JW Insider

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.)

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.

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.

Several of our less enlightened posters have made claims that are quite ridiculous, and indicate a nearly complete lack of familiarity with what they're talking about. Arauna, for example, focuses on the vague notion -- which she never explains coherently -- that the Greek Olympiads are somehow a better source for dating the reign of Cyrus the Great than are astronomical tablets in conjunction with Persian contract tablets and other contemporary documents. But the Watchtower Society disagrees, as I will now show.
Watchtower publications contain several mentions of the Greek Olympiads, such as these:
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 447
<< The Greeks figured time by means of four-year periods called Olympiads, starting from the first Olympiad, calculated as beginning in 776 B.C.E. Additionally, they often identified specific years by referring to the term of office of some particular official. >>
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 566
<< Cyrus succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan, which was then under the suzerainty of the Median king Astyages. Diodorus (first century B.C.E.) places the start of Cyrus’ reign in the first year of the 55th Olympiad, or 560/559 B.C.E. >>
Note that the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus is referenced as the source of the statements about the Olympiads.
A question that arises is, How reliable are the histories of Diodorus Siculus? Note what the Watchtower Society had to say about these:
The Watchtower, April 1, 1969, pp. 222-223
<< But what about the later historians of the Greeks and the Romans? Do they supply chronology that is sufficiently exact that it poses a serious challenge to the Bible’s record? Among them we may consider Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.). Of the original forty books of his history, only fifteen have come down to us. Five of these deal with the mythic history of Egypt, Assyria, Ethiopia and Greece, and the remainder chronicle the second Persian war and extend to the time of Alexander the Great’s successors. It is said of Diodorus that “he has been at little pains to sift his materials, and hence frequent repetitions and contradictions may be found in the body of the work. . . . In the chronology of the strictly historical period he is occasionally inaccurate.”—The Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume 7, page 245. >>
So the Society itself argues that Diodorus' histories must be taken with a good grain of salt.
Nevertheless, any ancient source like Diodorus can be quite accurate in its chronology. Diodorus, it turns out, is accurate for at least the period in question here, 539 BCE through about 485 BCE. Note what the Society said about how Diodorus' dating by Olympiads matches up with dating by various other ancient documents:
The Watchtower, May 15, 1971, p. 316
<< Other sources, including Ptolemy’s canon, point to the year 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. For example, ancient historians such as Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius show that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/59 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/30 B.C.E.). (The years of the olympiads ran from approximately July 1 to the following June 30.) Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon. This would harmonize with the accepted date for the start of his rule over Babylon in 539 B.C.E.
Though the year is not found in the Nabonidus Chronicle itself, the available evidence is nevertheless sufficient for accepting 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. >>
Next note what the Insight book had to say about this:
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 454
<< The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.). Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14; see comments above under “Babylonian Chronology,” also PERSIA, PERSIANS. >>
Pretty much the same as the above 1971 Watchtower said.
However, this description of the evidence for 539 BCE was incomplete (more complete information was given on page 453). Another Watchtower publication also gave more complete information:
The Watchtower, October 1, 2011, p. 28
<< A PIVOTAL DATE IN HISTORY
The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of:
Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily (c. 80-20 B.C.E.) wrote that Cyrus became king of Persia in “the opening year of the Fifty-fifth Olympiad.” (Historical Library, Book IX, 21) That year was 560 B.C.E. The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 485-425 B.C.E.) stated that Cyrus was killed “after he had reigned twenty-nine years,” which would put his death during his 30th year, in 530 B.C.E. (Histories, Book I, Clio, 214) Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death. Thus, nine years prior to his death in 530 B.C.E. takes us back to 539 B.C.E. as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon.
Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon. >>
Note clearly that the second point uses astronomical dating to arrive at 539 BCE for the first year of Cyrus' ruling Babylon: Two eclipses, 523 and 522 BCE, point to the 7th year of Cambyses, so his 1st year was 529, and the 9th year of his predecessor Cyrus was 530 BCE, thus arriving at 538 BCE as Cyrus' 1st year, and 539 as his accession year (counted as year zero in the Babylonian dating system).
Thus, this 2011 Watchtower article was forced to admit that a contemporary Persian astronomical tablet, along with cuneiform documents and contract tablets that establish that Cambyses reigned for seven years and Cyrus reigned for nine years, solidly point to the date that the Watchtower Society uses as "a pivotal date in history".
Also note that the above Watchtower material admits that the Royal Canon of Ptolemy accurately shows the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.
That these sources all converge on 539 BCE as the date of Babylon's overthrow is agreed to in the following Watchtower material:
All Scripture Is Inspired, pp. 282-283
<< 28 Pivotal Date for the Hebrew Scriptures. A prominent event recorded both in the Bible and in secular history is the overthrow of the city of Babylon by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. The Bible records this event at Daniel 5:30. Various historical sources (including Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and the Babylonian tablets) support 539 B.C.E. as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus. The Nabonidus Chronicle gives the month and day of the city’s fall (the year is missing). Secular chronologers have thus set the date for the fall of Babylon as October 11, 539 B.C.E., according to the Julian calendar, or October 5 by the Gregorian calendar.
29 Following the overthrow of Babylon, and during his first year as ruler of conquered Babylon, Cyrus issued his famous decree permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem. In view of the Bible record, the decree was likely made late in 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would give ample opportunity for the Jews to resettle in their homeland and to come up to Jerusalem to restore the worship of Jehovah in “the seventh month,” Tishri, or about October 1, 537 B.C.E.—Ezra 1:1-4; 3:1-6. >>
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 454
<< The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.). Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14; see comments above under “Babylonian Chronology,” also PERSIA, PERSIANS. >>
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 458
<< Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.) >>
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 566
<< Cyrus succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan, which was then under the suzerainty of the Median king Astyages. Diodorus (first century B.C.E.) places the start of Cyrus’ reign in the first year of the 55th Olympiad, or 560/559 B.C.E. >>
The Watchtower, May 15, 2003, p. 4
<< One pivotal date is 539 B.C.E., the year when Persian King Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Secular sources for the time of his reign include Babylonian tablets and documents of Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy. >>
Quoted above, but here it is again:
The Watchtower, May 15, 1971, p. 316
Other sources, including Ptolemy’s canon, point to the year 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. For example, ancient historians such as Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius show that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/59 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/30 B.C.E.). (The years of the olympiads ran from approximately July 1 to the following June 30.) Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon. This would harmonize with the accepted date for the start of his rule over Babylon in 539 B.C.E.
Though the year is not found in the Nabonidus Chronicle itself, the available evidence is nevertheless sufficient for accepting 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. 
And finally we have the Society's authoritative and more detailed statement summarizing the above information:
Insight, Vol. 1, pp. 452-453
<< Babylonian Chronology. Babylon enters the Biblical picture principally from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II onward. The reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar marked the start of what is called the Neo-Babylonian Empire; it ended with the reigns of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar and the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. This period is of great interest to Bible scholars since it embraces the time of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the greater part of the 70-year period of Jewish exile.
Jeremiah 52:28 says that in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar) the first group of Jewish exiles was taken to Babylon. In harmony with this, a cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2Ki 24:1-17; 2Ch 36:5-10.) (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) For the final 32 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, there are no historical records of the chronicle type except a fragmentary inscription of a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year.
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year.
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. >>
Note that all of the above material proves that the Watchtower Society agrees that Cyrus' accession year began about October 539 BCE, and his 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 538 BCE.
The poster "ScholarJW" has vaguely implied that in some unspecified way the rule of Darius the Mede must be fit in with that of Cyrus. Obviously, the Society disagrees, since it says nothing about Darius the Mede in any of the above material. In some older Watchtower publications the identity of Darius the Mede is discussed, but in no case does that change the dates for Cyrus' reign.
I hope this material provides some useful source material for our astute posters.

