JW Insider

43 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Nonsense. The prophet Daniel referred to the 'first year of Darius' in Da 9:1;11:1 so its is a regnal formula that cannot be ignored thus also providing essential historical data which in turn makes our Chronology, a strong cable not just like the  chain of NB Chronology.

Nonsense. It is precisely because this "regnal formula" does not include "King of Babylon" that you should not ignore the formula. Besides, look at how the WTS treats such "formulas" to mean something else, like "with reference to his kingship as it affected the Jewish nation." For Daniel 2:1, you have an example of this in INSIGHT:

*** it-1 p. 1186 Image ***
In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.)

You've already seen Witnesses on this very topic claiming that this would have been shortly after Daniel's exile, which could be dated to about 605 BCE in the standard chronology. That would make this verse mean 603 BCE (standard). The WT claims that this 2nd year mentioned in Daniel 2:1 is about 605 BCE, and that the "real" second year of Nebuchadnezzar is about 622 BCE (WT chronology).

*** it-1 p. 190 Ashdod ***
Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in 624 B.C.E.,

As you can see, INSIGHT gives Nebuchadnezzar two starting dates, 607 BCE and 624 BCE. This is similar to the several starting dates for Cyrus.

(wikipedia)

41 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

you indeed had to rely on what the 'celebrated' WT scholars had first published on this subject as to the precise dating for the Return of the Jews under Cyrus for the first time ever published.

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

You can also find it here:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf

It was also here in 1938:

Waldo H. Dubberstein, "The chronology of Cyrus and Cambyses," AJSL LV (1938) 417-19.

Also, the WTS admits that this does not give a precise dating for the Return of the Jews.

*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.

You constantly point out that secular works cannot choose between 586 and 587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th years. You point out that they can't be trusted since they can't get this precisely. It would be very hypocritical of you to not give the same measure of criticism for the fact that the Watchtower publications cannot choose between late in 538 or early in 537 for the decree.

5 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

However, if Cyrus succeeded Darius during or right after Darius' first year, then the first full year of Cyrus would run from Nisan 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar, 536 BCE., or, about, March 12, 537 BCE, to March 29, 536 BCE,Julian Calendar or March 6, 537 BCE, to March 23, 536 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.

Not really. This does not necessarily follow. You already know the example of Labashi-Marduk, for which we have the explanation readily available on the business/contract tablets. If the name of the year for the sake of the calendar is already called for the king "X" who began that year on Nisan 1, then the calendar identifies it as year 1 of king "X."

If King "X" dies or is somehow removed after Nisan 1 by King "Y," this is King Y's accession year. But if King Y dies or is removed before the next New Year's (Nisan 1), and a new King "Z" is king by then, then King Z also had an accession year prior to Nisan 1, but only King Z will have the next "calendar" year named for him. That's because he was there at the time of the regnal "coronation" on Nisan 1 in the year following when King X was there for the coronation on the previous Nisan 1. So the calendar will call the years: King X, followed by King Z.

It would be a huge mistake if the calendar included King Y. It would throw off the calendar. How would the eclipse predictions ever work? How would 3 year leases and loans ever work that were in effect when King Y reigned? King Y would be throwing off the calendar by a whole year.

Of course, this "Darius" might not have even been given the title King of Babylon, even if it were for period of less than a year. Perhaps, the Bible purposely associated him with the Medes and he was put in charge of Babylon temporarily while Cyrus, the true new King of Babylon, cared for some other matters in other parts of his kingdom. After all, Cyrus had already been "King of Media" (since 549) himself since 10 years prior to the time when he could be called King of Babylon in 539 (accession). He had been "King of Persia" (since 559) which was 20 years prior to being King of Babylon.

I only briefly scanned this PDF before commenting on it previously. But it has been brought to my attention again, so I am reading it more carefully, and maybe a bit more critically this time.

