Discussion:
How the VAT4956 redates the reign of Nebuchadnezzar
(too old to reply)
Moshiyosef
2009-05-28 12:02:32 UTC
Permalink
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
Peter Alaca
2009-05-28 12:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Moshiyosef <***@embarqmail.com> 28/05/2009 14:02 wrote:

Blablabla
Horace LaBadie
2009-05-28 16:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Alaca
Blablabla
More like Vat 69.
<http://www.scotchwhisky.net/blended/vat_69.htm>
Moshiyosef
2009-05-29 04:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Alaca
Blablabla
Well, Peter, this is a great compliment. You have no rebuttal here, because
I know you don't know anything
substantitive about astronomical texts, particularly this one. Plus this
very archaeological since this timeline
is what archaeologists use for dating comparisons with their own findings.
It is this very timeline that David
and Solomon are dated and right now are touted as being "myths" by
archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein
because they are dated too early. But they are not comparing the true
Biblical date for this event, but the
revised date from the Greek Period!

So this is archaeologically relevant. Let me explain, for example:

Israel Finkelstein bragged about how RC14 dating is so accurate now. And it
is. The accuracy is
down to less than ten years! He used that and other evidence to clearly
show the Solomonic buildings
at Megiddo were dated to the "early 9th century BCE" (900-867 BCE). Then
this strategic sample
from Rehov came into the picture, short-lived grains dating the destructive
level by Shishak. It
dated it to 871 BCE (+/- 5 years!!) Thus the RC14 dating was very
consistent with the early 9th
century building period. This level City IV at Rehov matched the Solomonic
level VA-IVB at
Megiddo. Shichak mentioned Rehov as a city that was destroyed along with
Megiddo. So all
seemed in place. This evidence made the 925 BCE dating for Shishak's
invasion unlikely per
the evidence. Problem is, this evidence also challenged the Assyrian
timeline, suggesting the timeline
was also dated too early, in fact, exactly 54 years too early is Shishak per
the RC14 is dated
to 871 BCE. So Finkelstein had a choice here. Either redate Shishak down
to 871 BCE
and look at options for pushing the Assyrian Period down 54 years, or
ignore all the evidence
and use the misdated Assyrian Period for dating this destructive level. He
chose the latter,
the earliest dating for a destruction of Rehov being around 835 BCE, which
is far beyond
the 10-year margin now in place for RC14 of short-lived grains and seeds.

Fact is, though, the 54-year discrepancy comes from Greek Period revisions
by Xenophon, thus
he is not using a legitimate timeline comparison. The corrected timeline,
though, which uses
the 709 BCE eclipse for dating the Assyrian Period, is exactly 54 years
later and thus dates Shishak's
invasion historically to 871 BCE, the precise dating found in the RC14
sample!!

Loading Image...



The above chart shows that 835 BCE is only in the 30% probability range!
What has happened
is that an archaeologist has decided to go with a "historical" solution and
ignore the scientific
dating now in place. For him to have respected the RC14 sample he would
have had to have
found an academic solution that matched either Shishak or anybody else he
wanted to assign
to this destructive level to within 5-10 years of 871 BCE. He didn't do
that. So now
his historical date in 835 BCE, a destruction he presumes would have been by
Aram-Damascus
is a total joke, all because he has the wrong historical reference.

Now this seems absolute, especially since it is coordinated with astronomy.
However, the
763 BCE pales beside the 709 BCE eclipse as the correct eclipse event. For
one, the 763 BCE
event can be dated to month 3, Simanu, optionally but only if the first
month begins before
the spring equinox. This was not the customary practice at this time.
Another eclipse in this
series in 709 BCE, which is 54 years and 1 month later, is the more
conventionally dated
3rd month event. Secondly, this is a rare predictable eclipse series where
after the first
two eclipses seen in Assyria, a 50% followed by a total, the third eclipse
would have been
predictable by both location and date. This would have made this a major
civic event to
be able to predict an eclipse and is likely the reason it showed up in the
civil record of
the eponym. There are no other eclipses mentioned so this eclipse event
must have
been special in some way. The fact that it might have been the first
predicted solar eclipse
would explain why it was recorded in the eponym. Thus besides being the
normally
dated 3rd month event, the fact that it was predicted made this eclipse far
more significant
than the 763 BCE event.

