ComfortMyPeople

Thanks, lol.
I have no problem accepting a possible 605 BCE deportation. The Babylonian Chronicles provide some evidence that heavy tribute of some kind from near the area would have happened in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Berossus and others also indicate that this heavy tribute from an area relatively near to Judea included a deportation/exile at that time. So 605 makes sense, because the combined evidence of all the archaeological findings point to 605 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.
Yes, I agree. It's unfortunate that the Watchtower uses the date 625 for Nebuchadnezzar's accession year instead of 605. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but this must be why the Watchtower goes to great lengths to avoid discussing any possible deportation in 625, or even 605 for that matter.
Not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but the relative chronology of the timeline appears to be solidly correct. And no one here has come up with any evidence that it isn't. This means that if someone could turn the solid relative chronology into an absolute chronology with a date, like 538 for the first year of Cyrus, then we could see where 625 falls on the timeline. In order to do this one would have to extend farther back into the past to the beginning of the reign of Nabopolassar.
If it formats correctly, you should see those BCE dates on the top row.

625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530 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 I put a darker blue mark at 625, 605, and also at the range from 539-537. It seems that even many Witnesses don't usually realize that if 539 is correct, then the Watchtower's date for the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne, actually lands all the way back in the first year of Nabopolassar. And even dates like 607 and 605 also occur at the end of the reign of Nabopolassar.

Dear sister, I don't think anyone here was questioning Jehovah.

That's fine with me, so I will include them. I won't use their military nature as an excuse to ignore them. I just hadn't made use of them yet, because it should be pretty obvious that the timeline is already pretty solid without them. But from what I understand they also help to solidify the timeline even further. It sounds like you were not able to find any good reason to dismiss the Chronicles yourself, so I'll look at them more closely to see what they can tell us about the solidity or weakness of the timeline.
As I said, I'm glad to hear your conclusions about where the data and evidence is relevant to the timeline. If you have no evidence to share in this regard, I'll accept that fact, too.
Everything is potentially relevant to this matter if it is evidence that can affect the timeline. I don't think anyone really believes that every bit of information from past records is always relevant. For some days in a Babylonian diary, the tablets might only say that a wolf came into the city and killed a couple of dogs, or perhaps a diseased fox got in. Furuli, COJ, WTS, myself and others would admit that this is not relevant to pinpointing either a relative or an absolute chronology.
On the issue of two supposedly different kings who are really the same king going by two different names, that's a different matter. It could affect a part of the evidence that was used in support of the relative chronology. For example, what if one was able to show that every tablet made out for the "first year of Nabopolassar" is really just another version of saying the "first year of Nebuchadnezzar," and that this held all the way up to year 21, when suddenly Nebuchadnezzar tablets continue to appear in about the same quantities beginning in year 22, and Nabopolassar tablets for year 22 suddenly drop to zero. Fortunately there is plenty of direct evidence that this was not the case, and that Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were distinct kings with distinct records. And although we have to Babylonian Chronicles to help verify this, we also have enough additional evidence.
So if you had a specific pair of king's names in mind, I've already see enough evidence to show how easy it would be to refute the idea that these were the same king. And that goes for anywhere in the timeline given above. So if you have something in this regard to share, I'd love to hear it. Else I will assume there was nothing with any evidence behind it
You offered a bit of commentary that indicates that the timeline I provided earlier is correct. Thanks for the support, but this is merely from a modern commentary. I can't just accept a modern commentary as if it were a piece of independent secular evidence. Just because someone accepts the timeline I gave is not evidence that it is true. So there is no contradiction. In fact, it's one of the reasons I spent so little time, so far, making use of records of military campaigns commented upon in the Babylonian Chronicles. Most of that is just commentary about one event after another. It happens to provide support for the timeline, but it is mostly about events that occurred along the timeline.
OK. When you said it was her latest paper, I assumed you meant October 2020. It's the latest one I found there. (And from that VAT paper, it certainly seems like she knows the Saros and Metonic cycles way better than I do.)
Aren't you confusing her VAT paper: https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com
 ...with her translation paper? https://www.academia.edu/1649244/English_translation_of_Ein_astronomischer_Beobachtungstext_aus_dem_37_Jahre_Nebukadnezars_II_567_66_by_Paul_V_Neugebauer_and_Ernst_F_Weidner_1915_
So, this is the paper, from June 2016: https://www.academia.edu/26085025/Can_two_eclipses_on_BM_32234_be_dated_to_475_BCE_instead_of_the_conventional_year_465_BCE
 

I think the idea IS to have plans. But personally I don't think we should need plans as God can save anyone anywhere at any time regardless where they are.
Only the ones who "worship" the organization might panic.
I think at that time supernatural things WILL happen, because after all, Armageddon will be from a supernatural source, and to survive it, will have to involve miracles.