First of all, I still assume that Michael Gilmour had only made a "sloppy" mistake in comparing the "footnote" rendering in the 1984 NWT and comparing it to the "main rendering" in the revised 2013 NWT. Then he claimed that the 1984 rendering was changed in 2013 to be less susceptible to a Trinitarian understanding. The entire page containing Gilmour's comments was avaliable on Google Books, but the second time I visited that page, it is no longer available in preview mode.

I assumed the reason for the sloppy scholarship was due to a strong prejudicial leaning toward the Trinity doctrine and therefore being a bit too anxious to grasp at straws to prove the NWT wrong. The comments about Gilmour in the PDF indicate that this might have been a mistake or might even have been deceptive on Gilmour's part. That's possible, but it is not such an important point to be deceptive about. He gains very little ground toward his theory that the new NWT is any more non-Trinitarian than the old one. (Which, of course, had actually rendered this verse the same way in both versions, notwithstanding a footnote that disappeared in the 2013 NWT.)

In effect, the NWT didn't "allow for" the translation as an alternative because the footnote disappeared. But when the complete NWT Study Bible is available, there will probably be a comment, again, to the same effect as the 1984 rendering.

Here is the verse in question:

(1 Peter 1:11) 11 They [the prophets] kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.

The underlined phrase in Greek is pretty much just a simple "Spirit of Christ" so that most translations just say:

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (KJV)

The NWT translates "Spirit of Christ" as "the spirit concerning Christ." The possible reasons are defended in the PDF that comments on the verse. And the reasons are "fair" but not definitive. The author of the PDF agrees with "spirit of Christ" as a better translation, but agrees with the idea that this is not a scripture intended to replace the "spirit of God" with "spirit of Christ" as if Christ was personally inspiring the prophets instead of Jehovah.

I agree with this too. The scripture does not support the Trinity or equal deity with Jehovah. It does refer to the "spirit of God about Christ (or concerning Christ)" The NWT gives the sense, instead of giving a pure literal translation, but a translation always has the prerogative of giving the meaning in the context, not just the literal meaning of the words by themselves.

Of course, the PDF tries to show that the words my themselves MIGHT have already "literally" held the same meaning that includes "about" or "concerning" even within the literal word. That's because the word for Christ is in the genitive case, which usually involves ownership, and can often take an "apostrophe s" in English (i.e., Christ's spirit). But the genitive case is sometimes used, especially in classical Greek, to include a meaning more like "concerning." (i.e., "the Christ-concerning spirit.").

But even most of the examples did not stand on their own because there was often an additional word in the sentence that made the "concerning" or "about" more explicit. In fact, examples included the Greek word for "about." (περί) The exception was Acts 19:40 , but the article itself is not able to make a strong case. here. (There are plenty of περί's in this verse, and one of them could easily be applied to the "notion" of the genitive meaning "concerning."

There are several examples in 1 Peter alone, showing that this was not a common construction for him. It would have made 1 Peter 4:14 mean that God's spirit was a spirit concerning glory, instead of a spirit of glory. Not technically incorrect, but how far do you take this. Is the spirit of God, really just a spirit "concerning" God:

(1 Peter 4:14) 14 If you are being reproached for the name of Christ, you are happy, because the spirit of glory, yes, the spirit of God, is resting upon you.

The non-Trinitarian Unitarians have addressed both verses well at this site:

https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-peter-1-11

The most relevant part is here:

The spirit that God places upon people takes on different names as it refers to different functions.  This can be abundantly proven.  Nevertheless, the spirit is the same.  God always gives His spirit, and then it is named as it functions.  When it is associated with wisdom, it is called the “spirit of wisdom” (Ex. 28:3; Deut. 34:9; Eph. 1:17).  When it is associated with grace, it is called the “spirit of grace” (Zech.12:10; Heb. 10:29).  When it is related to glory, it is called the “spirit of glory” (1 Pet. 4:14).  It is called the “spirit of adoption” when it is associated with our everlasting life (Rom. 8:15, which is translated as “spirit of sonship” in some versions).  It is called “the spirit of truth” when it is associated with the truth we learn by revelation (John 14:17; 16:13).  When it came with the same power as it brought to Elijah, it was called “the spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15).  These are not different spirits.  All the names refer to the one gift of holy spirit that God gives.  Ephesians 4:4 states clearly that there is “one spirit,” and that spirit is God’s gift of holy spirit given to some people in the Old Testament and to all believers today.

