming that I can't read or that I refuse to accept what I am personally seeing.
Instead of all this posturing, then, why don't we all just try to learn this stuff together, and not spend so much time attacking each other. I admit that you have been insulted by a couple of people around here**, but I haven't insulted you or attacked you. I can understand why you might find it insulting to be shown where you are wrong, or where you haven't made yourself clear, but my goal is not to insult or attack you. No matter what your goal is.
** edited to add: When I admit that you have been insulted by a couple people around here, I should have mentioned that it was my impression that you had also been insulting them in a way that would have made me expect them to insult you. 

I decided to add some of the details on the rest of LBAT 1420 (BM 38462) to further fill in the "chart" as it were.
I looked for the eclipse that the tablet identified with the 25th year of Nebuchadnezzar (NEB25). The tablet says it could be found in Year 25, in the FIFTH month (Abu) occurring at about 3 hours after sunset. We know that Abu should always start in July or August.
I found it on August 14th, 580 BCE. It did not match any other eclipse in any of the surrounding years, and it did not correctly match the Watchtower's chronology, which would have put this eclipse in 600 (so I also checked 601, 600, and 599).
Here it is 3 hours after sunset in 580 BCE. Perfect!

In this case, an eclipse that was not quite as good as above does show up for the Watchtower's preferred chronology on August 25, 600 BCE. (Or if July 27th was the target, then there was no eclipse at all in the FIFTH month of 600 BCE)
The second eclipse is reported here on LBAT 1420 for NEB25, to be six months later, and also shows up as below in the first watch of the night. Here is hour two and hour three, below:


One might argue that the Watchtower chronology has a fair shot at supporting that the WTS chronology fits an eclipse on August 27 600 BCE but there are two big problems.
1. If a specific year "X" fits ALL the eclipses, but another year "Y" FAILS on all but one or two, then which year is more likely to be intended: X or Y?
2. The second eclipse reported 6 months after the first, in month ELEVEN, did match the tablet for the standard chronology, but failed the Watchtower chronology. For the year 599 (WT chronology) it did not occur in the first watch of the night, but in the second and third watch. Here is the first, second and third hour after sunset (in the first watch) to try to match the WT chronology:

So there was no eclipse in the first watch supporting the WT. The "Watchtower-supporting" eclipse couldn't be identified until the 2nd and 3rd watch. 
For the very next year, NEB26, we have another two eclipses to look for, in month FIVE and month ELEVEN again, but this time, according to the tablet, we should find both of them to be invisible to a viewer at Babylon. Also, since the tablet tells us that month TWELVE was intercalary (a second Addaru), then we have a much better idea whether the FIFTH month of the next year has been pushed a little later than usual. This of course, causes even more problems with the Watchtower chronology which only has a visible eclipse on August 15, 599 BCE, and none in adjacent months.
If the standard chronology is right, we should find those two eclipses where stated, and there they are:
August 4, 579 and January 28 578, respectively, and invisible. The August (FIFTH month) one is nicely eclipsed at 4 in the afternoon (below the horizon), although I admit that I can't really find a good eclipse the ELEVENTH month matching the one predicted. The second picture below is as close as I can find, so perhaps this one was "passed by" due to the prediction not quite being visible enough, or maybe bad weather:

So with that we can move on to the lines that are supposed to be NEB27 according to the diary (below).
Both eclipses work OK for the standard chronology. Neither work for the Watchtower chronology in 598. Here they are (for NEB27), month THREE, June 25 578 BCE and month NINE December 19 578 BCE. The December picture is taken when the eclipse apparently peaked below the horizon around NOON, during daylight, and long gone by night.  The first picture is not a very good eclipse, but most of its "eclipse" activity was when the moon was invisible below ,the horizon, and the eclipse, already weak, weakens further after sunset.
 
The Watchtower chronology would force these into the year 598, where the eclipse for the THIRD month is invisible, but even less of an eclipse, than the poor one for 578 above. The second one mentioned in the table (NINTH month) never happens at all for 598, never getting closer to the "eclipse shadow" than in the second picture below. There was one on January 29, 597, also invisible.

