JW Insider

I am using the new evidence provided by the Insight book, regularly. You probably were concerned that I used the "Your Kingdom Come" (1981) book. The primary difference is that the kc book was very succinct and easy to understand and happened to cover 4 of the 6 pieces of evidence I used for the relative chronology. In fact, I was showing that the relative chronology presented is exactly what you would come up with based on the admissions in the kc book. (Even though kc obviously promotes a different chronology.) Most of the "Chronology" data written for Insight was written in 1967/1968, and published in the Aid book in 1969. The Insight book is a little longer, and more detailed with some pictures here, too. And Insight admits just how weak the Strm Kambys 400 document is in ways that were never been admitted in our publications before. From the Insight book you can see that the case for 539 was slightly weaker than we ever admitted before. Of course, it's not really weaker, it's just that it has now been admitted that it is derived from the same methodology that says Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year would be 587 BCE. Also, most of the direct evidence for 539 comes from pivotal dates starting earlier in the chronology, not later. That's why I could say earlier that it's those same LBAT eclipse documents which indicate the dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and these dates, if accepted as true, prove that Cyrus took over Babylon in 539 BCE. I have never "cherry picked" the old publications. "Cherry-picking" old publications is an accusation about selecting only the old ones to imply a current belief or doctrine that is actually different (updated, changed) in the new ones. This is likely what you might be accusing me of doing here. But I think you will find, if you examine the new publications carefully, that this was not done. [If I did this mistakenly, I'll correct it. Tonight when I get home, I will double-check the differences between kc and Insight for the quotes I used.] When I have used old publications to describe a teaching/doctrine that is now different, then the reason for using the old publication is to highlight the difference, because it is useful to present a history of how a doctrine changed, and often gives more historical context informing us of the reasons a specific doctrine has changed. (606 to 607, or 536 to 538, for example.) This can be very important for understanding our chronology doctrines, and why they changed over the years. That topic is for the another thread though.

In the previous thread that spun off this one, I explained exactly how the Watchtower came to the conclusion they did. But I'll only continue to discuss and repeat the details back on that other thread. This should not be a thread about the Watchtower, or 1914. Because the 70 years is considered an important point of "OT synchrony" there is no reason we can't discuss this as it relates to the "secular" evidence. Please point out the half-truth explanations. Also, if you are concerned about charts being "pretty," I can always change them to black/white/gray-scale. Why are you repeating this contradiction against the Watchtower's chronology? The Watchtower claims that this happened around 630 BCE. Yes, you are contradicting the Watchtower again., which says Josiah died in 629 BCE, not 609 BCE *** it-2 p. 118 Josiah *** Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), Pharaoh Necho led his army northward to the aid of the Assyrians. For a reason not revealed in the Bible, King Josiah disregarded “the words of Necho from the mouth of God” and tried to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo, but he was mortally wounded in the attempt. I completely agree with your sources here --at least the parts you quoted--but just don't say that you are in complete agreement with the Watchtower if you can only make your points by contradicting the Watchtower. I pictured the terrain. I pictured how the Babylonians had NO opposition in the westward territories. That's fine. It's pretty much what you might expect if Jeremiah said that Babylon would dominate the nations all around for 70 years. The Watchtower's method is clear. So is the method of archaeologists/historians/scholars. They arrive at different conclusions. It's not hard to see why. But I'm also going to look at the dates. That's the topic of the thread. If you have no evidence against the secular evidence for the chronology, just say so. Don't keep feeding evidence for the Babylonian chronology and then claim you are rejecting it. Give evidence why you are rejecting it. Just claiming that dates can be moved by different observations is not a very strong argument unless you have evidence. Which dates did you have in mind moving? Do you want Nebuchadnezzar to stop ruling after 63 years instead of 43? Do you want another king inserted into the chronology so that you can make up for the extra 20 years that the Watchtower theorizes might be shown if new evidence shows up some day? Do you want to just give 5 extra years each to 4 of the Kings so that 4 times 5 = 20. Did you want Nabopolassar to be the same king as Nebuchadnezzar, so that it was really the same king, one part of his army fighting Assyria in 609, and one part of his army besieging Jerusalem in 609? Is that why you made the point previously that a king doesn't have to be there when the siege and destruction is taking place? There must be a reason you keep dropping hints besides just trying to create confusion. What are your different observations that move the dates?

There are some additional eclipse readings on LBAT 1419 (BM 32234). These actually help lock in the years further. In addition to the primary saros series, astronomers/astrologers of this time could predict another eclipse that came sometimes 5 months later, but usually 6 months later in the same year. For an explanation of these additional eclipses see Steele's and Huber's articles on academia.edu : https://www.academia.edu/2360681/Eclipse_Prediction_and_the_Length_of_the_Saros_in_Babylonian_Astronomy https://www.academia.edu/44516375/Babylonian_Eclipse_Observations_from_750_BC_to_1_BC picture is page 20 from Xerxes' Death (caeno.org) When I get a chance I'll look more closely at the additional readings that supplement the saros series.

You are not in full agreement if you can't or won't explain why you contradict the WTS on 611 BCE. You said it was Nabopolassar ruling then, and the WT says it was Nebuchadnezzar. You gave the standard "secular" dates for 610 and the Watchtower places those very events you spoke of as closer to 629, about 20 years earlier. *** it-1 p. 205 Assyria *** . . . in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” Yet, you said: Please explain the 19 to 20 year difference.

You did realize that I was the one in agreement with that particular paper submitted to the "Dallas Theological Seminary" and you were the one who opposes it, right?

