xero

I'll go back and read, but I've been busy, and I won't be rushed. So far I've used https://skyviewcafe.com/ I've entered the coordinates for Hillah, Iraq. It's not looking promising. No visible lunar eclipse according to this software (if I'm using it properly)

@George88 DJ Wiseman's chronology, particularly surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, has been subject to several critiques and challenges by historians and biblical scholars. Here are some key points of contention: 1. Reliability of Babylonian chronicles: Wiseman heavily relied on the Nabonidus Chronicle and Chronicles of Chaldean Kings to establish his chronology. However, these chronicles present certain issues: Fragmentary nature: Both chronicles are fragmentary and lack crucial details, particularly for the relevant period. Potential bias: These chronicles were written by Babylonian scribes, raising concerns about potential bias toward their rulers and denigration of enemies like the Jews. Dating inconsistencies: Discrepancies exist between different copies of the chronicles, creating uncertainties in exact dates. 2. Interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's reign: Wiseman interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year mentioned in VAT 4956 as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem. However, alternative interpretations exist: 37th year refering to a different event: Some argue the 37th year might refer to another campaign or event, not necessarily Jerusalem's destruction. Dating of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension: Different interpretations regarding the exact year of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension impact the dating of his regnal years. 3. Archaeological evidence: Archaeological evidence from Jerusalem suggests a destruction date closer to 586 BCE, contradicting Wiseman's 607 BCE conclusion. 4. Lack of independent corroboration: The lack of corroborating evidence from other sources outside the Babylonian chronicles weakens the 607 BCE argument. 5. Theological agenda: Critics argue that Wiseman's chronology was influenced by a theological agenda of aligning biblical narratives with his interpretation of Babylonian sources. It's important to note that scholarly debate regarding these matters continues. While Wiseman's chronology was influential, it's not universally accepted due to the aforementioned limitations and criticisms.

@George88 Your response to "relevance of research based on different regions": This statement holds some truth. While regional differences exist, relevant research from other regions should be evaluated based on its connection to the specific topic and timeframe. Ignoring relevant research solely due to its origin can limit understanding. Your response to "Ctesias vs. Berosus and Chronicle of Eusebius": This statement partially reflects historical debates. Ctesias' account was indeed questioned by later historians, and the Chronicle of Eusebius has limitations. However, dismissing their insights entirely without considering their potential value weakens your argument. Your response to "Fall of Nineveh": This statement requires further context. While Herodotus may offer a more established timeframe, dismissing alternative perspectives (like using astrological evidence) without critical analysis limits understanding. It's important to evaluate all relevant evidence and interpretations constructively. Your response to "Communication between Alexander and Aristotle": This statement is partially true. Conclusive evidence proving the specific claim may be lacking, but dismissing the possibility entirely without considering potential communication forms might be premature.

So far, that I'm considered ill-mannered and impatient, and that moon's do eclipse on a regular basis, even in the past and even in Mesopotamia.