There are more details for an observed one in NEB28, although the first reading is too damaged. I'll do that one next.
 

Thanks for this..... we all should have this attitude. 

This is good. This is the only right way to do it. From the time I started this thread, I have already discovered that I had still been carrying several ideas around that were wrong. I found some typos that I corrected, but I also discovered that I had made a couple of untrue assumptions. There might still be some more of those in things I've said. I misread and mistrusted the intent of an author (that Cesar Chavez posted) even though I never really had a reason to mistrust that author before. I re-read the author and realize now it was my fault for misunderstanding him.
This is why I'm glad to have  my views corrected -- no matter whether the person correcting me knows the WTS reasoning better than I do, and no matter what their own motives are concerning the WTS. 
And I'm still not absolutely sure about a couple of things, such as when the Babylonians made might have made exceptions to their intercalary months in the early years -- when a king might have had the say as to when the extra month would be added.
To keep their lunar calendar aligned with the solar seasons, the Jews also added an extra month to the end of the year (Adar/Addaru) when necessary -- every two or three years. To keep their lunar calendar aligned with the solar seasons, the Babylonians added an extra month, not just to the end of the year when necessary, but sometimes to the middle of the year -- an extra Ululu. The rule was apparently based on when they had started measuring the 19-year cycles. (Every 235 new moons, was almost exactly the same as 19 solar years.) The extra months began to fit a pattern where the 17th year out of the 19 added the extra month after the 6th, not after the 12th. There is enough data on the tablets to know this pattern after say 400 BCE, but for how long before 400 BCE I don't know.
  Babylonian Jewish Persian Julian calendar I Nisannu Nisan Adukanaiša March/April Harvest onions II Ajaru Iyyar Thûravâhara April/May Harvest; sowing sesame III Simanu Sivan Thâigaciš May/June Harvest flax and lentils IV Du'ûzu Tammuz Garmapada June/July Harvest chickpeas V Âbu Ab Turnabaziš July/August Planting millet VI Ulûlu Elul Karbašiyaš August/September Sowing chickpeas VII Tašrîtu Tishri Bâgayâdiš September/October Harvest sesame VIII Arahsamna Marheshvan Markâsanaš October/November Sowing broad beans and flax IX Kislîmu Kislev Âçiyâdiya November/December   X Tebêtu Tebeth Anâmaka December/January Sowing onions XI Šabatu Shebat Samiyamaš January/February Sowing XII Addaru Adar Viyaxana February/March Harvest broad beans

You are right! My son already chided me for building it without them. However, they're staying overnight as I write this. It was too cold today, and the snow too crispy/icy, although the older one made "snow angels." (She's 4.) But it should be warm enough tomorrow to make another one together. We have plenty more carrots for noses, but those buttons are avacados, and we only had three.

My grandchildren are coming over in a few minutes, so just finished a snowman.
A few people have already stopped to take a picture of it.
 

