JW Insider

I'm not using any methodology that requires Nebuchadnezzar to be present in 609 or 587 or any other year. I would agree with you that he need not be personally present to bring anyone or any nation into Babylonian subjection. So I don't need that methodology one way or another. It's not relevant to any years in the timeline either.
These are not relevant questions to getting the order and length of kings reigns. They could change allegiances and gods every year and it wouldn't change the timeline.
This is actually a better question. It's one you have brought up before. And with this question there is a need sometimes to note if there had been a change of name based on a change in allegiance. Although apparently with few exceptions (Egypt for example) the multiplicity of gods made it unnecessary to change one's name even if their primary focus changed to another god.
Did you have a particular pair of names in mind? Remember that if two different names could refer to the same person, then an overlap of the two names would imply a shortening of the timeline by at least the length of the shortest reign in that particular pair of names.

I should have said "none" instead of "almost none" because there is no dependence on military campaign records. The reason, as you might have noticed, is that I included the Babylonian Chronicle but did not need it, since the exact same point was also made in the Adad-Guppi' stele, as I stated. I would have been happy to have used records of military campaigns, I just happened not to rely on them to make this point about the number of years from Nabopolassar to Nabonidus. You'll notice that if you wished to remove the Babylonian Chronicle, the same point is made. You did not actually give any reason that one should not use the Babylonian Chronicles, however, so I will be glad to make use of them wherever they give evidence for the specific order and number of years of each king.
You might already be aware that the Babylonian Chronicles also support the exact same timeline of the kings, and they give us no reason to retract anything already said about the relative dates of the King List. So you may consider the above timeline to be the full account. If you think there is a place where the relative chronology differs by 1 to 3 years, please point it out and show your evidence, and I will change the timeline based on your evidence. I have not seen any evidence of this, but that could be very important.
Yes, both modern times and ancient times.
Why not? Because I couldn't care less how "natural history" can be defined by "several mythologies." At this point I am presenting the NB evidence to see how solid the relative chronology is for these kings.
It doesn't seem like they need to be understood at all. But if you find any NB evidence from military campaigns or from anywhere else that shows a change in the relative chronology is required, I'll make the appropriate change. You can recommend exactly where the new or additional evidence fits in.
 
 
 
 

As you can see, almost none of this was based on any record of military campaigns. The Babylonian Chronicles include a lot of military campaigns but I barely used it at all, and the part that I did mention is not really about the campaign, only the date when the Medes destroyed a temple in Harran. I mentioned the Babylonian Chronicle 3 (B.M. 21901) because it helps to put a date on the battle won by the Medes against Harran, but the point was about the number of years that had elapsed until Nabonidus spoke about his dream to rebuild the temples that had been destroyed back then.
Any year can fall under a saros cycle. Even this year, 2020.
It doesn't matter who was at any military battle. I didn't make use of any information about a battle except for one of the dates. And I don't need to interpret anything to present the data. This is not about interpretation of evidence, it is merely about presenting some of the evidence. And, of course, this is a minimal presentation. There is a lot more, and the details of the additional evidence makes the case for this timeline even stronger. We can show this is true, if necessary, but the above is enough for a start unless someone has some specific problem with the evidence given so far. I'll correct any mistakes that anyone can show. I already corrected a couple of typos.
I agree with what you said, but it has nothing to do with the timeline, which is not based on military campaigns.

You test it then, Neil. Ever since Furuli's books came out 13 years or so ago, I've wanted you to compare the astronomical data for yourself. You have always refused or made silly excuses so you stay on the same loop-de-loop of non-arguments.
 
It's pretty sloppy, actually. Some of it is sound, and some is confusing, misleading, or made up. 

Your posts show clearly the difference between competence and incompetence in these matters.

JW Insider
Your presentation of NB Chronology is excellent with lovely coloured charts and it appears infallible. How does one test or falsify this scheme of Chronology. Can it now be viewed as an Absolute Chronology and can it now be used to construct a OT Chronology which are legitimate questions?
scholar JW

Awesome. I really appreciate all your effort by putting your knowledge at our disposal. In spite of the risk to be misunderstood, I'm always learning a lot of you.
Yes, yes, I hear some ones saying "you're a man's follower..."

