Moshiyosef

2009-05-28 12:02:32 UTC

The VAT4956 is an astronomical text that has 60-70 references for

planets, the moon and sun on certain dates during 568 BCE dated

to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. It is called a "copy" of the original

text, but the text itself comes from the Seleucid Era, 250+ years after

the fact. (568 vs 318 BCE). For this reason alone it is not probative

for any correct dating for the Neo-Babylonian Period and is presumed

fraudulent, representing a revised chronology. However, there is a

little twist.

Two "errors" in lunar position have always been noted by scholars,

one in line 3 noted by Sachs/Hunger and one in line 14 noted by

P.V. Neugebauer. Both described a lunar position about a day

earlier than the text date for 568 BCE. However, when the two

"errors" were compared they didn't appear to be random, but

belonged to the same lunar cycle, matching very closely the position

of the moon in either 530 BCE or 511 BCE. That is where the

curious focus thus asserts. That's because per the Bible's only

way of dating back to the Neo-Babylonian Period, per a prophecy

about the interval between the 1st of Cyrus and the baptism of

Christ in 29 CE, it dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, a date

that is some 82 years later than the conventional dating of

537 BCE for when the Jews returned from Babylon.

The Bible and Josephus also insert a 70-year interval from

the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus. If 455 BCE is

used to date the 1st of Cyrus then year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II

falls in 525 BCE. If that is truly the original dating and timeline,

then year 37 would fall in 511 BCE, the apparent reference in the

VAT4956.

Of course, at this point, one explains the other. The diary was

created to preserve the original timeline "in plain sight" in a revised

text matched to the revised timeline for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.

Thus we have no only evidence of astronomical text manipulation but

a secret reference confirming the original timeline.

Another "diary" does essentially the same thing though as far as the

rule of Nebuchadnezzar. It's the "Strm Kambyses 400". It gives

astronomical references for year 7, 8 and 9 of Kambyses. Of course,

Kambyses did not rule 9 years so that is a hint the text contains

secret chronology information to the original dating. It describes

two eclipses the same year, six months apart, in Tammuz and Tebet,

the first being a 50% partial and the second total. The problem is,

the precise times each eclipse began is given in the text. The first was

3 hours 2 minutes before night and the second was 5 hours before morning.

When we make the calculations the interval is 2:46 between the two

eclipses. The eclipses in 523 BCE, the current "year 7" of Kambyses is

4:46.

Okay, in case someone wants to check, I'll bore you with the methodology.

"Night" was a division of the night 32 minutes after sunset. "Morning" was

a division of the night 32 minutes before sunrise. On Tammuz 14 sunset

at Babylon was 7:09 p.m. We add 32 minutes to arrive at 7:41 p.m. for

the beginning of night. We then just calculate 3 hours 20 minutes after

that

for the beginning of the eclipse, which is 11:01.

7:41 + 3:20 = 10:61 = 11:01 p.m.

The timing of this eclipse is confirmed in Ptolemy's canon which says this

eclipse occurred "one hour before midnight." So we have a direct

confirmation

of this correct timing.

The second eclipse on Tebet 10 was 5 hours before "morning". Sunrise was at

7:19 which we convert to 6:79 to subtract 32 minutes which gives us 6:47

a.m.

(6:79 - 00:32 = 6:47) We then simply subtract 5 hours from this to get 1:47

a.m.

The difference between 11:01 p.m. and 1:47 a.m. is 2:46! ( From 11 p.m. to

midnight is 1 hour + 1:47 = 2:47 - 00:01 = 2:46)

As I noted, though, the interval between the 523 BCE eclipses is 4:46, some

2 hours

more than what the text describes. However, lunar eclipses occur in

patterns every

18 years. In this case, the interval between the eclipses increases by 2

hours every 18

years. Thus 18 years earlier in 541 BCE the eclipse interval is exactly

2:46! Is this

a coincidence? The question is, what is the significance of 541 BCE in the

context of

"Year 7" of Kambyses or some other king? Obviously, the answer is the

original

timeline where the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar would fall in 541 BCE if, per the

VAT4956,

year 37 falls in 511 BCE! So we have a second confirmation of manipulation

of

astronomical information and a second confirmation for the reign of

Nebuchadnezzar

specifically, with both texts pointing to the same years of reign of

Nebuchadnezzar II.

There is no way this is a coincidence and it is quite clear what the

creators of these

diaries were up to. Thanks to these two diaries we can confirm the original

timeline

for Nebuchadnezzar II.

Now of note, this is some 57 years later than the conventional dating to 568

BCE which

is a fabricated date. When we move back in time to the Assyrian Period, we

have to

match a solar eclipse which dates the entire eponym. This is easily done by

an eclipse

in 709 BCE. When 709 BCE is compared to RC14 dating for Shishak's invasion,

you get another scientific match! That is, his invasion per the 763 BCE

eclipse is in

925 BCE. The 709 BCE eclipse dates this event exactly 54 years later to 871

BCE.

The RC14 dating from Rehov for this event is also 871 BCE!!

This also aligns with archaeology from Jericho, which Kathleen Kenyon dates

from 1350-1325 BCE. That dating dates the Exodus between 1390-1365 BCE.

The RC14 from Rehov aligned with the 709 BCE eclipse for year 39 of Solomon

in 871 BCE dates his 4th year in 906 BCE and the Exodus 480 years earlier to

1386 BCE. That would date the fall of Jericho 40 years later to 1346 BCE,

which

falls within the archaeological range of Kenyon of 1350-1325 BCE!

So you see, ARCHAEOLOGICALLY, correcting the Neo-Babylonian Period

does not cause confusion with other timelines or RC14 dating, but it aligns

with

it more correctly.