When Peter mentions that “the spirit of Christ” was upon prophets as they “predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow,” it is easy to see that the spirit is called the “spirit of Christ” because it is associated with Christ and foretold of Christ,

Under another recent topic, still actively ongoing, Anna brought up how most Witnesses don't study the issue for themselves and rely on articles such as the following one she mentioned.

On 12/26/2020 at 11:24 AM, Anna said:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20141001/gods-kingdom-prophecy-1/
. . . When one reads both part one and two it makes sense, (to me) so perhaps in another topic one could use these two articles and insert critiques? (In another color). 

I'll give it a try. Here's part one (in my next post). Anyone really interested should check the link on JW.ORG, because I will be skipping some of the less interesting dialogue between Cameron [JW Bible study conductor] and Jon [the person being studied with].

You made a mistake when quoting this section of the book, which can be found here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Coal_Age/ONc-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

30 degrees is not 1 signs, as you mistakenly presented it, but it is 1 sign as you can see by the snapshot of that portion of the page below yours:

59 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

30 degrees = 1 signs……………………………………………………1,800 minutes

12      signs = 1 great circle or circumference …………………360 degrees

The “sign” is one of the twelve divisions of the zodiac, which correspond to the twelve calendar months of the year.

In other words, you have done it again. And the addition of the "s" to make it "signs" instead of "sign" can even give the impression that it could a set of multiple signs to make 30 degrees. That would be devious and dishonest if you did this on purpose. At any rate, you tried to find evidence that that the correct idea was wrong, but instead you found a source that says the correct idea was right.

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

58 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But it doesn't mean this one is finished. There are still several pieces of evidence to test . . .

Of course!

I literally only added that, not for your benefit of course, but because I assumed that persons like CC or "scholar JW" would accuse me of trying to change the subject. Looks like CC took the bait anyway. So predictable.

But I'll go ahead and start the new topic right now. And we might even discuss hidden text below the surface.

44 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

you are like JWinsider, trying to evade by changing the subject.

And it's also predictable that CC will now create a post in which he accuses me of being predictable. So predictable

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

When one reads both part one and two it makes sense, (to me) so perhaps in another topic one could use these two articles and insert critiques? (In another color). 

You are right that this would best be done in another topic. This one was originally intended for just a discussion of the accuracy of the secular evidence, and 1914 becomes a discussion of Biblical interpretation mixed up with secular evidence. But, of course, 1914 is the subtext of 607, 539, the seventy years, etc. To most Witnesses it is the only reason to look trust secular chronology at all, just so we can get to 539 -> 537 -> 607 -> 1914.  And, of course, reject all other points of the same secular chronology -- even the parts that got us to 539 in the first place.

I'll be happy to start a new topic. But it doesn't mean this one is finished. There are still several pieces of evidence to test the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4828-cyrus

On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as "King of Babylon, King of all the Lands."

In fact, the Watchtower quotes this very point:

*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
On page 404 of Volume 4, The Jewish Encyclopedia says: “Cyrus always conformed to the traditions of the thrones he usurped, and, together with his son Cambyses, rendered homage to the native deities. On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as ‘King of Babylon, King of all the Lands.’”