When he sticks to that, yes, it's a great idea and works well. Unfortunately, he doesn't stick to that.
 
His idea is to make the reader believe that cuneiform writing is open to interpretation - except when it conforms to his conclusions. If it doesn't conform to his conclusions, he changes the reading/meaning of the logograms. 

@Ann O'Maly Thanks for joining and thanks for the correction.
I should not have said: "The site that Ann O'maly refers to is vat4956.com, and the translation information is excellent there, too."
The specific lines I checked out appeared to be exactly as I recalled them from other sources. But I just started looking at that site yesterday for the first time, and although I had not read any of their translations carefully yet,  I love that they break down each and every line the way they do. They put a picture of the line, a transliteration, and the official Neugebauer-Weidner/Hunger translation.
After just now reading your statement, I picked another line at random. Front - Line 17. I agree it looks unfinished and rushed, but I still love the method of showing information for each line one at a time and displaying literal meanings.
www.vat4956.com/thetablet.php?frontline17
  Transliteration for 588 & 568 BC:
[xxx] x 15 DINGIR KI DINGIR IGI 7. 30 ┌NA AN. MI sin ša2 DIB┐ [...]  
Translation for 568 BC that also fits the year 588 BC- by P.V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner (1915) edited by Hermann Hunger (1988)
The 15th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7°30'. A lunar eclipse which passed by [...]
---------------
Looking further down the page, I liked these charted out lines, and I assumed there would be more clarity here. I see that some symbols were given no translation, and some were given the possible meanings that would only work in other contexts.

@scholar JW, I just read what AlanF wrote, and he's right. The most difficult part would be the translation, which I never tried. But Furuli can be trusted to provide the right "Akkadian" translation, which is basically an exact copy from other sources, anyway. Learning the "jargon" on the tablets would be very difficult. The site that Ann O'maly refers to is vat4956.com, and the translation information is excellent there, too. [Edited to acknowledge the correction made below that only the translations from primary sources are excellent but that the site's attempts to overcome these translations are sloppy.] You can also get some experience by looking at translations of other astronomical diaries, where you are neutral about the date being presented in the diary. Only a small bit of the jargon changed over a few centuries. 