At this point, it should be obvious to anyone, scholar or not, that if you could put a specific BCE date on any one of these years in the chart, that you have just put a date on every other year in the chart.
For example:
If you could show that Nabopolassar's 21st year was 605 BCE, then you would simultaneously be showing that his 20th must have been 606 BCE, and that the year after 605 was 604 BCE. If you could show that the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537 for example, you would simultaneously be showing that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE, and that the 17th year of Nabonidus was 539 BCE. (And also therefore the accession year of Cyrus.) Evidence of any date in the timeline is now exactly the same evidence for every other date in the timeline.
Also, these king's lists extend the same type of accuracy far into the future beyond Cyrus, Cambyses, etc., even up until well past the birth of Christ, and the Roman Caesars, for example.
So the same holds true if you could put a specific CE (AD) date on any event during Persian, Greek, or Roman empires, you would simultaneously be putting a date on any years of Nabonidus, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc. And in the next posts, which should be unnecessary at this point, it can be shown that the astronomical diaries actually offer hundreds of specific astronomical events and configurations that can only be tied to one specific BCE or CE date during those empires (Babylon, Persia, Greece & Rome).
And all of the astronomical dates spread across various points of the timeline also confirm the timeline. Therefore a discussion of the astronomical diaries will give us even more evidence for the accuracy of the initial timeline. In fact, if anyone had an idea that the timeline could somehow still be "falsified" then it would be more efficient to look for any recorded astronomical event that is NOT aligned with the timeline. There are certain diaries that have been copied and recopied, or show damage making them difficult to read in places. Yet, there are rarely more than three or four errors out potentially a dozen or more easily datable readings in these same diaries.
 

At this point, it should be obvious to anyone, scholar or not, that if you could put a specific BCE date on any one of these years in the chart, that you have just put a date on every other year in the chart.
For example:
If you could show that Nabopolassar's 21st year was 605 BCE, then you would simultaneously be showing that his 20th must have been 606 BCE, and that the year after 605 was 604 BCE. If you could show that the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537 for example, you would simultaneously be showing that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE, and that the 17th year of Nabonidus was 539 BCE. (And also therefore the accession year of Cyrus.) Evidence of any date in the timeline is now exactly the same evidence for every other date in the timeline.
Also, these king's lists extend the same type of accuracy far into the future beyond Cyrus, Cambyses, etc., even up until well past the birth of Christ, and the Roman Caesars, for example.
So the same holds true if you could put a specific CE (AD) date on any event during Persian, Greek, or Roman empires, you would simultaneously be putting a date on any years of Nabonidus, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc. And in the next posts, which should be unnecessary at this point, it can be shown that the astronomical diaries actually offer hundreds of specific astronomical events and configurations that can only be tied to one specific BCE or CE date during those empires (Babylon, Persia, Greece & Rome).
And all of the astronomical dates spread across various points of the timeline also confirm the timeline. Therefore a discussion of the astronomical diaries will give us even more evidence for the accuracy of the initial timeline. In fact, if anyone had an idea that the timeline could somehow still be "falsified" then it would be more efficient to look for any recorded astronomical event that is NOT aligned with the timeline. There are certain diaries that have been copied and recopied, or show damage making them difficult to read in places. Yet, there are rarely more than three or four errors out potentially a dozen or more easily datable readings in these same diaries.
 

