ComfortMyPeople

You'd think so, right? But originally Armageddon was going to end in 1914. When it no longer looked like that was going to happen on time, that "end" was later pushed to 1915. But that's why I said 1914 is "part of Armageddon." You should read "The Battle of Armageddon" which was also called "The Day of Vengeance" by C.T.Russell. I'm sure you can find the pieces and put it together yourself.
". . . the Day of Vengeance ... will end in October, 1914" -- The Battle of Armageddon / The Day of Vengeance, page 547. "Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word." The Time Is At Hand, page 101. And the Time is at Hand, on page 99, says:
...

Note to self: One more move of the goal posts should be expected.

*** w56 12/15 p. 755 par. 11 Telling the Good News from Day to Day ***
At the start of the great tribulation upon Satan’s organization in 1914 all such people felt merely the “beginning of pangs of distress,” 
*** w51 3/15 p. 164 Time Better than Money ***
When Christ was enthroned, in 1914, great tribulation was started against Satan and his wicked world organization. If it had then proceeded to completion, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of human flesh that tribulation was shortened or cut short, to allow a period of time for men to take in and give out knowledge of the established heavenly kingdom,
*** ws13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
In the past, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 when World War I started. We thought that Jehovah “cut short” those days in 1918 when the war ended so that the remaining anointed ones on earth could preach the good news to all nations. (Matthew 24:21, 22) After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, . . .
The "Armageddon" error was fixed many years before the "Great Tribulation" part was fixed.
And for good measure, it should also be added that the 1914 doctrine was NOT to show the start of Christ's reign in Heaven. For about 40 years after the 1914 doctrine was "established," Christ's reign in Heaven had started in 1878. These ideas were repeated into the 1930's, and parts of it into the 1940's. 1878 was still considered a valid prophetic date during the first Tuesday night Book Studies I ever remember attending. We still studied "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" when I was 7 years old. All this was well after 1914. It was just a few years after the famous 1922 Cedar Point convention when the WTS dropped the first hints that the new date for Christ's reign might change to 1914.
 In 1878 God’s favor was withdrawn from the nominal systems. From that time on . . . . Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? Then back to the field, . . .  This is the day of all days. Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom. 

You keep implying that the 1914 doctrine is there to prove that the GT, Big A had begun then, and God's Kingdom has already been "established" -- that the doctrine claims all this has already occurred. 
Originally, the doctrine was there to prove that 1914 was part of Armageddon and the start of the Great Tribulation. But that part was dropped many years ago.
<bloviation> ** begins
However, I'll give you the part of about God's Kingdom:
*** w22 July p. 3 The Kingdom Is in Place! ***
. . . a prophecy that helps us discern when the Kingdom was established, . . . Read Daniel 4:10-17. The “seven times” represent a period of 2,520 years. That time period began in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonians removed the last king from Jehovah’s throne in Jerusalem. It ended in 1914 C.E. when Jehovah enthroned Jesus—“the one who has the legal right”—as King of God’s Kingdom.—Ezek. 21:25-27.
Even here, the Watchtower plays with some nuanced semantics between the expression "established" and "fully established." There is even a sense given that the old Russellites were wrong for believing that the kingdom would be "fully established' in 1914, although it's a bit ambiguous as to whether they were right or not:
*** w84 4/15 p. 3 1914—A Focal Point ***
The March 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence described two events of earthshaking importance that were looked forward to as due to happen in 1914: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.” Hence, many Bible Students expected God’s Kingdom to be fully established in that year.

*** w84 12/1 p. 16 par. 7 Keep Ready! ***
Thus, although he would be ‘present’ and his Kingdom would already have been established, both he and his Kingdom would still have to “come” 
 
 Up until about 1975, the Watchtower always made the bold claim that the Kingdom had already been "fully established." It was about then, that the phrase was only used ambiguously, which I remember once caused a minor problem in the translation departments when they were translating a booklet. I think it was called "One World, One Government Under God's Kingdom," or something like that. The publications started saying "established" in 1914 but only "fully established" when the new heavens and new earth were here, and that became the explanation for the "Lord's prayer" question that came up fairly often: "Should we still pray for God's kingdom to come since it came in 1914?" 
That issue was sort of resolved in the awkward wording of a new song that came out in 2014:
*** sjj song 22 The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come! ***
The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come!
BTW, I couldn't find the wording of that particular 1975 booklet in the Watchtower Library, but I found something quite similar which shows the kind of verb tense ambiguity they were going for. It's similar to the 1984 quote above:
*** w70 10/15 p. 629 par. 17 The Kingdom of Salvation Available Today ***
Former kings, emperors, presidents, governors and dictators on being resurrected may not expect to take over automatically and resume ruling over their onetime subjects or fellow citizens. The old system of things under the Satanic “god of this system of things” is no longer in operation. God’s new system of things under his Messianic kingdom of the heavens is fully established over all the earth. Of necessity, it will have organization of all those on earth . . . 
Note that it looks like (1970) the Watchtower was still saying it was already "fully established" but it's couched in a discussion of the near future, because the previous sentence says: "The old system of things . . . is no longer in operation." 
In previous decades, it was just claimed outright that it was already "fully established" in 1914:
*** w60 1/1 p. 29 par. 9 Part 29—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” ***
. . . In that year [1914] the kingdom of God was to be fully established in the heavens to see that His will should be done on earth. 
*** w51 10/1 p. 583 “Happy Are the Eyes That Behold” ***
Our eyes are far more blessed than even theirs, because we can see by the fulfillment of Bible prophecy that Jehovah’s royal government by his Christ is now fully established
</bloviation> ** ends

