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

[AlanF]

11 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

Read it carefully you clown. Notice the statement according to that reckoning concluding hence forth.

Yes indeed, and it accepts that reckoning. It must, because without it, the Watchtower cannot use 539 as an anchor date.

Such a complete moron!

11 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Also, the context of that discussion was under the heading Babylonian Chronology.

So what?

11 hours ago, scholar JW said:

What an idiot!!

What a master of irony you are!

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is kind of the argument O'Maly is attempting to make. She seems to understand a little better than you, here. Why not ask her.

I just read the article you meant. Turned out it was short and easy to understand. I expected another 23 page file like the VAT 4956 article, or the 45 page translation article. It's only 6 pages: https://www.academia.edu/26085025/Can_two_eclipses_on_BM_32234_be_dated_to_475_BCE_instead_of_the_conventional_year_465_BCE

From what I could see, all her observations are correct, and it's fairly easy to distinguish which year best matches the descriptions of the eclipses. I'm finding the same thing is true of the eclipses I am checking, that it is pretty easy to see which eclipse is intended in the Babylonian description, especially when there are pairs of eclipses for the same year.

Thanks.

[JW Insider]

23 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Then you should be will aware the Saros Cycle fits 607 BC with a specific Bible account, that can be incorporated by ongoing secular evidence.

How?

[AlanF]

ScholarJW has now, for at least 20 years in the time I've dealt with him on JW-related forums, proved himself to be a truly pathological liar, on the order of current U.S. President Donald Trump. Various commentators have observed that it's easy to tell when Trump is lying -- his mouth is moving. It's similar with ScholarJW. The bulk of what he posts on forums such as this is either a flat-out lie, or is a deliberate misrepresentation of something. He has actually misrepresented the Bible itself over these past 20 years. He often tries to make some dishonest claim, is proven to have lied, and then completely ignores that proof, thus compounding his lie because he has, by failing to admit it, doubled down on it.

So how does one tell when ScholarJW is lying? He's typing on his keyboard.

Below I present some examples of these failings, which are mostly deliberate.

Recently, in the thread "Archaeological Evidence for 607 BCE", ScholarJW referred to a couple of academic papers presented by scholars Steven M. Bryan and Jeffrey Niles that considered the implications of "the 70 years" of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11, 29:10, etc.). He made some outrageous claims for these papers, which amounted to claiming that these secular scholars actually supported Watchtower chronology and the summaries of that chronology that ScholarJW usually makes. His claims are false, of course, because no normal scholars support Watchtower chronology. His basic claim can be read here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-149440 . Here is an excerpt:

<< Recent scholarship confirms the simple basic fact that the Jewish Exile ended not with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE but with the return of the Jews from Babylon under Cyrus' Decree following the prediction of Jeremiah's prophecy of 70 years. This viewpoint of matters is thematic in an article  by Steven M Bryan to wit "The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' in JBL, vol.137, no.1, 2018, pp.107-26.

This recent scholarship is a devastating to the COJ  interpretation of the 70 years wholly based on servitude to the Babylonian power ending in 539 BCE.

Further, other scholarship in the form of a Master of Theology Thesis for the Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012 vindicates the said's scholars view that the 70 years was a period of SERVITUDE-DESOLATION-EXILE as argued on many forums over the last decades. Scholar disagrees with many points in this thesis but its essential theme is well received based on these three principal elements which are equated in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated. >>

This excerpt contains ScholarJW's basic lie about "servitude-desolation-exile": "these three principal elements ... are equated". But he is so intent on promoting this lie that in the same sentence he refutes his own claim of support: "... in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated".

ScholarJW seems to think that merely because an author discusses the concepts of servitude, desolation and exile in connection with Jeremiah's 70 years, he supports whatever ScholarJW and the Watchtower Society claim.

