JW Insider

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4828-cyrus
On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as "King of Babylon, King of all the Lands."
In fact, the Watchtower quotes this very point:
*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
On page 404 of Volume 4, The Jewish Encyclopedia says: “Cyrus always conformed to the traditions of the thrones he usurped, and, together with his son Cambyses, rendered homage to the native deities. On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as ‘King of Babylon, King of all the Lands.’”
This makes perfect sense according to Babylonian custom, especially considering the Akitu festival which would have been Nisan (March-April) of 538. In other words, as early as possible in 538:
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub389/entry-5708.html
Gerald A. Larue wrote in “Old Testament Life and Literature”: “The most important religious celebration of Babylon and one that provides a background for understanding II Isaiah was the Akitu festival1 observed annually from the first to twelfth of Nisanu (Hebrew Nisan: March-April). The festal origins may lie in Sumerian times; the rites continued to be observed into the Persian-Greek period. The chief figure in the cult during the Neo-Babylonian era was Marduk, god of Babylon and supreme deity in the empire. His temple, called Esagila ("House of the Uplifted Head"), stood near the great ziggurat. [Source: Gerald A. Larue, “Old Testament Life and Literature," 1968, infidels.org <=>]
The Watchtower that quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia above made use of those same dates to include the following:
*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
If we proceed according to the cuneiform inscriptions, rather than the Bible, we have to take the position that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned concurrently for a time. According to this, the accession year (an incomplete lunar year) of Cyrus as king of Babylon began on October 23 of 539 B.C.E., when he entered the city (by day) after its capture by his troops. Hence his first regnal year (a full lunar year) began on Nisan 1 of 538 B.C.E., or on March 17/18 of 538 B.C.E., Gregorian time.
The cuneiform tablet entitled “Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11” mentions Cyrus’ first regnal year. By this tablet it is calculated that this year began March 17/18, 538 B.C.E., and it ended on March 4/5 of 537 B.C.E., Gregorian time. So Cyrus’ second regnal year began the next day, on March 5/6, 537 B.C.E. In this case Cyrus’ decree must have been made before this latter date that is, late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. See pages 14, 29 of Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, edition of 1956, by Parker and Dubberstein.
These are the same dates given in P&D as referenced in the Watchtower. I agree with them:
Start of 1st year, Nisan 1, 538 BCE = March 17/18, 538 BCE Gregorian = March 23/24, 538 BCE Julian End of 1st year, 1 day before Nisan 1, 537 = March 4/5, 537 BCE Gregorian = March 10/11, 538 BCE Julian