This makes perfect sense according to Babylonian custom, especially considering the Akitu festival which would have been Nisan (March-April) of 538. In other words, as early as possible in 538:

http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub389/entry-5708.html

Gerald A. Larue wrote in “Old Testament Life and Literature”: “The most important religious celebration of Babylon and one that provides a background for understanding II Isaiah was the Akitu festival1 observed annually from the first to twelfth of Nisanu (Hebrew Nisan: March-April). The festal origins may lie in Sumerian times; the rites continued to be observed into the Persian-Greek period. The chief figure in the cult during the Neo-Babylonian era was Marduk, god of Babylon and supreme deity in the empire. His temple, called Esagila ("House of the Uplifted Head"), stood near the great ziggurat. [Source: Gerald A. Larue, “Old Testament Life and Literature," 1968, infidels.org <=>]

The Watchtower that quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia above made use of those same dates to include the following:

*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
If we proceed according to the cuneiform inscriptions, rather than the Bible, we have to take the position that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned concurrently for a time. According to this, the accession year (an incomplete lunar year) of Cyrus as king of Babylon began on October 23 of 539 B.C.E., when he entered the city (by day) after its capture by his troops. Hence his first regnal year (a full lunar year) began on Nisan 1 of 538 B.C.E., or on March 17/18 of 538 B.C.E., Gregorian time.
The cuneiform tablet entitled “Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11” mentions Cyrus’ first regnal year. By this tablet it is calculated that this year began March 17/18, 538 B.C.E., and it ended on March 4/5 of 537 B.C.E., Gregorian time. So Cyrus’ second regnal year began the next day, on March 5/6, 537 B.C.E. In this case Cyrus’ decree must have been made before this latter date that is, late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. See pages 14, 29 of Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, edition of 1956, by Parker and Dubberstein.

These are the same dates given in P&D as referenced in the Watchtower. I agree with them:

• Start of 1st year, Nisan 1, 538 BCE = March 17/18, 538 BCE Gregorian = March 23/24, 538 BCE Julian
• End of 1st year, 1 day before Nisan 1, 537 = March 4/5, 537 BCE Gregorian = March 10/11, 538 BCE Julian

On 12/23/2020 at 2:46 PM, scholar JW said:

Regarding the 1st Regnal of full year of Cyrus, How is the beginning and end of that year expressed in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calenders?

The INSIGHT book gives two choices:

*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.

So the first choice is that the first year of Cyrus as conqueror of Babylon would be the year when Cyrus made the proclamation decreeing the end of the Jewish exile. But since Daniel 9:1 refers to a first year of DARIUS in this same time period, "the may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and the 'first year of Cyrus' over Babylon." Then the INSIGHT book is even more "iffy" by adding: "If it did, then it would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus' first year from late in 538 BCE.

But then INSIGHT offers a slightly more conclusive solution, which is the one that I accept: "However, if Darius' rule . . . ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E."

There are several ways in which a first year of Darius the Mede could have fit into this timeline between 539 BCE and 538 BCE that would not have interfered with the fact that the Neo-Babylonian calendar places Cyrus accession year over Babylon in 539, and his first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537. Although I could offer the several conjectural reasons why the mention of Darius doesn't need to concern us, I already know that giving these possible reasons will be made to look as if the whole calendar is conjecture, and it isn't.

In addition to the above statement, I also agree with the much more definitive statement about the first year of Cyrus that the INSIGHT book offers:

*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.

So, again, we have Cyrus' first year as 538 BCE, which is effectively from Nisan 1, 538 to (technically) the last day of Addaru, which is one day prior to Nisan 1, 537. The expression in the first INSIGHT quote indicates [the start of] Nisan of 538 to [the start of] Nisan of 537. So Nisan 1, 538 to Nisan 1, 537 is just as good for all practical purposes, unless you are doing this to quibble over a single day.

The Jewish calendar will be easy to surmise, because the Jewish calendar would have effectively become the Babylonian calendar at this time. Especially, since we are taught that all Jews to speak of were already exiled/deported into Babylonian dominated lands at this point. Of course, we must acknowledge, just as INSIGHT acknowledges, that we don't know for sure how well the Jewish and Babylonian calendars matched up until nearly 200 years later, when the Jews adopted the same Metonic cycle that the Babylonians had been using for centuries (including the year from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537):

*** it-1 p. 390 Calendar ***
We do not find record of a definitely fixed or standardized form of Jewish calendar until the fourth century of our Common Era (c. 359 C.E.), when Hillel II specified that the leap years of 13 months should be the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th of each 19 years. Such a 19-year cycle is commonly called the Metonic cycle, after the Greek mathematician Meton (of the fifth century B.C.E.), although there is also evidence that such a cycle was perfected before him by the Babylonians. (See Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, pp. 1, 3, 6.) This cycle takes into account that every 19 years the new and the full moons fall again on the same days of the solar year.

