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

[JW Insider]

We'll pick a couple years before

and we'll pick a couple from later in his reign:

So, we start with NEB16, where the eclipse in month 4 was predicted to occur, and predicted that it would not be visible (due to being in bright sunlight, or beneath the horizon). But we shouldn't just look for any "month FOUR" eclipse in every year of the NB period. It must happen in a year that also has an eclipse in "month TEN" which matches some stricter criteria. Before, we've said that we don't even need to know the day of the lunar month (number of days since the new moon, because eclipses come with the full moon, or within a day of it, so it's always the 13th through 15th. (We are already aware that the 14th of Nisan(nu) is a full moon from our Memorial celebrations.)

So just like we know that Nisannu or Month ONE always starts in March or April, we know that month TEN starts in January/February. There will be two full moons in that period, so we'll check them both. If we find the eclipse, we can even check against P&D for a secondary check of the accuracy, but that shouldn't be necessary unless there are two back to back eclipses that match, which isn't going to happen, anyway.

1 beru = 2 hours (1/12 of a day)

So I need to check for any Month 10 eclipse that would be seen in the morning watch 2/3 beru [1 h 20m] (before sunrise) and it should not be a full eclipse, only a half-eclipse and it will set below the horizon still eclipsed.

So we'll start looking in the most likely places. Let's try 589, 588, & 587. And we'll also look in the year that the WT chronology suggests: which would be about 609, 608, 607

The only one I can find that works perfectly is 588 where we see exactly what we are told to expect, a half-eclipse starting ato be fully visible about 1 h and 20 minutes before sunrise, and still just barely visible when the moon sets.

And here we are at two minutes before sunrise, with the moon still nearly half-eclipsed, and just about to set under the horizon as the sun comes up over the horizon on the left of the next image.

But there's a problem. Didn't we say that NEB16 was 589? There was no such eclipse in 589. This is the tenth month of 588!

The answer is that the Babylonian year started in Nisannu (Nisan=March/Apri) and this is an eclipse seen in the tenth month (Jan/Feb). So when we say a king's year is 599, we are really saying 599/598, because the full year runs from about March/April 599 to March/April 598. This was in the year we call 599, but it landed near the tail end of that year, January 19, 588 BCE.

We use Gregorian dates for this. If you wanted Julian you would have to subtract about 6 days. This is sometimes considered a trick question when translating Gregorian to Julian because currently the difference is about 13 days, but it will be about 14 days as of the year 2100 (when the so-called overlapping generation runs out). [Yes. I can troll, too!]

There were no eclipses like this in the Watchtower chronology, and the first eclipse for this year NEB16 matches the reading/prediction. It was only eclipsed when the moon was still below the horizon during the evening sun. The picture shows that as the sun is going down, the moon has nearly lost it's visibility as an eclipse. (The dark gray part of the shadow/circle must keep covering the moon's circle, which was true when it was further below the horizon but is no longer true when evening/night arrives.)

This is July 25, 589 BCE -- the same year NEB16 (589/8)

So that means that our first reading matches all the King's Lists (including "Ptolemy"), the evidence from ALL the inscriptions (Nabonidus, Adad-guppi, the contract/business tablets, the other LBAT (LBAT 1419), Berossus, etc.). But it does not match the WTS chronology. 

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

You seem to be very cluey with these tables so could you give me the Julian and Gregorian calender dates for the first regnal year of Cyrus if you please.

Thanks

scholar JW

 

 

[Arauna]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But that would also make it impossible to accept 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year.

With how many years is it out?

[AlanF]

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

Why can't you admit that you cannot answer my simple question despite your superior knowledge in every thing. It would appear that the said scholar has you stumped. Your pathetic excuses doesn't cut it with me.

You have been outsmarted and struck dumb!!

You only follow the delusions of COJ

Finally, At last I get an answer. Why did it take you so long? Now all that remains is that you provide the answer for the Gregorian calender for I am incompetent in this regard so I ask in all humility for your assistance in this matter.Are you sure the above is absolutely correct?

I can only just quote scripture but am a master of exegesis.

You are the moron

Providence - Jehovah's direction on matters is everything but you are not a spiritual person so you have no understanding of such matters.

Yes and this was the pivotal date used at that time for Cyrus' Decree which released the Exiles.

So are you saying it was not a problem confronted by scholars of that day?

No, the Climax book made a simple and honest statement.

WT Chronology was clearly adjusted  in the mid forties with new research available at that time and became more clearly established in 1963.

Nope, NB Chronology has become widely accepted but the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy remains problematic and as a consequence undermines the credibility of NB chronology.

Wrong dates is simply doing Chronology hence one must rely on the superiority of God's Word and Providence.

I have to use Grammarly which is on my desktop

You have attempted half the question which is incorrect. So repeat and answer the rest of the question and double check your authorities or advisors

scholar JW

Nothing but already-debunked lies and zero content here; no evidence presented, none needed to dismiss.

[AlanF]

8 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

Incorrect. Complete the answer to my question.

Great War was an observable sign of the end of the Gentile Times

Well it certainly commanded the attention of COJ, the scholarly community and yourself in a lather.

The Great War was big enough.

Well just answer and complete the question

scholar JW

Nothing but already-debunked lies and zero content here; no evidence presented, none needed to dismiss.

[AlanF]

8 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

No you have not made any original contributions to the study of Chronology only parroting COJ's hypothesis. Scholar should quote the Bible when dealing with you but you are not a believer, Are you?

Not meant to be an argument but a statement.

scholar JW

Nothing but already-debunked lies and zero content here; no evidence presented, none needed to dismiss.

[AlanF]

8 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

Absolutely!!

Wrong for we have that strong Cable of Bible Chronology and invisible events do matter.

 

Correct your answer to the first part and attempt the next half of the question if you dare.

scholar JW

Nothing but already-debunked lies and zero content here; no evidence presented, none needed to dismiss.

[Arauna]

On 12/14/2020 at 4:27 PM, AlanF said:

What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand

It has a lot to do with the holding of the festival and Cyrus' attendance of it to be crowned "King of the four corners of the earth!"  If you just look up the numbers/dates and do not understand the culture then you are lost!  It is about the Babylonian traditions and its importance in the social life of the nation, its acceptance of the new kings (satrap and emperor) and the most important festival to be attended by Cyrus. To dismiss it is an ERROR!

[JW Insider]

53 minutes ago, Arauna said:

With how many years is it out?

Always 20 years.

[JW Insider]

32 minutes ago, Arauna said:

To dismiss it is an ERROR!

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.

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Your theory allows the Jews to be back in 538,

How can this be if Cyrus was only crowned in 538 BCE on Nissan 1-14 (festival of Akitu) and gave the edict to return?  You work on assumptions which you stick onto me which are incorrect.

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, Arauna said:

You work on assumptions which you stick onto me which are incorrect.

The Insight book rejects that theory. I've quoted the place where they reject it every time you bring this idea up.