Is this true? Do you have an example of one? Do we know whether the WTS ever made use of these other methods? If they didn't, do we know why they didn't use one of these other methods?
Not at all. I have been consistent that I have no problem with your idea of Cyrus making the edict at the Akitu in 538 BCE. I have never had a problem with it. Way back when you first brought it up, I said that Akitu in 538 didn't matter to me. That was because I never wanted to split hairs over that idea. I think that the Jews could have made it back in 538 or 537 BCE. Some probably came back on their own time even later. We know that some took up residence and never came back.
But you have now seen why the Watchtower MUST split hairs over it, not allowing that Nisan 538 date because for the Watchtower writers, this is a few months too early. It's only a few months early, but we are told it had to be in 537.
*** it-1 p. 417 Captivity ***
Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree
But they have mentioned it. In regards to Cyrus' son. You think they could make these comments about how his son represented Cyrus at Akitu, and not wonder whether Cyrus ever represented himself at the "New Year's" festival.
*** it-1 p. 581 Darius ***
Some scholars present Cambyses (II) as being made “King of Babylon” by his father Cyrus soon after the conquest of Babylon. While Cambyses evidently did represent his father annually at the “New Year’s” festival at Babylon, he seems to have resided at Sippar during the rest of the time. Research based on study of cuneiform texts indicates that Cambyses evidently did not assume the title “King of Babylon” until Nisan 1 of the year 530 B.C.E., being made coregent with Cyrus,
Sorry about that. I'll apologize in advance, but I have to admit that I didn't see myself patronizing towards you. Can you explain? I think you are referring to the idea you quoted me saying: "But you should realize that ultimately you are opening up a strong possibility that 1914 should to change to 1913." Maybe you didn't understand that this is a very serious point about why you should not expect anyone among the GB or WTS to take this idea of Akitu 538 seriously. Because that's exactly the seriousness of the implication if you were to recommend the idea. They have pushed away from "early 538" to "late 538" and "early 537" on purpose, specifically because they need 607 to reach 1914. 538 creates a problem with 1914, because it will point to 1913.

For me, I think honesty is always better. Even if a dishonest version of something is easily understood by the majority.

Actually, you just indicated by what you are saying that you still don't get it. ... He says that a period of 18 years 11 days, will not always reflect 18 years between calendar years, but will sometimes appear to reflect 19 years. If someone uses what this author is saying to try to remove the value of the Nebuchudnezzar eclipses then they making a big deal out of something that should already be obvious. . . .
For example: what is the distance between these three dates that were clear from LBAT 1419?
September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise., September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset., October 6, 555 BCE, overnight. The answer is 18 years, and about 10 or 11 days. 591-573=18 and Sept 25-Sept15=10 days. (actually 10.5 because one was sunrise and one was sunset, an extra half day apart).
The next ones are 18 years, 11 days apart, because 573-555=18, and September 25 to October 6 is 11 days. (There are only 30 days in September.)
So let's look at the author's examples. You'll see he is not being misleading but it is easy to be misled if you don't read t carefully:
[Edited: He is not clearly explaining that these so-called 18 year versus 19 year calendar differences are not because of a difference in the saros cycles over time. Because they always remain almost exactly 18 years and 11 days. He is saying that the saros cycle can "apparently" be 19 years when one only pays attention to the regnal year. His goal is to say that any tablets that tried to extend too far with just 18 instead of taking into account that the number of years was actually 18 years+ 11/365ths of a year, might be indicating that they were restarting an "era" of saros cycles rather than continuing to add to old attempts at saros cycle tablets where an apparent 19 year difference would have shown up after about 36 cycles in a row. (corrected: 36 x 18+ years.)
What's the distance between these two:
So is it really 19 years? No! Month 12 of 99 BCE to Month 1 of 80 BCE is exactly 18 years and 11 days.
That's the eclipse of 3/31/98 BCE. (Month 12, as you know runs into the 98 BCE portion of 99/98 BCE, as explained in the last LBAT 20 post.)


and the second part of that was Month 1 of  80 BC:


So, what's the difference between March 31 98 BCE and April 11, 80 BCE?
98-80=18 years. And from March 31 to April 11 is 11 days. Total 18 years 11 days.
Obviously. Just like a person born on December 25, 1999 is 18 years and 11 days old on January 5, 2018. Even though the "calendar" difference appears to be 2018 - 1999 = 19 years. But if that same person was born 6 days later, on January 1, 2000, he would be 18 years and 11 days old on about January 12, 2018. The "calendar" difference appears to be only 18 years this time (2018-2020) even though it's exactly the same amount of time. 
I won't even do the next set of eclipses he mentions because you can just look at them and know he is using the same deceiving language by not making it clear why this happens:
"Month i of year 11 of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (657 bce) and the eclipse possibility in Month xii 2 of year 6 of Esarhaddon (676 bce)"
Again he is comparing late in Month 12 (March) with early in Month 1. (April) (Normally, month 12 is February/March, but the 2 subscript on the twelfth month means there was a second "leap month" for month 12, just as in the first case he showed. This pushes Nisannu out into a start that will always be in April, not just March/April).
[We experience the same issue when calculating the Memorial date each year, deciding whether it will be closest to the full moon in March or a full moon in April.]

