JW Insider

23 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Then you should be will aware the Saros Cycle fits 607 BC with a specific Bible account, that can be incorporated by ongoing secular evidence.

How?

My grandchildren are coming over in a few minutes, so just finished a snowman.

A few people have already stopped to take a picture of it.

16 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is kind of the argument O'Maly is attempting to make. She seems to understand a little better than you, here. Why not ask her.

I just read the article you meant. Turned out it was short and easy to understand. I expected another 23 page file like the VAT 4956 article, or the 45 page translation article. It's only 6 pages: https://www.academia.edu/26085025/Can_two_eclipses_on_BM_32234_be_dated_to_475_BCE_instead_of_the_conventional_year_465_BCE

From what I could see, all her observations are correct, and it's fairly easy to distinguish which year best matches the descriptions of the eclipses. I'm finding the same thing is true of the eclipses I am checking, that it is pretty easy to see which eclipse is intended in the Babylonian description, especially when there are pairs of eclipses for the same year.

Thanks.

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

your use of stars and calendars - which is actually unnecessary to get to 539 BCE because there are much easier methods of of getting to  the correct dates.

Is this true? Do you have an example of one? Do we know whether the WTS ever made use of these other methods? If they didn't, do we know why they didn't use one of these other methods?

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

You are splitting the hairs

Not at all. I have been consistent that I have no problem with your idea of Cyrus making the edict at the Akitu in 538 BCE. I have never had a problem with it. Way back when you first brought it up, I said that Akitu in 538 didn't matter to me. That was because I never wanted to split hairs over that idea. I think that the Jews could have made it back in 538 or 537 BCE. Some probably came back on their own time even later. We know that some took up residence and never came back.

But you have now seen why the Watchtower MUST split hairs over it, not allowing that Nisan 538 date because for the Watchtower writers, this is a few months too early. It's only a few months early, but we are told it had to be in 537.

*** it-1 p. 417 Captivity ***
Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

Not mentioning Akitu in their writings does not mean they have rejected it.  They may not have seen it to consider it

But they have mentioned it. In regards to Cyrus' son. You think they could make these comments about how his son represented Cyrus at Akitu, and not wonder whether Cyrus ever represented himself at the "New Year's" festival.

*** it-1 p. 581 Darius ***
Some scholars present Cambyses (II) as being made “King of Babylon” by his father Cyrus soon after the conquest of Babylon. While Cambyses evidently did represent his father annually at the “New Year’s” festival at Babylon, he seems to have resided at Sippar during the rest of the time. Research based on study of cuneiform texts indicates that Cambyses evidently did not assume the title “King of Babylon” until Nisan 1 of the year 530 B.C.E., being made coregent with Cyrus,

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

Evidence  that you are the one obsessing! and on top of that you are patronizing towards me!  

Sorry about that. I'll apologize in advance, but I have to admit that I didn't see myself patronizing towards you. Can you explain? I think you are referring to the idea you quoted me saying: "But you should realize that ultimately you are opening up a strong possibility that 1914 should to change to 1913." Maybe you didn't understand that this is a very serious point about why you should not expect anyone among the GB or WTS to take this idea of Akitu 538 seriously. Because that's exactly the seriousness of the implication if you were to recommend the idea. They have pushed away from "early 538" to "late 538" and "early 537" on purpose, specifically because they need 607 to reach 1914. 538 creates a problem with 1914, because it will point to 1913.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What software are you using?

I used TheSky6 to test Furuli's VAT 4956 claims. I'm testing lunar eclipses with CyberSky5. It's the free version but has all the functionality (for 30 days).

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is kind of the argument O'Maly is attempting to make. She seems to understand a little better than you, here. Why not ask her.

I'm not sure what you think is wrong. My dates are off? Perhaps she'll come back and you can ask her about it. You didn't say where the argument was wrong. And you didn't give an example of what I got wrong. So you are the only one in a position to ask her anything. (Besides I should get a chance to read her paper either on the weekend or Monday. Then I might even know what you're asking her about.)

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You just failed with this analogy. You are so consumed disproving the Watchtower each year, you are getting further from facts as you go along.

