Larsguy47

Above is the transliteration of the SK400 (Strm. Kambyses 400) astrotext as presented in the Jehovah's witness publication "Insight On The Scriptures", the only astronomical text used by the organization as a dating reference. The text describes two lunar eclipses the same year, one a partial one that covers the northern part of the moon on Tammuz 14, the second a total eclipse six months later on Tebet 14. These two eclipses are usually dated to 523 BCE, year 7 of Kambyses. However, the interval between the two eclipses as described in the text which is only about 2:46 (2 hours 46 minutes) does not match the interval between the eclipses in 523BCE which is 4:46 (4 hours, 46 minutes), about a two-hour discrepancy.

However, similar lunar eclipses occur every 18 years and in the case of this series, the differences in the intervals between the partial eclipse in the summer and the total eclipse in the winter increases about 2 hours every 18 years. The following list of four eclipses in this series demonstrates this. Below are the dates, beginning times and intensities of the eclipses in this series. Note that as the interval between the eclipses increases, the intensity of the partial first eclipse decreases. The calculated intervals showing the approximate 2+ hour progression is also noted. Because the earlier eclipse occurs earlier in the evening than the latter, the latter is listed first to facilitate easy substraction. A total eclipse has an intensity greater than 1.000, and partial eclipses less than 1.000. Lunar eclipses occur during the full moon, so for this series each occurs on the 14th during the months of Tammuz (4th month) and Tebet (10th month) of the Babylonian calendar. The eclipses are 18 years 11 days apart.

Times are based upon statistics from Canon of LUNAR ECLIPSES, 1500 BCE-AD 3000, by Bao-Lin Liu and Alan D. Fiala:



As you can see, the magnitudes decrease from 0.831, 0.678, 0.533, 0.398 for the above years. Likewise, the interval increases by about two years from 00:36, 2:45, 4:46, 6:30, etc.

TEXT CALCULATION: We arrive at the text calculation interval of 2:46 as follows: First, the beginning of morning and end of night are divisions of the observational night from which eclipses are timed. The smallest measured interval of time was 4 minutes, so times are rounded to the nearest 4 minutes. The division of the night used for the timing of eclipses is an offset period of 32 minutes from either sunrise or sunset. We can determine this by a second reference to the first eclipse mentioned in Ptolemy's canon which indicates the first eclipse occurs "one hour before midnight." Therefore, we need only add the time of 3:20 to the time of sunset, which was 7:09 p.m. and then subtract that value from one hour before midnight, which is 11:00 p.m., thus:

Sunset was at 7:09 p.m. Add 3:20 = 10:29 Subtract 10:29 from 11:00 = 31 minutes. Round 31 minutes to nearest 4-minutes = 32 minutes.

We apply this value to the second eclipse time, which was 5 hours before morning. Morning would begin 32 minutes before sunsrise. Sunrise occurred at 7:19 a.m. We convert 7:19 a.m. to 6:79 a.m. and subtract 32 minutes to determine the morning offset, which is 6:47. We then substract 5 hours form 6:47 to get the time of the eclipse which would be 1:47.

Thus one eclipse occurs 59 minutes before midnight and the other 1:47 after midnight. The interval between the eclipses is thus around 2:46.

So comparing the specifics of the intervals between the two eclipses with 523BCE, the year this text is applied to, we see there is a mismatch of about 2 hours as the 523BCE eclipses are 4:46 apart.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR DISCREPANCY: Is there an explanation for this discrepancy? Possibly. That's because the specific times recorded in this text might have been intentional to point to the 541 BCE eclipses which were 2:45 apart, a precise match! This is not simply the closest match, but a precise match. Also suspicious in this text is a reference to "Year 9". Kambyses did not rule into his 9th year. He was co-ruler for one year with his father ruling a total of 8 years. The year 9 reference, however, is matched to the location of Mars just behond the constellation of Leo in 530 BCE, which is "year 9" of Cyrus. Thus more than one king is represented in this text.

Having noted that, presuming the 541BCE match is a cryptic reference to "year 7" of some other king in 541BCE, when applied to Nebuchadnezzar II, it matches the Biblical dating for his rule. That is, per the Bible, Cyrus began his rule in 455BCE. The last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar began 70 years earlier, which falls in 525BCE. Year 7 would fall in 541BCE.

