14 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

You accuse Furuli of incompetence in the use of the astro program but is this more of confirmation of your bias rather than intellectual honesty.

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.

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

But according to COJ you already have an Absolute Chronology titled as chapter 4 in his latest 4th edn

I doubt that COJ would call the relative chronology an absolute chronology until various astronomical diaries and records of dated eclipses are added into the mix. I'll check out chapter 4 to see. 

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

then of course you have the problem of Rolf Furuli whose research undermines any confidence in the correctness of the present scheme of NB Chronology

I have communicated with Rolf Furuli about his first two books on chronology, which he sent me as I've discussed before. His attempts were focused against just one important witness to the chronology: VAT 4956. It's an important witness to the absolute chronology, but you could throw it out and you'd still end up with the same timeline. You would also end up with the same absolute chronology from dozens of other astronomical records from NB. Also, since the timeline reaches just as accurately as a relative timeline, far into the future from NB times, you actually have thousands of astronomical positions to make use of in testing how well the relative chronology can become an absolute chronology. But even that is not necessary. It will be easy to show that you don't even need to go outside the timeline to start pegging separate --and independent-- "absolute" points along the timeline that all coincide and corroborate with the currently proposed timeline.

Besides, Rolf Furuli actually only showed that VAT 4956, if you ignored the planetary positions, then with its current copyist typos, it had only about a 20% chance of pointing to 588/587 while the exact same data showed about an 80% chance of pointing to 568/567. This is not what he claimed of course; he claimed it was pretty much the reverse of that. But this is exactly what his methodology showed. And as you have said before, methodology is important in chronology. Also, he admitted that the planetary readings only pointed away from his theory, and to 568/567.

There is, of course, a chance that certain lunar positions will be repeated every 18 years (Saros) or every 19 years (Metonic) and sometimes every 20 years, or even random years. But for the planetary positions, Furuli admits that they only fit 568, against his own theory. These planetary positions only repeat every several hundred years or more, so they should be weighted as evidence about 100 times greater than the lunar data. But even if we only weighed them "linearly" or "even" with the lunar data, the tablet points to about a 10% chance of meeting Furuli's theeory and a 90% chance that it is a match to all the other astronomical tablets. Also, I'll predict that if you merely correct the most obvious copyist errors, and also allow for a 1.5 degree accuracy instead of a stricter 1 degree accuracy in the readings, you move it to much less than 5% in favor of Furuli's theory, and higher than 95% in favor of all the other astronomical diaries. And all this conjecture is most likely based on some very correctable copyist errors. Also there were some major inconsistencies in the way that Furuli tried to make some readings "possible" by breaking the known rules, making "Furuli-only" exceptions to the Babylonian calendar. But he only invoked these exceptions when they helped, even though these exceptions would have ruined others of his "possible" readings if he had been consistent with these mistakes.

A very similar attempt to Furuli's was referenced above. The link is here: https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com

50 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

But there are pieces that are missing e.g. 1. the missing 7 years of Neb's madness from the throne and 2. No mention of Neb's destruction of Jerusalem in his 18th year for starters.

Why do you claim they are missing? There is no problem positing that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year if you wish. There is no problem if you wish to posit that any 7 of these years were years of madness. Or if you have evidence that it changes the timeline, just show the evidence where you think the timeline should be adjusted.

Of course, trying to tie Biblical evidence into this timeline is not necessary. If one thinks the timeline is not solid, then you coudn't make any use of it anyway. We need to confirm the solidity of the relative timeline before trying to make it an absolute timeline. Also, many issues with Biblical evidence are based on interpretations. Even the claim that there must have been 7 years of madness is not found in the Bible except through a specific interpretation. It is known that the Aramaic for "times" (iddan) can refer to periods of time that are not years, perhaps even seasons, fortnights, months, weeks, etc.

50 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

And what are the independent witnesses that you refer?

Independent witnesses in this case are pieces of evidence that are not known to have been dependent on each other, or from the same person. For example, if you found a 16th birthday card addressed to Elizabeth in 2016, you have a piece of evidence that someone named Elizabeth was born in the year 2000 or at least within a matter of months. If you find another birthday card to the same address to Elizabeth for a 20th birthday in 2020, you now have two pieces of independent evidence that someone named Elizabeth at this address was born around the year 2000. But this doesn't mean the person was right. Someone might be mistaken. And if it was the same person sending both cards, the mistake might have been compounded. Or perhaps Elizabeth was actually younger and gave out a wrong birth year because she wanted to be seen as older, or vice versa. Or perhaps there are two Elizabeths at this address and the sender was mixed up about which one was born in 2000 and which one was born some other year.

