SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[JW Insider]

If anyone thinks that the LBAT eclipses for Nebuchadnezzar's 14th and 32nd year should be double-checked for any particular dates, I will run those particular dates and show the entire results. This might be especially useful for people who think that the Saros cycle is simply an "excuse" to claim that Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year might just be a perfect match for a year that is, say, 18, 19 or 20 years different from the dates that all secular specialists give for his 14th year. 

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

You cannot answer this question or you refuse to answer the question!

scholar JW

Already done a number of times.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

5 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Already done a number of times.

Well answer the question. Show the postings

scholar JW

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

Well answer the question. Show the postings

scholar JW

You can barely read, but enough to find them for yourself. Quit being so lazy.

[JW Insider]

OK. I think I'm done.

These two LBAT 1419 eclipses marked for NEB14, and NEB32 clearly fit the following:

• NEB14 ULUL is September 15, 591 BC at sunrise
• NEB32 ULUL is September 25, 573 BCE a couple hourse before sunset

You can find other eclipses during, let's say, a 60 year time period from 625 to 565, but they don't match the eclipse descriptions in question. They don't match the position of the eclipse relative to the horizon and times that are shown in the tablets.

A lot of Witnesses might probably be wondering if there is any way that these eclipses might match a time period 20 years further back in time, because the WTS has produced a NB chronology where one must add 20 to the dates that are accepted by all NB archaeologists and specialists. So I checked for a similar set of eclipses in Ulul 14/15 591+20 611. Also checked Ulul 13,14,15,&16. Did the same for 611, 610 and 609. These would be 20, 19 and 18 years prior to the "accepted" dates, in order to try to match the Watchtower dates. 

Since ULUL always starts in August or September, we'll simply look for the first full moon in August even if it means the month started too early, and go all the way to the last full moon in October, even if it meant that the month started too late.

So we'll check for all the possible candidates for Ulul 13th-16th, for 609, 610 and 611 BCE, even checking a few extra days beyond a three month period just to make sure nothing could have been missed. Results:

-------------------------

• August 609. Nothing.
• September 4, 609 looks like a possible candidate. It's an excellent visible eclipse, and must have been one in the same series of this Saros cycle. But that's the problem, it was very visible at night. There was no eclipse at sunrise per the tablet's "instructions." It was very visible much earlier in the morning, but only 3 to 5 hours before sunrise. Because this one doesn't work we don't need to test part two 18 years later.
• October 609. Nothing

-------------------------

• August 610. Nothing.
• September 16, 610 looks like a possible candidate. But, it peaked at around 1 to 2 in the morning, very visible, and there was no eclipse near sunrise.
• October 610. Nothing.

-------------------------

• August 611. Nothing.
• September 26th 611. Partially visible eclipse, but only up to about midnight. No eclipse near sunrise.
• October 611. Nothing.

-------------------------

If 609 had turned out to be a candidate for the 14th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then we could have said that 607 was his 16th year, and 606 his 17th, etc. But it didn't work out in favor of the WTS chronology.

If 610 had turned out to be a candidate  for the 14th year, then 609 would be the 15th, 608 the 16th, 607 the 17th, and 606 the 18th. But it didn't work out in favor of the WTS chronology.

If 611 had turned out to be a candidate, then 607 would have been the 18th year, and this is exactly what the WTS chronology claims. But testing for 611 showed no fully visible eclipse in that period.

But it does produce excellent, nearly perfect results for 591 and 573, so we now have two dates we can mark in the chart. Next post will make use of these dates. If anyone in the world can find them to mean something else, or has found anything I missed about them, I will remove them and use another archaeological date to begin the BCE/CE association with the relative chronology now in the chart.

625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536	535	534	533	532	531	530
N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years)																					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 (17)																	C Y R U S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	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	591	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	18	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

 

[scholar JW]

Alan F

29 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You can barely read, but enough to find them for yourself. Quit being so lazy.

What are you trying to hide. Are you not the expert in Chronology so why can't you answer this simple question or you could ask your fellow critics like JW Insider, COJ or Ann O'Maly?

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

I am bedazzled by your scholarship and those pretty bright colours!!!

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

In the LBAT 1419 tablet (also called BM 32234) there is another entry immediately following the two for Nebuchadnezzar's 14th and 32nd year, but this next one is not marked with a king's name, just the description of the eclipse:

Month VII, the 13th, in 17° on the east side all (of the moon) was covered. 28° maximal phase. In 20° it cleared from east to west. Its eclipse was red. Behind the rump of Aries it was eclipsed. During onset, the north wind blew, during clearing, the west wind. At 55° before sunrise.

Because it's next in the series, we already know that it is going to be about 18 years and 11 days later than the previous one. This was already seen in the first two listed, where the difference in these two is 18 years 10.5 days.

• Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise.
• Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset.