Now of course, dozens of scholars for two millennia have discussed all manner of details about exactly what Jeremiah's 70 years meant in the Bible passages that mention them, and in the many writings in the some 700 years from the beginning of the Babylonian hegemony over the Middle East in 609 BCE down through Josephus' writings in the early 1st century CE. Therefore, ScholarJW's claims are outrageous lies on their face.

Furthermore, ScholarJW's claim of scholarly support for his and the Watchtower's views is not new. He has lied many times these past 20 years in this way, on various online forums, and has generally been called out on the lies. Naturally, as a pathological Trumpian liar, he has never admitted to lying, nor has he retracted his false claims.

When I read ScholarJW's obviously false claims, I replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-149446 😞

<< I have not read that article, but I have no doubt that, as with virtually all articles you've cited in support of your views, it will turn out actually to debunk those views. Would you like to clarify now, before I read the article and point out where you've mucked it up? >>

After that, I requested that ScholarJW email me copies of the articles, since that would be the quickest way for me to read the material. But in the finest tradition of Trumpian/ScholarJWian obscurantism, he refused. Ultimately, a couple of months later, I obtained the articles and began posting debunkings of his trash. See https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151323 and https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151324 for my initial lengthy debunkings.

ScholarJW's reply was typically garbled and full of lies, without any real evidence of anything. He seems to think that merely denying a fact or an argument makes it disappear.

JW Insider soon called out ScholarJW's lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-151338 😞

<< Again, @scholar JW, you either have not read the paper in question, or you are not honest. Perhaps, as TTH implies, you are just showing that "people see what they want to see." (In which case, that would be evidence that you are no "scholar.") >>

In any case, this is not the first time the 70 years is acknowledged to have three principal elements: servitude, captivity/exile, and desolation of the land.

Even if you never read past the introductory summary, you would have seen how you have made a false claim here. His very reason for writing is that he SEPARATES all these three ideas into DIFFERENT periods.

The terms servitude, captivity, and desolation receive examination. Servitude refers to the period in which Judah and the surrounding nations would submit to the dominion of Babylon. This thesis proposes that the servitude lasted from 609 to 539 BC. Captivity resulted from the seventy-year period of Babylonian servitude, but the two must not be equated. Several captivities resulted in Babylon’s invasion of Judah and ended with the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC. Desolation also resulted from the period of servitude, but must not be equated with it. This refers to the period of destruction that followed the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC and lasted until the construction of the temple in 515 BC.

I agree that the period of servitude would be about from 609 to 539, although I wouldn't haggle over a couple years on either side. >>

And of course, ScholarJW replied to this with his usual garbled, circular, unevidenced, question-begging 'arguments' and, mostly, flat-out lies.

Many more posts along these lines were made in that thread, but I want to move on to the meat of this post in the present thread "SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)".

It so happened that the dishonest 'research' of Norwegian JW apologist Rolf Furuli was discussed. After some discussion ScholarJW again falsely invoked support for his claims from scholars Bryan and Niles, and said this ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152102 😞

<< You say that Furuli's research is debunked but this is only by those with bias to NB Chronology whom regard it as a sacred cow.- not to be critical of it. It is a nonsense to say that WT interpretations are demonstrably wrong when one only has to compare such interpretations with Bible commentaries and published journals and these show otherwise or at least some tangents of agreement as I have pointed out over the years. the most recent example is Nile's thesis that the 70 years related to three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics. >>

Note the flat-out lie: Niles' thesis is a "tangent of agreement" (whatever that means) that the 70 years are related to "three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics."

I had pointed out several times before that COJ (Carl Olof Jonsson) and many other scholars discussed these matters plenty of times during the past two millennia, but ScholarJW doubled down on his lie. I then stated ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152113 😞

<< COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book?