Independent evidence isn't the same as absolute proof, but the more you have the more likely the conclusion is solid. That's why we are fortunate to have several independent sets of business tablets that are unrelated to each other. Thousands from one temple, thousands from another, and thousands from various business houses, and thousands of others that are unrelated to one another.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Here’s an example of how a Kings List works with ongoing events. Are you saying these events don’t matter to confirm the reign of Kings?

Yes. I'm saying that these events do not necessarily matter at all in confirming the reign of kings. The king could have done nothing at all throughout his reign, or could have fought many major military campaigns. The king could even have lied about all his supposed accomplishments and even lied about the length of time between one event and the next. It's only when any one of the claims creates a contradiction in the order of the kings and their length of reign that it becomes relevant to the timeline.

All of the claims in that Isaiah commentary that relate to the timeline presented above are perfectly aligned with the relevant portion of the timeline. But this is not the same as offering secular evidence that the timeline is right.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Example, did Nebuchadnezzar need to be present in 609 BC to bring King Jehoiakim into Babylons subjection, just like he wasn't with the final blow, came to Jerusalem in 587 BC if you want to use that methodology.

I'm not using any methodology that requires Nebuchadnezzar to be present in 609 or 587 or any other year. I would agree with you that he need not be personally present to bring anyone or any nation into Babylonian subjection. So I don't need that methodology one way or another. It's not relevant to any years in the timeline either.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Which King was fighting for dominance and for which God. Who was ally to whom?

These are not relevant questions to getting the order and length of kings reigns. They could change allegiances and gods every year and it wouldn't change the timeline.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Are there any Kings in the Kings List that might have been confused by another in the same list?

This is actually a better question. It's one you have brought up before. And with this question there is a need sometimes to note if there had been a change of name based on a change in allegiance. Although apparently with few exceptions (Egypt for example) the multiplicity of gods made it unnecessary to change one's name even if their primary focus changed to another god.

Did you have a particular pair of names in mind? Remember that if two different names could refer to the same person, then an overlap of the two names would imply a shortening of the timeline by at least the length of the shortest reign in that particular pair of names.

On 12/11/2020 at 8:36 PM, César Chávez said:

Since you are leaning with the absurdity by claiming "almost none" with BM 21901 which is part of the Babylonian Chronicles that you need to defend a COJ ideology

I should have said "none" instead of "almost none" because there is no dependence on military campaign records. The reason, as you might have noticed, is that I included the Babylonian Chronicle but did not need it, since the exact same point was also made in the Adad-Guppi' stele, as I stated. I would have been happy to have used records of military campaigns, I just happened not to rely on them to make this point about the number of years from Nabopolassar to Nabonidus. You'll notice that if you wished to remove the Babylonian Chronicle, the same point is made. You did not actually give any reason that one should not use the Babylonian Chronicles, however, so I will be glad to make use of them wherever they give evidence for the specific order and number of years of each king.

On 12/11/2020 at 8:36 PM, César Chávez said:

Then give a full account for those dates of the King List, since it depends on that old history with that of new understanding of that old history which defers within 1 to 3 years.

You might already be aware that the Babylonian Chronicles also support the exact same timeline of the kings, and they give us no reason to retract anything already said about the relative dates of the King List. So you may consider the above timeline to be the full account. If you think there is a place where the relative chronology differs by 1 to 3 years, please point it out and show your evidence, and I will change the timeline based on your evidence. I have not seen any evidence of this, but that could be very important.

On 12/11/2020 at 8:36 PM, César Chávez said:

Are you referring to modern times or ancient times?

Yes, both modern times and ancient times.

On 12/11/2020 at 8:36 PM, César Chávez said:

why not take full advantage of it to explain how natural history can be defined by several mythologies.

Why not? Because I couldn't care less how "natural history" can be defined by "several mythologies." At this point I am presenting the NB evidence to see how solid the relative chronology is for these kings.

On 12/11/2020 at 8:36 PM, César Chávez said:

Since you oppose the Watchtower chronology, because in part of the Babylonian Chronicles, then "military campaigns" need to be understood in order to see the sequence of events within those timelines.