The INSIGHT book gives two choices:
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
So the first choice is that the first year of Cyrus as conqueror of Babylon would be the year when Cyrus made the proclamation decreeing the end of the Jewish exile. But since Daniel 9:1 refers to a first year of DARIUS in this same time period, "the may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and the 'first year of Cyrus' over Babylon." Then the INSIGHT book is even more "iffy" by adding: "If it did, then it would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus' first year from late in 538 BCE.
But then INSIGHT offers a slightly more conclusive solution, which is the one that I accept: "However, if Darius' rule . . . ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E."
There are several ways in which a first year of Darius the Mede could have fit into this timeline between 539 BCE and 538 BCE that would not have interfered with the fact that the Neo-Babylonian calendar places Cyrus accession year over Babylon in 539, and his first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537. Although I could offer the several conjectural reasons why the mention of Darius doesn't need to concern us, I already know that giving these possible reasons will be made to look as if the whole calendar is conjecture, and it isn't.
In addition to the above statement, I also agree with the much more definitive statement about the first year of Cyrus that the INSIGHT book offers:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
So, again, we have Cyrus' first year as 538 BCE, which is effectively from Nisan 1, 538 to (technically) the last day of Addaru, which is one day prior to Nisan 1, 537. The expression in the first INSIGHT quote indicates [the start of] Nisan of 538 to [the start of] Nisan of 537. So Nisan 1, 538 to Nisan 1, 537 is just as good for all practical purposes, unless you are doing this to quibble over a single day.
The Jewish calendar will be easy to surmise, because the Jewish calendar would have effectively become the Babylonian calendar at this time. Especially, since we are taught that all Jews to speak of were already exiled/deported into Babylonian dominated lands at this point. Of course, we must acknowledge, just as INSIGHT acknowledges, that we don't know for sure how well the Jewish and Babylonian calendars matched up until nearly 200 years later, when the Jews adopted the same Metonic cycle that the Babylonians had been using for centuries (including the year from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537):
*** it-1 p. 390 Calendar ***
We do not find record of a definitely fixed or standardized form of Jewish calendar until the fourth century of our Common Era (c. 359 C.E.), when Hillel II specified that the leap years of 13 months should be the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th of each 19 years. Such a 19-year cycle is commonly called the Metonic cycle, after the Greek mathematician Meton (of the fifth century B.C.E.), although there is also evidence that such a cycle was perfected before him by the Babylonians. (See Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, pp. 1, 3, 6.) This cycle takes into account that every 19 years the new and the full moons fall again on the same days of the solar year.
But we do have Biblical evidence that the Jews were already adopting the features of the Babylonian calendar, while exiled in Babylon and after coming back to their own cities in Judea. Some of that evidence is in the form of post-exilic contract tablets from Jewish settlements in Babylon. But it's the Biblical evidence that is more important here. Even more evidence of this trend already seen in the Bible, is also found in the Talmud
*** it-1 p. 392 Calendar ***
In postexilic times the names of the months used in Babylon were employed by the Israelites, and seven of these are mentioned: Nisan, the 1st month, replacing Abib (Es 3:7); Sivan, the 3rd month (Es 8:9); Elul, the 6th (Ne 6:15); Chislev, the 9th (Zec 7:1); Tebeth, the 10th (Es 2:16); Shebat, the 11th (Zec 1:7); and Adar, the 12th (Ezr 6:15).
The postexilic names of the remaining five months appear in the Jewish Talmud and other works. They are Iyyar, the 2nd month; Tammuz, the 4th; Ab, the 5th; Tishri, the 7th; and Heshvan, the 8th. The 13th month, which was intercalated periodically, was named Veadar, or the second Adar.
Imagine that! The Jewish calendar went so far as to name one of their months "Tammuz." That's like Christians using names like Thursday for Thor, Wednesday for Woden, Augustus [Ceasar] for August, etc. In fact, when we say that the Memorial of Jesus' Death is Nisan 14, instead of Abib 14, we are using the Babylonian influenced name for the first month, not the original Hebrew name for the same month, Abib.
So we can assume, fairly safely, that Nisanu 1, 538 and Nisanu 1, 537 would coincide with what the Jewish calendar called Nisan 1, 538 and Nisan 1, 537. (and we can subtract a day from Nisan 1, 537 if we think this gives us more "technical" accuracy.
In translating to Julian and Gregorian calendars we would need to have an idea of when any recent intercalary months had been added. If Addaru 29 or 30, 538 was the last day of Cyrus' accession year then we would need to know if it was actually an intercalary or "second" Addaru (Hebrew "second Adar" or "Ve-Adar"). In fact if either 539 or 538 had fallen into the 17th year of the 19 year Metonic cycle, the Babylonian calendar would have added an additional 6th month (Ululu [Elul] 2) instead of an additional 12th month (Addaru 2).
The INSIGHT book references P&D (Parker & Dubberstein) as an authority for the way in which it represents the Babylonian calendar. This is because there are literally hundreds of tablets, astronomical and otherwise, that make a reference to when the intercalary months have been added to which years in the Babylonian calendar. So it is possible to fix every one of these with a high level of certainty. Even though a couple of these had remained "unproven" or "unsure" up until several years ago, the gaps have now been filled in for every single year. (Some people probably don't realize that this alone provides an additional line of evidence that helps us double-check the accuracy of the Babylonian chronology as presented by many other independent witnesses.)
At any rate, the intercalary months that would effect the Julian & Gregorian reading have easily been identified by P&D for 539 through 537. Therefore we can have a very high level of confidence that the answer is:
[next post, for easier reference]
 

