JW Insider

I decided to add some of the details on the rest of LBAT 1420 (BM 38462) to further fill in the "chart" as it were.
I looked for the eclipse that the tablet identified with the 25th year of Nebuchadnezzar (NEB25). The tablet says it could be found in Year 25, in the FIFTH month (Abu) occurring at about 3 hours after sunset. We know that Abu should always start in July or August.
I found it on August 14th, 580 BCE. It did not match any other eclipse in any of the surrounding years, and it did not correctly match the Watchtower's chronology, which would have put this eclipse in 600 (so I also checked 601, 600, and 599).
Here it is 3 hours after sunset in 580 BCE. Perfect!

In this case, an eclipse that was not quite as good as above does show up for the Watchtower's preferred chronology on August 25, 600 BCE. (Or if July 27th was the target, then there was no eclipse at all in the FIFTH month of 600 BCE)
The second eclipse is reported here on LBAT 1420 for NEB25, to be six months later, and also shows up as below in the first watch of the night. Here is hour two and hour three, below:


One might argue that the Watchtower chronology has a fair shot at supporting that the WTS chronology fits an eclipse on August 27 600 BCE but there are two big problems.
1. If a specific year "X" fits ALL the eclipses, but another year "Y" FAILS on all but one or two, then which year is more likely to be intended: X or Y?
2. The second eclipse reported 6 months after the first, in month ELEVEN, did match the tablet for the standard chronology, but failed the Watchtower chronology. For the year 599 (WT chronology) it did not occur in the first watch of the night, but in the second and third watch. Here is the first, second and third hour after sunset (in the first watch) to try to match the WT chronology:

So there was no eclipse in the first watch supporting the WT. The "Watchtower-supporting" eclipse couldn't be identified until the 2nd and 3rd watch. 
For the very next year, NEB26, we have another two eclipses to look for, in month FIVE and month ELEVEN again, but this time, according to the tablet, we should find both of them to be invisible to a viewer at Babylon. Also, since the tablet tells us that month TWELVE was intercalary (a second Addaru), then we have a much better idea whether the FIFTH month of the next year has been pushed a little later than usual. This of course, causes even more problems with the Watchtower chronology which only has a visible eclipse on August 15, 599 BCE, and none in adjacent months.
If the standard chronology is right, we should find those two eclipses where stated, and there they are:
August 4, 579 and January 28 578, respectively, and invisible. The August (FIFTH month) one is nicely eclipsed at 4 in the afternoon (below the horizon), although I admit that I can't really find a good eclipse the ELEVENTH month matching the one predicted. The second picture below is as close as I can find, so perhaps this one was "passed by" due to the prediction not quite being visible enough, or maybe bad weather:

So with that we can move on to the lines that are supposed to be NEB27 according to the diary (below).
Both eclipses work OK for the standard chronology. Neither work for the Watchtower chronology in 598. Here they are (for NEB27), month THREE, June 25 578 BCE and month NINE December 19 578 BCE. The December picture is taken when the eclipse apparently peaked below the horizon around NOON, during daylight, and long gone by night.  The first picture is not a very good eclipse, but most of its "eclipse" activity was when the moon was invisible below ,the horizon, and the eclipse, already weak, weakens further after sunset.
 
The Watchtower chronology would force these into the year 598, where the eclipse for the THIRD month is invisible, but even less of an eclipse, than the poor one for 578 above. The second one mentioned in the table (NINTH month) never happens at all for 598, never getting closer to the "eclipse shadow" than in the second picture below. There was one on January 29, 597, also invisible.

There are more details for an observed one in NEB28, although the first reading is too damaged. I'll do that one next.
 

Thanks for this..... we all should have this attitude. 