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.

Let me try to lay this out for you (although this is more for any interested readers' benefit than for yours). The stars, planets, and Moon are components in a giant sky-clock that keeps perfect time. The 'fixed' stars are like the numbers spaced out on the clock's face. The planets and Moon are like the hands on the clock. Through their cyclical alignments with each other and against the 'fixed' starry backdrop, we can tell the time - the year, the month, the day.
Now, to be a 'competent' astrologer in ancient times, you had to be a competent astronomer. You had to interpret what you saw rather than what you wished you had seen. A bad astrologer would lose his job (or his life) if he faked his observations and his report to the court. It was a serious business involving years of rigorous training from childhood (remember Daniel?).
Not only that, but the Babylonians depended on genuinely dated observations over centuries to develop their mathematical astronomy/'science' that was eventually passed on to the Greeks and built upon by others. How were those observations dated? They used their calendar, i.e. the name and regnal year of the current ruler, the month, the day, even the time of night the observation took place. Any astrological interpretations coming from those observations have no bearing on the veracity of the celestial phenomena they witnessed.
So, when there is a dated astronomical text, we can check those observations, pin them to a BCE date, and hey presto! we can know in modern calendar terms when a king ruled. Thus, the 'stars' are reliable tools for dating kings' reigns.

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.

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

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

That's false. All of them do. No exceptions.
All of them combine to show that 605 BCE was Nebuchadnezzar's 1st regnal year.
All of them combine to show that 597 BCE was Nebuchadnezzar's 8th regnal year.
All of them combine to show that 587 BCE was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

🤦‍♀️ CC, if you still can't understand something so basic as the astronomical dating convention for BCE dates, what are you doing here? 
@JW Insider is correct. You are wrong. And what is '599/8/7 BC' about? Are you aware that lunar eclipses can only occur at full moon and that only lunar eclipses can be included in a lunar eclipse cycle?
Here, I've drawn a diagram for you:

You're welcome.