Not at all! He has used the terms correctly. It is supported by the title of that chapter. COJ not only used the terms correctly, he also explained them correctly as I quoted above. He explained these terms in the same way that a paper you once recommeded to this forum explained it, as I recall. It is also the same way that Furuli explains it. And, in fact, our Insight book quotes a resource that indicates that this is exactly the way it is used by historians/archaeologists, too.
*** it-1 p. 454 Chronology ***
The claim is made that “astronomical confirmations can convert a relative chronology [one that merely establishes the sequence of events] into an absolute chronology, specifically, a system of dates related to our calendar.” (The Old Testament World, by Martin Noth, 1966, p. 272)
True but he makes no valid points against the others, and he completely leaves out various astronomical records that help to create an absolute chronology out of this whole period. You will see this clearly when we discuss just a few of those records.
Fortunately, you will see the evidence that each of them not only stands alone in support of the timeline given above, they also give the same results holistically, taken all together. You can use the exact same methodology for all of them.
Yes. Furuli certainly demonstrated the need for caution. Also, you can probably dismiss as many of them as you don't like, and you will still have many more all the way up into the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods. Even if you decided to get rid of all but one or two, you'd still get the same "absolute" result from them, but you'd have to complete a solid relative chronology to that point first. I stopped at Cyrus to save time.
We shouldn't be worried about the purpose or relative importance, only whether the evidence they provide corroborates or forces us to question the solid basis of the relative timeline. The purpose could have been to praise false gods, discover omens, or play a game to see who had the best eyesight. At this point wer're probably ready to just look for any differences that can't be easily explained. To see if that timeline is really solid, we should really be trying to "falsify" the above timeline if we can, with any evidence we can find.
Exactly. That's why we should look at the evidence, test it, and see how it stacks up. If you find out all her evidence is reported correctly, then it doesn't really matter as much what her agenda was. Same with you or me.
I think you'll find them to be pretty easy once you get started. And there are excellent explanations and tutorials all around. Also, a lot of this software is only intimidating at first because it has so many features you won't use. (telescope adjustments, etc.) Once you find the single function you will use, and way to set it to a location and start scrolling back in time in fast motion, you end up catching on to new things you might not have thought of. I like setting to a specific day and scrolling back one year at a time from that date. Every "night" you see the movements of the planets, and you see what looks like some planets take a tiny extra jump forward every four years, but not when divisible by 100, except when divisible by 400, and you realize what just happened for every leap year.
Then you might set it to scroll by new moons, or full moons, or eclipses, and in a few minutes you will start to catch on to the basic lunar cycles that would have taken ancient astronomers hundreds of years to put together.
That's why you should check it out for yourself. It sounds like you will be surprised at what you learn about biases. Also, there might be someone in your congregation who already knows how to use this software. If you know any nearby, trusted Witnesses who already know how to use the software, they are probably already aware of the issues surrounding Furuli's scholarship anyway, but you should pick someone who won't be stumbled over any surprises.
I would certainly hope that it would be independent lines of in-house NB evidence that could solidly establish the relative NB chronology. As it turns out there will also be a lot of help in the in-house astronomical records to help establish an absolute chronology.
So far, I have only really discussed independent witnesses to the relative chronology. Astronomical observations will be able to provide additional independent witnesses to several points for which one could claim an absolute chronology. I'm sure you are aware that this is exactly how BM 33066 aka LBAT 1477 aka Strm Kambys 400 had been explained in past WTS publications for "establishing" an absolute date based on the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses.

COJ used the terms correctly. He speaks of the relative chronology just as discussed above, and he speaks of absolute chronology just as was discussed above:
In this chapter it will be demonstrated that the whole NeoBabylonian period, including the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, may be established as an absolute chronology by the aid of astronomical cuneiform documents found in Mesopotamia.

I went through all the same readings Furuli did using "TheSky" and "Stellarium" software and I would have to agree that he made several obvious mistakes with the readings. There is no question about it, and you can prove it for yourself by downloading free versions of the software, setting the location to Iraq, and scrolling back through history. (Sky uses negative dates instead of BCE dates which are correct but you need to add -1 to a negative date to turn it to BCE.) Otherwise it's simple to double-check Furuli. See what you come up with.

I doubt that COJ would call the relative chronology an absolute chronology until various astronomical diaries and records of dated eclipses are added into the mix. I'll check out chapter 4 to see. 
I have communicated with Rolf Furuli about his first two books on chronology, which he sent me as I've discussed before. His attempts were focused against just one important witness to the chronology: VAT 4956. It's an important witness to the absolute chronology, but you could throw it out and you'd still end up with the same timeline. You would also end up with the same absolute chronology from dozens of other astronomical records from NB. Also, since the timeline reaches just as accurately as a relative timeline, far into the future from NB times, you actually have thousands of astronomical positions to make use of in testing how well the relative chronology can become an absolute chronology. But even that is not necessary. It will be easy to show that you don't even need to go outside the timeline to start pegging separate --and independent-- "absolute" points along the timeline that all coincide and corroborate with the currently proposed timeline.
Besides, Rolf Furuli actually only showed that VAT 4956, if you ignored the planetary positions, then with its current copyist typos, it had only about a 20% chance of pointing to 588/587 while the exact same data showed about an 80% chance of pointing to 568/567. This is not what he claimed of course; he claimed it was pretty much the reverse of that. But this is exactly what his methodology showed. And as you have said before, methodology is important in chronology. Also, he admitted that the planetary readings only pointed away from his theory, and to 568/567.
There is, of course, a chance that certain lunar positions will be repeated every 18 years (Saros) or every 19 years (Metonic) and sometimes every 20 years, or even random years. But for the planetary positions, Furuli admits that they only fit 568, against his own theory. These planetary positions only repeat every several hundred years or more, so they should be weighted as evidence about 100 times greater than the lunar data. But even if we only weighed them "linearly" or "even" with the lunar data, the tablet points to about a 10% chance of meeting Furuli's theeory and a 90% chance that it is a match to all the other astronomical tablets. Also, I'll predict that if you merely correct the most obvious copyist errors, and also allow for a 1.5 degree accuracy instead of a stricter 1 degree accuracy in the readings, you move it to much less than 5% in favor of Furuli's theory, and higher than 95% in favor of all the other astronomical diaries. And all this conjecture is most likely based on some very correctable copyist errors. Also there were some major inconsistencies in the way that Furuli tried to make some readings "possible" by breaking the known rules, making "Furuli-only" exceptions to the Babylonian calendar. But he only invoked these exceptions when they helped, even though these exceptions would have ruined others of his "possible" readings if he had been consistent with these mistakes.
A very similar attempt to Furuli's was referenced above. The link is here: https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com
 