Despite my initial resolve not to be interested in Babylonian Astronomy, clay tablets, and conflicting dates circa 500bce to 600 bce, I find myself fascinated that You Guys find it of sufficient interest to pour over it in such detail. Perhaps there is something here that I am missing.
A rough analogy, I suppose would be like Quantum Physics, which I find fascinating, but unknowable, and can only be guessed at by trying to visualize what an esoteric equation is really representing in reality. Also far beyond my ability to comprehend, but at least I can see a practical use for quantum studies. 
Nowadays you need a good understanding of Quantum  Physics to understand Astronomy, or solid state electronics, or even how light behaves. This has PRACTICAL applications, such as Smart Phones, GPS, FTL communications, etc. We use this each and every day in contemporary society.
The people back in Babylonian times have been dead for 2600 and more years, and what they wrote in clay mud with sticks is not relevant anymore.
I can see enjoying knowing, so there is that, but if the subtext of all of this research is to be able to prove that the Great Tribulation, and Armageddon, and God’s Kingdom established has already occurred … it’s a complete waste of time.
You can stand in the street and look around and see those things have not yet happened.
You know, Jonah was super ticked off that he did all that work, hardship and danger, and God changed his mind about Nineveh.
At least he didn’t try to convince people they had been destroyed invisibly.
 

These are taken from Ann O'maly's fact-check against a claim by someone who tried a slightly different method than Furuli's interpretations. This is why a few of the other readings were included below. The 13 referred to in the Watchtower are matched to Furuli's original list, numbered in red. Only the astronomically relevant info is summarized/paraphrased.
1. Line 1: Nisanu 1 = May 2, 588 BCE/ April 22, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Bull of Heaven (Taurus)
2. Line 3: Nisanu 9 = May 10, 588 BCE / April 30, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon 1 cubit in front of β Virginis
x. Line 4: Nisanu 14 = May 16, 588 BCE / May 6, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset 4°
3. Line 8: Ayyaru 1 = June 1, 588 BCE / May 22, 568 BCE Moon crescent ‘thick,’ visible ‘while the sun stood there’ … … 4 cubits below β Geminorum ... Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed
x. Line 11: Ayyaru 26 = June 27, 588 BCE / June 17, 568 BCE Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed
4. Line 12: Simanu 1 = June 30, 588 BCE / June 20, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Cancer, ‘thick’ crescent …… Sunset to moonset 20°
5. Line 14: Simanu 5 = July 4, 588 BCE / June 24, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon passed east 1 cubit β Virginis
6. Line 15: Simanu 8 = July 7, 588 BCE / June 27, 568 BCE First part of night, Moon 2½ cubits below β Librae
7. Line 16: Simanu 10 = July 9, 588 BCE / June 29, 568 BCE First part of the night, Moon balanced 3½ cubits above α Scorpii
x. Line 17: Simanu 15 = July 15, 588 BCE / July 5, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset: 7°30', ‘omitted’ lunar eclipse
reverse:
8. Line 5’: Šabatu 1 = February 22, 587 BCE / February 12, 567 BCE Moon visible in the Swallow (southern Pisces) …… Sunset to moonset: 14°30'
9. Line 6’: Šabatu 6 = Feb. 27, [587 BCE / February 17, 567 BCE] First part of the night, Moon surrounded by halo; Pleiades, the Bull of Heaven, and the Chariot [stood in it .... ]
10. Line 7’: Šabatu ? = March 4, 587 BCE / February 22, 567 BCE α Leonis balanced 1 cubit below Moon
x. Line 8’: Šabatu 13 or 14 = March 8 or 9, 587 BCE / February 25 or 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 17° (text: 7), not watched
11. Line 12’: Addaru 1 = March 24, 587 BCE / March 14, 567 BCE Moon visible behind Aries ‘while the sun stood there’ … … measured sunset to moonset 25°
12. Line 13’: Addaru 2 = March 25, 587 BCE / March 15, 567 BCE First part of the night,41 Moon balanced 4 cubits below η Tauri (Alcyone)
x. Line 14’: Addaru 7 = March 30, 587 BCE/ March 20, 567 BCE Moon surrounded by halo. Praesepe and α Leonis [stood] in [it ....]
13. Line 16’: Addaru 12 = April 5, 587 BCE / March 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 1°30’.
 

Sure!
In the next post I will point out which items from both the front and the back were cherry-picked to see if they could fit 588 instead of 568.
The pictures, and translation below are taken from the following site:
https://www.lavia.org/english/Archivo/VAT4956en.htm 
[After this post I will copy a simpler translation for reference that also includes the theorized Julian dates if you are comparing between 568 and 588 BCE]
 

A typical translation is here, for the obverse side. You will see 18 lines, although the last two, as you can see from the picture, are mostly missing. 