And of course, plenty of other scholars have discussed such things, sometimes at length, sometimes as side notes. So what? None of those writings in any way lends support to your claims that they support the "607 chronology". >>

ScholarJW replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152118 😞

<< COJ did no such thing and neither has any other scholar for it is only for the first time that these three concepts have been related to the 70 years. >>

To refute that lie I quoted COJ's first version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152132 😞

<<<< Of course he did. Note his discussion in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, version 1, 1983, pp. 92-93:

<< . . . the nations that that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nation that refused to serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. This fate at last befell Judah after about eighteen years of servitude. . . The devastation or desolation, though, is nowhere stated to have lasted for seventy years. Other nations, too, that refused to accept the Babylonian yoke, were punished, cities were ruined, and captives were brought to Babylon. . . That the seventy years refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy, and not to the period of Jerusalem's desolation, reckoned from its destruction in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year, is also confirmed by verse 12 of Jeremiah 25: . . . All will agree that this began to be fulfilled when Babylon fell to Cyrus' army in 539 B.C.E. At that time the seventy years had "been fulfilled," according to Jeremiah's prophecy. Did the Jewish captivity end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the desolation of Jerusalem end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the Babylonian supremacy and the servitude to the Babylonian king end that year? Yes! As the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., they clearly refer, not to the captivity or the desolation, but to the servitude. >>

Read it and weep, Neil.
>>>>

Naturally, ScholarJW completely ignored COJ's exposition. Rather, he tried his usual trick of sidestepping by posing a completely irrelevant 'problem' ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152184 😞

<< Seeing that you have boasted how smart you are and have written a contrived paper on the 538/537 BCE debate could you answer the following question:

Would you give the precise date for the beginning and ending of Cyrus' first full regnal year expressed in terms of the Babylonian/Jewish Calendar and in both the Julian, Gregorian calendars? >>

Of course, all of that (aside from the trivial and irrelevant conversion from Julian to Gregorian calendar dates) was covered in my very paper that ScholarJW labeled "contrived", which proves that his tactic here is to sidestep facts he cannot refute.

JW Insider perfectly described ScholarJW's sidestepping tactic ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152284 😞

<< But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out. >>

And of course, ScholarJW quickly replied with yet another set of lies:

<< Rubbish, Scholar never runs away but stands firm. I ask questions to show that these so-called experts cannot answer immediate and simple questions on Chronology only known or stated by WT scholars???? 

Recent example was that Alan F proudly displays his paper refuting 537 BCE but when asked a simple question in relation to the fundamental timing of the first year of Cyrus then the cat got his tongue, he was struck dumb. !!!! >>

Which claims are entirely garbage because the answer to his 'question' was trivial, and known to all competent participants in this thread -- which ScholarJW knows perfectly well.

And of course, several pages on I did answer part of his question, partly by citing the Insight book and partly with quotations from scholarly publications, along with a suggestion that, if he really wanted to know more, he could easily find the answers on several websites.

Clearly then, ScholarJW thinks we are all so dumb as to not understand his dishonest tactics of sidestepping complete debunkings of his lies.

After the above debunkings, ScholarJW again doubled down on his lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152286 😞

<< The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology:

1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young

2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis. >>

Point 1. is nonsense because scholars have used various "Methodologies" for centuries.

Point 2. is simply false, as shown by my above quotation of COJ's 1983 version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. I could easily have quoted dozens of other scholarly works, but I'm not going to spend time debunking a lie shown up as a lie by just one quotation.

Most JW apologists are neither interested nor competent enough to evaluate much of the technical information presented in this thread. But the above sequence should be completely clear to anyone not entirely braindead.

ScholarJW consistently lies, misrepresents scholars and opponents, ignores scholars he disagrees with, refuses to quote sources, even the Bible itself, often gives no references to claimed sources or refuses to provide links or computer copies, sidesteps arguments and debunkings in every possible way, almost never admits error, almost never concedes a point, and generally commits about every sin possible in the world of scholars.

In short, ScholarJW is no more a scholar than he is a Klingon.

Now, many readers will be amused at the way ScholarJW demonstrates the sins described and illustrated above.

