JW Insider

I looked over everything I could find from Borger and Frame, and there does not seem to exist any 20 year gap that you speak of. Perhaps you can point me to a specific page in a specific book. I understand the one-year-gap that the Babylonian Chronicles speaks about just before Nabopolassar. I understand that there appears to be a potential overlap or co-rulership during the last elderly years of Ashurbanipal's long reign. Kings that may have potentially used two different titles do not account for any gap near as long as 20 years. Of course, it's always possible, I just can't find anything about a 20-year gap. Also, it wouldn't seem to matter in WTS chronology because that chronology paints itself into a corner such that the only gap that would help would be to find 24 years inside the 4 year reign of Neriglissar. There is no possible gap to discover anywhere else that would help the WTS chronology in the slightest. In fact, if found anywhere else within the Neo-Babylonian period, it would destroy the WTS chronology even further.

I looked over everything I could find from Borger and Frame, and there does not seem to exist any 20 year gap that you speak of. Perhaps you can point me to a specific page in a specific book. I understand the one-year-gap that the Babylonian Chronicles speaks about just before Nabopolassar. I understand that there appears to be a potential overlap or co-rulership during the last elderly years of Ashurbanipal's long reign. Kings that may have potentially used two different titles do not account for any gap near as long as 20 years. Of course, it's always possible, I just can't find anything about a 20 year gap. Also, it wouldn't seem to matter in WTS chronology because that chronology paints itself into a corner such that the only gap that would help would be to find 24 years inside the 4 year reign of Neriglissar. There is no possible gap to discover anywhere else that would help the WTS chronology in the slightest. In fact, if found anywhere else, it would destroy the WTS chronology even further.

You didn't ask me, I know, but there is no discrepancy between these two. There are some issues to resolve during the rough transition between the Assyrian kings and the Babylonian kings for dating purposes, but not these two kings. These late Assyrian and early Neo-Babylonian issues have been discussed in many books. Attempts to resolve some of the unknown pieces in the 1800's and early 1900's can now be shown to have been wrong based on further evidence. I thought that Joan Oates did one of the best jobs, pretty much starting from scratch with the known evidence, and looking at what theories get ruled out. There are plenty of other good books on it, but I thought this one explained it best. Assyrian Chronology, 631-612 B.C. Author(s): Joan Oates Source: Iraq, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Autumn, 1965), pp. 135-159 Published by: British Institute for the Study of Iraq Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4199788

On to the fifth post of this topic, also on page 1: The first line quotes Gerard Gertoux above. But what you added was convoluted. This valuable timepiece highlights 588 BC, and refers to the 37th year mentioned on the tablet from 569/8? There is no tablet that highlights 588! Perhaps you can explain that sentence in different words. According to the Bible, King Jehoiachin wasn't released until the 37th year of his exile in Babylon which started in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year and since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years, it would therefore have ended in 581 or 580 under Awel-Marduk. (Or 601 BCE using WTS chronology.) You are therefore indicating above that the event of his release by Awel-Marduk marked the "conclusion of the destruction" whatever that means. Another 50 years from there would be 531/530 or 551 BCE using WTS chronology. 70 years (a score and a jubilee) from that event would be 511/510 BCE or 531 using WTS chronology. None of what you are saying here fits either the standard chronology or WTS chronology. It's closer to some of the more confused attempts to reconstruct the period done in the 1800's before the discovery of so many more dated tablets.

So now on to the fourth post on this topic, still back from page 1: I had already written up comments based exactly on this section of this book a few weeks ago under another topic. I agree wholeheartedly with everything they said in the section you quoted. My comments dealt more specifically with the accuracy of the full eclipse timing. For me, just as for Huber/DeMeis it seems they are in favor of the idea that the Babylonian observers used the naked eye, and that this partly accounts for why they often rounded to the nearest 5 degrees. As you quoted from their book: The very fact that we can tell their timing errors were 5 degrees or 5 minutes, sometimes above and sometimes below is an excellent indication that we are also able to translate these observations to the correct dates. You added: Seems to me that this does not follow at all from what you just quoted. Perhaps you intended to make 568 seem less possible than 588 on VAT 4956 with a throw-away statement. But remember that 588 doesn't fit, and 568 does for the particular tablet you have been questioning. And if it doesn't seem to fit the naked eye theory, would 588 have been better somehow on that same count even though it was 20 years earlier? Your quote from the book shows that the accuracy remained almost the same over a period of 7 centuries, with Nebuchadnezzar's time landing closer to the middle of that period. It has seemed to be almost a recurring theme with you, even back to the days when you used the name Allen Smith. More often than not, you seem to quote something that gives evidence for just the opposite of what claim the material is indicating to you.

