Srecko Sostar

180 / 360° =0,5 * 30 =  15°
:)) Right?
Don't ask me why 0,5*30 is necessary formula to get 15!! :))

https://torrentfreak.com/jehovahs-witnesses-file-copyright-lawsuit-in-response-to-blundering-christmas-album-201225/
( It's all about the money, money, money.... ) 
Publisher BMG has plunged itself into a copyright lawsuit with elements that are so bizarre it's hard to fathom what the company was thinking of. According to the complaint, BMG illegally used a song owned by religious group Watchtower in a for-profit Christmas album, featuring songs from other faiths, which are set to be sung in cathedrals. Needless to say, Jehovah's Witnesses are outraged.
The problem lies in a song on the album called “Listen, Obey and Be Blessed”, a work owned by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the supervising body and publisher for the Jehovah’s Witness religious group. The appearance of this song on a commercial album immediately raised alarm bells among the religion’s followers who, through their teachings and knowledge of their faith, knew this track shouldn’t have been used in this manner.
 
Multiple Blunders Considered Antithetical to The Faith
First of all and despite its attempts to be inclusive, Blessings is fairly obviously an album aimed at the Christmas market. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas, believing that the festival has pagan origins. Second, the religious group doesn’t allow its works to be exploited commercially, as per its own interpretation of the bible. Finally, Jehovah’s Witnesses reject all other religions, so being represented as a group alongside them in the album is offensive, to say the least.
Indeed, these topics and more have been the subject of intense discussion on various Jehovah’s Witness forums over the past several weeks. Many followers have been openly wondering why their leaders haven’t been following the rules, or at the least, why they aren’t doing anything to counter this affront to their religion.
As it turns out, those in command knew all about it well in advance and have been preparing a lawsuit.
Well the W/T need to get money back from somewhere to pay all the Victims of CSA.  it seems to just be business as usual for the GB & Co.
But i do find it kinda funny.  
 

180 / 360° =0,5 * 30 =  15°
:)) Right?
Don't ask me why 0,5*30 is necessary formula to get 15!! :))

Your words are good, but your view is that the faithful people of God are within the organization.  I think you need to turn full circle, and see your organization for what it is.  It is the GB/leadership in the elders, who oppose any truth about scripture from other anointed ones, as well as many who confront them about their lies...this dominion, which  makes it their business to "scoff".  So much so, that in judicial committees, the elders show their "enmity" toward truth. The GB's word is all that matters.   I am totally amazed at the support an organization is given that has so many failed teachings and prophesies.  
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."  1 John 4:1
You do know that every failed teaching that the GB says comes from God, proves that they are sinners?
 

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

"Anthony Morris effect" 
Dear Arauna, you are definitely under strong influence of JW Broadcasting (in the harmony with Anthony Morris' "spirit") and that will not bring you nothing positive and good.   

I agree with @Srecko Sostar exactly on this.
@Arauna you do it every time. You bring out the faults in the people that you serve. 
The Governing Body 'lift themselves up' by saying only THEY are the F&DS.  They 'pretend to all they are important' by pretending that are the spokesperson for God and Christ. 
'because of what their job is.'  but it is a job and title that they have given to themselves. 
Luke 14 v 11  How the 'mighty' will fall. 
Arauna wants to blame everyone else, whilst she blinds herself against the many faults of the GB. 

What JHVH have with your reasoning and decisions about PHD? Bible interpretations made by other humans and by reader himself bring people (believers) to this or that conclusion and decision.... about "higher education". Under influence of WTJWorg, JW members (most of them) making  decision to reject "higher education". That is their choice and their right for decision making. But please, do not put "burden of responsibility" on God, as he have something with WTJWorg interpretations on Bible text. 
WTJWorg has been proving to be an unreliable source for 140 years already. Because of that i completely agree with your statement how: Yea, humans are the same everywhere...... they lift themselves up and pretend to all they are important because of what their job is.
WTJWorg has been pretending that they are God's Sole Chanel aka FDS who spreading "truth". And in same time, after cornered because of so many nonsense in teachings, they came out with "we are imperfect". Everybody knows that they are "imperfect". What is so spectacular with that fact, and to put such "revelation" on JWTV or in own publications??!! 
Such a statement is not an admission of one's own mistake and stupidity. Such a statement is a hoax and distraction from the real situation in the WTJWorg Organization.
 

"Anthony Morris effect" 
Dear Arauna, you are definitely under strong influence of JW Broadcasting (in the harmony with Anthony Morris' "spirit") and that will not bring you nothing positive and good.   