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above confirmed by Berossus Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's") Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9                                   Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Adad-Guppi' inscription Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above exactly confirmed by THOUSANDS of Business/Contract Tablets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Years evidenced to be without gaps or co-regencies thru multiple inscriptions (Bab Chronicles, Adad Guppi, Nabon. No. 8  ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Years evidenced to be without gaps or co-regencies by THOUSANDS of Business/Contract Tablets    
One of the most powerful areas of evidence is supplied within specific sets of the Business/Contract Tablets. The various 'Business Tablets' are already like thousands of independent witnesses all exactly corroborating the timeline above. So we are already well beyond the need to find "two witnesses" that agree; we have found tens of thousands of effectively independent witnesses.
But these special sets of them are another witness, independent from the other types of contracts, and of course they perfectly support the consistent timelines above.
These, of course, would be the various "houses of business" much like the records of a specific bank, or specific real estate company, or family trading company. There are several of these, and one of the most studied is the "House of Egibi." The Egibi house is known through literally THOUSANDS of tablets spanning the time from third year of Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar to Nabonidus to Cyrus to Cambyses to Darius I.
Naturally, it confirms every year perfectly in line with the above timelines, but it does much more than that. It provides a double-check validation of all of the kings by including not just the month day and year of the king, but also the name of the current head ("president") of the Egibi House. These provide a kind of audit of the timeline and show that:
The first president was head of the firm for 20 years from "Nebuchadnezzar 3" to "Nebuchadnezzar 23." Then the second head of the firm was president for 38 years from "Nebuchadnezzar 23" to "Nabonidus 12." Then the third president was for 23 years from "Nabonidus 12" to "Darius 1" Those 20+38+23=81 years are exactly the 81 years matching the evidence from Berossus, Adad-Guppi', the King Lists, the Babylonian Chronicles, the Royal Inscriptions, "Ptolemy" etc.
More than that, a few of the documents of this type (business houses) refer to contracts starting under one king and going on for a number of years and ending under another king, all matching the timeline confirmed by every other source of evidence.
There are many good references to be able to read many of these types of tablets in translation. I can include several of my favorites, and links, in another post.

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above confirmed by Berossus Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's") Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9                                   Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Adad-Guppi' inscription 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Years with no evidence of gaps or co-regencies (Bab Chronicles, Adad Guppi, Nabon. No. 8 )  
Of course, one might still argue that a gap of a year or so, might be balanced out by co-regencies totaling the same number of years.
That point is covered by looking at literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence. Maybe even 100,000! 
Imagine if all the bank checks written in the United States from 1930 to 2010 had been found to be made of nearly indestructible material, like some kind of laminated plastic. And imagine that every check contained the then-current president's name up there where the date goes. If you had about 100,000 of these checks spread fairly evenly across each year from 1930 to 2010, you could easily create a chart that showed how many years Hoover served as president since 1930, how many years FDR was president, Truman, Ike, LBJ, JFK, etc.
Fortunately, we have just about the equivalent of that in literally tens of thousands --perhaps 100,000-- of these "checks" because they were written on wet clay that dried as hard as stone and thousands have remained intact in the dry climate of Babylonia/Iraq for more than 2,500 years. These are even more valuable than bank checks for our purposes, however, because they include contracts, legal agreements, sales agreements, trade agreements, rental (land use) agreements, receipts, loans, gifts, etc. And all of them are dated with the month, day, and specific year of the currently reigning king. They even include the indication for a partial "accession" year when a king takes over for the previous king mid-year, and doesn't start his official "Year 1" until the new year.
Here's what they tell us:
There are tablets representing EVERY SINGLE YEAR of reign for ALL the kings mentioned above. The tablets are dated so accurately that we can know, to within a matter of days, when one king was succeeded by the next king. ALL of them are in agreement with Berossus, the Royal King List, the Uruk King List, the Babylonian Chronicles, the Adad-Guppi' stele, Royal Temple Inscriptions, Royal Palace Inscriptions, and Astronomical Diaries. There are NO tablets that create any contradictions or discrepancies to the years shown in the chart above These tablets provide another independent witness to the accuracy of the Kings' Lists, the Royal Inscriptions, the Babylonian Chronicles, and the Astronomical Diaries (which haven't been discussed yet). These tablets include examples that cross over from one king to the next so that ALL the transitions are known to be without co-regencies or gaps of more than a few days. There is an average of up to 1,000 tablets for each year of the chart shown above, and ZERO (so far) for any proposed additional years not shown in the chart, which is more evidence that there are no possible gaps. There are even such texts for the short reign of Labashi-Marduk which lasted only a couple of months.  