It doesn't seem like they need to be understood at all. But if you find any NB evidence from military campaigns or from anywhere else that shows a change in the relative chronology is required, I'll make the appropriate change. You can recommend exactly where the new or additional evidence fits in.

44 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Your presentation is mostly of military campaigns.

As you can see, almost none of this was based on any record of military campaigns. The Babylonian Chronicles include a lot of military campaigns but I barely used it at all, and the part that I did mention is not really about the campaign, only the date when the Medes destroyed a temple in Harran. I mentioned the Babylonian Chronicle 3 (B.M. 21901) because it helps to put a date on the battle won by the Medes against Harran, but the point was about the number of years that had elapsed until Nabonidus spoke about his dream to rebuild the temples that had been destroyed back then.

44 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Since this can fall under a Saros Cycle

Any year can fall under a saros cycle. Even this year, 2020.

44 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

How would your own interpretation of those ongoing events be compared to those specific dates that, Kings weren't necessarily around for some of those military campaigns.

It doesn't matter who was at any military battle. I didn't make use of any information about a battle except for one of the dates. And I don't need to interpret anything to present the data. This is not about interpretation of evidence, it is merely about presenting some of the evidence. And, of course, this is a minimal presentation. There is a lot more, and the details of the additional evidence makes the case for this timeline even stronger. We can show this is true, if necessary, but the above is enough for a start unless someone has some specific problem with the evidence given so far. I'll correct any mistakes that anyone can show. I already corrected a couple of typos.

44 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

An example would be, was Nebuchadnezzar present when his Captain . . . [skipped]. . .  "devestated" by which Jerusalem was a part of.

I agree with what you said, but it has nothing to do with the timeline, which is not based on military campaigns.

27 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

What is of concern to me that there is the danger of circular reasoning.

That need not be a concern here, because this is just a discussion of the secular evidence. If I want to solve a jigsaw puzzle for example I only need to make use of the pieces in the box. If they can be solved into a picture, that's great. If they can't, then I wouldn't trust them to help me with any other puzzle either. And of course, there is no circular reasoning when we take the "testimony" of several independent witnesses. We are basically looking at a puzzle with about 100,000 pieces to see if they form a picture with no unresolved gaps or overlaps.

27 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Herein lies the problem.  A failure to carefully distinguish between these two terms, 'relative' and absolute'

Good point. But it's no problem. That's why we carefully distinguished between these two terms. All one has to do to turn it into an absolute chronology, if they need to, is to attach any one year in the timeline to a date that is absolutely attached to the common era. If you think any of the dates in the timeline can be absolutely tied to the common era, then you have turned the relative chronology into an absolute chronology.

27 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Thus if we admit to the absoluteness of the NB Period and its Chronology then we have the problem of the INTERFACE between the two- NB Period and OT period.

If someone finds it useful to tie the NB period and its chronology to the OT period, then they can do that easily. But, of course, it is not true that the absoluteness of the NB period requires this. It becomes absolute as soon as you add any absolute date to any point in the timeline. At that point all the other dates also become absolute. As you said, one needs to carefully distinguish between these two terms, "relative" and "absolute."

26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Your presentation of NB Chronology is excellent with lovely coloured charts and it appears infallible.

Thanks.

26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

How does one test or falsify this scheme of Chronology.

By looking at any additional items of Neo-Babylonian data to see if they continue to corroborate the timeline that fits the data we have made use of, so far.

26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Can it now be viewed as an Absolute Chronology and can it now be used to construct a OT Chronology

 As you can see, I have not attempted to turn this into an absolute chronology yet. It may very well be "absolutely" accurate as a relative chronology, however. I have only referenced one small item, so far, purporting to offer us several data points for an "absolute" chronology.  On its own, however, it is only one piece out of many, and I prefer to discuss the overall quality of these evidences for an absolute chronology first.

By "absolute," of course, I am referring to the ability to attach it to the BCE/CE era. A relative timeline can be "absolutely" accurate and still not be called an "absolute chronology" as the term is used by a chronologist/historian/archaeologist. I like to start with at least two witnesses to the evidence.

