Freethought & Rationalism Archive

3DJay · 04-25-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Laugh all you want. You've disproved nothing. Nor can you.

LG47

You...disprove VAT 4956's 30 other entries, or, prove how they can work with 511, or, prove how scribes could retroactively forge such detailed astronomy, and disprove all of this other stuff, as well...

Quote:

I do not know if you are aware but VAT 4956 is not the only cuneiform astronomical tablet that historians use to date the Babylonian king's reigns. The astronomical tablets are reliable as their observances can not be duplicated for some time, sometimes even thousands of years .VAT 4956 is a copy as you have stated. We know this because the original is broken off in two places and the scribe has inserted the words "broken off". The tablet has 30 astronomical observances that are so accurately described that modern astronomers have no trouble dating it to 568 BCE, which the tablet in two places states is Nebuchadnezzars 37th year. The observances are of the moon and the five then known planets. Modern astronomers point out that such combinations of astronomical positions would not be duplicated again in thousands of years. There is no way that the observances can have been made 20 years earlier. But this is not the only tablet evidence that historians use to date the period. Below is a quick resume of the others that hopefully you were not aware of and that is the reason why they were not put in the Appendix:

There is BM 32312, which can be dated to 651BCE due to the observances on it. This is the oldest preserved astronomical diary. The king, his regnal year and month names are broken away. The tablet talks of a battle between Assyria and Babylon, where Babylon is heavily defeated. However we can date this tablet as another tablet BM 86379 (The Akitu Chronicle) talks of the battle in Shamash-shuma-ukin's 16th year which interestingly states that the Babylonian King was defeated. Shamahshumakins's reign of 20 years may then be dated to 667/66-648/47 BCE. This is in good agreement with the above king lists. A change of Nebuchadnezzars 18th year from 587 to 607 BCE would also change Shamushshumukins 16th year from 652 to 672 BCE which BM 32312 does not allow.

The Saturn Tablet (BM 76738 and BM 76813) gives observances for 14 successive years of the planet Saturn corresponding to the first fourteen years of king Kandalanu, so we can date this exactly. Mr. Chris Walker who is an assistant curator in the British Museum, sent me some information on the text which explains:

" A complete cycle of Saturn's phenomena in relation to the stars takes 59 years. But when that cycle has to be fitted to the lunar calendar of 29 or 30 days then identical cycles recur at intervals of rather more than 17 centuries. Thus there is no difficulty in determing the date of the present text."

Therefore the absolute chronology of Kandalanus reign is definitely fixed by the Saturn tablet because the pattern of positions described in the text is fixed to specific dates in the Babylonian lunar calendar, that are not repeated again in more than 17 centuries.

We also have the "saros cycle texts" (LBAT 1417 - 1421) They record the lunar eclipses in the Babylonian area at the time. The texts were compiled during the Selucid era (312-64 BCE). The evidence is that the eclipse records were extracted from astronomical diaries by Babylonian astronomers who had access to a large number of diaries from earlier centuries. Prof. A.J Sachs in F.R Hodsons book "THE PLACE OF ASTRONOMY IN THE ANCIENT WORLD" states "It is all but certain that these eclipse records could have been extracted only from the astronomical diaries."

LBAT 1417 records four lunar eclipses at 18 year and nearly 11 days intervals from 686 to 632 BCE. It seems to be part of the same tablet as the previous two texts in the series, LBAT 1415 and 1416.The first entry records an eclipse from Sennacheribs third year of reign in Babylonia which may be identified with the eclipse that took place on April 22 668 BCE. Unfortunately the year number is only partly legible. However the next entry states an eclipse to the second month in Shamushshumukins accession year. This equates to April/May in 668 BCE. Babylonian astronomers had worked out that this would be an eclipse that would not be observable to Babylon. Modern eclipse catalogues show that such an eclipse took place on May 2, 668 BCE. The length and time of the eclipse are in good agreement with the text. If we have to add 20 years to Shamushshumukins reign to fit in with our chronology, this will give us an accession date for Shamashashumkin of 688 BCE. However no unobservable eclipses occurred in April or May of that year. One did occur on June 10 668 BCE, but this one was observable to Babylon. It is therefore an impossible alternative.