 

 

I was afraid to look but when I did I realized the video had been filmed in front of a live studio ostrich.

For anyone interested in the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology and the support from tablets, the following site looks to be fairly comprehensive. Just looking at one page here might help demolish the misconception that VAT 4956 is somehow important, and that somehow finding errors on it hurts the accepted chronology:
Here's the primary page I am referring to:
https://www.jhalsey.com/jerusalem-book/standard/timeline.html
available as a pdf, too:
For those afraid to look, I will provide some snippets:

Of course they do provide such evidence that discredits the Watchtower's claims concerning these dates. Why do you think the Watchtower Society is the biggest opposer of all Neo-Babylonian tablets? Why do you think every article about them is written to sow seeds of doubt?
You can interpret it however you like. Or you can throw the whole thing out. It changes nothing. It's just another line of independent evidence that helps people put a BCE date on all the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. But it's hardly the only one. In another post I'll provide the list that "J Halsey" added to the Internet. I don't know who he is and I never saw this until today. It seems fairly complete. 
I have never heard anyone use 18 year cycles or 19 year cycles to validate any related conjectures. But if you are saying that if we follow that pattern it intersects with 607/6, then it sounds like you might be saying that you are the example of the lengths some people are eager to go to since you are the one claiming that these patterns intersect with 607/6 BC. I do agree that it's a stretch though, because NONE of these patterns have anything to do with 607/6 BC or 587/6 or 568/7 or 588/7. 

True. As long as you believe in 1914, it doesn't matter whether you know how it was calculated.
 *** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. . . .
Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? . . . That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) 
Technically, I have no problem with the approved association requirement, because it says it only includes "those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses." The list included more than just the 1914 doctrine, and one of those other items in the list is already partly obsolete; it included a phrase that is no longer considered Scriptural. I highlighted Revelation 11 because this is the very chapter that associates only 1260, not 2520, with the Gentile Times. 

I expect that this is true of 99% of all Witnesses. Certainly any that I speak with in the congregation would advocate for 607 BC, but the topic hardly comes up any more, and I'm certainly not going to bring it up. It's barely been mentioned in the publications since 2018, although it's been added to the extra material in the new NWT (simplified).
The Witnesses who no longer believe the Barbour/Russell version of 607 (606) are the ones who discuss the evidence in private email groups and closed forums. Not much danger of anyone changing their mind on a forum like this one.
Yes. I think that's about right. I think a lot of Witnesses believe that it's simply a matter of trusting the old Barbour/Russell 2,520, and they don't even give a thought to the fact that our doctrines have completely divorced it from the 1,260. Yet, several years ago, the very last mention of the 1,260 in the Watchtower was with the very verse in Revelation 11 that ties the 1,260 directly to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24, and yet the Watchtower doesn't even mention that fact, only that the 1,260 "Gentile Times' number, should be measured in "days" (from December 1914 to early 1919) as opposed to the 2,520 which gets measured in years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. I think it's a shame that so many of us actually believe it's a "Bible calculation." That's the power of indoctrination and tradition.

Very true. LOL. Besides, I already know the explanation of why you do what you do. You have inadvertently admitted it several times over the last 10+ years. It hasn't changed.
I don't need to read COJ's book. I read Furuli's book to draw my own conclusions.  I wrote my own critique after checking my own Sky5 screenshots but didn't put it anywhere but in my own notebooks. (Small parts made it to another topic on this forum.) Later I also read COJ's critique, and the critiques from a few others. The order wasn't so important, but I just didn't want to be dependent on COJ. 
Truth is I don't need VAT 4956. No one does in order to put accurate BCE dates on the Neo-Babylonian chronology or Nebuchadnezzar's reign. All it does is point to the exact same years that a couple dozen other astronomical observations on other tablets already point to. If you threw out or rejected VAT 4956 you'd get the same answer from several other tablets. And for my own purposes I have no reason to worry about what secular BCE date gets applied to any of these Neo-Babylonian reigns, or the Biblical dates in BCE either, for that matter. If the Bible didn't see fit to provide information about the BCE dates, it's clearly not part of what's necessary to keep us fully equipped for every good work. Just because something is obvious doesn't mean it's all that important.  
I've read most of COJ's GTR4 book by now, and don't see much of anything important or new. It's all been done by people before him and after him. It's impressive for an amateur to have been so careful and put it all into words that the rest of us amateurs can easily understand. I like Steele though. He is not so easy to understand, but I am impressed with his math skills and his carefulness, and that he admits clearly what we know and what we don't know. And Steele, like all the others, agrees with COJ, and indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year must be 568, not 588 BCE. 
No. Of course not. I only questioned what I deliberately questioned. Not everything you said was wrong. It was the misinformation I specified that was wrong, and a couple other points too trivial to bother with.
Nope. That's why I would never falsely manipulate it or take it out of context. All I asked you is where he criticized Furuli's assertion on the earth's rotation. [I said: "What was that criticism? Where is it found?"] I suspect you might even be right, that perhaps Furuli tried to make a big deal out of Delta-T and COJ might have recognized that this is pretty meaningless if Furuli needs the same Delta-T calculations for his own theories about 588. If Furuli needed Delta-T to be so far off not to work for 568, then he would need to throw away EVERYTHING in his whole book. 
You don't need scholarly expertise to address minor errors that those with scholarly expertise already addressed. Besides, he made them easy to understand so that you could see why they were minor when you consider the overall set of points. There may easily be 3 or 4 easily recognized errors on VAT 4956. The WTS Insight book claims that another tablet is helpful and reliable for Cambyses' 7th year, when that tablet apparently has many more known errors on it that scholars have corrected. 
I'm sure that's true. That was also Stephenson's intention. Steele's intention. Sachs' and Hunger's intention. To make it unreliable you'd have to find more than just a couple of copyist's errors. The various manuscripts of the Bible show us that there have been THOUSANDS of copyists' errors just in the first early centuries in the Bible manuscripts. That doesn't make the Bible unreliable. Most of those errors are minor.
Now you're talking!! Steele, of course, agrees exactly with the dates COJ presents for the entire Neo-Babylonian period, including Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, and Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, and Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. 