What I have presented here, so far, is a reference to to some of the relevant evidence that indicates that we do have a solid basis for a "relative" chronology from at least the reign of Nabopolassar through Cyrus. (We also know that this same level of confidence continues into the future well past the time of Jesus, Augustus, Nero, etc.) So we know that if anyone accepts any particular date as absolute (through the range of Napopolassar through Nero, for example), that they are, in effect, accepting every date along this line as absolute.

It need not be tied to the OT. It stands on its own. The fact that it CAN be tied to the OT and still be perfectly supported and not falsified by the OT only gives additional support to the evidence.

The older the diary, the more it has been recopied, and the more likely a few errors would creep into it. This will be true of VAT 4956 for which the planetary positions interspersed throughout certain lines of the diary provide excellent evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568/7 BCE. But the lunar positions on other interspersed lines of the same diary match only 17 dates of the 23 lunar positions, and 17 out of those 23 positions are a match (73.9%).

These are discussed very well here, where the author ("Ann O'maly") has compared the accuracy score, to another proposed date, 20 years further back for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year:

https://www.academia.edu/44227088/Fact_checking_VAT4956_com

The final tabulation is almost identical to the results anyone can get with computer-based astronomy programs. The final column on the right is the score given to the lunar positions for 568/7 which matches the timeline above. (Green is good, red is not.) The left column is a good indication of how well (actually, how poorly!) the lunar positions might match a date 20 years earlier, or even perhaps for any other random year. This attempt to make it match another date scores about 5 out of the 23 positions (21.7% vs 73.9% for the more accurate year).

The author also provides probable reasons for certain non-matches, giving a good reason for assuming the mis-identification of a specific star, which would have otherwise made a couple of mis-readings much closer, or even a match. Scholars have sometimes assumed a simple one day error in the date, which would also have produced a match (and could also swap non-matches to matches in the final column).

At this point, it should be obvious to anyone, scholar or not, that if you could put a specific BCE date on any one of these years in the chart, that you have just put a date on every other year in the chart.

For example:

• If you could show that Nabopolassar's 21st year was 605 BCE, then you would simultaneously be showing that his 20th must have been 606 BCE, and that the year after 605 was 604 BCE.
• If you could show that the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537 for example, you would simultaneously be showing that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE, and that the 17th year of Nabonidus was 539 BCE. (And also therefore the accession year of Cyrus.)

Evidence of any date in the timeline is now exactly the same evidence for every other date in the timeline.

Also, these king's lists extend the same type of accuracy far into the future beyond Cyrus, Cambyses, etc., even up until well past the birth of Christ, and the Roman Caesars, for example.

So the same holds true if you could put a specific CE (AD) date on any event during Persian, Greek, or Roman empires, you would simultaneously be putting a date on any years of Nabonidus, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc. And in the next posts, which should be unnecessary at this point, it can be shown that the astronomical diaries actually offer hundreds of specific astronomical events and configurations that can only be tied to one specific BCE or CE date during those empires (Babylon, Persia, Greece & Rome).

And all of the astronomical dates spread across various points of the timeline also confirm the timeline. Therefore a discussion of the astronomical diaries will give us even more evidence for the accuracy of the initial timeline. In fact, if anyone had an idea that the timeline could somehow still be "falsified" then it would be more efficient to look for any recorded astronomical event that is NOT aligned with the timeline. There are certain diaries that have been copied and recopied, or show damage making them difficult to read in places. Yet, there are rarely more than three or four errors out potentially a dozen or more easily datable readings in these same diaries.
 

So far, then, we have consistent evidence all corroborating the following timeline. But none of these yet includes one of the most powerful pieces of evidence supporting this timeline. And I'm not even talking about the Astronomical Diaries, yet.

One of the most powerful areas of evidence is supplied within specific sets of the Business/Contract Tablets. The various 'Business Tablets' are already like thousands of independent witnesses all exactly corroborating the timeline above. So we are already well beyond the need to find "two witnesses" that agree; we have found tens of thousands of effectively independent witnesses.

But these special sets of them are another witness, independent from the other types of contracts, and of course they perfectly support the consistent timelines above.

These, of course, would be the various "houses of business" much like the records of a specific bank, or specific real estate company, or family trading company. There are several of these, and one of the most studied is the "House of Egibi." The Egibi house is known through literally THOUSANDS of tablets spanning the time from third year of Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar to Nabonidus to Cyrus to Cambyses to Darius I.