I followed the advice from your first sentence a few years ago.  I removed myself from the JW Organisation. 
And I agree with the scripture you quoted. The advice of your wicked GB / Watchtower was to keep Child Sexual Abuse hidden inside the Organisation by not reporting it to the Police or Superior Authorities. 
And I will not 'sit in the seat of scoffers', because I will be no part of the lies and deceit that your GB spew out. 
Your GB and their helpers are the ones who are in opposition to love and truth.  
Everything you 'throw' at others always seems to be better at describing your GB and it's many organisations. 

This was a source of contention with a JW, waking up. The quote is from 3/2021 Study article, “Love Helps Us Endure Hatred”
Paragraph 7:
“Perhaps one of our biggest tests comes from members of our own family. When we begin to show interest in the truth, some family members may think that we have been misled. Others may think that we have lost our mind. (Compare Mark 3:21) They may even violently oppose us. This negative reaction should not surprise us. Jesus said: “A man’s enemies will be those of his own household.” (Matt 10:36) Of course, regardless of how our relatives view us, we refuse to treat them as our enemies. On the contrary, as our love for Jehovah grows, so does our love for people. (Matt 22:37-39) But we will never compromise our standards by ignoring Bible laws and principles just to please another human.”
After speaking about maggots, GB Anthony Morris states,
“but what a fitting picture of the final end of all of God’s enemies. Sobering, yet something we look forward to. 
“And frankly for friends of Jehovah God, how reassuring that they’re finally gonna be gone, all these despicable enemies that have just reproached Jehovah’s name – destroyed; never ever to live again.”
“Despicable” - deserving hatred and contempt.
WT study article: - “Of course, regardless of how our relatives view us, we refuse to treat them as our enemies. On the contrary, as our love for Jehovah grows, so does our love for people”
The contradictions never end.  What will JWs do?  Will they compromise God’s laws and principles to please their leader, who considers all apostates as “deserving of hatred and contempt”?  Will they walk in his footsteps or in the footsteps of Christ, who said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”  Matt 5:43-58
Jezebel was a prophetess who tolerated no rivalry, and freely killed God’s people who were a threat to her prominent position.   Why do God’s people tolerate a leadership that desires to “kill” (disfellowship) any who refuse to “sacrifice” to its idol/organization? (Rev 13:15)  Since these leaders clearly are not following Bible council considering “enemies”, they are committing spiritual immorality.  Harlotry.  (Rev 17:1-6)   This is not just one instance where they do not follow Bible council.  
“Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.”  Rev 20-22
 

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

Are you an idiot or a liar (or both), CC? Those were not my words. Here's another picture for you:

 

Language! Language!! Please!

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 - EXPLANATION FOR PUBLIC
Frequently Asked Questions - https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-bible-study/
Am I Expected to Become One of Jehovah’s Witnesses if I Study the Bible With Them?
No, you are not obligated in any way. Millions enjoy our Bible study program without becoming Jehovah’s Witnesses. * The purpose of the program is to show you what the Bible teaches. What you decide to do with that knowledge is up to you. We recognize that faith is a personal matter.
Why do you study with people who don’t join your faith?
Our primary motive is love for Jehovah God,......We feel that there is no greater privilege than to be “God’s fellow workers” in helping people to learn what his Word teaches.— We are also motivated by love for our neighbors. -- We find joy in sharing with others the wonderful things we have learned.—.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 - INSTRUCTIONS FOR JW MEMBERS
How to Conduct a Bible Study That Leads to Baptism—Part Two - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2020/How-to-Conduct-a-Bible-Study-That-Leads-to-Baptism-Part-Two/
THE disciple-making work is a lifesaving work! How do we know? When Jesus gave the command that is recorded at Matthew 28:19, 20, he said: “Go, . . . make disciples . . . , baptizing them.” ......To make disciples, we need to develop the “art of teaching.”....But as noted in the preceding article, we want to know how we can help more of them to become baptized disciples of Jesus Christ.  Teachers must show genuine, personal interest in their students. View them as your future spiritual brothers or sisters. It is not easy for them to give up friends in the world and to make all the necessary changes to serve Jehovah. We need to help them find true friends in the congregation. Talk openly about Christian dedication and baptism. After all, our goal in  conducting a Bible study is to help a person become a baptized disciple. Within a few months of having a regular Bible study and especially after beginning to attend meetings, the student should understand that the purpose of the Bible study is to help him to start serving Jehovah as one of His Witnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let us repeat what looks like two explanations on JWorg web. First, explanatory sentence for PUBLIC! 
1) THE PURPOSE of the program is to show you what the Bible teaches.
Now, as second explanation, JW MEMBERS are reminded WHAT is purpose of Bible Study.
2)  After all, our goal in  conducting a Bible study is to help a person become a baptized disciple....the student should understand that THE PURPOSE of the Bible study is to help him to start serving Jehovah as one of His Witnesses.
 