Are you saying you disagree with the analogy? In that case you must not have understood that the author is making the same case I am making with the analogy. Once I read it more clearly, I see that the author isn't trying to hide this same point, but expects us to realize that he is also talking about the way the extra 11 days can appear to stretch across an extra year, if the first eclipse hits at exactly the right one or two week period. The analogy is actually correct. The same type of thing would happen with a Babylonian year-to-year calendar, a BCE/CE calendar, a Seleucid calendar, etc.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What you are saying, you know specifically, who used a lunar calendar, a solar calendar, or lunar/solar calendar. Who used a specific observation, or a specific ongoing event as a reference, point.

Yes, of course we have plenty of information and evidence about the Babylonian calendar. But even if we didn't we'd be able to find these eclipses by their description, and then we'd know whether they fit the dates we expect or not through software that can calculate this sort of thing.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Who used a specific observation, or a specific ongoing event as a reference, point.

The Babylonians did. The Jews did.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Correct, this is why you fail as a researcher by holding on to useless COJ data and arguments.

Not that it matters, but I just realized that no one has come up with even one point or bit of evidence that COJ made any mistakes about any of the Babylonian secular data. I assume therefore that he must not have got any of that wrong, since no one has said they found anything specific, or shown anything.

Even if this is true though, I still want to make up my own mind about the evidence without any reliance on COJ. I have read his Babylonian detail sections before but I want to see what I'd learn about these topics. I tested VAT 4956 against Furuli and I checked what COJ said on that, too. But this is the first time I've gotten into the lunar ecliipse documents.

I know that COJ argues for some specific Bible interpretations. I have barely skimmed some of those parts. I thought I recalled a section on the 70 years and 70 weeks. These are parts I still haven't read because I don't really have an interest in his Bible interpretations. I assume I know approximately what he has said based on reading some forum references. When I get a chance I'll try to critique and test his interpretations. Maybe next year.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

As a scholar that knows more than you, the example is depicting how disingenuous other scholars can be.

Yes. I have acknowledged elsewhere that he knows his stuff, especially the math, and has done the tedious work of compiling and presenting to much of the data. I was very impressed at his methods for trying to figure out exactly what the Babylonians knew about all these cycles, and when they knew it, and how they figured it out. Theoretical match or empirical tests. I shouldn't have critiqued his writing on the topic of the 18 v 19 months. Turns out he wasn't saying what I thought anyway. But I don't think he was depicting how disingenuous other scholars can be, only how they made assumptions that might not hold up for the 8th century BCE as their methods were still developing. He thought that some assumptions made (Sachs, etc) about the 8th century BCE were really only evidenced in the 6th century BCE.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Sometimes, it gets hard to make people understand something they can’t comprehend. I try my best to illustrate them with good examples.

OK. I think the post that started out like this must have been directed at me. And I'll try to figure out why you posted this particular example/excerpt. You can correct me if I'm guessing wrong.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Astronomy in the Ancient World_ Early and Modern Views on Celestial Events (2016)

The book looks interesting. I haven't looked at it, except for this part you quote. Yes there are lots of different lunar cycles and lunar eclipse cycles. I actually don't think we even have to understand the whole intricacy of the cycles, only that Babylonians were able to predict not only the 18 year eclipses of the saros cycle, but several others within the period of each saros cycle. If we can find those same described eclipses, and we can find them on the date they gave for them, then whatever king-year they attached to that particular date is evidence. It really doesn't even matter all that much that they were able to predict them -- the observed ones were more important.

I notice that the only words you highlighted were tritos cycle and this sentence: "This is because the principles behind solar and lunar eclipses are the same, despite some important differences that will make a big difference to observers."

It's a very true statement, of course, but I didn't know why it was important to you.

I have read several of the articles by Steele, and he discusses quite a few of the possible lunar cycles and lunar eclipse cycles, and their relationship to the solar eclipse. John Steele is the author I have recommended on this thread most often, even though I thought his explanation of how scribes might sometimes use a 19 years for what is usually 18 years for a saros cycle was very misleading. I finally found that whole book online and read Steele's whole long article in it. I believe I understand it now. I shouldn't have said he was misleading, but it was very easy to get the impression that he was exaggerating a point unnecessarily, and without the necessary explanation. Otherwise people could easily get the idea that he was claiming the saros cycle was being recorded incorrectly. His actual point was that the appearance of 19 calendar years was actually very correct by the scribes of the tablets, and showed that they understood what they were doing very accurately, and weren't just assuming that every interval was always going to be 18 years. But those shifts also gave evidence that it was unlikely 747 BCE was part of an original series of observations that started at that point. The places at which the scribes were forced to put a 19 year change were indications that these were first collected from other starting points.