This is good. This is the only right way to do it. From the time I started this thread, I have already discovered that I had still been carrying several ideas around that were wrong. I found some typos that I corrected, but I also discovered that I had made a couple of untrue assumptions. There might still be some more of those in things I've said. I misread and mistrusted the intent of an author (that Cesar Chavez posted) even though I never really had a reason to mistrust that author before. I re-read the author and realize now it was my fault for misunderstanding him.
This is why I'm glad to have  my views corrected -- no matter whether the person correcting me knows the WTS reasoning better than I do, and no matter what their own motives are concerning the WTS. 
And I'm still not absolutely sure about a couple of things, such as when the Babylonians made might have made exceptions to their intercalary months in the early years -- when a king might have had the say as to when the extra month would be added.
To keep their lunar calendar aligned with the solar seasons, the Jews also added an extra month to the end of the year (Adar/Addaru) when necessary -- every two or three years. To keep their lunar calendar aligned with the solar seasons, the Babylonians added an extra month, not just to the end of the year when necessary, but sometimes to the middle of the year -- an extra Ululu. The rule was apparently based on when they had started measuring the 19-year cycles. (Every 235 new moons, was almost exactly the same as 19 solar years.) The extra months began to fit a pattern where the 17th year out of the 19 added the extra month after the 6th, not after the 12th. There is enough data on the tablets to know this pattern after say 400 BCE, but for how long before 400 BCE I don't know.
  Babylonian Jewish Persian Julian calendar I Nisannu Nisan Adukanaiša March/April Harvest onions II Ajaru Iyyar Thûravâhara April/May Harvest; sowing sesame III Simanu Sivan Thâigaciš May/June Harvest flax and lentils IV Du'ûzu Tammuz Garmapada June/July Harvest chickpeas V Âbu Ab Turnabaziš July/August Planting millet VI Ulûlu Elul Karbašiyaš August/September Sowing chickpeas VII Tašrîtu Tishri Bâgayâdiš September/October Harvest sesame VIII Arahsamna Marheshvan Markâsanaš October/November Sowing broad beans and flax IX Kislîmu Kislev Âçiyâdiya November/December   X Tebêtu Tebeth Anâmaka December/January Sowing onions XI Šabatu Shebat Samiyamaš January/February Sowing XII Addaru Adar Viyaxana February/March Harvest broad beans

My grandchildren are coming over in a few minutes, so just finished a snowman.
A few people have already stopped to take a picture of it.
 

You are right! My son already chided me for building it without them. However, they're staying overnight as I write this. It was too cold today, and the snow too crispy/icy, although the older one made "snow angels." (She's 4.) But it should be warm enough tomorrow to make another one together. We have plenty more carrots for noses, but those buttons are avacados, and we only had three.

You are right! My son already chided me for building it without them. However, they're staying overnight as I write this. It was too cold today, and the snow too crispy/icy, although the older one made "snow angels." (She's 4.) But it should be warm enough tomorrow to make another one together. We have plenty more carrots for noses, but those buttons are avacados, and we only had three.

The cutest snowman! 
I hope you built another one, this time with the grandchildren 👍😄

Alas, it is too late for the mask. The poor guy already has Covid.

My grandchildren are coming over in a few minutes, so just finished a snowman.
A few people have already stopped to take a picture of it.
 

My grandchildren are coming over in a few minutes, so just finished a snowman.
A few people have already stopped to take a picture of it.
 

My grandchildren are coming over in a few minutes, so just finished a snowman.
A few people have already stopped to take a picture of it.
 

Is this true? Do you have an example of one? Do we know whether the WTS ever made use of these other methods? If they didn't, do we know why they didn't use one of these other methods?
Not at all. I have been consistent that I have no problem with your idea of Cyrus making the edict at the Akitu in 538 BCE. I have never had a problem with it. Way back when you first brought it up, I said that Akitu in 538 didn't matter to me. That was because I never wanted to split hairs over that idea. I think that the Jews could have made it back in 538 or 537 BCE. Some probably came back on their own time even later. We know that some took up residence and never came back.
But you have now seen why the Watchtower MUST split hairs over it, not allowing that Nisan 538 date because for the Watchtower writers, this is a few months too early. It's only a few months early, but we are told it had to be in 537.
*** it-1 p. 417 Captivity ***
Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree
But they have mentioned it. In regards to Cyrus' son. You think they could make these comments about how his son represented Cyrus at Akitu, and not wonder whether Cyrus ever represented himself at the "New Year's" festival.
*** it-1 p. 581 Darius ***
Some scholars present Cambyses (II) as being made “King of Babylon” by his father Cyrus soon after the conquest of Babylon. While Cambyses evidently did represent his father annually at the “New Year’s” festival at Babylon, he seems to have resided at Sippar during the rest of the time. Research based on study of cuneiform texts indicates that Cambyses evidently did not assume the title “King of Babylon” until Nisan 1 of the year 530 B.C.E., being made coregent with Cyrus,
Sorry about that. I'll apologize in advance, but I have to admit that I didn't see myself patronizing towards you. Can you explain? I think you are referring to the idea you quoted me saying: "But you should realize that ultimately you are opening up a strong possibility that 1914 should to change to 1913." Maybe you didn't understand that this is a very serious point about why you should not expect anyone among the GB or WTS to take this idea of Akitu 538 seriously. Because that's exactly the seriousness of the implication if you were to recommend the idea. They have pushed away from "early 538" to "late 538" and "early 537" on purpose, specifically because they need 607 to reach 1914. 538 creates a problem with 1914, because it will point to 1913.