The next entry in the text is dated to Shamushshumukins 18th year that is 650/649 BCE. This eclipse too was a computed one, which would begin before sunset. According to modern calculations this eclipse took place on May 13 650 BCE between 16.25 P.M. and 18.19 P.M. Again if we place this eclipse 20 years earlier no eclipses took place in April or May that year. .One eclipse did take place on June 22 but this began at 7.30 am.

The next and last entry is dated to the 16th year of Kandalanu (632 BCE) and to the fifth month, which would correspond to May or June. This partial eclipse also took place the time it should have on May 23, 632 BCE . If we add 20 years to make Kandalanus 16th year 652 BCE, we do find an eclipse taking place on July 2nd that year, but it was a full eclipse and not partial as stated.

So we see that the LBAT 1417 tablet backs up the regnal years of Shamashshumukin and Kandalanu and do not allow for 20 years to be inserted.

LBAT 1419 records an uninterrupted series of Lunar eclipses at 18 year intervals from 609/08 to 447/46 BCE. The first entries that are recorded are damaged. However the two following entries are clearly dated to the 14th and 32nd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. His 14th and 32nd years are dated to 591/90 and 573/72 BCE respectively. The two eclipses recorded, one saros apart, both took place in the sixth month in August or September. Both eclipses were calculated in advance and the Babylonians knew that none of them would be observable in Babylonia because they both occurred in the daytime. According to modern calculations both eclipses took place as predicted and fit in very well with the chronology established for Nebuchadnezzar. However if we were to look for the two eclipses twenty years earlier, no eclipses occurred in that year that fit the description of the text.

The next entry records an eclipse that is quite detailed:

"Month VII, the 13th, in 17 degrees on the east side all (of the moon) was covered,28 degrees maximal phase In 20 degrees it cleared from the east to north? Its eclipse was red. Behind the rump of Aries, it was eclipsed. During onset, the north wind blew, during clearing, the west wind. At 55 degrees before sunrise.

Unfortunately the king and royal year are missing. But this eclipse took place on Oct 6/7 555 BCE in the first year of Nabonidus. Although the year and name is missing, it is of the uppermost importance to notice that the text places the eclipse one saros cycle after the eclipse in the 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

LBAT 1420 contains annual eclipses. All are from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, from his first to his twenty ninth years. The first record, that records two eclipses that were not observable, is damaged and the year number is illegible. However the last part of Nebuchadnezzar name is preserved. The name of the king is not repeated which means that the king is the same during the whole period. Some of the records are damaged but the ones that are legible are in good agreement with the king lists. This record carries detail of twenty four eclipses of which 12 have the regnal year preserved. . Again these eclipses took place according to modern calculations and if we were to add twenty years to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the eclipses would not be correct.

LBAT 1421 records two eclipses observable in Babylon in the sixth and twelfth month of year 42, evidently of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Provided that these eclipses occurred in the 42nd year of Nebuchadnezzar and there was no other king that ruled as long as him, we should find the eclipses as recorded. Modern calculations state that they did happen.

Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

I again spoke to Mr. Walker. I asked him how complete the Cuneiform tablets are for the Babylonian Era. He said that he could give me quite a few texts FOR EVERY YEAR of the Babylonian kings. Some of these are exact to the day and month! He said there is no record of the 20 years that we need to prove 607 BCE. There is also other evidence that we can use to date the king's reigns and to match it up to the king lists. Some 2500 business tablets were found in 1875/76 that tells us a lot about the "Egebi" Business house, which was the "Rothschild" of Babylon. This information is so detailed that we can work out who was head of the business house and what kings they reigned under. These are also in good agreement with the above king lists.

There are also texts that interlock the various kings, therefore not allowing for an unknown king. There are also tablets detailing the careers of scribes, temple administrators, slaves, business men and others that may be followed for decades. But never do these careers cross the established chronological borders into some unknown 20-year period. The insertion of 20 years would not only distort the understanding of the careers, activities and family relations of the individuals but would also give them abnormal life spans.

There is also something else that you do not mention in the appendix that I feel you should be aware of. Egyptian Chronology is an independent issue on its own and there are 4 accounts in Babylonian history (1 Cuneiform, 3 in the Bible) where direct reference is made to the Egyptian Kings. How ever this seems to back up the 587 theory. For example, the Bible tells us that King Josiah died at Meggido in the reign of Pharaoh Necho. In our chronology this happened in 629 BCE. But Necho did not start ruling until 610BCE.

Peace

Larsguy47 · 04-26-2007, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

You...disprove VAT 4956's 30 other entries, or, prove how they can work with 511, or, prove how scribes could retroactively forge such detailed astronomy, and disprove all of this other stuff, as well...