But you also added your own words at the end of this most recent post:

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Unless you specifically know, only the lunar eclipses were used in ancient times to give you a specific rollout, then it would be acceptable. What calendar systems were used by Babylon, Egypt, and Judah.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "rollout" but it looks like in general you are saying that we must know the calendar system of Babylon, Egypt and Judah. Maybe you meant unless I know these systems, then my chart would [not] be acceptable. And on the point of "unless you specifically know only the lunar eclipses were used" the only implication I can see here based on what you highlighted is that you might think there is a possible confusion between lunar and solar eclipses. Is that what you meant.

We don't have to worry about mixing up the type of eclipse. Only lunar eclipses can happen at night, and no solar eclipses happened on any of those given dates. Nor would they match the descriptions.

I understand how it might be nice to know everything about all these calendars, but I think it's more important to focus on the description of any eclipse, planetary observation, etc., that can be dated and then accept the king's name as evidence. Just one or two of these would not be solid evidence. I think the evidence builds up as we see nearly 100% consistency as all this data fits perfectly into the entire chart. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be on the lookout for inconsistencies. 

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Does this matter to an honest witness? Why change something that can be easily understood by the majority.

For me, I think honesty is always better. Even if a dishonest version of something is easily understood by the majority.

On 12/18/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

You still don't get the Saros Cycle. You haven't understood when a scribe might have used a Saros Cycle of 18 years and 10 or 11 days, or when a scribe used 19 years. Who used a specific date or when an observation was used.

Actually, you just indicated by what you are saying that you still don't get it. ... He says that a period of 18 years 11 days, will not always reflect 18 years between calendar years, but will sometimes appear to reflect 19 years. If someone uses what this author is saying to try to remove the value of the Nebuchudnezzar eclipses then they making a big deal out of something that should already be obvious. . . .

For example: what is the distance between these three dates that were clear from LBAT 1419?

• September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise.,
• September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset.,
• October 6, 555 BCE, overnight.

The answer is 18 years, and about 10 or 11 days. 591-573=18 and Sept 25-Sept15=10 days. (actually 10.5 because one was sunrise and one was sunset, an extra half day apart).

The next ones are 18 years, 11 days apart, because 573-555=18, and September 25 to October 6 is 11 days. (There are only 30 days in September.)

So let's look at the author's examples. You'll see he is not being misleading but it is easy to be misled if you don't read t carefully:

[Edited: He is not clearly explaining that these so-called 18 year versus 19 year calendar differences are not because of a difference in the saros cycles over time. Because they always remain almost exactly 18 years and 11 days. He is saying that the saros cycle can "apparently" be 19 years when one only pays attention to the regnal year. His goal is to say that any tablets that tried to extend too far with just 18 instead of taking into account that the number of years was actually 18 years+ 11/365ths of a year, might be indicating that they were restarting an "era" of saros cycles rather than continuing to add to old attempts at saros cycle tablets where an apparent 19 year difference would have shown up after about 36 cycles in a row. (corrected: 36 x 18+ years.)

What's the distance between these two:

On 12/18/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

SE 213 (99 bce): the eclipse in this series that year takes place in Month xii2 and the next eclipse would be in month i of SE 232 (80 bce), which is 19 years after SE 213.

So is it really 19 years? No! Month 12 of 99 BCE to Month 1 of 80 BCE is exactly 18 years and 11 days.

That's the eclipse of 3/31/98 BCE. (Month 12, as you know runs into the 98 BCE portion of 99/98 BCE, as explained in the last LBAT 20 post.)

and the second part of that was Month 1 of  80 BC:

So, what's the difference between March 31 98 BCE and April 11, 80 BCE?

98-80=18 years. And from March 31 to April 11 is 11 days. Total 18 years 11 days.

On 12/18/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

As a consequence, once the month of the eclipse has moved through the whole of the year, after about 36 cycles, there will be a one-off change in the calendar year of the eclipse by 19 rather than 18 years.

Obviously. Just like a person born on December 25, 1999 is 18 years and 11 days old on January 5, 2018. Even though the "calendar" difference appears to be 2018 - 1999 = 19 years. But if that same person was born 6 days later, on January 1, 2000, he would be 18 years and 11 days old on about January 12, 2018. The "calendar" difference appears to be only 18 years this time (2018-2020) even though it's exactly the same amount of time. 