No. It's not confusing at all. I don't have to be intelligent to know that you provided 3 lines from a table that are labeled with Saros 57. If this formats correctly you can scroll right and see the SAROS/INEX: 57/11
yyyy mm dd jd(UT) dT lun bgpn em1 bgum em2 bgtl em3 max em4 endtl em5 endum em6 endpn em7 T mxp mxu saros inex wd -607 8 24 1499586.53 19359 -31000 22.12 0 23.24 0 --- 0.48 0 --- 2.13 0 3.25 0 u 1.7 0.6 57 11 sa In fact, these are the ones you showed, which were all three labeled SAROS 57, with three consecutive INEX numbers (9, 10, 11). All three dates were 18 years and 11 days apart. (All dates were in August; from the 2nd to the 13th is 11 days, and from the 13th to the 24th is 11 days.)
-643 8 2 1486415.91 20031 -31446   7.14   0   8.32   0---9.45   0---10.58   0 12.16   0 u 1.5 0.4       57    9 tu
-625 8 13 1493001.22 19693 -31223 14.38   0 15.52   0---17.12   0---18.31   0 19.46   0 u 1.6 0.5    57  10 su
-607 8 24 1499586.53 19359 -31000 22.12   0 23.24   0---0.48   0---2.13   0   3.25   0 u 1.7 0.6     57   11 sa
So these dates I posted were exactly right. And the CyberSky software was able to locate them exactly.
The problem is that you didn't show any for 607 BCE, the Saros that you had just mentioned in the earlier post. Why are you showing one for 608 BCE if you were talking about 607 BCE?

To me, they suggest that you looked up "607" and "saros," so that you could make a point that you made earlier, that eclipses in 625 BCE and 607 BCE were on the same saros cycle.
http://www.libroesoterico.com/biblioteca/Astrologia/Articulos/Anon - Lista De Eclipses Lunares.TXT
The first one was on   invisible in Babylon.
The second one was on visible in Babylon.
The third was on visible in Babylon.
These were part of the saros that has been numbered #57. None of these three above were in 607 BCE or 625 BCE.
And none of them indicate what you said here:
 

You say that the date is set in stone. Of course this is impossible without at least one astronomical reading. I agree with Cyrus' death in 530 BCE and I expect that almost everyone on this part of the forum agrees, too.
But I already posted from the Insight book, that the WTS only accepts this date because WTS/Insight relies on an astronomical reading that identifies one of the BCE years of Cambyses. (Just as there are several more that identify the BCE years by counting from Nebuchadnezzar.) Without that piece of secular, astronomy evidence from Cambyses the WTS would not be able to put a BCE date on Cambyses. And without trusting the Babylonian Chronicles and the various secular historians, and the secular king lists, there would be no ability to say that Cambyses was the son of Cyrus, nor that Cambyses directly followed Cyrus. Without the king lists and the Babylonian Chronicles and secular historians we wouldn't even know if this was the "right" Cyrus or the "right" Cambyses, or that Cyrus had died. The evidence that there was a Cyrus that ruled from the time his accession year and for another 9 regnal years is evidenced by several of the tens of thousands of stone business tablets. But those tablets don't give us 539 to 530 BCE. We get that from the astronomy, counting up from readings during the time of Nebuchadnezzar or backwards from Cambyses. You have the king lists and secular historians that tell us that Cambyses directly followed his father Cyrus. But those don't give a BCE date either.
With that in mind, when you read the section from the Insight book, you will probably understand why I quoted from Insight earlier:
*** INSIGHT-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
You already can see from reading "Insight" that the WTS relies on a Babylonian clay tablet to get the astronomy reading of an eclipse to find a certain year in Cambyses' reign. They also rely on the fact that there are no missing business/contract tablets, in order to claim that Cyrus ruled for only 9 years. (Yet the WTS also relies on the NECESSITY that there are 20 missing years of these tens of thousands of tablets. The writer from Finland that CC quoted earlier would put these missing years in the reign of Nabonidus, who immediately preceded Cyrus. )
And some of the other information Insight (WTS) relies on would be obvious from a reading of the source material like Parker & Dubberstein where the entire Babylonian calendar has been recreated, based on hundreds of tablets and inscriptions. These sources include astronomical diaries and king lists. The WTS can't know that the order of kings was Nabonidus, Cyrus, Cambyses, for example, without relying on the king lists (or relying on others who relied on them). They are also relying on other secular sources to determine the length of these reigns.
Is there even one word of what I just said that you think is not true? If so, please let me know what it is that you don't believe.