By now we can have a pretty good idea that several independent sources are in complete agreement, giving the same order of succession for these kings, and they also give the same number of years for each king.
But some might question whether there were any gaps we didn't account for. Perhaps one king couldn't start ruling until some coup or civil war was decided. Perhaps a king died and no successor could be found immediately. Or, perhaps two kings overlapped in their rule and it's not accounted for in the chart. (Of course, we might immediately doubt that we will encounter such problems, because if it had been a real problem, then all those calculations for eclipses and other events --and the Babylonians were well known for these-- could never have worked.)
So how do we check that there are no gaps? or no co-regencies in these King Lists?
As it turns out there are many ways. One of them involves two completely different inscriptions, written for different reasons. Here they are:
The Babylonian Chronicle 3 (B.M. 21901) says that  The chronicle states that in the “sixteenth year” of Nabopolassar, the Medes (Umman-manda) marched to Harran and captured the city. He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple. The Adad-guppi’ inscription (already mentioned above) states the same thing: that in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, their god got angry and the city and its people were destroyed. Nabonidus provided inscriptions that spoke of the gods coming to him in a dream in his accession year, telling him he should rebuild those temples at Harran destroyed by the Medes. Here's one in Nabod. No. 8:
(Concerning) Harran . . . which had been lying in ruins for 54 years because of its devastation by the Medes (who) destroyed the sanctuaries, . . . the time for reconciliation approached, 54 years, when [the god] Sin should return to his place.
The accession year of Nabonidus was the same partial year that he took office during Neriglissar's 4th year. Note the count over the top of that year is marked with a 55. And notice that we already started counting Nabopolassar's 16th year with a "1" above it. How many years is it from "Nabonidus 16" to Neriglissar 4 (a.k.a., Nabonidus accession year)?
55-1=54. Exactly 54 years. Which is exactly how long the inscription says it is.
It turns out there are hundreds of these evidences that the chart is correct, and they are found in the most mundane of business documents, not just in the royal inscriptions. But this one shows that there were no gaps between the end of the rule of Nabopolassar and the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus. That covers the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar.
 
 

We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
Yes.
Do all ancient records agree?
No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
*Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.

The reason I included the kings from the Uruk King List going back a bit further is because our next "witness" is easier to understand if one goes back before Nabopolassar, into the time of the Assyrian kings.
This next one is the Adad-Guppi’ inscription, also known as Nabon. No. 24 (Nabon H 1, B.). It was for a kind of funeral/grave inscription for Nabonidus' mother (Queen Adad-guppi) who lived to be about 102. So part of this inscription includes various events from her long life, and it includes a list of all the kings she lived through. You can find a translation here: https://www.academia.edu/38585121/MOTHER_OF_HER_SON_THE_LITERARY_SCHEME_OF_THE_ADAD_GUPPI_STELE
From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, that I was born (in), until the 42nd year of Ashurbanipal, the 3rd year of Aššur-etilu-ili, his son, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of EvilMerodach, the 4th year of Neriglissar – for 95 years, Sîn, king of the gods of heaven and earth, (in) which I sought after the shrines of his great godhead, (for) my good doings he looked upon me with a smile, he heard my prayers (Adadguppi Stele I:29–36) (Note that there are no differences in the Uruk King List, Adad-Guppi, and Royal "Ptolemy" King List in any of the Neo-Babylonian kings. But the Assyrian Kings are not listed in the Babylonian records except where they were simultaneously kings of Babylon.)
Another part (of the Adad-guppi' inscription) says she died in the 9th year of Nabonidus, which would indicate at least an age of 102, and the Nabonidus Chronicle (B.M. 35382) confirms the same information.
So here's what this new piece of evidence gives us. And remember it's a "stone witness" that is both contemporary and independent of the others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above confirmed by Berossus Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's") Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S   16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9                                   Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Adad-Guppi' inscription (although it only goes to Nabonidus 9)  