Naturally, it confirms every year perfectly in line with the above timelines, but it does much more than that. It provides a double-check validation of all of the kings by including not just the month day and year of the king, but also the name of the current head ("president") of the Egibi House. These provide a kind of audit of the timeline and show that:

• The first president was head of the firm for 20 years from "Nebuchadnezzar 3" to "Nebuchadnezzar 23."
• Then the second head of the firm was president for 38 years from "Nebuchadnezzar 23" to "Nabonidus 12."
• Then the third president was for 23 years from "Nabonidus 12" to "Darius 1"

Those 20+38+23=81 years are exactly the 81 years matching the evidence from Berossus, Adad-Guppi', the King Lists, the Babylonian Chronicles, the Royal Inscriptions, "Ptolemy" etc.

More than that, a few of the documents of this type (business houses) refer to contracts starting under one king and going on for a number of years and ending under another king, all matching the timeline confirmed by every other source of evidence.

There are many good references to be able to read many of these types of tablets in translation. I can include several of my favorites, and links, in another post.

So far, we have seen evidence for the following timeline:

Of course, one might still argue that a gap of a year or so, might be balanced out by co-regencies totaling the same number of years.

That point is covered by looking at literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence. Maybe even 100,000! 

Imagine if all the bank checks written in the United States from 1930 to 2010 had been found to be made of nearly indestructible material, like some kind of laminated plastic. And imagine that every check contained the then-current president's name up there where the date goes. If you had about 100,000 of these checks spread fairly evenly across each year from 1930 to 2010, you could easily create a chart that showed how many years Hoover served as president since 1930, how many years FDR was president, Truman, Ike, LBJ, JFK, etc.

Fortunately, we have just about the equivalent of that in literally tens of thousands --perhaps 100,000-- of these "checks" because they were written on wet clay that dried as hard as stone and thousands have remained intact in the dry climate of Babylonia/Iraq for more than 2,500 years. These are even more valuable than bank checks for our purposes, however, because they include contracts, legal agreements, sales agreements, trade agreements, rental (land use) agreements, receipts, loans, gifts, etc. And all of them are dated with the month, day, and specific year of the currently reigning king. They even include the indication for a partial "accession" year when a king takes over for the previous king mid-year, and doesn't start his official "Year 1" until the new year.

Here's what they tell us:

• There are tablets representing EVERY SINGLE YEAR of reign for ALL the kings mentioned above.
• The tablets are dated so accurately that we can know, to within a matter of days, when one king was succeeded by the next king.
• ALL of them are in agreement with Berossus, the Royal King List, the Uruk King List, the Babylonian Chronicles, the Adad-Guppi' stele, Royal Temple Inscriptions, Royal Palace Inscriptions, and Astronomical Diaries.
• There are NO tablets that create any contradictions or discrepancies to the years shown in the chart above
• These tablets provide another independent witness to the accuracy of the Kings' Lists, the Royal Inscriptions, the Babylonian Chronicles, and the Astronomical Diaries (which haven't been discussed yet).
• These tablets include examples that cross over from one king to the next so that ALL the transitions are known to be without co-regencies or gaps of more than a few days.
• There is an average of up to 1,000 tablets for each year of the chart shown above, and ZERO (so far) for any proposed additional years not shown in the chart, which is more evidence that there are no possible gaps.
• There are even such texts for the short reign of Labashi-Marduk which lasted only a couple of months.

By now we can have a pretty good idea that several independent sources are in complete agreement, giving the same order of succession for these kings, and they also give the same number of years for each king.

But some might question whether there were any gaps we didn't account for. Perhaps one king couldn't start ruling until some coup or civil war was decided. Perhaps a king died and no successor could be found immediately. Or, perhaps two kings overlapped in their rule and it's not accounted for in the chart. (Of course, we might immediately doubt that we will encounter such problems, because if it had been a real problem, then all those calculations for eclipses and other events --and the Babylonians were well known for these-- could never have worked.)

So how do we check that there are no gaps? or no co-regencies in these King Lists?

As it turns out there are many ways. One of them involves two completely different inscriptions, written for different reasons. Here they are:

• The Babylonian Chronicle 3 (B.M. 21901) says that  The chronicle states that in the “sixteenth year” of Nabopolassar, the Medes (Umman-manda) marched to Harran and captured the city. He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple.
• The Adad-guppi’ inscription (already mentioned above) states the same thing: that in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, their god got angry and the city and its people were destroyed.