Here is a list of lunar eclipses visible in Mesopotamia between 600 and 650 BCE, along with the percentage of the moon eclipsed: Date Percentage of Moon Eclipsed Eclipse Type Before 627 BCE: March 19, 650 BCE | 87% | Penumbral Lunar Eclipse February 8, 650 BCE | 49% | Partial Lunar Eclipse January 8, 649 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse December 8, 648 BCE | 79% | Partial Lunar Eclipse November 7, 647 BCE | 28% | Partial Lunar Eclipse October 7, 646 BCE | 89% | Total Lunar Eclipse September 6, 645 BCE | 41% | Partial Lunar Eclipse August 5, 644 BCE | 94% | Total Lunar Eclipse July 4, 643 BCE | 60% | Partial Lunar Eclipse June 4, 642 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse May 3, 641 BCE | 40% | Partial Lunar Eclipse April 2, 640 BCE | 92% | Total Lunar Eclipse March 2, 639 BCE | 55% | Partial Lunar Eclipse February 1, 638 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse January 31, 637 BCE | 72% | Partial Lunar Eclipse December 30, 636 BCE | 32% | Partial Lunar Eclipse November 29, 635 BCE | 92% | Total Lunar Eclipse October 28, 634 BCE | 49% | Partial Lunar Eclipse September 27, 633 BCE | 98% | Total Lunar Eclipse August 26, 632 BCE | 68% | Partial Lunar Eclipse July 26, 631 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse June 25, 630 BCE | 58% | Partial Lunar Eclipse May 25, 629 BCE | 92% | Total Lunar Eclipse April 24, 628 BCE | 63% | Partial Lunar Eclipse April 9, 627 BCE 100% Total Lunar Eclipse March 29, 626 BCE 87% Penumbral Lunar Eclipse February 18, 625 BCE 96% Total Lunar Eclipse January 8, 624 BCE 97% Total Lunar Eclipse December 8, 623 BCE 41% Partial Lunar Eclipse November 7, 622 BCE 91% Total Lunar Eclipse October 7, 621 BCE 22% Partial Lunar Eclipse September 6, 620 BCE 82% Total Lunar Eclipse August 5, 619 BCE 96% Total Lunar Eclipse July 4, 618 BCE 52% Partial Lunar Eclipse June 4, 617 BCE 99% Total Lunar Eclipse May 3, 616 BCE 28% Partial Lunar Eclipse April 2, 615 BCE 88% Total Lunar Eclipse March 2, 614 BCE 40% Partial Lunar Eclipse February 1, 613 BCE 90% Total Lunar Eclipse January 1, 612 BCE 46% Partial Lunar Eclipse December 31, 611 BCE 98% Total Lunar Eclipse December 30, 610 BCE 73% Partial Lunar Eclipse November 29, 609 BCE 23% Partial Lunar Eclipse October 29, 608 BCE 83% Total Lunar Eclipse September 28, 607 BCE 35% Partial Lunar Eclipse August 27, 606 BCE 90% Total Lunar Eclipse July 27, 605 BCE 48% Partial Lunar Eclipse

The information you provided is a mixture of accurate and questionable statements, highlighting the importance of critical evaluation and diverse perspectives in historical research. Let's break it down: Part 1: Relevance of research based on different regions: While your research might originate from a different region, its relevance depends on how it connects to the specific topic and timeframe under discussion. Simply pointing out a different time frame doesn't automatically refute or support claims related to another region or period. Discrepancies in Ctesias: It's true that Ctesias' accounts had discrepancies and were often considered unreliable by contemporaries. However, dismissing information outright without considering its specific claims and potential value can be problematic. Responsibility of researchers: Researchers should indeed provide evidence to support their claims. However, the weight of evidence varies depending on the topic and historical context. Examining multiple sources and critically evaluating their limitations is crucial. Part 2: Ctesias vs. Berosus and Chronicle of Eusebius: The passage correctly points out Ctesias' account was questioned by later historians like Berosus. The Chronicle of Eusebius, while providing valuable insights, was largely based on earlier sources and has its own limitations. It's important to consider the context and reliability of each source. Fall of Nineveh: The mentioned reference to Herodotus provides a more established timeframe for the fall of Nineveh compared to Ctesias' account. Considering multiple perspectives is crucial in historical dating. Roman Empire survival: This example seems unrelated to the discussion about Babylonian history and Alexander. Part 3: Communication between Alexander and Aristotle: While the possibility of some form of communication regarding Babylon can't be ruled out entirely, there's no conclusive evidence of Alexander sending astronomical records to Aristotle. This claim requires further evidence and critical analysis. Greek astronomy and Babylonian influence: The statement oversimplifies the complex development of Greek astronomy, as various sources and thinkers contributed to its evolution. While Babylonian astronomy played a role, attributing "much of the early science" solely to them is inaccurate. Nabonassar's lineage: The claims about Nabonassar's relation to Pul/Tiglath-Pileser III remain debated. Consulting established historians and analyzing relevant evidence is crucial to forming a balanced understanding. Overall: Remember, historical research involves critical thinking, evaluating multiple sources, and avoiding oversimplification. While some of the information you presented has merit, it's crucial to consider its context, limitations, and the perspectives of established historians. Engaging in respectful dialogue and open analysis leads to a more comprehensive understanding of complex historical topics.