So far, we've used two "witnesses" to the timeline of Babylonian kings:
Berossus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berossus Royal Canon, sometimes called "Ptolemy's Canon" (a "king list" going back to the 8th century BC, and updated by various persons over the next centuries as they added successive new kings and their reigns to it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings It may also be of interest to note that scholars believe these two sources are independent of each other.
There is another famous king list, the Uruk King List which can be found translated into English here: Uruk King List - Livius and several other places. It completely covers the portion of kings in the chart below and then some additional kings, both before and after the ones shown below. It includes kings much further back into the Assyrian period. I'll list them below the chart, as copied from Livius. But first, this is what it does to our chart. It's another independent witness to the exact same evidence. It's in perfect harmony with Berossus and "Ptolemy."
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above confirmed by Berossus Timeline above confirmed by Royal Canon ("Ptolemy's") Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Timeline above exactly confirmed by the Uruk King List As copied from Livius.org below. The other side of this inscription continues beyond Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, etc.):
1'note /MU 21\ [mAššur-bâni-apli] Aššurbanipal 21 years 668-631 2' ša-niš /m\Šamaš-šuma-ukîn Šamaš-šuma-ukîn at the same time 667-648 3' MU 21 mK[an-da]-la-an Kandalanu 21 years 647-627 4' MU 1 m dSîn2-šumu-lîšir2 Sin-šumliširnote 1 year 626 5' u m dSîn2-šarra-iš-ku-un and Sin-šar-iškûn Id. Id 6' MU 21 m dNabû-apla-usur Nabopolassar 21 years 626note-605 7' [M]U 43 m dNabû-kuddurî-usur Nebuchadnezzar [II] 43 years 604-562 8' [M]U 2 mAmîl-dMarduk Amel-Marduk 2 years 561-560 9' [MU] /3\ 8 ITI m dNergal2-šarra-usur Neriglissar 3 years, 8 months 559-556 10' [(...)]note 3 ITI mLa-ba-ši-dMarduk Labaši-Marduk [accession year] 3 months 556 11' [MU] /17?\ m dNabû-nâ'id Nabonidus 17? years 555-539 12' [MU x mK]ur-aš Cyrus [the Great] [x years] 539-530 13' [MU x mKambu-z]i-i Cambyses [II] [x years] 530-522 14' [MU x mDaria-m]uš Darius [the Great] [x years] 522-486  

We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
Yes.
Do all ancient records agree?
No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
*Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.

We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
Yes.
Do all ancient records agree?
No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
*Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.

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

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

Here is Strong's:
אוֹן ʼôwn, probably from the same as H205 (in the sense of effort, but successful); ability, power, (figuratively) wealth:—force, goods, might, strength, substance.
Here are the different ways the NWT now translates the same word. Looks like it can refer to procreative strength, monetary strength (wealth), but I also see a sense of "energetic vigor" or "pep" especially in Job 18:7.
(Genesis 49:3) 3 “Reuʹben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the beginning of my procreative power, the excellence of dignity and the excellence of strength. (Job 18:7, 8, 12 )  7 His vigorous stride is shortened, And his own counsel will make him fall.  8 For his feet will lead him into a net, And he will wander onto its mesh. . . . His strength fails him, And disaster will make him stagger. (Job 20:10) . . .His own children will seek the favor of the poor, And his own hands will give back his wealth. (Job 40:15, 16) . . .Here, now, is Be·heʹmoth, which I made as I made you. It eats grass like a bull. 16 Look at the strength in its hips And the power in the muscles of its belly! (Isaiah 40:26) . . .Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:29) . . .He gives power to the tired one And full might to those lacking strength. (Hosea 12:2, 3) . . .Jacob . . . 3 In the womb he seized his brother by the heel, And with his vigor he contended with God. (Hosea 12:8) . . .Eʹphra·im keeps saying, ‘Indeed, I have become rich; I have found wealth.. . . It doesn't seem consistent to use "dynamic energy" in Isaiah 40:26 and then use just power, strength, and vigor in the other places. You wouldn't say of Jacob that he wrestled the angel with his "dynamic energy" yet it's the same word. You wouldn't say that the wicked man's "dynamic energy" of his gait is reduced, and that his "dynamic energy" fails him when he staggers or falls. Yet these are also the same word.
But I should add that Isaiah 40:26 references Jehovah keeping all the stars in place, an extremely complex set of constellations, even more awe-inspiring in desert lands. And it was correctly realized that none were missing, in spite of the fact that meteors were seen in the common mind as "falling stars."