But we do have Biblical evidence that the Jews were already adopting the features of the Babylonian calendar, while exiled in Babylon and after coming back to their own cities in Judea. Some of that evidence is in the form of post-exilic contract tablets from Jewish settlements in Babylon. But it's the Biblical evidence that is more important here. Even more evidence of this trend already seen in the Bible, is also found in the Talmud

*** it-1 p. 392 Calendar ***
In postexilic times the names of the months used in Babylon were employed by the Israelites, and seven of these are mentioned: Nisan, the 1st month, replacing Abib (Es 3:7); Sivan, the 3rd month (Es 8:9); Elul, the 6th (Ne 6:15); Chislev, the 9th (Zec 7:1); Tebeth, the 10th (Es 2:16); Shebat, the 11th (Zec 1:7); and Adar, the 12th (Ezr 6:15).
The postexilic names of the remaining five months appear in the Jewish Talmud and other works. They are Iyyar, the 2nd month; Tammuz, the 4th; Ab, the 5th; Tishri, the 7th; and Heshvan, the 8th. The 13th month, which was intercalated periodically, was named Veadar, or the second Adar.

Imagine that! The Jewish calendar went so far as to name one of their months "Tammuz." That's like Christians using names like Thursday for Thor, Wednesday for Woden, Augustus [Ceasar] for August, etc. In fact, when we say that the Memorial of Jesus' Death is Nisan 14, instead of Abib 14, we are using the Babylonian influenced name for the first month, not the original Hebrew name for the same month, Abib.

So we can assume, fairly safely, that Nisanu 1, 538 and Nisanu 1, 537 would coincide with what the Jewish calendar called Nisan 1, 538 and Nisan 1, 537. (and we can subtract a day from Nisan 1, 537 if we think this gives us more "technical" accuracy.

In translating to Julian and Gregorian calendars we would need to have an idea of when any recent intercalary months had been added. If Addaru 29 or 30, 538 was the last day of Cyrus' accession year then we would need to know if it was actually an intercalary or "second" Addaru (Hebrew "second Adar" or "Ve-Adar"). In fact if either 539 or 538 had fallen into the 17th year of the 19 year Metonic cycle, the Babylonian calendar would have added an additional 6th month (Ululu [Elul] 2) instead of an additional 12th month (Addaru 2).

The INSIGHT book references P&D (Parker & Dubberstein) as an authority for the way in which it represents the Babylonian calendar. This is because there are literally hundreds of tablets, astronomical and otherwise, that make a reference to when the intercalary months have been added to which years in the Babylonian calendar. So it is possible to fix every one of these with a high level of certainty. Even though a couple of these had remained "unproven" or "unsure" up until several years ago, the gaps have now been filled in for every single year. (Some people probably don't realize that this alone provides an additional line of evidence that helps us double-check the accuracy of the Babylonian chronology as presented by many other independent witnesses.)

At any rate, the intercalary months that would effect the Julian & Gregorian reading have easily been identified by P&D for 539 through 537. Therefore we can have a very high level of confidence that the answer is:

[next post, for easier reference]

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

JWinsider along with others are "responsible" for having "Allen Smith" banned and deleted for using words like stupid, moron, idiot, ignorance, apostate, NO  profanity.

That's completely false. You have repeated it so many times it might actually seem true to you now, but it never was. The banning did happen after your words appeared threatening and after a couple of your posts had already turned to profanity. I also received some messages from a moderator here, where I was asked my opinion about whether you should be banned, and I spoke against it (as I always have, so far).