I won't even do the next set of eclipses he mentions because you can just look at them and know he is using the same deceiving language by not making it clear why this happens:

"Month i of year 11 of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (657 bce) and the eclipse possibility in Month xii 2 of year 6 of Esarhaddon (676 bce)"

Again he is comparing late in Month 12 (March) with early in Month 1. (April) (Normally, month 12 is February/March, but the ₂ subscript on the twelfth month means there was a second "leap month" for month 12, just as in the first case he showed. This pushes Nisannu out into a start that will always be in April, not just March/April).

[We experience the same issue when calculating the Memorial date each year, deciding whether it will be closest to the full moon in March or a full moon in April.]

2 minutes ago, Arauna said:

which is actually unnecessary to get to 539 BCE because there are much easier methods of of getting to  the correct dates.

What are those easier methods? And why doesn't the WTS use them? The WTS rejects the late historians and Olympiads, for example, which were created well after the chronology was established by king lists and astrology/astronomy. This is why the Insight book claims that we rely on Babylonian Chronicles, astronomy tablets with eclipse predictions/observations, and a combination of Contract Tablets, and king lists. Admittedly using the same methods that Parker & Dubberstein relied on.

40 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Would you please give the following information for the beginning and end dates for the Cyrus' 1sr full year expressed in the following calenders: Jewish/Hebrew- / Babylonian / Julian / Gregorian

You keep signing your posts as "scholar JW" so I don't see why you need this diversion, nor why you can't just do this yourself. Why are you obsessing over these details?

32 minutes ago, Arauna said:

No - he was crowned King of the four corners of the earth in 538 BCE during the 14 day festival 1-14 Nissan (New Years festival).  This would give until Nissan the following year plus extra months up to Tishri to gather together and get back to Jerusalem.

I've always agreed with this possibility.

32 minutes ago, Arauna said:

TO SPLIT HAIR ABOUT DAYS OR A MONTH OR TWO IS REALLY (I had a bad word here but removed it)...... THAT IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN DISCRIBE IT.

Why are you so concerned that the WTS splits hairs over this? Why would you use a bad word against them? Obviously you are not trying to do that, but you don't seem to realize yet that you are obsessing over the GB's position on this, not mine. I won't split hairs over it. But the GB has rejected the idea. Write them if you think it's important. But you should realize that ultimately you are opening up a strong possibility that 1914 should to change to 1913, so they are not going to listen!!

41 minutes ago, Arauna said:

So your issues are with the time between 539 and 537. 

False. These are not my issues. I'm only explaining why the WTS has an issue with it.

41 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Well, 2 years ago when this subject came up I was the first to mention Akitu and how important it is.

And now you have more information about why the WTS thinks it's NOT important.

41 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Is it not an obsession to prove the GB WRONG?  

The GB rejects it and thinks it's not important. You disagree with the GB here. It doesn't interest me too much because all you are really doing is effectively shortening the GB's time 70 year period by about a year. No big deal to me. It's obviously a big deal to the GB because, to them, it effectively moves back the destruction of Jerusalem to 608. Because it's no big deal to me, that's the reason I don't obsess over it.

41 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I assumed the GB had not seen this in their research.

I assumed they did, because they spoke about it, relative to Cambyses in the same context where they recognized the secular evidence that Cyrus was his father:

*** it-1 p. 581 Darius ***
Some scholars present Cambyses (II) as being made “King of Babylon” by his father Cyrus soon after the conquest of Babylon. While Cambyses evidently did represent his father annually at the “New Year’s” festival at Babylon, he seems to have resided at Sippar during the rest of the time. Research based on study of cuneiform texts indicates that Cambyses evidently did not assume the title “King of Babylon” until Nisan 1 of the year 530 B.C.E., being made coregent with Cyrus,

On 12/18/2020 at 12:35 PM, Arauna said:

I last time I  looked in the insight book, I found they do NOT rely on the ancient Babylonian king lists (from my own reading I also found these  unreliable).

You just need to read the entire section carefully under the heading "Chronology."

*** it-1 pp. 452-453 Chronology ***
Babylonian Chronology. Babylon enters the Biblical picture principally from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II onward. The reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar marked the start of what is called the Neo-Babylonian Empire; it ended with the reigns of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar and the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. . . . In harmony with this, a cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2Ki 24:1-17; 2Ch 36:5-10.) (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) For the final 32 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, there are no historical records of the chronicle type except a fragmentary inscription of a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year.
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year.
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.