I said (bolded):
And you responded (bolded):
I'm not trying to twist your words. I went to some trouble trying to get you (Allen Smith) to see this the last time you presented information about -607 and tried to pass it off as 607 BCE. -607 is 608 BCE!  So your inclusion of -625 is also therefore 626 BCE!
Actually, it was Ann O'maly who was the first person who corrected you (Allen Smith) on this exact same problem, the very last time this came up.
I'll look it up again, but I believe the last time you refused to believe or admit that you had made a mistake. This time I expect either the same, or if you look this up and find out I am right, then I expect that you might just say you intentionally meant 608 BCE all along for some reason. But then, of course, you lose the satisfaction of claiming that I can't read or that I refuse to accept what I am personally seeing.
Instead of all this posturing, then, why don't we all just try to learn this stuff together, and not spend so much time attacking each other. I admit that you have been insulted by a couple of people around here**, but I haven't insulted you or attacked you. I can understand why you might find it insulting to be shown where you are wrong, or where you haven't made yourself clear, but my goal is not to insult or attack you. No matter what your goal is.
** edited to add: When I admit that you have been insulted by a couple people around here, I should have mentioned that it was my impression that you had also been insulting them in a way that would have made me expect them to insult you. 

You say that the date is set in stone. Of course this is impossible without at least one astronomical reading. I agree with Cyrus' death in 530 BCE and I expect that almost everyone on this part of the forum agrees, too.
But I already posted from the Insight book, that the WTS only accepts this date because WTS/Insight relies on an astronomical reading that identifies one of the BCE years of Cambyses. (Just as there are several more that identify the BCE years by counting from Nebuchadnezzar.) Without that piece of secular, astronomy evidence from Cambyses the WTS would not be able to put a BCE date on Cambyses. And without trusting the Babylonian Chronicles and the various secular historians, and the secular king lists, there would be no ability to say that Cambyses was the son of Cyrus, nor that Cambyses directly followed Cyrus. Without the king lists and the Babylonian Chronicles and secular historians we wouldn't even know if this was the "right" Cyrus or the "right" Cambyses, or that Cyrus had died. The evidence that there was a Cyrus that ruled from the time his accession year and for another 9 regnal years is evidenced by several of the tens of thousands of stone business tablets. But those tablets don't give us 539 to 530 BCE. We get that from the astronomy, counting up from readings during the time of Nebuchadnezzar or backwards from Cambyses. You have the king lists and secular historians that tell us that Cambyses directly followed his father Cyrus. But those don't give a BCE date either.
With that in mind, when you read the section from the Insight book, you will probably understand why I quoted from Insight earlier:
*** INSIGHT-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
You already can see from reading "Insight" that the WTS relies on a Babylonian clay tablet to get the astronomy reading of an eclipse to find a certain year in Cambyses' reign. They also rely on the fact that there are no missing business/contract tablets, in order to claim that Cyrus ruled for only 9 years. (Yet the WTS also relies on the NECESSITY that there are 20 missing years of these tens of thousands of tablets. The writer from Finland that CC quoted earlier would put these missing years in the reign of Nabonidus, who immediately preceded Cyrus. )
And some of the other information Insight (WTS) relies on would be obvious from a reading of the source material like Parker & Dubberstein where the entire Babylonian calendar has been recreated, based on hundreds of tablets and inscriptions. These sources include astronomical diaries and king lists. The WTS can't know that the order of kings was Nabonidus, Cyrus, Cambyses, for example, without relying on the king lists (or relying on others who relied on them). They are also relying on other secular sources to determine the length of these reigns.
Is there even one word of what I just said that you think is not true? If so, please let me know what it is that you don't believe.

I said (bolded):
And you responded (bolded):
I'm not trying to twist your words. I went to some trouble trying to get you (Allen Smith) to see this the last time you presented information about -607 and tried to pass it off as 607 BCE. -607 is 608 BCE!  So your inclusion of -625 is also therefore 626 BCE!
Actually, it was Ann O'maly who was the first person who corrected you (Allen Smith) on this exact same problem, the very last time this came up.
I'll look it up again, but I believe the last time you refused to believe or admit that you had made a mistake. This time I expect either the same, or if you look this up and find out I am right, then I expect that you might just say you intentionally meant 608 BCE all along for some reason. But then, of course, you lose the satisfaction of claiming that I can't read or that I refuse to accept what I am personally seeing.
Instead of all this posturing, then, why don't we all just try to learn this stuff together, and not spend so much time attacking each other. I admit that you have been insulted by a couple of people around here**, but I haven't insulted you or attacked you. I can understand why you might find it insulting to be shown where you are wrong, or where you haven't made yourself clear, but my goal is not to insult or attack you. No matter what your goal is.
** edited to add: When I admit that you have been insulted by a couple people around here, I should have mentioned that it was my impression that you had also been insulting them in a way that would have made me expect them to insult you.