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

Here is Strong's:
אוֹן ʼôwn, probably from the same as H205 (in the sense of effort, but successful); ability, power, (figuratively) wealth:—force, goods, might, strength, substance.
Here are the different ways the NWT now translates the same word. Looks like it can refer to procreative strength, monetary strength (wealth), but I also see a sense of "energetic vigor" or "pep" especially in Job 18:7.
(Genesis 49:3) 3 “Reuʹben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the beginning of my procreative power, the excellence of dignity and the excellence of strength. (Job 18:7, 8, 12 )  7 His vigorous stride is shortened, And his own counsel will make him fall.  8 For his feet will lead him into a net, And he will wander onto its mesh. . . . His strength fails him, And disaster will make him stagger. (Job 20:10) . . .His own children will seek the favor of the poor, And his own hands will give back his wealth. (Job 40:15, 16) . . .Here, now, is Be·heʹmoth, which I made as I made you. It eats grass like a bull. 16 Look at the strength in its hips And the power in the muscles of its belly! (Isaiah 40:26) . . .Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:29) . . .He gives power to the tired one And full might to those lacking strength. (Hosea 12:2, 3) . . .Jacob . . . 3 In the womb he seized his brother by the heel, And with his vigor he contended with God. (Hosea 12:8) . . .Eʹphra·im keeps saying, ‘Indeed, I have become rich; I have found wealth.. . . It doesn't seem consistent to use "dynamic energy" in Isaiah 40:26 and then use just power, strength, and vigor in the other places. You wouldn't say of Jacob that he wrestled the angel with his "dynamic energy" yet it's the same word. You wouldn't say that the wicked man's "dynamic energy" of his gait is reduced, and that his "dynamic energy" fails him when he staggers or falls. Yet these are also the same word.
But I should add that Isaiah 40:26 references Jehovah keeping all the stars in place, an extremely complex set of constellations, even more awe-inspiring in desert lands. And it was correctly realized that none were missing, in spite of the fact that meteors were seen in the common mind as "falling stars."

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

Pretty funny. Except that it tends to spread a false narrative about false positives. It's based on what Dom Raab said. (In the video, she mentions him right from the start.) It's explained pretty well here:
Dominic Raab did not say Covid-19 tests have a 93% false positive rate
https://fullfact.org/online/dominic-raab-93-percent/
But the article admits that he really did say nearly the equivalent of that, but that he was wrong. He was confusing false positives with false negatives. (And what he said feeds into a false but popular belief that the PCR tests don't work.) Here's an excerpt:
The false positive rate means the percentage of tests that wrongly tell people who do not have the virus that they are infected. Tests can also produce false negatives, where people who do have the virus are told they don’t.
It appears Mr Raab was referencing a PHE report, which stated that the success rate of identifying Covid cases when only testing travellers on arrival at airports is 7%. By testing on arrival and then testing again five days into self isolation, the success rate goes up to 88%. 
Mr Raab appears to have mis-spoken, as the PHE report doesn’t talk about false positives at all. 
It’s actually referring to false negative results: incoming travellers who are infected, but who might not be identified by a single test at an airport. This can be due to factors such as the virus’s incubation period, when an infected person might still test negative due to the low levels of virus in their body.
In addition, the PHE study is not based on real-life data. It is simply a modelling study intended to explore how different isolation and testing regimes might improve the chances of identifying infected travellers. Like all models, it simplifies things and makes some assumptions that may not reflect reality.
It’s not possible to establish a definitive false positive rate for Covid-19 testing, as this can vary according to circumstance, but as we have written elsewhere there is good evidence that false positives are extremely rare with the RT-PCR tests that are used for most testing in the UK.

I suspect they would still be allowed the opportunity to pay taxes. She's not thinking it through if she really thinks that voting is "buying" the governments services. Most people think they are buying representation by paying taxes and they therefore vote as a way to try to manipulate the government to have the best chance of representing their own interests in how that tax money is spent. Yet, here we have a group of people who pay taxes but are not clamoring for special favors that one party offers over another.
Also, having only partisan people among your government workers results in many problems. There are times when you really can't trust partisan people to tell you the truth about what is happening in their government departments. The USA has begun to have this trouble for last couple decades, especially. And in this last election, one party is supposed to be always untrustworthy when it comes to counting votes (in the eyes of the other party). A leader should be happy to have neutral, non-partisans in government jobs. Taken to the extreme, every time a new party comes to power, it could also end up meaning that all persons of the other party must now lose their jobs and training and efficiency must always start at the bottom again.
There is a danger in this type of rhetoric which is probably a kind of "populist trial balloon" to see how much attention it will get her. It might be designed to get attention only because it seems outrageous to most, and she will add other things as she thinks of them if any of these get her some "airtime." I suspect she has picked this one (perhaps it's already one of many such issues) only because of a personal grudge against a particular relative's conversion (or a Witness' grudge against her for getting into politics, or a specific doctrine that she doesn't like. Or she's seen something negative in the news about Witnesses.
She is probably hoping that it gets some attention, but it isn't likely to gain her enough. The two major parties are leading with the current president running again, and a past present running again. 99.9% chance that it ends up being one of those two.