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

ScholarJW seems to think that merely because an author discusses the concepts of servitude, desolation and exile in connection with Jeremiah's 70 years, he supports whatever ScholarJW and the Watchtower Society claim.

No, that is not what i ave said or implied. The simple reading of both of these articles shows that neither of these two scholars support WT Chronology. What I simply tried to show is that in these papers that there are major viewpoints that align with our Chronography such as the facts that the Exile ended not with the fall of Babylon but with the Return and that for the first time in scholarship that the 70 years is related to concepts of captivity, servitude and desolation. That is all!!!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Now of course, dozens of scholars for two millennia have discussed all manner of details about exactly what Jeremiah's 70 years meant in the Bible passages that mention them, and in the many writings in the some 700 years from the beginning of the Babylonian hegemony over the Middle East in 609 BCE down through Josephus' writings in the early 1st century CE. Therefore, ScholarJW's claims are outrageous lies on their face.

So what and scholars are still discussing the same issue today but only WT scholars from the time of Russell have a clear understanding of the subject of the 70 years.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Furthermore, ScholarJW's claim of scholarly support for his and the Watchtower's views is not new. He has lied many times these past 20 years in this way, on various online forums, and has generally been called out on the lies. Naturally, as a pathological Trumpian liar, he has never admitted to lying, nor has he retracted his false claims.

Alan stop making a lot of noise and stick to the facts.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

After that, I requested that ScholarJW email me copies of the articles, since that would be the quickest way for me to read the material. But in the finest tradition of Trumpian/ScholarJWian obscurantism, he refused. Ultimately, a couple of months later, I obtained the articles and began posting debunkings of his trash. See https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151323 and https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151324 for my initial lengthy debunkings.

And aren't you a clever little man!! The said scholar wants to make you work.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

<< Again, @scholar JW, you either have not read the paper in question, or you are not honest. Perhaps, as TTH implies, you are just showing that "people see what they want to see." (In which case, that would be evidence that you are no "scholar.") >>

I have the papers to hand and people can make up their own mind on the matter.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

In any case, this is not the first time the 70 years is acknowledged to have three principal elements: servitude, captivity/exile, and desolation of the land.

Not before Nile's thesis published in May, 2012

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Even if you never read past the introductory summary, you would have seen how you have made a false claim here. His very reason for writing is that he SEPARATES all these three ideas into DIFFERENT periods.

Of course, but he relates such to the 70 years

 

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

And of course, ScholarJW replied to this with his usual garbled, circular, unevidenced, question-begging 'arguments' and, mostly, flat-out lies.

Of course,because he does not equate the periods but simply relates such to the 70 years explained in the Abstract.

WT scholars have a clear understanding as to the fact that these three elements are not related but are constituents of the 70 year period

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Note the flat-out lie: Niles' thesis is a "tangent of agreement" (whatever that means)

Read Niles ' paper which explains that there were three concepts that relate to the 70 years

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

<< COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book?

COJ like most other scholars only see the 70 years as a period of Babylonian domination and that is where they err.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Read it and weep, Neil.

You need to read it again very carefully. "That the seventy years refer to a period of Babylonian supremacy, and not to the period of Jerusalem's desolation". I weep over your stupidity.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Of course, all of that (aside from the trivial and irrelevant conversion from Julian to Gregorian calendar dates) was covered in my very paper that ScholarJW labeled "contrived", which proves that his tactic here is to sidestep facts he cannot refute.

No it is not just answer the question if you dare. Your paper is contrived for you omit the reign of Darius which falsifies your argument.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

<< But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out. >>

Scholar believes in hard work and encoutages people to read and think and do the 'hard yards' The very fact that scholar has debated this topic for 20 years proves he is no coward and does not run away for scholar is very strong.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Which claims are entirely garbage because the answer to his 'question' was trivial, and known to all competent participants in this thread -- which ScholarJW knows perfectly well.