Peace

You don't understand at all.

Just imagine you have two trays of ancient astronomical texts, one from 511BCE and one from 568BCE. It's now 200 years after the fact and you want to hide some of the 511 BCE references in a text that has lots of 568BCE references. That's the only way to safely "hide" the original dating, by hiding it in plain sight in a DIARY. The whole purpose of the DIARY is so that you have a place to safely hide the 511BCE observations. It will work during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar because the 511BCE lunar positions are only about a day ahead of the 568BCE references. The old chronology is 57 years apart from the new, which is divisible by 19, the length of the lunisolar cycle.

So you have a text with 568BCE references and a couple of 511BCE references. When people read the text and compare, they notice the "errors" for those 511BCE references of about a day, but don't pay attention to it.

THEREFORE: Both the 568BCE references and the 511BCE references are accurate for the years they belong two. Both belong to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, one the revised dating the other the original. Therefore, it is not relevant to disprove the 568BCE references are in error, since they are accurate for 568BCE. It is only necessary to prove both "errors" match the same lunar cycle in another year, in this case 511BCE.

Now remember per the Bible 483 years prior to the Messiah's baptism is the year Jerusalem begins to be rebuilt, which is the 1st of Cyrus. Since Jesus was baptized in 29 CE, that dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. Year 23 is the year of the last deportation, 70 years earlier, which is 525BCE. That means year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar per the Bible falls in 511BCE. So that then confirms the 511BCE references were not only intentional, but were the original year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.

http://www.skymap.com/smp_eval.htm

You can get a free evaluation SKYMAP DEMO program above and check out the match-ups yourself.

YOU WILL NEED TO GET A TRANSLITERATION/TRANSLATION of Line 3 for the lunar position on the 9th of Nisan, and Line 14 for the 5th of Sivan. Then use the program to see where the moon was on those days in 511BCE and see if when you align the moon to 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion on the 9th of Nisan, that when you test for the 5th of Sivan, the moon is 1 cubit in front of "The Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" (beta-Virginis). If so, then that confirms for you the INTENT of this text. Which was to hide and preserve some reference to the original chronology since ALL the astronomical texts from the Babylonian Period were to be destroyed.

This also means that any dating that aligns with the distorted dating for the NB Period were fabricated during the Seleucid Period to help to authenticate and validate in some way, using astronomical texts the new chronology. Thus they can be dismissed.

Do you want to see the 511BCE graphics again? Or do you not trust me and want to look this up yourself? I can help you. It's easy to do. I can talk you through it.

:wave:
LG47

3DJay · 04-26-2007, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

You don't understand at all.

Just imagine you have two trays of ancient astronomical texts, one from 511BCE and one from 568BCE. It's now 200 years after the fact and you want to hide some of the 511 BCE references in a text that has lots of 568BCE references. That's the only way to safely "hide" the original dating, by hiding it in plain sight in a DIARY. The whole purpose of the DIARY is so that you have a place to safely hide the 511BCE observations. It will work during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar because the 511BCE lunar positions are only about a day ahead of the 568BCE references. The old chronology is 57 years apart from the new, which is divisible by 19, the length of the lunisolar cycle.

So you have a text with 568BCE references and a couple of 511BCE references. When people read the text and compare, they notice the "errors" for those 511BCE references of about a day, but don't pay attention to it.

THEREFORE: Both the 568BCE references and the 511BCE references are accurate for the years they belong two. Both belong to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, one the revised dating the other the original. Therefore, it is not relevant to disprove the 568BCE references are in error, since they are accurate for 568BCE. It is only necessary to prove both "errors" match the same lunar cycle in another year, in this case 511BCE.

Now remember per the Bible 483 years prior to the Messiah's baptism is the year Jerusalem begins to be rebuilt, which is the 1st of Cyrus. Since Jesus was baptized in 29 CE, that dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. Year 23 is the year of the last deportation, 70 years earlier, which is 525BCE. That means year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar per the Bible falls in 511BCE. So that then confirms the 511BCE references were not only intentional, but were the original year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.

http://www.skymap.com/smp_eval.htm

You can get a free evaluation SKYMAP DEMO program above and check out the match-ups yourself.

