SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

33 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Largely the usual nonsense and claptrap. And of course, zero evidence is presented, so none is needed to dismiss.

Coward's reply

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

57 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Let's try this again. The following dates are taken from Parker and Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology -- 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, Brown University Press, 1956; Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon), along with a Julian date calculator website ( https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1227779487 ). All dates are given by the usual Julian calendar.

The Insight book (Vol. 1, p. 453) clearly admits that Cyrus' official accession year was Nisan 1, 539 BCE through Addaru 30, 538 BCE, and his official FIRST year was Nisan 1, 538 BCE through Addaru 30, 537 BCE. The Persians under Cyrus conquered the city of Sippar, near Babylon, on October 10, 539, conquered Babylon on October 12, 539, and Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29. Tablets dating to Cyrus' accession year, dating to October 10 through January 14, 538, are listed in P&D (p. 14).

Therefore it was evident to all inhabitants of Babylon not later than October 29 that Cyrus was now the king. Since Cyrus was known to release captives when he conquered a city, it was obvious to the Jews that he would almost certainly release them. The question was when? It was the custom of rulers in Persia, and apparently Babylon, to celebrate the Akitu Festival beginning about Nisan 1. Accompanying this celebration, especially one in combination with celebrating the inauguration (on the 1st day of the 1st official year) was the ceremonial release of captives. Thus, it is extremely likely that the Jewish captives were freed on or about Nisan 1, 538 BCE in connection with the Akitu Festival.

Now, from Cyrus' entry into Babylon, October 29, 539 BCE to his inauguration day, Nisan 1, 538 BCE, is 146 days, or nearly five lunar months. This allowed nearly five months for the Jews to prepare for release from captivity, and even more if they were aware that Cyrus' depredations around Babylon before conquering it presaged the fall of Babylon.

Ezra 3:1 clearly states that by the 7th month Tishri (Tishri 1 = September 17), the Jews "were in their cities". From Nisan 1 to Tishri 1 is 6 months; 6 plus 5 equals 11, for the mathematically challenged, so the Jews theoretically had nearly 11 months of time to prepare for their Return to Judah and to execute it. The usual travel time between Babylon and Judah was about 4 months, which easily fits in the time slots between Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 and Tishri 1 (September 17), 538, or October 29, 539 and Tishri 1, 538. Either way leaves plenty of time for a return in 538 BCE.

What a load of bollocks.  The precise dating of the first year of Cyrus cannot be precisely known because of Darius' first year which intervened between the time of Babylon's Fall and the Cyrus' first regnal year.- Da. 9:1,2. Thus WT scholars have give two separate dates expressed in terms of the Babylonian, Julian and Gregorian calendars respectively for the first year of Cyrus however which presents the Return of the Jews in the seventh month only in 537 BCE. This is the only possible calculable date for an earlier date of 538 BCE is clearly impossible for it does not account for the short reign of Darius the Mede not does it allow sufficient time for the Proclamation and the Publishing of the Cyrus' Decree throughout the Empire and the very extensive preparations for the Return of the Exiles . Plain common sense trumps 538 BCE every time for this is simply an apostate date!!!

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

On 12/18/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

You still don't get the Saros Cycle. You haven't understood when a scribe might have used a Saros Cycle of 18 years and 10 or 11 days, or when a scribe used 19 years. Who used a specific date or when an observation was used.

Actually, you just indicated by what you are saying that you still don't get it. ... He says that a period of 18 years 11 days, will not always reflect 18 years between calendar years, but will sometimes appear to reflect 19 years. If someone uses what this author is saying to try to remove the value of the Nebuchudnezzar eclipses then they making a big deal out of something that should already be obvious. . . .

For example: what is the distance between these three dates that were clear from LBAT 1419?

• September 15, 591 BCE, at sunrise.,
• September 25, 573 BCE,  sunset.,
• October 6, 555 BCE, overnight.

The answer is 18 years, and about 10 or 11 days. 591-573=18 and Sept 25-Sept15=10 days. (actually 10.5 because one was sunrise and one was sunset, an extra half day apart).

The next ones are 18 years, 11 days apart, because 573-555=18, and September 25 to October 6 is 11 days. (There are only 30 days in September.)

So let's look at the author's examples. You'll see he is not being misleading but it is easy to be misled if you don't read t carefully:

[Edited: He is not clearly explaining that these so-called 18 year versus 19 year calendar differences are not because of a difference in the saros cycles over time. Because they always remain almost exactly 18 years and 11 days. He is saying that the saros cycle can "apparently" be 19 years when one only pays attention to the regnal year. His goal is to say that any tablets that tried to extend too far with just 18 instead of taking into account that the number of years was actually 18 years+ 11/365ths of a year, might be indicating that they were restarting an "era" of saros cycles rather than continuing to add to old attempts at saros cycle tablets where an apparent 19 year difference would have shown up after about 36 cycles in a row. (corrected: 36 x 18+ years.)