New findings even since the time COJ wrote his book have always strengthened the Neo-Babylonian chronology, and therefore weakened the current Watchtower conclusions. You inadvertently admit these weaknesses yourself when you contradict the Watchtower with your own statement: You claim here that Nabopolassar was surrounding the Assyrian forces in 611. But the Watchtower teaches that Nabopolassar had died about 14 years earlier, and that Nebuchadnezzar had already taken over for Nabopolassar 14 years before this event. In fact Nebuchadnezzar had already taken Ezekiel into exile 7 years earlier according to the Insight book, Nebuchadnezzar, not Nabopolassar was just months away from besieging Jerusalem: *** w07 7/1 p. 13 pars. 11-12 Highlights From the Book of Ezekiel—I *** In the seventh year of exile, 611 B.C.E., the elderly ones of Israel come to Ezekiel “to inquire of Jehovah.” . . . In 609 B.C.E., the 18-month siege of Jerusalem begins. So, yes, we both know that the Watchtower has no evidence for these dates and that they contradict the evidence, but don't talk about hypocrisy, unless you also explain why you are rejecting the Watchtower's dates.

In the LBAT 1419 tablet (also called BM 32234) there is another entry immediately following the two for Nebuchadnezzar's 14th and 32nd year, but this next one is not marked with a king's name, just the description of the eclipse: Month VII, the 13th, in 17° on the east side all (of the moon) was covered. 28° maximal phase. In 20° it cleared from east to west. Its eclipse was red. Behind the rump of Aries it was eclipsed. During onset, the north wind blew, during clearing, the west wind. At 55° before sunrise. Because it's next in the series, we already know that it is going to be about 18 years and 11 days later than the previous one. This was already seen in the first two listed, where the difference in these two is 18 years 10.5 days. Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise. Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, September 25, 573 BCE, sunset. So we already know that if these two are right, we should find this next one, which is very uniquely defined, within a day of October 6, 555, which is exactly 18 years and 11 days later. It wasn't marked for Nebuchadnezzar, but we know he didn't reign for 50 years anyway (32+18=50). We find it on the first try, and it matches the description: October 6, 555 BCE, (7th month) a completely visible full eclipse occurred, eclipse east to west, behind the rump of Aries, from 17 degrees maximal (umbral) for 28 degrees (about 2 hours), no longer visible at 55 degrees before sunrise (about 55x4minutes=220 minutes or 3 hours 40 min. before sunrise): It's easy to find, and I took some screenshots to show how this one was visible Here it is as sunset, not yet an eclipse. (Even if the outer ring of the shadow in CyberSky touches the moon, that's just the very difficult to see penumbral shadow, not the more defined umbral shadow represented by the darker center circle.) Here it is hour by hour after the sun goes down, still not an eclipse yet: You can see that the shadow is starting to cover from E to W, and that that the shadow is coming from behind the rump of Aries (the constellation it underscores). Now the umbral part (the real eclipse) is just starting to be visible according to the overlap of the moon with the inner gray circle. Another hour showing a partial eclipse. Another hour and it's almost a full eclipse. This is much longer than usual eclipse. Near perfect eclipse, and still the shadow hasn't quite passed the midway point. Skipping ahead a couple more hours, this is what it looked like, no longer eclipsing at about 3 hours before sunrise. The inner gray circle is almost no longer touching the moon, so a measurement of 55 degrees or 3 hours and 40 minutes before sunrise appears to be accurate. I see no other eclipse in this time frame (plus or minus 20 years) comes close to matching these circumstances. So we can be sure we have correctly pegged this one too, as a further witness that we got the other two correct, even though the tablet doesn't name the king on this one. I'll give it a lighter blue color because it does not have its own king's record to go with it. But there is still more to the LBAT 1419 tablet. Also, we know for sure that it is 18 years after Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year of reign which matched to 573. So it's 555 BCE. From all the other evidences we know this (solidly) to be the 1st year of Nabonidus. 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 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Notice too that if these eclipses are correct, that they 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.

OK. I think I'm done. These two LBAT 1419 eclipses marked for NEB14, and NEB32 clearly fit the following: NEB14 ULUL is September 15, 591 BC at sunrise NEB32 ULUL is September 25, 573 BCE a couple hourse before sunset You can find other eclipses during, let's say, a 60 year time period from 625 to 565, but they don't match the eclipse descriptions in question. They don't match the position of the eclipse relative to the horizon and times that are shown in the tablets. A lot of Witnesses might probably be wondering if there is any way that these eclipses might match a time period 20 years further back in time, because the WTS has produced a NB chronology where one must add 20 to the dates that are accepted by all NB archaeologists and specialists. So I checked for a similar set of eclipses in Ulul 14/15 591+20 611. Also checked Ulul 13,14,15,&16. Did the same for 611, 610 and 609. These would be 20, 19 and 18 years prior to the "accepted" dates, in order to try to match the Watchtower dates. Since ULUL always starts in August or September, we'll simply look for the first full moon in August even if it means the month started too early, and go all the way to the last full moon in October, even if it meant that the month started too late. So we'll check for all the possible candidates for Ulul 13th-16th, for 609, 610 and 611 BCE, even checking a few extra days beyond a three month period just to make sure nothing could have been missed. Results: ------------------------- August 609. Nothing. September 4, 609 looks like a possible candidate. It's an excellent visible eclipse, and must have been one in the same series of this Saros cycle. But that's the problem, it was very visible at night. There was no eclipse at sunrise per the tablet's "instructions." It was very visible much earlier in the morning, but only 3 to 5 hours before sunrise. Because this one doesn't work we don't need to test part two 18 years later. October 609. Nothing ------------------------- August 610. Nothing. September 16, 610 looks like a possible candidate. But, it peaked at around 1 to 2 in the morning, very visible, and there was no eclipse near sunrise. October 610. Nothing. ------------------------- August 611. Nothing. September 26th 611. Partially visible eclipse, but only up to about midnight. No eclipse near sunrise. October 611. Nothing. ------------------------- If 609 had turned out to be a candidate for the 14th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then we could have said that 607 was his 16th year, and 606 his 17th, etc. But it didn't work out in favor of the WTS chronology. If 610 had turned out to be a candidate for the 14th year, then 609 would be the 15th, 608 the 16th, 607 the 17th, and 606 the 18th. But it didn't work out in favor of the WTS chronology. If 611 had turned out to be a candidate, then 607 would have been the 18th year, and this is exactly what the WTS chronology claims. But testing for 611 showed no fully visible eclipse in that period. But it does produce excellent, nearly perfect results for 591 and 573, so we now have two dates we can mark in the chart. Next post will make use of these dates. If anyone in the world can find them to mean something else, or has found anything I missed about them, I will remove them and use another archaeological date to begin the BCE/CE association with the relative chronology now in the chart. 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 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

If anyone thinks that the LBAT eclipses for Nebuchadnezzar's 14th and 32nd year should be double-checked for any particular dates, I will run those particular dates and show the entire results. This might be especially useful for people who think that the Saros cycle is simply an "excuse" to claim that Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year might just be a perfect match for a year that is, say, 18, 19 or 20 years different from the dates that all secular specialists give for his 14th year.

