JW Insider

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

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

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

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.

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

No. The INSIGHT book mentioned all these pieces of Babylonian/Persian archaeology that they needed to work out separately to get the correct number. Not sloppy at all. It's part of the exact same clean and clear evidence that the WTS relied on to get to 539 BCE. The WTS may not accept it, but is is very clean evidence from Nebuchadnezzar's reign (including his 18th year) that shows that the 539 BCE date is correct. Just as correct as the statement that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is 587 BCE. The only real difference is that there are MORE and CLEANER and more COMPLETE evidences from Nebuchadnezzar's time which can be used as evidence to show that 539 is correct, than there are from Cambyses' time. But either way 539 is correct. How do you think that anyone was able to attach BCE dates to Olympiads without astronomical evidence? You haven't answered that yet. And I'm pretty sure I know why. The Bible contains absolutely ZERO BCE/CE dates. Not one. Ever. Moon eclipses are a pretty good source for identifying BCE/CE dates, and they turn out to be relatively simple. Every person here could learn how to use them as a resource. So what happens when you break that clock by rejecting 10 years worth of those events. Historian Julius Africanus wrote his "Chronography" in 221 CE, and using the "clockwork" major events, was able to show that the 20th year of The Watch Tower Society’s confidence in the Olympiad reckoning is even more illusory, however. This is because, while they accept the Olympiad dates given by ancient historians for the reign of Cyrus, they reject the Olympiad dates given by these historians for the reign of Artaxerxes I, despite the fact his reign fell much closer to our time. Thus, when Julius Africanus, in his Chronography (published c. 221/22 C.E.), dates the 20th year of Artaxerxes was the "4th year of the 83rd Olympiad." If Cyrus in 539 is true, that means 445 BCE for that date. But the Watchtower rejects this and says his 20th year is 455 BCE. *** INSIGHT-1 p. 182 Artaxerxes *** During the 20th year of his reign (455 B.C.E.), Artaxerxes Longimanus granted permission to Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls and gates of the city. (Ne 2:1-8)

This is why cannot find the publications speaking about any other evidence for the BCE date except by including astronomical evidence. You keep claiming it's there, but you will never find it. As some point you will have to take the INSIGHT book at its word, and not keep trying to claim that INSIGHT isn't telling the whole truth. That's good. If you find something then I take it all back.

No. They rely on it as the ONLY direct evidence for the BCE date. Even though they admit that they also needed to rely on some assumptions about the Babylonian contract tablets, and some historical information (Babylonian Chronicles and later), and some sources that also rely on additional astronomical evidence and king lists.

No. The latest version of INSIGHT ON THE SCRIPTURES.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that we must be careful about not putting too much stock in incomplete descriptions. Some of these probably can be misleading, and several of them were copied from earlier originals. This is one of the reasons that I have decided to look at more than a dozen of these readings, and only the complete ones, to see if the standard chronology is dependable enough. And the WTS still relies on such inscriptions, and contract tablets and a couple of these astronomical heavenly events to get the Babylonian calendar. And the WTS, according to INSIGHT, picks one or two of these eclipse descriptions to rely on for the reign of Cambyses, by which they get the reign of Cyrus as King of Babylon.

When you brought up the "olympiads" before, I mentioned that the WTS rejects the accuracy of the olympiads, because the WTS disagrees with them through the period of Artaxerxes, for example. Besides, the use of the olympiad was started many years after the NeoBabylonian period, well after Cyrus, and then the dating system was extended backwards from the 200's BC back to the 700's BCE. This doesn't mean they must be inaccurate, but if they are accurate for 539, then Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year must be 587 BCE, which the WTS also rejects. Besides that, how do you think someone ever added a BCE date to the Olympiad era without checking against the astronomical readings associated with that era? Perhaps this is the reason that INSIGHT states that it has relied on an astronomical tablet to get to the 539 BCE date, and didn't mention relying on the olympiad dating scheme.

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

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

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.

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?