I agree. You can easily collect about 5 different translations all from various sites, but they all say the same thing. The sheer number of tablets with the same terms used over and over again, and then translated into Greek, and Latin over the years, and now German and English, etc., and backed up by similar readings in Egyptian documents, and the Babylonian's own explanations in their own documents allows for a pretty good understanding. 
The snapshots of the skies are the most fun part of this, I hope you will be adding a few. I don't want to just push mine on here in case people think I'm biased, LOL. (Although if you have seen past topics I put here, you will see I have already posted dozens of "Babylonian" screen shots.) 

So, with that in mind, here I go checking the first line of the lunar positions from VAT 4956:

We know that Nisan is the start of the new year for both Jews and Babylonians, and in fact they both used the same name for the month Nisan/Nisannu (used to be Datsun, lol).
So the first question is looking for a start of a new month in a year that might be "NEB 37." People talk about the year 568 BCE [-567] and 588 BCE [-587] as possibilities, so rather than check every year, I'll see what I can see for those two years, first and then might start checking other years if these don't seem right. 
So, to an amateur like me, I might not know if Nissanu 1st is in January, February or any month all the way to December. I'll check them all, because all I have to do here is see in what month the new moon becomes visible behind the Bull constellation. I accept the idea (also found in WTS publications that it was a matter of checking for the first opportunity of the new day to see if the new moon was visible, and since the new day started at sunset, about 5:45 pm, that's the time I will start checking. 
As I scroll through the days on Stellarium, from near Babylon, Iraq starting -567/1/1 I set the time to sunset and scroll through the days.
My first new moon is on 1/23 and the Bull constellation is high in the sky and no moon visible anywhere near it. My second new moon shows up on 2/22, I scroll through the minutes to watch the sun go down and the sky get dark, from 5:30pm to 7:30pm and I see that the new moon is so close to the sun that the moon sets when the sun sets and there's no way it would be visible anyway. Besides it is in the "Swallow" constellation, still not near the Bull. Even the next day 2/23 when the moon sliver is slightly more visible and far enough behind the sun to be seen around 6:30pm, it's still in the "Swallow" not near the "Bull". The 3rd new moon I check happens on 3/23, but it's right there with the sun and sets with the sun just after 6pm. But it is getting a bit closer the Bull of Heaven, although still in front of it not behind it. Perhaps it waxes big enough on the next day so that the new month would be considered to have started on 3/24. The moon is still fairly young, meaning only a sliver is showing, and it is still ready to disappear with the sun shining in those few minutes after the sun sets. I'm not sure if it was visible or not. Even if it were, this can't be the month on the tablet because it's still too far in front of the Bull, not behind it. Still on the potential reading for March 24 to be the correct month to start Nisannu the 1st. So I've checked out the same situation from my house when the moon is new and 2.7 days old and the moon is still visible for at least an hour after the sun sets. The new month has definitely started by now, and for all I know a good astronomer might have been able to see it yesterday when it was 1.7 days old, but it was still neither behind the Bull or in front of it. This time it was right there in the middle of the Bull constellation.  see the "mp4" I attached below So on to the next month. The fourth new moon attempted is on 4/22. We must be close. Because this time, the moon almost sets with the sun meaning it was likely impossible to see the nearly non-existent sliver of the new moon, but it would have been behind the Bull, at least. So if there is good visibility "tomorrow" on 4/23, then I expect it to be the best day. Sure enough, the Bull sets with the sun, so no astronomer could see those stars in the light, but they still knew exactly where it was as the sliver of the moon appears just behind it between the Bull and the next constellation that it is still in front of. I choose 4/23 so far as the best candidate so far, so I decide to "cheat" and see if this is the perhaps the same date that the "experts" picked. https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf On page 26, P&D picked the same date I picked for the Nisannu the 1st. 4/23. (His dates are in BCE. and that first date 4/23 is the first month of the new year.  Just for fun I check the rest of the months, and they get farther and farther off. I also decide to check what day the experts say was the official day starting Addaru (in the previous month). I wasn't sure if it would have been a possible sighting on 3/23 or the definitely visible moon on 3/24. P&D says it was 3/24. Of course P&D has the advantage of knowing where the leap months are based on tablets, and whether any tablets were dated Addaru 30 or if they all ended on Addaru 29. And this tablet itself gives us a mention of Nissanu 1 being the same day as Addaru 30.  After seeing the failures of the next months, I notice that P&D never has Nissanu starting before 3/11 or after 4/27, so we are already in a fairly "late" start of spring. I say this because on March 11th, in a few days, we will be in nearly the exact same situation where a new moon appears, but sets so close to the bright sun that we won't likely be able to see it until 3/11 or 3/12. If that's the first of Nisan, then Nisan 14 (and 1+13=14) should be on the 3/11+13 = 3/24. I think that in Judea they wouldn't have been able to detect it until the 12th, but we have more accurate measurements these days and know it was there even if we can't see it for all the sunlight interference. To see the movie (below) from 3/24 568 BCE, you have to make it full screen. The moon is selected so it has the little red rays coming out of it. Trying to show it as a sliver would make it impossible to locate here, so they show it as animating/oscillating from a dot to a white ball and back.
 