Nabonidus provided inscriptions that spoke of the gods coming to him in a dream in his accession year, telling him he should rebuild those temples at Harran destroyed by the Medes. Here's one in Nabod. No. 8:

(Concerning) Harran . . . which had been lying in ruins for 54 years because of its devastation by the Medes (who) destroyed the sanctuaries, . . . the time for reconciliation approached, 54 years, when [the god] Sin should return to his place.

The accession year of Nabonidus was the same partial year that he took office during Neriglissar's 4th year. Note the count over the top of that year is marked with a 55. And notice that we already started counting Nabopolassar's 16th year with a "1" above it. How many years is it from "Nabonidus 16" to Neriglissar 4 (a.k.a., Nabonidus accession year)?

55-1=54. Exactly 54 years. Which is exactly how long the inscription says it is.

It turns out there are hundreds of these evidences that the chart is correct, and they are found in the most mundane of business documents, not just in the royal inscriptions. But this one shows that there were no gaps between the end of the rule of Nabopolassar and the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus. That covers the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.

The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.

So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?

Yes.

Do all ancient records agree?

No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)

So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?

Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.

OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:

• Nabopolassar        21 years
• Nebuchadnezzar  43 years
• Awel-Marduk         2 years
• Neriglissar             4 years
• [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]*
• Nabonidus            17 years

So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.

So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

*Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.

54 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

To sound more scientifically?

Maybe. But in context keeping the stars in place really does in imply some great power, and the references to power is doubled in this verse: his great power and might. Implying doubled or multiplied or even "exponential" might. (Power to the power of power.)

Here is Gesenius on the word. Gesenius is often considered the ultimate Hebrew-language authority by Watchtower publications:

Here is Strong's:

אוֹן ʼôwn, probably from the same as H205 (in the sense of effort, but successful); ability, power, (figuratively) wealth:—force, goods, might, strength, substance.

Here are the different ways the NWT now translates the same word. Looks like it can refer to procreative strength, monetary strength (wealth), but I also see a sense of "energetic vigor" or "pep" especially in Job 18:7.

• (Genesis 49:3) 3 “Reuʹben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the beginning of my procreative power, the excellence of dignity and the excellence of strength.
• (Job 18:7, 8, 12 )  7 His vigorous stride is shortened, And his own counsel will make him fall.  8 For his feet will lead him into a net, And he will wander onto its mesh. . . . His strength fails him, And disaster will make him stagger.
• (Job 20:10) . . .His own children will seek the favor of the poor, And his own hands will give back his wealth.
• (Job 40:15, 16) . . .Here, now, is Be·heʹmoth, which I made as I made you. It eats grass like a bull. 16 Look at the strength in its hips And the power in the muscles of its belly!
• (Isaiah 40:26) . . .Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.
• (Isaiah 40:29) . . .He gives power to the tired one And full might to those lacking strength.
• (Hosea 12:2, 3) . . .Jacob . . . 3 In the womb he seized his brother by the heel, And with his vigor he contended with God.
• (Hosea 12:8) . . .Eʹphra·im keeps saying, ‘Indeed, I have become rich; I have found wealth.. . .

It doesn't seem consistent to use "dynamic energy" in Isaiah 40:26 and then use just power, strength, and vigor in the other places. You wouldn't say of Jacob that he wrestled the angel with his "dynamic energy" yet it's the same word. You wouldn't say that the wicked man's "dynamic energy" of his gait is reduced, and that his "dynamic energy" fails him when he staggers or falls. Yet these are also the same word.

But I should add that Isaiah 40:26 references Jehovah keeping all the stars in place, an extremely complex set of constellations, even more awe-inspiring in desert lands. And it was correctly realized that none were missing, in spite of the fact that meteors were seen in the common mind as "falling stars."

Pretty funny. Except that it tends to spread a false narrative about false positives. It's based on what Dom Raab said. (In the video, she mentions him right from the start.) It's explained pretty well here:

Dominic Raab did not say Covid-19 tests have a 93% false positive rate

https://fullfact.org/online/dominic-raab-93-percent/

But the article admits that he really did say nearly the equivalent of that, but that he was wrong. He was confusing false positives with false negatives. (And what he said feeds into a false but popular belief that the PCR tests don't work.) Here's an excerpt:

The false positive rate means the percentage of tests that wrongly tell people who do not have the virus that they are infected. Tests can also produce false negatives, where people who do have the virus are told they don’t.