False. These are not my issues. I'm only explaining why the WTS has an issue with it.
And now you have more information about why the WTS thinks it's NOT important.
The GB rejects it and thinks it's not important. You disagree with the GB here. It doesn't interest me too much because all you are really doing is effectively shortening the GB's time 70 year period by about a year. No big deal to me. It's obviously a big deal to the GB because, to them, it effectively moves back the destruction of Jerusalem to 608. Because it's no big deal to me, that's the reason I don't obsess over it.
I assumed they did, because they spoke about it, relative to Cambyses in the same context where they recognized the secular evidence that Cyrus was his father:
*** it-1 p. 581 Darius ***
Some scholars present Cambyses (II) as being made “King of Babylon” by his father Cyrus soon after the conquest of Babylon. While Cambyses evidently did represent his father annually at the “New Year’s” festival at Babylon, he seems to have resided at Sippar during the rest of the time. Research based on study of cuneiform texts indicates that Cambyses evidently did not assume the title “King of Babylon” until Nisan 1 of the year 530 B.C.E., being made coregent with Cyrus,
 

You just need to read the entire section carefully under the heading "Chronology."
*** it-1 pp. 452-453 Chronology ***
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. . . . 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.
So, the WTS, according the Insight book, relies on a Babylonian clay tablet to connect Babylonian chronology. This clay tablet concerns eclipses of the moon. This clay tablet does not point to Cyrus. It points to Cambyses II. How do we know in what way it relates to Cyrus? One way is the contract tablets, that cement the entire period from earlier than Nabonidus through a period even later than Cyrus and Camybses. These clay tablets are cemented into a very strong, single chronology/timeline and this is used in the calculation. But the WTS doesn't actually believe in these. There are many for every single year of the NB chronology, yet the WTS has decided that there are 20 years of these completely missing. So they count on king lists to know that those 9 years of Cyrus are complete. This is admitted by adding the reference to Parker & Dubberstein, for example. Since the WTS assumes many years are missing in the contract tablets, then Cyrus may have had years 10 through 30 that we don't know about. Or perhaps another king reigned between Cyrus and Cambyses. How would you know that the rule of Darius I or Bardiya didn't come between Cyrus and Cambyses. For this one relies on Berossus list of kings and their reigns, or "Ptolemy."

So let's take this step by step. If you disagree with any of the steps, just say so, and I'll show the specific place in the Insight book or in your previous posts.
You have said that the proclamation edict from Cyrus must have happened in Nisan (Spring: March/April) of 538. True? The Insight book says that the edict could have happened "later in 538," and never mentions the possibility of Nisan 538. True? The Insight book says that the edict could have happened as late as Nisan 537 (or even a bit later). True? If the edict happened in Nisan 537 the Insight book says that this would be enough time to get back into their homes in the "seventh month" of 537. True? Can you think of any reason that the Insight book only gives two possibliities here?
It's either:
Late in the year 538. True? Early in 537. True? The most obvious reason is that the Insight book indicates that they needed less than 7 months from the edict in order to get back in their homes. True?
If they could get back home and settled in their cities in less than seven months from the edict, and the edict was in 538, then what year would they get back to be settled in their cities? 538. True?
Now, if you think that anything I said, or the Insight book said here wasn't true, please point out the place.
---------------
Now, there is also a contradiction to this choice between "later in 538" and "early in 537." In one place in the Insight book it simply declares that it was "early in 537." This is what I meant when I said that the WTS rejects your idea about Akitu - Nisan 538. Here:
*** it-1 p. 417 Captivity ***
Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.
The more flexible idea offering the choices is here:
*** 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. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E.
 

