Pudgy

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.
 

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. 

@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.
 

Well … that clears THAT up! (???????)

I'm trying to translate the babylonian astronomer's observations to this software program.

Based on the available evidence, it is highly unlikely that a Babylonian astronomer would use "in front of" in the same way we might interpret it today, meaning left while facing north. Instead, the statement likely referred to:
Position along the Ecliptic: "In front of" most likely meant the object was located further east on the ecliptic path compared to the other object observed.

That's what you get for using chatgpt.

On the other hand gemini said this:
When a Babylonian astronomer says that a star is a cubit in front of the Moon, it means they are describing an angular distance as it appears in the sky, not a physical distance in space. Here's what this likely means:
The Cubit as an Angular Measurement: Babylonians didn't have the same understanding of angles as we do today. They used the cubit, a traditional unit of length (roughly the length of a forearm, about 18 inches), as a way to describe angular separation in the sky.
Visualizing the Cubit: Imagine holding your arm outstretched with your fist closed. The width of your fist at that distance approximates a cubit as an angular measurement.
Position Relative to the Moon: When an astronomer described a star as one cubit in front of the Moon, they meant the star appeared roughly the width of your fist away from the Moon. The Moon itself is about half a degree in angular width, so a cubit was probably around 8-10 degrees of angular separation.
Important Considerations:
Imprecise Measurement: This method of using cubits was a rough estimate, and not a precise measurement like we use today. Observer Dependent: The actual angular size of a cubit would vary slightly depending on the length of the individual's arm. Purpose: This type of description was likely used for general positional information or tracking the motion of celestial objects, rather than making exact calculations.

Well … that clears THAT up! (???????)

-589 [astron.] -- "July 26," 590 B.C.E. 😉

Since all the energy, work, analysis, and effort spent on this thread is ultimately to prove that God’s kingdom was established in 1914 or thereabouts it’s all a complete waste of effort.
I can look out the window and see that Armageddon never happened.
I can look out the window and see if the great tribulation never happened.
I can look out the window and see we’re not living on a paradise earth.
A billion words repeated a million different ways over 200 years will not change that.
Reality is what it is.
 

…. With the cooperation of the Japanese of Tokyo, Japan the following Bambi movie was made.
When I was working in Portland, Oregon in 1981, I saw this advertised, and saw this in a theater playing this and “Rust never Sleeps” as a double feature.
 
FullSizeRender.MOV

My apologies. But I have removed some more of the "Vicar of Warwick" saga and other posts from xero's Nineveh topic over to here because it's just not close enough to the chronology topic that started there. These posts are not really about forum participants we have known either, but this has already become kind of a catch-all for unnecessary dialogues.
@Pudgy @BTK59 @George88 @Srecko Sostar

…

You REALLY need to take a “Reading Comprehension” course, Georgie.
What part of “… for the record…” did you not understand?

… and so (cues the organist) … that ends another thrilling episode of “The Vicar of Warwick”. where the Vicar and ex-Bethelite Quasimodo whack-a-mole each other back and forth with great blows, none seeming to have any effect.
At all.
Tune in to the NEXT episode of season 15, when Quasimodo, loosing patience, finally pulls the lever, consigning the Vicar to the bowels of Twitter, now known as “X”.
(organ music stops as organist stands up and joins in thunderous applause …).
fade to black.

It's when we adopted the name, "Jehovah's Witnesses". 7/26/1931

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. 

You REALLY need to take a “Reading Comprehension” course, Georgie.
What part of “… for the record…” did you not understand?

…

The only thing missing is the maniac laughter and the drool.

Oh Okay, it has to do with you making up things, got it, since none of that has to do with your remark. Perhaps you had something different in mind, and your recollection might be faltering, but it's perfectly natural.

No. It suspect it was just an issue with your memory. No biggie. We are all getting a bit older every day. No need to be paranoid about a manipulated piece. I don't do that. I have the power to delete comments, but I don't have the power to "add" them, LOL. Since there are none of those instances, it couldn't be one of them. Besides, even if I really had made a mistake and taken it from another post, it wouldn't be fraud and deception. It would have just been a mistake. 
In this case it was your mistake, not mine, but I am not so paranoid or anxious to accuse others so as to think it would have been fraud or deception. I do think it's a matter of "wishful thinking" on your part, though. You probably "wish" you could accuse me of fraud and deception and actually find evidence for that, even if you have to grasp at straws to do it. This is the same danger I have been talking about when promoting teachings with no evidence, or very weak and faulty evidence. People are always willing to grasp at straws to try to sow doubt on the evidence that doesn't fit their agenda, or they try the old standby ad hominem against the person presenting it.  
This is exactly what I wish would change. And of course you will continue with the accusations because, if you are anything like your other personas here, you never admit a mistake.

You posted it just a matter of a minute or so before I quoted it. Surprised you didn't remember posting it just a minute earlier. It was part of what you said here, quoting the scripture. I'll highlight it in red:
f