It was already answered, by AlanF, and I will go ahead and answer it again in my next post. But you need to understand why "scholar JW" will always claim that it wasn't really answered. This type of question is a kind of game with "scholar JW." He has about 4 of these types of questions from what I can see.
If you have looked up his former behavior on all forums where he brings such things up, you'll see that "scholar JW" believes this must be a trick question. It's easy to answer correctly, and it's easy to answer in perfect agreement with the INSIGHT book. But "scholar JW" thinks he can be sneaky (slippery) by taking advantage of the fact that the INSIGHT book "waffles" on this point. The INSIGHT book is not as definitive as it could be, and "scholar JW" will use the indecision in the INSIGHT book against the person who answers.
Of course, if a person tries to answer in the same way the INSIGHT book answers it, "scholar JW" can point out that the person answering is being INDECISIVE, and is therefore weak and wrong. If you answer decisively according to the best choice offered in the INSIGHT book, "scholar JW" will simply point out that you did not take the other possible choice into account.
This game played by "scholar JW" works only because he counts on the idea that he thinks almost all JWs who watch these discussions are stupid. But JWs are not so stupid as "scholar JW" thinks. What really happens is that most JWs just won't look into it themselves out of their "fear for their comfort:" that they will have to deal with something they weren't prepared for. Another reason, seen in some Witnesses, is the preferred haughtiness of "knowing" they are always right and anyone who challenges that haughtiness, even another one of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be considered automatically wrong. But most JWs aren't stupid about these matters, they just have their reasons for not wanting to look into it.
In the congregation the reason not to look into such questions is "fear for their comfort." But discussion forums tend to attract people who want to show off their knowledge or their discoveries, along with a lot more people who think that they can feel superior by dismissing knowledge and discoveries, usually with something as simple as "That doesn't fit my religion or my ideology. Therefore, you are wrong, I am right, and I am therefore smarter and superior -- without even trying!"
This must be a great trick to feed someone's ego. And on a forum like this, "scholar JW" (and CC, too, for that matter) will have discovered a great secret. No matter what they say, no matter how stupid or how wrong, it will always be considered correct (and "smart") in front of several other forum-visiting Witnesses. On this topic, other Witnesses only have to think about whether it supports the 1914 doctrine (e.g. 607 for NEB18). If anyone can point out that what "scholar JW" claims happens to be inconsistent with the evidence or even with the WTS publications, it won't ever matter. Automatically, someone like "scholar JW" can be right, even though "scholar JW" doesn't even have to be familiar with the evidence. What could be simpler? One can "win" all arguments without even knowing anything. They can run away from evidence, simply deny it, create a diversion, make completely false counter-claims, and yet, even when they tell lies, they can still be considered almost like little "gods" at least to themselves.
And this now becomes a vicarious ego boost to all Witnesses who do not want to look up the information for themselves. The "smarter" that the person with evidence appears to a person like "scholar JW," the better the "win" against them by the "scholar JW's" of the world." (To this end "scholar JW" will make sure that the person with the most evidence is not just called "supposedly intelligent" but is also called an actual "expert" or "the one with the most information" or "the one who should be able to answer this question." After all, "they" (Witness discussion observers) have just vicariously "stood up" against people who thought they could explain supposedly "complex" secular evidence. The more familiar one seems with the secular evidence, the more the ego boost to the Witness who thinks they are siding with the Bible chronology versus secular chronology. The more complex and unexplainable the secular evidence seems, the better and smarter and haughtier they feel for being able to "win" over "complex" evidence without even needing to bother to look into it. 
That's because the Witness can now think: "Aha! We who support 1914 in the face of "complex" evidence are supporting the Watchtower Society, and therefore the Bible, and therefore Jehovah. And look how the Bible evidence that we Witnesses support is so much better and stronger than the evidence of so the called worldly intellectual. This makes us smarter than people with PhD's, smarter than all secular experts."
Later, when I come back, I'll go ahead and answer that question from "scholar JW."

It was already answered, by AlanF, and I will go ahead and answer it again in my next post. But you need to understand why "scholar JW" will always claim that it wasn't really answered. This type of question is a kind of game with "scholar JW." He has about 4 of these types of questions from what I can see.
If you have looked up his former behavior on all forums where he brings such things up, you'll see that "scholar JW" believes this must be a trick question. It's easy to answer correctly, and it's easy to answer in perfect agreement with the INSIGHT book. But "scholar JW" thinks he can be sneaky (slippery) by taking advantage of the fact that the INSIGHT book "waffles" on this point. The INSIGHT book is not as definitive as it could be, and "scholar JW" will use the indecision in the INSIGHT book against the person who answers.
Of course, if a person tries to answer in the same way the INSIGHT book answers it, "scholar JW" can point out that the person answering is being INDECISIVE, and is therefore weak and wrong. If you answer decisively according to the best choice offered in the INSIGHT book, "scholar JW" will simply point out that you did not take the other possible choice into account.
This game played by "scholar JW" works only because he counts on the idea that he thinks almost all JWs who watch these discussions are stupid. But JWs are not so stupid as "scholar JW" thinks. What really happens is that most JWs just won't look into it themselves out of their "fear for their comfort:" that they will have to deal with something they weren't prepared for. Another reason, seen in some Witnesses, is the preferred haughtiness of "knowing" they are always right and anyone who challenges that haughtiness, even another one of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be considered automatically wrong. But most JWs aren't stupid about these matters, they just have their reasons for not wanting to look into it.
In the congregation the reason not to look into such questions is "fear for their comfort." But discussion forums tend to attract people who want to show off their knowledge or their discoveries, along with a lot more people who think that they can feel superior by dismissing knowledge and discoveries, usually with something as simple as "That doesn't fit my religion or my ideology. Therefore, you are wrong, I am right, and I am therefore smarter and superior -- without even trying!"
This must be a great trick to feed someone's ego. And on a forum like this, "scholar JW" (and CC, too, for that matter) will have discovered a great secret. No matter what they say, no matter how stupid or how wrong, it will always be considered correct (and "smart") in front of several other forum-visiting Witnesses. On this topic, other Witnesses only have to think about whether it supports the 1914 doctrine (e.g. 607 for NEB18). If anyone can point out that what "scholar JW" claims happens to be inconsistent with the evidence or even with the WTS publications, it won't ever matter. Automatically, someone like "scholar JW" can be right, even though "scholar JW" doesn't even have to be familiar with the evidence. What could be simpler? One can "win" all arguments without even knowing anything. They can run away from evidence, simply deny it, create a diversion, make completely false counter-claims, and yet, even when they tell lies, they can still be considered almost like little "gods" at least to themselves.
And this now becomes a vicarious ego boost to all Witnesses who do not want to look up the information for themselves. The "smarter" that the person with evidence appears to a person like "scholar JW," the better the "win" against them by the "scholar JW's" of the world." (To this end "scholar JW" will make sure that the person with the most evidence is not just called "supposedly intelligent" but is also called an actual "expert" or "the one with the most information" or "the one who should be able to answer this question." After all, "they" (Witness discussion observers) have just vicariously "stood up" against people who thought they could explain supposedly "complex" secular evidence. The more familiar one seems with the secular evidence, the more the ego boost to the Witness who thinks they are siding with the Bible chronology versus secular chronology. The more complex and unexplainable the secular evidence seems, the better and smarter and haughtier they feel for being able to "win" over "complex" evidence without even needing to bother to look into it. 
That's because the Witness can now think: "Aha! We who support 1914 in the face of "complex" evidence are supporting the Watchtower Society, and therefore the Bible, and therefore Jehovah. And look how the Bible evidence that we Witnesses support is so much better and stronger than the evidence of so the called worldly intellectual. This makes us smarter than people with PhD's, smarter than all secular experts."
Later, when I come back, I'll go ahead and answer that question from "scholar JW."