First of all, I only accept the importance of the Bible chronology through this period. I do not think we have any reason to rely on the stars or eclipses or secular chronology or Babylonian evidence of any kind in order to understand the spiritual and Biblical importance of this period. The Bible chronology is a relative chronology, and this is all we need to know and trust.
The Watchtower, on the other hand, relies on this secular, "profane" chronology, provided by evidence from Babylon in order to put BCE/CE dates on this time period. The Watchtower admits that it relies on ancient "king lists," Babylonian Chronicles, and the reported positions of stars and planets in order to tie BCE/CE dates to the timeline.
If you think that's not true, then you haven't read the portion of the Insight book that admits this.
Personally, I think the evidence from Babylon is interesting because it DOES support the Bible. But I don't need this type of evidence for appreciating the spiritual value of the Bible. The reason I have looked into it here and am sharing what I'm learning is because, for me, it shows how easy it for any of us, Watchtower writers included, to become so interested in counting dates that many are probably not aware that they are using the secular evidence either dishonestly, or in a way that brings reproach on Jehovah.
If it's dishonest, and you don't think we should be concerned or that it should be corrected, that's fine. But it's not the same for everyone. All of our consciences work according to the Biblical, spiritual and moral training we have learned to appreciate.

TAKING A RELATIVE TIMELINE AND MATCHING IT TO OUR OWN ERA (BCE/CE)
Pieces of this topic are already under discussion elsewhere in this thread, so it's time I got caught up. There are a lot of questions and claims (and accusations and insults) flying around which might be better answered after presenting more data.
But, as some of the dust-ups settle, it's also a good time to review just how far we have gotten with the relative chronology, before jumping into a discussion of the astronomical diaries/tablets. Clearly this information is of highest interest to other Witnesses, so I will review how the relative data is being presented in terms of what the WTS has said about the secular evidence for the relative data.
REVIEW
Back on page 5 of this topic, I quoted from a WTS publication, "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) that can be found on jw.org here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101981019
Concerning the king list that's associated with Ptolemy, jw.org said: "Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns..." Therefore, we used it as a tentative baseline to see if this "witness" holds up under the "scrutiny" of further evidence. We tested it against Berossus. jw.org (at the link above) admits that "Ptolemy's figures agree with those of Berossus." So Berossus provided a second "witness" that agreed with the first. The publication at jw.org didn't mention the Uruk king list, but we also tested against that king list, and this provided a third witness that exactly agreed with the first two. Then the Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B) is mentioned and the jw.org publication admits: "The figures given for these three [Neb,E-M,Neriglissar] agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon."  Therefore this becomes a fourth witness agreeing with the first three, and even agreeing not just on three kings mentioned but also the entire length of Nabopolassar and first of Nabonidus. The jw.org publication does not mention that the Hillah stele (Nabon. No. 8 ) also confirms the period from Nabopolassar 16th to Nabonidus' accession year, touching, again, on all the N-B kings. This becomes a fifth witness all in perfect agreement with the other four. Then the jw.org publication refers to the Business/Contract tablets admitting: "Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period." So these tablets provide a sixth witness agreeing with the previous five. In effect, they are actually providing a great crowd of additional witnesses, up to 10,000 more witnesses, so far, to the entire N-B timeline.
So, now that we have all these witnesses to the Neo-Babylonian timeline before us, we can present what the Babylonians would have used as their own timeline. So far, again, I have only put relative dates at the top for the 96 different years of data from the first year of Nabopolassar to the last year of Cyrus. (Wel'll fix that shortly.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Entire N-B period confimed by agreement of two "witnesses" Royal King List and Berossus Entire N-B period confimed by agreement of 3rd witness: the Uruk King List N-B period confirmed by agreement with 4th witness: the Adad-Guppi' stele (Nabon H 1, B) thru Nabonidus 9th                                                                 N-B period confirmed with 5th witness: the Hillah stele (Nabon. No. 8.)                                                     Entire N-B period confirmed by 1000's of business tablets incl lengths & order of reigns, & all transitions between all kings. So in Babylon, If a person wanted to calculate someone's age, or the length of time from the beginning to the end of a specific business deal, or the length of time from a specific event that would have happened in the timeline, then all they needed was a chart like the above. All they needed was a king list that gave the order and lengths of reigns.
If it were currently the 4th year of Nabonidus and I had was explaining how I know I just turned 60 years old, I would say, for example, "I was born in the 14th year of Nabopolassar, so I lived 7 years under Nabopolassar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years under Evil-Merodach, 4 years under Neriglissar, and these last 4 years under Nabonidus." (7+43+2+4+4=60.) 
Similarly, if I were a Jewish person exiled in Babylon and knew that a trustworthy prophet had claimed that nations would be under the yoke of Babylon for 70 years, and that this time period would end when Persia conquered Babylon, then I might use the same timeline or king list to measure back from the first year of Cyrus to get an idea of when these 70 years must have begun. If I started counting from the 2nd regnal year of Cyrus, I might come up with, for example, 1 year under Cyrus, 17 under Nabonidus, 4 under Neriglissar, 2 under Evil-Merodach, 43 under Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore the last 3 years under Nabopolassar -- which would gets me to about the 19th year of Nabopolassar. (1+17+4+2+43+3=70.) Living in those times, I would never think of dates like 605, 607, 609 etc. I would just have an idea that it was around the 19th year of Nabopolassar.
We now see that, according to all the evidence that has been available so far --including all the secular evidence presented at the jw.org link above-- the 19th year of Nabopolassar was about 607 BCE. (This is why I don't have a problem with 607 BCE as the start of the 70 years of Jeremiah, by the way. It's about right, or at least within a couple of years depending on when exactly you end the period, and how accurately you wish to count backwards.)