Why do you claim they are missing? There is no problem positing that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year if you wish. There is no problem if you wish to posit that any 7 of these years were years of madness. Or if you have evidence that it changes the timeline, just show the evidence where you think the timeline should be adjusted.
Of course, trying to tie Biblical evidence into this timeline is not necessary. If one thinks the timeline is not solid, then you coudn't make any use of it anyway. We need to confirm the solidity of the relative timeline before trying to make it an absolute timeline. Also, many issues with Biblical evidence are based on interpretations. Even the claim that there must have been 7 years of madness is not found in the Bible except through a specific interpretation. It is known that the Aramaic for "times" (iddan) can refer to periods of time that are not years, perhaps even seasons, fortnights, months, weeks, etc.
Independent witnesses in this case are pieces of evidence that are not known to have been dependent on each other, or from the same person. For example, if you found a 16th birthday card addressed to Elizabeth in 2016, you have a piece of evidence that someone named Elizabeth was born in the year 2000 or at least within a matter of months. If you find another birthday card to the same address to Elizabeth for a 20th birthday in 2020, you now have two pieces of independent evidence that someone named Elizabeth at this address was born around the year 2000. But this doesn't mean the person was right. Someone might be mistaken. And if it was the same person sending both cards, the mistake might have been compounded. Or perhaps Elizabeth was actually younger and gave out a wrong birth year because she wanted to be seen as older, or vice versa. Or perhaps there are two Elizabeths at this address and the sender was mixed up about which one was born in 2000 and which one was born some other year.
Independent evidence isn't the same as absolute proof, but the more you have the more likely the conclusion is solid. That's why we are fortunate to have several independent sets of business tablets that are unrelated to each other. Thousands from one temple, thousands from another, and thousands from various business houses, and thousands of others that are unrelated to one another.

Yes. I'm saying that these events do not necessarily matter at all in confirming the reign of kings. The king could have done nothing at all throughout his reign, or could have fought many major military campaigns. The king could even have lied about all his supposed accomplishments and even lied about the length of time between one event and the next. It's only when any one of the claims creates a contradiction in the order of the kings and their length of reign that it becomes relevant to the timeline.
All of the claims in that Isaiah commentary that relate to the timeline presented above are perfectly aligned with the relevant portion of the timeline. But this is not the same as offering secular evidence that the timeline is right.

I'm not using any methodology that requires Nebuchadnezzar to be present in 609 or 587 or any other year. I would agree with you that he need not be personally present to bring anyone or any nation into Babylonian subjection. So I don't need that methodology one way or another. It's not relevant to any years in the timeline either.
These are not relevant questions to getting the order and length of kings reigns. They could change allegiances and gods every year and it wouldn't change the timeline.
This is actually a better question. It's one you have brought up before. And with this question there is a need sometimes to note if there had been a change of name based on a change in allegiance. Although apparently with few exceptions (Egypt for example) the multiplicity of gods made it unnecessary to change one's name even if their primary focus changed to another god.
Did you have a particular pair of names in mind? Remember that if two different names could refer to the same person, then an overlap of the two names would imply a shortening of the timeline by at least the length of the shortest reign in that particular pair of names.