He was talking about the Zodiac.
If you were to divide up the constellations of the Zodiac into 12 equal sections, and the circle of the sky is 360 degrees, how many degrees would each Zodiac section be? I'll make it easy for you and give you a multiple choice:
a) 15 degrees
b) I do not know; my Ph.D. studies didn't cover simple math
c) 6.07 x 10587 parsecs
d) 30 degrees
e) 180 elephants
If you need help, I can always post another picture for you.
The rest of your reply is the usual gibberish.

That's completely false. You have repeated it so many times it might actually seem true to you now, but it never was. The banning did happen after your words appeared threatening and after a couple of your posts had already turned to profanity. I also received some messages from a moderator here, where I was asked my opinion about whether you should be banned, and I spoke against it (as I always have, so far).
Even though I think banning is only appropriate when threatening and bullying take place, most of your bile and vilification have been directed at me, anyway, and I don't feel the least bit threatened or bullied by you. I'm only embarrassed about the shame you have brought upon those related to me in the faith. But the more you escalate on topics like this one, at least you show others that you can't be taken all that seriously. So it all actually works out better when you remain on the board to expose yourself.

That's completely false. You have repeated it so many times it might actually seem true to you now, but it never was. The banning did happen after your words appeared threatening and after a couple of your posts had already turned to profanity. I also received some messages from a moderator here, where I was asked my opinion about whether you should be banned, and I spoke against it (as I always have, so far).
Even though I think banning is only appropriate when threatening and bullying take place, most of your bile and vilification have been directed at me, anyway, and I don't feel the least bit threatened or bullied by you. I'm only embarrassed about the shame you have brought upon those related to me in the faith. But the more you escalate on topics like this one, at least you show others that you can't be taken all that seriously. So it all actually works out better when you remain on the board to expose yourself.

That's completely false. You have repeated it so many times it might actually seem true to you now, but it never was. The banning did happen after your words appeared threatening and after a couple of your posts had already turned to profanity. I also received some messages from a moderator here, where I was asked my opinion about whether you should be banned, and I spoke against it (as I always have, so far).
Even though I think banning is only appropriate when threatening and bullying take place, most of your bile and vilification have been directed at me, anyway, and I don't feel the least bit threatened or bullied by you. I'm only embarrassed about the shame you have brought upon those related to me in the faith. But the more you escalate on topics like this one, at least you show others that you can't be taken all that seriously. So it all actually works out better when you remain on the board to expose yourself.

I didn't know anything about it. But I knew you were wrong. So I wasn't concerned. But after seeing Ann O'maly's response to you, it makes me wonder. So often, as I've pointed out, whenever you quote a source to make a point, the source actually makes the opposite point. You do this constantly, so that it is hardly worth looking up the sources you quote, because it almost always turns out to be a waste of time. The only reason I sometimes read your sources and respond is because so often the source is interesting and shows another angle supporting the same point I have been making.
But here you make the same "mistake" when quoting people on this very forum. This tells me that unless you are extremely devious (and I don't believe you are) that it is merely a matter of not being able to read correctly and carefully. This is common, and I know that you (as Allen Smith) have said that you have had problems with dyslexia, which is common. I don't believe you were purposely trying to show people that you are dishonest. But unfortunately that's exactly how this will come across to many people here. If AlanF or Ann O'maly or Srecko had made such a blatant error, they would definitely have been accused of being dishonest. You've done it to me.
However, you inadvertently pointed out that Rolf Furuli was very likely being dishonest. He is the one who actually had the software to test the eclipses of LBAT 1420 and, representing himself as a scholar, made a false claim. That claim could not just be chalked up to pure ignorance, in his case. 
By the way, no matter why you made this blatant error, I already know from your past haughtiness and false representations that you will probably not apologize for the false statements about Ann O'maly's words. I hope I am wrong this time.