Jews were known to be the most brilliant scientists even back then and thus there is a suggestion that since the rule of Nebuchadnezzar is so well documented in the Bible, if revisionions in astronomical texts were being carried out by the time of the Seleucid Period, then some attempt to secretly "hide in plain sight" references to the original chronology would have been best served to eclipse events during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

NATURE OF ENCRYPTION: When we find suspected "double dating" in astronomical texts, such as the VAT4956, some combination of a coincidence between the astronomical events and/or the historical year of the king must be in place to take advantage of. In the case of the VAT4956, the variation between the original chronology and the revised chronology is 57 years, which falls on the 19-year lunisolar pattern (19 x 3 =57) where similar lunar phases in line with the solar dates occurs. In the case of the SK400, there was a coincidence between "Year 7" of Kambyses in 523 BCE in the revised chronology, and "Year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar in 541BCE from the original chronology, which two dates were 18 years apart and sported quite similar partial eclipses, covering the top half of the lunar disk. The "Year 9" reference was likely inserted to clue decipherers or confirm that the puzzle involved two different kings. Now that's just the subjective theory about the discrepancy, but it goes without saying that if this were true and actually a cryptic reference somehow to point subtly to 541BCE as some scneario of "Year 7" for some king and that king was meant to be Nebuchadnezzar, that 541BCE should match the Biblical dating or other astronomical text dating for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Which it does! The VAT4956 dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar doubly to 568BCE and 511BCE. 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar dates year 7 to 541 BCE. Year 7 in 541 and year 37 in 511 match the Biblical dating for the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE.

The potential cryptic references in these two texts, therefore, become a critical reference to restoring the Biblical timeline to the original dating. The significance of these two texts cannot be emphasized enough, since they are the specific two texts mentioned by Robert Newton that can be used to establish the Neo-Babylonian dating since he completely dismisses Ptolemy's canon as fraudulent.

"In 1977, Robert R. Newton published his book The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy in which he accused Ptolemy of being the “most successful fraud in history.”"

But Newton mentions two chronology-saving texts, one dated to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar and one dated to year 7 of Cambyses; those two texts are the VAT4956 and the SK400. So the two texts on which critical Babylonian dating hangs, are each anti-revisionist texts that have cryptic references to the original chronology, those cryptic references being in complete agreement with the Biblical dating for the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE, the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar in 511BCE and his 7th year in 541BCE.


DISCLAIMER: Interpretation of sophisticated ancient astronomical texts is a very subjective business. Some claim these "discprepancies" are just errors and of no consequence. I have presented the details so that each person can make up their own mind whether these "errors" in both texts coincidentally line up with the same chronology the Bible has. Also part of the discussion is whether or not these inscriptions were made by Jewish astronomers, which is suggested by other astronomical anomalies (i.e. the dating of the Assyrian eponym eclipse to 763 BC vs 709 BC). I believe some questions will never be answered completely, but it's important to know what both sides, Bible vs Pagan History, have going for them in the way of astronomical texts or archaeological evidence.

LG47

Ubercat

Why are you attempting to teach us anything? Your other posts have indicated very well that you love it when folks don't know what you know.

-Ubercat

Larsguy47

SOME DIRECT REFERENCE QUOTES FROM "CRIMES TO CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY" by Professor Robert Newton:

Here's the quote regarding the context of two Babylonian texts:

Page 375: "All relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all depencence upon Ptolemy's list must be removed.

Luckily, the latter part of his king list has independent verification. I mentioned in Section VIII.8 that there is a Babylonian record of the lunar eclipse of -522 July 16, which is oneof the eclipses that Ptolemy fabricated. More accurately, I should have said that there is a Babylonian record of a lunar eclipse in the 7th year of Kambyses, which is the same year that Ptolemy states... The most likely situation is that the year is -522/-521 and that there are some scribal errors in the record. Nonetheless, the confirmation of the year is not as strong as we would like.

However, there is another document from the 37th year of Nebuchadrezzar [Neugebauer and Weidner, 1916]. According to Ptolemy's list, this year began in the spring of -567...

Thus we have quite strong confirmation that Ptolemy's list is correct for Nebuchadrezzar, and reasonable confirmation for Kambyses."

Newton's famous overall dismissal of Ptolemy, page 379:

"Thus Ptolmey is not the greatest astronomer of antiquity, but he is something still more unusual: He is the most successful fraud in the history of science." -R. Newton.

Thus as stated, having completely dismissed Ptolmey, Newton believes the Babylonian dating and dating for Cambyses were correct because of these two critical documents, the VAT4956 and the SK400. As above, he did note "scribal errors" in the Sk400 but was not aware of the claim of potential encrypted double-dating. The technique for "double dating" in an astronomical text is to be "politically correct" to the revised chronology for most of the references and insert references to the original chronology that were similar but not exact and thus considered only a "scribal error". However, if you test the "scribal errors" for an astronomic match, they link you to some scenario of the original chronology, thus fulfilling the ancient rule of "the best place to hide something is in plain sight."

Larsguy47

This is about Biblical Historicity. The foundation of a lot of the "fixed" chronology used by archaeologists is based upon astronomy for key events. For instance archaeologists usually use pottery dating and RC14 dating for dating ancient cities and have fluctuating dates for say the Egyptian dynasties. But once a well-founded eclipse reference is in place, it fixes that chronology and that's used as a guidepost. For instance, the 763BCE eclipse dating for the entire Assyrian Period. Archaeologists move dates around for Egypt and David and Solomon right and left because there's no good eclipse match for those times, but once the Assyrian Period begins, namely the Battle of Karkar in 853BCE, then there is zero fluctuation. Problem is, this chronology is very old and been in place for centuries but doesn't agree well with the Bible's internal chronology. So to make comparisons and challenge the astronomy, you provide details of "alternative" astronomy so people can see where the Bible's chronology wasn't altered. It doesn't mean archaeologists have to accept the alternatives, but at least they are informed about them and can make a choice.