moonset-567.mp4

Not to get into this again with you, but VAT 4956 refers to about 30 very specific events. They are astronomical events which the same tablet itself says are tied to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
No critics link it to "the Saros cycle of 19 years" because there is no such thing as a Saros cycle of 19 years. If you ever are able to locate such a reference I'd love to see it. 
The WTS doesn't propose an 18-year-cycle. Nor did they ever mention an intention to propose one. Nor do the publications ever mention "saros" or 18 years in any context about lunar or solar or planetary or astronomical events. 
Trying to tie overwhelming evidence from person's who have no interest in the Watchtower (Steele, Sachs, Hunger, Ptolemy, Stephenson, Parker, Dubberstein, etc.) to persons who are critics of the Watchtower is just an old trick sometimes called "poisoning the well." It's just another logical fallacy people still fall for to avoid looking at the evidence for themselves. In this case it is the Watchtower that is the opposer of the tablets, plain and simple. But it has become necessary to grasp at almost anything to sow doubt about the tablets
What was that criticism? Where is it found?
Are you able to explain why scholars praised him for being so thorough?
There you go!! Something we can agree on.

I see a lot of online claims about the Babylonian and Egyptian measurements using fingers, hand, four-fingers, four-fingers+thumb, double-hands, fist, double-fists, forearm, foot, etc., and not all of them are accurate. It looks like the Egyptians had a specific fist-measure, but I don't see anything in the Babylonian documents that define the fist as a measure. I have deferred to Steele, Neugebauer, Sachs/Hunger, Stephenson/Fatoohi, and a few other resources on the standards of measurement in use. If you have access to the full documents below, I found that these ones were useful:
Pathways into the Study of Ancient Sciences
Isabelle Pingree, John M. Steele, Charles Burnett, DAVID EDWIN PINGREE, Erica Reiner
https://www-jstor-org.azp1.lib.harvard.edu/stable/24398230
Angular measurements in Babylonian astronomy
L. J. Fatoohi, F. R. Stephenson
Archiv für Orientforschung, Bd. 44/45 (1997/1998), pp. 210-214 The History of Ancient Astronomy Problems and Methods
O. Neugebauer
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan., 1945), pp. 1-38
https://www-jstor-org.azp1.lib.harvard.edu/stable/542323
Babylonian Mathematics
Raymond Clare Archibald Isis, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Dec., 1936), pp. 63-81   A New Look at the Constellation Figures in the Celestial Diagram Author(s): Donald V. Etz Source: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, 1997, Vol. 34 (1997), pp. 143-161 Published by: American Research Center in Egypt Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40000803   Babylonian Horoscopes Author(s): Francesca Rochberg Source: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1998, New Series, Vol. 88, No. 1 (1998), pp. i-xi+1-164 Published by: American Philosophical Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1006632   I thought that the Fatoohi/Stephenson method was the best to determine that a finger remained a consistent 0.092 degrees from 600 BCE to about 50 BCE. And that a cubit measure (as an angle) was consistently 2.2 degrees.  Those can give some good working numbers for comparing the measurements on several tablets to Stellarium readings.   I was surprised to learn that there are ancient measurement standards "set in stone" for lengths of a cubit, number of fingers in a cubit (24), 'how to draw a human body' templates with proportions (measured in fists, even). Although there were different cubits and measures in different countries, there were also some commonalities between "feet" measures between Egypt and Mesopotamia that could only have meant that one influenced the other for a trade standard. Most of the above papers discuss celestial measurements, and I include them because there is even some  speculation that the Babylonians and Egyptians were sometimes measuring with various instruments, not just with hands. By the 500's BCE their influence on Pythagoras was already obvious and accurate enough for some mathematical formulas based on their ancient observations. And I had never actually looked at Ptolemy's writings before this year, and was amazed that his access to and reliance on ancient Babylonian astronomy documents allowed him to go into such accurate mathematical detail. (I linked to Ptolemy's Almagest in an earlier post.)   

A pretty cool tool for angular “rule of fist” astronomical observations is available for any IPhone. Mine is about 8 years old.
THEODOLITE - On the App Store. 
 