The differences in calculations on any two astro programs on older computers were already only very slight when I tried this again a few years ago. But there is so much good data now that I think all the programs that claim to calculate BC already use adjustments that give you the same results even if based on different mathematical adjustment methods to determine the positions. Accuracy is hardly an issue any more on any astro programs claiming to do BC dates, so I don't think you have to be so picky. However, I already checked Furuli's calculations in Sky6 on another computer that still works (but with difficulty). In fact, that was the very purpose of getting Sky6. That old Sky6 computer of mine overheats dangerously and many keys don't work. So to get in it I have to type various Alt+nnn codes just to type the password characters. That's to start it and every time it hibernates, too. But don't worry, I still have my notes. So I can check how close this CyberSky5 gets to Furuli's and/or Sky6 readings. I had not done this exercise for lunar eclipses before, and it would be a little easier in Sky6 because it's better at jumping from celestial event to the next/same type of event. Not so important here though, because I'm looking at a range of dates on each side of the lunar month to see if the configuration is drifting towards an eclipse or from. This way you have a sense of the possibility of an eclipse even if the software calculations might be slightly off. But I can see already that this is not a worry. By the way, I have been testing dates where the possibility of an eclipse is completely impossible and have several years already marked off as impossible candidates. You probably already know that the best candidates are September 15, 591 BCE at sunrise, and the one below for September 25, 573 BCE at sunset. I was a bit confused for a few seconds because when I got to the correct "full moon" I first checked it with the time set to about 5 pm on that date. And I saw absolutely no eclipse even though it is a perfect saros cycle distant from the other one. I got this: So I moved it another hour closer to sunset, and voila! there was the eclipse. Turned out that it was a perfect full eclipse, at 5pm, but invisible below the horizon, and the shadow symbol had overlapped so perfectly with the moon that they seemed like one circle. So far, no other candidates to date come anywhere close, and this one happens to work exactly with the times given in the LBAT tablet. But I'll keep looking at ALL the other possibilities, even though I had to program a macro runner called tinytask.exe (also free) to repeat all the necessary keystrokes for me. Otherwise I'd be typing 100 keystrokes just to completely check each possibility.

It looks like CyberSky5 can calculate back into the past. So I just downloaded it. Found out about it here: http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astronomy-software.html Got it here: http://www.cybersky.com/index.htm I've never used any version of it before today. It's a 30-day free trial and it says the free trial only has 10,000 sky objects instead of 30,000 in the full version. But the other functionality is supposed to be there, and the free version puts a watermark on any video or picture you create from the sky images. So, here goes. It installed on first try but didn't create a desktop icon. To start it I had to search CyberSky in the Windows 10 search box (lower left of a Windows 10 screen). First thing was to set the location to Baghdad, Iraq using Location on the menu bar. Since I'll be going back to this I also set it as my "Home" location and "Site 1" for good measure. It shows the latitude and longitude, so that I could correct this to Babylon, Iraq if I need to. Here's what it looks like so far: If you look at the time, you can see that I also set the date to 591 BC. On this one you don't have to subtract (add a negative one) to translate "negative" dates to BC. So that simplifies the dates. Also, by default you can't see below the horizon, but on the Map menu, you can just select "Look Below Horizon." (The Babylonians could predict or calculate an assumed but unobservable event whether it be movement of stars and planets in the daytime, or an event that was invisible because it was below the horizon.) This gives us a way to check out if their calculations were really correct. The last thing to do for eclipses is to click a little button on the toolbar. There's a menu item for it too I'm sure, but this is easy. It's the little gray circle with a lighter gray circle around it. In the picture above, it's right there just above the X at the top left corner of the dark blue sky. It's the button that will show where the earth is casting a shadow. It will show where that shadow would be, even if the moon isn't there to "catch" it. So it's useful to test lunar eclipses, or see how closely the sun, earth and moon happened to align, even if they didn't quite make a visible eclipse. So now the only thing to do is "drag" the sky and horizon around so that you can look in a certain direction along the horizon. Drag it until you are looking West and you can click the hours until the sun sets. Drag it up and down so that you are either looking straight up to stars above you, or left and right to find the moon. You can also play with the "Field of View" to see more or less of the sky at once. I'll drag mine to see if I can show a few sky objects at once. I clipped just a small part of the sky picture, and I set this for September 15, 591 BC at 6:29 in the morning, just a couple "degrees" after sunrise. The Sun, as expected is just above the East point on the horizon. Venus must have been quite visible as the "morning star" an hour ago, because I see it just below the Sun, and it's just drifted below the horizon. But as I look to the West, the Moon is just below the horizon, too. And that little "double image" gray circle above the moon is there because I set the "Earth Shadow" button to show it. And it is overlapping with the moon, therefore this shadow would be creating a eclipse, but not visible, unless you lived farther to the West (below the horizon), or if there had been a huge tall mountain to climb up on as an observatory, and therefore could see further over the horizon than others. An airplane at 35,000 feet over Baghdad might work too. (Babylon is about 55 mi South of Baghdad, but if it had been West of Baghdad, this would be a very good reason to reset our location more accurately.) Just for fun, and to get used to the program, you can click the time button to move forward or backward one second at a time, or one minute, or one hour, or day, month, year etc. This gives you a time-lapse animation of the sky and as you go exactly one day at a time you can get a sense of how fast or slow each of the different planets move against the backdrop of the stars. If you move one month at a time, you'd see these planets appear to move much faster and notice some other phenomena about where certain objects rise/set along the horizon. Since eclipses only happen at about the time of a full moon you can also just move from full moon to full moon, before searching if there is an eclipse that month. Do this 233 times and you have just gone through 233 lunar months (18 years) to get to the next position in that particular saros cycle. I haven't seen where this program allows a quick jump from one lunar eclipse to the next lunar eclipse, which was available in Sky6. And, by the way, there is a misconception implied by some already that the Saros cycles means you will see the exact same lunar configuration to match the one that was seen 18 years and 11 days earlier or later. This is not really possible. We can already see the two readings for Nebuchadnezzar has one of them beginning at sunrise and one of them closer to sunset. They continue to drift a bit from the previous positions 18 years earlier. Just to get an idea of what I'll be doing, I'm moving the time along one lunar month at a time to see if I can find every possible lunar eclipse calculated around sunrise. When I find one I will jump 18 years and see if the next lunar eclipse is about 2 hours 20 minutes before sunset, plus or minus an hour or so just to be safe. This way we can reject some eclipses as not in this particular saros cycle. But we might also be able to identify the right years BCE, if there is only one set of years that fits. Moving one lunar month forward (about 29.5 days, I will check the position 28, 29, 30 and 31 days later to be safe and give every chance for other years to become candidates. Just for fun, here is the one I checked for the next lunar month. This is just a couple minutes after sunrise, and this is the day where the moon is closest to seeing earth's shadow, 29 days later, the days on either side of this show the shadow drifting even further. So, who knows what I'll find? As easy as this is, everyone should get involved. It's free! And we can all help correct one another if we are making a mistake or wrong assumption!