Unfortunately, directly linking "NABO 14" to a specific BCE date isn't as straightforward as simply finding a specific event mentioned in the chronicle. Here's why: Challenges with the Babylonian Chronicle: Relative Chronology: The Babylonian Chronicle you mentioned only provides a relative timeline within the reign of Nabopolassar, lacking absolute calendar dates. While it details events between NABO 10 and 18, it doesn't tell us which year corresponds to which year BCE. Missing information: Even within NABO 14, the specific month or day of Nineveh's destruction isn't mentioned. This further complicates pinpointing a precise date. Approaches to Date Determination: Despite these challenges, historians do use various methods to estimate the probable date of Nineveh's fall: Astronomical References: While the chronicle itself doesn't mention them, other Babylonian records sometimes document lunar eclipses or other celestial phenomena. Identifying and dating such events can provide reference points for historical timelines. Inscriptions and Records: Analyzing inscriptions from rulers involved in the conflict, like the Medes or Egyptians, can sometimes offer clues about chronology through mentions of specific campaigns or events. Cross-Cultural Comparisons: Comparing Babylonian records with contemporary sources from other cultures, like Assyrian or Egyptian records, can sometimes reveal overlapping events that help establish timeframes. Important Notes: Even with these methods, estimating the date of Nineveh's fall remains an exercise in probability, not certainty. Different scholars might reach slightly different conclusions based on their interpretations of the evidence. The most commonly accepted timeframe for Nineveh's destruction falls between 614 BCE and 612 BCE. While "NABO 14" might not directly translate to a specific BCE date, historians use evidence from various sources to place the event within this timeframe.

I appreciate your feedback and willingness to share information about your research on Harran and its connection to astronomy. However, I must reiterate that my statement regarding the lack of evidence for Alexander sending astronomical tables to Aristotle remains accurate. True statements: It's correct that Babylonians recorded celestial observations and utilized the zodiac system. Ptolemy did indeed rely on Babylonian eclipse records for his astronomical work. There's documented evidence of astronomical observations during the reign of Asshurbanapal. Uncertain/Debatable statements: Claiming "fragments of a library at Agade were preserved at Nineveh" requires further context and source verification. We need to know where and how these fragments are identified as belonging to Agade. Attributing specific knowledge about constellation names used "even then" requires careful analysis of the fragments and potential interpretations. Direct comparisons with modern names might be misleading. I appreciate you sharing the additional information on Ctesias and the Fall of Nineveh. Regarding Ctesias: You are correct that while Ctesias wrote about Assyria and Persia, there is no strong evidence he linked them to the Trojan War for precise astronomical calculations. Historians generally reject his timeline for the Trojan War as unreliable. The linked JSTOR article provides valuable information about Ctesias and his account of the Fall of Nineveh. However, it's important to note that his writings often contain inaccuracies and exaggerations, hence why historians approach them with caution.

There are some truths and some inaccuracies in the statements you provided: Nabonassar's astronomical canon: True: Nabonassar, the founder of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, did commission astronomical observations around 747 BCE. These observations formed the basis for later Babylonian astronomical records. False: Herodotus, a Greek historian from the 5th century BCE, did not mention Nabonassar's canon dating back to 606 BCE. His writings mention observations starting with the reign of Nabonassar but don't specify a date. Ctesias and the Trojan War: False: Ctesias, a Greek physician and historian from the 5th century BCE, did not use the Trojan War for precise astronomical calculations. While he wrote about Assyria and Persia, there's no evidence he connected them to the Trojan War for astronomical purposes. Book of Tobit: Uncertain: The Book of Tobit is a deuterocanonical text included in some Bibles but not others. Its historical accuracy is debated, and its events might be fictional or embellished. It doesn't provide reliable information about Nineveh's destruction. Alexander and Aristotle: Unlikely: There's no known record of Alexander sending astronomical tables to Aristotle. While both figures were interested in astronomy, there's no evidence of such a specific exchange. Nineveh in astronomical tables: Unclear: It's possible that some ancient astronomical tables might have mentioned Nineveh, but without specific sources or details, it's impossible to verify this claim. Overall: The statements contain a mix of truth and fiction. While Nabonassar's astronomical observations are well-documented, the other claims lack clear historical evidence or contain inaccuracies. When studying historical events, it's crucial to rely on credible sources and critically evaluate the information presented.