So, the WTS, according the Insight book, relies on a Babylonian clay tablet to connect Babylonian chronology. This clay tablet concerns eclipses of the moon. This clay tablet does not point to Cyrus. It points to Cambyses II. How do we know in what way it relates to Cyrus? One way is the contract tablets, that cement the entire period from earlier than Nabonidus through a period even later than Cyrus and Camybses. These clay tablets are cemented into a very strong, single chronology/timeline and this is used in the calculation. But the WTS doesn't actually believe in these. There are many for every single year of the NB chronology, yet the WTS has decided that there are 20 years of these completely missing. So they count on king lists to know that those 9 years of Cyrus are complete. This is admitted by adding the reference to Parker & Dubberstein, for example. Since the WTS assumes many years are missing in the contract tablets, then Cyrus may have had years 10 through 30 that we don't know about. Or perhaps another king reigned between Cyrus and Cambyses. How would you know that the rule of Darius I or Bardiya didn't come between Cyrus and Cambyses. For this one relies on Berossus list of kings and their reigns, or "Ptolemy."

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

it would allow the Jews back in their homeland too early.

No it would not!  For reasons I have already explained on this forum many times!  It is like speaking to a rock! 

So let's take this step by step. If you disagree with any of the steps, just say so, and I'll show the specific place in the Insight book or in your previous posts.

• You have said that the proclamation edict from Cyrus must have happened in Nisan (Spring: March/April) of 538. True?
• The Insight book says that the edict could have happened "later in 538," and never mentions the possibility of Nisan 538. True?
• The Insight book says that the edict could have happened as late as Nisan 537 (or even a bit later). True?
• If the edict happened in Nisan 537 the Insight book says that this would be enough time to get back into their homes in the "seventh month" of 537. True?

Can you think of any reason that the Insight book only gives two possibliities here?

It's either:

1. Late in the year 538. True?
2. Early in 537. True?

The most obvious reason is that the Insight book indicates that they needed less than 7 months from the edict in order to get back in their homes. True?

If they could get back home and settled in their cities in less than seven months from the edict, and the edict was in 538, then what year would they get back to be settled in their cities? 538. True?

Now, if you think that anything I said, or the Insight book said here wasn't true, please point out the place.

---------------

Now, there is also a contradiction to this choice between "later in 538" and "early in 537." In one place in the Insight book it simply declares that it was "early in 537." This is what I meant when I said that the WTS rejects your idea about Akitu - Nisan 538. Here:

*** it-1 p. 417 Captivity ***
Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.

The more flexible idea offering the choices is here:

*** 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. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E.

16 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Well it does work out if one counts in the festival of Akitu and then give a year for them to get back to Jerusalem..

I've always said this is as good a conjecture as any. I am not terribly concerned about it because it appears to me that the 70 years is up the moment Babylon is no longer dominating them. Even if Persia continued to hold them for a year or two after the 539 conquest, I don't think this has to be included as part of the 70 years of Babylonian domination. But if one wants to argue that Babylon is still dominating them until they finally get back home, I'm OK with it. The WTS only adds a couple of years anyway, from Fall of 539 to the Fall of 537.

I also think, like you, that the most appropriate (and perhaps the most likely) time for Cyrus to make this proclamation would be at the festival of Akitu in the Spring of 538. Of course, this is nearly SIX MONTHS from the time that they were no longer being held BY Babylon, and the Jews could have already been preparing in expectation. But as I say, for me this is not so significant, because I don't worry about the exact BCE/CE dates. If these were really important to Christians, then we should all learn how to read the Babylonian evidence, because that's where we get these BCE/CE dates for the period. I think the Bible evidence is sufficient for what we need to know.

The Babylonian evidence fits the Bible perfectly, which is the best reason to look into how strong that evidence is.

In the next post I'll try to explain why the WTS and the Insight book will always reject any evidence for the festival of Akitu in Nisan 538, no matter how good you and I think the evidence is.

50 minutes ago, Arauna said:

It seems you would rather listen to the stars and let the stars foretell it for you but not the bible chronology! 

First of all, I only accept the importance of the Bible chronology through this period. I do not think we have any reason to rely on the stars or eclipses or secular chronology or Babylonian evidence of any kind in order to understand the spiritual and Biblical importance of this period. The Bible chronology is a relative chronology, and this is all we need to know and trust.