There are several more evidences that the above timeline is correct, although they cover shorter segments of the timeline. I have read scholarly papers concerning nearly 20 additional "smaller" pieces of evidence that would also help to establish that the relative positioning of each king in the timeline is exactly as shown above. The main point is that there are no pieces of evidence that would force any adjustments to the timeline. Every new piece of evidence discovered helps to "cement" this timeline. No new secular evidence, so far, would give us reason to doubt the accuracy. So we should be ready to look for "witnesses" that could help us connect this relative timeline to our own BCE/CE era. By now, most everyone agrees that this can be accomplished due to the exactness and regularity of cycles and intervals with respect to the sun, moon, planets and stars. This is alluded to in Genesis: (Genesis 1:14-16) . . .Then God said: “Let there be luminaries [lights] in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 . . . the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. If we can find any one witness to any one year on the timeline, then it should be clear that this is the same as putting a date on all the other years in the timeline. Identifying the 9th year of Nabonidus, for example, is exactly the same as identifying his 8th year, his 7th year, etc. So here's the first potential witness to synchronize the BCE/CE era to the timeline: There are more than a dozen texts in this era that list eclipses, and a few of these list the types of eclipses that are predicted to repeat every 223 lunar months (18-plus years, saros cycles). The only way this predictability could ever be discovered is if someone in Babylon was keeping and passing down an accurate calendar. And the king list was the simplest form of this year-by-year calendar. Some of these "saros" cycle texts tracked such 18-year repetitions over a few centuries at a time. Let's start with the tablet that A.J.Sachs numbered LBAT 1419. It covers about 162 years worth of eclipses at 18 year intervals. They start even before the N-B period. By the way, if there are 10 "saros" cycle eclipses on a tablet, you know it means it is covering about a 162 year period, even if you haven't yet figured out which BCE dates the eclipses belong to. [2 eclipses = 1*18=18 years, 3 = 2*18=36 years, 4 = 3*18 =42 years, ... 10 = 9*18=162]. The first two clearly legible eclipses recorded on the tablet are, as expected, 18 years and 11 days apart. 14th [year] Nebuchadrezzar, month 6, [eclipse] which was passed by [=would not be observable] at sunrise 32nd [year] Nebuchadrezzar, month 6, [eclipse] which was passed by [=would not be observable]. At 35° [2 hrs, 20 min] before sunset. So they knew from even older accurate calendars that these two eclipses would be happening in this series, but they also could predict that they would not be observable as they happened (due to bright daytime sunlight). Can we find two eclipses using astronomy programs that would ONLY fit those two descriptions? We would have to find a predictable eclipse starting at sunrise on about the 14th day of Ulul (month 6: Aug/Sep), and then another one that started 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunset on the 14th day of Ulul (month 6: Aug/Sep), 18 years later. We could go looking for this particular pattern in an astronomy program. This is a new computer, so I'll download an astronomy program today and look. Notice that the eclipse before the first one would land about 4 years prior to Nebuchadnezzar's reign (Nabopolassar), and the next one would land well after. Even if we don't know the BCE dates yet, we should find this particular saros cycle to match the following highlighted years: 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 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 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 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 It's been a while since I had Sky6 I think it was on any recent laptop, but I'll see what's out there. Hopefully free. And report back when I get a chance.