So, on to the third post of this topic, back on page 1. If you look at the context, you will see that you were laughing at the fact that no one would be able to refute the "AI" response you posted from a prompt you gave to AI on Bing. I, too, was laughing out loud at this one, because what you are asking to haver refuted is exactly what COJ, and all current Babylonian "authorities" already believe. You are acting like AI was so brilliant to give you such an irrefutable answer about the desolation of Judea and destruction of Jerusalem between 605 and 587/586. Didn't you realize that it was already answering exactly what I believed? Why would I need to refute it? It's like you are saying, "Ha! Ha! Ha! Me and AI [and COJ] believe THIS about the subject and I bet you can't refute it. Just try to refute it. LOL!" That's laughable, but only because it's so ludicrously confused. I had planned to respond to more of your posts in this thread especially because I am referenced so many times, but this kind of confusion gives me a good reason not to take you seriously enough to respond. Just for reference, and in case you decide to delete the embarrassment, I will requote the entire response you got from AI/Bing: Then you say: There is no good refutation for this one. It's exactly what all the evidence shows to be true. If you agree with it, and you think it can't be refuted, then you agree whole-heartedly with COJ, and all the current experts you have been been quoting.

I believe I have now commented enough on the first post of this topic. Moving on to this second post of this topic I am first responding to the claim that there was an "eclipse war" that occurred in 589/8. This is false. There never was one. You might be referring to the Eclipse War or "Battle of the Eclipse" on May 28, 585 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Eclipse If one reads the description by Herodotus of the event as a solar eclipse, then based on modern astronomical calculations it can be identified with the solar eclipse of May 28, 585 BC (known as Eclipse of Thales), hence yielding the exact date of the battle. It is completely unrelated to VAT 4956, of course. It's about a battle between the Lydians and the Medes. Also if Herodotus mistook a report of a predicted lunar eclipse instead of an expected full moon, and only thought it was a predicted solar eclipse, then such a battle could have been September 3, 609 BC or July 4, 587 BC. But there is no possible alternative for an eclipse battle to have been in 589/588. Also, there are no lunar or planetary indications on VAT 4956 that fit 588 BC, or 587 BC, or 609 BC. Such a statement implies you have never read a translation of VAT 4956. This is a ludicrously false claim about it. It's false to say that VAT 4956 provides substantial historical facts, rather than mere astronomical conjectures. It provides almost ZERO historical facts. It is almost exclusively about astronomical events, weather events, and things as mundane as a possible disease-carrying fox that somehow got into to city. "Fox News." If you could find something remotely related to "history" in it, I'm sure you could point it out. Also, it contains mostly astronomic observations, not conjectures. A conjecture is something like assuming that it refers to 588 BC instead of 568 even though there are ZERO observations that actually fit that year. Another conjecture is assuming there are at least two copyists errors on the tablet because 2 of the 30 astronomical observations don't fit 568. (They also don't fit 588.)

Do you really think this unconventional approach could work for you? After all, if we keep going in that direction, we could also prove 607 BC. Which comes first? That question is meaningless. First, it is the conventional approach, the same approach used by 100% of all the current authors and authorities you have ever quoted. Even Furuli and the Watchtower and the transgendered Messiah have used this approach. It's the very reason Rolf Furuli himself tried so hard to move the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar from 568 to 588. Otherwise, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year would be 586. have used, on the topic that you have ever quoted have used. Second, if you keep going in that conventional direction you would continue to disprove, rather than prove, that 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. Not really. Math works pretty much the same whether you are a Muslim, a Buddhist, Jewish, Moon-worshiper, or atheist. I don't understand why you think this is an argument. If my own 37th year can be proven to be 1957+37=1994, then that alone proves that my 19th year was 1957+19=1976. Whether I had gone to battle in Viet Nam in 1976, or gone to Bethel in Brooklyn in 1976, the math would still work out.