I decided to add some of the details on the rest of LBAT 1420 (BM 38462) to further fill in the "chart" as it were. I looked for the eclipse that the tablet identified with the 25th year of Nebuchadnezzar (NEB25). The tablet says it could be found in Year 25, in the FIFTH month (Abu) occurring at about 3 hours after sunset. We know that Abu should always start in July or August. I found it on August 14th, 580 BCE. It did not match any other eclipse in any of the surrounding years, and it did not correctly match the Watchtower's chronology, which would have put this eclipse in 600 (so I also checked 601, 600, and 599). Here it is 3 hours after sunset in 580 BCE. Perfect! In this case, an eclipse that was not quite as good as above does show up for the Watchtower's preferred chronology on August 25, 600 BCE. (Or if July 27th was the target, then there was no eclipse at all in the FIFTH month of 600 BCE) The second eclipse is reported here on LBAT 1420 for NEB25, to be six months later, and also shows up as below in the first watch of the night. Here is hour two and hour three, below: One might argue that the Watchtower chronology has a fair shot at supporting that the WTS chronology fits an eclipse on August 27 600 BCE but there are two big problems. 1. If a specific year "X" fits ALL the eclipses, but another year "Y" FAILS on all but one or two, then which year is more likely to be intended: X or Y? 2. The second eclipse reported 6 months after the first, in month ELEVEN, did match the tablet for the standard chronology, but failed the Watchtower chronology. For the year 599 (WT chronology) it did not occur in the first watch of the night, but in the second and third watch. Here is the first, second and third hour after sunset (in the first watch) to try to match the WT chronology: So there was no eclipse in the first watch supporting the WT. The "Watchtower-supporting" eclipse couldn't be identified until the 2nd and 3rd watch. For the very next year, NEB26, we have another two eclipses to look for, in month FIVE and month ELEVEN again, but this time, according to the tablet, we should find both of them to be invisible to a viewer at Babylon. Also, since the tablet tells us that month TWELVE was intercalary (a second Addaru), then we have a much better idea whether the FIFTH month of the next year has been pushed a little later than usual. This of course, causes even more problems with the Watchtower chronology which only has a visible eclipse on August 15, 599 BCE, and none in adjacent months. If the standard chronology is right, we should find those two eclipses where stated, and there they are: August 4, 579 and January 28 578, respectively, and invisible. The August (FIFTH month) one is nicely eclipsed at 4 in the afternoon (below the horizon), although I admit that I can't really find a good eclipse the ELEVENTH month matching the one predicted. The second picture below is as close as I can find, so perhaps this one was "passed by" due to the prediction not quite being visible enough, or maybe bad weather: So with that we can move on to the lines that are supposed to be NEB27 according to the diary (below). Both eclipses work OK for the standard chronology. Neither work for the Watchtower chronology in 598. Here they are (for NEB27), month THREE, June 25 578 BCE and month NINE December 19 578 BCE. The December picture is taken when the eclipse apparently peaked below the horizon around NOON, during daylight, and long gone by night. The first picture is not a very good eclipse, but most of its "eclipse" activity was when the moon was invisible below ,the horizon, and the eclipse, already weak, weakens further after sunset. The Watchtower chronology would force these into the year 598, where the eclipse for the THIRD month is invisible, but even less of an eclipse, than the poor one for 578 above. The second one mentioned in the table (NINTH month) never happens at all for 598, never getting closer to the "eclipse shadow" than in the second picture below. There was one on January 29, 597, also invisible. There are more details for an observed one in NEB28, although the first reading is too damaged. I'll do that one next.

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:

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

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

It almost looks like he agrees with the WTS, but he is referring to the standard 605 date which the WTS calls c.625 BCE, when he says the Babylonian empire began. His date has nothing to do with when Jerusalem was destroyed, or when the Temple was destroyed, or when Zedekiah lost the kingdom at Jerusalem. And of course he teaches that the Gentile Times have not ended. His date 605 BCE (equals Watchtower's 625 BCE) is a date for which the Wachtower does not yet admit there was an exile/deportation, even though you (Cesar Chavez) have repeatedly insisted on 605 as the first of these exile/deportations. I have never heard you explain how it is possible to both agree with and contradict the Watchtower on this point at the same time.