I suspect they would still be allowed the opportunity to pay taxes. She's not thinking it through if she really thinks that voting is "buying" the governments services. Most people think they are buying representation by paying taxes and they therefore vote as a way to try to manipulate the government to have the best chance of representing their own interests in how that tax money is spent. Yet, here we have a group of people who pay taxes but are not clamoring for special favors that one party offers over another.
Also, having only partisan people among your government workers results in many problems. There are times when you really can't trust partisan people to tell you the truth about what is happening in their government departments. The USA has begun to have this trouble for last couple decades, especially. And in this last election, one party is supposed to be always untrustworthy when it comes to counting votes (in the eyes of the other party). A leader should be happy to have neutral, non-partisans in government jobs. Taken to the extreme, every time a new party comes to power, it could also end up meaning that all persons of the other party must now lose their jobs and training and efficiency must always start at the bottom again.
There is a danger in this type of rhetoric which is probably a kind of "populist trial balloon" to see how much attention it will get her. It might be designed to get attention only because it seems outrageous to most, and she will add other things as she thinks of them if any of these get her some "airtime." I suspect she has picked this one (perhaps it's already one of many such issues) only because of a personal grudge against a particular relative's conversion (or a Witness' grudge against her for getting into politics, or a specific doctrine that she doesn't like. Or she's seen something negative in the news about Witnesses.
She is probably hoping that it gets some attention, but it isn't likely to gain her enough. The two major parties are leading with the current president running again, and a past present running again. 99.9% chance that it ends up being one of those two.

I am just seeing this now.
Q Anon is an Extreme Far Right collective with an ideology that spawned alleged conspiracy theories. It was an idea started by a collective in 2016 into early 2017 due to the pedophilia rings intertwined with politics, it never started with one person, but as a group of people under the same name - "Q", however in 2017, it was eventually affiliated with a single person - Q Clearance Patriot, which is why some believe it began with one person. It is not a belief, but it is among their theories, they have a strong hatred against pedophilia within the Establishment itself only - This is regarding the 2016 into 2017 situation with, to keep it simple, "Children of any sex/race being part of a menu containing symbols" (as crazy as that sounds, and to this day, a lot of us, me included, are still looking into this), hence the events of 2016- early 2017.
Long story short, anything affiliated with EXTREME Left or Right is vastly different from the Far/Alt Left/Right, granted the latter can progress into a level of extremism. Q Anon is all over the place, but notably mentioned to be in the US and the EU, majority of them being in the EU.
If we are talking about beliefs, the core view is literally the opposite of the Extreme Left, this core view revolving around politics and government. Most people don't know much about Q Anon, but promote them and or advertise them anyways, at times, it results in consequence, i.e. Trump Supporters; The Far Right do NOT side with Q Anon, as for the Alt-Right, they are a mixed bag.
That being said, you should NEVER, EVER, EVER take 4chan seriously. Also do not be so gullible with the MSM be it on the screen, internet, articles, etc. (again Alt Left/Right are the common types to write articles of certain things) 4Chan is the birth places of memes (i.e. the birth place a website that is known to popularize a pop tart cat running alongside a rainbow at night aka Nyan Cat),
This:

[It gets even weirder with the fire breathing unicorn with a rider being a militarized commando cat....]
remember that, no one is 100% serious, and often times, majority of people there tend to jump on the bandwagon of something just to see how are it goes, this goes for the situation with Q Anon.
Regarding the protest, no. The protesting done was mostly by the Far Left, there was only a small Far Right presence. Among the Extreme, that were found in majority of the protest was both BLM and Antifa, with Antifa being a sworn enemy of the Proud Boys, who, in turn, are Far Right and whenever the two meet, they fight, even among political protesters, who get caught in the cross fire.
Granted 100% of MSM is on the Left, they will mostly defend the Left, and always attack the Right, something of which a member here did not fully understand the difference between the Left and the Right (Alts).