...including non-JW people, too, i guess. :))
Is Bible, or some part of Bible, is OT, is NT, as Scriptures  or as Promise addressed for this or that people, it is a matter of (human) perspective and intention of Author and/or authors. I will not go in that issue, because not feel that i can defend any position. :))
inherit verb (FROM DEAD PERSON) - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inherit
1) to receive money, a house, etc. from someone after they have died
inherit verb (QUALITY)
2) to be born with the same physical or mental characteristics as one of your parents or grandparents: 
inherit verb (PROBLEM)
3) to begin to have responsibility for a problem or situation that previously existed or belonged to another person:
If I may, I would use this logic. According to the Biblical text from Genesis, and the interpretations of many religious people, God created man on Earth and for Earth. So, man and every next offspring, has a natural right to live on Earth, to use the Earth and to keep the Earth for himself and for others after him. The Earth, as a Planet, cannot be "inherited" in some legal sense, based on ownership of the Earth by our predecessors or by somebody else (Jesus, Angels, 144000 etc). The Earth is given as a gift to use, based on Genesis book.
Do those who "inherit" the Earth also "inherit" life, temporary life, life until they die, eternal life, immortal life? From whom they (people of all sort, JW earth class, JW heaven class, etc) "inherit" something from this we numbered? Or, is such a life a gift, a reward, or something else?
In order for someone to be able to “inherit” (in any sense of the word, literally and figuratively) land (Earth), he needs life. Without life man becomes earth (dust) and thus he alone becomes the object (dust) of inheritance for someone else. :))
Blessed are the meek,  for they will inherit the earth. Mat 5
In this Jesus' sermon, he don't said how "144000" and "great multitude" in Revelation will inherit the Earth.  No, he said how "meek" will inherit the earth. Also he didn't made claim how "144000" or "great multitude" are meek, as WTJWorg articles suggested. In fact, authors of those magazines created the image, premise that Jesus “heirs” would "inherit" the Earth because they are Jesus’ heirs. And Jesus' heirs are meek, not because they are meek in themselves, but because they are Jesus’ heirs. Circular Reasoning or something like that, i guess.
And, they are "heirs" because they have a hope to be with Jesus in Heaven :)) as they explained/justified their "1919 appointments" in old WT magazines. This was "proof" as well as "self made claim" that Jesus saw how "only they spoke the truth in period from 1914 to 1919." :)) That also proved to be incorrect, as we today clearly see all this and that.
Jesus told how God want to see all sort of (meek) people to be saved (and live on Earth, i guess)
 
 

Is the GB following Christ's example, by lording it over Christ's brothers?  Are Christ's brothers following him, or men?  Who really set up this arrangement of a composite "faithful slave" expecting obedience to them?  
If you are told that you MUST obey the GB...no matter what they teach, right or wrong, this is a dominion created by men.  It is tyranny, a beating down of one's own ability to decipher truth from lies.   Jesus and the Father don't expect us to listen to failed teachings, and they certainly wouldn't inspire their true leaders with a false teaching. This is hypocrisy.
"Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; They speak a vision of their own heart, Not from the mouth of the Lord."  Jer 23:16
"On the other hand, that servant, if he is wicked, may think that it will be a long time before his master comes. (1914, 1925...1975) The servant may begin to beat the other servants and eat and drink with the drunks.  His master will return unexpectedly.  Then his master will severely punish him and assign him a place with the hypocrites. People will cry and be in extreme pain there."  Matt 24:48-51
Are you drunk on the wine of harlots/false prophets?  
Rev.18:3; Jer.51:7; Matt.13:15; 1Cor.15:34; 1Pet.1:13; 5:8; 1Thess.5:6; Luke 21:36,35
https://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/01/spiritual-virginity-what-is-it.html
 

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

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

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

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

Same for Croatia (or Europe, in fact).

I can't find any other information than what the video states.  Once the video is played (if valid), it should be available to watch any time.  If there is another source of information found regarding this, I'll post it here for you.