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

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

Actually, you just indicated by what you are saying that you still don't get it. ... He says that a period of 18 years 11 days, will not always reflect 18 years between calendar years, but will sometimes appear to reflect 19 years. If someone uses what this author is saying to try to remove the value of the Nebuchudnezzar eclipses then they making a big deal out of something that should already be obvious. . . .
For example: what is the distance between these three dates that were clear from LBAT 1419?
September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise., September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset., October 6, 555 BCE, overnight. The answer is 18 years, and about 10 or 11 days. 591-573=18 and Sept 25-Sept15=10 days. (actually 10.5 because one was sunrise and one was sunset, an extra half day apart).
The next ones are 18 years, 11 days apart, because 573-555=18, and September 25 to October 6 is 11 days. (There are only 30 days in September.)
So let's look at the author's examples. You'll see he is not being misleading but it is easy to be misled if you don't read t carefully:
[Edited: He is not clearly explaining that these so-called 18 year versus 19 year calendar differences are not because of a difference in the saros cycles over time. Because they always remain almost exactly 18 years and 11 days. He is saying that the saros cycle can "apparently" be 19 years when one only pays attention to the regnal year. His goal is to say that any tablets that tried to extend too far with just 18 instead of taking into account that the number of years was actually 18 years+ 11/365ths of a year, might be indicating that they were restarting an "era" of saros cycles rather than continuing to add to old attempts at saros cycle tablets where an apparent 19 year difference would have shown up after about 36 cycles in a row. (corrected: 36 x 18+ years.)
What's the distance between these two:
So is it really 19 years? No! Month 12 of 99 BCE to Month 1 of 80 BCE is exactly 18 years and 11 days.
That's the eclipse of 3/31/98 BCE. (Month 12, as you know runs into the 98 BCE portion of 99/98 BCE, as explained in the last LBAT 20 post.)


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


So, what's the difference between March 31 98 BCE and April 11, 80 BCE?
98-80=18 years. And from March 31 to April 11 is 11 days. Total 18 years 11 days.
Obviously. Just like a person born on December 25, 1999 is 18 years and 11 days old on January 5, 2018. Even though the "calendar" difference appears to be 2018 - 1999 = 19 years. But if that same person was born 6 days later, on January 1, 2000, he would be 18 years and 11 days old on about January 12, 2018. The "calendar" difference appears to be only 18 years this time (2018-2020) even though it's exactly the same amount of time. 
I won't even do the next set of eclipses he mentions because you can just look at them and know he is using the same deceiving language by not making it clear why this happens:
"Month i of year 11 of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (657 bce) and the eclipse possibility in Month xii 2 of year 6 of Esarhaddon (676 bce)"
Again he is comparing late in Month 12 (March) with early in Month 1. (April) (Normally, month 12 is February/March, but the 2 subscript on the twelfth month means there was a second "leap month" for month 12, just as in the first case he showed. This pushes Nisannu out into a start that will always be in April, not just March/April).
[We experience the same issue when calculating the Memorial date each year, deciding whether it will be closest to the full moon in March or a full moon in April.]

False. These are not my issues. I'm only explaining why the WTS has an issue with it.
And now you have more information about why the WTS thinks it's NOT important.
The GB rejects it and thinks it's not important. You disagree with the GB here. It doesn't interest me too much because all you are really doing is effectively shortening the GB's time 70 year period by about a year. No big deal to me. It's obviously a big deal to the GB because, to them, it effectively moves back the destruction of Jerusalem to 608. Because it's no big deal to me, that's the reason I don't obsess over it.
I assumed they did, because they spoke about it, relative to Cambyses in the same context where they recognized the secular evidence that Cyrus was his father:
*** it-1 p. 581 Darius ***
Some scholars present Cambyses (II) as being made “King of Babylon” by his father Cyrus soon after the conquest of Babylon. While Cambyses evidently did represent his father annually at the “New Year’s” festival at Babylon, he seems to have resided at Sippar during the rest of the time. Research based on study of cuneiform texts indicates that Cambyses evidently did not assume the title “King of Babylon” until Nisan 1 of the year 530 B.C.E., being made coregent with Cyrus,
 