No it is not trivial because scholar has a very good reason why he has put this specific question to you but you are too dumb to see why the question is asked but the question remains?

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

And of course, several pages on I did answer part of his question, partly by citing the Insight book and partly with quotations from scholarly publications, along with a suggestion that, if he really wanted to know more, he could easily find the answers on several websites.

Just answer it and if correct then I will award you a gold star.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Point 1. is nonsense because scholars have used various "Methodologies" for centuries.

Provei it. Show me one publication that has used 'methodology' in connection with Chronology

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Point 2. is simply false, as shown by my above quotation of COJ's 1983 version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. I could easily have quoted dozens of other scholarly works, but I'm not going to spend time debunking a lie shown up as a lie by just one quotation.

COJ  has never discussed those three terms or concepts relating to the 70 years for he has never or hardly even used the word Exile, not even listed in his subject index .Niles was the first scholar to introduce these three concepts into the scholarly literature.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Most JW apologists are neither interested nor competent enough to evaluate much of the technical information presented in this thread. But the above sequence should be completely clear to anyone not entirely braindead.

Except for scholar who awaits your technical answer to my technical question.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

n short, ScholarJW is no more a scholar than he is a Klingon.

Poor scholar but you forgot point 3 and scholar already now has point 4. The strong Cable of Bible Chronology base on 4 witnesses from the bible. You gotta luv that scholar.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Yada yada yada yada . . . . . .

This supremely pathological liar's response is exactly as I predicted: Now, many readers will be amused at the way ScholarJW demonstrates the sins described and illustrated above.

[JW Insider]

Excuse the repetition, but the last post of this nature was back on page 20. So far we have shown that the NeoBabylonian (NB) chronology is evidenced by at least 5 independent witnesses to be a solid year-after-year block of kings whose reigns appear exactly as follows . The actual evidence is built of 1,000s of individual items of evidence which all consistently point to the chronology set out below, with no exceptions.

N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years)																					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	C Y R U S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

We also saw that there are enough Babylonian descriptions of eclipses (and other astronomical readings) to put BCE dates on all these kings. The entire NB chronology is solidly evidenced to be the "block of years" in the order shown above. Therefore it would only take ONE identifiable astronomical reading to put proper BCE dates on the entire block.

We looked at LBAT 1419, and it contains several easily identifiable eclipses, all at about 18 year intervals, extending across the entire block of years shown, and even some after and before what is shown. In LBAT 1419, two of them explicitly identify that they pertain to Nebuchadnezzar's 14th and 32nd years. So we can now put BCE dates on the entire "block."

	625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536	535	534	533	532	531	530
	N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years)																					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	C Y R U S
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	591	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Nebuchadnezzar's 14th is now shown to be 591 BCE, and Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd is now shown to be 573, as shown by the darker blue highlight over the BCE date above the names of the kings.

We can find even more useful data from LBAT 1419, but since it is consistent with the above, so we move on to LBAT 1420. LBAT 1420 contained eclipse descriptions that range from Nebuchadnezzar's first year to his 29th, so we checked the first one to see if it also provided a corroborating witness to the BCE dates and timeline above.

It did. Again, it is is not necessary to check every single eclipse, so I decided to check the following 6 years of eclipses (there are two discoverable eclipses for each year). These were all identifiable, so I put the darker blue mark on 6 more years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign:

	625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536	535	534	533	532	531	530
	N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years)																					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	C Y R U S
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	591	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

I made the highlights slightly more "teal" colored so that I can reference which ones I tested from LBAT 1419, and which ones I tested from 1420. I have all the screenshots saved, but I thought it might make more sense to give an example of how easy it was is to identify the eclipses, and just how much confidence one can have that they are not making a mistake. The way to show that is to show just how close to the same reading a person would get if they check the other months in the same year, or the same month in the adjacent years. And of course, for good measure, I have also checked to see if there is a similar reading for the year suggested by the WTS chronology.