I'm not sure you noticed, but I saw your question to @Arauna about the festival of Akitu.  @Arauna has repeatedly berated me for not accepting the idea that Cyrus must have made his proclamation at the festival of Akitu in Nisan 538. I believe she has thought that this is a similar argument to the one "scholar JW" is making that somehow proves that the Jews must have arrived back on Tishri 537. I'm not sure most Witnesses realize that this is a year and half, between those two points, and yet the WTS is quite happy with the possibility that the proclamation could have happened a full year later leaving six months or less.

Aren't you confusing Carl Olof Jonsson's book, "GTR," with Raymond Franz' book "CC"?
Earlier you indicated that you had probably not read, or perhaps had never even seen Ann O'maly's October 2020 VAT 4956 paper on academia.edu, when you said:
The 20-some page paper which you called "the VAT attempt" is well-referenced, well footnoted, and well-written (meaning it's relatively easy even for me to understand). And it is most definitely not her 45-page translation of Neugebauer and Weidner. If you hadn't checked academia.edu in a while, then this is a very understandable mistake. No big deal. After all, that translation was also related to VAT 4956. But when this minor mistake was pointed out to you, you didn't even have the honesty to say: 'Oh that's right, I thought you meant the other paper.'  Instead you said:
Yet clearly you did confuse them. Your inability to admit such a simple and obvious mistake, apparent to almost everyone else here, makes it difficult for me to trust your motives. Sorry. It makes me realize that all your haughty expressions, and tendency to provoke and insult others, may not have any evidence backing any of it up. You appear to just be echoing the empty insults of those who have clearly never read nor understood the things they are trying to insult. 
I'll highlight at least one of your examples:
From your words here and elsewhere about the book, it seems you probably have not read it, nor understood what it is about. It seems obvious that you have not yet realized that this entire presentation has nothing to do with Carl Olof Jonsson. He is just one more person who took an interest in what specialists and experts have said about the astronomical diaries. These are not his dates. He is no more important to this presentation than the persons who wrote the five references you just quoted. And it sounds like all five of your references above would just happen to agree with Carl Olof Jonsson about these Diaries. All five of those references you offered may agree with what you and others have called "COJ's dates," but it doesn't mean these dates somehow belonged to your 5 resources.
Yet the WTS accepts the same methods of using secular evidence to determine the date 539. The WTS uses this date, never found in the Bible, which the WTS admits has been derived from astronomical diaries and king's lists and chronicles. So how "shameful" and "desperate" do you really think it is to make use of this same methodology that the WTS has accepted? Does looking to see if the Babylonian evidence might somehow falsify itself really have anything to do with accepting secular evidence over Bible chronology? Or is there perhaps just a fear that these dates actually support the Bible quite well. I get the feeling sometimes that the lack of substance behind your vague provocations is merely to create chaos. And when you do make a specific accusation, why is it almost always something that has already been shown to be untrue, but you merely repeat it without explaining any reason for repeating the falsehoods?
For example, you said that AlanF doesn't accept a 605 BCE deportation. AlanF has been promoting a 605 BCE deportation in every related discussion I have ever seen, and I see it goes back to discussions from very long ago. I wrote a post or two that corrected you on that specific point. You already responded to that correction of your claim with insults to me, so I know you must have read it. But then you just repeated that same falsehood again under this topic.