It appears Mr Raab was referencing a PHE report, which stated that the success rate of identifying Covid cases when only testing travellers on arrival at airports is 7%. By testing on arrival and then testing again five days into self isolation, the success rate goes up to 88%. 

Mr Raab appears to have mis-spoken, as the PHE report doesn’t talk about false positives at all. 

It’s actually referring to false negative results: incoming travellers who are infected, but who might not be identified by a single test at an airport. This can be due to factors such as the virus’s incubation period, when an infected person might still test negative due to the low levels of virus in their body.

In addition, the PHE study is not based on real-life data. It is simply a modelling study intended to explore how different isolation and testing regimes might improve the chances of identifying infected travellers. Like all models, it simplifies things and makes some assumptions that may not reflect reality.

It’s not possible to establish a definitive false positive rate for Covid-19 testing, as this can vary according to circumstance, but as we have written elsewhere there is good evidence that false positives are extremely rare with the RT-PCR tests that are used for most testing in the UK.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

The only opportunity available for Jehovah’s Witnesses in her government, she added, is for them to engage in private business.

I suspect they would still be allowed the opportunity to pay taxes. She's not thinking it through if she really thinks that voting is "buying" the governments services. Most people think they are buying representation by paying taxes and they therefore vote as a way to try to manipulate the government to have the best chance of representing their own interests in how that tax money is spent. Yet, here we have a group of people who pay taxes but are not clamoring for special favors that one party offers over another.

Also, having only partisan people among your government workers results in many problems. There are times when you really can't trust partisan people to tell you the truth about what is happening in their government departments. The USA has begun to have this trouble for last couple decades, especially. And in this last election, one party is supposed to be always untrustworthy when it comes to counting votes (in the eyes of the other party). A leader should be happy to have neutral, non-partisans in government jobs. Taken to the extreme, every time a new party comes to power, it could also end up meaning that all persons of the other party must now lose their jobs and training and efficiency must always start at the bottom again.

There is a danger in this type of rhetoric which is probably a kind of "populist trial balloon" to see how much attention it will get her. It might be designed to get attention only because it seems outrageous to most, and she will add other things as she thinks of them if any of these get her some "airtime." I suspect she has picked this one (perhaps it's already one of many such issues) only because of a personal grudge against a particular relative's conversion (or a Witness' grudge against her for getting into politics, or a specific doctrine that she doesn't like. Or she's seen something negative in the news about Witnesses.

She is probably hoping that it gets some attention, but it isn't likely to gain her enough. The two major parties are leading with the current president running again, and a past present running again. 99.9% chance that it ends up being one of those two.

On 11/9/2020 at 3:01 AM, Arauna said:

1984 was written by a man who had LIVED and fought for communism. He knew what he was talking about.  I suggest you read it again.

Quite the opposite. Orwell never lived and worked for communism. He even worked for British Intelligence for a time ratting out communists. He had some interest in democratic socialism, free health care, etc., which is a far cry from communism. But he was a confused, racist, antisemitic, conflicted man. And his issues with Stalin especially, which was the primary driver for writing "1984," were not about Stalin's communism, but about fears of Stalin's supposed capitalism. (A lot like some of the fears people have of China's market-oriented communism that you mention later in your post.)

On 11/9/2020 at 3:01 AM, Arauna said:

I know Africa- I have seen the callousness, the murders, the hunger and the extreme corruption of its leaders as well as the communist influence on the culture.

What you and I have seen is apparently pretty much the same thing. But this has nothing to do with your consistent inability to provide any evidence whatsoever for you repeated claims against Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Ethiopian biologist, public health researcher and official who has served since 2017 as Director-General of the World Health Organization. Merely repeating someone else's racist rhetoric, apparently without any attempt or ability or desire to look into the lack of evidence, is the kind of thing that can make one guilty of warmongering and racism themselves, without even knowing what they are doing. Just because he is African, and knowing that some Africans are corrupt, should be seen as a vile and despicable reason for accepting anything bad someone has claimed about an African person. In this case, I think you need to look at evidence, not just racist or hateful claims.

On 11/9/2020 at 3:01 AM, Arauna said:

which frankly, does not stand up to the immoral world we are living in today and the 'big brother dystopia'  which is already hanging around in most countries of the world and most people have not put 2 and 2 together yet.