TAKING A RELATIVE TIMELINE AND MATCHING IT TO OUR OWN ERA (BCE/CE) Pieces of this topic are already under discussion elsewhere in this thread, so it's time I got caught up. There are a lot of questions and claims (and accusations and insults) flying around which might be better answered after presenting more data. But, as some of the dust-ups settle, it's also a good time to review just how far we have gotten with the relative chronology, before jumping into a discussion of the astronomical diaries/tablets. Clearly this information is of highest interest to other Witnesses, so I will review how the relative data is being presented in terms of what the WTS has said about the secular evidence for the relative data. REVIEW Back on page 5 of this topic, I quoted from a WTS publication, "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) that can be found on jw.org here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101981019 Concerning the king list that's associated with Ptolemy, jw.org said: "Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns..." Therefore, we used it as a tentative baseline to see if this "witness" holds up under the "scrutiny" of further evidence. We tested it against Berossus. jw.org (at the link above) admits that "Ptolemy's figures agree with those of Berossus." So Berossus provided a second "witness" that agreed with the first. The publication at jw.org didn't mention the Uruk king list, but we also tested against that king list, and this provided a third witness that exactly agreed with the first two. Then the Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B) is mentioned and the jw.org publication admits: "The figures given for these three [Neb,E-M,Neriglissar] agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon." Therefore this becomes a fourth witness agreeing with the first three, and even agreeing not just on three kings mentioned but also the entire length of Nabopolassar and first of Nabonidus. The jw.org publication does not mention that the Hillah stele (Nabon. No. 8 ) also confirms the period from Nabopolassar 16th to Nabonidus' accession year, touching, again, on all the N-B kings. This becomes a fifth witness all in perfect agreement with the other four. Then the jw.org publication refers to the Business/Contract tablets admitting: "Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period." So these tablets provide a sixth witness agreeing with the previous five. In effect, they are actually providing a great crowd of additional witnesses, up to 10,000 more witnesses, so far, to the entire N-B timeline. So, now that we have all these witnesses to the Neo-Babylonian timeline before us, we can present what the Babylonians would have used as their own timeline. So far, again, I have only put relative dates at the top for the 96 different years of data from the first year of Nabopolassar to the last year of Cyrus. (Wel'll fix that shortly.) 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 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 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 Entire N-B period confimed by agreement of two "witnesses" Royal King List and Berossus Entire N-B period confimed by agreement of 3rd witness: the Uruk King List N-B period confirmed by agreement with 4th witness: the Adad-Guppi' stele (Nabon H 1, B) thru Nabonidus 9th N-B period confirmed with 5th witness: the Hillah stele (Nabon. No. 8.) Entire N-B period confirmed by 1000's of business tablets incl lengths & order of reigns, & all transitions between all kings. So in Babylon, If a person wanted to calculate someone's age, or the length of time from the beginning to the end of a specific business deal, or the length of time from a specific event that would have happened in the timeline, then all they needed was a chart like the above. All they needed was a king list that gave the order and lengths of reigns. If it were currently the 4th year of Nabonidus and I had was explaining how I know I just turned 60 years old, I would say, for example, "I was born in the 14th year of Nabopolassar, so I lived 7 years under Nabopolassar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years under Evil-Merodach, 4 years under Neriglissar, and these last 4 years under Nabonidus." (7+43+2+4+4=60.) Similarly, if I were a Jewish person exiled in Babylon and knew that a trustworthy prophet had claimed that nations would be under the yoke of Babylon for 70 years, and that this time period would end when Persia conquered Babylon, then I might use the same timeline or king list to measure back from the first year of Cyrus to get an idea of when these 70 years must have begun. If I started counting from the 2nd regnal year of Cyrus, I might come up with, for example, 1 year under Cyrus, 17 under Nabonidus, 4 under Neriglissar, 2 under Evil-Merodach, 43 under Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore the last 3 years under Nabopolassar -- which would gets me to about the 19th year of Nabopolassar. (1+17+4+2+43+3=70.) Living in those times, I would never think of dates like 605, 607, 609 etc. I would just have an idea that it was around the 19th year of Nabopolassar. We now see that, according to all the evidence that has been available so far --including all the secular evidence presented at the jw.org link above-- the 19th year of Nabopolassar was about 607 BCE. (This is why I don't have a problem with 607 BCE as the start of the 70 years of Jeremiah, by the way. It's about right, or at least within a couple of years depending on when exactly you end the period, and how accurately you wish to count backwards.)

I'm not sure you noticed, but I saw your question to @Arauna about the festival of Akitu. @Arauna has repeatedly berated me for not accepting the idea that Cyrus must have made his proclamation at the festival of Akitu in Nisan 538. I believe she has thought that this is a similar argument to the one "scholar JW" is making that somehow proves that the Jews must have arrived back on Tishri 537. I'm not sure most Witnesses realize that this is a year and half, between those two points, and yet the WTS is quite happy with the possibility that the proclamation could have happened a full year later leaving six months or less.