You just need to read the entire section carefully under the heading "Chronology."
*** it-1 pp. 452-453 Chronology ***
Babylonian Chronology. Babylon enters the Biblical picture principally from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II onward. The reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar marked the start of what is called the Neo-Babylonian Empire; it ended with the reigns of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar and the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. . . . In harmony with this, a cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2Ki 24:1-17; 2Ch 36:5-10.) (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) For the final 32 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, there are no historical records of the chronicle type except a fragmentary inscription of a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year.
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year.
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
So, the WTS, according the Insight book, relies on a Babylonian clay tablet to connect Babylonian chronology. This clay tablet concerns eclipses of the moon. This clay tablet does not point to Cyrus. It points to Cambyses II. How do we know in what way it relates to Cyrus? One way is the contract tablets, that cement the entire period from earlier than Nabonidus through a period even later than Cyrus and Camybses. These clay tablets are cemented into a very strong, single chronology/timeline and this is used in the calculation. But the WTS doesn't actually believe in these. There are many for every single year of the NB chronology, yet the WTS has decided that there are 20 years of these completely missing. So they count on king lists to know that those 9 years of Cyrus are complete. This is admitted by adding the reference to Parker & Dubberstein, for example. Since the WTS assumes many years are missing in the contract tablets, then Cyrus may have had years 10 through 30 that we don't know about. Or perhaps another king reigned between Cyrus and Cambyses. How would you know that the rule of Darius I or Bardiya didn't come between Cyrus and Cambyses. For this one relies on Berossus list of kings and their reigns, or "Ptolemy."

So let's take this step by step. If you disagree with any of the steps, just say so, and I'll show the specific place in the Insight book or in your previous posts.
You have said that the proclamation edict from Cyrus must have happened in Nisan (Spring: March/April) of 538. True? The Insight book says that the edict could have happened "later in 538," and never mentions the possibility of Nisan 538. True? The Insight book says that the edict could have happened as late as Nisan 537 (or even a bit later). True? If the edict happened in Nisan 537 the Insight book says that this would be enough time to get back into their homes in the "seventh month" of 537. True? Can you think of any reason that the Insight book only gives two possibliities here?
It's either:
Late in the year 538. True? Early in 537. True? The most obvious reason is that the Insight book indicates that they needed less than 7 months from the edict in order to get back in their homes. True?
If they could get back home and settled in their cities in less than seven months from the edict, and the edict was in 538, then what year would they get back to be settled in their cities? 538. True?
Now, if you think that anything I said, or the Insight book said here wasn't true, please point out the place.
---------------
Now, there is also a contradiction to this choice between "later in 538" and "early in 537." In one place in the Insight book it simply declares that it was "early in 537." This is what I meant when I said that the WTS rejects your idea about Akitu - Nisan 538. Here:
*** it-1 p. 417 Captivity ***
Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.
The more flexible idea offering the choices is here:
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E.
 

First of all, I only accept the importance of the Bible chronology through this period. I do not think we have any reason to rely on the stars or eclipses or secular chronology or Babylonian evidence of any kind in order to understand the spiritual and Biblical importance of this period. The Bible chronology is a relative chronology, and this is all we need to know and trust.
The Watchtower, on the other hand, relies on this secular, "profane" chronology, provided by evidence from Babylon in order to put BCE/CE dates on this time period. The Watchtower admits that it relies on ancient "king lists," Babylonian Chronicles, and the reported positions of stars and planets in order to tie BCE/CE dates to the timeline.
If you think that's not true, then you haven't read the portion of the Insight book that admits this.
Personally, I think the evidence from Babylon is interesting because it DOES support the Bible. But I don't need this type of evidence for appreciating the spiritual value of the Bible. The reason I have looked into it here and am sharing what I'm learning is because, for me, it shows how easy it for any of us, Watchtower writers included, to become so interested in counting dates that many are probably not aware that they are using the secular evidence either dishonestly, or in a way that brings reproach on Jehovah.
If it's dishonest, and you don't think we should be concerned or that it should be corrected, that's fine. But it's not the same for everyone. All of our consciences work according to the Biblical, spiritual and moral training we have learned to appreciate.

Have you written to the WTS to see why they won't correct this error? The reason the Insight book dismisses it is because the writers believe that it would allow the Jews back in their homeland too early. It's a matter of making the dates work.
Your theory allows the Jews to be back in 538, and that would mean changing the destruction of Jerusalem again, first from 606 to 607, and now to your suggestion of 608.