YOU WILL NEED TO GET A TRANSLITERATION/TRANSLATION of Line 3 for the lunar position on the 9th of Nisan, and Line 14 for the 5th of Sivan. Then use the program to see where the moon was on those days in 511BCE and see if when you align the moon to 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion on the 9th of Nisan, that when you test for the 5th of Sivan, the moon is 1 cubit in front of "The Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" (beta-Virginis). If so, then that confirms for you the INTENT of this text. Which was to hide and preserve some reference to the original chronology since ALL the astronomical texts from the Babylonian Period were to be destroyed.

This also means that any dating that aligns with the distorted dating for the NB Period were fabricated during the Seleucid Period to help to authenticate and validate in some way, using astronomical texts the new chronology. Thus they can be dismissed.

Do you want to see the 511BCE graphics again? Or do you not trust me and want to look this up yourself? I can help you. It's easy to do. I can talk you through it.

:wave:
LG47

Quote:

Thus, on the obverse (front) side, line 3 has day 9, which P.V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner pointed out in 1915 is a scribal error for day 8. Similarly, obverse, line 14 (the line quoted by van der Waerden above), has day 5, which is obviously an error for day 4. The remaining legible records of observed lunar and planetary positions, about 30, are correct, as is demonstrated by modern calculations. In their recent examination of VAT 4956, Professor F. R. Stephenson and Dr. D. M. Willis conclude:

"The observations analyzed here are sufficiently diverse and accurate to enable the accepted date of the tablet—i.e. 568-567 B.C.— to be confidently confirmed." (F. R. Stephenson & D. M. Willis in J. M. Steele & A. Imhausen (eds.), Under One Sky. Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002, pp. 423-428; emphasis added)

Yeah, maybe there was a secret force of Jewish scribal copyists, who also had intimate knowledge of astronomy, and a massive Persian conspiracy to lengthen the reign of certain kings, and make other kings appear as two people....or, there was a couple scribal errors, that were off by a day...hrrrmmmm.

Peace

Larsguy47 · 04-26-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:
Thus, on the obverse (front) side, line 3 has day 9, which P.V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner pointed out in 1915 is a scribal error for day 8. Similarly, obverse, line 14 (the line quoted by van der Waerden above), has day 5, which is obviously an error for day 4. The remaining legible records of observed lunar and planetary positions, about 30, are correct, as is demonstrated by modern calculations. In their recent examination of VAT 4956, Professor F. R. Stephenson and Dr. D. M. Willis conclude:

"The observations analyzed here are sufficiently diverse and accurate to enable the accepted date of the tablet—i.e. 568-567 B.C.— to be confidently confirmed." (F. R. Stephenson & D. M. Willis in J. M. Steele & A. Imhausen (eds.), Under One Sky. Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002, pp. 423-428; emphasis added)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

Yeah, maybe there was a secret force of Jewish scribal copyists, who also had intimate knowledge of astronomy, and a massive Persian conspiracy to lengthen the reign of certain kings, and make other kings appear as two people....or, there was a couple scribal errors, that were off by a day...hrrrmmmm.

Peace

Wow, 3DJay, thanks for this quote!!! Please note that these professors specifically noted these "errors"!

What is important about these "errors" are:

1) They each are the same error gap of about one day!
2) They both occur in connection with the same place in the zodiac involving two stars next to each other, sigma-Leonis and beta-Virginis.

Now the dating of the astronomical references except for the "errors" noted, match 568BCE. But that doesn't prove Nebuchadnezzar ruled then, because the historical information was added 200 years later.

In other words, anybody 200 years later who had access to the 568BCE observations for that year could copy that information into a new text and then add anybody's name to the outside. So the astronomical information is correct for 568BCE but not the historical information. That's why the text is dissmissible as a fraud right from the start because it's from 200 years later.

But during the time of Nebuchadnezzar, the difference between the revised chronology and the original chronology was 57 years. Thus the lunar positions were very similar since they fell in the 19-year luni-solar pattern. That is, every 19 years the same lunar date and solar date match up again. But not exactly. As you can see, the 511BCE positions are about a day earlier than the 568BCE positions.

So again, what we should notice about these alleged "errors" are that each of them seems to be one day too early in position.

Of course, when we compare these "errors" they text-match to 511BCE, which is the original chronology.

So nothing the above professors say is contradicted. What is missing is that along with stating that all the 568BCE references are astronomically correct, is that the two "errors" match the same year: 511BCE.