Aren't you confusing Carl Olof Jonsson's book, "GTR," with Raymond Franz' book "CC"? Earlier you indicated that you had probably not read, or perhaps had never even seen Ann O'maly's October 2020 VAT 4956 paper on academia.edu, when you said: The 20-some page paper which you called "the VAT attempt" is well-referenced, well footnoted, and well-written (meaning it's relatively easy even for me to understand). And it is most definitely not her 45-page translation of Neugebauer and Weidner. If you hadn't checked academia.edu in a while, then this is a very understandable mistake. No big deal. After all, that translation was also related to VAT 4956. But when this minor mistake was pointed out to you, you didn't even have the honesty to say: 'Oh that's right, I thought you meant the other paper.' Instead you said: Yet clearly you did confuse them. Your inability to admit such a simple and obvious mistake, apparent to almost everyone else here, makes it difficult for me to trust your motives. Sorry. It makes me realize that all your haughty expressions, and tendency to provoke and insult others, may not have any evidence backing any of it up. You appear to just be echoing the empty insults of those who have clearly never read nor understood the things they are trying to insult. I'll highlight at least one of your examples: From your words here and elsewhere about the book, it seems you probably have not read it, nor understood what it is about. It seems obvious that you have not yet realized that this entire presentation has nothing to do with Carl Olof Jonsson. He is just one more person who took an interest in what specialists and experts have said about the astronomical diaries. These are not his dates. He is no more important to this presentation than the persons who wrote the five references you just quoted. And it sounds like all five of your references above would just happen to agree with Carl Olof Jonsson about these Diaries. All five of those references you offered may agree with what you and others have called "COJ's dates," but it doesn't mean these dates somehow belonged to your 5 resources. Yet the WTS accepts the same methods of using secular evidence to determine the date 539. The WTS uses this date, never found in the Bible, which the WTS admits has been derived from astronomical diaries and king's lists and chronicles. So how "shameful" and "desperate" do you really think it is to make use of this same methodology that the WTS has accepted? Does looking to see if the Babylonian evidence might somehow falsify itself really have anything to do with accepting secular evidence over Bible chronology? Or is there perhaps just a fear that these dates actually support the Bible quite well. I get the feeling sometimes that the lack of substance behind your vague provocations is merely to create chaos. And when you do make a specific accusation, why is it almost always something that has already been shown to be untrue, but you merely repeat it without explaining any reason for repeating the falsehoods? For example, you said that AlanF doesn't accept a 605 BCE deportation. AlanF has been promoting a 605 BCE deportation in every related discussion I have ever seen, and I see it goes back to discussions from very long ago. I wrote a post or two that corrected you on that specific point. You already responded to that correction of your claim with insults to me, so I know you must have read it. But then you just repeated that same falsehood again under this topic. Therefore, if you have no actual data or evidence to present, then it would be better to move your posts that are full of insult and repeated falsehoods back over to the previous thread that spawned this one. So back to the topic . . . I will maintain that you don't need to accept any secular evidence over Bible chronology at all. For one thing this exercise in this thread is specifically about the SECULAR evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology. We want to see how well it stacks up on its own before looking for OT synchronisms. We lose the entire point if we try to force it to fit our favorite synchronisms before checking whether it can stand on its own validity. Besides, I see how it actually helps to confirm the Bible record. It enhances my own appreciation for the Bible's accuracy. But it isn't necessary to accept this archaeological evidence from Babylonian. You can take it or leave it. Of course, if you leave it, you don't have the 539 BCE date any more. Yes. True. It's never wise to say we have a "complete" picture on secular evidence. So far, I'm guessing that no more than 30,000 of the over 100,000 business tablets have been published. Therefore, some historian/archaeologist could make himself or herself quite famous in the scholarly community if they discovered that even ONE of these 100,000 tended to falsify the currently presented timeline. I'm guessing that several thousand more of them have at least been scanned for this possibility. That said, I do appreciate the perspectives on the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries that you provided. It's worth noting very carefully what these sources have said. The general points about the quality and accuracy of older king lists and diaries compared to the Neo-Babylonian period were things I had already learned by reading COJ's book and Furuli's books, but I thought the quotes were excellent. I'm impressed by the fact that your sources make clear that we don't know much about the actual persons who created these diaries, nor even their exact titles. It's remarkable that persons had such expertise and yet didn't give the impression that they were out to make a name for themselves.

Touché! Typo imitates truth!

Yes, most of them are definitely independent. We have an established date, but not an established chronology. You can't reject the 99% of a NB "absolute" chronology and then come back and say you want only 1%, a tiny piece of it. As you know, the Watchtower writers do not even know yet where exactly where they intended to identify the point of rejection. They only say that it must be rejected somewhere, based apparently on evidence that hasn't shown up yet. The Watchtower publications have already admitted that, currently, all the secular evidence is against them. *** kc pp. 186-187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Ptolemy’s Canon: Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived in the second century C.E. His Canon, or list of kings, was connected with a work on astronomy that he produced. Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns . . .. Evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from the Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon. . . . .Ptolemy’s figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period. Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon. VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. . . . Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period. From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. The Watchtower publications actually admit that they would be looking out for something new to be discovered that could falsify all this evidence that they admit goes against the current theory. *** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be . . . incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

The Watchtower does not like the use of the term "absolute chronology" and will only mention the use of this term by astronomers/archaeologists in a pejorative sense. So the Watchtower does not dare to call it's chronology an "absolute" chronology. But the actual answer would be yes, if they had not rejected the same "absolute chronology." The reason that the Watchtower chronology is able to accept 539 as the accession year of Cyrus is because there is evidence for an absolute chronology that indicates Nabopolassar began the first year of his reign in 625 (accession 624), and Nebuchadnezzar began the first year of his reign in 604 (accession 605) and Cambyses began the first year of his reign in 629 (accession 630). A cherry-picked, eclectic chronology is an absolute misuse of an absolute chronology, and is therefore a pseudo-chronology. It's obviously the exact same thing that would be true if the Watchtower had agreed that all the evidence pointed to 587/6 as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar (which it does) and then said: Well, since Jerusalem must have fallen in 587/6, and we must interpret 70 years of exile beginning at that point until Cyrus, then we declare that Cyrus must have released the exiles around 519/8 BCE to give the Jews time to get back home in 517/6 BCE. There was exactly as much evidence (if not more) for the Watchtower to have chosen the 517 date for Cyrus as there was to choose the 607 date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. So if the Watchtower writers were currently claiming that the first year of Cyrus was therefore 519 or 518, then would you call it an absolute chronology? Obviously not. It should be called a pseudo-chronology. And yet, this is exactly what the Watchtower did by selecting only one tiny part of an absolute chronology and rejecting the greater part of the same absolute chronology. Correct. And the Watchtower is right that is exactly how the astronomers/historians/archaeologists claim to use the term "absolute chronology." The Watchtower writers clearly realized how the term was being used by specialists in the field, but didn't like the implications of the word "absolute." The Watchtower writers know that the term "absolute chronology" sounds like it must mean "absolutely correct" even though this isn't exactly the way it is used by specialists. An author I know was working on a book about a high school teacher who, while doing research, discovers that the U. S. Civil War never happened. It was all fake news, fake history. He has published other books, but I don't know if this one was ever published. It sounds like you are using the term "absolute" chronology in a sense like the Watchtower uses it, not the way that specialists claim the term should be used. The way you have used the term, I would agree, it's all a matter of the degree of evidence. This is why I don't think a matter should be considered settled except at the mouth of multiple independent witnesses. We definitely have that for the relative chronology. But I don't think many people have really considered the multiple independent witnesses for the turning that relative chronology into an absolute chronology one that we can tie in some way to the dating system of our own era (BCE/CE/AM). Easy. By finding some unresolved contradictions in the relative chronology. That's what has been the methodology all along in testing a relative timeline for this topic. Every new piece of independent evidence is tested to see if it can in any way falsify the evidence from the first two "witnesses" to the timeline. So far, we have nothing that would falsify it, which also means that each of the additional pieces of evidences has only strengthened the solidity of the relative timeline. Further attempts to find evidence to falsify the relative timeline need not have anything to do with BCE dates, or about claims of what events happened in what year of any particular king, although there is a way that it could. At this point it the discussion it should mostly be about finding evidence that the beginning and ending (relative) dates of any particular king is wrong, or that the order of the kings we have listed is wrong (which is effectively the same thing). Possible ways to do that would be to find evidence that proves there was another king (or kings) we didn't know about who should have had his own distinct listing, not merely as a co-regent. Or that one or more of the kings already shown in the list was a co-regent, overlapping his reign with another king already on the list, and therefore should not have been listed out with a completely separate reign. Also, if business/contract tablets or inscriptions were found with dates outside the range indicated by the currently known tens of thousands that would create contradictions that might be unresolvable. Another way to falsify the NB Chronology would be to look at all the evidence from the astronomical diaries. If there are any diaries that with unresolvable readings that are tied to a specific relative date, but which contradict another diary then we could end up with an unresolvable contradiction. For example, let's say there was an eclipse or planetary configuration at a certain date and time that matches a certain year, perhaps Nebuchadnezzar 37. But another diary says a certain identifiable eclipse or planetary configuration happened in Nebuchadnezzar 35, but we know from the calculations (in astronomy software) that this particular configuration was not possible two years earlier. I offered to walk you through the same process that I used the last time we communicated on this forum (2017?). But I'm sure you would prefer to think that the person teaching you did not have a preconceived bias. I would have been just as happy if you had found an opportunity to get someone in say, Oslo, Norway, to walk you through the process. Probably too late for the particular person I was thinking of.

