2009-05-28 12:02:32 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
(6:79 - 00:32 = 6:47) We then simply subtract 5 hours from this to get 1:47
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
more than what the text describes. However, lunar eclipses occur in
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
"Year 7" of Kambyses or some other king? Obviously, the answer is the
timeline where the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar would fall in 541 BCE if, per the
year 37 falls in 511 BCE! So we have a second confirmation of manipulation
astronomical information and a second confirmation for the reign of
specifically, with both texts pointing to the same years of reign of
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
for Nebuchadnezzar II.
Now of note, this is some 57 years later than the conventional dating to 568
is a fabricated date. When we move back in time to the Assyrian Period, we
match a solar eclipse which dates the entire eponym. This is easily done by
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
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,
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
it more correctly.