The Watchtower, on the other hand, relies on this secular, "profane" chronology, provided by evidence from Babylon in order to put BCE/CE dates on this time period. The Watchtower admits that it relies on ancient "king lists," Babylonian Chronicles, and the reported positions of stars and planets in order to tie BCE/CE dates to the timeline.

If you think that's not true, then you haven't read the portion of the Insight book that admits this.

Personally, I think the evidence from Babylon is interesting because it DOES support the Bible. But I don't need this type of evidence for appreciating the spiritual value of the Bible. The reason I have looked into it here and am sharing what I'm learning is because, for me, it shows how easy it for any of us, Watchtower writers included, to become so interested in counting dates that many are probably not aware that they are using the secular evidence either dishonestly, or in a way that brings reproach on Jehovah.

If it's dishonest, and you don't think we should be concerned or that it should be corrected, that's fine. But it's not the same for everyone. All of our consciences work according to the Biblical, spiritual and moral training we have learned to appreciate.

8 minutes ago, Arauna said:

So you have no clue?

That's not what I said. The Watchtower is very clear about the fact that they choose to rely on the secular dates from 539 forward, and always add 20 years to the secular dates from 539 backward in time.

The only exception is the time of Artaxerxes when the Watchtower also chooses to stop relying on the secular dates, and rejects the Olympiad dates, too, because of a certain theory about how the 490 years should work out..

1 minute ago, Arauna said:

You work on assumptions which you stick onto me which are incorrect.

The Insight book rejects that theory. I've quoted the place where they reject it every time you bring this idea up.

32 minutes ago, Arauna said:

To dismiss it is an ERROR!

Have you written to the WTS to see why they won't correct this error? The reason the Insight book dismisses it is because the writers believe that it would allow the Jews back in their homeland too early. It's a matter of making the dates work.

Your theory allows the Jews to be back in 538, and that would mean changing the destruction of Jerusalem again, first from 606 to 607, and now to your suggestion of 608.

53 minutes ago, Arauna said:

With how many years is it out?

Always 20 years.

We'll pick a couple years before

and we'll pick a couple from later in his reign:

So, we start with NEB16, where the eclipse in month 4 was predicted to occur, and predicted that it would not be visible (due to being in bright sunlight, or beneath the horizon). But we shouldn't just look for any "month FOUR" eclipse in every year of the NB period. It must happen in a year that also has an eclipse in "month TEN" which matches some stricter criteria. Before, we've said that we don't even need to know the day of the lunar month (number of days since the new moon, because eclipses come with the full moon, or within a day of it, so it's always the 13th through 15th. (We are already aware that the 14th of Nisan(nu) is a full moon from our Memorial celebrations.)

So just like we know that Nisannu or Month ONE always starts in March or April, we know that month TEN starts in January/February. There will be two full moons in that period, so we'll check them both. If we find the eclipse, we can even check against P&D for a secondary check of the accuracy, but that shouldn't be necessary unless there are two back to back eclipses that match, which isn't going to happen, anyway.

1 beru = 2 hours (1/12 of a day)

So I need to check for any Month 10 eclipse that would be seen in the morning watch 2/3 beru [1 h 20m] (before sunrise) and it should not be a full eclipse, only a half-eclipse and it will set below the horizon still eclipsed.

So we'll start looking in the most likely places. Let's try 589, 588, & 587. And we'll also look in the year that the WT chronology suggests: which would be about 609, 608, 607

The only one I can find that works perfectly is 588 where we see exactly what we are told to expect, a half-eclipse starting ato be fully visible about 1 h and 20 minutes before sunrise, and still just barely visible when the moon sets.

And here we are at two minutes before sunrise, with the moon still nearly half-eclipsed, and just about to set under the horizon as the sun comes up over the horizon on the left of the next image.

But there's a problem. Didn't we say that NEB16 was 589? There was no such eclipse in 589. This is the tenth month of 588!

The answer is that the Babylonian year started in Nisannu (Nisan=March/Apri) and this is an eclipse seen in the tenth month (Jan/Feb). So when we say a king's year is 599, we are really saying 599/598, because the full year runs from about March/April 599 to March/April 598. This was in the year we call 599, but it landed near the tail end of that year, January 19, 588 BCE.