So we found the invisible eclipse in the FOURTH month, July 15, 588 BCE. Of course, we're still looking for the more detailed eclipse, which we expect to find in the 10th month, 6 months after the 4th month, for which we just saw a match. First we'll check the FIFTH month: We do see one get fairly close on August 13, 588 but not close enough to count. Looking throughout the hours we see it's still invisible even at it's closest point below: The SIXTH MONTH (September) is even farther apart at the closest point: Same for SEVENTH month. (October) EIGHTH month (November was worse) NINTH month (December) we now expect NOT to see an eclipse, because the April start of the year showed us that December is not going to be that tenth month. And the closest we get to an eclipse in December 588 is this: So next month should be the right one. We'll just scroll over to the time of the full moon and see. On January 8, 587 we see the following at sunset. Uh oh! It appears wildly far apart. And on January 9th 587 we see the same situation, far apart, but we could tell that sometime between these two days, the moon must have directly passed through the earth's shadow. There must be some hour we can find where there was a "direct hit." And it should match the tablet description we got from the translation a couple of posts ago: Let's look for second one first since it is described in more detail. We will look for an eclipse in Month 10, that's going to mean the month starts in December/January. And we will find it on the 13th, which is going to be about the 13th day from the previous visible new moon. The eclipse is going to be visible at "1 beru" = a twelfth of a 24 hour day, or about 2 hours before sunrise. "ALL OF IT" was covered, so it is a full eclipse. And it will set eclipsed. Here we are at two hours before sunrise. The true umbral eclipse has already begun It's full an hour later, and we see we're only an hour before sunrise. And here we are at sunrise and it's still a near perfect full eclipse, and the moon is going to "set eclipsed." It's a perfect reading, again. And this description only matches the one in the 10th month of 588/587. So this is even more evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year was in 588/587 BCE, and that his 18th year would have therefore been 587/586, and that Cyrus' accession year was 539 BCE, and that Cyrus' first regnal year was 538 BCE.

The Year 16 eclipses were shown back on page 20. Let's move on to Year 17 (lines 16-18 of the tablet): Let's look for second one first since it is described in more detail. We will look for an eclipse in Month 10, that's going to mean the month starts in December/January. And we will find it on the 13th, which is going to be about the 13th day from the previous new moon. It is going to be visible at "1 beru" = a twelfth of a 24 hour day, or about 2 hours. And it will set eclipsed. So we look for it the hard way this time. Of course, since this is year 17 we save time by first checking the year immediately after the eclipses we found for Year 16, or 588. But we expect to find it either in December 588 or January 587 because this is the tenth lunar month (Dec/Jan). So let's go looking, but this time lets check every month of 588, starting at their New Year's, Month I (Nisannu). March is about the earliest possible time for Nissanu to begin, so let's start at March 1, 588 just to be safe. (We could check with P&D, too, for intercalary months, but with minimal additional info, amateurs will hit the proper P&D dates more often than not.) On March 4, 588, close to sunset, we find that the moon has just reached a new moon phase. (New Month) It's in the upper right corner of the picture below. You can barely see a crescent. And the earth's shadow is nowhere near the moon. It's the gray circle within a lighter gray circle at the left of the picture. We can guess that this new month is probably not the first month of the year because it started too early. Tentatively we'll assume it is the 12th month of the year that started in Spring 589. Of course, you can't get an eclipse at the new moon phase, so we swing over half a month and check around the time of the full moon (about 14 days later) to see how close we get to an eclipse. Here's March 19th, also around sunset: Close but no possible eclipse. Checking a few hours before and after, we can see the moon never gets really any closer to the earth's shadow than at the point just shown. The next month (assumed to be the FIRST month of the year) we see that the time below when the moon is closest to the eclipse shadow is April 18, 588 BCE. Still not close enough for an eclipse. May 17, 588 (below) is close again, but not close enough. (Assumed SECOND month.) When it is as close as it was above, on May 17, we should also check hour by hour to see if at some point through the night the shadow or day the shadow might have gotten close enough to create an eclipse. I checked in this case and it didn't. So we're ready to check the next month, spinning the earth forward, another 28 to 30 days. We find that closest place to an eclipse on June 15, 588, below. (Assume this the THIRD month) Not close enough at sunset above, but we check to see if it was close enough a few hours earlier or later. Sure enough, as we pass the time into the night, about two hours before sunrise on the 16th, we find it gets this close. A near eclipse, but supposedly not enough to darken the moon, or enough of it, for anyone to notice. If it had been a little closer this would have been a visible eclipse, at night. For this next month, we expect to see something. That's because there was an eclipse predicted for the FOURTH month, so we look at our sunset checkpoint for 29 and 30 days from the last lunar month. Here's July 14th at sunset and July 15th at sunset: They might not look terribly close, but notice that between these two days the moon shot right through nearly the center of the shadow. It was directly behind the shadow on the 14th and in front of it on the 15th. So here's a place to watch hour by hour to see at what point, the shadow "met" the moon" We find the maximum eclipse here at 3 hours after sunrise, with the moon invisible below the horizon. Could it have been visible at all when the moon rose above the horizon, just around sunrise, for example? No, because by that time to separation of the moon from the shadow was too great. It was no longer a visible eclipse. Since this is the FOURTH month, then the LBAT 20 report is accurate that Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year had an invisible eclipse in the FOURTH month. That month matches 588 BCE, as we would have to expect at this point.