What's the distance between these two:

On 12/18/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

SE 213 (99 bce): the eclipse in this series that year takes place in Month xii2 and the next eclipse would be in month i of SE 232 (80 bce), which is 19 years after SE 213.

So is it really 19 years? No! Month 12 of 99 BCE to Month 1 of 80 BCE is exactly 18 years and 11 days.

That's the eclipse of 3/31/98 BCE. (Month 12, as you know runs into the 98 BCE portion of 99/98 BCE, as explained in the last LBAT 20 post.)

and the second part of that was Month 1 of  80 BC:

So, what's the difference between March 31 98 BCE and April 11, 80 BCE?

98-80=18 years. And from March 31 to April 11 is 11 days. Total 18 years 11 days.

On 12/18/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

As a consequence, once the month of the eclipse has moved through the whole of the year, after about 36 cycles, there will be a one-off change in the calendar year of the eclipse by 19 rather than 18 years.

Obviously. Just like a person born on December 25, 1999 is 18 years and 11 days old on January 5, 2018. Even though the "calendar" difference appears to be 2018 - 1999 = 19 years. But if that same person was born 6 days later, on January 1, 2000, he would be 18 years and 11 days old on about January 12, 2018. The "calendar" difference appears to be only 18 years this time (2018-2020) even though it's exactly the same amount of time. 

I won't even do the next set of eclipses he mentions because you can just look at them and know he is using the same deceiving language by not making it clear why this happens:

"Month i of year 11 of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (657 bce) and the eclipse possibility in Month xii 2 of year 6 of Esarhaddon (676 bce)"

Again he is comparing late in Month 12 (March) with early in Month 1. (April) (Normally, month 12 is February/March, but the ₂ subscript on the twelfth month means there was a second "leap month" for month 12, just as in the first case he showed. This pushes Nisannu out into a start that will always be in April, not just March/April).

[We experience the same issue when calculating the Memorial date each year, deciding whether it will be closest to the full moon in March or a full moon in April.]

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

So then what is fundamentally wrong with the explanation given in the Insight article seeing that it does account for the brief reign of Darius which you do not and does not also occur in the tables in P&D?

scholar JW

Already explained.

[AlanF]

45 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

Coward's reply

scholar JW

No evidence presented; none needed to dismiss.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Does this matter to an honest witness? Why change something that can be easily understood by the majority.

For me, I think honesty is always better. Even if a dishonest version of something is easily understood by the majority.

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Already explained

You explain nothing. Never explain the hard questions put to you but simply run away and hide.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

What a load of bollocks.  The precise dating of the first year of Cyrus cannot be precisely known because of Darius' first year which intervened between the time of Babylon's Fall and the Cyrus' first regnal year.- Da. 9:1,2. Thus WT scholars have give two separate dates expressed in terms of the Babylonian, Julian and Gregorian calendars respectively for the first year of Cyrus however which presents the Return of the Jews in the seventh month only in 537 BCE. This is the only possible calculable date for an earlier date of 538 BCE is clearly impossible for it does not account for the short reign of Darius the Mede not does it allow sufficient time for the Proclamation and the Publishing of the Cyrus' Decree throughout the Empire and the very extensive preparations for the Return of the Exiles . Plain common sense trumps 538 BCE every time for this is simply an apostate date!!!

Obviously you disagree with the dates given in the Insight book. Your lookout.

You're so incredibly stupid that you can't even manage to explain your claim about Darius the Mede. All you can manage is to throw a piece of disembodied information out there to see if sticks -- much like throwing bits of poopy underwear against a wall to see what sticks. One of your usual techniques of "argument".

[AlanF]

1 minute ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

You explain nothing. Never explain the hard questions put to you but simply run away and hide.

scholar JW

Already explained.

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

I fully accept and endorse the Insight commentary. it is your nonsense that I do not accept.

13 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You're so incredibly stupid that you can't even manage to explain your claim about Darius the Mede. All you can manage is to throw a piece of disembodied information out there to see if sticks -- much like throwing bits of poopy underwear against a wall to see what sticks. One of your usual techniques of "argument".

i did not create Darius the Mede, you idiot. He is mentioned in Daniel accompanied with a regnal date that cannot be ignored and WT scholars take that historical mention seriously. Your omission of this obvious fact renders your hypothesis sterile.

scholar JW

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Clear language is necessary for clear communication.

Very easy if you are only master of one!

[AlanF]

23 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

I fully accept and endorse the Insight commentary. it is your nonsense that I do not accept.

i did not create Darius the Mede, you idiot. He is mentioned in Daniel accompanied with a regnal date that cannot be ignored and WT scholars take that historical mention seriously. Your omission of this obvious fact renders your hypothesis sterile.

scholar JW

Still no evidence presented. You're dismissed.