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

I didn't know anything about it. But I knew you were wrong. So I wasn't concerned. But after seeing Ann O'maly's response to you, it makes me wonder. So often, as I've pointed out, whenever you quote a source to make a point, the source actually makes the opposite point. You do this constantly, so that it is hardly worth looking up the sources you quote, because it almost always turns out to be a waste of time. The only reason I sometimes read your sources and respond is because so often the source is interesting and shows another angle supporting the same point I have been making.
But here you make the same "mistake" when quoting people on this very forum. This tells me that unless you are extremely devious (and I don't believe you are) that it is merely a matter of not being able to read correctly and carefully. This is common, and I know that you (as Allen Smith) have said that you have had problems with dyslexia, which is common. I don't believe you were purposely trying to show people that you are dishonest. But unfortunately that's exactly how this will come across to many people here. If AlanF or Ann O'maly or Srecko had made such a blatant error, they would definitely have been accused of being dishonest. You've done it to me.
However, you inadvertently pointed out that Rolf Furuli was very likely being dishonest. He is the one who actually had the software to test the eclipses of LBAT 1420 and, representing himself as a scholar, made a false claim. That claim could not just be chalked up to pure ignorance, in his case. 
By the way, no matter why you made this blatant error, I already know from your past haughtiness and false representations that you will probably not apologize for the false statements about Ann O'maly's words. I hope I am wrong this time.

Yes. I do remember. And I agree that it wasn't really fair to you. The only time I think a person should be banned is when they are threatening to hurt someone, or if it is obvious they are bullying someone. I don't like the strong language because it's distracting and it gives people an excuse to judge the person making the argument, without having to consider the argument. And profanity drives people away.
But it doesn't mean people should be banned over it. Just a reminder should be enough. This is why I never thought that you should have been banned over the strong language. I only see a few examples from "Allen Smith" where you used profanity. It wasn't enough to ban you over.

So back to check whether all the different, independent witnesses to the Neo-Babylonian timeline are really as consistent as secular experts and specialists claim they are. We have checked the sources that give us a complete relative timeline for the period. And we checked points from an astronomical tablet LBAT 1419 which clearly gave excellent identifiable BCE dates to various parts of the timeline, including the dates to attach to Nebuchadnezzar's rule. I also chose to check about half the eclipse dates on the LBAT 1420 tablet, and so far they give us several more direct astronomical dates to attach to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. I wanted to check at least one more of these for good measure, although there has not really been any question yet that we are dealing with an excellent matchup for the entire dating of Nebuchadnezzar that is consistent with the first dates given on LBAT 1419.
So now we will look at the eclipses reported for NEB28 (Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year of reign).

For the first one we would expect Month THREE to have an eclipse on the 14th of the lunar month, which will be typical since the eclipse falls on the full moon. The portion that tells just how many degrees of eclipse to expect or at exactly the time is damaged. But the fact that it set eclipsed is evidence that the moon is setting when the sun comes up, and the moon will still be eclipsed when it sets below the horizon. Let's see if that turns out to be true of the Month THREE eclipse in the year following his 27th year which turned out to be 578 BCE. The year after 578 BCE is 577 BCE, so we'll look there first.
In the THIRD month, on the 14th day since the new moon was visible (14th day) we see that there is a lunar eclipse that must have started it visible partial eclipsing as early as midnight. here are some shots of the hours from midnight until the moon sets (below the horizon), so we can check if it is still eclipsed when it was setting.

No doubt that the Month THREE eclipse was still eclipsed (almost fully) when it set below the horizon, which was at sunrise, as expected. That happened on June 14, 577.
So what about the second eclipse described for the same year (577 BCE) but the NINTH month? We should expect a full eclipse visible from 7 hours after sunset. (3.5 beru). The 9th month would land in December, since the 3rd month landed in June. And here is what we have at the full moon in December 577 BCE:
Here is the sun going down at exactly 5 pm on December 7 577 BCE, and we can see the earth's shadow is very far away from the moon. But this is near the winter solstice so it is going to be a long night:

Here are the readings from 1 hour after sunset to 7 hours after sunset:

We also read that it will clear in the West some time before morning. So we trace the next few hours, the 8th hour after sunset, until just an hour before the moon itself sets as the sun rises.

Even though the exact hour before morning when the the moon was cleared or released from the eclipse was missing from the tablet, we see that it was "cleared in the west" and this was between 3 and 4 hours before sunrise. The reading is nearly perfect for December 8 577 BCE.
Since I had some time, and the software is getting easier to use, I checked the remaining complete eclipse descriptions on LBAT 1420. As expected, they all match 577 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year (NEB28).