Always 20 years.

I am not familiar with idea (that some JW believed) how all Universe is created in 6000 years. But remember well how official teachings was changed from: 1 Creation Day is 7000 years, to 1 Creation Day is unknown period.    
Perhaps because of Bible verse how one day before is 1000 years and vice versa, perhaps existed people who believed in 1 Creation Day is 1000 years long.
There is, as we have seen, good reason to believe that the days of creation were each 7,000 years long. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970123
In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201403/untold-story-of-creation/
Perhaps it is better to read some science book about how Earth and life on Earth is old, and how Universe is old. :))
 

Uh-oh! If she's consistent, you should be hearing from @Arauna soon about using an old publication to pretend that current belief is still based on this same old false idea about WT chronology.
What that article actually says, anyway, is that even WT chronology really is just a string of connected links like a string of beads, but with one additional feature that makes it like a strong interconnected cable. And that one feature is "parallel dispensations."
In other words the only thing that sets our chronology apart from secular chronology, and made it proven to be of "divine origin" was an idea that the WT has since completely rejected:

What does the WT chronology add that makes if of divine origin?

Those proofs are parallelisms:

The primary parallelism, the only real one, was the 1,845 year parallelism. Although 2520 was mentioned, it can be seen that this was not a parallelism, but just a stretch of supposedly prophesied time, and completely dependent on all the ideas that had just been rejected as too secular.

Who'd have guessed that 1914 was considered accurate because it was 1845 years after 70 AD? This is why the end of the Jewish kingdom had to be dated back to 606, because the methodology was simple: count backwards from 1914.

We also don't know if Nebuchadnezzar had older or younger sisters, or whether he had any pets. Or even at what age he learned to read (if he ever did) or ride a horse. However, I think the only real concern most of us have really had about Nebuchadnezzar is the BCE year when he was in his 18th and/or 19th year of his reign.
The Biblical genealogies provide an excellent solution for a relative chronology by actually providing a relative birth year and age at the birth of their descendant, and we usually get the age when each person died.
Apparently, the Bible used ongoing events along with a relative chronology. In Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Isaiah, etc., we see that the Bible used a system similar to the Babylonians by telling us which king was reigning and in what year of his reign it was. Ezekiel also used the year of his exile as a point of reference. The Babylonians, too, wrote down the regnal year of the king (plus the month and day) when writing about events, or even when recording astronomical positions.
But we need to go outside the Bible, to rely on secular evidence, in order to pinpoint the "BCE" year get dates for kings  like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus?
Do you know what king list the WTS relies upon to know where Cyrus fits in the timeline? Do we know which royal chronicles the WTS relies upon to identify when Cyrus ruled? Do we know which astronomical positions in ancient diaries that the WTS relies upon to put a BCE date on the accession year of Cyrus?

Exactly! I don't know. You don't know.
The point was that if we want a scenario that fits a preconceived notion (such as the idea that these seven times represent seven literal years) then we will end up speculating. Just as you apparently speculated that these 7 years (or some of them) could have happened when his father was still alive, pushing Daniel's exile back several more years. And those speculations can get pretty wild. We can even pull in other Bible verses from here and there, and some might even believe that this turns their speculation into the right solution, even if still highly improbable.
But, as fun as it is to speculate, and assume, and interpret, we can't know, and there is probably a reason that the Bible account gives us no hints here beyond the fact the book of Daniel places the dream's fulfillment well after Daniel and his companions were exiled, had finished their three years of training, and then promoted.
Of course, it's great fun to speculate about things as we are learning about (I'm thinking of chemistry, physics, medicine, discovering software bugs, guessing your opponent's next chess move, etc.) because often those speculations turn out to have merit, and we get a sense if our learning is on the right track when speculations prove true. But when our speculations turn out to be impossible based on things we hadn't thought of, then we realize we didn't have the whole picture.
That's the case with secular chronology. We don't have the whole picture, so the best we can do is to keep on looking for whatever evidence is available.
He's right of course, and this can apply to the 539 date the WT uses, as well as the 587 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. John Steele has done some amazing work, and he appears very trustworthy. I wrote up a post a couple nights ago based on his explanations of the LBAT documents. Several of his documents are on academia.edu. His understanding of the mathematics is amazing. But I wanted to share his overall studies that show how the eclipse calculations were made, and how this had already become standardized probably in the 8th century BCE or prior. Well before the 6th century BCE documents from NB.