One more important thing is to click on the Moon (also called SIN in this Sky Culture, because the Moon god was named SIN). You will be able to see one of the lines of information showing the phase of the moon which will be very important. At this time on January 1st, the phase is: "Moon Age: 8.1 days old (Waxing Gibbous)"
That means that at 7pm, when I took this screenshot, it was now 8.1 days since the new moon sliver began, and the sliver was "waxing" or growing bigger (prior to the full moon). After the full moon the phase becomes "Waning Gibbous," getting smaller again until the moon disappears and starts a new sliver (new moon) for a new month.
 

We can use the "new moon" -- the transition between waning and waxing -- to not only find the beginning of the new month, but also the beginning of the new year. The new year was the month starting the first day of Nisannu, just like the Hebrew "sacred" new year was started on the first day of Nisan.
The new year started Nisannu the 1st, and the month Nisannu was the month that started closest to the spring equinox. Therefore the first full moon after the spring equinox should always be within a day of Nisan 14. That's because there are 29.5 days in a lunar month, so months typically alternated between 29 and 30 days for an average of 29.5. The middle of a 29-day month could land closer to the 14th, and the middle of a 30-day month could land closer to the 15th. Also, it depended on whether there was a delay in actually seeing the new moon sliver which could easily delay by a day.
Note the Watchtower's comment on Nisan 14 here:
*** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” ***
According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. For example, in 1975 the Memorial date, as calculated fourteen days from the new moon (nearest the spring equinox) visible in Jerusalem, was Thursday, March 27, after sundown. Appropriately, there was also a full moon on Thursday, March 27, 1975. The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown. The full moon also occurs on this same date. So if, in the future, any of Jehovah’s people should be out of touch with the governing body, they could determine the Memorial date with fair accuracy from local calendars that show the first full moon after the spring equinox. The celebration would then take place after sundown of the day on which the full moon occurs.
So a fun experiment is to see if you can use just observation in the software program to find the date of the new year. You can probably find Nisannu just by looking for the exact time the phase changes from waning to waxing (the new sliver) and find the one closest to the Spring Equinox. That always puts the first full moon after the spring equinox in March or April, and very rarely, early in May.
If you scroll through the dates, you find the first new moon is on January 23, -567. The next one is on February 22nd. Still too early. The next one is on March 23rd. A good candidate. And the next one is on April 23rd. Also a good candidate. And we have to know something about Babylonian observations to figure out which one of those last two is the best candidate. But we can take a good guess and see if it matches the scholars later. 
After guessing, we can check it against page 26 of Parker and Dubberstein: https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf
P & D had the advantage of checking hundreds of dated clay tablets to be able to know which years had the leap month, and that produced a much more sure version of the Babylonian calendar. 
What Stellarium will let you do is see how much the sun's glare might have interfered with the ability to see a new moon sliver. If it couldn't be seen, the month started the next day. Also, they new it was due if the previous month had 30 days. But some months would have only 29 which would pretty much mean the next month should have 30.

@xero, i don't know how far along you are but Stellarium is a great tool for this, and I see you are using the Mul.Apin Sky Culture. It saves time from having to keep track of the Babylonian star names yourself.
I suspect there will be some others here who might try the Stellarium software, too. If so, they should know that it's good to get more than use the online web version. It's great, but the desktop version gives you everything you need.
It's free. Although you are allowed to donate. 
You can download and install the latest version 23.3 or 23.4 from here: https://stellarium.org/release/2023/09/25/stellarium-23.3.html
Once installed, you will want to change the location to somewhere near Babylon. The city @xero picked is below:

Once you install it, you can hover your mouse over the bottom left edge of the screen and select the icon just under the clock:
"Sky and Viewing Options [F4]"
Then select "Sky Culture" from the top of that newly opened window, and pick Babylonian -- MUL.APIN:

Now when you close that window, pick the clock icon you saw earlier. 
Start with any BCE date you like, but I think most people will try either 588 BCE or 568 BCE if the first thing they want to check is VAT 4956:
Along the bottom of the screen, if you hover the mouse over the bottom left edge of the screen you will see some other options:

The first two highlighted ones will toggle the borders of the constellations on, which is helpful. The second one toggles the names on and off. But you will also probably want to experiment with the imagery and the horizon/landscape settings which you can make disappear or make  almost transparent. You can also use the arrow keys and Page Up and Page Down to zoom in and out and turn the orientation so that you are facing due West which is my favorite place to start. 
The last thing to do after orienting your screen is to go back to that Clock icon and set the year, month, day, and time. If you want to check 568 BCE first, then type the following into the date and time boxes. For purposes of VAT 4956 I would start on January 1, 568 BCE. In astronomy dates 568 BCE is written as -567, due to the zero year issue. So that's actually written as -567:01:01 -- 00:00:01. You don't have to spin it all the way back; you can type numbers into the fields. Here I will set it for 4:45 in the afternoon.

16:45 (4:45pm) is pretty close to sundown on January 1, but you can "spin" the dial forward to just after sundown so that you can actually see the visible stars:

If you make it even later after sundown, the glow of the sun is gone, and you can see more constellations fall below the horizon. Just for fun I have also toggled the ecliptic lines which might come in handy for later:

That's pretty much the set-up although there's a ton of other things to play with.
 