So we already know that if these two are right, we should find this next one, which is very uniquely defined, within a day of October 6, 555, which is exactly 18 years and 11 days later. It wasn't marked for Nebuchadnezzar, but we know he didn't reign for 50 years anyway (32+18=50). We find it on the first try, and it matches the description:

• October 6, 555 BCE, (7th month) a completely visible full eclipse occurred, eclipse east to west, behind the rump of Aries, from 17 degrees maximal (umbral) for 28 degrees (about 2 hours), no longer visible at 55 degrees before sunrise (about 55x4minutes=220 minutes or 3 hours 40 min. before sunrise):

It's easy to find, and I took some screenshots to show how this one was visible

Here it is as sunset, not yet an eclipse. (Even if the outer ring of the shadow in CyberSky touches the moon, that's just the very difficult to see penumbral shadow, not the more defined umbral shadow represented by the darker center circle.)

Here it is hour by hour after the sun goes down, still not an eclipse yet:

You can see that the shadow is starting to cover from E to W, and that that the shadow is coming from behind the rump of Aries (the constellation it underscores).

Now the umbral part (the real eclipse) is just starting to be visible according to the overlap of the moon with the inner gray circle.

Another hour showing a partial eclipse.

Another hour and it's almost a full eclipse. This is much longer than usual eclipse.

Near perfect eclipse, and still the shadow hasn't quite passed the midway point.

Skipping ahead a couple more hours, this is what it looked like, no longer eclipsing at about 3 hours before sunrise. The inner gray circle is almost no longer touching the moon, so a measurement of 55 degrees or 3 hours and 40 minutes before sunrise appears to be accurate.

I see no other eclipse in this time frame (plus or minus 20 years) comes close to matching these circumstances.

So we can be sure we have correctly pegged this one too, as a further witness that we got the other two correct, even though the tablet doesn't  name the king on this one. I'll give it a lighter blue color because it does not have its own king's record to go with it. But there is still more to the LBAT 1419 tablet. Also, we know for sure that it is 18 years after Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year of reign which matched to 573. So it's 555 BCE. From all the other evidences we know this (solidly) to be the 1st year of Nabonidus.

625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536	535	534	533	532	531	530
N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years)																					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 (17)																	C Y R U S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	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	591	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	18	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Notice too that if these eclipses are correct, that they prove that the accession year of Cyrus was in 539 BCE (when he conquered Babylon), and that his first year of reign would be 538 BCE.

[AlanF]

10 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

What are you trying to hide. Are you not the expert in Chronology so why can't you answer this simple question or you could ask your fellow critics like JW Insider, COJ or Ann O'Maly?

scholar JW

Hypocrite! You complain when others use your own tactics on you.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is the "hypocrisy" of ex-witnesses and opposers with their old COJ data nonsense. New findings prove them wrong by natural history data.

New findings even since the time COJ wrote his book have always strengthened the Neo-Babylonian chronology, and therefore weakened the current Watchtower conclusions. You inadvertently admit these weaknesses yourself when you contradict the Watchtower with your own statement:

11 hours ago, César Chávez said:

611 BC Nabopolassar was surrounding the Assyrians forces in "Haran". However, it wasn't until 610 BC with the help of the Meds that the actual attack took place.

You claim here that Nabopolassar was surrounding the Assyrian forces in 611. But the Watchtower teaches that Nabopolassar had died about 14 years earlier, and that Nebuchadnezzar had already taken over for Nabopolassar 14 years before this event. In fact Nebuchadnezzar had already taken Ezekiel into exile 7 years earlier according to the Insight book, Nebuchadnezzar, not Nabopolassar was just months away from besieging Jerusalem:

*** w07 7/1 p. 13 pars. 11-12 Highlights From the Book of Ezekiel—I ***
In the seventh year of exile, 611 B.C.E., the elderly ones of Israel come to Ezekiel “to inquire of Jehovah.” . . . In 609 B.C.E., the 18-month siege of Jerusalem begins.

So, yes, we both know that the Watchtower has no evidence for these dates and that they contradict the evidence, but don't talk about hypocrisy, unless you also explain why you are rejecting the Watchtower's dates.

[JW Insider]

15 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

If the people in the “Dallas Theological Seminary” understand the structure of ancient timeline, why can’t opposers see it? Because they don’t want to.

You did realize that I was the one in agreement with that particular paper submitted to the "Dallas Theological Seminary" and you were the one who opposes it, right?

[JW Insider]

17 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, I am in full "agreement" with the Watchtower findings of 607 BC

You are not in full agreement if you can't or won't explain why you contradict the WTS on 611 BCE. You said it was Nabopolassar ruling then, and the WT says it was Nebuchadnezzar. You gave the standard "secular" dates for 610 and the Watchtower places those very events you spoke of as closer to 629, about 20 years earlier.

*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
. . . in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.”

Yet, you said:

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

611 BC Nabopolassar was surrounding the Assyrians forces in "Haran". However, it wasn't until 610 BC with the help of the Meds that the actual attack took place.

Please explain the 19 to 20 year difference.