I should have said "none" instead of "almost none" because there is no dependence on military campaign records. The reason, as you might have noticed, is that I included the Babylonian Chronicle but did not need it, since the exact same point was also made in the Adad-Guppi' stele, as I stated. I would have been happy to have used records of military campaigns, I just happened not to rely on them to make this point about the number of years from Nabopolassar to Nabonidus. You'll notice that if you wished to remove the Babylonian Chronicle, the same point is made. You did not actually give any reason that one should not use the Babylonian Chronicles, however, so I will be glad to make use of them wherever they give evidence for the specific order and number of years of each king.
You might already be aware that the Babylonian Chronicles also support the exact same timeline of the kings, and they give us no reason to retract anything already said about the relative dates of the King List. So you may consider the above timeline to be the full account. If you think there is a place where the relative chronology differs by 1 to 3 years, please point it out and show your evidence, and I will change the timeline based on your evidence. I have not seen any evidence of this, but that could be very important.
Yes, both modern times and ancient times.
Why not? Because I couldn't care less how "natural history" can be defined by "several mythologies." At this point I am presenting the NB evidence to see how solid the relative chronology is for these kings.
It doesn't seem like they need to be understood at all. But if you find any NB evidence from military campaigns or from anywhere else that shows a change in the relative chronology is required, I'll make the appropriate change. You can recommend exactly where the new or additional evidence fits in.
 
 
 
 

As you can see, almost none of this was based on any record of military campaigns. The Babylonian Chronicles include a lot of military campaigns but I barely used it at all, and the part that I did mention is not really about the campaign, only the date when the Medes destroyed a temple in Harran. I mentioned the Babylonian Chronicle 3 (B.M. 21901) because it helps to put a date on the battle won by the Medes against Harran, but the point was about the number of years that had elapsed until Nabonidus spoke about his dream to rebuild the temples that had been destroyed back then.
Any year can fall under a saros cycle. Even this year, 2020.
It doesn't matter who was at any military battle. I didn't make use of any information about a battle except for one of the dates. And I don't need to interpret anything to present the data. This is not about interpretation of evidence, it is merely about presenting some of the evidence. And, of course, this is a minimal presentation. There is a lot more, and the details of the additional evidence makes the case for this timeline even stronger. We can show this is true, if necessary, but the above is enough for a start unless someone has some specific problem with the evidence given so far. I'll correct any mistakes that anyone can show. I already corrected a couple of typos.
I agree with what you said, but it has nothing to do with the timeline, which is not based on military campaigns.

Awesome. I really appreciate all your effort by putting your knowledge at our disposal. In spite of the risk to be misunderstood, I'm always learning a lot of you.
Yes, yes, I hear some ones saying "you're a man's follower..."

At this point, it should be obvious to anyone, scholar or not, that if you could put a specific BCE date on any one of these years in the chart, that you have just put a date on every other year in the chart.
For example:
If you could show that Nabopolassar's 21st year was 605 BCE, then you would simultaneously be showing that his 20th must have been 606 BCE, and that the year after 605 was 604 BCE. If you could show that the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537 for example, you would simultaneously be showing that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE, and that the 17th year of Nabonidus was 539 BCE. (And also therefore the accession year of Cyrus.) Evidence of any date in the timeline is now exactly the same evidence for every other date in the timeline.
Also, these king's lists extend the same type of accuracy far into the future beyond Cyrus, Cambyses, etc., even up until well past the birth of Christ, and the Roman Caesars, for example.
So the same holds true if you could put a specific CE (AD) date on any event during Persian, Greek, or Roman empires, you would simultaneously be putting a date on any years of Nabonidus, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc. And in the next posts, which should be unnecessary at this point, it can be shown that the astronomical diaries actually offer hundreds of specific astronomical events and configurations that can only be tied to one specific BCE or CE date during those empires (Babylon, Persia, Greece & Rome).
And all of the astronomical dates spread across various points of the timeline also confirm the timeline. Therefore a discussion of the astronomical diaries will give us even more evidence for the accuracy of the initial timeline. In fact, if anyone had an idea that the timeline could somehow still be "falsified" then it would be more efficient to look for any recorded astronomical event that is NOT aligned with the timeline. There are certain diaries that have been copied and recopied, or show damage making them difficult to read in places. Yet, there are rarely more than three or four errors out potentially a dozen or more easily datable readings in these same diaries.
 

So far, then, we have consistent evidence all corroborating the following timeline. But none of these yet includes one of the most powerful pieces of evidence supporting this timeline. And I'm not even talking about the Astronomical Diaries, yet.