I can't help but wonder if George really meant what you think, especially considering your inclination to take things out of context. Why not post the entire context? You can go back and see it for yourself. Whenever I quote someone here, it shows the date and time of the post, so it's easy to find. This was the very first post on this thread. For easy reference, I'll be happy to do it for you. And I will try to highlight in bold, the place where the quote is found within the context: BTK, are you suggesting that 568 BC is an invalid date? We can make good use of VAT 4956 since the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be found in other historical content, not just that insignificant astronomical tablet. Apostates often misuse that date to support the claim of 587 BC, but let's explore its true significance. The 13 lunar readings are indicative of the commencement of specific kings' reigns. Some historians mention the starting reign of King Waphres in 589/8 BC, and he died in 568/7 BC. By considering secular history alone, we discover that after Nebuchadnezzar's growing disappointment with the kings of Judah, the temple was burned down in 588 BC. If we follow this same cycle, it becomes clear that the real destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem, occurred in 607 BC. Hence, relying on VAT 4956 as authoritative evidence is akin to playing a game of foolishness.

George/BTK/Alphonse, Don't worry about responding. I'm just presenting a perspective on some of the things you said for the benefit of others who might be interested. No they are not. Not even one of the 13 readings of VAT 4956 indicates the commencement of any specific kings' reigns. Secular history does not record the burning of the temple. Bible history tells us that this happened in the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. So far, without a direct reference to the burning of the Jewish temple in any surviving or discovered Babylonian Chronicles, all the secular evidence can tell us is that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE, and that his 19th year was 586 BCE. (And that his 37th year was 568 BCE.) It makes no sense to say that because the temple was burned down in 588 BCE that there is some "cycle" to follow that makes clear that the destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem happened 19 years earlier, in 607. The only known astronomical cycle that is about 19 years long is the Metonic cycle, and it is never used to shift a date by 19 years, Also, it is not exactly 19 years so you can't even use it to claim that lunar positions seen 19 years earlier or later would be the same. People don't confuse lunar readings from other points on the 19-year cycle because they don't match. Besides, most opposers of the tablet evidence, like Furuli, have tried to move the date exactly 20 years, for which there is no known cycle. <PTW> The only opposers of the tablet data I know of are Furuli, the Watchtower Society, and a person online who presents himself online as Jesus Christ, the Messiah, although he appears to also present himself as transgendered. </PTW> Velikovsky is very wrong about this. The Babylonian Chronicles for one attribute quite a lot of historical content directly to Nebuchadnezzar for his first 10 or 11 years. And many of the temple inscriptions contain historical content, and there are thousands of secular tablets that contain bits of history about others during his reign that are recorded in terms of the specific years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. The "brick"on its own doesn't prove that. But thousands of other bricks along with astronomical data and links to similar data linked to the Neo-Babylonian kings and others for the next several hundred years do indeed prove that his reign started in 605 and the 37th year was 568 BC. I don't consider evidence as "proof" but it this brick, as you say, "proves" that his 37th year is 568, then it PROVES that his 18th year is 587 BCE. I hope others understand this. True, but it would then provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is 587 BC. Then it just becomes a matter of whether you trust these particular verses in the Bible. (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . . If as you say, the "Brick" provides evidence that Nebuchadnezzar, in his 37th year, in 568 BC, took part in a significant battle, then you have just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BC, and that his 19th year was 586. If you believe the Bible, then you are saying that Nebuchadnezzar burned the temple of Jerusalem in 586 BC. (2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.  And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard. So your claim about 568 as year 37 puts you in agreement with all the living Babylonian historians you have ever quoted in your entire life. All of them would say that if 568 is his 37th then 586 is his 19th. Therefore, it also puts you in agreement with COJ.

I deny any reliance on any chronology, correct or otherwise. COJ's chronology defense is meaningless. The WTS chronology defense is meaningless. I prefer the Biblical stance that "as to the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us." We don't need to know what secular people have said about the exact BCE dates of these events. The Bible is good enough for me on such matters.

I didn't expect the 1950 Awake! article to be as supportive as it was. The entire article gives him the benefit of the doubt, right up to finally including a statement that it includes speculation and unproven ideas. Here is the first part, and I have included the conclusion above.