Mos

planets, the moon and sun on certain dates during 568 BCE dated

to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. It is called a "copy" of the original

text, but the text itself comes from the Seleucid Era, 250+ years after

the fact. (568 vs 318 BCE). For this reason alone it is not probative

for any correct dating for the Neo-Babylonian Period and is presumed

fraudulent, representing a revised chronology. However, there is a

little twist.

Two "errors" in lunar position have always been noted by scholars,

one in line 3 noted by Sachs/Hunger and one in line 14 noted by

P.V. Neugebauer. Both described a lunar position about a day

earlier than the text date for 568 BCE. However, when the two

"errors" were compared they didn't appear to be random, but

belonged to the same lunar cycle, matching very closely the position

of the moon in either 530 BCE or 511 BCE. That is where the

curious focus thus asserts. That's because per the Bible's only

way of dating back to the Neo-Babylonian Period, per a prophecy

about the interval between the 1st of Cyrus and the baptism of

Christ in 29 CE, it dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, a date

that is some 82 years later than the conventional dating of

537 BCE for when the Jews returned from Babylon.

The Bible and Josephus also insert a 70-year interval from

the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus. If 455 BCE is

used to date the 1st of Cyrus then year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II

falls in 525 BCE. If that is truly the original dating and timeline,

then year 37 would fall in 511 BCE, the apparent reference in the

VAT4956.

Of course, at this point, one explains the other. The diary was

created to preserve the original timeline "in plain sight" in a revised

text matched to the revised timeline for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.

Thus we have no only evidence of astronomical text manipulation but

a secret reference confirming the original timeline.

Another "diary" does essentially the same thing though as far as the

rule of Nebuchadnezzar. It's the "Strm Kambyses 400". It gives

astronomical references for year 7, 8 and 9 of Kambyses. Of course,

Kambyses did not rule 9 years so that is a hint the text contains

secret chronology information to the original dating. It describes

two eclipses the same year, six months apart, in Tammuz and Tebet,

the first being a 50% partial and the second total. The problem is,

the precise times each eclipse began is given in the text. The first was

3 hours 2 minutes before night and the second was 5 hours before morning.

When we make the calculations the interval is 2:46 between the two

eclipses. The eclipses in 523 BCE, the current "year 7" of Kambyses is

4:46.

Okay, in case someone wants to check, I'll bore you with the methodology.

"Night" was a division of the night 32 minutes after sunset. "Morning" was

a division of the night 32 minutes before sunrise. On Tammuz 14 sunset

at Babylon was 7:09 p.m. We add 32 minutes to arrive at 7:41 p.m. for

the beginning of night. We then just calculate 3 hours 20 minutes after

that

for the beginning of the eclipse, which is 11:01.

7:41 + 3:20 = 10:61 = 11:01 p.m.

The timing of this eclipse is confirmed in Ptolemy's canon which says this

eclipse occurred "one hour before midnight." So we have a direct

confirmation

of this correct timing.

The second eclipse on Tebet 10 was 5 hours before "morning". Sunrise was at

7:19 which we convert to 6:79 to subtract 32 minutes which gives us 6:47

a.m.

(6:79 - 00:32 = 6:47) We then simply subtract 5 hours from this to get 1:47

a.m.

The difference between 11:01 p.m. and 1:47 a.m. is 2:46! ( From 11 p.m. to

midnight is 1 hour + 1:47 = 2:47 - 00:01 = 2:46)

As I noted, though, the interval between the 523 BCE eclipses is 4:46, some

2 hours

more than what the text describes. However, lunar eclipses occur in

patterns every

18 years. In this case, the interval between the eclipses increases by 2

hours every 18

years. Thus 18 years earlier in 541 BCE the eclipse interval is exactly

2:46! Is this

a coincidence? The question is, what is the significance of 541 BCE in the

context of

"Year 7" of Kambyses or some other king? Obviously, the answer is the

original

timeline where the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar would fall in 541 BCE if, per the

VAT4956,

year 37 falls in 511 BCE! So we have a second confirmation of manipulation

of

astronomical information and a second confirmation for the reign of

Nebuchadnezzar

specifically, with both texts pointing to the same years of reign of

Nebuchadnezzar II.

There is no way this is a coincidence and it is quite clear what the

creators of these

diaries were up to. Thanks to these two diaries we can confirm the original

timeline

for Nebuchadnezzar II.

Now of note, this is some 57 years later than the conventional dating to 568

BCE which

is a fabricated date. When we move back in time to the Assyrian Period, we

have to

match a solar eclipse which dates the entire eponym. This is easily done by

an eclipse

in 709 BCE. When 709 BCE is compared to RC14 dating for Shishak's invasion,

you get another scientific match! That is, his invasion per the 763 BCE

eclipse is in

925 BCE. The 709 BCE eclipse dates this event exactly 54 years later to 871

BCE.

The RC14 dating from Rehov for this event is also 871 BCE!!

This also aligns with archaeology from Jericho, which Kathleen Kenyon dates

from 1350-1325 BCE. That dating dates the Exodus between 1390-1365 BCE.

The RC14 from Rehov aligned with the 709 BCE eclipse for year 39 of Solomon

in 871 BCE dates his 4th year in 906 BCE and the Exodus 480 years earlier to

1386 BCE. That would date the fall of Jericho 40 years later to 1346 BCE,

which

falls within the archaeological range of Kenyon of 1350-1325 BCE!

So you see, ARCHAEOLOGICALLY, correcting the Neo-Babylonian Period

does not cause confusion with other timelines or RC14 dating, but it aligns

with

it more correctly.

Mos