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

[AlanF]

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

I do not want your approval - even in sarcasm.  Your words are too obnoxious and abhorent. 

Your science is based on peer consensus( like much of the science these days) which is not science but a buddy-buddy system so you can be part of the group-think. .......With no-one prepared to say: the emperor has no clothes on! 

LOL!

[AlanF]

29 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I only peek in now and then. I really do not have the time or the will to read through all of the half-baked information presented here. I have a life!  

I give a comment now and then but frankly, I do not have the ego or the wish to stay in here  to present a "winning" argument. I know what I know and I am content. Some here view the subject as a contest which they have to win at all cost. 

Some obviously are lost souls and it is sad - because they are so mistakenly cocksure. Trinitarians, evolutionists, and others...... but they have a right to their opinions.....

Talk about half-baked! What do you think the conspiracy theories you peddle are?

And you still can't figure out how 3 million Israelites left no traces in Sinai.

Or why you worship "the God of love" who is also a horrendus, murderous monster, sitting back and watching his creatures tear each other to bits.

And you think to make pronouncements upon rocket-science subjects like ancient chronology. LOL!

Such is the self-created Orwellian mind of an arrogant JW.

[AlanF]

7 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Same here. But I was interested in your 'simpler method' for obtaining the year of Cyrus' death without stars and calendars. Maybe your method was restricted to flipping open the Insight book and it telling you? 

Pretty much what all JWs do. "Don't confuse me with facts! Just tell me what to think!"

[Ann O'Maly]

36 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

[Some jumble of words that sounded like a rant.]

You confirmed that your post and screenshot had no point to make other than to somehow show me up for not knowing (or agreeing with) ... um ...something. What that something is is anyone's guess as you haven't tied it in with anything we've been discussing. 

[JW Insider]

I decided to add some of the details on the rest of LBAT 1420 (BM 38462) to further fill in the "chart" as it were.

I looked for the eclipse that the tablet identified with the 25th year of Nebuchadnezzar (NEB25). The tablet says it could be found in Year 25, in the FIFTH month (Abu) occurring at about 3 hours after sunset. We know that Abu should always start in July or August.

I found it on August 14th, 580 BCE. It did not match any other eclipse in any of the surrounding years, and it did not correctly match the Watchtower's chronology, which would have put this eclipse in 600 (so I also checked 601, 600, and 599).

Here it is 3 hours after sunset in 580 BCE. Perfect!

In this case, an eclipse that was not quite as good as above does show up for the Watchtower's preferred chronology on August 25, 600 BCE. (Or if July 27th was the target, then there was no eclipse at all in the FIFTH month of 600 BCE)

The second eclipse is reported here on LBAT 1420 for NEB25, to be six months later, and also shows up as below in the first watch of the night. Here is hour two and hour three, below:

One might argue that the Watchtower chronology has a fair shot at supporting that the WTS chronology fits an eclipse on August 27 600 BCE but there are two big problems.

1. If a specific year "X" fits ALL the eclipses, but another year "Y" FAILS on all but one or two, then which year is more likely to be intended: X or Y?

2. The second eclipse reported 6 months after the first, in month ELEVEN, did match the tablet for the standard chronology, but failed the Watchtower chronology. For the year 599 (WT chronology) it did not occur in the first watch of the night, but in the second and third watch. Here is the first, second and third hour after sunset (in the first watch) to try to match the WT chronology:

So there was no eclipse in the first watch supporting the WT. The "Watchtower-supporting" eclipse couldn't be identified until the 2nd and 3rd watch. 

For the very next year, NEB26, we have another two eclipses to look for, in month FIVE and month ELEVEN again, but this time, according to the tablet, we should find both of them to be invisible to a viewer at Babylon. Also, since the tablet tells us that month TWELVE was intercalary (a second Addaru), then we have a much better idea whether the FIFTH month of the next year has been pushed a little later than usual. This of course, causes even more problems with the Watchtower chronology which only has a visible eclipse on August 15, 599 BCE, and none in adjacent months.

If the standard chronology is right, we should find those two eclipses where stated, and there they are:

August 4, 579 and January 28 578, respectively, and invisible. The August (FIFTH month) one is nicely eclipsed at 4 in the afternoon (below the horizon), although I admit that I can't really find a good eclipse the ELEVENTH month matching the one predicted. The second picture below is as close as I can find, so perhaps this one was "passed by" due to the prediction not quite being visible enough, or maybe bad weather:

So with that we can move on to the lines that are supposed to be NEB27 according to the diary (below).