On the other hand, if someone doesn't really want to know about these technical astronomical details, I'll be happy to tell them where they need to revise the conventional chronology and astronomical events. But I doubt they will likely just take my word for it. At least this way, enough details are provided for aggressive individuals into chronology to check the pros and cons of the astronomy involved for this dating, and hoepfully see that just because something is "written in stone" doesn't mean it's always the truth.

As far as me demonstrating what I know, there are many others in the field of Biblical chronology that cover this same ground. Below is a good example:

Absolute Dating, at BecomingOne

LG47

Ubercat

But you still haven't explained why you're sharing this info. What do you care if we learn something or not? Shouldn't you just be sitting there, patting yourself on the back and gloating that one day you'll savor the aroma of all of us roasting in hell?

-Ubercat

Spanky

I personally feel that some people are too smart for their own intelligence.

And Larsguy, your dubious assertions are too copious for my diminutive comprehensions!

vikingrob

Can this go to ~E~?

Larsguy47

Because this deals with Biblical "criticism". Some like using the secular records from Babylon without question and use them to contradict Jewish historians like Josephus and the Bible. Some of this slam-dunk dismissal is linked to a few critical astronomical texts, like the SK400. For instance, Jehovah's witnesses are aggressively dismissive of pagan chronology when it disagrees with the Bible, but for some reason they isolated the SK400 as a reference to substantiate, at least in the minds of others, that 523BCE is a reliable date for year 7 of Kambyses, confirmed by astronomy. Newton likewise considered these independent sources from Ptolemy as credible for dating the rule of Nebuchadnezzar and Cambyses. But when modern astronomy programs were developed and some of the "scribal errors" in these
texts were checked out, they turned out to be potential encryptions to another chronology, thus obviously confirming revisionism. Both the VAT4956 and the SK400 are in agreement as far as the alternative dating reference goes, as above.

So it is important for the Bible's reputation to be confirmed and it's chronology dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE be established over the revised secular Babylonian records. Once everybody corrects their timelines so that the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455BCE and adds back in the missing 26 years of the NB Period so that year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II falls in 511BCE as per the VAT4956, then it wouldn't need to be a topic of focus for any particular discussion.

The Bible's history is often challenged, so this is something that supports it.

LG47

Larsguy47

It's a technical research article, not necessarily meant for casual consumption, but for those who need to understand the "alternatives" of these important astronomical texts. That is, most simply take the face value of the reference without trying to understand the "errors" in the text. This takes it to another level to expose the text as fradulent and removes it from credibility in support of the fake chronology. As long as it is generally considered credible without examination, it can be used to attempt to dismiss or contradict the Biblical chronology. This way we become aware of the "problems" with the text and can judge accordingly seeing the whole picture.


The short and sweet of it is simply that likely Jewish astronomers, panicking over the destruction of all the contemporary Babylonian astronomical texts being destroyed and recopied with new historical references, came up with a couple of ways to secretly preserve some lunar references to the original chronology, hidden in texts that otherwise agreed with the revised chronology. They did this by inserting "scribal errors" into the text that wouldn't be noticed that much, but which alluded to the original dating. So this merely explains the details of the presumed encryption and match of "year 7" of Nebuchadnezzar to 541BCE, a confirmed Biblical dating for that year of the king.

LG47


LG47

Larsguy47

NO, this doesn't belong in "E" as it deals specifically his Biblical criticism and History. It directly relates to astronomical texts used for dating the NB Period and the problems with those texts as discovered by those supporting accurate Biblical chronology. The dating of the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE is first or prominently addressed by Martin Anstey in his famous "Romance of Bible Chronology".

Removing this to "E" would be like evolutionists removing any posts regarding Creation to "E" instead of debating the issue. Thus the prejudices of those who have decided the Bible is myth or non-historical are not sufficient to prevent discussion of a topic if it relates to the subject. Many dismissing the Bible's chronology use these very astronomical texts to do so. I'm exposing them as fraudulent (i.e. VAT4956, SK400) in support of the Bible.

But, some boards are very biased, and when their personal views are getting a beating, they usually run for cover and try to suppress and censor in some way. So far this board has been fairly open in its topics, which is exemplary. Others who have made up their own minds on a topic not only can't stand others having some independent thinking but don't want them sharing their views with anyone else, allowing others to make up their own minds based upon the merits.

This text is in the middle of the Biblical Criticism and Historicity debates issues. And it hasn't been covered before that I know of.

Why does Biblical historicity bother you so much?

LG47