We actually agree on the immoral world and big brother dystopia, and I'm sure we agree 100% on the Akua Donkor video and article in the original topic here. But believing the worst about those who give evidence of being the worst, doesn't give us the right to just automatically believe the worst about those who give evidence of trying to act honestly. Those with the wherewithal to look into this will probably find that just as many people are fooled by far right media as are fooled by far left media.

On 11/9/2020 at 3:01 AM, Arauna said:

Researching the way you do was good enough 20 years ago.....  To do a Google or other search is not enough for the times we are living in. So pasting down a lot of articles may convince others

I can tell already that you know absolutely nothing about what I consider to be valid research methods.

On 11/9/2020 at 3:01 AM, Arauna said:

what about all the articles you do not see because of suppression of the real news.

It should never be about articles, it should be about evidence. There are a lot of people in the world today who hear a video on Youtube that starts out "This is news that is being suppressed . . . " and they eat it up as if it's going to be true. Some Youtube videos will be well-researched and might even provide video evidence. But even video evidence is something to be careful about. I can think of dozens of examples, but you might even remember how this one was shared and retweeted millions of times:

https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-video-chinese-soldier-beating-uighur-muslim-having-copy-koran

Turned out in that case that the video of a Chinese soldier beating a Uyghur Muslim for having a copy of the Quran, was actually "fake," as stated here:

A video that has been viewed more than a million times since it was posted January 1, 2019 on social media purportedly shows a Chinese soldier beating a Uighur Muslim for having a copy of the Koran. The video is actually from 2017 and shows an Indonesian soldier hitting a thief.

Even here, one should be skeptical of the claim that it wasn't what it was purported to be. But when the original video is found, and you can see it really was from a couple years earlier, and that the earlier video didn't have a Chinese flag pinned inside it, you are just starting to get somewhere with evidence. And if you know the political war-mongering or ideological reasons why it is so common for this type of fraud to be promoted, then it might make sense in fitting into another pattern of evidence. It actually still becomes only a tiny bit of evidence of the probability that that real evidence must be scarce if it has to be doctored and faked. But tiny bits of evidence never tell a whole story. It's a lot of work weighing evidence, and we end up trying to find people we can trust to do this, since no one has time to do it all themselves. And then we must remember, again, how easy it is to be fooled when we trust people. People will often build a trustworthy reputation on a specific matter, only to squander that trustworthiness in the promotion of their own ideological agenda.

On 11/9/2020 at 3:01 AM, Arauna said:

As I said to you before - even the super capitalism in the world now resembles the ideology of karl Marx.  Communism and super capitalism are working together to create a new world order to bring "peace and security".

That's a common far-right claim, but the specifics usually lead to a dead-end, mostly because they show a complete (sometimes purposeful) misunderstanding of all schools of Marxist thought.

On 11/9/2020 at 3:01 AM, Arauna said:

Satan cannot bring peace to this world by allowing freedom of thought like jehovah does.  He will control all thought....... including research and press.  I have said this to you so many times...... but you have never even considered the possibility....... because you trust only your own understanding.

Quite a harsh judgment. I hope I'm not judged even more harshly for pointing this out. Weighing evidence is, by definition, the consideration of as many possibilities as we can. Yet, we all have limitations. However, a person can go too far in the direction that your claim might take them. Not you personally so much, but I've seen it happen where people will say that their own far-right conspiratorial sources are much better than research and press, because all these trusted channels are controlled by untouchable powers. Sometimes this turns out to be true, of course. But I've seen some of these same persons turn against just about any science research just because a lot of science papers are biased towards the their powerful sponsors. They end up being driven into their own echo chambers, but not realizing they are being led there by a cacophony of dangerous voices. 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If Emma Rose will not win hands down for conveying maximum content in minimal words, a skill we should all strive for.

Wait... what? Minimal is the goal? Now you tell me?!?!?!?

My first ever meme to call my own. I figured if I could make one here, I can make one anywhere!

23 hours ago, Arauna said:

The current head of WHO (ethiopian) did the same. He withheld medicine and food from 2 million ethiopians. .... this is contested by those who like him and say it is spreading fake news. 

It's a false claim that's also contested by those who don't particularly like him, but who have noticed that there is no evidence for the claim. The claim is thoroughly debunked, whether you like the man or not. 😉