Both eclipses work OK for the standard chronology. Neither work for the Watchtower chronology in 598. Here they are (for NEB27), month THREE, June 25 578 BCE and month NINE December 19 578 BCE. The December picture is taken when the eclipse apparently peaked below the horizon around NOON, during daylight, and long gone by night.  The first picture is not a very good eclipse, but most of its "eclipse" activity was when the moon was invisible below ,the horizon, and the eclipse, already weak, weakens further after sunset.

 

The Watchtower chronology would force these into the year 598, where the eclipse for the THIRD month is invisible, but even less of an eclipse, than the poor one for 578 above. The second one mentioned in the table (NINTH month) never happens at all for 598, never getting closer to the "eclipse shadow" than in the second picture below. There was one on January 29, 597, also invisible.

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

 

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, César Chávez said:

JWinsider, you must be confusing #47 with #57. An intelligent person can also see #52. Perhaps, you’re not well versed in understanding how to use CyberSky, correctly.

No. It's not confusing at all. I don't have to be intelligent to know that you provided 3 lines from a table that are labeled with Saros 57. If this formats correctly you can scroll right and see the SAROS/INEX: 57/11

yyyy mm dd   jd(UT)      dT    lun   bgpn em1   bgum em2   bgtl em3   max  em4  endtl em5  endum em6  endpn em7  T  mxp  mxu saros inex  wd

-607  8 24 1499586.53 19359 -31000  22.12   0  23.24   0    ---       0.48   0    ---       2.13   0   3.25   0  u  1.7  0.6    57   11  sa

In fact, these are the ones you showed, which were all three labeled SAROS 57, with three consecutive INEX numbers (9, 10, 11). All three dates were 18 years and 11 days apart. (All dates were in August; from the 2nd to the 13th is 11 days, and from the 13th to the 24th is 11 days.)

-643 8 2 1486415.91 20031 -31446   7.14   0   8.32   0---9.45   0---10.58   0 12.16   0 u 1.5 0.4       57    9 tu

-625 8 13 1493001.22 19693 -31223 14.38   0 15.52   0---17.12   0---18.31   0 19.46   0 u 1.6 0.5    57  10 su

-607 8 24 1499586.53 19359 -31000 22.12   0 23.24   0---0.48   0---2.13   0   3.25   0 u 1.7 0.6     57   11 sa

So these dates I posted were exactly right. And the CyberSky software was able to locate them exactly.

The problem is that you didn't show any for 607 BCE, the Saros that you had just mentioned in the earlier post. Why are you showing one for 608 BCE if you were talking about 607 BCE?

[JW Insider]

I said (bolded):

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

These were part of the saros that has been numbered #57. None of these three above were in 607 BCE or 625 BCE.

And you responded (bolded):

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Then, you either can't read, or you just refuse to accept what you are personally seeing. Trying to twist my words again just shows me how false you are, as a witness not in good standing.

I'm not trying to twist your words. I went to some trouble trying to get you (Allen Smith) to see this the last time you presented information about -607 and tried to pass it off as 607 BCE. -607 is 608 BCE!  So your inclusion of -625 is also therefore 626 BCE!

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Don’t ask O’Maly for help, she just proved her ignorance and lacks, credibility. She is in the same position she was when "Allen Smith" slammed her and AlanF with 539/8/7 BC with useless speculations and rants, just like her lastest paper.

Actually, it was Ann O'maly who was the first person who corrected you (Allen Smith) on this exact same problem, the very last time this came up.

I'll look it up again, but I believe the last time you refused to believe or admit that you had made a mistake. This time I expect either the same, or if you look this up and find out I am right, then I expect that you might just say you intentionally meant 608 BCE all along for some reason. But then, of course, you lose the satisfaction of claiming that I can't read or that I refuse to accept what I am personally seeing.

Instead of all this posturing, then, why don't we all just try to learn this stuff together, and not spend so much time attacking each other. I admit that you have been insulted by a couple of people around here**, but I haven't insulted you or attacked you. I can understand why you might find it insulting to be shown where you are wrong, or where you haven't made yourself clear, but my goal is not to insult or attack you. No matter what your goal is.