Even though I think banning is only appropriate when threatening and bullying take place, most of your bile and vilification have been directed at me, anyway, and I don't feel the least bit threatened or bullied by you. I'm only embarrassed about the shame you have brought upon those related to me in the faith. But the more you escalate on topics like this one, at least you show others that you can't be taken all that seriously. So it all actually works out better when you remain on the board to expose yourself.

17 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Ah OK, @JW Insider.

My own copies of the forum include the same group under jw-archive.org. Where a post has been deleted, my copy is not in the exact same formatting. But since Allen himself did not delete the post, I will reproduce my copy here. It was not actually "three months ago." That's just the amount of time that had passed since the post had been made (2015, in this case):

2 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

So the information is second-hand, @JW Insider (and it's TTH at that!)?

Not just second hand. I have the first hand statement made on this forum from Allen Smith. But at least one of those posts was deleted and is no longer part of the forum. And of course, just because Allen Smith said it about himself, isn't exactly the same thing as saying it also applies to CC.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The other issue in JWinsider's ignorance in trying very hard to make people believe 577 BCE somehow is in the month of December in order to push his conspiracy of it aligning with 587 BC which is a bunch of baloney. Other scholars suggest it falls in JUNE, therefore, it would not be 588/7 BC, it is 589/8 BC.

Actually, a lot of years have both a December AND a June in them, even 2020.

And the point you are trying to make is wrong too (of course). There are no scholars that suggest that the eclipse of December 577 actually falls in June 577, June 588/7, or 589/8 BCE, or any other year. LBAT 1420 often gives TWO eclipses for each year and marks which one, for example, is in the THIRD month (May or June) and which one is in the NINTH month (November or December).

Also you seem to think that because there is a such thing as saros cycles, that you can take an eclipse that happened in one year of the cycle and apply it to another year in the same cycle. This is not how they work. In fact each consecutive set of years in the same cycle will have recognizable differences from the other eclipse examples in the same cycle. Sometimes an eclipse seen in one year, will not have even been seen at all 18 years later or earlier.

I'm sure that TTH doesn't want to be pulled into this, and his ideas may have already changed since 2018 when he wrote this post below. But I thought he expressed it best, by allowing for the fact that Allen Smith had alluded to his dyslexia, but that TTH thought it was more than that.

As a "moderator" I don't moderate much, but I do have access to a lot of the old posts that people think are missing, so it would be pretty easy to embarrass people over this, and I shouldn't do that. But, what the hedge funds, I'll go ahead and see what happens:

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What does this prove for you? What observational cycle sequence does it conclude, certainly not 539 BC

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

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Here is Ann O'Malys words on a discussion board from another apostate site, for LBAT 1420

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.

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Remember how "Allen Smith" was "banned" and "deleted" for being straightforward with strong language that wasn't profanity?

Yes. I do remember. And I agree that it wasn't really fair to you. The only time I think a person should be banned is when they are threatening to hurt someone, or if it is obvious they are bullying someone. I don't like the strong language because it's distracting and it gives people an excuse to judge the person making the argument, without having to consider the argument. And profanity drives people away.

But it doesn't mean people should be banned over it. Just a reminder should be enough. This is why I never thought that you should have been banned over the strong language. I only see a few examples from "Allen Smith" where you used profanity. It wasn't enough to ban you over.

11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I already did it for you, you ***** liar. You're just too stupid to know it.

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).

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

And the chart on page 45:

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

That's good, in a few days, AlanF will be given a felony charge for copyright infringement.

Keeping Watch in Babylon: The Astronomical Diaries in Context 2019

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.)

18 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I hope this material provides some useful source material

Thanks for providing those details. I certainly didn't want to dig up all the nitty-gritty that you did, but without it, my simple version was still open to misunderstanding.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

CC mentioned their programs for the eclipse calculations, it reminds me of the carbon14 testing calculations...... it is what they do NOT tell you ghat is most importent not what they tell you.

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.