Language! Language!! Please!

So back to check whether all the different, independent witnesses to the Neo-Babylonian timeline are really as consistent as secular experts and specialists claim they are. We have checked the sources that give us a complete relative timeline for the period. And we checked points from an astronomical tablet LBAT 1419 which clearly gave excellent identifiable BCE dates to various parts of the timeline, including the dates to attach to Nebuchadnezzar's rule. I also chose to check about half the eclipse dates on the LBAT 1420 tablet, and so far they give us several more direct astronomical dates to attach to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. I wanted to check at least one more of these for good measure, although there has not really been any question yet that we are dealing with an excellent matchup for the entire dating of Nebuchadnezzar that is consistent with the first dates given on LBAT 1419.
So now we will look at the eclipses reported for NEB28 (Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year of reign).

For the first one we would expect Month THREE to have an eclipse on the 14th of the lunar month, which will be typical since the eclipse falls on the full moon. The portion that tells just how many degrees of eclipse to expect or at exactly the time is damaged. But the fact that it set eclipsed is evidence that the moon is setting when the sun comes up, and the moon will still be eclipsed when it sets below the horizon. Let's see if that turns out to be true of the Month THREE eclipse in the year following his 27th year which turned out to be 578 BCE. The year after 578 BCE is 577 BCE, so we'll look there first.
In the THIRD month, on the 14th day since the new moon was visible (14th day) we see that there is a lunar eclipse that must have started it visible partial eclipsing as early as midnight. here are some shots of the hours from midnight until the moon sets (below the horizon), so we can check if it is still eclipsed when it was setting.

No doubt that the Month THREE eclipse was still eclipsed (almost fully) when it set below the horizon, which was at sunrise, as expected. That happened on June 14, 577.
So what about the second eclipse described for the same year (577 BCE) but the NINTH month? We should expect a full eclipse visible from 7 hours after sunset. (3.5 beru). The 9th month would land in December, since the 3rd month landed in June. And here is what we have at the full moon in December 577 BCE:
Here is the sun going down at exactly 5 pm on December 7 577 BCE, and we can see the earth's shadow is very far away from the moon. But this is near the winter solstice so it is going to be a long night:

Here are the readings from 1 hour after sunset to 7 hours after sunset:

We also read that it will clear in the West some time before morning. So we trace the next few hours, the 8th hour after sunset, until just an hour before the moon itself sets as the sun rises.

Even though the exact hour before morning when the the moon was cleared or released from the eclipse was missing from the tablet, we see that it was "cleared in the west" and this was between 3 and 4 hours before sunrise. The reading is nearly perfect for December 8 577 BCE.
Since I had some time, and the software is getting easier to use, I checked the remaining complete eclipse descriptions on LBAT 1420. As expected, they all match 577 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year (NEB28).

So back to check whether all the different, independent witnesses to the Neo-Babylonian timeline are really as consistent as secular experts and specialists claim they are. We have checked the sources that give us a complete relative timeline for the period. And we checked points from an astronomical tablet LBAT 1419 which clearly gave excellent identifiable BCE dates to various parts of the timeline, including the dates to attach to Nebuchadnezzar's rule. I also chose to check about half the eclipse dates on the LBAT 1420 tablet, and so far they give us several more direct astronomical dates to attach to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. I wanted to check at least one more of these for good measure, although there has not really been any question yet that we are dealing with an excellent matchup for the entire dating of Nebuchadnezzar that is consistent with the first dates given on LBAT 1419.
So now we will look at the eclipses reported for NEB28 (Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year of reign).

For the first one we would expect Month THREE to have an eclipse on the 14th of the lunar month, which will be typical since the eclipse falls on the full moon. The portion that tells just how many degrees of eclipse to expect or at exactly the time is damaged. But the fact that it set eclipsed is evidence that the moon is setting when the sun comes up, and the moon will still be eclipsed when it sets below the horizon. Let's see if that turns out to be true of the Month THREE eclipse in the year following his 27th year which turned out to be 578 BCE. The year after 578 BCE is 577 BCE, so we'll look there first.
In the THIRD month, on the 14th day since the new moon was visible (14th day) we see that there is a lunar eclipse that must have started it visible partial eclipsing as early as midnight. here are some shots of the hours from midnight until the moon sets (below the horizon), so we can check if it is still eclipsed when it was setting.

No doubt that the Month THREE eclipse was still eclipsed (almost fully) when it set below the horizon, which was at sunrise, as expected. That happened on June 14, 577.
So what about the second eclipse described for the same year (577 BCE) but the NINTH month? We should expect a full eclipse visible from 7 hours after sunset. (3.5 beru). The 9th month would land in December, since the 3rd month landed in June. And here is what we have at the full moon in December 577 BCE:
Here is the sun going down at exactly 5 pm on December 7 577 BCE, and we can see the earth's shadow is very far away from the moon. But this is near the winter solstice so it is going to be a long night:

Here are the readings from 1 hour after sunset to 7 hours after sunset:

We also read that it will clear in the West some time before morning. So we trace the next few hours, the 8th hour after sunset, until just an hour before the moon itself sets as the sun rises.