The "Chronology" book you are quoting is from 1858 by Franke Parker. Before anyone puts too much stock in it, I think one should note that the so-called "absolute date" of 539 BCE has been changed in his book to 559, 560 or 561 BCE. This is in spite of the fact that he claims to make proper use of the Olympiad dating. His date for the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar is about 629 BCE. That's from 40 to 42 years before the astronomical dating of the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, along with the whole gamut of Neo-Babylonian evidence. The Watchtower is only 20 years behind the astronomical evidence and he is more than twice as far off. At least from a "relative" chronology perspective, he understood the sources that claimed only a 49 or 50 year space of time between Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and the last year of Nabonidus (Cyrus' 1st year as "Universal" king).

But you seem to forget that NO ONE relies on VAT 4956 as authoritative evidence. It's just one part of a puzzle made up of at least 50,000 pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces just happen to consistently fit with all the other pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces mitigate against the WTS publications' timeline of Nebuchadezzar and the other 5 Neo-Babylonian kings. It's the sum total of several completely independent lines of evidence --at least a dozen independent lines, where the 50,000 business tablets is counted as only one of those lines of evidence. It's not about any ONE piece of evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline. But most people would think it's akin to a game of foolishness to think of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky as providing authoritative evidence, as you have referenced him above. I have the book "Worlds in Collision" on the shelf behind me and I have skimmed it. You can verify in the May 8, 1950 Awake!, page 27,28, that his ideas were wildly speculative and completely unsupported by evidence. *** dx30-85 Worlds in Collision *** WORLDS IN COLLISION book by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky: g50 5/8 27-28 [moved to the end of the post] That article was overly generous to him because he tried to support Biblical miraculous events with cosmic events in our solar system. Wikipedia gives a good summary of his ideas, some of which were published in "Worlds in Collision" some in "Ramses II and His Time," etc. The causes of these natural catastrophes were close encounters between the Earth and other bodies within the Solar System — not least what are now the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, and Mars, these bodies having moved upon different orbits within human memory. To explain the fact that these changes to the configuration of the Solar System violate several well-understood laws of physics, Velikovsky invented a role for electromagnetic forces in counteracting gravity and orbital mechanics. Some of Velikovsky's specific postulated catastrophes included:[citation needed] A tentative suggestion that Earth had once been a satellite of a "proto-Saturn" body, before its current solar orbit. That the Deluge (Noah's Flood) had been caused by proto-Saturn's entering a nova state, and ejecting much of its mass into space. A suggestion that the planet Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel catastrophe. Jupiter had been the prime mover in the catastrophe that saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Periodic close contacts with a "cometary Venus" (which had been ejected from Jupiter) had caused the Exodus events (c. 1500 BCE) and Joshua's subsequent "sun standing still" (Joshua 10:12–13) incident. Periodic close contacts with Mars had caused havoc in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE.