I'm sure that if I had taken the time to check, I could easily have included several more of the eclipses from the LBAT 1420 document. Others have already done this, of course, and there is no need to re-invent the wheel. In the next post, I'll include some of the screenshots I mentioned.

[JW Insider]

The Year 16 eclipses were shown back on page 20. Let's move on to Year 17 (lines 16-18 of the tablet):

Let's look for second one first since it is described in more detail. We will look for an eclipse in Month 10, that's going to mean the month starts in December/January. And we will find it on the 13th, which is going to be about the 13th day from the previous new moon. It is going to be visible at "1 beru" = a twelfth of a 24 hour day, or about 2 hours. And it will set eclipsed.

So we look for it the hard way this time. Of course, since this is year 17 we save time by first checking the year immediately after the eclipses we found for Year 16, or 588. But we expect to find it either in December  588 or January 587 because this is the tenth lunar month (Dec/Jan).

So let's go looking, but this time lets check every month of 588, starting at their New Year's, Month I (Nisannu).

March is about the earliest possible time for Nissanu to begin, so let's start at March 1, 588 just to be safe. (We could check with P&D, too, for intercalary months, but with minimal additional info, amateurs will hit the proper P&D dates more often than not.)

On March 4, 588, close to sunset, we find that the moon has just reached a new moon phase. (New Month) It's in the upper right corner of the picture below. You can barely see a crescent. And the earth's shadow is nowhere near the moon. It's the gray circle within a lighter gray circle at the left of the picture. We can guess that this new month is probably not the first month of the year because it started too early. Tentatively we'll assume it is the 12th month of the year that started in Spring 589.

Of course, you can't get an eclipse at the new moon phase, so we swing over half a month and check around the time of the full moon (about 14 days later) to see how close we get to an eclipse. Here's March 19th, also around sunset:

Close but no possible eclipse. Checking a few hours before and after, we can see the moon never gets really any closer to the earth's shadow than at the point just shown.

The next month (assumed to be the FIRST month of the year) we see that the time below when the moon is closest to the eclipse shadow is April 18, 588 BCE. Still not close enough for an eclipse.

May 17, 588 (below) is close again, but not close enough. (Assumed SECOND month.)

When it is as close as it was above, on May 17, we should also check hour by hour to see if at some point through the night the shadow or day the shadow might have gotten close enough to create an eclipse. I checked in this case and it didn't.

So we're ready to check the next month, spinning the earth forward, another 28 to 30 days. We find that closest place to an eclipse on June 15, 588, below. (Assume this the THIRD month)

Not close enough at sunset above, but we check to see if it was close enough a few hours earlier or later. Sure enough, as we pass the time into the night, about two hours before sunrise on the 16th, we find it gets this close. A near eclipse, but supposedly not enough to darken the moon, or enough of it, for anyone to notice. If it had been a little closer this would have been a visible eclipse, at night.

For this next month, we expect to see something. That's because there was an eclipse predicted for the FOURTH month, so we look at our sunset checkpoint for 29 and 30 days from the last lunar month.

Here's July 14th at sunset and July 15th at sunset:

They might not look terribly close, but notice that between these two days the moon shot right through nearly the center of the shadow. It was directly behind the shadow on the 14th and in front of it on the 15th. So here's a place to watch hour by hour to see at what point, the shadow "met" the moon"

We find the maximum eclipse here at 3 hours after sunrise, with the moon invisible below the horizon.

Could it have been visible at all when the moon rose above the horizon, just around sunrise, for example? No, because by that time to separation of the moon from the shadow was too great. It was no longer a visible eclipse.

Since this is the FOURTH month, then the LBAT 20 report is accurate that Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year had an invisible eclipse in the FOURTH month. That month matches 588 BCE, as we would have to expect at this point.

[JW Insider]

So we found the invisible eclipse in the FOURTH month, July 15, 588 BCE.