Excuse the repetition, but the last post of this nature was back on page 20. So far we have shown that the NeoBabylonian (NB) chronology is evidenced by at least 5 independent witnesses to be a solid year-after-year block of kings whose reigns appear exactly as follows . The actual evidence is built of 1,000s of individual items of evidence which all consistently point to the chronology set out below, with no exceptions. N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 We also saw that there are enough Babylonian descriptions of eclipses (and other astronomical readings) to put BCE dates on all these kings. The entire NB chronology is solidly evidenced to be the "block of years" in the order shown above. Therefore it would only take ONE identifiable astronomical reading to put proper BCE dates on the entire block. We looked at LBAT 1419, and it contains several easily identifiable eclipses, all at about 18 year intervals, extending across the entire block of years shown, and even some after and before what is shown. In LBAT 1419, two of them explicitly identify that they pertain to Nebuchadnezzar's 14th and 32nd years. So we can now put BCE dates on the entire "block." 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530 N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 591 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nebuchadnezzar's 14th is now shown to be 591 BCE, and Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd is now shown to be 573, as shown by the darker blue highlight over the BCE date above the names of the kings. We can find even more useful data from LBAT 1419, but since it is consistent with the above, so we move on to LBAT 1420. LBAT 1420 contained eclipse descriptions that range from Nebuchadnezzar's first year to his 29th, so we checked the first one to see if it also provided a corroborating witness to the BCE dates and timeline above. It did. Again, it is is not necessary to check every single eclipse, so I decided to check the following 6 years of eclipses (there are two discoverable eclipses for each year). These were all identifiable, so I put the darker blue mark on 6 more years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign: 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530 N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 591 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I made the highlights slightly more "teal" colored so that I can reference which ones I tested from LBAT 1419, and which ones I tested from 1420. I have all the screenshots saved, but I thought it might make more sense to give an example of how easy it was is to identify the eclipses, and just how much confidence one can have that they are not making a mistake. The way to show that is to show just how close to the same reading a person would get if they check the other months in the same year, or the same month in the adjacent years. And of course, for good measure, I have also checked to see if there is a similar reading for the year suggested by the WTS chronology. I'm sure that if I had taken the time to check, I could easily have included several more of the eclipses from the LBAT 1420 document. Others have already done this, of course, and there is no need to re-invent the wheel. In the next post, I'll include some of the screenshots I mentioned.

How?