That begs the question, again, as to why the creators of the document in the Seleucid Period, 200 years after the fact would put references to two different dates in a text dated to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. That is, why the "double-dating"?

Well, obviously, both dates are relevant to year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar; one is the revised date and the other the original. The original date, of course, would be the cryptic references which are the 511BCE references.

Of course, this checks out completely when you redate year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE, especially astronomically speaking. Case in point the predicted Thales Eclipse. The eclipse occurs during the reign of Nabonidus which gets redated from 480-468BCE (he ruled two years before leaving the throne to his son, Belshazzer). When we check for a solar eclipse occurring over Ionia during that 2-year period, we get a confirmation of a predictable eclipse in early 478BCE, which would have been predictable from Egypt, which is where Thales did his astronomy apprenticeship. That eclipse doesn't work in 585BCE; Nabonidus wasn't ruling then.

So it all works out.

GET REAL WITH THE CONSPIRACY: Your comments are not valid: " and a massive Persian conspiracy to lengthen the reign of certain kings, and make other kings appear as two people....or, there was a couple scribal errors, that were off by a day...hrrrmmmm. "

Xerxes was a dead man after he invaded Greece. The Persians and the Greeks were at war with each other. The double-name is simply Persian custom where the kings took up a new name when they became king. Darius I, Artaxerxes II and II and Darius III did it. Xerxes simply adopted the name of Artaxerxes. This was BEFORE the conspiracy. After he invaded Greece and Themistocles fled there and discovered he was also going by the name of "Artaxerxes" he likely convinced Xerxes that he could claim he had died and now his "son" was on the throne. Themistocles knew Greek politics and how to fool them. So he did, leaking his own letter to "Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes" in Greece about his defection. That made the Greeks think that Xerxes had died and Artaxerxes, his son was on the throne. They didn't know if it would work or not. But it did!

So then after it worked, they decided to make the history books match and so they made some revisions in their chronology. First, making Darius old enough to be the grandfather of Artaxerxes, so they added 30 years to his 6-year reign. Later on more years were added to lengthen the reign of Artaxerxes II.

After this history was well established both in Persian and Greek records, during the Seleucid Period the astronomical texts from Babylon, which reflected the original chronology had to be destroyed! But before they did that, they decided to create new astronomical texts aligned with the new chronology. The VAT4956 is the example of that redating. They used the original observations for year 568BCE and just applied year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar on the text, the new date for Nebuchadnezzar. BUT... turns out this was a counter-intelligence text. Because while on the surface it confirmed the new chronology, the creators simply used the diary to hide their secret references to the original chronology to 511BCE, which they knew would appear as an "error" of about a day. It worked.

Only when you compare the "errors" you find out they are not only from the same lunar cycle but specifically give the lunar positions on the stated dates for 511BCE. 511BCE is the Biblical dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. So it's by no means an error.

BUT PLEASE NOTE: The so-called "experts" don't understand this. They haven't bothered to realize these are not just incidental scribal errors but that they match another date. The obvious scenario for the double dating, of course, is that 511BCE must be the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, which it was.

It's too coincidental for both "errors" to be exactly one day off and be close to the same zodiac position and to just happen to match the specific year for the Biblical date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar.

And you want to believe those errors are just "scribal errors" that just happened by accident?

Be my guest.

LG47

Paul2 · 04-27-2007, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

...

So just when did Jerusalem fall? Your choice: 611BCE, 611BCE, 587BCE, 586BCE or 529BCE. The strict Biblical dating most agrees with Martin Anstey and 529BCE

LG47

I'm failing to see why the exact date matters. 600 BC +/- 5% is fine for me.

3DJay · 04-27-2007, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

And you want to believe those errors are just "scribal errors" that just happened by accident?

Either the 2 "errors" point to a totally different year, secret Hebrew scribes, a massive Persian cover up, decades of fake reigns, a king pretending to be two kings, which is contradicted by numerous historical documents, etc. etc. bullshit.

Or, the 2 errors point to copyists being off by 1 day, and a date that is supported by numerous historical documents.

Yep, I believe the later. Because there's no REALISTIC alternative.

Peace

xaxxat · 04-27-2007, 09:04 AM

Hell, LG47, why don't you know? Weren't you there?

:huh:

Larsguy47 · 04-28-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Hell, LG47, why don't you know? Weren't you there?

:huh:

It's not about what you know, but finding some surviving evidence, historical or archaeological that sheds light on or supports what you already know.