It might be good to read at least the first page of this work: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41670130
You won't need a log-in to JSTOR for it, because it's all on the preview page.
Basically, the point is that a "cubit" is indeed a unit of angular measure, but the paper uses a more stringent method of measuring it accurately by looking at the 200 or so planetary references in Babylonian documents, since planets move slower than the moon and some planets were only visible for a short period of time, and therefore we can know the time window of the observation more accurately.  
Basically, as you can see in the summary of the document, the cubit had been considered to be about 2 degrees, and a finger would be 1/24th of a cubit. The paper will more accurately offer evidence of 2.2 degrees per cubit, a difference of only 10%. 

Also, on the question of what is in front of or behind, the following will likely make the most sense to you after you have looked at enough observations and compared them with your Stellarium screen (or any other software that does this).a
Even though it's easier to envision the horizon rather than the ecliptic, it still generally works out that words Babylonians used in their "astronomy" mapped as follows:
North=Above, South=Below, East=Behind, West=In Front.  For the parts of the sky closest to the horizon, especially towards the west,  it therefore works out like the old "Western" movie cliche, where "the sun sinks slowly into the west." So it's easy to imagine that most of the heavenly objects are sinking in that direction therefore the sun was in front of all the stars that will also "sink" in that general direction. Therefore all the stars along MOST of the sky that are still farther east are behind, heading racing toward the horizon. And they will also be in the same "in front" or "behind" positions when  they appear to come up on the eastern horizon the next morning. 

As everyone can now see, I didn't make anything up. I simply quoted correctly from what you had just posted a minute or so earlier.
I never expected you to admit a mistake. This is a tiny one, but the bigger the mistake the more you dig in your heels and try to project it onto the other person. You should be aware, however, that almost by definition, that a person who is known for projecting their faults and insecurities onto others, ends up revealing a lot more about themselves.
No. It had everything to do with my remark. Jesus spoke of the resurrection at the last day, but persons in the first century were believing the times and seasons were in their own jurisdiction and claiming that the resurrection had already occurred, just as you posted. The exact same thing happens with the 1914 doctrine, because we tie that to the claim that the first resurrection has already occurred:
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Can we be more precise?
 
I'm hearing an echolalia. You are repeating what I was saying above, except that you are projecting it back as if you have never been able to admit a mistake and must try to make your mistake stick to the person who pointed it out. 
Please keep in mind how others perceive a person who is bent on projecting their errors onto others. It's almost like confession. Note again that it was the Watchtower that linked the first resurrection to the 1914 chronology. (See above.)
I think everyone is aware that subtext of every discussion of Neo-Babylonian chronology is always the 1914 doctrine. 

For the record, I do not claim that the resurrection has already taken place. That's part of the 1914 doctrine.