Even though the exact hour before morning when the the moon was cleared or released from the eclipse was missing from the tablet, we see that it was "cleared in the west" and this was between 3 and 4 hours before sunrise. The reading is nearly perfect for December 8 577 BCE.
Since I had some time, and the software is getting easier to use, I checked the remaining complete eclipse descriptions on LBAT 1420. As expected, they all match 577 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year (NEB28).

Most of what CC says is just bluster he finds randomly, evidently by Googling key words. And if it he doesn't quite understand it, he must think others won't understand it either, and therefore he thinks it might impress people. He has pretty much proven that it is almost all fake blustering with him. More than half the time when he adds quotes from some secular reference, or displays a book cover with an impressive title, the source actually give evidence against his theories. To me that indicates that he couldn't have read or understood the sources he quotes from. Otherwise, that would indicate that he is just plain dishonest, so I prefer to think that he just doesn't understand most of what he reads.
Also, if CC was right that these eclipse calculations are not right unless you use his own more stable basis for calculating them, then he is rejecting the very ones that the Insight book uses that will ultimately give you 539 BCE for Cyrus conquering Babylon. I know that because the software I am using gives me exactly 539 BCE for Cyrus and exactly 587 BCE, instead of 607 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, for example. He probably doesn't realize that if a new calculation was off for Nabonidus or Nebuchadnezzar by even one year, then Cyrus is also off by one year. If Nebuchadnezzar is off by 20 years, then Cyrus is also off by 20 years. You can't get around that.

True. But Biblical chronology cannot give you a BCE/CE date like 539 BCE, 607 BCE, 33 CE, etc.

“Russia’s religious persecution focuses almost exclusively on Jehovah’s Witnesses,” said Denber. (See below article)
This is much stronger than I would have put it, but it is also from someone more in the know. Rachel Denbar is a spokesperson of Human Rights Watch. She spotlights human rights violations in Russia for all causes—not just religious, but also political, journalistic, persecution of gays, etc. When it comes to religion, there is only one worth mentioning, she reports.
I have said that all minority religion in Russia is harassed, but that JWs are in the vanguard; I said in Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia that JWs are banned, but others are shaking in their boots that they will be next. Turns out I was wrong. They can rest easy. For all practical purposes, it is only Jehovah’s Witnesses. “You don’t see this kind of ban on other sorts of religious life,” Ms Denbar says.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/russia-sentences-66-y-o-jehovahs-witness-to-6-years-in-prison.html
“In the 2017 Supreme Court case, the actual verdict wasn’t about condemning beliefs, it was about liquidating legal entities. Whether or not someone is a believer, really has nothing to do with liquidating a legal entity,” he said. “They’re using that law as a weapon and misapplying it to attack Jehovah’s Witnesses religious beliefs.”
Of course! The notion of outlawing a religious organization but not the individuals of that religion is so duplicitous that ordinary people cannot get their heads around it and just carry on as though the people themselves were outlawed. It may have been planned that way. Or it may simply represent manipulation from devious ones, even a Devious One, who prefer to remain hidden.
The 66-year old just sentenced to prison, where he will rub shoulders with violent criminals and risk getting COVID-19, says: I have found myself being accused not of a crime, but of being a follower of the religious teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I have no enemies, and for my almost 67 years I have never been brought to administrative or criminal responsibility. I am against any form of violence, be it verbal, psychological or physical.” Everyone knows it is true, save for a few fringe anticultists who equate not hanging out with those who turn 180 degrees against you as “psychological violence.” Everyone else instantly realizes the truthfulness of his statement.
“The law targets those who are extremists or terrorists or dangerous. It’s a gross misapplication of the law.” Of course, again.
And what are the chances, in any kind of a sane world, that these are the persons who would be persecuted, when there are so many who in the blink of an eye will turn to violence, and a few that specialize in it? It makes no sense from a human point of view. Therefore, persons can be forgiven if they look for a superhuman point of view—and there they can find one.
“The Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time....[He] became enraged at the woman [mommy, according to Alan] and went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her offspring, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness concerning Jesus.”
I think of a local brother with a certain dramatic flair decades ago taking a globe onstage for his public talk. He quoted Matthew 24:14: “This good news of the kingdom will be be declared in all the earth for a witness and then the end will come,” and as he did so, he put his finger down upon this or that small area of the globe in which the area king said, “This good news of the kingdom WILL NOT be be declared in my part of the earth.” The unspoken question carried an implied answer: “Who will prevail—the maker of the globe or the one who would defy God on this small section of it?”
Sometimes those who don’t like Witnesses will carry on about how they overstate their “persecution complex.” We see here from the Christianpost.com that, in reality, Witnesses understate it. 
 