LG47

xaxxat · 04-28-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

It's not about what you know, but finding some surviving evidence, historical or archaeological that sheds light on or supports what you already know.

LG47

Since you claim to be the messiah, why would you need evidence? Weren't you there?

Superman can go back in time. Why can't the messiah?

Larsguy47 · 04-28-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Since you claim to be the messiah, why would you need evidence? Weren't you there?

Superman can go back in time. Why can't the messiah?

Well, now that you put it that way, let's see what we have here.

I use 1947, based upon my alleged advanced understanding of the Bible to date ancient events, since the year the Jews are restored to their homeland fulfills a lot of symbolic things, such as the last jubilee of the "week" that began 49 years before the Exodus. Based upon that, I have dated the Exodus to 1386BCE. Funny to me, David Rohl has come up with the KTU 1.78 text found at Ugarit that he dates to year 12 of Akhenaten. Out of four potential eclipse matches, he uses 1012 BCE. But the conventional dating is to 1375BCE, which, if you date that to year 12 of Akhenaten means his 1st year falls in 1386BCE. The Bible requires the ruling pharoah to die in the Red Sea and the succeeding pharoah to being Yawheh monotheistic worship, so that points to Akhenaten. So I think it is rather STRANGE or advantageous that there's an astronomical text that forms an "independent" means to date specifically a fixed date for the 1st of Akhenaten in 1375BCE. But really is that an accident?

From my side of the room, God started that fire in the first place the day the eclipse occurred and burned down half the palace! They didn't ordinarily save or archive the astronomical references; this one was preserved because it was caught in this fire, but it also dates the fire, obviously. So it seems as thought it's a "gift" from God to save me one less argument.

Same with the VAT4956. That's a key "secular" text I use to force the redating of year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar from 568BCE to 511BCE. It has the power to preempt all other fabricated astronomical texts reflecting the revised dating. Now, true, I would have believed without it, but interestingly enough, it survived and now I have secular "corroboration" of the Bible's dating. That is, the Bible dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE, with 70 years back to the last deportation, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus per the Bible, year 37 falls in 511BCE, the year-match for two "errors" in this text.

So, likewise, I consider that a GIFT from God.

Same with the finding at level IV of Rehov of some short-lived grains that could be dated via radiocabon 14. What a find!!! That's because that level, via pottery comparison can be linked to the Solomonic level of buildings at Jezreel and Megiddo, Hazor and other cities. Per the Bible, if the Exodus occurs in 1386BCE, then Solomon's rule would be from 910-870BCE and Shishak's invasion, specifically in year 39 of Solomon, which would be 871BCE. The highest levels of "relative probability" point specifically to around that time:

http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/image002.jpg

Quote:

Radiocarbon dating quote: "Although radiocarbon dating of the Iron Age period can be treacherous, due to the wide margins of error involved, short-lived grains of wheat, barley, and other plants can often be dated with reasonable accuracy. At Tel Rehov there is a major destruction layer associated with hand-burnished pottery. Radiocarbon dating of charred grains from this layer, which Mazar believes corresponds to the Shoshenq invasion, gave dates ranging from about 916 to 832 B.C." (Volume 287, Number 5450 Issue of 7 Jan 2000, pp. 31 - 32 ©2000 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science)

So, therefore, the best-connected RC14 dating to a known event confirmed both in the Bible and by Egyptian records has an excellent RC14 reference that supports the Bible's chronology -- confirms it!

Now I didn't necessarily need that, but it makes a strategic argument for the Bible's chronology!

So actually, I think a few of these references have come to me to just get past the rhetoric of when you don't have that information. For instance, the focus on the lack of evidence for when the Jews were in the wilderness. That gets debated a lot, but few people bother with what is easily corroborated from secular records in the Bible, say from Shishak's invasion and the Battle of Qarqar all the way through the Persian Period.

So I definitely have to allow that God inspired some of this, perhaps got Jewish scribes to create the VAT4956 with the cross-dating to 511BCE in it, hidden until our day when modern astronomy programs would discover it, etc.

So I really don't have to go back in time at all. I have enough "secular" references to reset the timeline basically without the Bible, thanks to astronomy and RC14 dating.

LG47

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-27-2007, 09:04 AM	#17
xaxxat Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Space Station 33 Posts: 2,543	Hell, LG47, why don't you know? Weren't you there? :huh:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.