You got me curious, since I honestly had never even skimmed this portion of COJ's book. I noticed a footnote, on the same page you pointed to, about the famous eight-UK-clergymen December 1917 Manifesto, from their "prophets" conference. This manifesto has been referenced in the WTS publications several times. *** nc pp. 20-21 pars. 36-37 When All Nations Collide, Head On, With God *** Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Dr. F. B. Meyer, and six other well-known clergymen of England, issued a Manifesto, which was republished throughout the earth and which declared: 37 “(1) That the present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles. . . . (5) That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the second coming of our Lord, because all nations will then be subject to His rule. . . .”—Current Opinion, for February 1918. I had already seen this same referenced Manifesto nearly 10 times in different WTS publications. But I had never realized that these "Gentile Times" were not really about 1914, but more specifically about the events of 1917. I hadn't noticed that the context in the WT about the 2520 years, really had nothing to do with this "Gentile Times" manifesto, because it was really more about the supposed fulfillment of the 1,260 days (years) of Revelation 11, which J.A.Brown had predicted 90 years earlier for 1917. (J.A.Brown never connected the 7 times, or 2,520 years, with the Gentile Times.) So I looked up the phrase "present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles" in Google. Mostly it came back with Watchtower Library and jw.org links. And I found a lot of links that showed other religions had used the same Manifesto to show that their prophets were just as good or better (Mormons) and other religions used it to show just how useless and irrelevant those predictions had already become. But the most curious use of the manifesto was from Rutherford, who used it as "proof" that the world noticed the "beginning of the end of the world" in the 1920 book "Millions Now Living Will Never Die," page 40. Rutherford quoted from the Manifesto, and had only good things to say about these particular preachers. He called them honest and faithful and good, as compared to so many other clergymen: Even then, in 1920, it was rare to hear a good word about another preacher from Rutherford. But did he really think they were good, or did he change his mind about them? A TALE OF TWO FCC's [The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Council of Churches] Well, I checked another link, this time to the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, which printed the entire speech of Rutherford in 1926, here, page 339. The speech follows the same logic and context of the 1920 "Millions" book treatment, still pointing out the Zionist fulfillment of prophecy. But this time he points out that "these very distinguished men who signed the manifesto have vehemently spoken against present truth and the Lord's kingdom." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Federal_Communications_Commission/UAwvAAAAMAAJ What is his evidence of the signers of the above showing vehement opposition to "present truth" since then? It is that a different group of clergymen, who did NOT sign the above manifesto, had signed on to the proposal for the U.S. to join the League of Nations. So in January 1919, the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches, had made a "blasphemous" statement in that proposal about the League of Nations, hoping it represented a means to peace in the world: The proposal was drafted by the executive committee of the FCC, and by December 1919 had become a petition to send to the U.S. Senate, where it failed. The proposals even contained wording that might remind you or Rutherford's own words about war. This is found in "Internationalizing the Social Gospel: The Federal Council of Churches and European Protestantism, 1914-1925 Author(s): Ralph L. Pearson" But, naturally, Rutherford doesn't admit that the Watchtower itself had offered the same optimistic idea about the same League of Nations, following some of the same wording of the FCC: One month after the statement of the FCC in January 1919, the February 15, 1919 Watchtower spoke in similar terms: “We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p.51 [Reprints page 6389].

Understanding historical events involves delving into the past to gain insight into the present. A skilled researcher knows exactly where to find the necessary information, much like navigating by the stars. If the destruction of "Nineveh" occurred in 612 BC, what astronomical evidence supports this event? Then you have references to the destruction of Nineveh in 606 BC and the siege of Nineveh in 635 BC. Either we conduct our own research or acknowledge the flawed nature of JWI's research. It is not possible to have it both ways. You mean that was it; that we got them all? Or that this one (requoted above) is one that you also want moved? It's dated Sunday at ?:18 PM, but ? refers to a different time zone from the one I'm in, so I couldn't tell exactly. And the use of VPN's can throw off the time zone on the time stamp. I didn't move it before because it's on topic and it's not to BTK's question, but I'd still be happy to move it if you wish.

As I said, I'll be happy to move as many or as few as you like. Since you still haven't said which ones specifically, I'll move a few more and you can tell me if there are still others. I went back into the conversation for two weeks, but found that this particular subset of the topic only went back for one week. So I moved more of your conversation with BTK going back one week. The others that still remain here are too tightly integrated into the current conversation. I suppose you could always copy information you presented here and repost it over there under the new topic.

See the link above in response to the request. They had already been moved over an hour ago.

As an aside, note that the entire relative timeline from the beginning of Neo-Babylonian to the Persian empire can easily be figured out without any reference to astronomy or even BCE dates. The whole reason the WTS makes such a big deal out of our "traditional" date for the destruction of Jerusalem is based on a relative chronology from 539, not an absolute chronology of the time period. So a relative chronology is all one needs to debunk it. You don't even need to know if 539 was correct or not. You don't need BCE dates at all. Just the widely available archaeology without any need for software or assumptions about any potential copyist's errors, eclipses, planetary positions. The contemporary business documents alone are more than enough to debunk the WTS chronology. And there are tens of thousands of those stone "witnesses" all consistently pointing to the same timeline. That's why the great emphasis in the WTS publications to constantly sow seeds of doubt about those tablets. I think that, as a group, the WTS is the biggest opposer of the tablets -- and the biggest opposer of ALL Neo-Babylonian archaeology.