According to Bard: Lunar Eclipse Calculations: Astronomical Software: Programs like Stellarium or NASA's Eclipse website can be used to simulate celestial events based on historical dates and locations. These programs factor in the moon's orbit, Earth's rotation, and other parameters to accurately predict past and future eclipses. Calculations: Astronomers can also utilize specialized software or manual calculations to track the moon's motion and determine the precise timing and visibility of eclipses for any point in history. Applying to 627 BCE: Using these tools, astronomers have confirmed that a total lunar eclipse did indeed occur on April 9, 627 BCE. The eclipse would have been visible across a large part of the Near East, including Mesopotamia, where the Babylonian scribes were located. However, it's important to note: These programs and calculations don't "agree" with history in the sense of having opinions or beliefs. They simply utilize scientific principles and data to reconstruct past astronomical events. The "Fall of Nineveh Chronicle" simply mentions a lunar eclipse in 627 BCE without specifying details like date, type, or location. While the astronomical calculations corroborate the possibility of an eclipse, they don't directly confirm the chronicle's account. In conclusion: We have scientific tools and knowledge to confidently say that a total lunar eclipse occurred on April 9, 627 BCE, visible from Mesopotamia. However, these programs don't "agree" with history but rather help us understand past astronomical events. The "Fall of Nineveh Chronicle" offers valuable context but lacks specifics, so the connection between the recorded eclipse and historical events remains an interpretation based on available evidence.

I'll accept triangulation from various sources discussing the same event also associated with a verifiable astronomical event. What astronomical event do we have?

I get relative measurements w/regard to regnal years and the like as that will allow you shift right or left, but no matter where I look, I get bloviating when it comes to how this exact date was decided upon. I need to know what they used as a starting point. I haven't found any astronomical events used, I'm not taking anyone's word for it, or "Experts agree". I need to see the argument in the form of premise, premise, conclusion. I want all the connecting dots, not an inky wash of academic bloviance.

Blue LEDs: Born from gallium, nitrogen, indium. Light through electroluminescence; electrons meet holes, birth photons. Gallium Nitride (GaN), wide band gap, emits blue. Indium Gallium Nitride (InGaN), mix alters hue. Early '90s, a breakthrough; high-brightness, efficient. Akasaki, Amano, Nakamura: Pioneers, Nobel laureates. Blue to white, with phosphor; illumination revolutionized. Hard materials tamed, blue light mastered.

Why would anyone have a conversation or even respond to a lane-change request for someone like that?

A 2016 study published in the journal "Personality and Individual Differences" found that people with multiple tattoos were more likely to have used drugs and alcohol in the past year. Maladaptive behaviors have their tells.

Don't worry about me. Just take the hits and keep doing you. Everything you've posted has value from my perspective. Never mind how it looks like I've received it. I prefer to be in a room with people who disagree. I can't learn a thing if people don't take whatever I say and tear it up. I often disagree with something I've said five minutes after I've said it.

I apologize. You just sounded pompous at the time. (Sorry most of the time) Besides "the taking of offense it what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones." Ec. 7:9