Therefore, if you have no actual data or evidence to present, then it would be better to move your posts that are full of insult and repeated falsehoods back over to the previous thread that spawned this one. 
So back to the topic . . .
I will maintain that you don't need to accept any secular evidence over Bible chronology at all. For one thing this exercise in this thread is specifically about the SECULAR evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology. We want to see how well it stacks up on its own before looking for OT synchronisms. We lose the entire point if we try to force it to fit our favorite synchronisms before checking whether it can stand on its own validity. Besides, I see how it actually helps to confirm the Bible record. It enhances my own appreciation for the Bible's accuracy. But it isn't necessary to accept this archaeological evidence from Babylonian. You can take it or leave it. Of course, if you leave it, you don't have the 539 BCE date any more. 
Yes. True. It's never wise to say we have a "complete" picture on secular evidence. So far, I'm guessing that no more than 30,000 of the over 100,000 business tablets have been published. Therefore, some historian/archaeologist could make himself or herself quite famous in the scholarly community if they discovered that even ONE of these 100,000 tended to falsify the currently presented timeline. I'm guessing that several thousand more of them have at least been scanned for this possibility.
That said, I do appreciate the perspectives on the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries that you provided. It's worth noting very carefully what these sources have said. The general points about the quality and accuracy of older king lists and diaries compared to the Neo-Babylonian period were things I had already learned by reading COJ's book and Furuli's books, but I thought the quotes were excellent.
I'm impressed by the fact that your sources make clear that we don't know much about the actual persons who created these diaries, nor even their exact titles. It's remarkable that persons had such expertise and yet didn't give the impression that they were out to make a name for themselves.
 

Yes, most of them are definitely independent. We have an established date, but not an established chronology. You can't reject the 99% of a NB "absolute" chronology and then come back and say you want only 1%, a tiny piece of it. As you know, the Watchtower writers do not even know yet where exactly where they intended to identify the point of rejection. They only say that it must be rejected somewhere, based apparently on evidence that hasn't shown up yet.
The Watchtower publications have already admitted that, currently, all the secular evidence is against them.
*** kc pp. 186-187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Ptolemy’s Canon: Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived in the second century C.E. His Canon, or list of kings, was connected with a work on astronomy that he produced. Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns . . .. Evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from the Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon. . . . .Ptolemy’s figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period. Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon. VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. . . . Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period. From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. The Watchtower publications actually admit that they would be looking out for something new to be discovered that could falsify all this evidence that they admit goes against the current theory.
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be . . . incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

