Ann O'Maly

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

You've already proved it. Look in the mirror.
Bullshit. Give some examples. If you dare.
Which you are obviously too stupid to understand. You are apparently going on obsolete Watchtower writings from more than 50 years ago.
You're not describing "bible chronology" but Watchtower chronology. And it was thoroughly debunked decades ago.
Tell that to the writers of the Insight book.
Bullshit. 
The dating was used to make the predictions, you moron!
So?
LOL! Such abysmal ignorance.

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

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

And how do you think the date is confirmed, you moron?

That's false. All of them do. No exceptions.
All of them combine to show that 605 BCE was Nebuchadnezzar's 1st regnal year.
All of them combine to show that 597 BCE was Nebuchadnezzar's 8th regnal year.
All of them combine to show that 587 BCE was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year.

I've rarely seen anyone so clueless who could manage to work a computer keyboard and not stub a toe.
Once again, you moron: THERE ARE NO BIBLICAL DATES WITHOUT FIRST HAVING SECULAR DATES.
And you've not given any such "biblical dates", nor evidence for what you think they are.

Oh? What are the additional proofs?
Uh oh. A request for evidence. Run for the hills!

That's because there is so much astronomical data and tablet and inscription evidence from the entire Neo-Babylonian period.

🤣 Delta-T now. Oh please. 

Don't insult the guy! CC considers himself a veritable polymath.
So, getting back to your easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy method for obtaining the year of Cyrus' death without stars and calendars, are you going to enlighten us at all about what that method is? I have my Insight book handy.
...other than the vast wealth of cuneiform astronomical texts direct from the period, thus a reliance on Ptolemy is unnecessary (which has been the case for well over 100 years).
Irrelevant. Assurbanipal was an Assyrian who lived before the neo-Babylonian period. 
Irrelevant.
Do you have an easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy method for obtaining the year of Babylon's conquest without the use of stars and calendars? My fingers are poised to work those Insight book pages! 😉

That applies equally to the board's Great African Queen Arauna.

He seems to be suffering from two serious defects: a mind damaged by JWism, and the biggest case of Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen.

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

You're welcome.

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

You're welcome.

No. It's not confusing at all. I don't have to be intelligent to know that you provided 3 lines from a table that are labeled with Saros 57. If this formats correctly you can scroll right and see the SAROS/INEX: 57/11
yyyy mm dd jd(UT) dT lun bgpn em1 bgum em2 bgtl em3 max em4 endtl em5 endum em6 endpn em7 T mxp mxu saros inex wd -607 8 24 1499586.53 19359 -31000 22.12 0 23.24 0 --- 0.48 0 --- 2.13 0 3.25 0 u 1.7 0.6 57 11 sa In fact, these are the ones you showed, which were all three labeled SAROS 57, with three consecutive INEX numbers (9, 10, 11). All three dates were 18 years and 11 days apart. (All dates were in August; from the 2nd to the 13th is 11 days, and from the 13th to the 24th is 11 days.)
-643 8 2 1486415.91 20031 -31446   7.14   0   8.32   0---9.45   0---10.58   0 12.16   0 u 1.5 0.4       57    9 tu
-625 8 13 1493001.22 19693 -31223 14.38   0 15.52   0---17.12   0---18.31   0 19.46   0 u 1.6 0.5    57  10 su
-607 8 24 1499586.53 19359 -31000 22.12   0 23.24   0---0.48   0---2.13   0   3.25   0 u 1.7 0.6     57   11 sa
So these dates I posted were exactly right. And the CyberSky software was able to locate them exactly.
The problem is that you didn't show any for 607 BCE, the Saros that you had just mentioned in the earlier post. Why are you showing one for 608 BCE if you were talking about 607 BCE?

To me, they suggest that you looked up "607" and "saros," so that you could make a point that you made earlier, that eclipses in 625 BCE and 607 BCE were on the same saros cycle.
http://www.libroesoterico.com/biblioteca/Astrologia/Articulos/Anon - Lista De Eclipses Lunares.TXT
The first one was on   invisible in Babylon.
The second one was on visible in Babylon.
The third was on visible in Babylon.
These were part of the saros that has been numbered #57. None of these three above were in 607 BCE or 625 BCE.
And none of them indicate what you said here:
 

You say that the date is set in stone. Of course this is impossible without at least one astronomical reading. I agree with Cyrus' death in 530 BCE and I expect that almost everyone on this part of the forum agrees, too.
But I already posted from the Insight book, that the WTS only accepts this date because WTS/Insight relies on an astronomical reading that identifies one of the BCE years of Cambyses. (Just as there are several more that identify the BCE years by counting from Nebuchadnezzar.) Without that piece of secular, astronomy evidence from Cambyses the WTS would not be able to put a BCE date on Cambyses. And without trusting the Babylonian Chronicles and the various secular historians, and the secular king lists, there would be no ability to say that Cambyses was the son of Cyrus, nor that Cambyses directly followed Cyrus. Without the king lists and the Babylonian Chronicles and secular historians we wouldn't even know if this was the "right" Cyrus or the "right" Cambyses, or that Cyrus had died. The evidence that there was a Cyrus that ruled from the time his accession year and for another 9 regnal years is evidenced by several of the tens of thousands of stone business tablets. But those tablets don't give us 539 to 530 BCE. We get that from the astronomy, counting up from readings during the time of Nebuchadnezzar or backwards from Cambyses. You have the king lists and secular historians that tell us that Cambyses directly followed his father Cyrus. But those don't give a BCE date either.
With that in mind, when you read the section from the Insight book, you will probably understand why I quoted from Insight earlier:
*** INSIGHT-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
You already can see from reading "Insight" that the WTS relies on a Babylonian clay tablet to get the astronomy reading of an eclipse to find a certain year in Cambyses' reign. They also rely on the fact that there are no missing business/contract tablets, in order to claim that Cyrus ruled for only 9 years. (Yet the WTS also relies on the NECESSITY that there are 20 missing years of these tens of thousands of tablets. The writer from Finland that CC quoted earlier would put these missing years in the reign of Nabonidus, who immediately preceded Cyrus. )
And some of the other information Insight (WTS) relies on would be obvious from a reading of the source material like Parker & Dubberstein where the entire Babylonian calendar has been recreated, based on hundreds of tablets and inscriptions. These sources include astronomical diaries and king lists. The WTS can't know that the order of kings was Nabonidus, Cyrus, Cambyses, for example, without relying on the king lists (or relying on others who relied on them). They are also relying on other secular sources to determine the length of these reigns.
Is there even one word of what I just said that you think is not true? If so, please let me know what it is that you don't believe.

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

Same here. But I was interested in your 'much easier method' for obtaining the year of Cyrus' death without stars and calendars. Maybe your method was restricted to flipping open the Insight book and it telling you?