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 Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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 Timeline above confirmed by Berossus Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's") Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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 Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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                                   Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Adad-Guppi' inscription Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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 Timeline above exactly confirmed by THOUSANDS of Business/Contract Tablets 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 Years evidenced to be without gaps or co-regencies thru multiple inscriptions (Bab Chronicles, Adad Guppi, Nabon. No. 8  ) 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 Years evidenced to be without gaps or co-regencies by THOUSANDS of Business/Contract Tablets    
One of the most powerful areas of evidence is supplied within specific sets of the Business/Contract Tablets. The various 'Business Tablets' are already like thousands of independent witnesses all exactly corroborating the timeline above. So we are already well beyond the need to find "two witnesses" that agree; we have found tens of thousands of effectively independent witnesses.
But these special sets of them are another witness, independent from the other types of contracts, and of course they perfectly support the consistent timelines above.
These, of course, would be the various "houses of business" much like the records of a specific bank, or specific real estate company, or family trading company. There are several of these, and one of the most studied is the "House of Egibi." The Egibi house is known through literally THOUSANDS of tablets spanning the time from third year of Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar to Nabonidus to Cyrus to Cambyses to Darius I.
Naturally, it confirms every year perfectly in line with the above timelines, but it does much more than that. It provides a double-check validation of all of the kings by including not just the month day and year of the king, but also the name of the current head ("president") of the Egibi House. These provide a kind of audit of the timeline and show that:
The first president was head of the firm for 20 years from "Nebuchadnezzar 3" to "Nebuchadnezzar 23." Then the second head of the firm was president for 38 years from "Nebuchadnezzar 23" to "Nabonidus 12." Then the third president was for 23 years from "Nabonidus 12" to "Darius 1" Those 20+38+23=81 years are exactly the 81 years matching the evidence from Berossus, Adad-Guppi', the King Lists, the Babylonian Chronicles, the Royal Inscriptions, "Ptolemy" etc.
More than that, a few of the documents of this type (business houses) refer to contracts starting under one king and going on for a number of years and ending under another king, all matching the timeline confirmed by every other source of evidence.
There are many good references to be able to read many of these types of tablets in translation. I can include several of my favorites, and links, in another post.

So far, we have seen evidence for the following timeline:

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 Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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 Timeline above confirmed by Berossus Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's") Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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 Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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                                   Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Adad-Guppi' inscription 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 Years with no evidence of gaps or co-regencies (Bab Chronicles, Adad Guppi, Nabon. No. 8 )  
Of course, one might still argue that a gap of a year or so, might be balanced out by co-regencies totaling the same number of years.
That point is covered by looking at literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence. Maybe even 100,000! 
Imagine if all the bank checks written in the United States from 1930 to 2010 had been found to be made of nearly indestructible material, like some kind of laminated plastic. And imagine that every check contained the then-current president's name up there where the date goes. If you had about 100,000 of these checks spread fairly evenly across each year from 1930 to 2010, you could easily create a chart that showed how many years Hoover served as president since 1930, how many years FDR was president, Truman, Ike, LBJ, JFK, etc.
Fortunately, we have just about the equivalent of that in literally tens of thousands --perhaps 100,000-- of these "checks" because they were written on wet clay that dried as hard as stone and thousands have remained intact in the dry climate of Babylonia/Iraq for more than 2,500 years. These are even more valuable than bank checks for our purposes, however, because they include contracts, legal agreements, sales agreements, trade agreements, rental (land use) agreements, receipts, loans, gifts, etc. And all of them are dated with the month, day, and specific year of the currently reigning king. They even include the indication for a partial "accession" year when a king takes over for the previous king mid-year, and doesn't start his official "Year 1" until the new year.
Here's what they tell us:
There are tablets representing EVERY SINGLE YEAR of reign for ALL the kings mentioned above. The tablets are dated so accurately that we can know, to within a matter of days, when one king was succeeded by the next king. ALL of them are in agreement with Berossus, the Royal King List, the Uruk King List, the Babylonian Chronicles, the Adad-Guppi' stele, Royal Temple Inscriptions, Royal Palace Inscriptions, and Astronomical Diaries. There are NO tablets that create any contradictions or discrepancies to the years shown in the chart above These tablets provide another independent witness to the accuracy of the Kings' Lists, the Royal Inscriptions, the Babylonian Chronicles, and the Astronomical Diaries (which haven't been discussed yet). These tablets include examples that cross over from one king to the next so that ALL the transitions are known to be without co-regencies or gaps of more than a few days. There is an average of up to 1,000 tablets for each year of the chart shown above, and ZERO (so far) for any proposed additional years not shown in the chart, which is more evidence that there are no possible gaps. There are even such texts for the short reign of Labashi-Marduk which lasted only a couple of months.  