Imagine, then, that approved association with Jehovah's people MUST include acceptance of a mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology!! *** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** 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. *** w83 1/1 p. 12 par. 5 The Kingdom Issue to the Fore! *** Properly, then, the ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold today. Rather than: (2 Timothy 3:15-17) . . .. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Exactly on each point!!! Now imagine Jehovah telling a "faitfhul slave" or pre-cursor of that "faithful slave" that the only way Jesus is going to distinguish between the 5 wise virgins and the 5 foolish virgins (in our time period) is based on their acceptance of a specific mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology. And it's a chronology that started out as: Oh look how great Ptolemy is; all astronomers agree that his dates are perfectly well-established! Which soon turned into: Look how terrible Ptolemy is; his chronology is suspect because he gives different dates than the ones we need prior to 539. Let's go so far as to highlight a book that calls him a "criminal." Which turned to: Oh look how great the Nabonidus Chronicle is; it proves that Cyrus overtook him in his 17th year. Which turned to: Oh wait, let's stop mentioning the Nabonidus Chronicle; turns out that the number 17 was added by expert secular authorities, and that the same chronicle links him directly to the full length of Neriglissar's reign, which is the one tiny window of vulnerability we still need to raise suspicion about a possible 20 year gap!! Which turned to: Oh look how great Strm. Cambyses is, it tells us directly that 539 is the only absolute date in ancient history!! Which turned to: Whoops! Now we have to admit that this only works if we accept the authority of secular experts to correct numerous known mistakes and copyist errors on that same tablet, the astronomical tablets' understanding, and ancient tablet methods for measurements of two eclipses, and the authority of modern experts to date those eclipses taking into account the slowdown of the earth by about 16,000 seconds, and a non-contemporary King's list (like Ptolemy's) that is assumed to be correct, and some secular business contract tablets that help establish the length of the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses, (and which we reject when used elsewhere) and some [hi]stories by much later Greek historians that we don't really trust on most other matters. Which turned to: Look how great the Olympiad dating system is; if we accept that it has been properly tied to the current BC/AD eras, it appears to tells us that the dates for Cyrus are accurate. Which turns to: Oh wait! We reject the same Olympiad dating system even from much more recent times when it conflicts with our theory of Artaxerxes which we would like to say is 10 years off.

Sure. I moved the "discrepancy-related" posts between you and @BTK59 going back to Wednesday because this was when the topic of discrepancies came up most directly. If I have moved too many or not enough, just let me know. Also, here on this topic, I have left @xero's question to you under this topic here that he started, and your response to it, even though it was based originally on that same back-and-forth between George88 and BTK59. Let me know. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90970-uncovering-discrepancies-in-secular-history/

This topic starts out with posts between @BTK59 and @George88 from the "Nineveh 612" topic. The request to me was to move a couple of posts that were not directly relate to "Nineveh 612." I will likely get some further clarification on which exact posts I should move here because it seems there may be more than two.

So even without checking out any astronomy, just from the tablets alone, we would get exactly the same as "Ptolemy's Canon." We'd get the same length and order of all the kings' reigns.

There is a long inscription attributed to (actually in honor of) Nabonidus' mother, which honors her long life of about 102 to 104 years of age. It says about her life: From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, when I was born, until the 42nd year of Ashurbanipal, the 3rd year of his son Ashur-etil-ili, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Merodach, the 4th year of Neriglissar, during (all) these 95 years in which I visited the temple of the great godhead Sin, king of all the gods in heaven and in the nether world, he looked with favor upon my pious good works and listened to my prayers, accepted my vows. .. He [the moon god Sin] added (to my life) many days (and) years of happiness and kept me alive from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 9th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son whom I bore, (i.e.) one hundred and four happy years (spent) in that piety which Sin, the king of all gods, has planted in my heart’. . . . The ninth year: . . . On the fifth day of the month Nisan the queen mother died in Dur-karashu which (is on) the bank of the Euphrates upstream from Sippar. Therefore, the inscription says: Ashurbanipal reigned 42 years, Ashuretilili reigned 3 years, Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, Awel-Merodach reigned 2 years, Neriglissar reigned 4 years, Nabonidus followed Neriglissar and the queen mother died in his 9th year. This matches the various other contemporary or near-contemporary sources for the lengths of the reign of each king: