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

[JW Insider]

You made a mistake when quoting this section of the book, which can be found here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Coal_Age/ONc-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

30 degrees is not 1 signs, as you mistakenly presented it, but it is 1 sign as you can see by the snapshot of that portion of the page below yours:

59 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

30 degrees = 1 signs……………………………………………………1,800 minutes

12      signs = 1 great circle or circumference …………………360 degrees

The “sign” is one of the twelve divisions of the zodiac, which correspond to the twelve calendar months of the year.

In other words, you have done it again. And the addition of the "s" to make it "signs" instead of "sign" can even give the impression that it could a set of multiple signs to make 30 degrees. That would be devious and dishonest if you did this on purpose. At any rate, you tried to find evidence that that the correct idea was wrong, but instead you found a source that says the correct idea was right.

[Ann O'Maly]

54 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Keep playing, and own up to your false conclusion about the 15 degrees.

Incorrect. The answer is,

d) 30 degrees.

Refresh your numbers skills here: Division (mathsisfun.com)

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

These are the same dates given in P&D as referenced in the Watchtower. I agree with them:

• Start of 1st year, Nisan 1, 538 BCE = March 17/18, 538 BCE Gregorian = March 23/24, 538 BCE Julian
• End of 1st year, 1 day before Nisan 1, 537 = March 4/5, 537 BCE Gregorian = March 10/11, 538 BCE Julian

Correct! These dates are based on the assumption that the reign of Darius the Mede reign was concurrent with that of Cyrus. However, if Cyrus succeeded Darius during or right after Darius' first year, then the first full year of Cyrus would run from Nisan 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar, 536 BCE., or, about, March 12, 537 BCE, to March 29, 536 BCE,Julian Calendar or March 6, 537 BCE, to March 23, 536 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.

The first full year of Darius would be from Nisan 1, 538 BCE to the end of the month of Adar in 537 BCE, or, about, March 24, 538 BCE to March 11, 537 BCE, Julian Calendar or March 18, 538 BCE to March 5, 537 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.- Babylonian Chronology, 626 BC- AD 45, 1942, R.A.Parker and W.H. Dubberstein

scholar JW

[Ann O'Maly]

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

306      Encyclopedia of Vedic Astrology: Wealth & Prosperity

 Leo. And for the odd signs of zodiac, namely the Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius and Aquarius, the first half of the sign or the first 15 degrees of the sign comes under the Hora of Sun in the sign Leo, and the next half of the sign or the next 15 degrees of the sign comes under the Hora of Moon in the sign Cancer.

I see now that division involving a 3-digit number was too advanced for you. But you have been given an extra clue in the source you cited above. OK, let's have another go:

If half of a zodiacal sign spans 15 degrees, what would be the span of a whole zodiacal sign?

a) 15 degrees

b) 2520 years

c) 30 degrees

d) 1260 days

e) A partridge in a pear tree

 

[scholar JW]

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower that quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia above made use of those same dates to include the following:

*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
If we proceed according to the cuneiform inscriptions, rather than the Bible, we have to take the position that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned concurrently for a time. According to this, the accession year (an incomplete lunar year) of Cyrus as king of Babylon began on October 23 of 539 B.C.E., when he entered the city (by day) after its capture by his troops. Hence his first regnal year (a full lunar year) began on Nisan 1 of 538 B.C.E., or on March 17/18 of 538 B.C.E., Gregorian time.
The cuneiform tablet entitled “Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11” mentions Cyrus’ first regnal year. By this tablet it is calculated that this year began March 17/18, 538 B.C.E., and it ended on March 4/5 of 537 B.C.E., Gregorian time. So Cyrus’ second regnal year began the next day, on March 5/6, 537 B.C.E. In this case Cyrus’ decree must have been made before this latter date that is, late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. See pages 14, 29 of Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, edition of 1956, by Parker and Dubberstein.

JW Insider

Now that you have finally answered my simple question that had stumped the likes of Alan de Fool and Ann O'Maly, the scholarly pretenders you indeed had to rely on what the 'celebrated' WT scholars had first published on this subject as to the precise dating for the Return of the Jews under Cyrus for the first time ever published. I am not aware of such regnal data being located with modern calendars published in the academic literature for the very first time.

You should learn a lesson from this that our WT scholars have a long scholarly tradition in doing Chronology and understanding calendrical systems thus we can have confidence that despite COJ'S so-called 17 lines of secular evidence, the strong cable of WT Bible Chronology based on four witnesses alone remains accurate, faithful and true.

scholar JW

 

[JW Insider]

5 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

However, if Cyrus succeeded Darius during or right after Darius' first year, then the first full year of Cyrus would run from Nisan 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar, 536 BCE., or, about, March 12, 537 BCE, to March 29, 536 BCE,Julian Calendar or March 6, 537 BCE, to March 23, 536 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.

Not really. This does not necessarily follow. You already know the example of Labashi-Marduk, for which we have the explanation readily available on the business/contract tablets. If the name of the year for the sake of the calendar is already called for the king "X" who began that year on Nisan 1, then the calendar identifies it as year 1 of king "X."

If King "X" dies or is somehow removed after Nisan 1 by King "Y," this is King Y's accession year. But if King Y dies or is removed before the next New Year's (Nisan 1), and a new King "Z" is king by then, then King Z also had an accession year prior to Nisan 1, but only King Z will have the next "calendar" year named for him. That's because he was there at the time of the regnal "coronation" on Nisan 1 in the year following when King X was there for the coronation on the previous Nisan 1. So the calendar will call the years: King X, followed by King Z.

It would be a huge mistake if the calendar included King Y. It would throw off the calendar. How would the eclipse predictions ever work? How would 3 year leases and loans ever work that were in effect when King Y reigned? King Y would be throwing off the calendar by a whole year.

Of course, this "Darius" might not have even been given the title King of Babylon, even if it were for period of less than a year. Perhaps, the Bible purposely associated him with the Medes and he was put in charge of Babylon temporarily while Cyrus, the true new King of Babylon, cared for some other matters in other parts of his kingdom. After all, Cyrus had already been "King of Media" (since 549) himself since 10 years prior to the time when he could be called King of Babylon in 539 (accession). He had been "King of Persia" (since 559) which was 20 years prior to being King of Babylon.

[Ann O'Maly]

3 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Now that you have finally answered my simple question that had stumped the likes of Alan de Fool and Ann O'Maly

I wasn't stumped. I couldn't be bothered helping you. You can't be bothered studying the astronomical evidence, so I can't be bothered answering your frivolous questions.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Not really. This does not necessarily follow. You already know the example of Labashi-Marduk, for which we have the explanation readily available on the business/contract tablets. If the name of the year for the sake of the calendar is already called for the king "X" who began that year on Nisan 1, then the calendar identifies it as year 1 of king "X."

Nonsense. The prophet Daniel referred to the 'first year of Darius' in Da 9:1;11:1 so its is a regnal formula that cannot be ignored thus also providing essential historical data which in turn makes our Chronology, a strong cable not just like the  chain of NB Chronology.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Ann O Maly

2 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I wasn't stumped. I couldn't be bothered helping you. You can't be bothered studying the astronomical evidence, so I can't be bothered answering your frivolous questions.

You were well and truly stumped, done over like the turkey sitting on your Xmas table. the strong cable of WT chronology is not reliant on astronomical evidence alone but simply to affix a reliable, historical, pivotal date for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE in combination of four prophetic witnesses in the stream of time that validates WT Bible Chronology.

By the way how is it that you refuse to post your academic qualifications. Alan de Fool has done so and so has the said scholar?

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

41 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

you indeed had to rely on what the 'celebrated' WT scholars had first published on this subject as to the precise dating for the Return of the Jews under Cyrus for the first time ever published.

No. Those dates were published by the WT in the 1960's. All the WT had to do was copy the dates straight out of Parker & Dubberstein, a book from 1942, that was already in the Bethel Library when I got there in the 1970's.

You can also find it here:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf

It was also here in 1938:

Waldo H. Dubberstein, "The chronology of Cyrus and Cambyses," AJSL LV (1938) 417-19.

Also, the WTS admits that this does not give a precise dating for the Return of the Jews.

*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.

You constantly point out that secular works cannot choose between 586 and 587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th years. You point out that they can't be trusted since they can't get this precisely. It would be very hypocritical of you to not give the same measure of criticism for the fact that the Watchtower publications cannot choose between late in 538 or early in 537 for the decree.

[JW Insider]

43 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Nonsense. The prophet Daniel referred to the 'first year of Darius' in Da 9:1;11:1 so its is a regnal formula that cannot be ignored thus also providing essential historical data which in turn makes our Chronology, a strong cable not just like the  chain of NB Chronology.

Nonsense. It is precisely because this "regnal formula" does not include "King of Babylon" that you should not ignore the formula. Besides, look at how the WTS treats such "formulas" to mean something else, like "with reference to his kingship as it affected the Jewish nation." For Daniel 2:1, you have an example of this in INSIGHT:

*** it-1 p. 1186 Image ***
In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.)

You've already seen Witnesses on this very topic claiming that this would have been shortly after Daniel's exile, which could be dated to about 605 BCE in the standard chronology. That would make this verse mean 603 BCE (standard). The WT claims that this 2nd year mentioned in Daniel 2:1 is about 605 BCE, and that the "real" second year of Nebuchadnezzar is about 622 BCE (WT chronology).

*** it-1 p. 190 Ashdod ***
Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in 624 B.C.E.,

As you can see, INSIGHT gives Nebuchadnezzar two starting dates, 607 BCE and 624 BCE. This is similar to the several starting dates for Cyrus.

(wikipedia)

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

No. Those dates were published in the 1960's. All the WT had to do was copy the dates straight out of Parker & Dubberstein, a book from 1942, that was already in the Bethel Library when I got there in the 1970's.

You can also find it here:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf

It was also here in 1938:

Waldo H. Dubberstein, "The chronology of Cyrus and Cambyses," AJSL LV (1938) 417-19.

Also, the WTS admits that this does not give a precise dating for the Return of the Jews.

*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.

Your point?

Wrong again! WT scholars had used scholarship which originally published in 1942 to publicize those facts that in a modern calenders demonstrates how the date for the Return- 537 BCE can now be known with as much certainty as the current evidence permits. Outside of that primary source (P&D) such precise information was and to date not featured in any academic literature outside of WT publications. So, full credit to those astute WT scholars!!!

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

You constantly point out that secular works cannot choose between 586 and 587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th years. You point out that they can't be trusted since they can't get this precisely. It would be very hypocritical of you to not give the same measure of criticism for the fact that the Watchtower publications cannot choose between late in 538 or early in 537 for the decree.

Nonsense. Your argument is flawed because whatever the case, the date 537 BCE with its seventh has been demonstrated in our many publications as being sound historically and chronologically as it forms part of the interwoven strands of that strong cable. Such a date is prophetically established culminating in 1914 CE being validated by the 70 years. WT chronology has no such problem of Neb's 18/19th years as both relate to the timing of the Return of the Jews in 537 BCE and the Fall properly calculated in 607 BCE. The problematic 586/7 BCE dilemma is because scholars rely on NB Chronology which at that crucial point of Late Judean history has led to failure because such a chronology is simply  strings of beads or a chain susceptible to failure and disappointment- the Devil's work!!

scholar JW