By now we can have a pretty good idea that several independent sources are in complete agreement, giving the same order of succession for these kings, and they also give the same number of years for each king.
But some might question whether there were any gaps we didn't account for. Perhaps one king couldn't start ruling until some coup or civil war was decided. Perhaps a king died and no successor could be found immediately. Or, perhaps two kings overlapped in their rule and it's not accounted for in the chart. (Of course, we might immediately doubt that we will encounter such problems, because if it had been a real problem, then all those calculations for eclipses and other events --and the Babylonians were well known for these-- could never have worked.)
So how do we check that there are no gaps? or no co-regencies in these King Lists?
As it turns out there are many ways. One of them involves two completely different inscriptions, written for different reasons. Here they are:
The Babylonian Chronicle 3 (B.M. 21901) says that  The chronicle states that in the “sixteenth year” of Nabopolassar, the Medes (Umman-manda) marched to Harran and captured the city. He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple. The Adad-guppi’ inscription (already mentioned above) states the same thing: that in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, their god got angry and the city and its people were destroyed. Nabonidus provided inscriptions that spoke of the gods coming to him in a dream in his accession year, telling him he should rebuild those temples at Harran destroyed by the Medes. Here's one in Nabod. No. 8:
(Concerning) Harran . . . which had been lying in ruins for 54 years because of its devastation by the Medes (who) destroyed the sanctuaries, . . . the time for reconciliation approached, 54 years, when [the god] Sin should return to his place.
The accession year of Nabonidus was the same partial year that he took office during Neriglissar's 4th year. Note the count over the top of that year is marked with a 55. And notice that we already started counting Nabopolassar's 16th year with a "1" above it. How many years is it from "Nabonidus 16" to Neriglissar 4 (a.k.a., Nabonidus accession year)?
55-1=54. Exactly 54 years. Which is exactly how long the inscription says it is.
It turns out there are hundreds of these evidences that the chart is correct, and they are found in the most mundane of business documents, not just in the royal inscriptions. But this one shows that there were no gaps between the end of the rule of Nabopolassar and the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus. That covers the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar.
 
 

The reason I included the kings from the Uruk King List going back a bit further is because our next "witness" is easier to understand if one goes back before Nabopolassar, into the time of the Assyrian kings.
This next one is the Adad-Guppi’ inscription, also known as Nabon. No. 24 (Nabon H 1, B.). It was for a kind of funeral/grave inscription for Nabonidus' mother (Queen Adad-guppi) who lived to be about 102. So part of this inscription includes various events from her long life, and it includes a list of all the kings she lived through. You can find a translation here: https://www.academia.edu/38585121/MOTHER_OF_HER_SON_THE_LITERARY_SCHEME_OF_THE_ADAD_GUPPI_STELE
From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, that I was born (in), until the 42nd year of Ashurbanipal, the 3rd year of Aššur-etilu-ili, his son, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of EvilMerodach, the 4th year of Neriglissar – for 95 years, Sîn, king of the gods of heaven and earth, (in) which I sought after the shrines of his great godhead, (for) my good doings he looked upon me with a smile, he heard my prayers (Adadguppi Stele I:29–36) (Note that there are no differences in the Uruk King List, Adad-Guppi, and Royal "Ptolemy" King List in any of the Neo-Babylonian kings. But the Assyrian Kings are not listed in the Babylonian records except where they were simultaneously kings of Babylon.)
Another part (of the Adad-guppi' inscription) says she died in the 9th year of Nabonidus, which would indicate at least an age of 102, and the Nabonidus Chronicle (B.M. 35382) confirms the same information.
So here's what this new piece of evidence gives us. And remember it's a "stone witness" that is both contemporary and independent of the others.
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 Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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 Timeline above confirmed by Berossus Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's") Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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 Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List Nabopo-lassar 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   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                                   Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Adad-Guppi' inscription (although it only goes to Nabonidus 9)  

So far, we've used two "witnesses" to the timeline of Babylonian kings:
Berossus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berossus Royal Canon, sometimes called "Ptolemy's Canon" (a "king list" going back to the 8th century BC, and updated by various persons over the next centuries as they added successive new kings and their reigns to it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings It may also be of interest to note that scholars believe these two sources are independent of each other.
There is another famous king list, the Uruk King List which can be found translated into English here: Uruk King List - Livius and several other places. It completely covers the portion of kings in the chart below and then some additional kings, both before and after the ones shown below. It includes kings much further back into the Assyrian period. I'll list them below the chart, as copied from Livius. But first, this is what it does to our chart. It's another independent witness to the exact same evidence. It's in perfect harmony with Berossus and "Ptolemy."
 
