xero

I'm not a fan of goal-post shifting, inventing of new goal-posts, or editing of people's comments and arguments. There is a natural flow which gets interrupted when those uncomfortable with a conversation try to steer it or control it. It's stifling and unless Jehovah decides to do it, I'm against it.

I'm not a fan of goal-post shifting, inventing of new goal-posts, or editing of people's comments and arguments. There is a natural flow which gets interrupted when those uncomfortable with a conversation try to steer it or control it. It's stifling and unless Jehovah decides to do it, I'm against it.

I just checked my library. The first link you posted, F.R. Stephenson has a book that is a good read.

@George88It looks to me like it's a judgment call on the part of people who imagine they can use astronomical data to nail down the time frame I'm interested in.  In reading this I get the idea that there's a lot of assumptions that people are making. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2006JAHH....9..145S/0000145.000.html
There are some astronomical events that seem to be of some use, but if these people are disagreeing with the biblical text, I'll pick the biblical text over their sources. These are the same kinds of people who ridiculed the idea of Belshazzar's existence. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91785/did-scholars-doubt-belshazzars-existence-before-1854
https://www.cominguntrue.com/2021/06/after-fact.html

https://biblearchaeology.org/about/abr-research-projects/the-daniel-9-24-27-project?amp;view=category&id=69&start=16

I'm using this thread to organize some things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_Babylon
https://www.rcyoung.org/articles/Eclipse1.pdf
https://www.britannica.com/science/eclipse/Assyrian

Triage: You take care of family first.

(Quora question) Besides being a significant source for literacy in lands where it is poor, they are well known for disaster relief, prompting taking care of their own, in catastrophic times. They thus provide a good example for other groups to follow, for there is no reason that anyone cannot do as they do.  In recent years, some critics have attempted to spin this exercise of brotherly love as a lack of concern for anyone else. They do this even though they themselves would—say, in the event of an earthquake—check on family members first, never dreaming that anyone would frame that as indifference to the suffering of others. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a family, frankly not large enough to fix everyone. If opponents refuse to acknowledge that love of God can form the basis of family, that is hardly the Witnesses’ fault, is it?  

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)

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.

@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.
 

You are disregarding crucial evidence regarding the military operations being conducted. In 614 BC, while the Medes attempted to conquer Nineveh unsuccessfully, the Babylonians were engaged with other tribes. The following year, the Babylonians faced attacks from nomads (tribes) supported by Assyria in 613 BC. Simultaneously, Cyaxares seized several provincial cities, including Assur in 614 BC, while Nabopolassar arrived too late to support that campaign. This chain of events ultimately led to the downfall of Nineveh in 612 BC at the hands of both the Babylonians and the Medes. It is pertinent to note that the "remaining forces" relocated to HARRAN, where they regrouped and established it as their new capital.
Research is only meaningful when we have a clear understanding of what we are studying. Events  are documented by ancient historians as well as modern ones.
 

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.

Your research has failed to grasp the true understanding of the military component. Instead of proving me wrong, you have inadvertently exposed your lack of knowledge. You are attempting to justify your position with an unreasonable approach.
Even recent research highlights the illustrative nature of this approach. Both DJ Wiseman's and Grayson's research was inaccurate if we accept your premise.
The disputed account places the fall of Nineveh in 606 BCE, not 612 BCE. Your approach to considering astrological evidence could open doors to various perspectives.
You are simply being cynical now, even though you have been proven wrong. Embrace it.
I concur. It is disheartening to witness your reluctance to accept it. However, what distinguishes you as a superior critic? You seem to rationalize your own mistakes while rejecting the evidence and facts of others. This behavior reminds me of a JWinsider tactic. Nevertheless, I will allow you to continue with your devices.
Unfortunately, it seems that none of you possess the necessary manners to engage in a respectful and sincere conversation. Before judging others, take a moment to reflect on your negative attitude and language. Rather than following in the footsteps of individuals like Tom, who hastily rebukes others without first examining themselves, consider whether any of you believe yourself to be so superior that you feel compelled to reject every fact that is presented to you.
 

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.

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.

The prevailing idea regarding the absolute dating theory possibly originates from individuals who are eager to embrace DJ Wiseman's Babylonian Chronicles without considering other ancient sources. It requires assuming that ancient scholars and historians, despite being closer to the time in question, were less informed compared to modern times and that no valuable ancient information was lost until DJ Wiseman stumbled upon it.

I find it difficult to believe that it is possible.
So, there are 2 working theories, 606 BCE and 612 BCE.

However, if we accept the words of Dr. Wiseman, the Babylonians were busy elsewhere in 606 BCE.