Of course, we're still looking for the more detailed eclipse, which we expect to find in the 10th month, 6 months after the 4th month, for which we just saw a match. First we'll check the FIFTH month:

We do see one get fairly close on August 13, 588 but not close enough to count. Looking throughout the hours we see it's still invisible even at it's closest point below:

The SIXTH MONTH (September) is even farther apart at the closest point:

Same for SEVENTH month. (October)

EIGHTH month (November was worse)

NINTH month (December) we now expect NOT to see an eclipse, because the April start of the year showed us that December is not going to be that tenth month. And the closest we get to an eclipse in December 588 is this:

So next month should be the right one. We'll just scroll over to the time of the full moon and see. On January 8, 587 we see the following at sunset. Uh oh! It appears wildly far apart. And on January 9th 587 we see the same situation, far apart, but we could tell that sometime between these two days, the moon must have directly passed through the earth's shadow.

There must be some hour we can find where there was a "direct hit." And it should match the tablet description we got from the translation a couple of posts ago:

Let's look for second one first since it is described in more detail. We will look for an eclipse in Month 10, that's going to mean the month starts in December/January. And we will find it on the 13th, which is going to be about the 13th day from the previous visible new moon. The eclipse is going to be visible at "1 beru" = a twelfth of a 24 hour day, or about 2 hours before sunrise. "ALL OF IT" was covered, so it is a full eclipse. And it will set eclipsed.

Here we are at two hours before sunrise. The true umbral eclipse has already begun

It's full an hour later, and we see we're only an hour before sunrise.

And here we are at sunrise and it's still a near perfect full eclipse, and the moon is going to "set eclipsed."

It's a perfect reading, again. And this description only matches the one in the 10th month of 588/587.

So this is even more evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year was in 588/587 BCE, and that his 18th year would have therefore been 587/586, and that Cyrus' accession year was 539 BCE, and that Cyrus' first regnal year was 538 BCE.

 

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This era commenced when King Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem (605 BC). That was when Jerusalem first fell into the hands of Gentiles.

It almost looks like he agrees with the WTS, but he is referring to the standard 605 date which the WTS calls c.625 BCE, when he says the Babylonian empire began. His date has nothing to do with when Jerusalem was destroyed, or when the Temple was destroyed, or when Zedekiah lost the kingdom at Jerusalem. And of course he teaches that the Gentile Times have not ended.

His date 605 BCE (equals Watchtower's 625 BCE) is a date for which the Wachtower does not yet admit there was an exile/deportation, even though you (Cesar Chavez) have repeatedly insisted on 605 as the first of these exile/deportations.

I have never heard you explain how it is possible to both agree with and contradict the Watchtower on this point at the same time.

[AlanF]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have never heard you explain how it is possible to both agree with and contradict the Watchtower on this point at the same time.

That's because this moron hasn't got two brain cells to rub together.

[Arauna]

On 12/19/2020 at 7:50 AM, JW Insider said:

know why they didn't use one of these other methods?

You deliberately remain obtuse. The insight book  uses the date of cyrus's death 530BCE   because this date  is set in stone.  This is the most accurate, reliable, quick and accurate way to get to 539 BCE.  From there it is easy to follow what happened. 

 

13 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Babylonian domination and that is where they err

True. Jerusalem was desolate....... and jehovah did not allow other nations to move in and take it over.  It remained desolate.  A miracle! 

Many kings were  killed by brothers, sons,  uncles, who wanted their thrones. The whole of mankind"s history is  filled with examples of this I.e. Sanacarib.   Nebuchadnezzar was a literal beast for seven years until his "human heart "was restored.  He realized that Jehovah has control over kingdoms and can do what he likes. Nebuchanezzars  throne was not taken from him during his incompetence. Another miracle.

So when these scholars  do not accept the bible as the word of God and do not  accept these sterling examples of Jehovahs power, then it is reasonable to accept that they  would accept any old scholarly paper ( no matter how badly it clashes with the events of the bible) .... just because it clashes with the bible. Their motives are clear.