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

[AlanF]

12 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Very easy if you are only master of one!

Yeah, unfortunately I'm a fairly typical American in that, except that I speak very broken Spanish and even more broken French. Very occasionally.

But you must admit that my point is right. Speaking clearly was supposed to be goal of the old Kingdom Ministry School, right?

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Still no evidence presented. You're dismissed.

Likewise. You are expelled

scholar JW

[AlanF]

27 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

I fully accept and endorse the Insight commentary. it is your nonsense that I do not accept.

i did not create Darius the Mede, you idiot. He is mentioned in Daniel accompanied with a regnal date that cannot be ignored and WT scholars take that historical mention seriously. Your omission of this obvious fact renders your hypothesis sterile.

Forgot to mention: Insight mentions but ignores the reign of Darius, stating on page 453:

<< 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. >>

Exactly what I've stated.

[AlanF]

12 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

This is good. Then people will understand, the only honesty driven by you is dishonest and liked only by ex-witnesses and apostates within.

Gibberish as usual.

[AlanF]

11 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I guess, I'm learning bad habits from you. Are you still trying to fit the Bible account of the third year of King Jehoiakim to your delusional secular evidence?

More gibberish.

[AlanF]

19 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Please, you lost your credibility almost 20 years ago. You're a worthless human.

Nyah nyah nyah nyah, nyaaah nyah!

[AlanF]

19 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Sometimes, it gets hard to make people understand something they can’t comprehend. I try my best to illustrate them with good examples.

I learned these simple things, decades ago in college.

Astronomy in the Ancient World_ Early and Modern Views on Celestial Events (2016)

One feature of this saros cycle that is shared by all others is of relevance here. The first 15 as well as the final 19 of the eclipses of this cycle are only partial eclipses. As we saw before, the reason for this is that the path of totality in these eclipses will be off the surface of the earth due to the movement toward the poles. In
the first eclipses of the series, the shadow will graze the earth near the pole, and in the final eclipses the same will happen near the opposite pole as the shadow retreats. The reason that the paths move either northward or southward and that there are thus a limited number of eclipses in a saros cycle is that the alignment between the earth, moon, in the same configuration once every 18 years 11 and 1/3 days will be
slightly different against the background of stars, and this will cause precession of lunar nodes from the perspective of the earth, thus accounting for the changing paths and the finite existence of each saros cycle.

As mentioned above, there are other cycles that can be useful in tracking and predicting eclipses, including the tritos cycle. It is also the case that lunar eclipses follow cycles similar to those of solar eclipses. There are lunar saros cycles, for example, that work in the same way as the solar cycles. This is because the principles behind solar and lunar eclipses are the same, despite some important differences that will make a big difference to observers. Lunar eclipses are far more common for any given observer on the earth, because any time a lunar eclipse happens it will be visible from any place on earth from which the moon is visible.
There is no narrow path of totality as is the case in solar eclipses, because since a lunar eclipse is created by a transit of the earth across the sun from the perspective of the moon, any observer on earth who can see the moon will see the shadow of the earth fall over the moon in whatever way it does, either partially or fully
covering it. Page 179

Unless you specifically know, only the lunar eclipses were used in ancient times to give you a specific rollout, then it would be acceptable. What calendar systems were used by Babylon, Egypt, and Judah.

I think we're dealing with a computerized gibberish generator here.

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

<< 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. >>

Read it carefully you clown. Notice the statement according to that reckoning concluding hence forth. Also, the context of that discussion was under the heading Babylonian Chronology.

What an idiot!!

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Sometimes, it gets hard to make people understand something they can’t comprehend. I try my best to illustrate them with good examples.

OK. I think the post that started out like this must have been directed at me. And I'll try to figure out why you posted this particular example/excerpt. You can correct me if I'm guessing wrong.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Astronomy in the Ancient World_ Early and Modern Views on Celestial Events (2016)

The book looks interesting. I haven't looked at it, except for this part you quote. Yes there are lots of different lunar cycles and lunar eclipse cycles. I actually don't think we even have to understand the whole intricacy of the cycles, only that Babylonians were able to predict not only the 18 year eclipses of the saros cycle, but several others within the period of each saros cycle. If we can find those same described eclipses, and we can find them on the date they gave for them, then whatever king-year they attached to that particular date is evidence. It really doesn't even matter all that much that they were able to predict them -- the observed ones were more important.

I notice that the only words you highlighted were tritos cycle and this sentence: "This is because the principles behind solar and lunar eclipses are the same, despite some important differences that will make a big difference to observers."

It's a very true statement, of course, but I didn't know why it was important to you.

I have read several of the articles by Steele, and he discusses quite a few of the possible lunar cycles and lunar eclipse cycles, and their relationship to the solar eclipse. John Steele is the author I have recommended on this thread most often, even though I thought his explanation of how scribes might sometimes use a 19 years for what is usually 18 years for a saros cycle was very misleading. I finally found that whole book online and read Steele's whole long article in it. I believe I understand it now. I shouldn't have said he was misleading, but it was very easy to get the impression that he was exaggerating a point unnecessarily, and without the necessary explanation. Otherwise people could easily get the idea that he was claiming the saros cycle was being recorded incorrectly. His actual point was that the appearance of 19 calendar years was actually very correct by the scribes of the tablets, and showed that they understood what they were doing very accurately, and weren't just assuming that every interval was always going to be 18 years. But those shifts also gave evidence that it was unlikely 747 BCE was part of an original series of observations that started at that point. The places at which the scribes were forced to put a 19 year change were indications that these were first collected from other starting points.