Thanks, lol. I have no problem accepting a possible 605 BCE deportation. The Babylonian Chronicles provide some evidence that heavy tribute of some kind from near the area would have happened in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Berossus and others also indicate that this heavy tribute from an area relatively near to Judea included a deportation/exile at that time. So 605 makes sense, because the combined evidence of all the archaeological findings point to 605 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Yes, I agree. It's unfortunate that the Watchtower uses the date 625 for Nebuchadnezzar's accession year instead of 605. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but this must be why the Watchtower goes to great lengths to avoid discussing any possible deportation in 625, or even 605 for that matter. Not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but the relative chronology of the timeline appears to be solidly correct. And no one here has come up with any evidence that it isn't. This means that if someone could turn the solid relative chronology into an absolute chronology with a date, like 538 for the first year of Cyrus, then we could see where 625 falls on the timeline. In order to do this one would have to extend farther back into the past to the beginning of the reign of Nabopolassar. If it formats correctly, you should see those BCE dates on the top row. 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 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 I put a darker blue mark at 625, 605, and also at the range from 539-537. It seems that even many Witnesses don't usually realize that if 539 is correct, then the Watchtower's date for the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne, actually lands all the way back in the first year of Nabopolassar. And even dates like 607 and 605 also occur at the end of the reign of Nabopolassar.

That's fine with me, so I will include them. I won't use their military nature as an excuse to ignore them. I just hadn't made use of them yet, because it should be pretty obvious that the timeline is already pretty solid without them. But from what I understand they also help to solidify the timeline even further. It sounds like you were not able to find any good reason to dismiss the Chronicles yourself, so I'll look at them more closely to see what they can tell us about the solidity or weakness of the timeline. As I said, I'm glad to hear your conclusions about where the data and evidence is relevant to the timeline. If you have no evidence to share in this regard, I'll accept that fact, too. Everything is potentially relevant to this matter if it is evidence that can affect the timeline. I don't think anyone really believes that every bit of information from past records is always relevant. For some days in a Babylonian diary, the tablets might only say that a wolf came into the city and killed a couple of dogs, or perhaps a diseased fox got in. Furuli, COJ, WTS, myself and others would admit that this is not relevant to pinpointing either a relative or an absolute chronology. On the issue of two supposedly different kings who are really the same king going by two different names, that's a different matter. It could affect a part of the evidence that was used in support of the relative chronology. For example, what if one was able to show that every tablet made out for the "first year of Nabopolassar" is really just another version of saying the "first year of Nebuchadnezzar," and that this held all the way up to year 21, when suddenly Nebuchadnezzar tablets continue to appear in about the same quantities beginning in year 22, and Nabopolassar tablets for year 22 suddenly drop to zero. Fortunately there is plenty of direct evidence that this was not the case, and that Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were distinct kings with distinct records. And although we have to Babylonian Chronicles to help verify this, we also have enough additional evidence. So if you had a specific pair of king's names in mind, I've already see enough evidence to show how easy it would be to refute the idea that these were the same king. And that goes for anywhere in the timeline given above. So if you have something in this regard to share, I'd love to hear it. Else I will assume there was nothing with any evidence behind it You offered a bit of commentary that indicates that the timeline I provided earlier is correct. Thanks for the support, but this is merely from a modern commentary. I can't just accept a modern commentary as if it were a piece of independent secular evidence. Just because someone accepts the timeline I gave is not evidence that it is true. So there is no contradiction. In fact, it's one of the reasons I spent so little time, so far, making use of records of military campaigns commented upon in the Babylonian Chronicles. Most of that is just commentary about one event after another. It happens to provide support for the timeline, but it is mostly about events that occurred along the timeline. OK. When you said it was her latest paper, I assumed you meant October 2020. It's the latest one I found there. (And from that VAT paper, it certainly seems like she knows the Saros and Metonic cycles way better than I do.) Aren't you confusing her VAT paper: https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com ...with her translation paper? https://www.academia.edu/1649244/English_translation_of_Ein_astronomischer_Beobachtungstext_aus_dem_37_Jahre_Nebukadnezars_II_567_66_by_Paul_V_Neugebauer_and_Ernst_F_Weidner_1915_ So, this is the paper, from June 2016: https://www.academia.edu/26085025/Can_two_eclipses_on_BM_32234_be_dated_to_475_BCE_instead_of_the_conventional_year_465_BCE