But when all is said and done and the correction made, of course, Shishak's
invasion is
completely accurate in 871 BCE totally consistent with the RC14 dating from
that
destructive level. When Israel Finkelstein felt compelled not to challenge
the
Assyrian timeline, he came up with a solution that is contradicted by the
science he
was promoting to dismiss the Bible as myth and the product of revisionism.

This underscores that "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" and as
long
as archaeologists insist on their favorite timelines instead of including
other obvious
timeline comparisons, they will be embarrassed. Of note, the incompetence
or
negligence in assigning the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten would have
confirmed
the later dating for the reigns of David and Solomon. This should have been
apparent
after Kenyon's dating of the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE. But
apparently not.
There is no excuse though, since the historical dating for the Exodus per
Manetho
and the "Book of Sothis" had always identified Amenhotep III as the pharaoh
of the
Exodus.

Now scarabs from Jericho from the reign of Amenhotep III tend to confirm
this city
was destroyed shortly after his reign.

Thus in the end, when the honest and accurate Biblical timeline is actually
used, it
agrees totally with archaeology. But we cannot trust archaeologists with
their own
findings since they have their own biased needs and will ignore or twist the
evidence
to fit their own agendas. Fortunately, it is clear archaeology dates the
Exodus
to 1386 BCE and so does the Bible.

Mos
r***@gmail.com
2020-06-28 19:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moshiyosef
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.
Mos
Back in 1996 i posted the 54-year difference lost in Sennacharib due to being recoronated as christ-king.This happens all the time where someone already king becomes a christ-king empire. In this case the Greek Era of 776bc is 54 years before Samaritan 722bc. It is actually a lunar dated 8-year Venus of 56 years be it 778-722bc or 776-720bc. Samaria is misdated only in that it was vacant 20 years from 740-720bc before Assyrians were moved there because Israelites who fled were coming back to it. The 56 is 7 times 8-year Venus in 365-day dates lacking 14 leap days. The moon thrice 19-year is 57 Julian years which (56) the year earlier of 12 months before (is 12 dates later), or 13 months as 18 days earlier, close enough to the 14 days earlier, pending 584-day Venus orbit which varies 567-597 days in exact pattern caused by perihelion-aphelion distances (close-far Earth distance with close-far Venus distance).

Sennacharib is thus given only the years after 720bc, and not the ones he ruled before 720bc. This does not mean 586bc is not year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar since the data can be year 37 (his 19th year 606bc 1st year of empire plus 36 years to 570bc as year 37. Or borders established 604bc to 568bc. Just as Daniel trained 3 years and was interpreting-Magi for Nebuchadnezzar so that his 1st interpretation was Nebuchadnezzar's 20th year tagged as the 2nd year of Empire king,so too the 37th year is easily the same 606-570bc or 604-568bc with no changed to the data at all as being 568bc. However, if you look up the planetary names you will note that Marduk is claimed as Jupiter or Mercury. However, Marduk was Mars before it was Jupiter. The name merely means reborn son in the east out of the temple-sun. So we do see Mars in Scorpio instead of Jupiter. Likewise Shamash the sun is the great one, very big. It is even the big one when read as Shem-Mesh which means Shem the anointed. Shem means aimed, pointed, arrow, missile. Butas the Great One there are two also called great. Jupiter is the biggest planet, but having 12-year orbit our Saturn makes even a bigger 30-year circle in orbit. Thus we find Jupiter in the swallow instead of Saturn. The problem with WT as JWs (a GB) instead of humble anointed ones who partake each year, is that those who think themselves humble do so by slamming all evidence instead of seeking better evidence, namely seek TRUTH. When Eve brought Adam the crab apples then imagine saying to Eve don't know how you are wrong, you just are, because i say so; i am God. Apparently Jesus never gave his collective apostle-wife such an answer to their disagreements with him. When treated in such a way, all we get from Eve is that the snake is rarely seen (can't say that about apostates); and that it stayed on the ground, its belly not in the tree, (can't say that about apostates), and she did not eat from the ground but from the tree. But being shy the snake also left,it did not stay. It feared her.(cant say that about apostates). I think it pretty much proves the snake was deceived too, just like Eve. She can blame the dumb snake,but hey the snake thinks grapes on the ground and crabapples on the ground are eggs. And it will get sick later and vomit. Animals who die are animals who cannot vomit. Adam and Eve felt like dying not just conscience but actual pain until they vomited. But THAT is not the sin. The sin or error was that of blaming each other 900 years. It destroyed the whole family. Bad was put ahead of what is good; because people said well let's find out.
Loading...