But you also added your own words at the end of this most recent post:

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Unless you specifically know, only the lunar eclipses were used in ancient times to give you a specific rollout, then it would be acceptable. What calendar systems were used by Babylon, Egypt, and Judah.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "rollout" but it looks like in general you are saying that we must know the calendar system of Babylon, Egypt and Judah. Maybe you meant unless I know these systems, then my chart would [not] be acceptable. And on the point of "unless you specifically know only the lunar eclipses were used" the only implication I can see here based on what you highlighted is that you might think there is a possible confusion between lunar and solar eclipses. Is that what you meant.

We don't have to worry about mixing up the type of eclipse. Only lunar eclipses can happen at night, and no solar eclipses happened on any of those given dates. Nor would they match the descriptions.

I understand how it might be nice to know everything about all these calendars, but I think it's more important to focus on the description of any eclipse, planetary observation, etc., that can be dated and then accept the king's name as evidence. Just one or two of these would not be solid evidence. I think the evidence builds up as we see nearly 100% consistency as all this data fits perfectly into the entire chart. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be on the lookout for inconsistencies. 

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Correct, this is why you fail as a researcher by holding on to useless COJ data and arguments.

Not that it matters, but I just realized that no one has come up with even one point or bit of evidence that COJ made any mistakes about any of the Babylonian secular data. I assume therefore that he must not have got any of that wrong, since no one has said they found anything specific, or shown anything.

Even if this is true though, I still want to make up my own mind about the evidence without any reliance on COJ. I have read his Babylonian detail sections before but I want to see what I'd learn about these topics. I tested VAT 4956 against Furuli and I checked what COJ said on that, too. But this is the first time I've gotten into the lunar ecliipse documents.

I know that COJ argues for some specific Bible interpretations. I have barely skimmed some of those parts. I thought I recalled a section on the 70 years and 70 weeks. These are parts I still haven't read because I don't really have an interest in his Bible interpretations. I assume I know approximately what he has said based on reading some forum references. When I get a chance I'll try to critique and test his interpretations. Maybe next year.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

As a scholar that knows more than you, the example is depicting how disingenuous other scholars can be.

Yes. I have acknowledged elsewhere that he knows his stuff, especially the math, and has done the tedious work of compiling and presenting to much of the data. I was very impressed at his methods for trying to figure out exactly what the Babylonians knew about all these cycles, and when they knew it, and how they figured it out. Theoretical match or empirical tests. I shouldn't have critiqued his writing on the topic of the 18 v 19 months. Turns out he wasn't saying what I thought anyway. But I don't think he was depicting how disingenuous other scholars can be, only how they made assumptions that might not hold up for the 8th century BCE as their methods were still developing. He thought that some assumptions made (Sachs, etc) about the 8th century BCE were really only evidenced in the 6th century BCE.

 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What software are you using?

I used TheSky6 to test Furuli's VAT 4956 claims. I'm testing lunar eclipses with CyberSky5. It's the free version but has all the functionality (for 30 days).

 

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is kind of the argument O'Maly is attempting to make. She seems to understand a little better than you, here. Why not ask her.

I'm not sure what you think is wrong. My dates are off? Perhaps she'll come back and you can ask her about it. You didn't say where the argument was wrong. And you didn't give an example of what I got wrong. So you are the only one in a position to ask her anything. (Besides I should get a chance to read her paper either on the weekend or Monday. Then I might even know what you're asking her about.)

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You just failed with this analogy. You are so consumed disproving the Watchtower each year, you are getting further from facts as you go along.

Are you saying you disagree with the analogy? In that case you must not have understood that the author is making the same case I am making with the analogy. Once I read it more clearly, I see that the author isn't trying to hide this same point, but expects us to realize that he is also talking about the way the extra 11 days can appear to stretch across an extra year, if the first eclipse hits at exactly the right one or two week period. The analogy is actually correct. The same type of thing would happen with a Babylonian year-to-year calendar, a BCE/CE calendar, a Seleucid calendar, etc.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What you are saying, you know specifically, who used a lunar calendar, a solar calendar, or lunar/solar calendar. Who used a specific observation, or a specific ongoing event as a reference, point.

Yes, of course we have plenty of information and evidence about the Babylonian calendar. But even if we didn't we'd be able to find these eclipses by their description, and then we'd know whether they fit the dates we expect or not through software that can calculate this sort of thing.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Who used a specific observation, or a specific ongoing event as a reference, point.

The Babylonians did. The Jews did.

 

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

your use of stars and calendars - which is actually unnecessary to get to 539 BCE because there are much easier methods of of getting to  the correct dates.

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?

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

You are splitting the hairs

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

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

Not mentioning Akitu in their writings does not mean they have rejected it.  They may not have seen it to consider it

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,

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

Evidence  that you are the one obsessing! and on top of that you are patronizing towards me!  

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.