@Ann O'Maly Thanks for joining and thanks for the correction. I should not have said: "The site that Ann O'maly refers to is vat4956.com, and the translation information is excellent there, too." The specific lines I checked out appeared to be exactly as I recalled them from other sources. But I just started looking at that site yesterday for the first time, and although I had not read any of their translations carefully yet, I love that they break down each and every line the way they do. They put a picture of the line, a transliteration, and the official Neugebauer-Weidner/Hunger translation. After just now reading your statement, I picked another line at random. Front - Line 17. I agree it looks unfinished and rushed, but I still love the method of showing information for each line one at a time and displaying literal meanings. www.vat4956.com/thetablet.php?frontline17 Transliteration for 588 & 568 BC: [xxx] x 15 DINGIR KI DINGIR IGI 7. 30 ┌NA AN. MI sin ša2 DIB┐ [...] Translation for 568 BC that also fits the year 588 BC- by P.V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner (1915) edited by Hermann Hunger (1988) The 15th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7°30'. A lunar eclipse which passed by [...] --------------- Looking further down the page, I liked these charted out lines, and I assumed there would be more clarity here. I see that some symbols were given no translation, and some were given the possible meanings that would only work in other contexts.

@scholar JW, I just read what AlanF wrote, and he's right. The most difficult part would be the translation, which I never tried. But Furuli can be trusted to provide the right "Akkadian" translation, which is basically an exact copy from other sources, anyway. Learning the "jargon" on the tablets would be very difficult. The site that Ann O'maly refers to is vat4956.com, and the translation information is excellent there, too. [Edited to acknowledge the correction made below that only the translations from primary sources are excellent but that the site's attempts to overcome these translations are sloppy.] You can also get some experience by looking at translations of other astronomical diaries, where you are neutral about the date being presented in the diary. Only a small bit of the jargon changed over a few centuries.

Not at all! He has used the terms correctly. It is supported by the title of that chapter. COJ not only used the terms correctly, he also explained them correctly as I quoted above. He explained these terms in the same way that a paper you once recommeded to this forum explained it, as I recall. It is also the same way that Furuli explains it. And, in fact, our Insight book quotes a resource that indicates that this is exactly the way it is used by historians/archaeologists, too. *** it-1 p. 454 Chronology *** The claim is made that “astronomical confirmations can convert a relative chronology [one that merely establishes the sequence of events] into an absolute chronology, specifically, a system of dates related to our calendar.” (The Old Testament World, by Martin Noth, 1966, p. 272) True but he makes no valid points against the others, and he completely leaves out various astronomical records that help to create an absolute chronology out of this whole period. You will see this clearly when we discuss just a few of those records. Fortunately, you will see the evidence that each of them not only stands alone in support of the timeline given above, they also give the same results holistically, taken all together. You can use the exact same methodology for all of them. Yes. Furuli certainly demonstrated the need for caution. Also, you can probably dismiss as many of them as you don't like, and you will still have many more all the way up into the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods. Even if you decided to get rid of all but one or two, you'd still get the same "absolute" result from them, but you'd have to complete a solid relative chronology to that point first. I stopped at Cyrus to save time. We shouldn't be worried about the purpose or relative importance, only whether the evidence they provide corroborates or forces us to question the solid basis of the relative timeline. The purpose could have been to praise false gods, discover omens, or play a game to see who had the best eyesight. At this point wer're probably ready to just look for any differences that can't be easily explained. To see if that timeline is really solid, we should really be trying to "falsify" the above timeline if we can, with any evidence we can find. Exactly. That's why we should look at the evidence, test it, and see how it stacks up. If you find out all her evidence is reported correctly, then it doesn't really matter as much what her agenda was. Same with you or me. I think you'll find them to be pretty easy once you get started. And there are excellent explanations and tutorials all around. Also, a lot of this software is only intimidating at first because it has so many features you won't use. (telescope adjustments, etc.) Once you find the single function you will use, and way to set it to a location and start scrolling back in time in fast motion, you end up catching on to new things you might not have thought of. I like setting to a specific day and scrolling back one year at a time from that date. Every "night" you see the movements of the planets, and you see what looks like some planets take a tiny extra jump forward every four years, but not when divisible by 100, except when divisible by 400, and you realize what just happened for every leap year. Then you might set it to scroll by new moons, or full moons, or eclipses, and in a few minutes you will start to catch on to the basic lunar cycles that would have taken ancient astronomers hundreds of years to put together. That's why you should check it out for yourself. It sounds like you will be surprised at what you learn about biases. Also, there might be someone in your congregation who already knows how to use this software. If you know any nearby, trusted Witnesses who already know how to use the software, they are probably already aware of the issues surrounding Furuli's scholarship anyway, but you should pick someone who won't be stumbled over any surprises. I would certainly hope that it would be independent lines of in-house NB evidence that could solidly establish the relative NB chronology. As it turns out there will also be a lot of help in the in-house astronomical records to help establish an absolute chronology. So far, I have only really discussed independent witnesses to the relative chronology. Astronomical observations will be able to provide additional independent witnesses to several points for which one could claim an absolute chronology. I'm sure you are aware that this is exactly how BM 33066 aka LBAT 1477 aka Strm Kambys 400 had been explained in past WTS publications for "establishing" an absolute date based on the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses.

COJ used the terms correctly. He speaks of the relative chronology just as discussed above, and he speaks of absolute chronology just as was discussed above: In this chapter it will be demonstrated that the whole NeoBabylonian period, including the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, may be established as an absolute chronology by the aid of astronomical cuneiform documents found in Mesopotamia.

I went through all the same readings Furuli did using "TheSky" and "Stellarium" software and I would have to agree that he made several obvious mistakes with the readings. There is no question about it, and you can prove it for yourself by downloading free versions of the software, setting the location to Iraq, and scrolling back through history. (Sky uses negative dates instead of BCE dates which are correct but you need to add -1 to a negative date to turn it to BCE.) Otherwise it's simple to double-check Furuli. See what you come up with.