Emotional Regulation: The vagus nerve is a key component of the parasympathetic nervous system, which helps regulate the body's "rest and digest" response. It counterbalances the sympathetic nervous system's "fight or flight" response, promoting relaxation and emotional regulation. When the vagus nerve's control over the heart and digestive system is altered, it can affect the body's ability to regulate emotions effectively. Heart-Brain Connection: The vagus nerve is involved in the communication between the heart and the brain, including the transmission of signals related to emotional states. Disruption of this connection may influence the way emotional information is processed and experienced. Stress Response: The vagus nerve contributes to the body's stress response, and it plays a role in modulating the body's reaction to stressors. Alterations in vagus nerve function may impact how the body responds to stress, potentially affecting emotional responses to stressful situations. Gut-Brain Axis: The vagus nerve is also part of the gut-brain axis, connecting the digestive system to the brain. This axis plays a role in mood regulation and emotional well-being. Changes in vagal tone (the activity of the vagus nerve) can influence gut-brain communication and may have emotional consequences. While heart transplantation does disrupt the vagus nerve's direct connections to the heart, the body often adapts over time, and other autonomic mechanisms and neural pathways can partially compensate for this disruption. Additionally, emotional responses involve complex interactions among multiple brain regions and neurotransmitters, so the impact of vagus nerve alterations on emotions can vary from person to person.

Also brings to mind Acts 21:20: "On hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: 'You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law.'" In this verse, the believers in Jerusalem are acknowledging that many Jewish converts to Christianity are still devoted to observing the Jewish law (the Mosaic Law). The phrase is used to highlight the continued practice of Jewish customs and traditions among some Jewish Christians in the early Christian community. Even then the customs were including a lot of things which weren't written in the Mosaic Law. Yet they kept doing them. This is why it doesn't surprise me that there are some who see changes in certain areas to be faith shaking because these have equated certain practices of the past to have been unequivocally scriptural, and if the GB ever suggested we should adopt pattern A, rather than pattern B, then that was as good as scripture to these.

I was thinking how (I mean I don't know because I'm not privy to the GB's private thoughts, but I can imagine them being frustrated at) some who have the desire to worship the organization. Reminds me of this scripture: "...But when the apostles Barʹna·bas and Paul heard of it, they ripped their outer garments and leaped out into the crowd, crying out and saying: 'Men, why are you doing these things? We too are humans having the same infirmities as you have. " Acts 14:8-18

Exodus 20:3 : "You must not have any other gods besides me." Psalm 118:8 : "It is better to take refuge in Jehovah than to trust in humans." Psalm 146:3 : "Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation." Isaiah 2:22 : "Stop trusting in mere man, whose life's breath is in his nostrils. Why should he be taken into account?" Jeremiah 17:5 : "This is what Jehovah says: 'Cursed is the man who puts his trust in mere humans, who relies on human power and whose heart turns away from Jehovah.'" 1 Corinthians 3:4-7 : "For when one says, 'I belong to Paul,' but another says, 'I to A•polʹlos,' are you not acting like mere men? What, then, is A•polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. I planted, A•polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow." Matthew 23:8-10 : "But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ." Colossians 2:8: "Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ." Galatians 1:10: "Am I now trying to win the approval of men or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. Acts, 12:22 - "But the crowd were calling out, 'A god’s voice and not a man’s!'" In this context, the people were praising Herod Agrippa I to the extent that they attributed divine qualities to him.It underscores the danger of excessive praise and attributing divine qualities to human leaders, which can have negative consequences, as Herod Agrippa I faced divine judgment for accepting such adulation. Nope. Go no further than scripture allows. 1 Samuel 8:6-9 : "But the thing was bad in the eyes of Samuel, because they said: 'Give us a king to judge us.' Then Samuel prayed to Jehovah. Jehovah said to Samuel: 'Listen to the voice of the people as regards all that they say to you, for it is not you whom they have rejected; they have rejected me from being their king. Like all the other nations, they have done to me the same that they have done to you.'" Prophets, yes? Kings? How very predictable and disappointing. "And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ." (Ephesians 4:11-13) Ephesians 4:11-13 does not suggest that ecclesiastical authority should hold a believer's conscience in thrall or control. Instead, these verses emphasize the role of certain spiritual gifts and positions within the Christian congregation for the purpose of equipping and building up believers.

Interesting what nonsense exists in the minds of fellow travelers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xtnH0fxDUg

I'm not even sure anyone is clear on the policy any more. All I get is "What should I do bro X?" and I say, read the scriptures, use your conscience and as long as you're settled in your mind and heart, that's all you can do. You can still be wrong, but then again everyone makes mistakes especially when things are ambiguous or they get complicated.