The Watchtower does not like the use of the term "absolute chronology" and will only mention the use of this term by astronomers/archaeologists in a pejorative sense. So the Watchtower does not dare to call it's chronology an "absolute" chronology. But the actual answer would be yes, if they had not rejected the same "absolute chronology." The reason that the Watchtower chronology is able to accept 539 as the accession year of Cyrus is because there is evidence for an absolute chronology that indicates Nabopolassar began the first year of his reign in 625 (accession 624), and Nebuchadnezzar began the first year of his reign in 604 (accession 605) and Cambyses began the first year of his reign in 629 (accession 630). A cherry-picked, eclectic chronology is an absolute misuse of an absolute chronology, and is therefore a pseudo-chronology.
It's obviously the exact same thing that would be true if the Watchtower had agreed that all the evidence pointed to 587/6 as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar (which it does) and then said: Well, since Jerusalem must have fallen in 587/6, and we must interpret 70 years of exile beginning at that point until Cyrus, then we declare that Cyrus must have released the exiles  around 519/8 BCE to give the Jews time to get back home in 517/6 BCE.
There was exactly as much evidence (if not more) for the Watchtower to have chosen the 517 date for Cyrus as there was to choose the 607 date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
So if the Watchtower writers were currently claiming that the first year of Cyrus was therefore 519 or 518, then would you call it an absolute chronology? Obviously not. It should be called a pseudo-chronology. And yet, this is exactly what the Watchtower did by selecting only one tiny part of an absolute chronology and rejecting the greater part of the same absolute chronology.
Correct. And the Watchtower is right that is exactly how the astronomers/historians/archaeologists claim to use the term "absolute chronology." The Watchtower writers clearly realized how the term was being used by specialists in the field, but didn't like the implications of the word "absolute." The Watchtower writers know that the term "absolute chronology" sounds like it must mean "absolutely correct" even though this isn't exactly the way it is used by specialists.
An author I know was working on a book about a high school teacher who, while doing research, discovers that the U. S. Civil War never happened. It was all fake news, fake history. He has published other books, but I don't know if this one was ever published. It sounds like you are using the term "absolute" chronology in a sense like the Watchtower uses it, not the way that specialists claim the term should be used. The way you have used the term, I would agree, it's all a matter of the degree of evidence. This is why I don't think a matter should be considered settled except at the mouth of multiple independent witnesses. We definitely have that for the relative chronology. But I don't think many people have really considered the multiple independent witnesses for the turning that relative chronology into an absolute chronology one that we can tie in some way to the dating system of our own era (BCE/CE/AM).
Easy. By finding some unresolved contradictions in the relative chronology. That's what has been the methodology all along in testing a relative timeline for this topic. Every new piece of independent evidence is tested to see if it can in any way falsify the evidence from the first two "witnesses" to the timeline. So far, we have nothing that would falsify it, which also means that each of the additional pieces of evidences has only strengthened the solidity of the relative timeline.
Further attempts to find evidence to falsify the relative timeline need not have anything to do with BCE dates, or about claims of what events happened in what year of any particular king, although there is a way that it could.
At this point it the discussion it should mostly be about finding evidence that the beginning and ending (relative) dates of any particular king is wrong, or that the order of the kings we have listed is wrong (which is effectively the same thing). Possible ways to do that would be to find evidence that proves there was another king (or kings) we didn't know about who should have had his own distinct listing, not merely as a co-regent. Or that one or more of the kings already shown in the list was a co-regent, overlapping his reign with another king already on the list, and therefore should not have been listed out with a completely separate reign.
Also, if business/contract tablets or inscriptions were found with dates outside the range indicated by the currently known tens of thousands that would create contradictions that might be unresolvable.
Another way to falsify the NB Chronology would be to look at all the evidence from the astronomical diaries. If there are any diaries that with unresolvable readings that are tied to a specific relative date, but which contradict another diary then we could end up with an unresolvable contradiction. For example, let's say there was an eclipse or planetary configuration at a certain date and time that matches a certain year, perhaps Nebuchadnezzar 37. But another diary says a certain identifiable eclipse or planetary configuration happened in Nebuchadnezzar 35, but we know from the calculations (in astronomy software) that this particular configuration was not possible two years earlier.
I offered to walk you through the same process that I used the last time we communicated on this forum (2017?). But I'm sure you would prefer to think that the person teaching you did not have a preconceived bias. I would have been just as happy if you had found an opportunity to get someone in say, Oslo, Norway, to walk you through the process. Probably too late for the particular person I was thinking of.