 

That reminds me . . . a few posts back, AlanF mentioned an article on JSTOR that was behind a paywall, and a lot of JSTOR documents are very expensive. I have full access to JSTOR as a college alumni, but I am required to follow the university's instructions about "fair use" doctrines, or I could lose the privilege, and the same university allows access to a lot of other databases.
But the point is that everyone should know that (since nearly the beginning of Covid-19) JSTOR has been offering everyone, student or individual researcher, free access to up to 100 articles a month, and a few downloads too. They have extended this offer into next year, which was originally going to stop this year.
Also, there are a lot of articles, books and journals referenced on Academia.edu that are free, but there are a lot that are referenced but haven't been uploaded due to copyright issues. In fact, when I noticed that John Steele's article in "Keeping Watch in Babylon" was not available, I made a request through Academia.edu and it wasn't John Steele that answered but Kathryn Stevens.
At any rate, Kathryn Stevens wrote back within an hour saying:
Kathryn Stevens    University of Oxford       Faculty Member, Faculty of Classics, Ancient History     4 days Kathryn Stevens Dear xxxxx xxxxxxxxx,
I saw you requested an upload of my book with John Steele and Johannes Haubold on the Astronomical Diaries – for copyright reasons I can't upload it to academia.edu but would be very happy to share a pdf via email/WeTransfer if you would like one! My email address is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@ccc.ox.ac.uk if you want to contact me that way.
Best wishes,
Kathryn Sometimes it's easier to get material for discussion than people might think. Scholars are often happy to have their work discussed online. (It's also available illegally, I think, on dokument.pub or some such site.)

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

And the chart on page 45:

 

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

And the chart on page 45:

 

That reminds me . . . a few posts back, AlanF mentioned an article on JSTOR that was behind a paywall, and a lot of JSTOR documents are very expensive. I have full access to JSTOR as a college alumni, but I am required to follow the university's instructions about "fair use" doctrines, or I could lose the privilege, and the same university allows access to a lot of other databases.
But the point is that everyone should know that (since nearly the beginning of Covid-19) JSTOR has been offering everyone, student or individual researcher, free access to up to 100 articles a month, and a few downloads too. They have extended this offer into next year, which was originally going to stop this year.
Also, there are a lot of articles, books and journals referenced on Academia.edu that are free, but there are a lot that are referenced but haven't been uploaded due to copyright issues. In fact, when I noticed that John Steele's article in "Keeping Watch in Babylon" was not available, I made a request through Academia.edu and it wasn't John Steele that answered but Kathryn Stevens.
At any rate, Kathryn Stevens wrote back within an hour saying:
Kathryn Stevens    University of Oxford       Faculty Member, Faculty of Classics, Ancient History     4 days Kathryn Stevens Dear xxxxx xxxxxxxxx,
I saw you requested an upload of my book with John Steele and Johannes Haubold on the Astronomical Diaries – for copyright reasons I can't upload it to academia.edu but would be very happy to share a pdf via email/WeTransfer if you would like one! My email address is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@ccc.ox.ac.uk if you want to contact me that way.
Best wishes,
Kathryn Sometimes it's easier to get material for discussion than people might think. Scholars are often happy to have their work discussed online. (It's also available illegally, I think, on dokument.pub or some such site.)

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

And the chart on page 45:

 

That reminds me . . . a few posts back, AlanF mentioned an article on JSTOR that was behind a paywall, and a lot of JSTOR documents are very expensive. I have full access to JSTOR as a college alumni, but I am required to follow the university's instructions about "fair use" doctrines, or I could lose the privilege, and the same university allows access to a lot of other databases.
But the point is that everyone should know that (since nearly the beginning of Covid-19) JSTOR has been offering everyone, student or individual researcher, free access to up to 100 articles a month, and a few downloads too. They have extended this offer into next year, which was originally going to stop this year.
Also, there are a lot of articles, books and journals referenced on Academia.edu that are free, but there are a lot that are referenced but haven't been uploaded due to copyright issues. In fact, when I noticed that John Steele's article in "Keeping Watch in Babylon" was not available, I made a request through Academia.edu and it wasn't John Steele that answered but Kathryn Stevens.
At any rate, Kathryn Stevens wrote back within an hour saying:
Kathryn Stevens    University of Oxford       Faculty Member, Faculty of Classics, Ancient History     4 days Kathryn Stevens Dear xxxxx xxxxxxxxx,
I saw you requested an upload of my book with John Steele and Johannes Haubold on the Astronomical Diaries – for copyright reasons I can't upload it to academia.edu but would be very happy to share a pdf via email/WeTransfer if you would like one! My email address is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@ccc.ox.ac.uk if you want to contact me that way.
Best wishes,
Kathryn Sometimes it's easier to get material for discussion than people might think. Scholars are often happy to have their work discussed online. (It's also available illegally, I think, on dokument.pub or some such site.)