We use Gregorian dates for this. If you wanted Julian you would have to subtract about 6 days. This is sometimes considered a trick question when translating Gregorian to Julian because currently the difference is about 13 days, but it will be about 14 days as of the year 2100 (when the so-called overlapping generation runs out). [Yes. I can troll, too!]

There were no eclipses like this in the Watchtower chronology, and the first eclipse for this year NEB16 matches the reading/prediction. It was only eclipsed when the moon was still below the horizon during the evening sun. The picture shows that as the sun is going down, the moon has nearly lost it's visibility as an eclipse. (The dark gray part of the shadow/circle must keep covering the moon's circle, which was true when it was further below the horizon but is no longer true when evening/night arrives.)

This is July 25, 589 BCE -- the same year NEB16 (589/8)

So that means that our first reading matches all the King's Lists (including "Ptolemy"), the evidence from ALL the inscriptions (Nabonidus, Adad-guppi, the contract/business tablets, the other LBAT (LBAT 1419), Berossus, etc.). But it does not match the WTS chronology. 

For the second piece of archaeological astronomical evidence to test the Neo-Babylonian chronology, I'll pick LBAT 1420. (Also known as BM38462.) It doesn't skip every 18 years to record Saros series like LBAT 1419. And it only has records, year by year, for Nebuchadnezzar, no other king.

To make it easier to type out the years, I will abbreviate the first year of Nebuchadnezzar as NEB1, his 11th year as NEB11, his 35th year as NEB35, etc. It makes sense to label his accession year as NEB-A or NEB0.

LBAT 1420 starts out in the first line, letting us know that these are going be the years of Nebuchadnezzar, starting with the first regnal year. Several of the years are damaged, so we will only use the very readable lines, so here's an overview:

• NEB1: The name Nebuchadnezzar and Year 1 are very readable, but not enough of the eclipse info (except the month Simanu).
• NEB2: ... NEB 10 . . . too much damage on these lines.
• NEB11: ECLIPSE(S) defined (will discuss below)
• NEB12: ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB13:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB14: too much damage on this line
• NEB15: too much damage on this line
• NEB16:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB17:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB18: .. NEB23 too much damage on these lines.
• NEB24: TWO ECLIPSES shown but partially damaged.
• NEB25:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB26:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB27:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB28:ECLIPSE(S) well defined
• NEB29:ECLIPSE(S) well defined

The work on all of these has already been done for us, but we will double-check that work by randomly picking 3 or 4 of them to do ourselves, and we can check to see if there is any possibility that these same scenarios could fit other years including the Watchtower chronology.

http://www.caeno.org/pdf/Hunger_Lunar texts 6_photo list translation.pdf

It's cheating to look now, but here's what the specialists have made of it, with dates calculated from the eclipse information. For a few of these lines, they have done their best (but also made some assumptions) from partial information. We will only be looking at the fully readable lines.

So, let's pick the ones closest to Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year of reign. In the next post.

So, where were we? Yes. Back to LBAT readings and Saros cycles.

We found that LBAT 1419 provides positively identifiable eclipses which know occurred on

• September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise.,
• September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset.,
• October 6, 555 BCE, overnight, perfectly viewable for 2 hours, completing more than 3 hours before sunrise.

Anyone who wishes can download free software and easily find that these are the only ones that fit the descriptions. And the LBAT happens to put the king's name and regnal year in front of many of the readings, so that we have evidence tied directly to the relative chronology. This gives us:

• Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise.
• Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset.
• [no king/year] October 6, 555 BCE, overnight.

Notice too that if these eclipses are correct, that they would prove that the accession year of Cyrus was in 539 BCE (when he conquered Babylon), and that his first year of reign would be 538 BCE. These LBAT readings confirm the Watchtower's accepted dates for the reign of Cyrus. But that would also make it impossible to accept 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year.

So now we are ready to move on to another piece of archaeological evidence. We are continually checking to see if any of the secular evidence might falsify what has been shown to be consistent so far.

34 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

No doubt if you checked reference works, Bible dictionaries and other works on Chronology of that period then a similar error would have been made. WT scholars one informed of the error made the adjustment

Your guess is wrong.  Even in 1823, John Aquila Brown ran the 2,520 years from 604 B.C. to 1917 A.D. So he knew there was not a zero year, and he knew it was Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604 according to the standard NB chronology, not the WTS chronology.