At times, historians seem to contradict themselves in their published work. 
 Sykes, Percy Molesworth, Sir, 1867-1945 -- 2011


Is it contradictory? According to Sykes, there were two invasions of Nineveh, one in 612 BCE and another in 606 BCE.

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.

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.

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.

What I like about the video is that it not only tells us about the engineer himself, but also has some of the best, easy-to-follow diagrams that teach about the engineering process and the actual physics of the designs:
 

This story is about a fairly unknown R&D engineer at a Japanese company. 
So naturally, I'll start off by somehow making this about myself. Just kidding. I'll make it about my father. Just kidding . . .well, almost.
From 1964 to 1984 my father ran a couple of electronics labs for the University of Missouri. This was great fun for him and even more fun for me and my brother. The world was transferring from tubes to transistors, and my father invented a "semiconductor curve tracer" onto a simple oscilloscope screen that made testing transistors as easy or even easier than the old ways of testing vacuum tubes. The University got a patent for it. 
And from 1984 to 2004 he designed amplifiers and sound systems for a company in California, and also for several Assembly Halls. I had fun with the electronics stuff, but never really learned it very deeply. Mostly because I quit school when I was 15 to start regular pioneering, and then I went off to Bethel to draw pictures for the publications and then do library research. But my brother was a few years older than I was, and graduated HS and went into an electronics company immediately. He went to Bethel just after I did and he was assigned electronics projects and had a little research lab which was a mini version of what my father had. 
In the 1990's My father was always going on about how they make transistors and spoke about gallium arsenide "doping," silicon "doping" and other terms I had never heard of. In the mid-1990's a company sent him some blue LEDs. He said even one small one cost a few hundred dollars. Blue LEDs were a kind of "holy grail" of LEDs. If one could be made with the same brightness control and at the same cost of Green and Yellow LEDs, then any color could be mixed. (With paint and ink you can create almost any color by mixing red/magenta, yellow, and blue/cyan -- but with light you can only get any color by mixing red, yellow, and green.) My father used to try to fake the blue by putting a blue transparent plastic cap on a bright red/green combination, because red+green=yellow, and a blue cap would then make a blue-green color, but not bright enough or "true" enough to mix well with the other colors.
Anyway that brings me to the video of the blue LED hero. The story would also make a great story of a working-man hero standing up against the stronger and more monied corporate powers. Someone has probably made a book about him, or they should. 
 

Serving [tacos] where the need is greater.
My parents moved our family of 5 from California to Missouri to "serve where the need was greater" in 1964. The first things we missed were the leeks and onions and garlic of Egypt (Num 11:4-6). I mean, of course, the tacos of California. Rather than risk turning into a pillar of sodium chloride by longing for the past, we did just fine with Missouri cuisine. And driving back to California once a year over the summer. Even though in a fairly large University of Missouri township, no local stores within 100 miles sold tortillas in 1964. By 1966, my father went to the town Kroger's and guaranteed the purchase of 2 dozen packs of tortillas if they would just order them. They never heard of them. Finally, he talked some university students into making the same request and they stocked some around '67, I think. 
My brother and I liked taco nights on Wednesdays and sometimes Saturdays. These were the two nights my mother gave us to cook. I became OK at cooking spaghetti on Saturday and tacos on Wednesday, and nothing else. Still pretty true even today. 
Back then it was frying the soft tortillas in boiling oil and then laying them out to dry on napkins. When my brother and I shared the work, we could have instant gratification by sharing the chopping of onions, tomatoes, lettuce grading some cheddar, frying the meat with some random peppers and spices that filled in for taco seasoning. Then we topped them off with Louisiana Hot Sauce. 
Yesterday, also a Wednesday, I fell off my typical vegetarian diet, and had just bought a pound of fresh hamburger, a couple of vine tomatoes, a small jar of salsa, a pound of mild cheddar, salad mix, sprig of cilantro, and a jalapeno pepper, and a crunchy taco kit that has 12 pre-shaped tortillas, some mild sauce and a pack of seasoning for the hamburger. 
Then the race begins -- this time by myself. I start the hamburger to fry, then rush to get out some bowls, and chop, slice, and grade the ingredients. I no longer use "head lettuce" but just salad mix. By the time the hamburger starts browning, I toss in a half cup of V-8 along with the seasoning mix, because the hamburger is extra lean and doesn't produce enough oil and juice to mix the seasoning. That cools the pan enough to give me a little time to finish the ingredients, and start a cookie plate of tortillas to heat in the oven. By the time the oven reaches a good temperature, the meat is done, and all is finished in less than 15 minutes. 
My wife eats 3 and I eat 8. This was a bigger event when the kids still lived at home with us. But I had slacked off for a few months on taco Wednesday, and am starting it up again after ditching the vegetable-based cheese and vegetable-based hamburger. Somehow it's a lot better this time.
Yesterday. Good times.