If you're still around @xero, and you reach this post, I think by now you will have seen how "607 vs 587" is played as if it's a game for 607 supporters. Supporters of 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th (or 19th) year must play it as a game of extreme obfuscation. 
I doubt that anyone will attempt to answer any of the questions and challenges that make the outcome appear too simple. Those must be dodged at all costs because they don't lend themselves to obfuscation. 
With that in mind, I'm ready to summarize. But I also wanted to clarify my own position on this whole chronology question. 
My real concern is not the way @George88 or @scholar JW or Rolf Furuli or others defend the 607 doctrine.
I don't even have a big problem with the 607 doctrine itself. I have no trouble explaining that, as Witnesses, we believe the 70 years must have ended shortly after 539/8, therefore the 70 year period must have started around 607, and that even if Jerusalem didn't fall precisely in that year, this was still the time period when Babylon brought about an interruption of the Davidic Messianic Kingdom in Jerusalem, but that Jehovah's purpose was to bring back righteous government with a his own Davidic Messianic King's government that would never be brought to ruin. (Daniel 2:44, Ezekiel 21:27) The lesson, even from Daniel 4, still points to Jehovah's sovereignty and purpose and therefore highlights the most common OT reference in the NT: that Jesus was resurrected to rule at God's right hand, until all enemies are brought under his feet, including the last enemy death through the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21 & 22). 
So it's not difficult to teach the same lesson from all the major verses we currently use, even talking about the generation since the first world war now living at a time when we are all sighing and groaning over the system of things, crying out in these last days for the hope of a new one. 
It's not important to me to claim that 587/586 is the most probable match for the specific year the Temple was destroyed, or the exact date when the last king at Jerusalem was removed, or that there is really no evidence whatsoever for 607. We have every right to believe something, whether there is evidence of it or not. 
But I do have a problem when Witnesses go online and make us look stupid by publicly claiming that the best evidence is for 607 BCE, and it's therefore somehow more Biblical, and 587 is somehow "apostate." Claiming there is evidence for our take on 607 is not only untrue, it makes us look like we are trying to prove we are more intellectual and scholarly than the scholars and experts. Or to presumptuously claim that the times and seasons are not just in Jehovah's jurisdiction but also in ours. 
It's not a matter of having faith like little children, and that Jehovah has hidden something from the wise and intellectual and given it to children. It's the opposite! It's us bragging to the world that we are even more scholarly than the scholars, that we understand intellectual things better. That we are able to judge the evidence and tell you which secular evidence is useful and which secular evidence is not. 
This is highly presumptuous and haughty, and when the WTS tries to explain itself, we find ourselves backed into a corner where we must try to support some flimsy "pretend" evidence, or pseudo-chronology. We end up being academically dishonest and we end up using logical fallacies and obfuscation. But I don't mean blatantly lying. It's a matter of having previously been told and then accepting that this particular belief about 607 is an important part of our faith. To many of us that would mean that we are going against the faith by even looking at other evidence. So it skews our thinking, and we put blinders on. 
I think this goes for Watchtower writers, too. They grasp at straws to look for anything that might throw doubt about the existing reasonable evidence. And it makes us appear unreasonable. Every article in the Watchtower on chronology has done this. I quoted the 1969 article where we claimed that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse.
Also in the 1969 Watchtower was a reference to the Adad-Guppi inscription, and a bit of academic dishonesty or at least scholastic sloppiness shows up there, too.
The article makes a big deal about how much chronological information was damaged and unreadable from the inscription and that we therefore can't use it to support the Neo-Babylonian chronology. However, at the time this was written there were TWO well-known and well-publicized copies of the same inscription, and the one discovered in 1956 had already been published for more than a decade with the years of reigns of kings from the last Assyrian king to Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar up to the last king Nabonidus himself. All the numbers were readable and in good condition on that one. But that one is not mentioned here, or in any follow-up apology for having ignored it.
*** w69 2/1 p. 89 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? ***
What is thought to be a memorial tablet written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological data for this period, but many portions of the text have been damaged, leaving much to the ingenuity and conjecture of historians. The reader can appreciate how fragmentary the text is by ignoring the bracketed material in the following translation of one section of this memorial—material that represents modern attempts at restoring the missing, damaged or illegible portions:.
“[During the time from Ashurbanipal], the king of Assyria, [in] whose [rule] I was born—(to wit): [21 years] under Ashurbanipal, [4 years under Ashur]etillu-ilani, his son, [21 years under Nabopola]ssar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, [2 years under Ewil-Merodach], 4 years under Neriglissar, [in summa 95 yea]rs, [the god was away] till Sin, the king of the gods, [remembered the temple] . . . of his [great] godhead, his clouded face [shone up], [and he listened] to my prayers, [forgot] the angry command [which he had given, and decided to return t]o the temple é-hul-hul, the temple, [the mansion,] his heart’s delight. [With regard to his impending return to] the [temp]le, Sin, the king of [the gods, said (to me)]: ‘Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son [of my womb] [shall] make [me] en[ter/sit down (again)] in (to) the temple é-hul-hul!’ I care[fully] obeyed the orders which [Sin], the king of the gods, had pronounced (and therefore) I did see myself (how) Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the offspring of my womb, reinstalled completely the forgotten rites of Sin, . . . ”
Farther along in the text Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) is represented as crediting Sin with granting her long life “from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 6th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son of my womb, (that is) for 104 happy years, . . . ”—Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312.
From this very incomplete inscription it can be seen that the only figures actually given are the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and 4 years of Neriglissar’s reign. As to this latter monarch, the text does not necessarily limit his reign to four years; rather it tells of something that happened in his fourth year.
 
This information was rolled out to sow doubt, no doubt. But why bring this one up at all if it hides the real story? 

This is a very odd question. It's such a well-known fact that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597 BCE. How could they, unless they were prophetic that a new "Christian" era would begin 590-some years later?  They do mention what went on in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the first year, the second year, etc,. . . on up to the 11th year when they are broken off and missing from that point through the rest of his reign. This is exactly what I quoted to you from Dr Wiseman. Dr. Wiseman agrees that there are many methods to determine the BCE equivalent of those years, but naturally he would agree with me and everyone else, that the Chronicles themselves on their own do not contain BC/BCE year markings.
I can't believe that you might have thought those dates were actually on the Babylonian Chronicles. Those dates are determined from dozens of archaeological references to astronomical events during the Neo-Babylonian empire. They even coincide with Egyptian records, Assyrian records, Persian records, and Greek records.
  They refer to just almost exactly the same thing. In practice they mean the same. I prefer BCE over BC for the same reasons that the Watchtower does.
It's pretty obvious that you aren't understanding the evidence provided by all the authorities and experts that the Watchtower magazine quotes from. I have already explained how the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be associated with his 18th year through simple math. 
The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with 568 BCE. There is a tablet for his 37th year with many astronomy observations that can ONLY refer to celestial events in 568 BCE. 
If you can't see that this also associates the prior year, his 36th year with 569 BCE, and his 35th year with 570 BCE, and his 25th year with 580, and his 15th year with 590, and his 18th year with 587 BCE, then I'm pretty sure there is no further use discussing this with you. 
Perhaps one more question for you to try to answer would clear it up.
If you can answer it, then great. We can go on. If you can't or won't answer it, then I see no reason for continuing to discuss the topic with you:
If Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is 568 BCE, then what BCE year would be his 18th year?