** edited to add: When I admit that you have been insulted by a couple people around here, I should have mentioned that it was my impression that you had also been insulting them in a way that would have made me expect them to insult you. 

[JW Insider]

On 12/20/2020 at 11:29 AM, Arauna said:

You deliberately remain obtuse. The insight book  uses the date of cyrus's death 530BCE   because this date  is set in stone.  This is the most accurate, reliable, quick and accurate way to get to 539 BCE.

You say that the date is set in stone. Of course this is impossible without at least one astronomical reading. I agree with Cyrus' death in 530 BCE and I expect that almost everyone on this part of the forum agrees, too.

But I already posted from the Insight book, that the WTS only accepts this date because WTS/Insight relies on an astronomical reading that identifies one of the BCE years of Cambyses. (Just as there are several more that identify the BCE years by counting from Nebuchadnezzar.) Without that piece of secular, astronomy evidence from Cambyses the WTS would not be able to put a BCE date on Cambyses. And without trusting the Babylonian Chronicles and the various secular historians, and the secular king lists, there would be no ability to say that Cambyses was the son of Cyrus, nor that Cambyses directly followed Cyrus. Without the king lists and the Babylonian Chronicles and secular historians we wouldn't even know if this was the "right" Cyrus or the "right" Cambyses, or that Cyrus had died. The evidence that there was a Cyrus that ruled from the time his accession year and for another 9 regnal years is evidenced by several of the tens of thousands of stone business tablets. But those tablets don't give us 539 to 530 BCE. We get that from the astronomy, counting up from readings during the time of Nebuchadnezzar or backwards from Cambyses. You have the king lists and secular historians that tell us that Cambyses directly followed his father Cyrus. But those don't give a BCE date either.

With that in mind, when you read the section from the Insight book, you will probably understand why I quoted from Insight earlier:

*** INSIGHT-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.

You already can see from reading "Insight" that the WTS relies on a Babylonian clay tablet to get the astronomy reading of an eclipse to find a certain year in Cambyses' reign. They also rely on the fact that there are no missing business/contract tablets, in order to claim that Cyrus ruled for only 9 years. (Yet the WTS also relies on the NECESSITY that there are 20 missing years of these tens of thousands of tablets. The writer from Finland that CC quoted earlier would put these missing years in the reign of Nabonidus, who immediately preceded Cyrus. )

And some of the other information Insight (WTS) relies on would be obvious from a reading of the source material like Parker & Dubberstein where the entire Babylonian calendar has been recreated, based on hundreds of tablets and inscriptions. These sources include astronomical diaries and king lists. The WTS can't know that the order of kings was Nabonidus, Cyrus, Cambyses, for example, without relying on the king lists (or relying on others who relied on them). They are also relying on other secular sources to determine the length of these reigns.

Is there even one word of what I just said that you think is not true? If so, please let me know what it is that you don't believe.

[AlanF]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Is there even one word of what I just said that you think is not true? If so, please let me know what it is that you don't believe.

You want blood out of a stone?

[Ann O'Maly]

10 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is your personal opinion NOT based on astronomical evidence. Your position is for #47 not #57. Don't try to wiggle your way out of being incompetent all this time by criticizing the Watchtower. Now you're trying to manipulate the calendar year, 608/7 BC and 626/5 BC, your assumption is wrong. There are 2 points for 625 BC and 2 points for 607 BC. 3 points for 606 BC.

This cycle doesn't include 599/8/7 BC. Where is your precious Babylonian Chronicles?

 🤦‍♀️ CC, if you still can't understand something so basic as the astronomical dating convention for BCE dates, what are you doing here? 

@JW Insider is correct. You are wrong. And what is '599/8/7 BC' about? Are you aware that lunar eclipses can only occur at full moon and that only lunar eclipses can be included in a lunar eclipse cycle?

Here, I've drawn a diagram for you:

You're welcome.

[AlanF]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 🤦‍♀️ CC, if you still can't understand something so basic as the astronomical dating convention for BCE dates, what are you doing here? 

He seems to be suffering from two serious defects: a mind damaged by JWism, and the biggest case of Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen.

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

He seems to be suffering from two serious defects: a mind damaged by JWism, and the biggest case of Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen.

That applies equally to the board's Great African Queen Arauna.