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 Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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 Timeline above confirmed by Berossus Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's") Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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 Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List As copied from Livius.org below. The other side of this inscription continues beyond Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, etc.):
1'note /MU 21\ [mAššur-bâni-apli] Aššurbanipal 21 years 668-631 2' ša-niš /m\Šamaš-šuma-ukîn Šamaš-šuma-ukîn at the same time 667-648 3' MU 21 mK[an-da]-la-an Kandalanu 21 years 647-627 4' MU 1 m dSîn2-šumu-lîšir2 Sin-šumliširnote 1 year 626 5' u m dSîn2-šarra-iš-ku-un and Sin-šar-iškûn Id. Id 6' MU 21 m dNabû-apla-usur Nabopolassar 21 years 626note-605 7' [M]U 43 m dNabû-kuddurî-usur Nebuchadnezzar [II] 43 years 604-562 8' [M]U 2 mAmîl-dMarduk Amel-Marduk 2 years 561-560 9' [MU] /3\ 8 ITI m dNergal2-šarra-usur Neriglissar 3 years, 8 months 559-556 10' [(...)]note 3 ITI mLa-ba-ši-dMarduk Labaši-Marduk [accession year] 3 months 556 11' [MU] /17?\ m dNabû-nâ'id Nabonidus 17? years 555-539 12' [MU x mK]ur-aš Cyrus [the Great] [x years] 539-530 13' [MU x mKambu-z]i-i Cambyses [II] [x years] 530-522 14' [MU x mDaria-m]uš Darius [the Great] [x years] 522-486  

We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
Yes.
Do all ancient records agree?
No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

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 Nabopo-lassar 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 C Y R U S 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  
*Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.

Here is Gesenius on the word. Gesenius is often considered the ultimate Hebrew-language authority by Watchtower publications:

Here is Strong's:
אוֹן ʼôwn, probably from the same as H205 (in the sense of effort, but successful); ability, power, (figuratively) wealth:—force, goods, might, strength, substance.
Here are the different ways the NWT now translates the same word. Looks like it can refer to procreative strength, monetary strength (wealth), but I also see a sense of "energetic vigor" or "pep" especially in Job 18:7.
(Genesis 49:3) 3 “Reuʹben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the beginning of my procreative power, the excellence of dignity and the excellence of strength. (Job 18:7, 8, 12 )  7 His vigorous stride is shortened, And his own counsel will make him fall.  8 For his feet will lead him into a net, And he will wander onto its mesh. . . . His strength fails him, And disaster will make him stagger. (Job 20:10) . . .His own children will seek the favor of the poor, And his own hands will give back his wealth. (Job 40:15, 16) . . .Here, now, is Be·heʹmoth, which I made as I made you. It eats grass like a bull. 16 Look at the strength in its hips And the power in the muscles of its belly! (Isaiah 40:26) . . .Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:29) . . .He gives power to the tired one And full might to those lacking strength. (Hosea 12:2, 3) . . .Jacob . . . 3 In the womb he seized his brother by the heel, And with his vigor he contended with God. (Hosea 12:8) . . .Eʹphra·im keeps saying, ‘Indeed, I have become rich; I have found wealth.. . . It doesn't seem consistent to use "dynamic energy" in Isaiah 40:26 and then use just power, strength, and vigor in the other places. You wouldn't say of Jacob that he wrestled the angel with his "dynamic energy" yet it's the same word. You wouldn't say that the wicked man's "dynamic energy" of his gait is reduced, and that his "dynamic energy" fails him when he staggers or falls. Yet these are also the same word.
But I should add that Isaiah 40:26 references Jehovah keeping all the stars in place, an extremely complex set of constellations, even more awe-inspiring in desert lands. And it was correctly realized that none were missing, in spite of the fact that meteors were seen in the common mind as "falling stars."